Jellin’ like a felon.
Very good way to put it.
That’s just one way it’s broken.
Ouch. That truth hit hard.
Next up on Lemmy: Elon and the Felon, episode 843.
What about Nelson Mandela?
Democrat fixation on just “Trump is a felon” is getting annoying. How about “he’s a fascist” or “he’s a war criminal”?
Just about every president is a war criminal.
thats cause one of the systems was purposefully sabotaged, delayed, and deccelerated, so that the other system would protect him.
Please replace “felon” with “rich asshole” so it makes sense.
if felons couldnt be elected to office i wonder how many times someone the people want but corporations dont would get randomly arrested and on trial right around election time
This is why I think “rich asshole” is the proper description. I’m sure I’m not and Angel and I could find someone in jail who is actually better than me in every way. So having elected a felon doesn’t disturb me as much as the fact that the guy most probably won because he is rich and thru his influence and Jerry, last name Meandering he basically purchased the United States presidency. Like purchased a car, that how it is for him. Now he’s got the wheels, so he’s gonna ram this puppy into a brick wall just for fun or something. And the worst part is all the years fighting for Black Hispanic, Asian minority suffrage and rights as well as LGBTQA and women’s rights, all of that is now on a rich asshole’s hands. Worse even that this rich asshole would like to befriend China and Russia. He probably wants to give them AI chips and high teck robotics. Next thing you know, instead of a nice retirement, we’re running from a smart drone on an everyday basis. That’s our future. Sure he could prove us all wrong, but 99.999999% says he isn’t.
I just hope a big golden peanut does him in. Hopefully in a funny embarrassing way. That’s our hope, a golden peanut.
If trump is the disease, American democracy doesn’t have enough antibodies.
… What? How do you figure?
Removed by mod
Like, I think Trump is a piece of shit that should be rotting in jail. But this tweet is “due process is bad” and no, no it is not. Lots is wrong with our justice system. That is not one of those things
But this tweet is “due process is bad”
Justice deferred is Justice Denied. You’re not engaged in Due Process if the prosecution drags out for years and results in a prosecutor too terrified of the incoming elected President to recommend a sentence.
Compare the prosecution and sentencing of Donald Trump to Sam Bankman-Fried.
Trump had evidence assembled against him back in 2016. He remained shielded from prosecution for his first four-year term. His indictment and prosecution didn’t begin until March of 2023. The trial did not happen until May 30, 2024. It resulted in conviction on all counts. And then the sentence was… nothing.
Meanwhile, Sam Bankman-Fried had evidence of criminal misconduct presented in November of 2022. He was arrested on Dec 12, 2022, extradited from the Bahamas, and indicted the same day. He was tried, sentenced, and incarcerated by March 28, 2024, barely more than a year later.
To claim either of them was denied due process would be absurd. The distinction between the prosecution of these two high profile individuals is glaring.
Due process is not bad. Delays because of corruption, politics, and moneyed interests is
That was not due process. That was delay delay delay obfuscate obfuscate obfuscate delay delay delay and let’s not forget install corrupt judges who refuse to recuse.
It was everything BUT due process.
Correct
Dissolve the electoral college
That’s probably the least of the issues.
Getting money out of politics and removing the ability for billionaires to exist by taxing them out of existence via a 100% tax above a certain number (that number is negotiable, but I don’t think any person deserves to have over $50 million in combined realized and unrealized gains, as it is impossible to just “work that much harder” than the average worker). We live in a luck-based economy instead of a meritocracy (which cannot exist due to humans being the ones in control), but the wealthy have convinced us that we live in a meritocracy, and that they earned their massive fortune due to merit.
Simply having a billion dollars is enough to sway governments, even if no money changes hands, as politicians will think that it might change hands if they serve their overlords. Now, in reality, the exchange of money happens both before and after.
Check out Professor Richard Wolff. He’s an economic historian and gives very solid rundowns of why the economic system must change in order for corruption to even have a chance of disappearing.
Not to mention the existence of the stock market at all completely defeats the idea that we live in a meritocracy. When your money that your parents gave you makes money, you’re not working harder than anyone. It’s just gambling for the rich, except they’re able to sue and win whenever they lose thanks to people like Jack Welch and Ronald Reagan.
As a future lottery winner, 50 million is plenty.
We’re gonna need a lot of acid. Or base. Either way, we need a lot.
He did win the popular vote this time…
This time sure. But it was the first time since Reagan.
Nah, Bush did it during his re-election in 2004.
Thanks again, stay-at-homers! You’re heroes!
Voter shaming is a great way to make those people continue to not vote in the future.
A lot of people require something to vote for and not just something to vote against.
It’s actually non-voter shaming.
And the something to vote for is better than this. It was simple and obvious from day 1. They fucked it up, intentionally, to the detriment of everyone. They ought to be ashamed.
Bush won the popular vote in '04 (because of 9/11, of course).
The issue is immunity not the speed at which it operates
They had 4 years. A “speedy trial” should have sentenced him long before the election season.
Evidence against Trump was compiled as far back as 2016. Mueller declined to prosecute the President. The Senate failed to convict on impeachment, nearly entirely on party lines. Alvin Bragg’s office did not bring charges until March of 2023, long after the point at which Merrick Garland’s DOJ could have acted.
And the trial was open-and-shut. All counts confirmed. Trump was comically easy to convict once he was put on trial. The prosecutors then declined to recommend a punishment. Insanity.
And then it doesn’t matter because he has immunity, he’s given campaign leave until after the election , or if he doesn’t run the other Republican gives him a pardon
A blanket pardon wouldn’t be enough to protect him, because that’s federal only and there are still state crimes he wouldn’t be pardoned of. That also wouldn’t happen for 4 years, so again it’s an issue that he wasn’t prosecuted and sentenced in that time. The hypothetical pardon wouldn’t come until after all that happened.
A presidential candidate, 4 years away from an election, does not have immunity. The president doesn’t have full immunity either, though the Supreme Court recently gave that “immunity for official acts” without describing what makes acts official or not.
So given a hold on all the punishments, if any, until he’s re-elected/pardoned
The issue is still the president being above the law
Hard disagree.
Criminal investigations and prosecutions inherently take a long time to have the opportunity for due process. In sane countries, the entire election, from the time of calling, through campaigning and voting, only takes like 3 months.
It’s been 4 years though
I don’t disagree that there are flaws with the US system, but the statement ‘that any system that can elect someone faster than prosecuting them is broken’ is wrong.
thank you Canada man! please tell me more about how my assessment of my government is wrong!
I explicitly said that it could be correct for the US in this instance but is incorrect as a general statement.
No one said it as a general statement, you had to add “always” to make it generalized.
Did you not read the text in the image?
A system that can elect a felon faster than it can prosecute him is fundamentally broken.
It’s called inference dude.
It’s phrased as any but it’s clearly a reference to the USA which is one country not all, not many, not several but a singular one. It would be a lack of reading comprehension to say it’s “any” or “all” which your article just confirmed for you.
Now have a look back at my first comment and we’ll see if you can figure out what your actual point is.
Not really though. This isn’t the system not working this is reasonable steps on law being abused to extend that prosecution essentially as long as you can afford to throw legal bullshit at them to create delays.
Again, that does not mean it should always be shorter than an election.
Who said always.
Ed: to be clear no one did. And in fact a system that you agree has fundamental flaws is in fact fundamentally flawed by your own admission.
Being contrarian is ok but being tedious and contrarian all while making an argument based on words and implications that didn’t exist is a bad look.
A system that can elect a felon faster than prosecute him is fundamentally broken.
This quote says, in other words, prosecuting a felon always has to take less time than electing him in a system that is not broken. Because, if it sometimes can take longer, then the system is broken according to the quote.
And in fact a system that you agree has fundamental flaws is in fact fundamentally flawed by your own admission.
Because I agree the US system is broken as fuck. But the original quote is still dumb as rocks. Both can be true at the same time.
while making an argument based on words and implications that didn’t exist is a bad look.
Not reading and understanding the whole comment thread before responding is a bad look.
Not at all. That’s arguing one of the two of those things is broken and on this case it’s both.
Both can be true at the same time.
In this case no, you’re simply making conclusions based on your reading of it not the actual words in it.
Not reading and understanding the whole comment thread before responding is a bad look.
Agreed, you should have a look at your comments and take it to heart yourself.
> You have the right to a speedy trial
> “No thanks”
I was thinking about this the other day. The right to a speedy trial is always framed in the context of the defendant. They can potentially quickly defend the accusations and move on with minimal disruption to their life. But, what about the right of the victim? In this case the people of New York, Georgia, and the United States. Shouldn’t they also have a right to a speedy trial?
Legally speaking, pretty much all rights are framed as your right against a government. So rights only restrict what governments can do.
Governments have sovereignty, which means they can do (or not do) whatever they want except break human rights.
So if government wants a speedy trial, they have tools to speed them up, e.g. make sure there are more judges with lesser workload, modify judicial procedures, etc.
Unfortunately, victim rights are either entirely not recognised or greatly underdeveloped in modern legal systems and it is one of the biggest issues legal systems around the world have imo.
But, in this case the government is representing us, the people. We are the ones effected by the alleged crime so we are trying them. The state is only acting as our lawyer.
Yes, but legally speaking, no.
Disclaimers first: I am not a lawyer, this is my unprofessional understanding of the law and not legal advice. I also do not believe this is right or should be the case. As I mentioned before, I think it is one of the biggest issues of the US legal system.
However, legally speaking, your rights are only preventing the government from doing things. If the government passed a law that murder is legal on Halloween, reenacting the Purge, then you still have a constitutional right not to be killed by government agents acting on behalf of the government. But the government (including cops and courts) have no duty to prevent ordinary citizens from killing you or to prosecute them after the fact.
Your right to Life and Liberty only applies against the government and its agents. This is why the government or you by extension don’t have any constitutional right to a speedy trial in this case. Only the accused does. You don’t have any constitutional rights at all against other people. Bearing arms and using them for self-defense is also a restriction on government punishing you for it.
And that is why 2A and the right of self-defense is important, even though you should hopefully never need it in practice.
PS: By the way, most of this is not purely theoretical. Cops did watch a man get stabbed to death right in front of them and courts ruled that was fine, since they have no duty to help.
Prosecutor also don’t have to press charges for any crime they don’t feel like prosecuting. This is called prosecutorial discretion. They can even officially file a noprosecution affidavid with the court making a binding promise not to prosecute a crime.
