this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
501 points (93.7% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2425 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 66 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The judge is trying to prevent any pretext to getting the case thrown out on appeals. It's bullshit but having all this hard work go up in smoke because a brainless judge higher up found a tiny fault in an unprecedented case would be horrid.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What a piece of shit system that cannot treat people equally... Fucking farce of a country.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

While it's very stark, I doubt you'll find many countries treating their billionaires the same as their workers.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Having company doesn't make it good or correct.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Did you miss the part where they are rich and connected thus better than us? /s

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If The Invisible Hand has bestowed you with wealth, clearly you are blessed among men, and the priests in their robes give you deference for your holiness.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That's not what the fucking "invisible hand" is! It's what lots of idiots (not talking about you, just in general) think it is, but they're wrong!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/11/adam-smiths-invisible-hand-really-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Who here said it was good or correct?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

It's the natural implication of downplaying the seriousness of something. Saying other countries suck too is not only what-about-ism, but is directly diluting the seriousness of the offense.

"Everybody does it" is classic children's logic and a fallacy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

You're putting words in my mouth so you can shit on a country on particular.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think the statement is more of a “It’s difficult to avoid this problem” than an “it’s fine because everyone does it”

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago

Again, I didn't say it because I expect it to be the common interpretation. Why the fuck is everyone so confused by hedging against Poe's Law?! Do you all fucking suck this badly at discussing nuance? Someone clarifies one thing and you're... angry at them??

Fucking pathetic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I think you are looking way too hard into it based on whatever preconceived issue you have.

Nothing you said has any baring on this particular issue.

Absolutely no one here has said what's going on is good.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Good job failing to understand that this is not a conversation between me and you. I said what I said to avoid Poe's Law. Just because you didn't need the obvious stated does not mean everyone will avoid taking implications, even ones that aren't strictly there.

If you think that's unneccessary, then you should try having more conversations where you're trying to get multiple people to understand something. You HAVE to be clear, or others WILL wander in to the weeds and take the completely wrong lesson from something.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Considering I'm only one of many people that think what you're saying isn't right in this context, you should probably follow your own advice.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Jokes on us: like police do all the time, if a judge wants to "find" such a fault - maybe by citing precedence from a thousand years ago? - then they will. Ofc there is no reason to make it easy on them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

frankly, i'm shocked they haven't tried to cite the Magna Carta yet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

There's an agency near me that actually has the Magna Carta date on their patches. It's humorous to think that many of them have no idea what it means.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Hrm, don't start giving them any IDEAS now... :-P

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

If Trump launched his fatass onto the bench like that guy in Vegas Engoron would apologize to him.