501
SCOTUS Immunity Ruling Will Let Trump be Führer, Here’s My Proof: Michael Cohen
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
501 points (97.2% liked)
politics
18129 readers
3591 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There's disagreement among scholars.
It’s provenly NOT absolute immunity. Stop with the extremism. It’s dangerous. Yes, but he cannot make goon squads to go murderizing people at will.
Stop with the sensationalism. It only dilutes the water.
Okay, Berkley won't do it for you, how about Harvard Law?
Or how about I quote the decision itself?
It's not impossible for him to be prosecuted, but the legal barrier is sky high and in most cases not practical. Acknowledge it.
He cannot murder people or have them murdered and not face consequences.
I’m not discussing this with you any further. Your feelings are entirely irrelevant.
My feelings have never been relevant. The facts are the facts, pound sand.
Your interlocutor brought sources. You brought gaslighting and personal attacks and frankly lies.
The pro-genocide wing of the Democratic Party is intellectually bankrupt in addition to being morally bankrupt.
pRo gEnoCiDe!
This is why I don’t take you seriously.
Centrism distilled. The only things you have to back up the excuses you call arguments are ridicule, baseless accusations, gaslighting and abuse. Like I said, intellectually bankrupt.
Your hypocrisy is impressive. What’s more impressive is your inability to even notice it. It reminds me a lot of MAGA. You seem to share a lot of similarities.
Everything reminds you of MAGA.
No… just people like you. But I get how you think you are everything. Both you and MAGA forget that there are other people that exist in the world.
Because… The world was created for you and you alone.
And, go ahead and note how I have never once in my entire comment history accused ALL of anyone of anything. It’s because:
I don’t make blanket statements- like you do.
I don’t make assumptions of an entire political ideology- like you do.
I don’t falsely accuse entire political ideologies of shit they’re not doing- like you do. (Don’t deny this- your comment history serves as proof for anyone to see)
I don’t victimize myself by rewording the systems of others- like you do.
Your comment history is rife with constant accusations of shit that is easily proven wrong- while what I say about you and those like YOU, and JUST YOU and those like YOU, no one else. No other group- not leftists, not everyone I disagree with, no one but YOU and the few like YOU here to disrupt-
… is seemingly shared by many people here. So as the saying goes, if you smell shit, and everyone else in the room isn’t shit….
You've spent this entire thread making excuses for Biden's support for genocide. Gazans aren't people to you? Have you forgotten they exist?
Your opponent brought sources and you replied with abuse. As you do. I hope I've taken some of the heat so you're not still abusing someone for being right and bringing receipts.
I judge ideologies in part based on their results. For example, Republicans are shit because they ban books, are openly corrupt and bigoted, they weren't up to the task of responding to a pandemic, oppose universal healthcare, oppose workplace safety standards, support abusive police, support things like Uganda's law that makes homosexuality punishable by death, support cruelty to refugees, support genocide in Gaza, January 6, the list goes on and on. But there ain't a lot of Republicans here, despite your feigned paranoia that people to your left are actually maga bots.
There are a lot of centrists here, and centrism should also be judged by its results. Where those results are reprehensible, I will call them such. When an ideology results in supplying weapons for an ongoing genocide, that ideology is morally bankrupt. When the adherents of that ideology reliably make insultingly bad excuses for it and lob abuse at people who provide sources that contradict their excuses, that's a hallmark of intellectual bankruptcy.
Now instead of talking about the issue at hand, you've pivoted to something you're far more comfortable doing: ad hominem attacks.
And when I point out what you're doing, you accuse me of playing the victim. It's easier than defending that which you know is indefensible.
Got a TLDR version? I don’t take you seriously enough to read that mess.
It's certainly clear that you didn't arrive at your present positions by reading, yes.
I read tons. That’s how I learned to not take you seriously. Do you think you’re entitled to my time? That I’m somehow obligated to read your little manifestos and your nonsense drivel where you rearrange my narrative to suit whatever bullshit point you’re trying to make?
Hilarious!
Naaah man. I have zero respect for you. And that is illustrated in the fact that I don’t care what you have to say.
This will be the type of response you’re getting from me from now on… so you’re free to ignore me moving forward.
You can stop responding to me any time you like. You can actually ignore or block me instead of pretending to do so again.
I know. I'm not Netanyahu.
It's the only type of response anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% on everything can expect from you, if this thread is any indication.
Cool Story! Again… didn’t read it, but I’m assuming.
You have chosen deliberate ignorance and are arrogant about it.
Naah. I’ve chosen to not engage with trolls that bait people into arguing. But you do you and go ahead and just me whatever makes you feel edgy.
Got a funny way of showin' it, chief.
Okay buddy.
Glad we've reached an agreement.