this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
341 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22786 readers
3850 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 102 points 10 months ago

"He wants to know before he sentences someone what the typical sentence is," Aidala said, and would consider other factors, like Trump's age and lack of a criminal record, while also taking into account the lack of injury caused by the crime

Lack of injury?? He literally committed crimes to get elected, which he did. 340 million Americans had to suffer this dipshit being president for 4 years. A million of us died during his piss-poor response to COVID!

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 40 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Once again, Betteridge's law applies perfectly.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

They had to fucking ask didn't they!?!

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 37 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I can not WAIT for CONVICTED FELON DONALD J TRUMP who was found GUILTY and ALL 34 COUNTS to pay a $5000 fine and pinky swear not to do this again! THAT will teach him!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] warm@kbin.earth 29 points 10 months ago (8 children)

Why can a felon run for president?

[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election... which is unfortunate because it's a good one.

Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson's Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If felons can't vote (they should be able to), they sure as shit shouldn't be able to run for office.

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 18 points 10 months ago (7 children)

If it makes you feel better, he can't vote for himself.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

This does make me feel better. Thank you.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Wait, why not?

Edit: Oh, right. This isn't the Honorable Judge Cannon. These are state felonies presided by a judge who understands the government functions

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] nova@lemm.ee 14 points 10 months ago

Because if you're able to invalidate your opponent's candidacy for president, it makes a fascist takeover that much easier. Just change the laws so that any political opposition can't run against you, and bam your party has indefinite control.

[–] Peer@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because when voters feel the punishment was unjust, they can choose to ignore it. For example: Nelson Mandela.

[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Nelson Mandela ran for president of the US?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dharwin@kbin.social 24 points 10 months ago

Let’s see how endlessly antagonizing the sentencing judge works out for him.

[–] paf0@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Probably not, maybe house arrest? I'm curious to see if this has an effect on the other cases, if any. Can Jack Smith easily add a 2016 election interference count now that this is proven?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] petersr@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But can we at least get him out the election?

[–] citrusface@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] petersr@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Can we at least avoid a dystopia future?

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

No. But the hysteria from Ronald McDonald and his supporters is going to be lit.

Also: someone needs to meme that woman tRump supporter crying for him out in front of the court house. So tired of seeing that woman in the green jacket after Hillary "lost", supposedly being a stand-in for all liberals or something. Time to show how hysterical the right really is.

[–] uebquauntbez@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Nope. He'll go straight into White House and will 'remove' 50% of US ppl. Either the hard way. Or they leave the country fast enough. USA is going the chinese or russian way. One leader with enough power to rule and many supporters who make profits in this odd system. The rest will suffer from this system. India and Europe will be there soon too.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Two experts told NBC News that it's unlikely Trump will be imprisoned based on his age, lack of a criminal record and other factors — and an analysis of thousands of cases found that very few people charged with the same crime receive jail time.

During the trial, Judge Juan Merchan threatened to put Trump behind bars for violating his gag order, but it’s unclear if the former president will face similar consequences now.

Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News analyst, said it's unlikely that Merchan would sentence Trump, 77, to any jail time, given his age and his status as a first-time, nonviolent offender.

An analysis conducted by Norm Eisen, who worked for House Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, found that roughly one in 10 people who have been convicted of falsifying business records are imprisoned, and those cases typically involved other crimes.

Kuby added that he believes "it is substantially likely Judge Merchan will sentence Trump to jail or prison time," despite the logistical and practical complications that locking up a person with Secret Service protection would entail.

It's also highly unlikely that comments that appeared to be aimed at sidestepping the gag order by Republican officials who attended the trial as Trump's guests will figure into the judge's reasoning, Kuby added.


The original article contains 842 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

34 counts... If they don't sentence him, then what's the fucking point!? Anything less than jail time is just going to empower him. Lock his ass up!

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We're gonna live in a country where either a felon can run for president but not vote or where one candidate is blind to genocide and the other can't run because he's in prison.

These all sound bad.

[–] massacre@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

If you're going to repeat russian propaganda - it's TWO fucking candidates blind to genocide and the one who is now the first ever US President convicted of a felony has repeatedly made comments that he wouldn't even hold back on Gaza and likely would accelerate it to "finish the job". Biden is no fucking hero here, but Trump is objectively worse on Israel-Palestine if you are a single issue voter. And Isreal-Palestine generally doesn't break the top 5 for single issue voters in the US, so please... please... stop with this.

[–] ghostface@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Agreed, that post made it seem like he was innocent up until now. The e jean carrol conviction should relieve him of his first timer status

[–] qantravon@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

That was a civil suit, not criminal.

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Amen, it should also relieve him of his non-violent offender status. The man was found guilty of rape. The only reason he didn't serve jail time for that was because it was past the statute of limitations.

[–] qantravon@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It was also a civil suit, not criminal.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Which means it was a finding of FACT. Ans those don't care about your feelings, apparently.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments