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
Let’s just hope the judge can clamp down on Trump over all this. Also when I normally say “don’t threaten anybody in my family” most people wouldn’t misunderstand it as “but you can threaten me, totally fine” but I wouldn’t be surprised if trump asked his staff who he could lash out at while staying within the gag order and this is what he came up with.
Like he asks anyone those type of things. He's just Leroy Jenkins his tweets and let's people sort it out after the fact
True haha
I think the judge has to keep their eyes on the prize, which is finding the most equitable outcome for all parties.
That only includes trying to keep Trump inline insofar as his behaviour might jeopardise an equitable outcome.
That means protecting court staff so they may execute their duties, but issuing orders needs to be balanced against the chances trumps supporters will believe the final ruling is inequitable.
True to form, that's exactly how Trump has responded to this gag order "see! It's all rigged!"
Letting Trump abuse his national platform to pervert and prevent the course of justice has nothing to do with fair treatment.
Also, as it's a somewhat adversarial thing, an equitable OUTCOME would defeat the point. Especially in the case of Donald where there's no doubt about his guilt.
The main job of these lawsuits aren't finding out whether he's guilty, it's locking down the facts in such a manner that the worst bad faith and illogical but still following the letter of the law arguments against reality can't gain legal traction.
Edit: having read the rest, I am now convinced that you're using the wrong word. It's fairness, not equity.
No matter the outcome and any circumstances, including letting him get away with hundreds of times more than a regular defendant, his cult following will continue to claim that he's an innocently persecuted martyr. That's how cults work.
Tl;dr: Trump is already being shown excessive leniency and basing anything on the reaction of a cult is lunacy.
An equitable outcome means that everyone's interests (including the public's) are appropriately weighed.
My point is, it's the outcome which is important. The more bs there is along the way, including gag orders et cetera, the more fertile ground for discontent later on.
And my point is that the appropriate weight to give to the comfort of the obviously guilty and blatantly manipulative Trump’s wish to threaten and defame without consequences is none.
As for discontent later on, that's a given, since his cult will believe his claims no matter how obviously false ni matter what anyone does or says, so trying to please them is a lost cause.
The only significant effect of imposing a general gag order is on the safety of those he'll vilify to his unhinged and frequently violent cult following.
That and the news will be less saturated with his nonsense, but that's just a very pleasant bonus.
I don't see anyway his supporters ever see any negative outcome as just. The longer you let him spout off, the more they ll be convinced it's a sham... Because he's telling them that.
It's s tough position for the judge to be sure but at some point, you have to address his bad behavior.