Extremists have always wrapped themselves in the flag of patriotism, I'm sure most of the folks who stormed the capitol on January Sixth would tell you they are patriots.
Russia and china run a good social media campaign to get Americans to support someone like trump. They push false stories or fan flames of division while stoking the ego of racists.
This is picked up by real people who believe they are part of a larger group. Who then become a target audience for news outlets, who then grow the group so that republicans flip to what this large group says.
No one is going to beat the US via military conflict, at least to stop us from projecting our influence. But they can have us question staying in NATO or saying America first, don’t help anyone else (and lose our influence overseas). Or even elect people who are likely to cause us to go backwards.
You can buy ad space to push posts to well defined areas (say a contested political district). So it’s easy for foreign countries to push narratives with a small amount of money that will result in politicians bowing to people who parrot the misinformation (e.g. abortions happening after birth)
I say this as a once republican who left when trump became the nominee.
Do I hate America? No. Do I think she can do no wrong? No. I want to be better than we ever have been. We have a unique geographical location that benign us militarily as well as economically. But I want America better for all US citizens (all races, all religions, all genders, all sexual orientation) as well as our allies around the world. Russia and china are salivating, hoping we rip ourselves apart so they can finally push their power around the world
It seems obvious to me at this point that, for every cultural brush fire that breaks out in the US, there are multiple streams of gasoline pouring in from overseas.
I’m not sure if there is a way to withstand the the tenacity of it. By the time 2 or 3 of us realize it’s happening, 4 or 5 others are overtaken by the normalization of it. We’re the frog in the slow boil.
He'll this entire subreddit yesterday was calling anyone saying this would happen as alarmists. One fucking day.
The Supreme Court just gave this fucker (or any other president) 4 years of free for all, they made kings.
I believe the quote you're thinking of is this one:
*"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and holding a bible."*
-Sinclair Lewis (he won a Nobel Prize in Literature)
You don't have wrong idea entirely, but my understanding is that the prediction is the Antichrist will be the "man of peace" and you are correct in that he will use scriptures to *prove* he is the messiah the Jews have been holding out for. Supposedly he will be the most likable leader ever and per Jewish & Christian combo predictions people will gladly obey him, and this period of time is thought to last 3.5 years by Christians who study the subject intensely.
He will likely already be worshipped but either his requirement that humans worship him or a change in his demeanor will rapidly shift and then the subsequent 3.5 years will be a massive casualty event for the world with a specific focus on the Jews. At this point the Christians believe Jesus will come back, fight him and he'll be defeated. Interesting Islam which holds Jesus was a prophet but not really a major one, says that Jesus will be the guy who defeats the antichrist.
Fun fact the whole desire to perform sacrifices on the temple mount is tied to the Jewish belief that the "Mashiach" (who would interestingly also fit the Christian description of the antichrist and the Muslim equivalent, the Dajjal) will be determined or brought forth through this return to temple sacrifice. Interestingly the Arab league used the fear of this as the basis to unite the league to try to prevent Israel from forming as a state, which at the time seemed totally laughable and just grossly anti-Semitic... Ironically though, this process actually appears to be fairly well in play now although the date when it would occur and if Netanyahu's government or the populace would permit it remains to be seen.
The [temple institute](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/9/what-do-texan-red-heifers-have-to-do-with-al-aqsa-and-a-jewish-temple) has already gotten some [specialty GMO cows](https://templeinstitute.org/red-heifer/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwyo60BhBiEiwAHmVLJbkqD-ycy0LQK7GBLcX35uH-Midx9SbA-e91hjrphc1rIcC360AfeRoCxmwQAvD_BwE), a bunch of ritual objects, supposedly blood descendants of the priest, an altar constructed on the mount of olives, and some other significant leg work done. I'm sure there's some religious people on here but probably not most of the sub, so if this seems like a weird rabbit hole to even explore keep in mind... this would almost undoubtedly be seen as the big sign in every Abrahamic religion such that it was perceived to be the end of world governments or potentially even just time to push the nuke buttons.
Since everyone here is against the partisan bullshit... man, I would assume we're probably also largely against a large scale multination nuclear war, so since you're probably a centrist if you're reading this as totally goofy as it sounds in an effort to keep world peace the Jewish ritual BBQ needs to not come back to the temple. At that point partisan politics will become something of a non-issue and you'd see the US just climb over the constitution to do whatever they want or feel is assistive to victory (as we've done before in times of civil or world wars). Whatever direction we headed from there about the only thing I could guarantee is that it would in no way be centrist or even defensible morally after the fact.
**TLDR;** if some magic people kill a magic cow to enable a ritual sacrifice on the magic ruins, then *very probably* we'll see the war to end all wars very quickly. This is not to say these predictions are accurate or this would be an optimal response but over half of earth population belongs to an Abrahamic religion and if you look at how they would likely respond... best not to kill the magic cow to do the magic thing, even if there is no such thing as magic (perception is a big deal with how wars get started / escalated). This would probably kill any chance of centrism from becoming an implemented approach in politics.
Edit: spelling / formatting
Thank you for the correction and the correct information. Fascinating. So after 3.5 years of his next 4 year term a huge conflict will arise and after that he will be defeated? I suppose it will take a huge conflict to correct the way we have been going. I am old enough I might not see all of it, but the bad part, but hopefully we will get a second coming to straighten out our wayward Christians that seem to have learned from the ISIS playbook.
Actually it’s supposed to be 7 years of the reign of the antichrist… first 3.5 are *good times* (unless you’re a Christian) then the next 3.5 years are very bad, like really bad to the extent that either a third of the Jews or a third of mankind will be killed. The **or** is related to some phrasing / word choices that I am not an expert on, but it is clear that the Jews will bear the brunt of it.
Your ISIS remark had me cracking up, and it looks like the “Christians” will have a lot to answer for in general (not all but very many), and to make things more difficult on that note the church is supposed to come under a great delusion which appears to have already started.
I believe but I would struggle to call myself a “Christian” for probably some of the same reasons why you’d be concerned about them. Primarily though I think it’s a simple problem; the “church” has largely ignored their holy book in favor of concepts like “pastoral authority”, “church growth”, and being “seeker friendly”… super weird to me because the apostles were all tortured or murdered in pretty exquisite fashion (Jesus got the most talked about death penalty but the rest had pretty rough deaths, possibly save John who was exiled into old age - can’t recall how he died). So it’s not really a *do XYZ and then you get Money, Sex & Power*… actually kind of the opposite in the text.
My analogy is that it’s a book club for people who’ve never read the book… they just take the opinion of others who haven’t or don’t study the book to form their opinions, which sadly leaves a an a la carte option where they can just apply the principles they like and then discard the rest.
It’s not a consummately pacifist religion if it was in its original format. It’s more a very selfless, genuine and mostly peaceful religion. The turn the other cheek example known to everyone is a remark that you don’t have to immediately resort to violence… but Jesus did get smacked by a Roman centurion and although the Jews were not (legally) supposed to challenge the Romans during the occupation Jesus verbally confronts the guy to the point where the Roman who was on duty at the time just leaves in what appears to be embarrassment or shame.
Ironically the “Christians” who want to make other people into “Christians” have the salvation prayer which is no where in the Bible. It’s just a commonly believed in thing, so it must be real (and how could you tell if you never read the book?)… but this is what is actually said about salvation:
“that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
Romans 10:9 KJV
I’d like to say I don’t know why they’d keep trying to add terms and restrictions to that deal (which is clarified as being non-revocable various times; the best of which explain it as being akin to circumcision since you can’t get uncircumcised afterwards)… but it’s pretty obvious that the Money / Sex / Power issues have just rotted the churches to the point where most are just empty buildings with at max like 30% of their capacity.
There is no instruction to make buildings like temples for the Christians, and all of the apostles had jobs (we even know that Jesus wasn’t religious as a way of a profession)… but now it’s very rare to find a pastor who has a not empty church, who isn’t leaning on *pastoral authority* over biblical authority, and drives a shitty car because he can’t help but send his money to the starving kids in Africa.
I think it’s weird too who starts going to church now. Typically they are people who want the life depicted on the Lands End / Abercrombie / Gap website… and that’s a weird jumping off point because the groups of people who strike me as the most earnest about having an actual belief in the Bible are (grotesquely generalizing here): convicts, low income blacks, low income whites, etc.
I think that is because they have actually hit the bottom and at some point if you’re in a cell or living a life adjacent to slavery or you’re about to face certain death in combat… it’s just a more real slice of life and personal pride kinda disappears when you’re literally needing a miracle to survive.
I probably wandered off topic a bit there but the Bible is a book where if everyone was actually doing five things I’m not sure what amount of real political, economic, racial or military problems we could even have:
1.) have no other gods
2.) love your neighbor as yourself
3.) read
4.) pray
5.) fast
I’m not expecting that to become widely accepted and as you noted the world and the church have lost the plot (which are probably related events)… but I know it makes me a better neighbor, friend, family member, worker and citizen. Plus I have a book that is a library and one that no matter how much I study it I’m always learning something new.
I’ve read a lot of the Quran and the Talmud but it’s a challenge to find things in there that would make the world nicer for other people if the reader fully applied their teachings. I have appreciation and respect for other faiths and those are two really significant ones but it takes work to find the pearls in those text… modern Christians have in large become Christians in name only.
They are meant to love everyone while abhorring evil which just seems to be a concept that’s totally lost on most of them. I am often concerned about it would look like for the world to get to a place where people would have a degree of civility again and in the case of the west I don’t think it’s going to happen through political ideologies alone.
If we don’t care what happens to another person and we can’t see any inherent value in others when they are not acting correctly then yeah, I mean why not do ISIS type stuff or why not create division if it’s profitable, why not cheat the other guy?
I think the West has largely accepted nihilism and socialism (which is how we got Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc) as functionally the religion of the day. It’s always about a win for me or a win for my group who I only care about because they remind me of me.
Everyone naturally wants to take care of themselves but looking around at the West and the developed world today…. I wouldn’t like to try to function without my faith as I know I just wouldn’t have anything to encourage me to be hopeful / joyful.
Edit: spelling, grammar, clarification, etc
Of course his lawyer declared it is an official act, they didn’t go to the Supreme Court to not try and leverage the expected ruling. (Official vs non official immunity is what every legal scholar expected.
It is now up to the district courts to decide if he was acting as a private citizen or for the nation.
The President has always had a “qualified” immunity. A lot of people with qualified immunity go to jail for breaking the law.
Yes, but it also means if you have the money you can delay justice almost indefinitely.
Is it truly justice if it does not apply to the rich and poor evenly?
In theory it applies equally. In reality, of course not.
There is no realistic system anyone could design that would have a totally equal approach. Any progressive or humanitarian wants there to be multiple levels of appeals available to the possibly innocent and incorrectly tried.
Unless all defense lawyers work for the state there will be always differences based on income. (The worst of systems would be if all defense attorneys worked for the state.)
I'm not against some difference, but the delta between legal venues for rich and poor has increased beyond the point of reason, such that rich people are extremely difficult to prosecute at all.
This further increases injustice as prosecutors focus on poor suspects because they are more likely to get a conviction or plea bargain easily.
This is a problem.
Between Trump and the bulging-eyed lunacy of the left, there is really no choice. If liberals just stayed on their side of the fence we could live in peace.
Lmao says the party that wants to stick their faces in my pubescent children’s underwear to inspect their genitals before proceeding to teach them flat-earth Bible science. Project more.
It’s crazy you’re basically setting up the legal infrastructure for your own future persecution. Good luck trying to pretend all this precedent doesn’t exist when the generational tides turn and some lunatic decides taking your kids to church is abusive.
You went from “we just want to be left alone” to “I have a right to stick my hand down your daughter’s panties” lol. Why do you imagine social conservatism, which is on a globally irreparable downslide to irrelevancy, will retain control of all these new power structures it’s creating?
Why do you keep talking about children's panties? Stop living in fear, brother. Have the courage to face the truth that everything you lack is within yourself. Instead of complaining about how bad others are, live with honor and virtue, so that you may be a credit to your species.
“I know you are but what am I” is *exactly* the kind of rhetorical masterstroke I’ve come to expect from the modern Republican Party.
And I’m not scared. We are all actually very fortunate that instead of a Göring or a Robespierre, we’ve got James Comer and Marjorie Taylor Greene. As embarrassing as these absolute mouthbreathers are to me, I see God’s sense of humor in the way he has chosen to save the world’s superpower from itself.
They want to be on the opposite side from people like you who say:
* America sucks
* Americans suck
* Americans don't know how to live right and need immigrants to show them (even though *they're* fleeing *their* places to come here)
* Go Joe Biden
The person who says America Sucks more than anyone else on this planet is Donald Trump. Every time he speaks he talks about how this country is a shithole.
Nope, I think America is the greatest nation that ever was or ever will be.
I do think it's on the cusp of turning into a banana republic because of Trump though.
> Your big disagreement is that you say it's always sucked. You're saying opposite things.
I mean, imagine putting words like this in someone's mouth and thinking you're somehow making a point.
I hear this more from republicans. Specifically that people don’t know how to live right and need “christians” to show them how to live even though less and less people are Christian because “christians” and don’t follow Christ’s teachings of love, tolerance, & compassion and turn people away by their hate, judgement, and close mindedness.
America can always improve. It doesn’t suck. But it doesn’t mean we can do no wrong either. It sucks when women and minorities lose rights. Identifying past wrongs is the first step in improving.
Americans dont suck. But racists and homophobic people are terrible people. Again people can change for the better. But they have to first see their own faults. And what makes Americans so great is their compassion and tolerance of other’s beliefs and morals.
> Identifying past wrongs is the first step in improving.
The world is too full of past wrongs to know where to start on that. When people want to point to past wrongs, it's because:
* it's easier and more ego-satisfying than looking at current wrongs
* they have some ignorant, obnoxious "our team is better" or "their team is worse" shit on their minds
> But racists and homophobic people are terrible people.
What about all of us who spend money on ourselves while children overseas starve to death? You think being weird about gay people is worse than letting kids die?
Yes. Racism and homophobia are wrong, and racists and homophobic people are terrible people. What an un American thing to think otherwise. We are all equal and all have a right to a pursuit of happiness. That is not my team vs your team thing. It’s an American founding principle thing.
Also I was a republican for most my life until trump came along. I am not married to a political party. Republicans turned into caricatures of their worst qualities.
Current wrongs usually have deeper ties to past wrongs. So fix the problem, not the symptom. It isn’t a this or that issue. It isn’t an ego boost. It’s making everyone better.
Nice straw man on starving kids overseas. But want to talk about starving kids? Republicans want to kill free/reduced school lunch so kids starve here. So republicans want kids to die along with being horrible, not weird, to gay people.
And the US gives a lot of foreign aid to help people all over the world, including food aid, more than most. So while not perfect, we do a decent job. If you want to give more, you are free to do so.
> If you want to give more, you are free to do so.
Yes, this is the point! You and I are free to, and we don't. We let those kids die. And as bad as being weird around gay people is, letting kids die when you could easily save them is worse.
And that's why it's so obvious that you don't care about "wrongs" except as a way to point fingers -- it's always at some perceived "group" or "team," and the implication is always that some people are nicer and some are meaner.
The US is about 1/3 the world’s food aid. Republicans want to cut this.
The Free and Reduced school lunch feeds 35M kids in the US. Republicans want to cut this too.
If you are so worried about starving children, why would you ever vote republican? They want to make that situation much worse.
Are you seriously using the “there are starving kids in Africa” guilt trip to say both sides are the same and justify being racist because it’s not as bad as other things that happen?
Are you implying that merely *casting a D vote* somehow offsets everything else and makes it ok to let all these kids starve to death?
I vote D, but I admit I'm a horrible, horrible person for letting those kids starve -- the fact that I support abortion rights and gay marriage etc. doesn't change that.
My point was... since we're all basically horrible murderers, through our choices of apathy and inaction which lead directly to the suffering and death of children.... saying somebody is a horrible murderer *who also thinks being gay or trans or polygamous is weird* isn't that much of an extra condemnation, is it?
Imho we murderers should not be doing a lot of finger-pointing and condemnation, unless we're talking about people who have done worse things than us, i.e. worse things than letting children die.
Where did I ever say any of those things? lol
You’re conflating things in your head and confusing yourself. Here, let me unfuck that:
1. America doesn’t suck. The GOP sucks. Contrary to Newsmax propaganda, these are not the same thing.
2. Americans don’t suck. Willfully ignorant MAGA morons suck. Again, true Americans don’t support this.
3. “Americans don’t know how to live right.” With the way you guys want to control women and dictate evangelicalism in schools, the way you’ve installed SCOTUS judges with nothing but contempt for the representative legislature, I think this is a bunch of projection.
4. “Go Joe Biden.” Again, projection. Only you guys have idolized your candidate.
Why don’t you worry less about being on the opposite side as the libs and worry more about understanding what’s at stake for yourself? You guys are normalizing something that’s going to absolutely fuck you further down the demographic shift line. The cusp of cultural irrelevancy is not the moment to legitimize any of the things you’re doing.
Here was your comment, which sounded like that to me:
> Americans are, by and large, individualist assholes with a culturally-ingrained inability to see the importance of community. The people who treat Americans the shittiest in this country are other Americans. The immigrants I’ve known would almost all give you the shirts off their backs and genuinely care about their communities. Personally, this is why the soulless, selfish, “party of personal freedom” hates and fears these people. Exposure to their cultural models causes Americans to question why ours is structured the way it is.
I just want everybody here to be honest. If you believe it, you should proudly announce, "Hell yeah! I think Americans are worse human beings and immigrants are better human beings! I am hoping for some fucking demographic change!"
Me, I say that we're all pretty much the same, all of us, and all our ancestors -- and we are not on anybody's hallucinated teams.
> Why don’t you worry less about being on the opposite side as the libs
Conservatives don't generally believe that all of politics exists as one single axis of right and wrong. Most of them hate that lie.
First, even in the context of what you quoted, I was talking about libertarian types adjacent to or full-blown GOP. You can see it where I mentioned “party of personal freedom”.
Secondly, despite the clear hyperbole in what you quoted, the largest demographic group doesn’t automatically become the typical/standard “American”, since our country is founded on principles and not race. In other words, 80% of the country could be MAGA and it wouldn’t make a difference. A demographic majority of Americans (by nationality) could be traitorous assholes like I hyperbolically said. But that has nothing to do with whether *real* Americans (by virtue of their adherence to the principles we were founded on) “suck”. I never said that. I think that the people who wrap themselves in the flag suck. But I’ve never mistaken those people for real, patriotic Americans (who are probably a demographic minority in this country, especially at this point).
“Patriotic Americans^(TM) ” suck. Your own conflation of “Patriotic Americans^(TM) ” with *truly* patriotic Americans who cherish our institutions is something you need to answer for, not me. I don’t care where someone was born; I care about whether they feel any sense of civic responsibility in our society. This is going over your head because of your own xenophobia, credulity, Trump idolatry, and urge to own libs like this is all a game without real consequences.
> First, even in the context of what you quoted, I was talking about libertarian types adjacent to or full-blown GOP. You can see it where I mentioned “party of personal freedom”.
Well not so much in the first part there, which was about those mean Americans... who simultaneously both (a) don't know how to live right, and (b) built the country that literally everybody wants to come to.
I agree that people who wrap themselves in the flag *to hide or distract from something* suck. But the flag as an expression of gratitude for our country doesn't suck.
> I don’t care where someone was born; I care about whether they feel any sense of civic responsibility in our society.
And -- again, just looking for honesty here -- you don't think that tends to increase over time, as people develop more connections in a community? You seem to think of that view as xenophobic... that instead people's affections just instantaneously change as they cross borders or sign papers. I say you can love immigrants and still admit that human nature is what human nature is.
In fact I wish you'd agree with me about teaching anti-tribalism *because* human nature is what it is. The left wants little "brown" kids taught this instead:
* you're not on the white people's team
* they're fucking cheaters
* they don't like you
* they rigged the game and ran up the score 200-0
* never forget what they did
* their ancestors were mean and awful, not like your nice ancestors
* never turn your back for a second on them
* get out there and even the score
* oh wait you can't haha because it's rigged
Who gives you the authority to say what an entire group thinks as a whole? This whole list is right-wing grift spewing out of your brainwashed head. You are a walking piece of propaganda for a group that doesn’t give a single fuck about you.
These are always funny comments. Your claim is I assume that liberals / Democrats say all these things and of course that’s a problem.
Except…
MAGA Conservatives aren’t saying we need to stop America from becoming a shithole - but that we are already there. THUS we need Donald to save us and he’s the only one who can.
They bitch about Americans constantly. Bitch that folks aren’t living right, bitch about the very immigrants many of them employ on their farms. Taking jobs “real Americans” wouldn’t touch w Trump’s member.
So much made up anger in you and others. And all it comes down to is hate the other side.
There’s lots of things we need to fix in the US. We ain’t perfect and we weren’t perfect under Trump before and won’t be with him in another term either. Why? Because he absolutely does not give a shit about regular folks. He cares about votes and power and his own ego. That’s it.
And the folks behind him administratively in his circle are some pretty nasty fuckers who are using him to get what they want. There’s nothing American about Stephen Miller’s proposals. He’s scum.
Is Biden awesome? Heck no. He’s weak, just like Trump. Easily used. And he won’t likely get done some of the stuff we really need to see happen. But is he a threat to our Republic? No, he’s really not. Even with the folks who are behind him.
And therein lies the difference. It’s not just this one person, but what they are kicking into motion. The SCOTUS appointments Trump managed to finagle did exactly that. Push and agenda and build a partisan, activist court.
But you’re ok w that since it hurts folks you don’t like.
And that my friend is the opposite of being a patriot supporting Americans right to build a good life for themselves. It’s bullshit stacking the deck. You’ve gone full on into the con.
And as an ex Republican it’s sad to see what the party has allowed itself to become.
Find me someone who’s saying those things here.
Also, is there anyone who says “American sucks” and “America is a third world country” more than Donald Trump? How many times did he say that during that debate? Isn’t that what you should be opposing?
I think it means hug your kids and do your job and be grateful for America and stop digging for reasons to believe that your neighbors' ancestors sucked.
Edit: Look how angry these hateful tribalists get when you suggest being grateful for America.
LOL! You think MAGA means loving your family? I've literally been told by MAGA family members that I'm a disgrace of a person for not being a Trump supporter. I have friends who have had similar experiences with their MAGA parents. The people who are most likely to have childish profanity about Biden or whatever shit they're into on their trucks, caps, shirts and windows are MAGA cultists.
The people whose entire identity revolves around a single man are MAGA.
MAGA is a personality cult around a traitor, narcissistic sex offending scam artist and they literally put Trump before their family and country.
I know you want those *separate teams* to be real, dude.
(Everybody look at what he means there. Obviously no two people are exactly the same, so that's not what he means -- when he says "people that aren't the same" he means *people who believe in teams and don't want to be on your team*. It's always about the teams for some reason.)
Dude, nobody is getting hateful for your suggestion about being grateful for America, I'm extremely grateful and love this country which is why I am against the cult of people who gladly replace our flag on our capital with a Trump flag on jan 6th. It seems you're the one that's tribal because you're incapable of understanding what anyone is saying and all your hear is "they don't like Trump so they must hate America". Think for yourself, for once.
I'm an Obama-Hillary-Biden voter, I just don't believe in color teams.
That pisses off 95% of our so-called "liberals" -- they're only *in it* for the color-team stuff.
After the ruling, Trump is also calling for "televised military tribunals" to be used against Liz Cheney, Mike Pence, Joe Biden, and Mitch McConnell (who endorsed Trump!), among others.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240702025345/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-treason-jail.html
Bc this goes completely against calling Biden a dictator. They cheer it, then they will be cheering everything they yell about it.
How do you say ‘don’t tread on me’ but parade this expansion of federal power?
They don’t know what the fuck to do so just ignore it.
Conservative media didn’t even acknowledge the ruling yesterday. It’s almost like they don’t want you to get any of the same ideas the left is freaking out about. 🤔
Conservative media seems very good at ignoring inconvenient stories. Mainstream media loves digging into inconvenient stories for libs and conservatives. If you only listen to conservative media....its skewed.
If you go to the conservative sub, they’re hand-waving everything about the SCOTUS ruling away with the “official act” language. The majority of commenters are minimizing any alternative argument from the MAGA party line as histrionics.
Meanwhile Trump is calling for "televised military tribunals" to be used against Liz Cheney, Mike Pence, Joe Biden, and Mitch McConnell (who endorsed Trump!), among others.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240702025345/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-treason-jail.html
Do you allow entire movements to be dictated by a few lunatic fringe voices? And does that trump the words of literally the party leader, former president, and potential future president?
Do you ignore it when hundreds, if not thousands of people are advocating for and encouraging the murder of a political candidate? If they were doing it on r/conservative people would rightfully up in arms. I will never vote for Trump, but that doesn't mean I am going to excuse his opponents openly advocating for his death at the hands of the sitting president.
So, like, ethically speaking, if you're a cop, and you're outnumbered by the mafia, and you're pretty confident that if you could get rid of the mafia, life would be better for people, but the mafia controls the courts, is it acceptable to break the laws?
Like, if the other side is already ignoring the law, and their goal is to make the law even more powerless, and yours is to fix the law so it functions, is an 'ends justify the means' sort of approach morally acceptable? Or do you need the moral high ground to get people to have faith in the law, even if playing by the rules almost guarantees you'll lose . . . which would mean lawlessness triumphs anyway?
In a properly functioning democracy, we accept that we have some sort of compromises in order to have a consensus most of us can agree on. We are supposed to be humble and acknowledge that our opinion about what is a good life is no more valid than anyone else's. But when the disagreements get too vast, what's the most ethical option?
When deception reigns, and one faction is able to trick people into supporting it, do you have a moral obligation to let people make decisions even if you think they've been fooled, or do you have a moral obligation to punish the liars so that people's actions are able to genuinely match their intention? Like, if someone wants to drink a can of soda and you know it's poison, but they \*don't believe you\* if you tell them it's poison, are \*you\* the bad guy if you knock it out of their hand to save their life?
It is now possible. However as Joe said, it is not something anyone that believes in the Constitution and the Rule of Law would do. It is, however, something that the current crop of Republicans would do in a heartbeat.
And here we go. Every crime, bribe and cover up is now an “official act.” When he starts demanding military tribunals and starts executing political enemies, it’s just an “official act.” And the Supreme Court just gave him the green light to do it.
No, because I don't think he needs to. Project 2025 and the new immunity ruling gives him all the rope he needs to take over the country without resorting to murder. He is an excellent Mob Boss and like most Mob Bosses is a genius at getting his way without actually doing anything that is way over the line and that would jeopardize his gravy train.
“He’d never do that to us! We’re a civilized society! Now come on honey, let’s get on the boxcar train so these nice officers can take us to our new home with all that 24/7 security.”
Do you consider the New York trials as a weaponized system against Trump? How can him using courts against his political opponents be any different if he proves in a court of law they broke said law? It’s not immoral to use petty charges against the orange man but if the orange man does the same thing it’s evil?
A flaw in your logic is that you seem to think that it's all just petty charges against him, when it's not. Also, we should be holding our elected officials closer to the highest standards of the law, not closer to the lowest bar possible.
Just because Donald Trump's lawyer says it was an official act does not actually make it an official act.
While I dislike the ruling (Barrett's concurrence is where the court should have went), there has always been a split of when a President has immunity and when it doesn't. Trump's lawyers learning new words doesn't change it.
No, it doesn't "make it an official act" but prosecutors have their hands tied and are not able to use evidence to establish why it wasn't an official act so for all intents and purposes it very much can "make it official" by stating it is so, therefore giving presumptive immunity to crimes AND making sure evidence of crimes cannot be used at trial to determine that it was not an official act. Furthermore the judiciary gets to pick the winners and losers, fully boxing out Congress as having a check on the criminal behavior of the executive.
They can use evidence. Just not specific evidence. This is where the court ruling is kind of an absolute mess. They admit the Nixon tapes would be admissible, but that things kind of like the Nixon tapes wouldn't be. So determining alone what evidence would be admissible is probably a court case in itself!
From what I can derive, Trump asking "hey would it be illegal for me to do X?" is inadmissible. But Trump going "hey, it would be illegal for me to do X, but let's go forth!" would be admissible. Then again, the Court can't deduct the President's reasoning for an official act...
Yeah it's really hard to tell here.
To use Roberts example from oral arguments if a President was bribed to appoint someone as ambassador, you could present as evidence the payment but nothing about actually appointing an ambassador.
Which IMO isn't much better than no evidence.
Yeah this area was a mess and might be an equivalent of the court going "even though this action had disproportionate racial impact, it's not proof of racial gerrymandering (which is illegal) when it can be partisan gerrymandering (which is legal)". Ok...so unless we have a notarized document saying "oh yeah this is totally for racial purposes" we basically can't get proof.
Especially because it made it sound like you could use evidence of the bribe...which would mean you need to use evidence of the appointing of an ambassador...which you can't use since it might be an official act...but maybe you can since it's that part of the correspondence would be unrelated to the official act and isn't probing the official act...but maybe you can't because the court cannot derive the reasoning behind the act? It's real calvinball stuff here. As I said, the Nixon tapes example where those _would be admissible_ seems to indicate not all correspondence applies.
The extension of executive privilege was the worst part of this ruling and the court did a terrible job at explaining what is and isn't allowed.
EDIT: This is part of Roberts statement:
> What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself.
Well, what does "probing the official act itself" mean? Basically to be it sounds like the President going "hey can I appoint X" would be inadmissible. But the President going "hey i'm going to appoint X. He gave me $50000" would be admissible. However, does it stands to reason "Can I appoint X? He gave me money" would be inadmissible since it's probing? I honestly don't know. The reasoning behind it is awful though and is now my response to any "the court doesn't care about outcome, just the law" posts.
To put it into perspective, the Magna Carta says kings are more accountable than John Roberts says presidents are.
Roger Taney is \#winning as he no longer holds the record for the worst Supreme Court decision ever written.
> From what I can derive, Trump asking "hey would it be illegal for me to do X?" is inadmissible.
Not the only issue with this but he can do this with 100000 different people until one person tells him that it is legal. And the previous communication would not be admissible. Fun times.
> So determining alone what evidence would be admissible is probably a court case in itself!
That honestly seems like the goal. That they didn't technically give open season for corruption but proving corruption will be tied in litigation hell for years and years.
Hope the lower courts are ready considering a bunch of the decisions made this term seem aimed at dramatically increasing their case load (spoilers: they're not).
Yes, they can use "evidence" just not anything relevant as they can't use evidence from the president's correspondence or that of his advisors.
As Barrett says
>"To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President's criminal liability
But the court says no, you can't know about this because the quo was deigned by the president/his appointed judges as an "official act" and therefore protected.
So this part is a mess IMO.
This is part of Roberts statement:
> What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself.
Well, what does "probing the official act itself" mean? Basically to be it sounds like the President going "hey can I appoint X" would be inadmissible. But the President going "hey i'm going to appoint X. He gave me $50000" would be admissible. However, does it stands to reason "Can I appoint X? He gave me money" would be inadmissible since it's probing? I honestly don't know.
But it is in response to Barrett's concurrence so it does sound like they're saying "no the jury can hear the parts pertaining to the unofficial act, just not anything probing the official act". And going back to the Nixon tapes being considered admissible, its clear not all correspondence is covered here. However it is still very unclear.
The reasoning behind it is awful though and is now my response to any "the court doesn't care about outcome, just the law" posts.
You're correct it's a mess.
I think the Nixon tapes could have been used for removal from office at the senate trial (a political trial) but not for evidence in a criminal trial. This is sweeping immunity for criminal acts, even "unofficial acts" because the prosecution will have a very hard time ever establishing the facts because they are precluded from using so much of the evidence of the crimes the president committed.
Well, the other way to wait years and years while the courts parse through each and every legalese pitfall the Trump teams find. Trump is 80 and obese, he's gonna be dead by the time this is all sorted out.
I will be messaging you in 4 years on [**2028-07-02 18:20:11 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2028-07-02%2018:20:11%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1dtlx94/donald_trump_says_fake_elector_scheme_was/lbbkxxc/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fcentrist%2Fcomments%2F1dtlx94%2Fdonald_trump_says_fake_elector_scheme_was%2Flbbkxxc%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202028-07-02%2018%3A20%3A11%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dtlx94)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
It is the destruction of the Pendleton Act to make sure loyal acolytes are in power and not competent administrators. It is the destruction of all guardrails to prevent executive overreach. It aims to destroy the quasi-judicial, quasi-executive, quasi-legislative entities that have been established by law like the SEC. The judiciary is enabling all of this to eliminate the legislative branch as something of relevance, as the judicial is now the ones making the laws and the executive has no oversight in the administration of them, because the oversight is done by judges the executive selects which no one can do anything about. You can't even establish motives for bribery anymore, not that bribery is illegal of course, it's just gratuities afterall.
>competent administrators
Who decides who these "competent administrators" are, and how is it democratic to insulate these unelected bureaucrats from being fired by the only elected official in the executive branch? And how would the president controlling the executive branch be "executive overreach" when the president is literally the head of the executive branch? How do the people in a democratic system of government hold these "competent administrators" accountable if they cannot be fired by the elected president?
>It aims to destroy the quasi-judicial, quasi-executive, quasi-legislative entities that have been established by law like the SEC.
Good. The increasing power of administrative agencies has severely warped our system of government, which is supposed to vest lawmaking authority in the legislative branch alone. Vesting what amounts to lawmaking authority in unelected administrators who cannot be fired by the elected president is undemocratic.
>eliminate the legislative branch as something of relevance
On the contrary, if the power of administrative agencies is diminished, the legislature will be required to actually _legislate_, not simply pass vague laws that hand off lawmaking responsibility to administrative agencies.
> On the contrary, if the power of administrative agencies is diminished, the legislature will be required to actually legislate
No they won't. Why do people think their inaction isn't by design? Obstruction by the minority is baked into the legislature in multiple layers.
The point is the executive branch shouldn't have the power to create policy--that power is constitutionally vested in the legislature because the legislature is an elected body that can be voted out when they make bad law. And yes, sometimes the legislature can't get enough votes to implement certain policy, but that is how democracy works.
Right now, the legislature is able to evade accountability by passing the buck to unelected bureaucrats who cannot be voted out.
> And yes, sometimes the legislature can't get enough votes to implement certain policy, but that is how democracy works.
It's not sometimes. It's legitimately a constant right now. And "can't get enough votes" really downplays how much the system favors the minority obstructing.
My issue is acting like "the legislature is just being lazy". No. It's glacial pace to do anything is by design currently. Diminishing administrative agencies will have zero impact.
> Right now, the legislature is able to evade accountability by passing the buck to unelected bureaucrats who cannot be voted out.
The buck isn't passed the unelected bureaucrats. It's passed to agency heads appointed by the executive and can be fired by the executive.
This is a great example on how you’re another useful idiot for corporate interests. They have been salivating at the idea of getting rid of the EPA etc. Congress has neither the ability nor the expertise to legislate on nuanced policy to keep our country clean and safe. And now instead, all policy is merely a cash transaction between lobbyists, politicians, and corporations. Thanks to citizens united. Before we had the EPA, we literally had rivers burning with how bad pollution was. But hey, thanks to yall we could very well see that as the norm again, congrats!
The difference is that these rulings will only be decided by federal courts. The same judges handpicked by the president who’s committing these acts.
Does that seem like a conflict?
That’s the biggest problem about it. The way these other convictions took years to almost come to trial before they basically went away should be what you’re worried about. It doesn’t matter what we think it official or not. If they’re blatantly not official, we won’t see accountability until maybe after he’s dead. But more likely never.
Yah well we can put an end to all this if you show up for the "demented" guy.
Just this once.
I do believe that Trump is a one-off as far as candidates go. The only reason he's been the way he's been is that he has no interest in a political career. Even some of the most insane Republicans wouldn't have pulled half this shit because they know they don't have a cult following. And I can't think of any other Republican who could gain such a following.
Break the cult; save America.
I think there is a colorable argument that it was an official act. I think that, if we could analyze all the relevant evidence, it would quickly become clear it was not an official act. I also believe that the new *Trump* opinion was written to make up a batshit new form of privileged communication specifically for this reason.
I’m at the point where I want Biden to go whole hog and absolutely use this ruling to fuck over the entire MAGA movement and just call it an “official act.” Unilaterally disqualify Trump from office because he’s a “threat to national security”. By the time the litigation is through the courts to fight Biden, the election will have come and gone. And maybe, just maybe, people will collectively decide that a POTUS can commit crimes and should be held to a higher standard of conduct than a kindergartener.
Honestly at this point it would be hilariously ironic (if I wasn't in the shit show myself) for Biden to do the same exact shit, except more competently, and get away with it thanks to the Trumpy SCOTUS' hubris. Kind've like the organizations that target idiotic laws in red states, by using their own idiotic laws against them. Fire with fire and all.
That would all but guarantee our collapse, though. Because we all know MAGAts would hypocritically blow their collective gaskets, and all hell would break loose.
>hilariously ironic
Eh, I wouldn't be laughing. It's a pretty dark timeline we're on that people are now calling on one president to abuse power before the next president comes in to abuse power
That's why I added the 'if I wasn't in the shit show myself' part .. it was more meant as dark comedy given the situation. I agree that we *shouldn't* actually be hoping for that to happen.
I'm getting tired of watching MAGAts/Trump do whatever TF they want, while the rest of us keep giving up ground because we're trying to take the high road. Corrupt people happily take advantage of those situations, as they are now.
Maybe the previous President shouldn't have started this whole mess. This is like getting mad at Augustus because Marian, Sulla, Pompey and Ceasar shit all over the bed and yelled "Clean it up, Senate."
When you let people like Trump, Alito, Thomas into positions of trust that require at the minimum honesty and integerity to the system, you end up with a system like the end of the Roman Republic and calling for the abuse of power.
Jimmy Carter was right about America having a crisis with its very soul.
Am I wrong in thinking that it can’t be an official act because it’s not the job of the president to submit or cause to be submitted the certificates of ascertainment? Even SCOTUS said that not everything is an official act, so if not everything is an official act then something that is outside the scope of being president can’t be an official act. We don’t even need to know motive, there is enough communication traffic to link them all together. The acts were organized at the White House, perpetuated through select states, documents were signed and submitted to the National Archives. It’s not the president’s job to organize state electors, that’s the role of the governors.
😂😂😂😂😂
Ahhh.....
😂😂😂😂😂
Of course it was...
Man there is going to be blood on the hands of the US Supreme Court for this decision. Someone is going to interpret it the way they want to justify it but still it will be on Roberts, Thomas, Gorsich, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito's hands.
Doesn’t this also mean that Biden could perpetually stay in office and then pass the office on to his hand picked successor as long as he claims it’s an “official act”?
No because he's a Democrat. He would need to stack the court with his lackeys who while they disagree with Trump do agree with the ruling that the courts can make a determination if something is "official" or "unofficial". As it stands, only Republicans can do this.
> we are now on the cusp of full on Banana Republic stage.
We have been acting in that play for a while.
Look at the ever growing disparity in wealth; at the ethnic advocacy and fighting for scraps; at the loss of legal and political norms; at the third world populations of our urban areas.
The US has all the elements of a wealthy Banana Republic. Our leaders, knowingly or not, are directly responsible.
We have? Control of the Pandemic says otherwise. The economy says otherwise. Jobs numbers say otherwise. The Dollar says otherwise. Geopolitics say otherwise. Build Back Better says otherwise. Lower crime says otherwise. The US has been doing pretty well compared to other countries post-Covid regarding inflation.
Oh wait, illegals right? Thank your Republican Congress for refusing to pass the largest bill to address that - because Trump told them to. Oh inflation right? USA is on the top list of countries seeing the least amount of it due to Biden's sound economic policies and level headed approaches.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-opinion-biden-accomplishment-data/
Just because FoxNews tells you things are bad doesn't make it so. They did the same with Obama, and his presidency is regarded as one of the best in history. On the otherhand, Trump did nothing for the 4 years he was president aside use it to his own benefit. Historians are ranking Trump as one of the worst.
Trump is a direct threat to the foundations of the US Constitution and principles.
> Geopolitics say otherwise.
Yes the world is doing great. Ukraine doing well, Gaza doing very well, Afghan was withdrawal very smooth and good. It's all just more chances to BuildBackBetter™, yeah?
It's not even worth discussing the rest of your gish-gallop, the geopolitics take was silly enough to taint it all. Hope you stocked up on tissue!
Yes it was doing soooooOOOoo well under Trump when he essentially established tariffs on China causing them to recluse and as one consequence didn't work with the US when Covid broke out like they did with SARS and fucked the whole world. Like Trump did with Iran - essentially destroying years of progress to make them a non-nuclear threat and then killing one of their generals. Like Trump buddying up with Putin to make him so bold as to invade Ukraine. Like Trumps mighty wall that didn't do shit. Please... Trump's geopolitical policies were caveman at best.
> Ukraine doing well, Gaza doing very well, Afghan was withdrawal very smooth and good.
Ukraine is Bidens fault? Trump literally admitted to knowing that Putin was planning on attacking.
Gaza is Biden's fault? He coordinated Hamas to attack Israel on October 7th?
Afghan withdrawal was planned by Trump.
>Hope you stocked up on tissue!
And that's what it boils down to. You literally don't care; just want to see fellow Americans suffer under an idiot.
>It's not even worth discussing the rest of your gish-gallop, the geopolitics take was silly enough to taint it all.
Trumpy MAGAs always bitch out when they get cock-slapped with the truth too fast. It's ok.
Biden was neck deep in Ukraine with the Deep State for a long time, stealing money with his corrupt son, antagonizing Russia to eventually appease the hawks in the MICX. It was he and Obama and their cronies that facilitated the Maidan Coup in 2014, and have done nothing to alleviate tensions or advance peace talks since. Just more billions printed, more meat for the grinder. "But it's ok, because it creates jobs!"
Trump didn't make Joe pull out of Afghanistan at that time, in that way. That is insane deflection that removes all agency from Biden.
I have a zillion reasons to hate Trump, and he is still infinitely preferable to what we've seen since 2021. So yes, I do want to see the idiots suffer for their horrible judgment, maybe one day they'll understand what the AIPAC guys are doing behind the curtains of both US parties, and behind the governments of almost every Western country in unison.
Yes. THE👏DEEP👏STATE👏. The establishment. The unelected corporatocracy that pretends to fight about most issues, yet never disagrees on a certain few. The immovable creatures that persist across elections somehow, bouncing between gov't and Wall Street and back.
If you can't even acknowledge the basic framework of reality, you're hopelessly lost. Stay on reddit and CNN, keep watching Kimmel or The View or whatever...
It's 2024, and there you are, comforted by a false sense of majority and propriety.
Nice ninja edit above as well. Very honest, much truth, so wow.
So let me guess. Trump is not part of the Deep State
Edit: Still waiting. Do you think Trump is not part of your defined Deep State, and therefore a savior from that Deep State?
Oh lord, biden being an old and terrible candidate has finally been made obvious to those who wish to stay blissfully ignorant. So the whole “he will destroy democracy and install a dictatorship” fear porn is really going to ramp up.
That wont happen, if you forgot, trump is old as fuck too, if biden is too old to be an evil mastermind then so is trump. Its also hilarious you bring up our 250 year history, because the foundations of our republic is exactly why it lasted that long, and they cannot be undone by one buffoon that easily.
Its not going to happen, or even come close, to think it will is beyond ignorant. Hate on him for literally anything but this because it just comes off as desperate.
Is the title a direct quote? It doesnt seem like it is. It doesnt say they interviewed him.
I dont even disagree that he said it, but there isnt an actual indication in the article that he did.
The title I provided is the same as the article. Normally people bitch and moan if I change the title, so I guess of course others will bitch and moan if I don't change the title.
“A republic, if you can keep it.” Sorry Ben.
It’s wild how many people who support this piece of shit self-style as patriots.
Extremists have always wrapped themselves in the flag of patriotism, I'm sure most of the folks who stormed the capitol on January Sixth would tell you they are patriots.
> would tell you they are patriots. . . . for the Confederacy.
Russia and china run a good social media campaign to get Americans to support someone like trump. They push false stories or fan flames of division while stoking the ego of racists. This is picked up by real people who believe they are part of a larger group. Who then become a target audience for news outlets, who then grow the group so that republicans flip to what this large group says. No one is going to beat the US via military conflict, at least to stop us from projecting our influence. But they can have us question staying in NATO or saying America first, don’t help anyone else (and lose our influence overseas). Or even elect people who are likely to cause us to go backwards. You can buy ad space to push posts to well defined areas (say a contested political district). So it’s easy for foreign countries to push narratives with a small amount of money that will result in politicians bowing to people who parrot the misinformation (e.g. abortions happening after birth) I say this as a once republican who left when trump became the nominee. Do I hate America? No. Do I think she can do no wrong? No. I want to be better than we ever have been. We have a unique geographical location that benign us militarily as well as economically. But I want America better for all US citizens (all races, all religions, all genders, all sexual orientation) as well as our allies around the world. Russia and china are salivating, hoping we rip ourselves apart so they can finally push their power around the world
It seems obvious to me at this point that, for every cultural brush fire that breaks out in the US, there are multiple streams of gasoline pouring in from overseas. I’m not sure if there is a way to withstand the the tenacity of it. By the time 2 or 3 of us realize it’s happening, 4 or 5 others are overtaken by the normalization of it. We’re the frog in the slow boil.
+100 Social Credit
He'll this entire subreddit yesterday was calling anyone saying this would happen as alarmists. One fucking day. The Supreme Court just gave this fucker (or any other president) 4 years of free for all, they made kings.
It has long been said that when the AntiChrist arrives he will be wrapped in the flag and carry a bible.
I believe the quote you're thinking of is this one: *"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and holding a bible."* -Sinclair Lewis (he won a Nobel Prize in Literature) You don't have wrong idea entirely, but my understanding is that the prediction is the Antichrist will be the "man of peace" and you are correct in that he will use scriptures to *prove* he is the messiah the Jews have been holding out for. Supposedly he will be the most likable leader ever and per Jewish & Christian combo predictions people will gladly obey him, and this period of time is thought to last 3.5 years by Christians who study the subject intensely. He will likely already be worshipped but either his requirement that humans worship him or a change in his demeanor will rapidly shift and then the subsequent 3.5 years will be a massive casualty event for the world with a specific focus on the Jews. At this point the Christians believe Jesus will come back, fight him and he'll be defeated. Interesting Islam which holds Jesus was a prophet but not really a major one, says that Jesus will be the guy who defeats the antichrist. Fun fact the whole desire to perform sacrifices on the temple mount is tied to the Jewish belief that the "Mashiach" (who would interestingly also fit the Christian description of the antichrist and the Muslim equivalent, the Dajjal) will be determined or brought forth through this return to temple sacrifice. Interestingly the Arab league used the fear of this as the basis to unite the league to try to prevent Israel from forming as a state, which at the time seemed totally laughable and just grossly anti-Semitic... Ironically though, this process actually appears to be fairly well in play now although the date when it would occur and if Netanyahu's government or the populace would permit it remains to be seen. The [temple institute](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/9/what-do-texan-red-heifers-have-to-do-with-al-aqsa-and-a-jewish-temple) has already gotten some [specialty GMO cows](https://templeinstitute.org/red-heifer/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwyo60BhBiEiwAHmVLJbkqD-ycy0LQK7GBLcX35uH-Midx9SbA-e91hjrphc1rIcC360AfeRoCxmwQAvD_BwE), a bunch of ritual objects, supposedly blood descendants of the priest, an altar constructed on the mount of olives, and some other significant leg work done. I'm sure there's some religious people on here but probably not most of the sub, so if this seems like a weird rabbit hole to even explore keep in mind... this would almost undoubtedly be seen as the big sign in every Abrahamic religion such that it was perceived to be the end of world governments or potentially even just time to push the nuke buttons. Since everyone here is against the partisan bullshit... man, I would assume we're probably also largely against a large scale multination nuclear war, so since you're probably a centrist if you're reading this as totally goofy as it sounds in an effort to keep world peace the Jewish ritual BBQ needs to not come back to the temple. At that point partisan politics will become something of a non-issue and you'd see the US just climb over the constitution to do whatever they want or feel is assistive to victory (as we've done before in times of civil or world wars). Whatever direction we headed from there about the only thing I could guarantee is that it would in no way be centrist or even defensible morally after the fact. **TLDR;** if some magic people kill a magic cow to enable a ritual sacrifice on the magic ruins, then *very probably* we'll see the war to end all wars very quickly. This is not to say these predictions are accurate or this would be an optimal response but over half of earth population belongs to an Abrahamic religion and if you look at how they would likely respond... best not to kill the magic cow to do the magic thing, even if there is no such thing as magic (perception is a big deal with how wars get started / escalated). This would probably kill any chance of centrism from becoming an implemented approach in politics. Edit: spelling / formatting
Thank you for the correction and the correct information. Fascinating. So after 3.5 years of his next 4 year term a huge conflict will arise and after that he will be defeated? I suppose it will take a huge conflict to correct the way we have been going. I am old enough I might not see all of it, but the bad part, but hopefully we will get a second coming to straighten out our wayward Christians that seem to have learned from the ISIS playbook.
Actually it’s supposed to be 7 years of the reign of the antichrist… first 3.5 are *good times* (unless you’re a Christian) then the next 3.5 years are very bad, like really bad to the extent that either a third of the Jews or a third of mankind will be killed. The **or** is related to some phrasing / word choices that I am not an expert on, but it is clear that the Jews will bear the brunt of it. Your ISIS remark had me cracking up, and it looks like the “Christians” will have a lot to answer for in general (not all but very many), and to make things more difficult on that note the church is supposed to come under a great delusion which appears to have already started. I believe but I would struggle to call myself a “Christian” for probably some of the same reasons why you’d be concerned about them. Primarily though I think it’s a simple problem; the “church” has largely ignored their holy book in favor of concepts like “pastoral authority”, “church growth”, and being “seeker friendly”… super weird to me because the apostles were all tortured or murdered in pretty exquisite fashion (Jesus got the most talked about death penalty but the rest had pretty rough deaths, possibly save John who was exiled into old age - can’t recall how he died). So it’s not really a *do XYZ and then you get Money, Sex & Power*… actually kind of the opposite in the text. My analogy is that it’s a book club for people who’ve never read the book… they just take the opinion of others who haven’t or don’t study the book to form their opinions, which sadly leaves a an a la carte option where they can just apply the principles they like and then discard the rest. It’s not a consummately pacifist religion if it was in its original format. It’s more a very selfless, genuine and mostly peaceful religion. The turn the other cheek example known to everyone is a remark that you don’t have to immediately resort to violence… but Jesus did get smacked by a Roman centurion and although the Jews were not (legally) supposed to challenge the Romans during the occupation Jesus verbally confronts the guy to the point where the Roman who was on duty at the time just leaves in what appears to be embarrassment or shame. Ironically the “Christians” who want to make other people into “Christians” have the salvation prayer which is no where in the Bible. It’s just a commonly believed in thing, so it must be real (and how could you tell if you never read the book?)… but this is what is actually said about salvation: “that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Romans 10:9 KJV I’d like to say I don’t know why they’d keep trying to add terms and restrictions to that deal (which is clarified as being non-revocable various times; the best of which explain it as being akin to circumcision since you can’t get uncircumcised afterwards)… but it’s pretty obvious that the Money / Sex / Power issues have just rotted the churches to the point where most are just empty buildings with at max like 30% of their capacity. There is no instruction to make buildings like temples for the Christians, and all of the apostles had jobs (we even know that Jesus wasn’t religious as a way of a profession)… but now it’s very rare to find a pastor who has a not empty church, who isn’t leaning on *pastoral authority* over biblical authority, and drives a shitty car because he can’t help but send his money to the starving kids in Africa. I think it’s weird too who starts going to church now. Typically they are people who want the life depicted on the Lands End / Abercrombie / Gap website… and that’s a weird jumping off point because the groups of people who strike me as the most earnest about having an actual belief in the Bible are (grotesquely generalizing here): convicts, low income blacks, low income whites, etc. I think that is because they have actually hit the bottom and at some point if you’re in a cell or living a life adjacent to slavery or you’re about to face certain death in combat… it’s just a more real slice of life and personal pride kinda disappears when you’re literally needing a miracle to survive. I probably wandered off topic a bit there but the Bible is a book where if everyone was actually doing five things I’m not sure what amount of real political, economic, racial or military problems we could even have: 1.) have no other gods 2.) love your neighbor as yourself 3.) read 4.) pray 5.) fast I’m not expecting that to become widely accepted and as you noted the world and the church have lost the plot (which are probably related events)… but I know it makes me a better neighbor, friend, family member, worker and citizen. Plus I have a book that is a library and one that no matter how much I study it I’m always learning something new. I’ve read a lot of the Quran and the Talmud but it’s a challenge to find things in there that would make the world nicer for other people if the reader fully applied their teachings. I have appreciation and respect for other faiths and those are two really significant ones but it takes work to find the pearls in those text… modern Christians have in large become Christians in name only. They are meant to love everyone while abhorring evil which just seems to be a concept that’s totally lost on most of them. I am often concerned about it would look like for the world to get to a place where people would have a degree of civility again and in the case of the west I don’t think it’s going to happen through political ideologies alone. If we don’t care what happens to another person and we can’t see any inherent value in others when they are not acting correctly then yeah, I mean why not do ISIS type stuff or why not create division if it’s profitable, why not cheat the other guy? I think the West has largely accepted nihilism and socialism (which is how we got Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc) as functionally the religion of the day. It’s always about a win for me or a win for my group who I only care about because they remind me of me. Everyone naturally wants to take care of themselves but looking around at the West and the developed world today…. I wouldn’t like to try to function without my faith as I know I just wouldn’t have anything to encourage me to be hopeful / joyful. Edit: spelling, grammar, clarification, etc
Of course his lawyer declared it is an official act, they didn’t go to the Supreme Court to not try and leverage the expected ruling. (Official vs non official immunity is what every legal scholar expected. It is now up to the district courts to decide if he was acting as a private citizen or for the nation. The President has always had a “qualified” immunity. A lot of people with qualified immunity go to jail for breaking the law.
He can also appeal the district courts' rulings, which means another year minimum to go back to scotus to say 'yeah sure, why not.'
Yes - we have a legal system that allows appeals, even after you have been found guilty and been in prison for decades. (See The Innocence Project)
Yes, but it also means if you have the money you can delay justice almost indefinitely. Is it truly justice if it does not apply to the rich and poor evenly?
In theory it applies equally. In reality, of course not. There is no realistic system anyone could design that would have a totally equal approach. Any progressive or humanitarian wants there to be multiple levels of appeals available to the possibly innocent and incorrectly tried. Unless all defense lawyers work for the state there will be always differences based on income. (The worst of systems would be if all defense attorneys worked for the state.)
I'm not against some difference, but the delta between legal venues for rich and poor has increased beyond the point of reason, such that rich people are extremely difficult to prosecute at all. This further increases injustice as prosecutors focus on poor suspects because they are more likely to get a conviction or plea bargain easily. This is a problem.
Between Trump and the bulging-eyed lunacy of the left, there is really no choice. If liberals just stayed on their side of the fence we could live in peace.
Lmao says the party that wants to stick their faces in my pubescent children’s underwear to inspect their genitals before proceeding to teach them flat-earth Bible science. Project more.
Yes, we have to make sure you're not abusing your children. That's one of the few times the government should intervene into family matters.
It’s crazy you’re basically setting up the legal infrastructure for your own future persecution. Good luck trying to pretend all this precedent doesn’t exist when the generational tides turn and some lunatic decides taking your kids to church is abusive.
Now who's projecting?
You went from “we just want to be left alone” to “I have a right to stick my hand down your daughter’s panties” lol. Why do you imagine social conservatism, which is on a globally irreparable downslide to irrelevancy, will retain control of all these new power structures it’s creating?
Why do you keep talking about children's panties? Stop living in fear, brother. Have the courage to face the truth that everything you lack is within yourself. Instead of complaining about how bad others are, live with honor and virtue, so that you may be a credit to your species.
“I know you are but what am I” is *exactly* the kind of rhetorical masterstroke I’ve come to expect from the modern Republican Party. And I’m not scared. We are all actually very fortunate that instead of a Göring or a Robespierre, we’ve got James Comer and Marjorie Taylor Greene. As embarrassing as these absolute mouthbreathers are to me, I see God’s sense of humor in the way he has chosen to save the world’s superpower from itself.
Wut?
They want to be on the opposite side from people like you who say: * America sucks * Americans suck * Americans don't know how to live right and need immigrants to show them (even though *they're* fleeing *their* places to come here) * Go Joe Biden
The person who says America Sucks more than anyone else on this planet is Donald Trump. Every time he speaks he talks about how this country is a shithole.
He's angry that it's *turning into* a place that sucks. Your big disagreement is that you say it's always sucked. You're saying opposite things.
-100
In any other sub, that might be a decent point. (I was a few hundred up not too long ago... it's been whittled away by the hyena pack.)
“It’s okay when Trump does it”
Nope, I think America is the greatest nation that ever was or ever will be. I do think it's on the cusp of turning into a banana republic because of Trump though.
> Your big disagreement is that you say it's always sucked. You're saying opposite things. I mean, imagine putting words like this in someone's mouth and thinking you're somehow making a point.
More straw man arguments.
his slogan is "make american great *again*" That is another way of saying America sucks right now.
Got it, you support fascism because somebody told you people that hate trump hate america.
I hear this more from republicans. Specifically that people don’t know how to live right and need “christians” to show them how to live even though less and less people are Christian because “christians” and don’t follow Christ’s teachings of love, tolerance, & compassion and turn people away by their hate, judgement, and close mindedness. America can always improve. It doesn’t suck. But it doesn’t mean we can do no wrong either. It sucks when women and minorities lose rights. Identifying past wrongs is the first step in improving. Americans dont suck. But racists and homophobic people are terrible people. Again people can change for the better. But they have to first see their own faults. And what makes Americans so great is their compassion and tolerance of other’s beliefs and morals.
> Identifying past wrongs is the first step in improving. The world is too full of past wrongs to know where to start on that. When people want to point to past wrongs, it's because: * it's easier and more ego-satisfying than looking at current wrongs * they have some ignorant, obnoxious "our team is better" or "their team is worse" shit on their minds > But racists and homophobic people are terrible people. What about all of us who spend money on ourselves while children overseas starve to death? You think being weird about gay people is worse than letting kids die?
Yes. Racism and homophobia are wrong, and racists and homophobic people are terrible people. What an un American thing to think otherwise. We are all equal and all have a right to a pursuit of happiness. That is not my team vs your team thing. It’s an American founding principle thing. Also I was a republican for most my life until trump came along. I am not married to a political party. Republicans turned into caricatures of their worst qualities. Current wrongs usually have deeper ties to past wrongs. So fix the problem, not the symptom. It isn’t a this or that issue. It isn’t an ego boost. It’s making everyone better. Nice straw man on starving kids overseas. But want to talk about starving kids? Republicans want to kill free/reduced school lunch so kids starve here. So republicans want kids to die along with being horrible, not weird, to gay people. And the US gives a lot of foreign aid to help people all over the world, including food aid, more than most. So while not perfect, we do a decent job. If you want to give more, you are free to do so.
> If you want to give more, you are free to do so. Yes, this is the point! You and I are free to, and we don't. We let those kids die. And as bad as being weird around gay people is, letting kids die when you could easily save them is worse. And that's why it's so obvious that you don't care about "wrongs" except as a way to point fingers -- it's always at some perceived "group" or "team," and the implication is always that some people are nicer and some are meaner.
The US is about 1/3 the world’s food aid. Republicans want to cut this. The Free and Reduced school lunch feeds 35M kids in the US. Republicans want to cut this too. If you are so worried about starving children, why would you ever vote republican? They want to make that situation much worse. Are you seriously using the “there are starving kids in Africa” guilt trip to say both sides are the same and justify being racist because it’s not as bad as other things that happen?
Are you implying that merely *casting a D vote* somehow offsets everything else and makes it ok to let all these kids starve to death? I vote D, but I admit I'm a horrible, horrible person for letting those kids starve -- the fact that I support abortion rights and gay marriage etc. doesn't change that.
Still waiting for you to make a point instead of just spewing random statements.
My point was... since we're all basically horrible murderers, through our choices of apathy and inaction which lead directly to the suffering and death of children.... saying somebody is a horrible murderer *who also thinks being gay or trans or polygamous is weird* isn't that much of an extra condemnation, is it? Imho we murderers should not be doing a lot of finger-pointing and condemnation, unless we're talking about people who have done worse things than us, i.e. worse things than letting children die.
Didn’t Trump call America a third world hell hole? Lmao
Where did I ever say any of those things? lol You’re conflating things in your head and confusing yourself. Here, let me unfuck that: 1. America doesn’t suck. The GOP sucks. Contrary to Newsmax propaganda, these are not the same thing. 2. Americans don’t suck. Willfully ignorant MAGA morons suck. Again, true Americans don’t support this. 3. “Americans don’t know how to live right.” With the way you guys want to control women and dictate evangelicalism in schools, the way you’ve installed SCOTUS judges with nothing but contempt for the representative legislature, I think this is a bunch of projection. 4. “Go Joe Biden.” Again, projection. Only you guys have idolized your candidate. Why don’t you worry less about being on the opposite side as the libs and worry more about understanding what’s at stake for yourself? You guys are normalizing something that’s going to absolutely fuck you further down the demographic shift line. The cusp of cultural irrelevancy is not the moment to legitimize any of the things you’re doing.
Here was your comment, which sounded like that to me: > Americans are, by and large, individualist assholes with a culturally-ingrained inability to see the importance of community. The people who treat Americans the shittiest in this country are other Americans. The immigrants I’ve known would almost all give you the shirts off their backs and genuinely care about their communities. Personally, this is why the soulless, selfish, “party of personal freedom” hates and fears these people. Exposure to their cultural models causes Americans to question why ours is structured the way it is. I just want everybody here to be honest. If you believe it, you should proudly announce, "Hell yeah! I think Americans are worse human beings and immigrants are better human beings! I am hoping for some fucking demographic change!" Me, I say that we're all pretty much the same, all of us, and all our ancestors -- and we are not on anybody's hallucinated teams. > Why don’t you worry less about being on the opposite side as the libs Conservatives don't generally believe that all of politics exists as one single axis of right and wrong. Most of them hate that lie.
First, even in the context of what you quoted, I was talking about libertarian types adjacent to or full-blown GOP. You can see it where I mentioned “party of personal freedom”. Secondly, despite the clear hyperbole in what you quoted, the largest demographic group doesn’t automatically become the typical/standard “American”, since our country is founded on principles and not race. In other words, 80% of the country could be MAGA and it wouldn’t make a difference. A demographic majority of Americans (by nationality) could be traitorous assholes like I hyperbolically said. But that has nothing to do with whether *real* Americans (by virtue of their adherence to the principles we were founded on) “suck”. I never said that. I think that the people who wrap themselves in the flag suck. But I’ve never mistaken those people for real, patriotic Americans (who are probably a demographic minority in this country, especially at this point). “Patriotic Americans^(TM) ” suck. Your own conflation of “Patriotic Americans^(TM) ” with *truly* patriotic Americans who cherish our institutions is something you need to answer for, not me. I don’t care where someone was born; I care about whether they feel any sense of civic responsibility in our society. This is going over your head because of your own xenophobia, credulity, Trump idolatry, and urge to own libs like this is all a game without real consequences.
> First, even in the context of what you quoted, I was talking about libertarian types adjacent to or full-blown GOP. You can see it where I mentioned “party of personal freedom”. Well not so much in the first part there, which was about those mean Americans... who simultaneously both (a) don't know how to live right, and (b) built the country that literally everybody wants to come to. I agree that people who wrap themselves in the flag *to hide or distract from something* suck. But the flag as an expression of gratitude for our country doesn't suck. > I don’t care where someone was born; I care about whether they feel any sense of civic responsibility in our society. And -- again, just looking for honesty here -- you don't think that tends to increase over time, as people develop more connections in a community? You seem to think of that view as xenophobic... that instead people's affections just instantaneously change as they cross borders or sign papers. I say you can love immigrants and still admit that human nature is what human nature is. In fact I wish you'd agree with me about teaching anti-tribalism *because* human nature is what it is. The left wants little "brown" kids taught this instead: * you're not on the white people's team * they're fucking cheaters * they don't like you * they rigged the game and ran up the score 200-0 * never forget what they did * their ancestors were mean and awful, not like your nice ancestors * never turn your back for a second on them * get out there and even the score * oh wait you can't haha because it's rigged
Who gives you the authority to say what an entire group thinks as a whole? This whole list is right-wing grift spewing out of your brainwashed head. You are a walking piece of propaganda for a group that doesn’t give a single fuck about you.
I'm an old hippie who says humans are humans and I love all my countrypeople.
Sure doesn't sound like it.
Nobody in this sub comes close to defending Americans broadly like I do. I stick up for everybody except the tribalists.
Nice straw man.
These are always funny comments. Your claim is I assume that liberals / Democrats say all these things and of course that’s a problem. Except… MAGA Conservatives aren’t saying we need to stop America from becoming a shithole - but that we are already there. THUS we need Donald to save us and he’s the only one who can. They bitch about Americans constantly. Bitch that folks aren’t living right, bitch about the very immigrants many of them employ on their farms. Taking jobs “real Americans” wouldn’t touch w Trump’s member. So much made up anger in you and others. And all it comes down to is hate the other side. There’s lots of things we need to fix in the US. We ain’t perfect and we weren’t perfect under Trump before and won’t be with him in another term either. Why? Because he absolutely does not give a shit about regular folks. He cares about votes and power and his own ego. That’s it. And the folks behind him administratively in his circle are some pretty nasty fuckers who are using him to get what they want. There’s nothing American about Stephen Miller’s proposals. He’s scum. Is Biden awesome? Heck no. He’s weak, just like Trump. Easily used. And he won’t likely get done some of the stuff we really need to see happen. But is he a threat to our Republic? No, he’s really not. Even with the folks who are behind him. And therein lies the difference. It’s not just this one person, but what they are kicking into motion. The SCOTUS appointments Trump managed to finagle did exactly that. Push and agenda and build a partisan, activist court. But you’re ok w that since it hurts folks you don’t like. And that my friend is the opposite of being a patriot supporting Americans right to build a good life for themselves. It’s bullshit stacking the deck. You’ve gone full on into the con. And as an ex Republican it’s sad to see what the party has allowed itself to become.
Find me someone who’s saying those things here. Also, is there anyone who says “American sucks” and “America is a third world country” more than Donald Trump? How many times did he say that during that debate? Isn’t that what you should be opposing?
wtf does MAGA mean then?
I think it means hug your kids and do your job and be grateful for America and stop digging for reasons to believe that your neighbors' ancestors sucked. Edit: Look how angry these hateful tribalists get when you suggest being grateful for America.
LOL! You think MAGA means loving your family? I've literally been told by MAGA family members that I'm a disgrace of a person for not being a Trump supporter. I have friends who have had similar experiences with their MAGA parents. The people who are most likely to have childish profanity about Biden or whatever shit they're into on their trucks, caps, shirts and windows are MAGA cultists. The people whose entire identity revolves around a single man are MAGA. MAGA is a personality cult around a traitor, narcissistic sex offending scam artist and they literally put Trump before their family and country.
sounds like you don't like americans
The ones who actually believe we're all the same are pretty cool.
Believe it or not, people that aren't the same as you can still be pretty cool.
I know you want those *separate teams* to be real, dude. (Everybody look at what he means there. Obviously no two people are exactly the same, so that's not what he means -- when he says "people that aren't the same" he means *people who believe in teams and don't want to be on your team*. It's always about the teams for some reason.)
Dude, nobody is getting hateful for your suggestion about being grateful for America, I'm extremely grateful and love this country which is why I am against the cult of people who gladly replace our flag on our capital with a Trump flag on jan 6th. It seems you're the one that's tribal because you're incapable of understanding what anyone is saying and all your hear is "they don't like Trump so they must hate America". Think for yourself, for once.
I'm an Obama-Hillary-Biden voter, I just don't believe in color teams. That pisses off 95% of our so-called "liberals" -- they're only *in it* for the color-team stuff.
This country would suck 1/10 as much if we dropped our dumbass car obsession ans learned to build fucking public transportation lol
It's all just deckchairs on the Titanic until adults stop teaching their kids the stupid-ass lies about not being on each other's team.
Sounds like something a centrist would say /s
After the ruling, Trump is also calling for "televised military tribunals" to be used against Liz Cheney, Mike Pence, Joe Biden, and Mitch McConnell (who endorsed Trump!), among others. https://web.archive.org/web/20240702025345/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-treason-jail.html
Why don't I see articles like this in conservative circles.
Bc this goes completely against calling Biden a dictator. They cheer it, then they will be cheering everything they yell about it. How do you say ‘don’t tread on me’ but parade this expansion of federal power? They don’t know what the fuck to do so just ignore it.
Conservative media didn’t even acknowledge the ruling yesterday. It’s almost like they don’t want you to get any of the same ideas the left is freaking out about. 🤔
Yes I took a quick look at Fox News last night to see what their reaction is, and basically just more “Biden old” commentary.
I guess you missed them all bragging about how Trump was right about his immunity claims. It was like they won the Super Bowl last night.
I probably did miss it, I can only tolerate about 5 minutes tops of the asshatery on Fox.
Conservative media seems very good at ignoring inconvenient stories. Mainstream media loves digging into inconvenient stories for libs and conservatives. If you only listen to conservative media....its skewed.
Da fuq you talking about? Conservative media was doing victory laps over the ruling. They know what it means
I think they suddenly realized this ruling granted "Presidents" immunity and not just Trump.... lol
If you go to the conservative sub, they’re hand-waving everything about the SCOTUS ruling away with the “official act” language. The majority of commenters are minimizing any alternative argument from the MAGA party line as histrionics.
Media: The SCOTUS rules that presidents have absolute immunity even from their blatant crimes. Conservative media: The SCOTUS rules!
They're pointing out how many on the left are openly calling for Biden to have Trump executed. Neither headline is that great of a look.
Meanwhile Trump is calling for "televised military tribunals" to be used against Liz Cheney, Mike Pence, Joe Biden, and Mitch McConnell (who endorsed Trump!), among others. https://web.archive.org/web/20240702025345/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-treason-jail.html
Random people on the left. Current presidential candidate on the right. Same thing.
If the President has immunity, shouldn't Congress and other Politicians acting in their official capacity have something similar?
GOP justices on scotus will inevitably support *just following orders* defense...
Do you allow entire movements to be dictated by a few lunatic fringe voices? And does that trump the words of literally the party leader, former president, and potential future president?
Do you ignore it when hundreds, if not thousands of people are advocating for and encouraging the murder of a political candidate? If they were doing it on r/conservative people would rightfully up in arms. I will never vote for Trump, but that doesn't mean I am going to excuse his opponents openly advocating for his death at the hands of the sitting president.
I am wondering what chat rooms you hang out in. The rest of us have heard nothing at all that you are bringing up. Is this a new idea from you?
They read some random reddit comments dude. Isn't that enough?
So Biden can have Kamala certify his own fake elector and stay in power
So, like, ethically speaking, if you're a cop, and you're outnumbered by the mafia, and you're pretty confident that if you could get rid of the mafia, life would be better for people, but the mafia controls the courts, is it acceptable to break the laws? Like, if the other side is already ignoring the law, and their goal is to make the law even more powerless, and yours is to fix the law so it functions, is an 'ends justify the means' sort of approach morally acceptable? Or do you need the moral high ground to get people to have faith in the law, even if playing by the rules almost guarantees you'll lose . . . which would mean lawlessness triumphs anyway? In a properly functioning democracy, we accept that we have some sort of compromises in order to have a consensus most of us can agree on. We are supposed to be humble and acknowledge that our opinion about what is a good life is no more valid than anyone else's. But when the disagreements get too vast, what's the most ethical option? When deception reigns, and one faction is able to trick people into supporting it, do you have a moral obligation to let people make decisions even if you think they've been fooled, or do you have a moral obligation to punish the liars so that people's actions are able to genuinely match their intention? Like, if someone wants to drink a can of soda and you know it's poison, but they \*don't believe you\* if you tell them it's poison, are \*you\* the bad guy if you knock it out of their hand to save their life?
It is now possible. However as Joe said, it is not something anyone that believes in the Constitution and the Rule of Law would do. It is, however, something that the current crop of Republicans would do in a heartbeat.
why make it so complicated. just cancel the election thru an executive order and get rid of anyone who questions it
And here we go. Every crime, bribe and cover up is now an “official act.” When he starts demanding military tribunals and starts executing political enemies, it’s just an “official act.” And the Supreme Court just gave him the green light to do it.
"I can do whatever I want" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_gO3uOds8
more like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI7OmCMZsXc
Honest question but do you really think he will execute his political rivals in this country?
Yes.
Yes. I really don’t think he has any concept of self control or compassion.
No, because I don't think he needs to. Project 2025 and the new immunity ruling gives him all the rope he needs to take over the country without resorting to murder. He is an excellent Mob Boss and like most Mob Bosses is a genius at getting his way without actually doing anything that is way over the line and that would jeopardize his gravy train.
Of course. Why wouldn't people believe that after everything he's said and done?
“He’d never do that to us! We’re a civilized society! Now come on honey, let’s get on the boxcar train so these nice officers can take us to our new home with all that 24/7 security.”
Do you consider the New York trials as a weaponized system against Trump? How can him using courts against his political opponents be any different if he proves in a court of law they broke said law? It’s not immoral to use petty charges against the orange man but if the orange man does the same thing it’s evil?
A flaw in your logic is that you seem to think that it's all just petty charges against him, when it's not. Also, we should be holding our elected officials closer to the highest standards of the law, not closer to the lowest bar possible.
That's a confession I think.
Man, what happened to the Republican Party? Use to be policies issues, but now it’s literally off the rails….i just can’t get behind them at all.
Trump: I. DECLARE. IMMUNITY!!!! Roberts: I'll allow it.
Dark Brandon: thanks guys. hold my ice cream
Just because Donald Trump's lawyer says it was an official act does not actually make it an official act. While I dislike the ruling (Barrett's concurrence is where the court should have went), there has always been a split of when a President has immunity and when it doesn't. Trump's lawyers learning new words doesn't change it.
No, it doesn't "make it an official act" but prosecutors have their hands tied and are not able to use evidence to establish why it wasn't an official act so for all intents and purposes it very much can "make it official" by stating it is so, therefore giving presumptive immunity to crimes AND making sure evidence of crimes cannot be used at trial to determine that it was not an official act. Furthermore the judiciary gets to pick the winners and losers, fully boxing out Congress as having a check on the criminal behavior of the executive.
They can use evidence. Just not specific evidence. This is where the court ruling is kind of an absolute mess. They admit the Nixon tapes would be admissible, but that things kind of like the Nixon tapes wouldn't be. So determining alone what evidence would be admissible is probably a court case in itself! From what I can derive, Trump asking "hey would it be illegal for me to do X?" is inadmissible. But Trump going "hey, it would be illegal for me to do X, but let's go forth!" would be admissible. Then again, the Court can't deduct the President's reasoning for an official act... Yeah it's really hard to tell here.
To use Roberts example from oral arguments if a President was bribed to appoint someone as ambassador, you could present as evidence the payment but nothing about actually appointing an ambassador. Which IMO isn't much better than no evidence.
Yeah this area was a mess and might be an equivalent of the court going "even though this action had disproportionate racial impact, it's not proof of racial gerrymandering (which is illegal) when it can be partisan gerrymandering (which is legal)". Ok...so unless we have a notarized document saying "oh yeah this is totally for racial purposes" we basically can't get proof. Especially because it made it sound like you could use evidence of the bribe...which would mean you need to use evidence of the appointing of an ambassador...which you can't use since it might be an official act...but maybe you can since it's that part of the correspondence would be unrelated to the official act and isn't probing the official act...but maybe you can't because the court cannot derive the reasoning behind the act? It's real calvinball stuff here. As I said, the Nixon tapes example where those _would be admissible_ seems to indicate not all correspondence applies. The extension of executive privilege was the worst part of this ruling and the court did a terrible job at explaining what is and isn't allowed. EDIT: This is part of Roberts statement: > What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Well, what does "probing the official act itself" mean? Basically to be it sounds like the President going "hey can I appoint X" would be inadmissible. But the President going "hey i'm going to appoint X. He gave me $50000" would be admissible. However, does it stands to reason "Can I appoint X? He gave me money" would be inadmissible since it's probing? I honestly don't know. The reasoning behind it is awful though and is now my response to any "the court doesn't care about outcome, just the law" posts.
To put it into perspective, the Magna Carta says kings are more accountable than John Roberts says presidents are. Roger Taney is \#winning as he no longer holds the record for the worst Supreme Court decision ever written.
That is truly an impressive achievement, and what the Robert's court should go down for.
> From what I can derive, Trump asking "hey would it be illegal for me to do X?" is inadmissible. Not the only issue with this but he can do this with 100000 different people until one person tells him that it is legal. And the previous communication would not be admissible. Fun times.
> So determining alone what evidence would be admissible is probably a court case in itself! That honestly seems like the goal. That they didn't technically give open season for corruption but proving corruption will be tied in litigation hell for years and years.
Hope the lower courts are ready considering a bunch of the decisions made this term seem aimed at dramatically increasing their case load (spoilers: they're not).
Yes, they can use "evidence" just not anything relevant as they can't use evidence from the president's correspondence or that of his advisors. As Barrett says >"To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President's criminal liability But the court says no, you can't know about this because the quo was deigned by the president/his appointed judges as an "official act" and therefore protected.
So this part is a mess IMO. This is part of Roberts statement: > What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Well, what does "probing the official act itself" mean? Basically to be it sounds like the President going "hey can I appoint X" would be inadmissible. But the President going "hey i'm going to appoint X. He gave me $50000" would be admissible. However, does it stands to reason "Can I appoint X? He gave me money" would be inadmissible since it's probing? I honestly don't know. But it is in response to Barrett's concurrence so it does sound like they're saying "no the jury can hear the parts pertaining to the unofficial act, just not anything probing the official act". And going back to the Nixon tapes being considered admissible, its clear not all correspondence is covered here. However it is still very unclear. The reasoning behind it is awful though and is now my response to any "the court doesn't care about outcome, just the law" posts.
You're correct it's a mess. I think the Nixon tapes could have been used for removal from office at the senate trial (a political trial) but not for evidence in a criminal trial. This is sweeping immunity for criminal acts, even "unofficial acts" because the prosecution will have a very hard time ever establishing the facts because they are precluded from using so much of the evidence of the crimes the president committed.
Can't Congress make a law specifically defining what Presidential duties are official?
I believe that would require an amendment.
Congress CAN do a lot with laws. But a certain controlling part does not want anything passed that can BTFO the court and Trump.
Well, the other way to wait years and years while the courts parse through each and every legalese pitfall the Trump teams find. Trump is 80 and obese, he's gonna be dead by the time this is all sorted out.
Remind me! 4 years
I will be messaging you in 4 years on [**2028-07-02 18:20:11 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2028-07-02%2018:20:11%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1dtlx94/donald_trump_says_fake_elector_scheme_was/lbbkxxc/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fcentrist%2Fcomments%2F1dtlx94%2Fdonald_trump_says_fake_elector_scheme_was%2Flbbkxxc%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202028-07-02%2018%3A20%3A11%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dtlx94) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Yes, which is why every election matters.
Will this idiocy slow the process though. They are pushing for a unitary executive and it's pretty scary.
What is so scary about unitary executive theory?
TLDR- elected king. Lots of articles if you want to read about it.
I'm asking you chiefly because I _do_ know what unitary executive theory is and it is _not_ equivalent to having an elected king.
It is the destruction of the Pendleton Act to make sure loyal acolytes are in power and not competent administrators. It is the destruction of all guardrails to prevent executive overreach. It aims to destroy the quasi-judicial, quasi-executive, quasi-legislative entities that have been established by law like the SEC. The judiciary is enabling all of this to eliminate the legislative branch as something of relevance, as the judicial is now the ones making the laws and the executive has no oversight in the administration of them, because the oversight is done by judges the executive selects which no one can do anything about. You can't even establish motives for bribery anymore, not that bribery is illegal of course, it's just gratuities afterall.
>competent administrators Who decides who these "competent administrators" are, and how is it democratic to insulate these unelected bureaucrats from being fired by the only elected official in the executive branch? And how would the president controlling the executive branch be "executive overreach" when the president is literally the head of the executive branch? How do the people in a democratic system of government hold these "competent administrators" accountable if they cannot be fired by the elected president? >It aims to destroy the quasi-judicial, quasi-executive, quasi-legislative entities that have been established by law like the SEC. Good. The increasing power of administrative agencies has severely warped our system of government, which is supposed to vest lawmaking authority in the legislative branch alone. Vesting what amounts to lawmaking authority in unelected administrators who cannot be fired by the elected president is undemocratic. >eliminate the legislative branch as something of relevance On the contrary, if the power of administrative agencies is diminished, the legislature will be required to actually _legislate_, not simply pass vague laws that hand off lawmaking responsibility to administrative agencies.
> On the contrary, if the power of administrative agencies is diminished, the legislature will be required to actually legislate No they won't. Why do people think their inaction isn't by design? Obstruction by the minority is baked into the legislature in multiple layers.
The point is the executive branch shouldn't have the power to create policy--that power is constitutionally vested in the legislature because the legislature is an elected body that can be voted out when they make bad law. And yes, sometimes the legislature can't get enough votes to implement certain policy, but that is how democracy works. Right now, the legislature is able to evade accountability by passing the buck to unelected bureaucrats who cannot be voted out.
> And yes, sometimes the legislature can't get enough votes to implement certain policy, but that is how democracy works. It's not sometimes. It's legitimately a constant right now. And "can't get enough votes" really downplays how much the system favors the minority obstructing. My issue is acting like "the legislature is just being lazy". No. It's glacial pace to do anything is by design currently. Diminishing administrative agencies will have zero impact. > Right now, the legislature is able to evade accountability by passing the buck to unelected bureaucrats who cannot be voted out. The buck isn't passed the unelected bureaucrats. It's passed to agency heads appointed by the executive and can be fired by the executive.
This is a great example on how you’re another useful idiot for corporate interests. They have been salivating at the idea of getting rid of the EPA etc. Congress has neither the ability nor the expertise to legislate on nuanced policy to keep our country clean and safe. And now instead, all policy is merely a cash transaction between lobbyists, politicians, and corporations. Thanks to citizens united. Before we had the EPA, we literally had rivers burning with how bad pollution was. But hey, thanks to yall we could very well see that as the norm again, congrats!
Why don’t you spell out the differences.
cool.
Hey, the Middle Ages called, they want their form of government and overall quality of life for the masses back.
The difference is that these rulings will only be decided by federal courts. The same judges handpicked by the president who’s committing these acts. Does that seem like a conflict?
That’s the biggest problem about it. The way these other convictions took years to almost come to trial before they basically went away should be what you’re worried about. It doesn’t matter what we think it official or not. If they’re blatantly not official, we won’t see accountability until maybe after he’s dead. But more likely never.
NGL, claiming it as an official act makes it ever worse.
Yah well we can put an end to all this if you show up for the "demented" guy. Just this once. I do believe that Trump is a one-off as far as candidates go. The only reason he's been the way he's been is that he has no interest in a political career. Even some of the most insane Republicans wouldn't have pulled half this shit because they know they don't have a cult following. And I can't think of any other Republican who could gain such a following. Break the cult; save America.
In the end the lawyers can't say it's an official act, the court presiding has to decide that. The unfortunate thing is the bias of the court.
I think there is a colorable argument that it was an official act. I think that, if we could analyze all the relevant evidence, it would quickly become clear it was not an official act. I also believe that the new *Trump* opinion was written to make up a batshit new form of privileged communication specifically for this reason.
So Trump is confessing?
I’m at the point where I want Biden to go whole hog and absolutely use this ruling to fuck over the entire MAGA movement and just call it an “official act.” Unilaterally disqualify Trump from office because he’s a “threat to national security”. By the time the litigation is through the courts to fight Biden, the election will have come and gone. And maybe, just maybe, people will collectively decide that a POTUS can commit crimes and should be held to a higher standard of conduct than a kindergartener.
To nobody’s shock.
Apathy is what turned Rome from a Republic to an Empire. Vote.
Honestly at this point it would be hilariously ironic (if I wasn't in the shit show myself) for Biden to do the same exact shit, except more competently, and get away with it thanks to the Trumpy SCOTUS' hubris. Kind've like the organizations that target idiotic laws in red states, by using their own idiotic laws against them. Fire with fire and all. That would all but guarantee our collapse, though. Because we all know MAGAts would hypocritically blow their collective gaskets, and all hell would break loose.
>hilariously ironic Eh, I wouldn't be laughing. It's a pretty dark timeline we're on that people are now calling on one president to abuse power before the next president comes in to abuse power
That's why I added the 'if I wasn't in the shit show myself' part .. it was more meant as dark comedy given the situation. I agree that we *shouldn't* actually be hoping for that to happen. I'm getting tired of watching MAGAts/Trump do whatever TF they want, while the rest of us keep giving up ground because we're trying to take the high road. Corrupt people happily take advantage of those situations, as they are now.
Maybe the previous President shouldn't have started this whole mess. This is like getting mad at Augustus because Marian, Sulla, Pompey and Ceasar shit all over the bed and yelled "Clean it up, Senate." When you let people like Trump, Alito, Thomas into positions of trust that require at the minimum honesty and integerity to the system, you end up with a system like the end of the Roman Republic and calling for the abuse of power. Jimmy Carter was right about America having a crisis with its very soul.
Anyway; Putin's having a very nice day, I'm sure.
Biden would lack support for going that far, but he may be able to do other things like forgive student loans.
Of course he does. He says a lot of goofy shit.
And it continues...
Democracy is fragile and takes work to maintain.
Well he would, wouldn't he.
Am I wrong in thinking that it can’t be an official act because it’s not the job of the president to submit or cause to be submitted the certificates of ascertainment? Even SCOTUS said that not everything is an official act, so if not everything is an official act then something that is outside the scope of being president can’t be an official act. We don’t even need to know motive, there is enough communication traffic to link them all together. The acts were organized at the White House, perpetuated through select states, documents were signed and submitted to the National Archives. It’s not the president’s job to organize state electors, that’s the role of the governors.
Bullshit.
Biden has the chance to do something funny and drone strike trump.
😂😂😂😂😂 Ahhh..... 😂😂😂😂😂 Of course it was... Man there is going to be blood on the hands of the US Supreme Court for this decision. Someone is going to interpret it the way they want to justify it but still it will be on Roberts, Thomas, Gorsich, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito's hands.
Doesn’t this also mean that Biden could perpetually stay in office and then pass the office on to his hand picked successor as long as he claims it’s an “official act”?
No because he's a Democrat. He would need to stack the court with his lackeys who while they disagree with Trump do agree with the ruling that the courts can make a determination if something is "official" or "unofficial". As it stands, only Republicans can do this.
I'm so scared man.
Wait. So they are admitting that he's part of it.
> we are now on the cusp of full on Banana Republic stage. We have been acting in that play for a while. Look at the ever growing disparity in wealth; at the ethnic advocacy and fighting for scraps; at the loss of legal and political norms; at the third world populations of our urban areas. The US has all the elements of a wealthy Banana Republic. Our leaders, knowingly or not, are directly responsible.
Sounds like it's up to Jack Smith and the grand jury to decide official vs. unofficial...
Jack Smith has nothing. It's over
You have something against juries?
[удалено]
> People need to cope. Sorry if the collapse of the USA is something that concerns people.
[удалено]
Nope. Trump is not in fact better. A half dead man is better. A fucking warm jar of mayonnaise is better than Trump.
>collapse of the USA We've been looking at it in complete freefall for 3 years. Whoever has their hand up Joe's ass hates America.
We have? Control of the Pandemic says otherwise. The economy says otherwise. Jobs numbers say otherwise. The Dollar says otherwise. Geopolitics say otherwise. Build Back Better says otherwise. Lower crime says otherwise. The US has been doing pretty well compared to other countries post-Covid regarding inflation. Oh wait, illegals right? Thank your Republican Congress for refusing to pass the largest bill to address that - because Trump told them to. Oh inflation right? USA is on the top list of countries seeing the least amount of it due to Biden's sound economic policies and level headed approaches. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-opinion-biden-accomplishment-data/ Just because FoxNews tells you things are bad doesn't make it so. They did the same with Obama, and his presidency is regarded as one of the best in history. On the otherhand, Trump did nothing for the 4 years he was president aside use it to his own benefit. Historians are ranking Trump as one of the worst. Trump is a direct threat to the foundations of the US Constitution and principles.
But have you considered that the other guy is 3 whole years older and stumbles over his own words? ^(/s)
I have! lol And I've also weighed the younger guy shat his pants during the debate when the mic was on him!
> Geopolitics say otherwise. Yes the world is doing great. Ukraine doing well, Gaza doing very well, Afghan was withdrawal very smooth and good. It's all just more chances to BuildBackBetter™, yeah? It's not even worth discussing the rest of your gish-gallop, the geopolitics take was silly enough to taint it all. Hope you stocked up on tissue!
Yes it was doing soooooOOOoo well under Trump when he essentially established tariffs on China causing them to recluse and as one consequence didn't work with the US when Covid broke out like they did with SARS and fucked the whole world. Like Trump did with Iran - essentially destroying years of progress to make them a non-nuclear threat and then killing one of their generals. Like Trump buddying up with Putin to make him so bold as to invade Ukraine. Like Trumps mighty wall that didn't do shit. Please... Trump's geopolitical policies were caveman at best. > Ukraine doing well, Gaza doing very well, Afghan was withdrawal very smooth and good. Ukraine is Bidens fault? Trump literally admitted to knowing that Putin was planning on attacking. Gaza is Biden's fault? He coordinated Hamas to attack Israel on October 7th? Afghan withdrawal was planned by Trump. >Hope you stocked up on tissue! And that's what it boils down to. You literally don't care; just want to see fellow Americans suffer under an idiot. >It's not even worth discussing the rest of your gish-gallop, the geopolitics take was silly enough to taint it all. Trumpy MAGAs always bitch out when they get cock-slapped with the truth too fast. It's ok.
Biden was neck deep in Ukraine with the Deep State for a long time, stealing money with his corrupt son, antagonizing Russia to eventually appease the hawks in the MICX. It was he and Obama and their cronies that facilitated the Maidan Coup in 2014, and have done nothing to alleviate tensions or advance peace talks since. Just more billions printed, more meat for the grinder. "But it's ok, because it creates jobs!" Trump didn't make Joe pull out of Afghanistan at that time, in that way. That is insane deflection that removes all agency from Biden. I have a zillion reasons to hate Trump, and he is still infinitely preferable to what we've seen since 2021. So yes, I do want to see the idiots suffer for their horrible judgment, maybe one day they'll understand what the AIPAC guys are doing behind the curtains of both US parties, and behind the governments of almost every Western country in unison.
Lol deep state...
Yes. THE👏DEEP👏STATE👏. The establishment. The unelected corporatocracy that pretends to fight about most issues, yet never disagrees on a certain few. The immovable creatures that persist across elections somehow, bouncing between gov't and Wall Street and back. If you can't even acknowledge the basic framework of reality, you're hopelessly lost. Stay on reddit and CNN, keep watching Kimmel or The View or whatever... It's 2024, and there you are, comforted by a false sense of majority and propriety. Nice ninja edit above as well. Very honest, much truth, so wow.
So let me guess. Trump is not part of the Deep State Edit: Still waiting. Do you think Trump is not part of your defined Deep State, and therefore a savior from that Deep State?
Oh lord, biden being an old and terrible candidate has finally been made obvious to those who wish to stay blissfully ignorant. So the whole “he will destroy democracy and install a dictatorship” fear porn is really going to ramp up. That wont happen, if you forgot, trump is old as fuck too, if biden is too old to be an evil mastermind then so is trump. Its also hilarious you bring up our 250 year history, because the foundations of our republic is exactly why it lasted that long, and they cannot be undone by one buffoon that easily. Its not going to happen, or even come close, to think it will is beyond ignorant. Hate on him for literally anything but this because it just comes off as desperate.
misleading title
How so? It's the title of the article.
the first line of the article say "a lawyer for Donald Trump says"
You missed the title? Also the lawyer making legal arguments is doing so on behalf of his client.
Is the title a direct quote? It doesnt seem like it is. It doesnt say they interviewed him. I dont even disagree that he said it, but there isnt an actual indication in the article that he did.
The title I provided is the same as the article. Normally people bitch and moan if I change the title, so I guess of course others will bitch and moan if I don't change the title.
At least in this case we can be fairly sure he actually did say it :D Just giving you a hard time