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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
There is no good outcome even in the cards. If he goes to jail it will feed into his base's persecution complex. If he gets off easy, nothing's more insufferable than an unpunished malignant narcissist. If he gets a huge fine, he will not pay.
let them feed their persecution complex. we can lock them up, too if they get unruly.
If he goes to jail it will feed into his base’s persecution complex.
If he doesn't go to jail then they will probably say that he isn't really a convicted felon because he wasn't a convict at any point because it doesn't matter what happens, they will twist it into a persecution complex somehow.
I really wish people would stop worrying about actually holding shitheads accountable.
I'm not "worried" so much as not excited about dealing with it.
they will probably say that he isn't really a convicted felon because he wasn't a convict
That doesn't make sense. A convict is just that: someone convicted of a crime, it doesn't depend on jail-time served. Donald Trump is guilty of dozens of felonies for election finance violations related to illegal cover-up payments. So yeah, I totally expect them to say that...
There is no good outcome even in the cards
Gotta think long term.
The "good outcome" is no jail sentence until after the election (or just probation). trump loses the election, and then is found guilty on any other case and then goes to jail for that because he's no longer a "first time offender".
The worst outcome is sentenced to prison before the election, but reporting is delayed till after the election and then Trump wins.
If that happens, he's never giving up power and he won't wait till the next election to pull some more stupid shit.
It's hilarious that you guys think he's more likely to win if he's sentenced to jail.
This makes no sense at all.
You seem to think he'll gain votes from this guilty verdict when everything points to the opposite.
You guys give magats so much more credit than they deserve these people are cowards to their cores.
I think a bunch of ignorant folk view this conman as their hero and the prosecution of law he broke a political witch hunt by the left.
Which the right only says because they are itching to start their political hunt.
I think there’s a sharply increased chance of political violence and domestic terrorism if he gets imprisoned before the election.
Gotta think long term.
The problem with this approach is it literally is the weaponization of justice that the right loves to screech about. Timing Trump's trials or sentences to hurt him the most politically is twisting justice to our own ends, even if done in a theoretically altruistic manner. True it might lead to the best outcome for the country, but is that the risk we want to take- that if Trump does win, he won't see any punishment for his crimes at all?
On the other hand, I recognize this is the exact moral quandary that the right loves pushing non-conservatives into, and while we're arguing amongst ourselves about the best way to unfuck this pretzel they're busy burning it all to the ground. So I wouldn't say you're wrong necessarily, just that it's an uncomfortable path to tread.
Timing Trump’s trials or sentences to hurt him the most politically is twisting justice to our own ends, even if done in a theoretically altruistic manner
I was saying that's the most likely he lands in prison where he belongs....
Not that multiple states should collude to stall cases...
I mean, the states have been trying to get these moving for years. How would anyone rational accuse Dems of "timing" things?
If you're worrying about what republicans will say, don't. It doesn't matter what happens, republicans are going to say some stupid shit. Stop worrying about what they'll complain about, if they don't have anything to complain about, they'll invent something. And their voters can't tell the difference anyways.
I'm just tired of predicting what will happen long term, or the most likely path to a possible result, and having people act like I want that result or am trying to make it happen.
It's the same logic that got medicine women burnt as witches centuries ago. Move past it.
Whether the person making a prediction wants it to come true or not doesn't matter. What's important is how likely the prediction comes true
If he gets a huge fine, he will not pay.
Correction, *his supporters will pay.
One wild card to this is the pre-sentencing probation hearing. It happened on Monday, and the only thing we've heard about it was that Trump was "polite, respectful, and accomodating". Well, he also told the officers on the other end of the call to "be safe", whatever that means.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/10/politics/trump-probation-office-interview-hush-money/index.html
Trump got to do the interview remotely, and also got to have his lawyer present, both of which are accommodations that the standard NYC felon doesn't get. (The probation office also had multiple people on the call, too, which is also unusual). His lawyers probably explained to him that if he pissed these people off, they would recommend prison time and the judge would give that a lot of weight. So for once in his life, he had to be respectful to someone who he didn't know and is worth a fraction of what Trump thinks he's worth. Bonus points if they found an immigrant from one of the countries he doesn't like to ask him all those embarrassing questions.
Come to think if it, why would he tell the probation officers to "be safe"? Is he anticipating they might be in danger, for some strange reason?
Come to think if it, why would he tell the probation officers to "be safe"? Is he anticipating they might be in danger, for some strange reason?
If this wasn't trump, I'd say this is one of those things you say to people. Drive safe, safe flight, be safe out there, etc.
Right, you might say that if you knew the person, and knew they traveled to get to you. But would you exchange those pleasantries with someone you just met, over a court-mandated video call?
Trump is excellent at this, saying innocuous things that are really signaling phrases to his people that the rest of us aren't in on. We didn't really know what "Stand back and stand by" meant at the time, but we do now.
You are generally right, but "Stand back and stand by" was pretty fucking blatant, and nobody who wasn't searching for a reason it wasn't an issue 'misunderstood' the message.
They run articles like these monthly at this point an I think it's just the media doing two things. One they're rage baiting for clicks just by using Trumps name. And Two, they're pretending America is a place where the guilty go to jail even when they're rich.
I wish the press wasn't so afraid to write Election Interference in their headline. That is what that case was about, that is what made it a felony. Calling it the "Hush Money" trial is trying to "both sides" his coverage.
Except his base has bought the line of thinking that a candidate is "allowed" to interfere in their own election, because he's trying to win. They are OK with him doing anything, including committing crimes, as long as he wins.
The important part is the fraud. He is a liar, who illegally tried to hide his illegal hush money payments in an attempt to illegally interfere with the election process.
Agreed with what you are saying, but my point was that the media as a whole has to stop writing headlines/articles like his base is going to:
- read them
- not call it "fake news" anyways
The media's constant crusade to "both sides" every story is a disservice to the facts, and down plays and white washes the facts for everyone. Calling it just a "hush money" trial is a way to downplay the fact that it was actually Trump's way to hide a damaging story when he was running for office. And the crime was the way he hid the payment so that it wouldn't look like it was being done on behalf of his campaign, while breaking Federal tax laws making Cohen's reimbursement look like income. It was also a crime allowing the National Enquirer to pay to catch-and-kill stories for the campaign as illegal campaign contributions (as they were above legal contribution limits, and were unreported).
So yes it was fraud, and it was fraud against the American people, in the form of voter manipulation, and tax evasion.
My Magic 8 Ball says : Doubtful
Mine says definitely
Also, yes. It's a hypothetical, not based on fact; therefore, any answer is fine, and can also be dismissed without facts. It is a fun game where the news is now speculation instead of reporting on what happened in the past. It's almost like we are wasting our time.
If the rule applied to outcomes, people would simply write headlines that negate any they so choose.
Justice Merchan told Donald Trump to his face in his contempt hearing:
"you're a former president and a current candidate, I really don't want put you in jail"
He's not going to sentence him to a day behind bars and anyone who thinks he will is delusional, Justice Merchan already stated his intent and it's in the public record.
Intent isn't the same as what will happen, the law does prescribe what he must do, and if that violates his intent, so be it.
But it does mean he'll presumably be on the lenient side of what he's allowed to do, which means it's very unlikely Trump's going to jail as a result of this conviction. Unless he ends up with a negative recommendation from the probation officer, which seems unlikely from what has been said publicly. But I wouldn't say "absolutely not" yet.
Narrator: He won't.
He has too much money to go to prison in my opinion.
That's not a thing.
I mean, have you seen the US justice system? It definitely appears to be a thing.
Imposing a harsh punishment in this situation, even if warranted, would not be seen as unbiased. The fallout would be intense. I'd be most concerned about the perception of those folks who don't really pay attention to politics. Will they refuse to vote for someone who's been to jail on a felony, or will it offend their sense of fair play and make them vote for "the underdog"? The sentence, whatever it is, has to be a 4D-chess move by the judge.
I really don't think it'll be jail time, but I'd love for it to be and more importantly I'd love for the election to bear out that choice.
No.
Guarantee hunter's sentence will be based.on the outcome of the orange turds. It's simple extortion at this point.
'Would be a real shame if your son got 25 years, joe. Just saying. Judge's prerogative and all that, y'know?'