this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
99 points (93.0% liked)

politics

31754 readers
4344 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Gee, who didn't see that coming a million miles away.

all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ProIsh@lemmy.world 59 points 2 years ago (1 children)

He was going to do this regardless. Like, we all get that right?

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Now he's just going to point and whine that he should be able to because Biden pardoned Hunter. I mean, I agree that he was going to at least try anyway, but this just allows him and his followers to use the "both sides" argument

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Eh, I doubt anyone who wasn't already going to agree with him will be swayed by the" both sides". We should probably stop caring what arguments they're going to use about stuff, no one's on that side because of arguments.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Unfortunately, the "liberal media" often give them a big assist with the "both sides" thing, but, yeah, point taken. People need to stop caring what the Enlightened Centrists (TM) and the wingers are going to say.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 58 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

"What about Hunter Biden?" was so old, it was a gag in the Netflix mocumentary "Death to 2020" that came out 4 years ago. And we're still hearing "What about Hunter Biden?". Ugh.

Video: Lisa Kudrow's Best Scenes In Death to 2020

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Everyone asks"what about Hunter Biden" but no-one asks "how about Hunter Biden"

.. Wait, that doesn't really work

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

How many of about Hunter Biden?

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Toss him a red striped shirt, and you can play Where's Hunter Biden.

[–] Mildetoast@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'll do you one better: When about Hunter Biden?!

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Hunter when a Biden bout?

Oh boy, cannibalism.

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 35 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lol a pardon doesn't work for anyone but the pardoned person. Why is this even an argument?

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

When you fling a tonne of shit at the wall, somethings bound to stick.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 years ago

You get out of jail free? Then me too me too, memememememememememe!

Wonder what the 2 million other prisoners are thinking now

[–] MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago (5 children)

As president, could Trump pardon himself?

[–] Leeks@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

Probably not. The Hush Money case is a state case, not a federal case. Presidential pardons (up till this point) are only valid for federal crimes.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Putting aside the specific matter of jurisdiction (state level cases require state level pardons), legal experts widely agree that the concept of a self-pardon does not exist in pretty much any body of law, ever, because it basically refutes the idea of there being a body of law.

But, given that the supreme court decided that the president is a god-king emperor, the fact that he can't legally do it no longer really matters.

[–] MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But, given that the supreme court decided that the president is a god-king emperor, the fact that he can’t legally do it no longer really matters.

That's what I was wondering about

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The answer, as I understand it, is basically "Who the fuck knows?"

Every serious legal analyst seems to agree that the SC's immunity decision is, uh... I think the technical term is "Total fucking lunacy." It makes no sense, destroys a lot of existing legal precedent, and generally overturns many of the foundational principles of the US constitution. It's batshit crazy, and the actual terms of the immunity and how it's defined are astonishingly vague.

What the president can or cannot do right now is more or less "??????"

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

The SC case can be summarized as "Can the president commit crimes?" "Probably. Tell us what crime it is and we will decide later"

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Not the state case. He has the power at the federal level only.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Trump accepting the pardon from himself means he's guilty but gets no consequences, sort of maintaining the status quo.

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

He's convicted but not charged, does anyone really think it'll be bad politically to just pardon himself? Is sycophants don't care and clearly don't have memories past 4 years.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago