Trump, Trump, Trump. "All these things Trump could do..."
How about, Biden could have Trump assassinated as a political rival.
Done and done.
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
323 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23601 readers
2474 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Democrats won’t, they’re too busy “taking the high road”. And by “high road” I mean “bribe big enough to live comfortably in Thailand for the rest of their lives”
To paraphrase and increase the accuracy of a deeply wrongheaded (imo) political slogan:
When they go low, we go die.
Biden could assassinate every billionaire in the country overnight.
Why not order the NSA to hack their bank accounts and just take the money?
Everyone is going straight to assassinations, but there’s a whole lot that this immunity could accomplish before killing is needed.
None of it will happen with a democratic president, because of norms that they apparently haven’t realized mean fuck all to the other side.
The president couldn't be charged for taking the billionaires' money but the money could still be returned. An assassination can't be undone.
Yeah turn their godlike cult figurehead into a martyr. Let's see how that works out in the long run.
They already are treating him like a martyr. It would just be follow through at this point
I'm game.
That would instantly start a civil war, and if you're keeping track, we don't have any/as many guns.
Speak for yourself, and if you don't, you should really look into buying them. We're not heading towards a happy place in this country.
Or know some gun nuts and where they keep em.
Who doesn't have guns?
Around 66% of American Households don't have a gun.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
That's a personal problem. The people paying attention and most at risk have been arming themselves since 2015. LGBTQ, Black, and Hispanic gun ownership are the fastest rising ones. Trailing them is more white people, whos rate of gun ownership is also rising, just slower. Eveyones been buying more guns.
I don't own guns. I own glass bottles. They are far more effective weapons when wielded correctly. A single glass bottle can do more damage than a thousand bullets.
This is like Charlie with his sword talking to Mac with his gun
No, it is not. It really is not. Because Charlie is smart enough to fill the glass bottle and use it while Mac sleeps.
You called Charlie smart, which worries me lol
That is because I don't know to what you are referring. I was simply turning the statement around.
It's a joke about the character Charlie in IASIP.
I don't own glass bottles. I own garden gnomes. They are far more effective weapons when wielded correctly. A single garden gnome can do more damage than a thousand glass bottles.
It is astonishing how few people know how to correctly deal damage with a glass bottle. It is not about the glass, it is about what it is filled with. Now I am smarter than to explicitly state anything in an open forum online that could constituted unprotected speech, not that that holds much water. Speaking of, the bottles are not filled with water.
Yah, the garden gnomes aren't filled with water either.
Wow, so many down votes. Either people don't understand or they are against historically useful anarchic ordinance. Seriously people, if we have any hope of dealing with these problems we need to take some cues from some Ukrainian grandmothers circa 2 to 3 years ago regarding the proper and artful application of glass.
Wait, I thought we were all kidding. Please tell me your not serious...
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." ~ Burke, “Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents” (1770)
‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ ~Franklin
I will not be the one to cast the first stone, but I will also not sit silently by as the safety of my family is threatened. I have studied our history, I have studied our present, and I will not let another Crystal Noct occur without absolute retribution. This citizen will take the second amendment and its intended purpose of allowing the people to protect themselves from despots, tyrants, and autocrats who attempt to sunder the fabric of this democracy. I will meet force with overwhelming retaliation, if possible, so much that they think twice before attempting again.
"Knocking him down was the first fight, I wanted to win all the others, so they'd leave me alone." ~ Ender, Ender's Game (2013)
Cool. I love sci-fi books.
*will
If she's so concerned, she should resign. Let Biden nominate her replacement.
By staying on, she's basically signalling she doesn't care about the court going 7-2 after she drops dead during Trump's second term. No lessons learned from the RBG fiasco. What's the point of writing these long eloquent dissents that never end up swaying anything?
As i recall either Manchin or Sinena already came out and said the would not approve a justice in an election year. Having her resign now will be a repeat of the Garland nomination
Edut: it was Manchin https://www.reuters.com/world/us/manchin-would-not-back-supreme-court-confirmation-right-before-2024-election-2022-02-15/
Yes, the best time for her to step down would have been earlier (same issue with Biden dropping out). But the second best time is now.
What’s the point of writing any dissent?
So they save face
To look virtuous without contributing anything substantive towards your cause.
At this point, the one substantive thing Sotomayor can do is resign and make way for an ideologically aligned replacement. And this, she doesn't do.
And what would her replacement be able to do differently?
Not perish.
Dude, I'm with you on them retiring strategicly to be replaced by younger judges, but they would just disagree like they are now. They write up why they disagree and share it, there's not much else they can do when out voted.
you are truly a moron. I pity the people in your life.
Bro, Trump's just going to kill her.
She should resign, as one of the few level headed justices on SCOTUS? What kind of logic is that? You know she's not a conservative justice, right? Like... I can't think of any other reason you'd think this is a good idea, and during an election year no less. I see way less trolling on Lemmy than I did on reddit, but I'd like to believe this is trolling and not the actual opinion of a legitimate American voter.
She should keep fighting the good fight while we hope for a couple of justices to die or be impeached soon so we can fix the balance of SCOTUS.
You haven't put any thought into the situation.
SC justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Both are currently held by the democrats, the latter narrowly. Both are likely to flip next year. Sotomayor is over 70, diabetic, and travels with a medic.
If she wanted to do the right thing for the causes she believes in, she should have resigned during the past one or two years. Biden would have been able to replace her with a younger, equally liberal justice. But she didn't and probably won't, so if she dies anytime in the next 4 years (or 8 years if the Rs win the presidential election after that) then the court goes 7-2 and will remain conservative-dominated for decades.
I'm not sure anybody would make that call at her age. And to be clear, because you're trying to infer that she is older than she is by calling her "over 70", she's 7 days past her 70th birthday; I'm not sure anyone would regard that as over 70, just 70. So at what point in her mid 60s was she supposed to decide "uh oh, I'm going to die soon", exactly?
And there are so many uncertainties when a replacing a SCOTUS justice that come in to play, especially with one side who will do anything to install their totalitarian regime and the otherside is on their high horse getting their legs sliced to bits because they were too righteous to jump off for the battle - why kick that beehive before it's ACTUALLY necessary?
why kick that beehive before it's ACTUALLY necessary?
Because by the time it's actually necessary, you're fucked. Case in point, if Sotomayor had resigned last year, her replacement would have sailed through, and there could be a 40 year old solidly liberal justice in her place, penning equally liberal opinions and poised to continue doing so for decades.
But she didn't, so if she acts now, her replacement would get caught up in "senate can't nominate in election years for reasons" BS. Big political fight, but one that's winnable since Dems ultimately hold the Senate.
If she puts it off yet further, she would have to continue for the next 4, possibly 8+ years. And maybe by that time the democrats don't have both the presidency and senate anymore, so her replacement is a less liberal consensus candidate.
Failing to think strategically is an extremely bad idea when it comes to institutions like the Supreme Court.
I don't get why more justices didn't do this. They're basically rolling the dice and we end up right where we did with Trump replacing Ruth Bader.
Conservatives would never confirm a new justice under Biden or any non-conservative president. There will never be bipartisan confirmations again in our lifetimes. The next justices will be forced through by whichever side has such power.