politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
"Prosecutor Christopher Conroy has just said that prosecutors are not seeking jail time for Trump’s violations of the gag order.
We are not yet seeking incarceratory penalty. Defendant seems to be angling for that … We are asking the court to impose the maximum $1,000 fine for each violation."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/apr/23/trump-hush-money-trial-new-york-updates
"Defendant seems to be angling for that" ... so? Why are they taking into consideration what Trump wants? Just treat him like you would a black guy in Texas caught with a little weed.
Because if Trump can get them to act emotionally his lawyers can argue that this is a witch hunt.
They have to go through this painstaking process. If the don't they embolden his base and suddenly those definitely-not-calls-to-action are much more threatening.
I disagree. The reason that we have gag orders is to protect the integrity of the process. The integrity of the process doesn’t have anything to do with Donald Trump, it has to do with literally everyone else. And we learned a long time ago that it’s not possible to have a fair trial when a loud defendant can manipulate the press, attack jurors and inflame the public. It’s time for him to shut up and spend some time in jail.
So what happens then? Do you think Trump supporters are just going to allow that to happen?
I understand why you say what you're saying, you need to think about the people you're actually dealing with.
I don't know what happens then. You seem to? I know what happens to societies who erect separate rules for emperors, kings, pharoahs and I guess presidents than for the rest of us serfs.
If the few folks who would come to Trump’s aid after witnessing the failure of the insurrection and subsequent imprisonment of so many of the participants want to storm a jail belonging to one of the most violent police forces in the U.S., well… it’ll be interesting.
The NYPD doesn’t really half-ass beating the shit out of people.
Crazy, one one hand they're a burgeoning nazi force and on the other they're bumbling idiots behind their great orange god.
Which is it? Are they a credible threat or not?
I’m not sure if you’re being honest or argumentative, but my take is that it’s both.
The folks to be concerned about aren’t really the die hard Trump supporters, but more the ones smart enough to see his popularity as a means to an end. These folks have other goals, and see Trump and his supporters as useful idiots.
I believe there is a small subset of his supporters who would do dangerous things to support Trump. But I also believe these people lack organization (or organize under the previously mentioned dangerous people - so if they get an idea that their actions are for other aims, they may bail), or are incapable (physically, capability, or motivationally) of performing the acts they are willing to do.
And I believe the vast majority of his supporters are people who, despite their rabid support of Trump, draw the line at physical actions.
Taken together - the smart ones know they can’t take on a jail, and don’t want to risk exposure for what is on the cusp of becoming a fad.
The violent ones might try something, but without clear leadership and like, a plan, they’ll just do some stupid protest. Maybe some loudmouth will shove a cop - that’s the ‘interesting’ scenario I’m referring to.
And the rest will watch it play out on a Sinclair-owned TV station.
Lol what are they going to do? Whine on truth social?
It seems like you're arguing that Trump should get special treatment.
No, what I'm saying is that when they finally throw Trump in jail the logic needs to be so ironclad that idiots can't refute it.
Keep in mind, these are idiots with guns that will absolutely use them on you because of what you believe/how you live. Hell, they're just looking for a reason to use them on people period!
I'm not advocating for Trump being given special treatment, I'm saying you have to think about the immediate backlash surrounding the "throw Trump in jail for contempt" move. It's not going to be you that suffers, at least not immediately, it will be the people that his base perceives as responsible. Do you think it makes sense for them to rush judgements when they have actual guns pointed at them?
Keep in mind, I am absolutely unaware of whether or not this is their reasoning. I cannot tell you what the prosecution, or anyone that finds themselves opposite Trump for that matter, is thinking. I'm only taking events as I see them and coming to, what I think is, a logical conclusion.
Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm all ears, or eyes. Whatever, you don't know me. I could be blind.
Have you met these people? Logic, facts, reality ... they don't mean much to them. Trump could be convicted and jailed in a case where everything is done by the book, it simply doesn't matter to these people. They live in a bubble of their own making and only let in things that support their world view.
I don't think anybody is calling for a rush to judgement.
How can I prove an opinion wrong?
Now why would they shoot Trump five times in the back while he lays on the ground unarmed?