you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 145 points 2 years ago (30 children)
  • [–] 64 points 2 years ago (25 children)

    I hope history will be harsh towards her.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [+] 88 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    If a reckoning came her way, would it be a supreme Court thing right away? I do worry she'll skate if it is ... but I half worry J. Alito or J. Thomas feel they could simply whack a progressive counterpart and then have no court in which to defend themselves ... and thus skate as well to open up space for her.

    Nightmare fuel and nothing more, of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Considering that right now fascists are gaining power everywhere in the "western world", it doesn't seem likely. Well, not until decades and probably a bloody war or two later, at any rate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Fascist regimes don't last long because they all eventually turn their violence inward. They breed the sort of mistrust and lack of questioning that don't make them effective societies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (10 children)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    You are aware that there are more types of authoritarian governments than just "fascism," right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Fascist regimes

    ^ Right here is where they specified that they weren’t talking about all authoritarian societies but a subset.
    If you want to argue that your list is all fascist countries then do that, but they did not move any goalposts by correcting you after giving what you labeled authoritarian countries instead of fascist ones specifically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The fact that me pointing out why your accusing someone else of moving the goalpost isn’t true and a mistake on your part is met by you immediately trying to make me disprove a claim you haven’t even made explicitly yet, makes me think this will go nowhere regardless of anything I might say.
    Will you acknowledge your mistake and move forward? If so I’m open to discussing it further, but if you continue to avoid the points made as if to never acknowledge when you are wrong then I’m not going to bother.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Real smart of you to change what we're talking about in the reply. That's a classic move to make yourself seem like you made a point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Would Franco's Spain and Pinoche's Argentina somewhat contradict that assertion? They both lasted a good long time before there was a slow transition away from their regimes from what I remember.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And she'll be a footnote, after she's spent her life ensconced in power and being showered with gifts for serving the cause. She'll have a much nicer life than people who had integrity and cared about their fellow man, but we'll be comforted that someday she'll get her judgement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why wait? She'll live a long life. There's plenty of time to hold her accountable for aiding and abetting Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • She probably would not have denied it had the prosecutors had a 3-7 minute conversation with Trump's defense and had determined they couldn't have come to an agreement. Prosecutorial arrogance allowed them to just ignore procedure and they figured they could get away with it.

    Also, if the prosecutors have such good evidence, maybe instead of worrying so much about what Trump is speechifying on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, they could just prosecute him? Are they really afraid that a jury is so stupid that they are going to be persuaded by Trump ranting tweets or Xes or whatever they are called now on that enshitified platform? Either they have weak evidence or this is just a power play to try to control Trump's ability to say what he wants (and ignore the court rules) and they thought they could get away with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    This is the equivalent of thoughts and prayers. Get out and organize

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Not much I can do on my end, considering I don't live in the US. I'll keep watching the dumpster fire from above.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    if the court rules are that both sides are supposed to talk to determine what is reasonable to discuss and not discuss, and the prosecutor just totally ignored that because "who cares" and Trump is clearly out of line, then the prosecutor still ignored the court rules. good for that judge for asserting that prosecutors can't just do whatever they want. i thought her words were actually funny and clever. she's pointing out that the rules specify it's really supposed to be a meaningful attempt, not just faking it or ignoring it or trivially trying to say they tried. A gag order is a big limit to free speech, I wish they were never even allowed, but she's at least being sensible with this and rejecting it on a limited basis based on procedural reasons

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That may fly if Trump already didn't have a history of skirting or outright defying gag orders already. This lady needs to be removed immediately on nat sec grounds. This is fucking absurd.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Even if you don't like Trump, procedural fairness is important. You aren't supposed to just ignore procedure when it comes to a defendant being criminally prosecuted. There has been a trend of more and more procedural fairness being ignored because prosecutors know they can get away with it and it will be meaningless on appeal. The judge had to rule this way and if she hadn't she would have been a horrible judge. What is sad is that it actually had to be appealed to get to the level of normal procedural fairness. Even very awful people are supposed to get fair procedure in the US. The time procedure and fairness matter most is when someone is being deprived of liberty, that's when you want the rules to be fair, not broken. What would have been a better ruling? If she said "Eh, it's fine, the prosecutors can do whatever and it won't matter on appeal anyway because of the harmless error rule." Gag orders should also be illegal. The First Amendment was not supposed to be some weak idea that occasionally let's people speak their views. It's supposed to protect people like Trump who many people think have detestable speech.

    Also, I hate Trump's views on Trans people and his treatment towards those who are different or he perceives as different. I have never voted for Trump. Give this judge a break, that was a good ruling.

  • source
  • parent