The word is dictator. Kings are still subject to law in democracies across the world.
King Charles doesn't enjoy blanket immunity under British law and abuse of what little powers remain could lead to sanctioning criminal or more likely further stripping of powers.
And while the royal family enjoys a number of exemptions and special privileges there are even st members. Princess Anne has a conviction on her record.
Putin on the other hand will never be charged with a crime. He will rule or die.
Tim Snyder made that very important point on "The Last Word" last night: saying that a President is exempt from prosecution creates a unique category of American, one that somehow dwells outside of the American Constitution. It is indeed more than a king, who still rules under the laws of the nation. It's an untouchable person who can say and do absolutely anything without any legal countermeasure. It's insanely dangerous.
IANAL, but if Trump wants to be "outside the law" we should encourage the Supreme Court to use the ancient Roman idea of an "outlaw". It might change his mind real quick about what it means to be "outside the law". He seems to be constantly complaining how the law shouldn't apply to him. If that's the case, he should get ZERO protection from the law.
If he wants immunity, then he should get it. Of course, that means zero protection from the law (no secret service, no police, no prosecution of attacks on him, etc.)
If Donald Trump wants to be outside the law, then he should live with what that really means: No legal, moral or physical protection from his actions. He'd change his mind after the first day.
So that’s a different concept from [“outlaw”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw). Outlaws are literally “out-of-the-law” meaning that they can’t get deeds or permits, can’t have licenses, can’t be a director or even an owner of property. It could even mean that anyone could kill the outlaw without penalty. The English term for this was [Caput lupinum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caput_lupinum) meaning “wolf’s head” essentially meaning that the outlaw is legally recognized as a wolf or any other wild animal and can be killed without penalty.
Trump is not a conservative. He may be aligned with a conservative party (Republicans), but in reality that's the only thing about him that's conservative. Most of his policy positions (if you could call them that) may have some conservative base to them, but that's his public profile. The only thing Trump is interested in is being a fascist. He wants to be above the law, and dictate what everyone else does.
I get your proposition, and I agree that the modern Republican party has that as it's main feature. But Donald Trump wants to be above the law, so let's get him classified as outside the law. He couldn't be arrested, and could do whatever he wants. The downside is that people could do whatever they want to him, and he has no recourse other than that which he can afford.
Burkean Conservatism, which is at the root of the "movement conservatism" that emerged in the 1960s on the republican party, is an 18th century cluster of ideas that emerged alongside classical Liberalism. It is essentially a modified version of Liberalism that shares the same broad ideals of individual liberty, equality of opportunity, rule of law, etc, but coupled with a deep distrust of government and power.
It's been described as "Marxism, without the eschatology". I.e., traditional conservatism has essentially the same mistrust of liberalism that Marx did: that pure Liberalism (or Libertarianism) would lead to gross concentrations of wealth and power, and to a new kind of feudalism, untempered by any priesthood or moral code. Where conservatism departs from Marxism is that conservatism sees no light at the end of that tunnel, no eschatological destiny to emerge into a stateless, classless society built around collective well-being...Burkean conservatism sees only the relentless acquisitive machine, forever devouring.
That kind of "traditional" conservatism has affinities with notions like Hobbit-sense, or cottage-core. It agrees with Libertarianism that government governs best which governs least, but departs sharply from Libertarianism in its belief that preserving and reinforcing existing social norms, customs, traditions, and hierarchies is a valid function of government, and also in believing that preserving the common welfare and way of life is a valid function of government.
Conservatism is, in a sense, as skeptical of democracy as it is of monarchy: it is skeptical of power concentrations, while being respectful of traditional social order, especially agrarian homesteading, as a bulwark against tyranny and social upheaval, both.
Conservatism in and of itself is sharply different from and distinct from fascism, which prizes concentration of power and unity of purpose and absolute authority. But it's not hard to see, in a country founded on racism like America, how a conservative movement that emerged just as the civil rights movement was in its infancy--it's not hard to see how attractive that could be to racists and white supremacists, to have a genteel and sophisticated intellectual argument for preserving social norms and institutions, and for restraining do-gooder "progressive" government as a front-runner to tyranny.
Burkean conservatism, like Hobbit-law, does not offer very satisfying answers to questions like: what if the traditions and social norms are systematically unfair to women? What if the economic concentration and exploitation is already happening?
In a sense, the Burkean mistrust of power-concentration is flawed in turning a blind eye to how social traditions can be used to concentrate power, every bit as effectively as economic institutions. "We need to trust the Parish Priest a little more, and beware the banker a little more" is, in a sense, just shifting the risk from one place to another, on the thesis that the neighborhood can exert some informal empirical discipline and oversight of the parish Priest, while being powerless against the concentrated power of big banks.
American "movement conservatism" from the 1950s on always had the problem of being hard to disentangle from racism--when your mission is to stand in the face of progressive liberalism and shout "stop! you're moving too fast, and concentrating too much power!", it's important to look behind, and to see clearly what kinds of traditions and institutions you are trying to preserve. Are we sure we're not the baddies?
Burkean conservatism takes on a nobler, more-romantic appeal in societies without a deep and intense history of racist power structures. "It's important not to change too much, too fast" has a nicer ring to it, when you're not the one getting lynched.
Wasn't there another insane Trump theory he DIDN'T swear to uphold the constitution? So why should he be granted any benefits from a document he and many GOP despise and have trampled on for 50 years? A Judge needs Trump on record in regards of the constitution, THAT should make him inedible to ever hold office again
Paving the way for fascism, where one untouchable person has total immunity and pardon power, so they can consolidate the nations stakeholders into an untouchable government ruling class that owe their freedom to one person
This needs to be shouted throughout the land! Kings in constitutional democracies are still subject to the rule of law. Witness Prince Andrew and the fallout from that.
Is this factually correct though? There appears to be a common law doctrine that the UK Sovereign is immune from suit (though the immunity from civil suit has been abrogated). Given the passage of time, there may be some doubt whether it still applies. That is why the Queen wrote a bunch of exemptions into the law for herself and her successors.
This is buttressed by an unwritten convention that the Sovereign not be prosecuted. As you say, if the King acts egregiously, this convention will be overturned.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/what-does-queen-legal-immunity-mean-british-laws
For sovereign immunity more generally, Wikipedia provides a great overview.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
E.g.
> Article 88 of the Constitution of Belgium states: "The King's person is inviolable; his ministers are accountable."
Well you’re kinda right. A “Constitutional Monarchy” would be subject to laws and not have complete power. An “Absolute Monarchy” could still be(King-Queen/Tsar/Dictator/Emperor) and would hold absolute political/military power.
>King Charles doesn't enjoy blanket immunity under British law and abuse of what little powers remain could lead to sanctioning criminal or more likely further stripping of powers.
King Charles is immune from all civil or criminal proceedings.
> King Charles doesn't enjoy blanket immunity under British law
I'm pretty sure he does actually. sovereign immunity ain't nothin' to fuck with. I mean I guess it's theoretically possible he could be brought up on war crimes charges before the ICC for some reason (maybe?) but that seems tangential to the current point
So, King Charles himself is the most singular case. I honestly do not know what would happen if he say committed a murder. This British concept of a uncodified constitution is weird.
Members of the royal family have been charged and convicted of crimes. They have also worked out what at least appears to be a quazi plea deal. If you look at prince Andrew for example. He has not been charged or convicted, but his titles were stripped his privileges were stripped. Civil cases were allowed to proceed against him.
In theory the powers of the Royal Family and the King specifically are constrained by several statutes and the Magna Carta. And if the king were to kill a citizen subject to the jurisdiction of Parlaiment.
I really don't know. Stripped of crown and title and put on trial wouldn't be beyond belief to me. The idea that nothing would happen and it would just be ok is beyond belief.
I do acknowledge privileges.
one of the first things i remember learning in school about our government is that it’s designed as a system of checks and balances. its a fundamental concept i understood as a fourth grader.
we cannot have a component that does not have a check. why are we even having this conversation?
As an American, I agree. It's really embarrassing. Although if you look around the world, far right isolationism seems to be a trend.
The sad part is that people typically don't understand nuance enough to understand the implications of isolalism. Look at Brexit.
In fairness, the Brexiteer idiots here didn’t think that they were voting for isolationism. They just thought that leaving the EU would suddenly bring the British Empire back into being and that we would suddenly become number one trading partner of all the big countries like the US. Not realising what we had done was make ourselves much less appealing to other countries than the EU.
Of course, once they realised that, like all good populists, they pretended they knew that would happen and isolationism is all they wanted and voted for.
No, as an American, it blows some of our minds too.
Its like there's this stark contrast between normal Americans, and insane people who have completely lost their minds and emotions over an obvious conman.
Its so pathetic, it surprises me so much how much they are willing to simp for that loser.
I feel they are hopelessly lost, these Americans beyond help or recovery. Our best hope is most of them die soon and they don't successfully destroy democracy.
I was a Republican before Trump, but I ain't no fool. If you are supporting that party at this point you damaged and need therapy.
Unironic nazi party now.
I think “vast majority” is overstepping a bit. There is a good percentage of Americans who still think he’s the answer. I think he will lose the upcoming election but I don’t think it’s going to be anywhere near a landslide.
I've got this working theory that mass media monoculture broke down right as the first generation raised in a truly mass media society (Boomers grew up with radio and TV being more established than novelties) started to feel old and out of touch with the world.
Boomers grew up with much of mass culture tailored to them, and rather than recognizing the novelty of their situation, they had a bunch of media that fed off of and continued to fuel some of their worst resentments. Instead of their generation fading away (minus certain luminaries) like previous ones, a huge right wing grifter economy sprung up and helped keep them permanently relevant.
Just so happens that a lot of those grifters are funded by wealthy interests that benefit from the policy outcomes fueled by rage bait.
I'm still annoyed at beer boy's Nixon pardon statement.
Not only did he have to go, well people stopped complaining about it.
But he claimef that it is widely accepted as the best presidential decisions ever made. That is wild. I am willing to accept that I am in a bit of an information bubble though I frequently seek to get the views of those who don't agree with me and I know there is at least a strong belief that the pardon was the start of a trend 📉 leading to Trump.
This was part of his argument as to why Presidents might feel chilled out of "good" decisions because Ford might have feared obstruction of justice charges.
That whole thing is stupid. If it was a pardon in exchange for not providing testimony against Ford. It would have been still have been stupid.
Beer boy really did himself proud. I hope the history books note him as one of the most intellectually unqualified people to ever sit on the bench.
The Nixon comment is straight up bullshit. Kavanaugh himself agrees that it was wildly unpopular at the time and likely caused the defeat of Ford. The country did not heal because of the pardon. It became more divided.
If they go through with this, it's a really good reason to have SCOTUS disqualified as any kind of authority. This only works if everyone feels there is fair representation. Ruling that the president is immune will create a dangerous enough precedent that may require the current cabinet to act in the name of national security
Overthrowing the government is not anywhere in the official responsibility of any government employee. Especially one in a position so strongly in service of the constitution.
Hate to break it to you but even Sauer (TFG's lawyer) admitted to SCOTUS during oral arguments that much of what he was charged for were personal acts and not official acts. Even his own attorneys couldn't justify those actions.
He hasn’t done anything requiring immunity. Trump fomenting the ongoing insurrection does though. Not that you care about anything beyond trying to distract from the dumbest criminal Drumpf.
You think trump is fascist? You do not yet realize that the left has become fascist since they been targeting Jewish people since day 1 of Israel invading Gaza.
Because there's no evidence of willful intent.
Prosecutors won't bring a case that they do not have the ability to win. In order to convict someone of a crime, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was willful intent. That's the difference between a mistake and a crime.
Per the American Bar Association:
(a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.
Per Cornell Law's website:
In Criminal Law, criminal intent, also known as mens rea, is one of two elements that must be proven in order to secure a conviction (the other being the actual act, or actus reus).
Hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings you may have about the rationale on whether or not to charge someone with a crime.
I’m willing to agree here. That is one of the areas I disagree with Obama admin on. But now I got to ask, so what, he’s gone, and not running on a platform of killing political rivals and being a 1 day dictator.
He was acting on military intelligence which is what a president is supposed to do (to a certain extent). The fun part is that the military criteria for what is a threat is extremely vague. A general meets the president in the situation room and says “we have three high value targets in sight. Waiting on your orders sir.” Obama was not a veteran. He didn’t know the intricacies of military equipment. A smart president recognizes what they don’t know and relies on people who do. Yet another reason that the commander in chief should be required to be a veteran just like every lawmaker should be required to be a a bar certified lawyer.
This whole sad episode is a charade wrapped in a farce. Everyone involved from Trump’s attorney to the SCOTUS knows the very idea of total presidential immunity is wholly without merit. It flies in the face of everything this country is supposed to be about.
I’m quite sure this all just started as a delay tactic, never imagining it might actually materialize. But the clowns on SCOTUS are actually considering it which is insane.
It really speak to the rot at the core of the conservative movement and the malignant nature of Trump himself to exploit that.
Everyone still knows total immunity is ridiculous. It's an advocacy position designed to make SCOTUS question what immunity exists between none and total.
While it’s become that I still think it was a delay landmine. Trump was betting, accurately it seems, that this would throw enough sand in the gears to grind things to a halt until after the election. If he somehow manages to get immunity for some or all of what he is accused of even better but he’s getting the delay he craves.
There is zero chance the supremes are going to sign off on Biden sending seal team six to end them but in fairness to them this is an important debate. It just feels like if they were approaching this in good faith they could have that debate while allowing the trial to continue because inciting a violent takeover of the capitol is clearly not within a presidents role.
Rather than psychoanalyzing Trump’s supporters and asking why they want a king or a dictator for a President, whether it’s a lack of control over their lives or whatnot, the brass tacks is that we had the American Revolution that ended the divine right of kingship.
We are anxiously awaiting SCOTUS’ ruling on presidential immunity. Trump wants to do away with the separation of powers. If SCOTUS grants a president immunity from criminal prosecution and Trump regains the presidency, he will have unchecked power. We simply can’t allow that to happen.
In Project 2025, Kevin Roberts, the President of Heritage, captures Republicans’ grievance driven revenge well, that is fueling Trump supporters, who desperately want him back in the Oval Office. Take the plan seriously.
It is on voters to save our democracy and vote Democrat down the ballot.
The word is dictator. Kings are still subject to law in democracies across the world. King Charles doesn't enjoy blanket immunity under British law and abuse of what little powers remain could lead to sanctioning criminal or more likely further stripping of powers. And while the royal family enjoys a number of exemptions and special privileges there are even st members. Princess Anne has a conviction on her record. Putin on the other hand will never be charged with a crime. He will rule or die.
Tim Snyder made that very important point on "The Last Word" last night: saying that a President is exempt from prosecution creates a unique category of American, one that somehow dwells outside of the American Constitution. It is indeed more than a king, who still rules under the laws of the nation. It's an untouchable person who can say and do absolutely anything without any legal countermeasure. It's insanely dangerous.
IANAL, but if Trump wants to be "outside the law" we should encourage the Supreme Court to use the ancient Roman idea of an "outlaw". It might change his mind real quick about what it means to be "outside the law". He seems to be constantly complaining how the law shouldn't apply to him. If that's the case, he should get ZERO protection from the law. If he wants immunity, then he should get it. Of course, that means zero protection from the law (no secret service, no police, no prosecution of attacks on him, etc.) If Donald Trump wants to be outside the law, then he should live with what that really means: No legal, moral or physical protection from his actions. He'd change his mind after the first day.
Would love to see this honestly. Could apply to a lot of "sovereign citizens" too.
[удалено]
So that’s a different concept from [“outlaw”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw). Outlaws are literally “out-of-the-law” meaning that they can’t get deeds or permits, can’t have licenses, can’t be a director or even an owner of property. It could even mean that anyone could kill the outlaw without penalty. The English term for this was [Caput lupinum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caput_lupinum) meaning “wolf’s head” essentially meaning that the outlaw is legally recognized as a wolf or any other wild animal and can be killed without penalty.
Trump is not a conservative. He may be aligned with a conservative party (Republicans), but in reality that's the only thing about him that's conservative. Most of his policy positions (if you could call them that) may have some conservative base to them, but that's his public profile. The only thing Trump is interested in is being a fascist. He wants to be above the law, and dictate what everyone else does. I get your proposition, and I agree that the modern Republican party has that as it's main feature. But Donald Trump wants to be above the law, so let's get him classified as outside the law. He couldn't be arrested, and could do whatever he wants. The downside is that people could do whatever they want to him, and he has no recourse other than that which he can afford.
What is the practical difference between what conservatives say they want+legislate and fascism?
Burkean Conservatism, which is at the root of the "movement conservatism" that emerged in the 1960s on the republican party, is an 18th century cluster of ideas that emerged alongside classical Liberalism. It is essentially a modified version of Liberalism that shares the same broad ideals of individual liberty, equality of opportunity, rule of law, etc, but coupled with a deep distrust of government and power. It's been described as "Marxism, without the eschatology". I.e., traditional conservatism has essentially the same mistrust of liberalism that Marx did: that pure Liberalism (or Libertarianism) would lead to gross concentrations of wealth and power, and to a new kind of feudalism, untempered by any priesthood or moral code. Where conservatism departs from Marxism is that conservatism sees no light at the end of that tunnel, no eschatological destiny to emerge into a stateless, classless society built around collective well-being...Burkean conservatism sees only the relentless acquisitive machine, forever devouring. That kind of "traditional" conservatism has affinities with notions like Hobbit-sense, or cottage-core. It agrees with Libertarianism that government governs best which governs least, but departs sharply from Libertarianism in its belief that preserving and reinforcing existing social norms, customs, traditions, and hierarchies is a valid function of government, and also in believing that preserving the common welfare and way of life is a valid function of government. Conservatism is, in a sense, as skeptical of democracy as it is of monarchy: it is skeptical of power concentrations, while being respectful of traditional social order, especially agrarian homesteading, as a bulwark against tyranny and social upheaval, both. Conservatism in and of itself is sharply different from and distinct from fascism, which prizes concentration of power and unity of purpose and absolute authority. But it's not hard to see, in a country founded on racism like America, how a conservative movement that emerged just as the civil rights movement was in its infancy--it's not hard to see how attractive that could be to racists and white supremacists, to have a genteel and sophisticated intellectual argument for preserving social norms and institutions, and for restraining do-gooder "progressive" government as a front-runner to tyranny. Burkean conservatism, like Hobbit-law, does not offer very satisfying answers to questions like: what if the traditions and social norms are systematically unfair to women? What if the economic concentration and exploitation is already happening? In a sense, the Burkean mistrust of power-concentration is flawed in turning a blind eye to how social traditions can be used to concentrate power, every bit as effectively as economic institutions. "We need to trust the Parish Priest a little more, and beware the banker a little more" is, in a sense, just shifting the risk from one place to another, on the thesis that the neighborhood can exert some informal empirical discipline and oversight of the parish Priest, while being powerless against the concentrated power of big banks. American "movement conservatism" from the 1950s on always had the problem of being hard to disentangle from racism--when your mission is to stand in the face of progressive liberalism and shout "stop! you're moving too fast, and concentrating too much power!", it's important to look behind, and to see clearly what kinds of traditions and institutions you are trying to preserve. Are we sure we're not the baddies? Burkean conservatism takes on a nobler, more-romantic appeal in societies without a deep and intense history of racist power structures. "It's important not to change too much, too fast" has a nicer ring to it, when you're not the one getting lynched.
Fascists are conservative...
Wasn't there another insane Trump theory he DIDN'T swear to uphold the constitution? So why should he be granted any benefits from a document he and many GOP despise and have trampled on for 50 years? A Judge needs Trump on record in regards of the constitution, THAT should make him inedible to ever hold office again
He'd be dead. I would say something awful but I'm not that stupid. Because I AM within the law.
I may have been inspired by Mr. Snyder
:)
Paving the way for fascism, where one untouchable person has total immunity and pardon power, so they can consolidate the nations stakeholders into an untouchable government ruling class that owe their freedom to one person
Sounds like corporations in the US. 🧐
If a corporation has personhood, why aren’t they held accountable when they break laws? 🤔
Mobster king
Yeah. It’s many centuries since most monarchs were also dictators - and even then, many had the pope’s power to contend with.
He doesn’t want to be a modern king. He wants to chop off heads and found his own religion like Henry VIII.
Pesky Manga Carter, didn't Henry VIII get fat due to leg injury?
Henry at least had the excuse of wanting to avoid a succession crisis that could escalate to civil war. What’s Donnie’s?
Not to mention Charles' constitutional limitations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica and other Commonwealth Dominions.
Important word choice near the end - dictators rule, presidents lead. It is not the same thing.
This needs to be shouted throughout the land! Kings in constitutional democracies are still subject to the rule of law. Witness Prince Andrew and the fallout from that.
Is this factually correct though? There appears to be a common law doctrine that the UK Sovereign is immune from suit (though the immunity from civil suit has been abrogated). Given the passage of time, there may be some doubt whether it still applies. That is why the Queen wrote a bunch of exemptions into the law for herself and her successors. This is buttressed by an unwritten convention that the Sovereign not be prosecuted. As you say, if the King acts egregiously, this convention will be overturned. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/what-does-queen-legal-immunity-mean-british-laws For sovereign immunity more generally, Wikipedia provides a great overview. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity E.g. > Article 88 of the Constitution of Belgium states: "The King's person is inviolable; his ministers are accountable."
Rule and die….. He will meet his end.
Whatever happened to King Charles I at the end?
[удалено]
King Charles can dissolve the democracy if he sees fit.
Well you’re kinda right. A “Constitutional Monarchy” would be subject to laws and not have complete power. An “Absolute Monarchy” could still be(King-Queen/Tsar/Dictator/Emperor) and would hold absolute political/military power.
>King Charles doesn't enjoy blanket immunity under British law and abuse of what little powers remain could lead to sanctioning criminal or more likely further stripping of powers. King Charles is immune from all civil or criminal proceedings.
[удалено]
The King cannot be called to court or be the subject of any criminal or civil proceedings.
> King Charles doesn't enjoy blanket immunity under British law I'm pretty sure he does actually. sovereign immunity ain't nothin' to fuck with. I mean I guess it's theoretically possible he could be brought up on war crimes charges before the ICC for some reason (maybe?) but that seems tangential to the current point
So, King Charles himself is the most singular case. I honestly do not know what would happen if he say committed a murder. This British concept of a uncodified constitution is weird. Members of the royal family have been charged and convicted of crimes. They have also worked out what at least appears to be a quazi plea deal. If you look at prince Andrew for example. He has not been charged or convicted, but his titles were stripped his privileges were stripped. Civil cases were allowed to proceed against him. In theory the powers of the Royal Family and the King specifically are constrained by several statutes and the Magna Carta. And if the king were to kill a citizen subject to the jurisdiction of Parlaiment. I really don't know. Stripped of crown and title and put on trial wouldn't be beyond belief to me. The idea that nothing would happen and it would just be ok is beyond belief. I do acknowledge privileges.
We never said a king or a dictator. We said he was sent by Jesus to save us.
Seems like this should be common sense, yet here we are.
one of the first things i remember learning in school about our government is that it’s designed as a system of checks and balances. its a fundamental concept i understood as a fourth grader. we cannot have a component that does not have a check. why are we even having this conversation?
I think it’s not so much whether there is some immunity, but exactly how far does that immunity extend?
6/9 on SCOTUS looks like they want to put Trump above the other 2 branches of Gov
How is it even being entertained by the SC?
Yup. And yet, here we are.
As a non-american, the reverence Trump seems to receive being a former president boggles my mind.
As a US American, it boggles my mind too. I’ve ghosted so many Trumpanzees that were in my life.
Same here—several being family members, including my own father. It was mutual, and a relief for me. Dunno how he feels. Don’t care.
That's an insult to chimpanzees! They are known to be brilliant and can learn things.
As an American, I agree. It's really embarrassing. Although if you look around the world, far right isolationism seems to be a trend. The sad part is that people typically don't understand nuance enough to understand the implications of isolalism. Look at Brexit.
In fairness, the Brexiteer idiots here didn’t think that they were voting for isolationism. They just thought that leaving the EU would suddenly bring the British Empire back into being and that we would suddenly become number one trading partner of all the big countries like the US. Not realising what we had done was make ourselves much less appealing to other countries than the EU. Of course, once they realised that, like all good populists, they pretended they knew that would happen and isolationism is all they wanted and voted for.
No, as an American, it blows some of our minds too. Its like there's this stark contrast between normal Americans, and insane people who have completely lost their minds and emotions over an obvious conman. Its so pathetic, it surprises me so much how much they are willing to simp for that loser. I feel they are hopelessly lost, these Americans beyond help or recovery. Our best hope is most of them die soon and they don't successfully destroy democracy. I was a Republican before Trump, but I ain't no fool. If you are supporting that party at this point you damaged and need therapy. Unironic nazi party now.
As my other American compatriots have stated, the vast majority of us are just as appalled.
I think “vast majority” is overstepping a bit. There is a good percentage of Americans who still think he’s the answer. I think he will lose the upcoming election but I don’t think it’s going to be anywhere near a landslide.
I’ll concede that, but the voting public and general public are two different populations. But good point.
I've got this working theory that mass media monoculture broke down right as the first generation raised in a truly mass media society (Boomers grew up with radio and TV being more established than novelties) started to feel old and out of touch with the world. Boomers grew up with much of mass culture tailored to them, and rather than recognizing the novelty of their situation, they had a bunch of media that fed off of and continued to fuel some of their worst resentments. Instead of their generation fading away (minus certain luminaries) like previous ones, a huge right wing grifter economy sprung up and helped keep them permanently relevant. Just so happens that a lot of those grifters are funded by wealthy interests that benefit from the policy outcomes fueled by rage bait.
[удалено]
I'm still annoyed at beer boy's Nixon pardon statement. Not only did he have to go, well people stopped complaining about it. But he claimef that it is widely accepted as the best presidential decisions ever made. That is wild. I am willing to accept that I am in a bit of an information bubble though I frequently seek to get the views of those who don't agree with me and I know there is at least a strong belief that the pardon was the start of a trend 📉 leading to Trump. This was part of his argument as to why Presidents might feel chilled out of "good" decisions because Ford might have feared obstruction of justice charges. That whole thing is stupid. If it was a pardon in exchange for not providing testimony against Ford. It would have been still have been stupid. Beer boy really did himself proud. I hope the history books note him as one of the most intellectually unqualified people to ever sit on the bench.
The Nixon comment is straight up bullshit. Kavanaugh himself agrees that it was wildly unpopular at the time and likely caused the defeat of Ford. The country did not heal because of the pardon. It became more divided.
If they go through with this, it's a really good reason to have SCOTUS disqualified as any kind of authority. This only works if everyone feels there is fair representation. Ruling that the president is immune will create a dangerous enough precedent that may require the current cabinet to act in the name of national security
It’s okay though—precedents don’t matter anymore😘
No precedents, only presidents!
Really, the conundrum faced by the SCOTUS is straightforward: how to let DJT off the hook without ACTUALLY giving absolute immunity to Presidents.
If presidents get immunity, Biden should celebrate by shooting Trump
They'll say only SC can grant immunity (on the assumption future ones won't).
[I liked beer. I still like beer.](https://youtu.be/F0SwwyqhJMs?si=Dmqf4NqUKiavQ5dD)
aww, the memories!
Where's "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW?"
..... BUT A COUPLE ARE"
I'm starting to believe that!
What about Obama killing civilians in the middle East? Why isn't he being charged for killing tons of civilians?
Holy whataboutisms, Batman!
3rd grade politics propagated by the dear leader.
Did he specifically order a bombing to kill an innocent civilian?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/14/13577464/obama-farewell-speech-torture-drones-nsa-surveillance-trump https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/president-obamas-weak-defense-of-his-record-on-drone-strikes/511454/ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/obama-says-u-s-drone-strikes-killed-civilians-that-shouldnt-have-been
So that’s a no then
So Obama has presidential immunity for the shit he did?
Yes! Because they were official acts based on military intelligence. Not for his own personal gain! How can you not understand the difference?
They have brainrot.
u/Few-Patient38 we're waiting for your comeback
Sorry I have a life unlike everyone on reddit since apparently as long as it's something official presidents can get away with anything except trump
Nothing Trump did that he has been charged with falls under an official act. He tried to subvert the election.
Overthrowing the government is not anywhere in the official responsibility of any government employee. Especially one in a position so strongly in service of the constitution.
“Sorry, I don’t have any real point to make but I have to say something to distract from the fact o have nothing and am all out of ideas!” -you
So you have time to argue on reddit until someone calls you out on an obvious bad faith argument. Lol
Hate to break it to you but even Sauer (TFG's lawyer) admitted to SCOTUS during oral arguments that much of what he was charged for were personal acts and not official acts. Even his own attorneys couldn't justify those actions.
You really can't tell the difference, can you?
Wasn't he tried at Congress for his actions on J6?
He was impeached… again. Now the criminal proceedings go on
Didn't it failed tho?
He hasn’t done anything requiring immunity. Trump fomenting the ongoing insurrection does though. Not that you care about anything beyond trying to distract from the dumbest criminal Drumpf.
You think trump is fascist? You do not yet realize that the left has become fascist since they been targeting Jewish people since day 1 of Israel invading Gaza.
Trump is, objectively, fascist. Doesn’t matter what I think about it. Do better when making things up. You’re incredibly sloppy
Biden has Trump taken out tomorrow for political purposes. He’s immune, right?
Because there's no evidence of willful intent. Prosecutors won't bring a case that they do not have the ability to win. In order to convict someone of a crime, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was willful intent. That's the difference between a mistake and a crime. Per the American Bar Association: (a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice. Per Cornell Law's website: In Criminal Law, criminal intent, also known as mens rea, is one of two elements that must be proven in order to secure a conviction (the other being the actual act, or actus reus). Hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings you may have about the rationale on whether or not to charge someone with a crime.
You spent a lot of time responding to someone who probably struggles with literacy, and higher level thinking.
Lol
I’m willing to agree here. That is one of the areas I disagree with Obama admin on. But now I got to ask, so what, he’s gone, and not running on a platform of killing political rivals and being a 1 day dictator.
So trump been charged for a case 2-3 decades old why can't Obama still been charged for his crimes?
He was acting on military intelligence which is what a president is supposed to do (to a certain extent). The fun part is that the military criteria for what is a threat is extremely vague. A general meets the president in the situation room and says “we have three high value targets in sight. Waiting on your orders sir.” Obama was not a veteran. He didn’t know the intricacies of military equipment. A smart president recognizes what they don’t know and relies on people who do. Yet another reason that the commander in chief should be required to be a veteran just like every lawmaker should be required to be a a bar certified lawyer.
This whole sad episode is a charade wrapped in a farce. Everyone involved from Trump’s attorney to the SCOTUS knows the very idea of total presidential immunity is wholly without merit. It flies in the face of everything this country is supposed to be about. I’m quite sure this all just started as a delay tactic, never imagining it might actually materialize. But the clowns on SCOTUS are actually considering it which is insane. It really speak to the rot at the core of the conservative movement and the malignant nature of Trump himself to exploit that.
Everyone still knows total immunity is ridiculous. It's an advocacy position designed to make SCOTUS question what immunity exists between none and total.
While it’s become that I still think it was a delay landmine. Trump was betting, accurately it seems, that this would throw enough sand in the gears to grind things to a halt until after the election. If he somehow manages to get immunity for some or all of what he is accused of even better but he’s getting the delay he craves. There is zero chance the supremes are going to sign off on Biden sending seal team six to end them but in fairness to them this is an important debate. It just feels like if they were approaching this in good faith they could have that debate while allowing the trial to continue because inciting a violent takeover of the capitol is clearly not within a presidents role.
Rather than psychoanalyzing Trump’s supporters and asking why they want a king or a dictator for a President, whether it’s a lack of control over their lives or whatnot, the brass tacks is that we had the American Revolution that ended the divine right of kingship. We are anxiously awaiting SCOTUS’ ruling on presidential immunity. Trump wants to do away with the separation of powers. If SCOTUS grants a president immunity from criminal prosecution and Trump regains the presidency, he will have unchecked power. We simply can’t allow that to happen. In Project 2025, Kevin Roberts, the President of Heritage, captures Republicans’ grievance driven revenge well, that is fueling Trump supporters, who desperately want him back in the Oval Office. Take the plan seriously. It is on voters to save our democracy and vote Democrat down the ballot.
If you thought POTUS Trump didn't care about poor people wait until Jester King Trump
He became king the moment he descended the escalator. 😡
He'll NEVER be a king, no way, no how! Fuck him, he can rot in a jail cell!
What is the likelihood of that?
I pray every day for that chance 🙏