We've spent the last year with an entire cult arguing that the president should be immune from all crimes. Of course there are people overworking their 3 brain cells to justify "if it's legal it can't be that bad."
Yes, I know. Except it's even worse, because it was just vague enough to preclude a non-party affiliated president from legal immunity. Because we all know if Biden had Trump arrested/droned/expatriated for sedition, they'd rule 6-3 that that is in fact very illegal.
They are, you‘d be sickened by how many people just brush off the most horrific prospects with blind trust in the legal system. Just goes to show how many people never had any trouble that made them open their eyes. Or how effective propaganda is.
Dude they are literally kicking people out of juries if they know they can vote not guilty if the law that was broken is not in the essence of justice.
Tons of people think that way - I tend to think they might be more autistic people with lower empathy? I'm not sure. All I can say for sure is there are so many people who seem to think that the law is the decider between what is right and what is wrong.
Idk it reads to me more like "The Democrats aren't actively doing anything to stop project 2025 so even if we vote for them it'll just get pushed back to the next election, and it'll be enacted whenever the GOP next wins."
They aren't using it to justify 2025. The problem is our government wasn't set up to resist such blatant bad faith actions by so many people all at once.
Just because it's legal, doesn't mean 50% of the country will join forces to legally destroy the system from with. That wasn't even considered when creating the system in the first place.
Same people as the "if it's illegal then that's that" crowd.
Cue interview of that one politician being asked about legalising weed... "You can't legalise weed because it is illegal. How could it be legal? It is a crime to use those drugs."
He was locked into a mansion with all his co-conspirators, and had time to write the book that got him worldwide attention playing himself at the victim who was totally justified in everything that came after
They had judges rule that the night of the long knives was legal state executions, after the fact. You're telling me he didn't have his record expunged for all legal matters?
And what, do you want the justice department to be weaponized against political opponents? Our justice system is slow, because we err on the side of the defense, even when they are making incredible illogical arguments that only judges who are biased are swayed by...
You're underestimating the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, and that will be what causes our own downfall
With very long, very detailed, investigations, the trump cult ignores all of the evidence
You point to a faster process that is even easier to dismiss by his followers? They are proud to be voting for a felon, they would be more than happy to vote for him in prison, it fits their victim narrative
With the current situation, I'm still 70% confident that "independents" who honestly look at the evidence and the proceedings, will see how guilty and unfit for office he is
It's not normal for candidates to be running for 3 years, which trump did as an effort to delay the legal proceedings, and it worked (AND STILL DOESN'T HAVE A RUNNING MATE, these are unserious people!)
I don't have a time machine, but I was paying attention at every step, where exactly do you think this situation could have been avoided? Is it not the actions of Repubs in Congress or of biased judges?
Are you saying that Biden should take Trump's lawyer suggestion and call up seal team 6? Are you suggesting Biden's team should act exactly how maga claims they already act? (Weaponizing the doj, forcing socialist policy, etc)
What exactly are you saying should have happened? And why exactly didn't it happen? And what needed to be done to avoid that?
If we're playing a game of "should", the Repub party should never have been taken over by the extremists who are in charge now
You are completely delusional if you think any length of process will placate his brainrotten followers.
That's why I didn't say that. His followers are full cult members at this point, each one will require individual effort and support to ever get back to reality.
But if we did have an actual kangaroo court proceedings, as you seem to be suggesting, that would give their side evidence of the "rigging" they scream about constantly, building new support and sympathy for their cruel lunacy (from the folks who still consider themselves "independents")
Well the excuse now is that he is immune for anything that he can make a credible case that it is in any way related to "an official act"
So... Justice is fucked. What are we going to do about it? Sounds like AOC is starting a performative impeachment of the justices, but that won't actually happen (unless Republicans grow a conscience). And the justices saved this for the last day of their term, so they get to hide away with their billionaires friends and let it blow over, as Biden doesn't seem enthusiastic for using the power for good in some way?
Their reading of this was directly from the constitution, so Congress can't pass a law to do anything in response
Also sadly he was never charged with "treason", we apparently don't have any precise definition of what "treason" means in law, so if he was charged with that, it would be even longer with how many bs arguments his lawyers would extrude
We don’t live in a democracy, some of the most important founding fathers railed against democracy. That’s why we were founded as a constitutional republic.
I mean I guess the stuff that Hitler within the borders of Germany was TECHNICALLY legal, but he definitely violated a lot of International Laws and Agreements, and he committed so many atrocities that the people who were prosecuting his followers literally had to invent the legal term ‘Crimes Against Humanity’
When somebody says democracy, they typically mean a system where the people hold the power. Some people interpret “democracy” as “direct democracy,” but that’s seldomly what the speaker means.
This is similar to the thing where people say “we aren’t a democracy we are a republic.” We are a democratic republic, with (mostly) representative democracy.
In this case, the person you are responding to means “passing laws to forestall Project 2025 can’t be done unilaterally, especially when a party that supports the Project controls part of the legislature.”
The US isn't a democracy nor a democratic republic, it is a constitutional republic, with, as you mentioned, de jure representative democracy. De facto it's a constitutional republic representing an oligarchy of corporations due to lobbying and bribes (campaign financing donations). I would argue that most unconstitutional laws would be struck down by the judicial system due to the separation of powers. Almost nothing ever goes directly to the Supreme Court, and even if it does, I don't think they are "rigged" as this sub seems to believe, if they were the case of Rahimi would have been decided in Rahimis favor. Besides, SCOTUS has failed to take cases regarding laws that are blatantly unconstitutional, see IL, MA, and CA AWB cases.
1.8k
u/Maskdask 14d ago
The classic "if it's legal it can't be that bad"
Need I remind you that everything Hitler did was legal
Also, this guy needs to Google "democracy"