top 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 131 points 1 year ago (80 children)

Martial law is next! I tell ya.

  • source
  • hideshow 80 child comments
  • [–] 101 points 1 year ago (76 children)

    This is damn near the same thing, without all the fancy steps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 76 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago (74 children)

    Those "fancy steps" are the only things that would make this legal. Without them, all he's doing is violating the Constitution. DC presents a unique loophole for this. Anywhere else, and he's breaking the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 74 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    Surely this time he’s done for.

    Hate to break it to you man but the law does not matter. It really never has for the rich and powerful but he has laid it all bare

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I've said time and time again we let the entire Bush admin off the hook for war crimes... Trump hasn't even hit war crimes levels yet. Did anyone think we were ever going to hold him to account when we wouldn't even do anything about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I don't disagree, I guess I just felt like Bush's war crimes of torture within our own military was pretty directly egregious whereas the whole point of Iran-Contra was that the Contras were the ones committing the violence, not US soldiers at the command of their leadership. Plausible deniability and all that. Like, if our society was ever going to give a shit, that should be have been the straw that broke the camels back since there was nothing plausibly deniable about "enhanced interrogation."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    The law does matter. People don't seem to realize just how much of Trump's bullshit has already been stopped by the courts.

    The majority of his executive orders have all been blocked or straight-up nullified, so far...but thanks to the overwhelming volume of court cases and the long delays in reaching some decisions...the media never covers the outcomes to the same extent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    whenever an EO gets challenged or struck down, Trump figures out a way to get rid of the problem or go around it. the only thing the law is doing is showing him vulnerabilities to exploit. state injunctions are legally being ignored thanks to SCOTUS, so.. Trump does not have to listen to judges.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    Buddy if the law mattered even one fucking iota trump himself would be buried under the prison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    If the law was perfect or if the law even worked as intended, he would have been in prison a long time ago.

    If the law didn't matter at all, he wouldn't bother making threats and testing the waters. The military never would have been recalled from LA the first time around. The FBI would have already arrested the TX Democrats in Chicago, and TX Republicans would have just gone ahead with the redistricting without a second thought (which even I'm pretty surprised that they didn't).

    Will the law alone prevail and save us in the end? Not likely, but there is a difference between being naive and not allowing yourself to panic and be backed into a corner of black and white thinking. In many ways, doing so is accepting defeat.

    Being smart and strategizing means using the law and along with everything else to your advantage while you still can. Trump has been bulldozing through law bc his goal is to betray his own country. Democrats in TX are breaking the law, but they're doing it strategically to save their country. They're aligning themselves with Democrats in other states, and uniting as Americans. That's what we all should be doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You are a useful idiot for this admin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    No you're right, I'm the useful idiot for not buying what's being sold to me by a reality TV star. Now is definitely not the time for alliances against a traitorous coup.

    Might as well give up and accept it's over. No point in fighting to hold on to what's left. Every man for himself. It's total anarchy.

    "Put them through trauma." Either it took you less than 8 months to break, or you're fully aware of your usefulness.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Oh okay please explain how the law works I’m sure youre a lawyer or a judge or some other type of legal expert. We’re all dying to hear how our president isn’t guilty of literally dozens and possibly hundreds of serious financial and sexual crimes dating back to the 1980s, or how he is guilty and the fact that he hasn’t been punished is just “how the law works”

    Man I hate lemmoids

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    You still need to present evidence, in court, before you can throw someone in (or under) prison. Or do you think Trump is right by arguing that he shouldn't have to follow due process against HIS targets? The law should be equally applied to everyone...so, if you think it's ok to simply ignore the process for him, then anyone can simply ignore the process for others.

    Guilt by decree is not "justice".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    If anyone else was a 34 time convicted felon they would be spending life without parole in jail.

    But do go on about how the law is definitely working, and does affect the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm not saying the system is perfect. There's no such thing as a perfect system. But throwing away the entire concept of due process, just because rich people have the advantage of hiring better lawyers, is not the answer.

    There are definitely ways to reform the system to make it more equitable...but skipping the parts where evidence is required for a conviction, or closing all possibilities for appeals? No. All that does is give people like Trump the perfect weapon to use against their enemies. None of us are safe, if we abandon those foundational principles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's plenty of evidence...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Exactly, he is escalating bc he is feeling pressure. He is getting worried about the midterms. That is not to say that the law will surely prevail in the end, but just to point out that he wouldn't even be bothering to test the waters with threats of "maybe your city is next" if he didn't believe he would see pushback.

    He's already sent and recalled much of the military in L.A., so what tf is he even talking about? Floating the idea of sending them again only to then recall them again?

    D.C. has gained autonomy as a city, but keep in mind it was already unique compared to Chicago, LA, and NY bc it's already a federal district. When he called for a "federal takeover" a few days ago, he meant stripping the city of its autonomy in terms of taking the power from the mayor.

    When he tried to take LA the first time, he experienced pushback from both city and state governments. Military morale was reportedly extremely low, he made them sleep on the floor bc he didn't really have any kind of a plan other than a show of force. In the end, he basically succeeded in a public show of wasting money and resources for absolutely nothing.

    Now what? He's going to send in the troops again? Surely they'll get the job done the second time around.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    He’s breaking the law all over the US, when you’re rich… they let you. This is no different. Let’s see some consequences somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    No one is "letting him". There are dozens of active cases against him and his administration, right now. The process takes time, and the media never covers it adequately...but the system is still working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    If the system were working Cannon could not have effectively blocked Trump’s prosecution. If the system were working the leader of an insurrection against the government of the United States could not have even RUN for President, much less BEEN SWORN IN. If the system were working the personal attorney for the most vile and morally corrupt President in our nation’s history would not have been NONINATED, much less CONFIRMED to a federal appellate court.

    THE SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING. Any conclusions predicated on another other assumption are simply wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    you're right that the system is working. it is giving us its ultimate: fascism. this is the intended outcome for profit seeking capitalists. if you mean to say our system of American justice is working... surely you jest.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    This is why we're doomed. I cannot believe there are people who still think like this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So...do you agree with Trump when he tries to suspend or ignore the legal process? Is that your solution? Just, "as long as it's us doing it, it's fine"?

    It's kind of bizarre to advocate for the very same shit he's pulling, as a defense against the kind of shit he keeps trying to pull.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    That's entirely the point. Legal channels are too show to counteract everything at once. See Bannon's "stress test".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Dude. That's literally the same argument Trump was using for why he should be allowed to just deport people without due process. This is not the "solution" you think it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    So you're saying we should "go high"... How has that been working out thus far?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    No, I'm saying that the basic principles of law and justice shouldn't be abandoned just because there are people in the world who try and game the system.

    It seems like everyone these days, agrees with Trump's vision of what the law should look like. My side gets a pass...and everyone I think is "bad", gets their rights taken away. People just seem to disagree about who should be punished without due process.

    It's not a "moral high ground" issue. It's basic common sense. You want a legal system that's based on facts? You want people's rights to be respected? You can't have those things, if you throw them all out the window anytime things don't work out exactly the way you want them to.

    Those are the things you have to fight to protect. If every law that got broken, meant the law was pointless...then we would have no laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It seems like everyone these days, agrees with Trump’s vision of what the law should look like. My side gets a pass…and everyone I think is “bad”, gets their rights taken away.

    This is not what's happening here. Nobody (on the left) is giving any side a "pass". What the fuck is this strawman?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    A lot of people gave Biden and Obama a pass when they were deporting, torturing and bombing innocent people. Some people seem to think that those things are only bad when the Red Team is doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is not even close to the same thing, and you're either being ignorant or disingenuous by suggesting they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's a difference of scale, but they still did those things. You are still right here, right now, giving them a "pass".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago

    I'm talking about selectively assigning who gets their rights protected, and who doesn't. Who deserves due process, and who doesn't. The only way any of this can be considered "legitimate" is if it applies to everyone...not just the ones you think "deserve it".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    DC is under Marshall law in all but name right now.

    "The Process takes time..." At this rate the process will get around to warning him he should stop shortly after he executes his political opponents and just before he starts executing judges who opposes him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    DC isn't under martial law. Technically, the district belongs to the federal government already, they've just been under a kind of conditional self-administration since the 70's, I think? The only way to take away Trump's authority over it, would be to grant DC official status as a State.

    And just curious...what system would you suggest, that is better than what's currently in place?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    DC isn't under martial law.

    If you're not going to bother reading posts before replying what's the point?

    DC is under Marshall law in all but name right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    It doesn't fucking matter. He'll do it all anyway, without ever declaring martial law. And what the fuck is anyone going to do about it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Law means nothing unless there's some means to enforce it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    It means even less, if your first impulse is to toss it all out the window as soon as it's no longer convenient for you to follow it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    "Yes, the current system is slow and ineffective, and has done nothing to prevent the incarceration and deportation of innocent people, misappropriation of funds, and misuse of the military, but to demand anything else would be going against the ineffective system!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    So, because people are currently being denied the right to due process...due process itself, doesn't work?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    The current process of Due Process is allowing blatantly illegal activities to continue unhindered because "we need to give them time to comply even when they are clearly not going to." You need a different process, and pointing out that the system is not working is perfectly valid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    You sound just like Trump, now...you get that, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

    Sure I do. Exact the same. Biggly.

    A baseless adhominim does not refute my statement, you get that right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    That's not what an ad hominem is. You are literally parroting his justification for suspending the due process rights of everyone he wants to deport...right down to the part about "allowing criminals to get away with it...blah, blah, blah".

    If you think these people are criminals, then prove it in court. Present your evidence to a judge and jury. If they are as guilty as you say, then you should get a conviction. And no one will be able to refute it.

    But if you simply do away with the whole process, you are guaranteeing that innocent people will be persecuted for nothing more than suspicion of guilt. They will have no means of clearing their name, when people like Trump accuse them of something they didn't do. Are all those people worth throwing under the bus?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You need a different process, and pointing out that the system is not working is perfectly valid.

    Is not equal to "do away with the whole process".

    Once again, if you're not going to bother reading things before replying to them then what's the point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I'm simply responding to what you wrote. How else are you expecting me to read it?

    How do you implement a "different process" without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now...or coming up with something else entirely?

    And please, explain this "different process". I would love to hear how you've solved the problems with the legal system, the way it is. I'm sure the world will be grateful that someone has finally come up with a system that can't be abused. Your Nobel prize awaits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You should take a deep breath, calm down, and read what Cile wrote. They were pretty clear, but you keep yelling at them for things that they never said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Lol! No one is yelling. My excitement level here is "mildly bored sarcasm". Maybe you can point out where he was being pretty clear, and how I misunderstood what he was saying. Because even going back and reading it all again...it just sounds like he's dodging his own statements after I respond to them, by claiming that I'm somehow "missing his point".

    Except his original point was pretty clear, as you said...and it was an objectively bad take. Here's the quote that I took issue with...

    The current process of Due Process is allowing blatantly illegal activities to continue unhindered because "we need to give them time to comply even when they are clearly not going to." You need a different process, and pointing out that the system is not working is perfectly valid.

    These are literally the same talking points that Trump is currently using to justify undermining people's rights. Seriously, what did I miss? And what "different process" would work better than having to present evidence of guilt before you can convict someone of a crime?

    (...all said very calmly, and patiently awaiting clarification, in case you still think I'm yelling...)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    He is accurately pointing out that the current system isn't working. He never said to get rid of the whole thing, you did. If you think he is "repeating Trump's talking points" just because he said that the current system isn't working, then you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

    Additionally, you don't need to have a replacement or a fix, to be able to point out the flaws in the current system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Man, you guys have really got to start paying attention...

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-trial-migrants-deport/story?id=121080810

    Trump is currently undermining the due process rights of thousands of people, using the reasoning that...

    a)...some people don't deserve those rights because they're "bad people"...

    ...and b)...if we gave everyone the chance to dispute their case in court, it would take too long.

    Buddy's comment above may not be the exact same, word-for-word...but he's still saying the exact same thing.

    The problem with all these arguments is, who gets to decide who deserves the right to dispute theIR case in court, and who is pre-judged a criminal and gets sentenced without a trial? If it were up to Trump, all immigrants would have those rights taken away. If it was up to the guy above, Trump would. They're making the same argument, just directing it towards different people. And if that is the system that you favor...then whether or not you have the legal right to defend yourself, will depend solely on who is accusing you of a crime.

    That isn't justice. That's a dictatorship.

    The flaws in the current system, exist because if they didn't...innocent people would also be punished for crimes they didn't commit. The entire reason the system can be "gamed", is because closing those loopholes would turn the entire system into a draconian nightmare with no possible avenues of escape.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm simply responding to what you wrote.

    No, you're responding to what your want to argue against instead of what is actually being said. I'm not going to continue repeating myself to someone who has no intention of listening.

    How do you implement a "different process" without doing away with the one you have? Are you talking about making some minor adjustments now...or coming up with something else entirely?

    You immediately contradict yourself here. "Can't change anything without throwing away everything. Unless you're talking about making changes that is."

    Your Nobel prize awaits.

    "You're not allowed to point out a flawed system unless you have a perfect solution! 'better' is not good enough if it's not perfect! To do otherwise must mean you're advocating for anarchy!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Man, I'm not the one contradicting myself here. You are just talking in circles now...and still saying nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I've said plenty and you haven't refuted any of it. I'm not repeating myself for you again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Martial Law is too obvious.

    Russia is in full scale war, and has not formally declared war, but they are operating as if they have. Trump would do the same, a bunch of different declarations that are in practice, Martial law, but without actually saying it, because Martial law is too obvious of a rubicon.

    GOP MAGA is trying to boil the frog, what determines if there will be a revolution or not is if huge parts of the country suddenley believe we've crossed the rubicon, the point of no return. And it benefits MAGA for those people to have unique turning points, some will wait until X happens, Some wont take up arms until Y happens, It benefits them to boil the frog slowly, because it allows them to secure their position more and more before a potential confrontation happens

    declaring martial law is a clear sign to everyone "Yup, Im declaring the civil war" its too obvious, it doesnt benefit Trump to do that until he thinks he is ready, and at that point he's already won and will be untouchable.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›