this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
314 points (98.5% liked)

News

23287 readers
3694 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Why does this need to be determined? He wasn't. He just wasn't. Nothing he is being charged with is constitutional, which is the point.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Devil's Advocate: It's been needing to be determined since fucking Nixon left office, and our entire government has been waffling about it for 70 years, because it's a question they don't actually want answered. It's only convenient to them now as a reason to give Trump a legal time-out so he can make it to the election without more indictments.

The District Court in question has already defined official versus unofficial acts, which is part of why the SC released this so late on fucking purpose. Because even though the DC is ready to go with their findings, they'll have to wait until October to kick it back up the chain to the Supreme Court when Trump inevitably appeals.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It won't be answered if Trump gets in. I guess that's the hope.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

That's the plan, yes. I think it goes a little farther than "hope" with these guys. They think they can manifest reality.

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.

-Karl Rove

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They see 1984 as a manual without recognizing the warnings in Animal Farm.

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

They don't mind being the pigs, their only driver is to jot be the other animals who suffered with someone else in power.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

In some ways, you can almost see why trying to "erase" bad ideas is intoxicating, since humans seem endlessly drawn to them.

It's like in tech circles, the joke goes that some Sci-Fi writer creates a horrible invention and includes a warning "DO NOT BUILD THE TORMENT NEXUS" and that warning, repeatedly, goes ignored. People are like "but we could make good profit from the Torment Nexus!"

AI is a good example. "If we don't make the terrible AI, someone else will, so we have to make the Torment Nexus, errr, I mean AI."

But trying to stop all these bad ideas is just Fahrenheit 451 with extra steps.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

AI is a good example. "If we don't make the terrible AI, someone else will, so we have to make the Torment Nexus, errr, I mean AI."

That mode of thought is a byproduct of capitalism.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think the Soviets and the space race with the USA would prove that the "We have to build it faster, first!" isn't just a capitalist thing.

Capitalism incentivizes it, absolutely. To be clear, I'm not making some "it's human nature" argument, culture plays a huge role. Capitalist culture influences it greatly, but I think humans "racing" to achieve something before another does is outside the scope of just capitalism.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Some of the evidence that Jack Smith has put together involve some form of Trump's official capacity. for instance, the Times notes that one of the points of the prosecution was that Trump tried to get Jeffrey Clark installed as acting AG in the days before Jan 6, presumably because he would go along with the coup. One of the findings of the Court is that appointments like that are within the President's direct duties, and can't be used as evidence against him, even if it can be proven that the appointment was made to directly piss on the Constitution Trump swore to protect.

The Times also notes that Trump's pressure campaign on Pence is similarly protected now.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Times also notes that Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence is similarly protected now.

How can that be constitutional?

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because presiding over the counting of the votes is one of the very few duties the Constitution allocates to the VP, so is covered under this new doctrine. He has the absolute right to conduct that how he sees fit, without regard to whether he is upholding his oath to the Constitution or not, and any conversations he had with the President are part of that duty, and similarly protected. If it turns out he is not upholding that oath, the only remedy is impeachment. (And finding 67 Senators to agree to convict.)

Absolute power, just as the Founders intended.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Which, I guess, includes blackmailing the VP if necessary. To protect the president from blackmail.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's just due process of law. The lower court can't just wax seal issues of constitutionality with out looking at them. Doing so would be a fantastic grounds for appeal.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

They already looked at them before he appealed to SCOTUS. And SCOTUS didn't rule that they were wrong as far as I can tell.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In your opinion. It needs to be determined by a court.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

It already was determined by a court. Now they're sending it back to that court to re-determine it.