politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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! 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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
That's it guys, wrap it up. Time to stop trying cause previous attempts didn't work.
State laws are enforced VERY differently than other crimes. And presidents (and expresidents) are (and should be) treated differently than other people.
If someone is charged with a crime, but the people vote them into office, the election should be more important than a conviction.
There are a lot of politicians that are currently being targeted by this administration, and if you claim that their charges (and possible convictions) disqualify them from office, then that's just more reason to keep targeting political opponents.
That's the wrong takeaway. Trying the same thing repeatedly and facing failure every time doesn't mean quit, it means try something different.
In this context, we have a presumed baseline of legal justice. The legal part isn't working becuase the offender is above the law. So we can, as you suggested, wrap it up and do nothing; add more laws in the hopes that these people suddenly start being held legally accountable (which rhymes a lot with wrap it up and do nothing); or turn to vigilante justice.
So far we haven't had the spine for the latter. I certainly don't, and I'm assuming you're in the same boat seeing as you're doing the same thing (bitching fruitlessly into the void of the internet... what can I say, it's therapeutic!).
As a glimmer of hope though, we did just see an active duty officer give a speech identifying Trump as a domestic enemy of the constitution, which they are oath-bound to engage the same way they do any other enemy of the US. That individual is probably in prison by now - that little maneuver broke a handful of laws under the UCMJ, but this is the first such act of defiance I'm aware of coming from an officer, so here's hoping it prods other troops into actually taking their oath seriously instead of idly following the domestic enemy's orders.
Probably still no, but, fingers crossed.
But laws? we've seen repeatedly that those don't mean shit. We don't need new laws. Actually enforcing the ones we already have would be plenty, but we've got years of precedent showing loud and clear that shit ain't gonna happen.
Anywho, wishing anyone out there with the means and the spine the best of luck!
Only if by that you mean held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
Ideal world, we'd just be talking about how presidents and other high ranking government officials get a privilege to generally force the other party to waive their right to a speedy trial. Not "well they've got 34 convictions but it would be a crime to punish them"