this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
263 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3977 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Sunday she “absolutely” trusts the jury in E. Jean Carroll defamation case against former President Trump but that the recent ruling should not bar him from the ballot.

“I absolutely trust the jury. And I think that they made their decision based on the evidence. I just don’t think that should take him off the ballot,” Haley said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I think the American people will take him off the ballot. I think that’s the best way to go forward, is not let him play the victim. Let him play the loser. That’s what we want him to do at the end of the day,” the former United Nations ambassador continued.

On Friday, a jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million for defaming Carroll in 2019 when he denied the writer’s accusation he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s. Trump said he will appeal the verdict. Earlier, a separate jury found the former president liable for sexual abuse in a defamation trial last year with Carroll over a separate comment and ordered him to pay $5 million.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 44 points 7 months ago (16 children)

I am really glad she's attacking Trump now, but I think it's probably too late.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 7 months ago (13 children)

It's been really strange to me how the whole primary has been "well, you could vote for me, but there's no reason why you shouldn't vote for Trump!"

Why bother running if half your speaking time is dedicated to plugging your opponent?!

Christie was the only one that kinda went after him, but as much proven stuff there is to nail him on, they all just seemed so soft and weak. If I bought into any of their side of things, all they did was make Trump look like the pinnacle of being a modern Republican. At least he goes for it when he's out to take someone down.

Such a bizzare collection of candidates, sheesh!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I think everyone in the GOP is surprised at how nutty all the MAGAts are. Anyone who challenges their God Emperor gets shouted at, SWATted, bad shit mailed to them, and generally slandered.

It even has affected the judges. Look at the one in Colorado who originally ruled on Trump's eligibility. He went out of his way to say that Trump engaged in insurrection, yet ruled that the Presidency wasn't covered by the 14th amendment, somehow. It makes no sense at all, unless you realize that judge probably realizes that if he ruled against Trump directly, he would have vigilante hit squads after him. So he made a ruling that at first glance favored Trump, but was guaranteed to be overturned on appeal, and since it's a higher court doing it, they have the budget for better security.

It has to be tough for these career politicians, who have worked their entire lives working their way up through the system, to get cock blocked by a guy who is likely senile and definitely dumb as a rock, but has their voters enthralled.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)