this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
401 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4906 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 109 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We call that a robust democracy.

[–] [email protected] 176 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Can’t Biden just kill him? He has Presidential immunity. The Supreme Court doesn’t give a fig and Biden can do whatever he wants since they take 4+ years to eventually kick the can and further delay their decisions. By that time, Biden may well be 106 years old.

Also, Trump has stated the Vice President has the power to certify the election results or not. So now Kamala can just usher Biden into a second term, “if she has the courage”.

Like Mike Pompeo said, “There will be a very smooth transition to a second Biden Presidency…”

[–] [email protected] 82 points 7 months ago (2 children)

My fuck, if only the Democrats had the balls to use the Republican's own tactics against them

"Oh so since a president is, according to you, immune to all laws even after no longer being president, then Biden can just order a hit on Trump and all of you? Because as long as Trump isn't arrested and left unable to run, that seems to be what you are saying. You have til the end of May :)"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

That's a big mistake. Dekocrats don't lack balls to do what the republicans do, the just have a little bit of morals that the republicans completely lack.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Instead of threatening to kill Trump, should the SCOTUS rule in favor of immunity, Biden should threaten to kill SCOTUS. Then they’ll sit up and pay attention.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago

He'd be able to jail governors until they agree to amend the constitution to make the president subject to laws henceforth.

What a fucking joke.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago

Throw trump in Guantánamo. If anyone in Congress says anything against it or tries to impeach, send them as well. When the SC even decides to hear a case against Biden, throw them in Guantánamo as well. And then, hopefully bring back some sane laws. SC has already decided they don't really care what The Constitution says.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Like Mike Pompeo said, “There will be a very smooth transition to a second Biden Presidency…”

I forgot about this horseshit

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Honestly, if the Tribunal of Six decides that Trump has total, unequivocal, blanket immunity at any point before Jan 6, 2025, Biden should just sic Seal Team Six on him. It would be 100% legal.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

They won't, because that's insane. What they've done is make sure to the Supreme Court case will keep other federal trials on hold, and thus Trump won't have a guilty verdict before election day. Trump can keep running and perhaps win, and at the same time the obvious and sane answer to the case will still come down.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's why they're delaying all his cases. If they rule in favor of Trump, Biden will have the same immunity. If they rule against Trump, he probably loses the election. The only way for the fascists to win is to delay until past the election, preferably past the point when Trump is sworn in. And then on his 2nd day in office release their ruling that the President has complete and total power to do whatever he wants whenever he wants. All hail King Trump.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I really hope it doesn’t turn out that way, and at this point I think it probably won’t get to that point. But if it does, I genuinely don’t think there’s a way out of the situation without a civil war, and I say that because I am fully aware of how much of a psychotic toddler Trump is.

He used the government as a punitive instrument pretty much the entire time he was in office. Anything genuinely good and humane that occurred was done by accident. I will not be surprised if he tries to nationalize the state ANGs in blue states and straight up depose the state governments, and THAT would absolutely trigger serious, violent, and organized backlash.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I will not be surprised if he tries to nationalize the state ANGs in blue states and straight up depose the state governments

Agree.

and THAT would absolutely trigger serious, violent, and organized backlash

Disagree. Democrats are toothless. I bed Biden's "robust" response to another attempted coup will be a strongly-worded letter. He shouldn't be talking with lawyers, he should be talking with generals.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Immunity doesn't make something legal, it just protects you from prosecution unless it's revoked

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The “immunity” that Trump wants the USSC to give him is effectively intrinsic, monarch-caliber “I am the law” immunity - effectively, he is working to get the court to declare that he is somehow just above the law in a categorical sense. We are not talking about immunity in the context of its understood and agreed upon legal definition in the United States.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Oh lol, I mean I think his legal team is just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks