Trump allegedly indicted in a Georgia 2020 subversion probe

[Xzi]

It seems to me that they knew it was going to be a difficult battle and instead of enacting the effort, they opted to offload that responsibility on the SCOTUS. Once this magic trick resulted in the roaring success they wanted, they sat on their laurels, only to later find out that the tables can turn rather quickly when the seating arrangement changes and they no longer have a stranglehold on the highest court of the land.

In other words they trusted that SCOTUS would always rule in favor of expansion/protection of rights rather than handing down rulings assaulting them. I agree it was naive, maybe even purposefully so, but that still leaves us with a Supreme Court which has demonstrated its willingness to to rule based on the most bastardized, authoritarian possible interpretations of the constitution. I'll say again: independent oversight and/or independent investigators need to be appointed. Or at the very least a hazmat cleaning crew to get the stench of Trump's influence out of the walls.

The whole video is relevent but it's marked to start from 15:56, as it most relates to the above quote.

99% of this man's complaints are about capitalism and he's attributing them to the justice system/Democratic party here instead. Trump isn't a hero for committing a string of heinous crimes against the American people. This is why you stick with the "lighter" recreational drugs, kids.

 

[tabzer]

Lol, you're high right now.


Response to the edit: You should watch what the video is about before commenting about the content, lol. Trump is not being regarded as a hero by any means, and the issue isn't "capitalism". "Capitalism!" is your schtick.

 

[Foxi4]

In other words they trusted that SCOTUS would always rule in favor of…

…in favour of the liberal outcomes. The rest is just pure projection. The Supreme Court is designed to be the ultimate arbiter of constitutional law in the land, it is de facto the highest authority it can be. Likewise by design, it answers to no one and holds no allegiance besides to the Constitution itself. Introducing any other body supervising its work immediately removes the ability to rule independently and leaves you with another problem - who watches those watchmen and who’s going to stop them when they begin undermining SCOTUS decisions because they don’t like the outcome? Seems to me that in your anger you’re setting a trap for yourself, even if you don’t realise it.

Roe is a very bad example to lead this crusade with - it was patently bad law based on imaginary concepts that the U.S. constitution simply does not contain. It was wrong from the start, and the fact that this wrong was corrected late makes no difference whatsoever. Your only motivation thus far is that you don’t like the decision, and based on that you conclude that the court *must* be corrupt. I hate to burst the bubble, but not so long ago the other side had the exact same grievances when the SCOTUS leaned liberal. Those complaints were invalid then, when brought up by conservatives, and they’re invalid now, when they’re brought up by liberals. You would have an ounce of a point if we were discussing a decision that goes directly against the text of the constitution, but this is not the case - it is in congruence with the text.

I don’t know about you, but the conversation has become circular. I have nothing more to add to this, and as I’ve indicated before, we can simply agree to disagree. The only thing I urge you to do is to consider the long-term ramifications of your proposals. Lest we forget, the SCOTUS is already designed to be independent, yet you’re accusing it of bias. I have a feeling that your independent investigators wouldn’t be so independent either, and in short order. You tripped over sign, so you’re putting up a sign in front of it to inform you about a trip hazard ahead. Can’t wait to see you trip over that new sign next week, then complain why someone would even put it there in the first place. Someone should put up some kind of sign to warn you about it.

 

[Xzi]

Lol, you're high right now.

Correct, on one of the aforementioned lighter recreational drugs. You only reach Brand's level of free associative nonsense when you've been hitting that ecstasy/molly/meth/etc consistently and over a long period of time.

…in favour of the liberal outcomes. The rest is just pure projection. The Supreme Court is designed to be the ultimate arbiter of constitutional law in the land, it is de facto the highest authority it can be. Likewise by design, it answers to no one and holds no allegiance besides to the Constitution itself. Introducing any other body supervising its work immediately removes the ability to rule independently and leaves you with another problem - who watches those watchmen and who’s going to stop them when they begin undermining SCOTUS decisions because they don’t like the outcome? Seems to me that in your anger you’re setting a trap for yourself, even if you don’t realise it.

Impeachment is another option for recourse, as is tearing the whole thing down if it's to be used solely as a whip by pseudo-fascists. I don't believe we're quite to that point yet, but Americans aren't gonna just march blindly into the climate apocalypse like the oligarchs want us to either, so that sets up some major conflict in the future should SCOTUS continue trying to rule exclusively on behalf of the 1%.

 

[tabzer]

Using someone's past with drugs to discredit a relevant and relatable message is different than recognizing that something was written under the influence.

 

[Xzi]

Using someone's past with drugs to discredit a relevant and relatable message is different than recognizing that something was written under the influence.

It's not relevant nor relatable when it's trying to connect two very disparate topics. It's also rather hypocritical to attempt to appeal to the average Joe while simultaneously attempting to justify a billionaire conman's crimes. Life in America was not better during the Trump administration. All our tax money went to corporate welfare and a fucking wall in the desert, Trump cozying up to dictators lost us reputation on the world stage, and 1.3 million people died on his watch after he fired the national pandemic response team years earlier.

Either Brand lost his talent for comedy, or he's just become lazy and peddling lies is easier/more profitable. Either way he lost my respect long ago.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

It's also rather hypocritical to attempt to appeal to the average Joe while simultaneously attempting to justify a billionaire conman's crimes.

coherence has never been a preoccupation of rightwingers.

 

[tabzer]

It's not relevant nor relatable when it's trying to connect two very disparate topics. It's also rather hypocritical to attempt to appeal to the average Joe while simultaneously attempting to justify a billionaire conman's crimes. Life in America was not better during the Trump administration. All our tax money went to corporate welfare and a fucking wall in the desert, Trump cozying up to dictators lost us reputation on the world stage, and 1.3 million people died on his watch after he fired the national pandemic response team years earlier.

Either Brand lost his talent for comedy, or he's just become lazy and peddling lies is easier/more profitable. Either way he lost my respect long ago.

He didn't attempt to justify Trump's crimes, nor has he suggested that life was good or "better" under Trump. I agree that your interpretation isn't relevant or relatable. Even if we were to agree that Trump wasn't an effective solution to the problems that many people have with American political institutions, it doesn't remove the fact that there is a problem. Trump is not the cause. He tried capitalizing on it, and he still does. Brand uses RFK Jr. and Bernie as examples too. If you don't want to admit that it's a problem, and claim that anyone who sees the problem as being team Trump, then you are effectively directing support to Trump for those who are at least honest enough to acknowledge the problems, by suggesting that supporting him is the only option. "Trump wants x, so if you want x too, you must (should?) support Trump" is the inferred logic you are providing.

The fact is that many people wanted "x" long before Trump entered politics. If you supported Democrats prior to 2016, then you wanted it too. You can't be a leftist if you are a democratic loyalist.

 

[Xzi]

Even if we were to agree that Trump wasn't an effective solution to the problems that many people have with American political institutions, it doesn't remove the fact that there is a problem. Trump is not the cause.

Trump was the cause of a whole new set of problems, and he did nothing to fix the already-existing problems with capitalism and the two-party system. He only widened the divide between them.

Brand uses RFK Jr. and Bernie as examples too.

And that's how you know Brand has more than a few screws loose. RFK Jr has far more in common with Trump and the Republican base than anyone left of center. Just another fake populist looking to cash in on stupidity and gullible conspiracy theorists.

If you don't want to admit that it's a problem, and claim that anyone who sees the problem as being team Trump, then you are effectively directing support to Trump for those who are at least honest enough to acknowledge the problems, by suggesting that supporting him is the only option. "Trump wants x, so if you want x too, you must (should?) support Trump" is the inferred logic you are providing.

The people on the right who recognize the problems exist also view the effective solutions as "communism." That's the wall progressives hit time after time when actually trying to improve the lives of average Americans in any meaningful way. Faux News' programming runs deep, and Brand plays directly in to some of the same narratives.

 

[crueI]

Are you paying attention?

3/17/2023: Hunter admits the laptop is real
3/18/2023: Trump indicted

06/08/2023: FBI document released documenting bribes to the Biden.
06/09/2023: Trump indicted

07/26/2023: Hunter sweetheart plea deal collapses.
07/27/2023: Trump indicted.

07/31/2023: Hunter Biden business partner Devin Archer testifies detailing the corruption and bribes of Joe Biden and his family.
08/01/2023: Trump indicted.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Are you paying attention?

3/17/2023: Hunter admits the laptop is real
3/18/2023: Trump indicted

06/08/2023: FBI document released documenting bribes to the Biden.
06/09/2023: Trump indicted

07/26/2023: Hunter sweetheart plea deal collapses.
07/27/2023: Trump indicted.

07/31/2023: Hunter Biden business partner Devin Archer testifies detailing the corruption and bribes of Joe Biden and his family.
08/01/2023: Trump indicted.

Making stuff up eh? Because I'm sure if any of these were actually true we would have heard that - except the 26th of July, that actually happened because a Trump appointee decided the only way to damage Biden was through his son.

Oh and the laptop ended up being a big fat nothing, except pornography which the republicans distributed in the Congress newsletter.

Lastly, I don't recall Hunter Biden having ever touched a governmental position. Unlike Trump Jr.

Ps: I don't think I've seen Biden wave presidential pardons for his son, have i? Unlike Trump who was googling "can I pardon myself"

 

[Xzi]

Are you paying attention?

3/17/2023: Hunter admits the laptop is real
3/18/2023: Trump indicted

06/08/2023: FBI document released documenting bribes to the Biden.
06/09/2023: Trump indicted

07/26/2023: Hunter sweetheart plea deal collapses.
07/27/2023: Trump indicted.

07/31/2023: Hunter Biden business partner Devin Archer testifies detailing the corruption and bribes of Joe Biden and his family.
08/01/2023: Trump indicted.

If all your attention is on a private citizen, then it's not on the bigger picture. Hunter fucking a hooker did not endanger national security, but Trump showing off classified nuclear documents like they're Pokemon cards sure as shit did.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Hunter fucking a hooker

And Marjory is apparently obsessed with his underparts...

 

[Xzi]

And Marjory is apparently obsessed with his underparts...

Hell they already got what they wanted with a special investigator, too. They can't just STFU about Hunter though because he's meant to be an ongoing distraction throughout all of Trump's criminal proceedings. The desperation in scrambling for a smokescreen is palpable, but there's not enough smoke in the world to obscure that orange tub of lard.

 

[RedColoredStars]

It’s a standard nonetheless, and has been for years. You cannot unknowingly be a part of a conspiracy, a conspiracy is organised, and it falls on the prosecution to prove that such careful planning existed. In that sense yes, ignorance is a defense in regards to that specific charge - it’s the law.
I seem to remember Trump saying the exact opposite publicly - he urged the J6 crowd to respect the law, not break it, to use one example.

Except Trump was not ignorant in knowing the things he was doing were illegal. That's only a portion of where you fail. Secondly, you seem to have a failing memory with the timeline of events on J6. Trump didn't say shit to the J6 crowd until hours later. He also sympathized with the rioters during his bullshit of a "speech". As stated previously, you're completely full of shit.

 

[KingVamp]

Despite all the noise, they still haven't found anything to hit Biden on and even if they did, I doubt it will ever be as big as all the stuff Trump has done.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I doubt it will ever be as big as all the stuff Trump has done

Difficult to find something worse than treason eh

 

[chrisrlink]

if it was nuclear armmegedon or a dictator in charge I'd chose the former hell I Joked that if a nuclear icbm was heeading my way and could not be stopped I'd go outside break out a beach chair and crack open a cold one

 

[Thejax]

Gonna just pop in from reading the first two pages.

I love how GBATemp of all places has the most equally sided political discussions.

 

[chrisrlink]

Except Trump was not ignorant in knowing the things he was doing were illegal. That's only a portion of where you fail. Secondly, you seem to have a failing memory with the timeline of events on J6. Trump didn't say shit to the J6 crowd until hours later. He also sympathized with the rioters during his bullshit of a "speech". As stated previously, you're completely full of shit.

this is why i dislike foxi he's the elon musk of temp in a position of power who has the ability to ban/susspend or otherwise your account (or havent you noticed he's a mod?) if you even disagree (hasn't happened yet and i doubt the likes of the owner of temp would hopefully keep him in check