politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's not like they had 4 fucking years to get a trial done. They dropped the fucking ball and now they're panicking because it's already too late to push it through. He should have been convicted and incarcerated before the Iowa caucus this year.
The only thing I'd disagree with here is that I don't think they're really panicking, I think Trump being the Republican nominee is exactly what our current administration wanted because he's the easiest one to beat in a general election. This is why as soon as the case got handed over to a special counsel with some degree of independence from the White House things actually started happening with it.
I mean, that's what Clinton thought in 2016.
Nobody thought he could win in 2016 and everybody thought that our system of government was too well designed and had too many guardrails to let Trump do that much harm
The voters learned their lesson, but the Democratic party's establishment isn't nearly as pragmatic
Nobody thought he could win except all the people screaming about how bad it was that Clinton was running on keeping the status quo (when so many were clamoring for change) and how she was too arrogant to campaign in key states. Plenty knew that Clinton was fucking up, but Clinton and her fans were too far up their own asses to realize it and now they say things like "nobody could've known!" and "Clinton was right that Trump is a bad guy!!"
Clinton's fans didn't care. They planned on blaming her critics if their second choice won.
It used to. Then bush and Obama spent 16 years executive ordering themselves unprecedented new powers which surprisingly enough didn't just vanish into thin air when their terms were over. And not Biden nor the legislature nor the courts have done squat to dial it back.
I think it would have been better if he didn't get the nomination. There's a 1000% chance he would run 3rd party or independent if he didn't get the nomination and that would split the Republican vote making it easier for the Democrats to win when 2/3 of voters don't show up to the polls this year.
Ok, that's a fair point, but either way it requires him to be a prominent candidate
He's the easiest one to beat yet they put Biden up again which is probably like the only guy who has any chance of potentially losing against him.
Put any 48-58 year old up and he is probably guaranteed to win. It's like the Democrats don't want to win.
Nah, Biden is pretty likeable, neutral, uncontroversial, and a well known name. Kamala Harris would likely perform worse, for example. I'm sure there are many better people the DNC could have promoted by giving screen time and stuff like that starting years ago, but it was much too late to start that just months before primaries. And I'm guessing Biden and his administration didn't want to step away.
Unfortunately, it looks like the DNC is currently grooming Gavin Newsom to run for president in '28, and he's extremely unlikable, IMO. And I'm not even sure there will be a real election in '28.
Biden is the only person who has defeated Trump in an election. Past performance doesn't guarantee the future, but it's not as easy as you're making it out to be.
Easiest to beat, yet there are a shit ton of people willing to vote for their dictator.
No argument there, but the things that make social conservatives lose their minds for him make independents and everyone else sick to their stomach. No one can beat him in a GOP primary, but he's a terrible general election candidate.
Sorry man, that's not how this stuff works.
Choose one.
Now consider you're:
Evidence-gathering and waiting for smaller fish to flip and issue depositions.
All the while evidence gathering has happened since Garland got in office.
... While you're up against a former President in an unprecedented prosecution where loads of outside money will be funding the defense.
So your arguments better be TIGHT. I'd rather they take their time and do it right.
This is 100% the reason. Given the seriousness of the charges and the non-stick coating that Orange Hitler seems to have, this case needs to be way beyond firm. We're talking rock solid, gay porn hard.
You have a way with words.
it takes time to put things together.
Particularly when you don't want to.
Source?
Edit: Yeah, that's what I thought.
How about how Garland sat on all the stuff outlined in the Mueller report and just let the statute of limitations expire while doing nothing? It's pretty clear he intended to do the same with this stuff too, at least at first.
I mean, there ARE sources... They're just the Washington Post (paywalled) and the Nation (free to read):
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/its-official-the-doj-stalled-the-investigation-into-donald-trump/
At least according to that article, they conflate stalling with treading carefully.
Naturally, the pursuit of charges against a former President of the other side does necessitate an abundance of caution to assure a legitimate witch hunt doesn't occur. If Garland is introspective enough to recognize human fallibility, he'd likely ensure that he himself wasn't fitting the data to see what he wanted to see.
Naturally these are unprecedented times and I think he made good moves so far, especially appointing Jack Smith.
You expect him to actually come out and admit that the investigation was slow walked because he didn't want to do it?
You're just defending him because you like the lack of results.
I'm just asking for source as opposed to one's complete and utterly blind speculation and conspiracy theories.
Your accusation as to my motives is equally blind as it utterly misses the mark as well.
You want a source that involves reading minds. Your assumption that he's not dragging his feet is as baseless as my assertion that he is.
You're just happy with his lack of action and want everyone else to be.
It's not a conspiracy theory to withhold the benefit of the doubt.
The difference between you and me is that in the complete and utter absence of any evidence whatsoever, your mind jumps to a conclusion that necessitates a greater leap in logic. I'm not making a suggestion either way, but rather recognizing that you and I are clearly not attorneys and have absolutely zero idea as to how long it takes to fact find, gather evidence, wait for lower court rulings and smaller fish to flip, get an independent council, and indict a former President with enough evidence so as to not make a mockery of justice.
There you go again, with wild speculation as to the motives of others. Shall I start doing the same? You just want this fairy-tale conspiracy theory that you understand and nobody else does and think you know better than the lifelong experts in this field. In that respect, you exemplify the Dunning-Kruger Effect and have just that much more in common with the maga movement than you may realize.
It's a conspiracy theory to speculate that there is obstruction when you literally have zero fucking evidence whatsoever. So please proceed to pull out of your ass this string of incoherency.
"He doesn't want to" isn't a huge leap when he's taking for-fucking-ever to get nothing done. Since all you're going to do is gaslight and sling abuse, we're done here.
You never gave any evidence of anything. You can't even give evidence that he, "did nothing." of course we're done here. You've got nothing but the blind opinion you want to believe in and nothing further.
Like... Did you forget the January 6th House Committee hearings? You do realize their findings were forwarded to Garland and it would be in the interest of Garland to wait those hearings out, right...?
As do you.
Again, you made the original claim without evidence. I did not. Don't try to resort to an Ad Ignorantiam fallacy, now.
I may be wrong. The head of the DOJ might be diligently working to make sure a rich connected white man sees consequences for his actions. There's a first time for everything. You may be wrong, and he might be slow walking this because he doesn't want to.
My opinion is based on just as much evidence as yours. Somehow I've managed to avoid gaslighting you and slinging abuse.
I'd love to know how I've gaslit you as that term is thrown around like crazy. In this event, the default is Garland is doing his job. In this event, if your theory were correct then he never would've opened the investigation in the first place, let alone taken such caution as to get a special counsel with a proven record to ensure the case isn't tossed because of Garland being a part of Biden's cabinet. Again, literally none of these point to your theory at all. They point entirely in the opposite direction.
I completely sympathize with the frustration that we as a nation must convict Trump on order to move forward. It will never be soon enough. But true Justice does take time and 91 criminal charges across 4 independent grand jury indictments is pretty damn serious. I remember countless naysayers moving the goalpost over and over, first claiming he'd never be investigated, then never be charged, and now never be convicted. It gets tiresome.