• 0 Posts
  • 57 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 7th, 2023

help-circle
  • Holy shit… How can you rightly identify that the US military (and the US government’s use of said military) is evil, and that killing people for their ideas just spreads those ideas, but then somehow come to the conclusion that public health mandates during a pandemic are unconstitutional and “billionaires in this country got rich by actually serving their fellow man”?

    Fucking hell, the propaganda machines are in overdrive.

    Appreciate a veteran telling kids not to join the military. (Assuming this was written by an actual veteran, and isn’t just fictional propaganda.)

    The rest is idiotic corpo bootlicking unrelated to the topic.








  • To confirm what you mean by “I’m a conservative”, which of these commonly held “conservative” beliefs (each which implies a lack of empathy) do you not subscribe to (i.e. “I don’t think like that…”)

    • Black people only get harassed by police more often because they commit more crime.
    • Gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
    • Women should not have the choice of abortion.
    • The state is allowed to infringe upon free speech to prevent you from telling children about gay people.
    • Foreigners are ruining this county.
    • Climate change is a lie.
    • COVID was a lie.
    • Contemporary statues honoring Confederate traitors and slave owners are “honored cultural heritage”.
    • All corporate media lies about Donald Trump, except that corporate media which supports him.
    • Rich people earned all that money, and we have no right to take it back, or to limit how they use it.


  • Hmm, I see, I see… But, pray tell…

    WHAT JUSTICE WAS HE OBSTRUCTING?!

    The GOP logic seems to go like this.

    1. Get accused of crime.
    2. Illegally block investigation into the original crime.
    3. Because of your obstruction, insufficient evidence of your original crime is found to force prosecution.
    4. Now that you blocked the original charges, you can claim it was all bogus. You can’t “obstruct justice” if there was no crime in the first place, right?!

    So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.

    Also, fuck off. I’m not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.


  • Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I’m neither a lawyer nor a judge.

    But “collusion” itself isn’t a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.

    The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia’s proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is “collusion”.

    The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.

    And then they turn around and act like, “Well, he didn’t get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax.”

    No. It wasn’t a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)

    EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here’s the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here’s the conclusion.

    IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

    Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a “prosecutorial judgment” (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms…

    “It also does not exonerate him.”


  • Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. […]

    But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion […]

    Aaaaand I stopped reading.

    The Mueller Report absolutely found credible evidence of collusion, despite heavy-handled interference by Trump, Barr, and the rest of the GOP. It unfortunately failed to result in any prosecution (in no small part due to Barr), and failed to pressure Republicans to vote to remove Trump when he was impeached.



  • Also not a lawyer, but as I understand it: impeachment isn’t a criminal prosecution. It’s a political tool to remove a president from office, regardless of reason.

    Whenever a Republican is president, GOP acts like Impeachment is a murder trial, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime. When a Democrat is president, GOP acts like Impeachment is just a chance to undermine (and possibly even remove) a powerful political opponent.

    It’s the same as their view of the budget deficit/national debt. It’s all performative and entirely disconnected from law or reality.




  • I can see the argument from a certain perspective of the language, outside of context.

    But remember when this amendment was passed. Right after the Civil War.

    So, they wanted an amendment to bar traitors from federal office. Then they put in a section saying Congress has to actually make laws enforcing that rule, or it does nothing. And then, they didn’t make any such laws?!

    So, what, they went through all the work to make a constitutional amendment, and then it does nothing?

    No, they clearly felt that the rule was clear enough as it was, and section 5 is there to allow Congress to make supporting laws built upon that to help enforce that rule. But that rule should have teeth on its own.