295
submitted 1 month ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 88 points 1 month ago

Remember when rational people in 2020 said Biden was too old and did t have it in him to fight fascism?

And the DNC said the president doesn't matter (but still had to be Biden) it was about the people they appoint.

Well, Bidens picks were Smith and Garland, and a bunch of other people who couldn't get shit accomplished.

Everyone needs to remember how Biden worked out, because in four years the DNC will want to run someone just like him again. And if they do we're fucked

[-] Docus@lemmy.world 97 points 1 month ago

An election in four years … I like your optimism and I hope you are right.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

If it makes you feel any better, you'll likely live long for the DNC to say the same thing against the next 5 Republicans, and maybe even a Dem candidate will get a death bed endorsement from Trump while Eric Trump goes on a rally your with the Dem candidate talking about how much the Republicans have lost their way since 2016...

Like, after Biden stepped down I told myself I'd vote D matter who like I always have. Because Biden had no shot in hell, and the DNC actually listened and I wanted to communicate that's all we've been begging for.

But I remember GW, I remember Dick Cheney was the real problem and Lil Bush was just a distraction.

But Kamala still trotted Liz Cheney around, acted like her dad isn't the biggest US war criminal in modern history, and tried to act like Trump was solitarily the one responsible. I still voted for her. But it ended up being harder than voting Hillary.

trump can drop dead as I'm typing this and not a damn thing will change.

I've lived through this series of events before. The vast majority of Americans have.

It's going to suck and we're going to lose ground, but there isn't a cat wrangler alive that can get republicans to agree and work with themselves.

They'll lose the House/Senate in two years. Maybe one, maybe both. But they won't get anything accomplished and they do t have anyone else to blame to motivate their voters in midterms.

They're going to have to eat that they got trump, the House, and Senate, and sure as shit aren't going to fix what they told voters they'd fix.

Stop saying the fight is over because neo liberals didn't get everything they wanted.

Start working on fighting our own party next primary so we have a chance of getting what America needs. If another neoliberal gets into the general, hold your nose and hope enough other people do too to mitigate damage.

Regardless of anything that happens, giving up is never going to work.

Fight every fight like it's the last, and no matter what happens treat the next one the same. This is what fighting fascism actually looks like, not voting once every four years.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Liz Cheney has absolutely nothing to do with Harris losing. According to the polls and everyone I know that voted and even those that didn’t vote.

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

the people that voted for Harris aren't relevant to the major reasons why Harris lost.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

I’m not referring to the people that voted for Harris

[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

"According to the polls and everyone I know that voted."

Is this you because I think I'm missing your point?

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

I know people that didn’t vote for Harris and people that didn’t vote. According to them Cheney played no part in their decision.

[-] bradv@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 weeks ago

No, but being the type of Democrat that would go on tour with Cheney is exactly the reason she lost.

[-] Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

User name checks out. Thanks for giving a fuck and not posting the same endless whining and bad takes I've seen so much of.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I am a perpetual optimist....

And when looking back at the last 8 years, at least 2016-2020 when the president was fucking up, everyone I'd run into tended to agree.

Bidens term though when I was upset about anything, I'd either get gaslight that it's not a problem or the only people agreeing with me never looked past the letter next to Biden's name when deciding if they should complain about what he was doing.

So I'm still gonna be complaining about the same shit, I'll still verbalize what I think will work...

But in the next four years people are going to act like I've done a 180, because the concept of actually holding both parties to an equal standard is that unheard of in America today. People like me still exist, it's just a whole hell of a lot of us had their final straw when Dems closed rank to protect Bill Clinton lying under oath.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-clinton-lie-under-oath/

The 1/3 of the country that doesn't vote aren't in the middle of our two parties on any spectrum. They're looking at the parties on a measure of integrity and trustworthiness. And found both lacking.

Republicans aren't going to run someone that meets that standard, so all Dems have to do to win a presidential election is put up the only candidate who meets that standard in a general election. Stop focusing on "better than Republicans" and focus on "good enough for our voters".

Yelling at them to vote D doesn't work, so why not trying to give them what they want? It's better for all of us anyways.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

The 1/3 of the country that doesn't vote aren't in the middle of our two parties on any spectrum. They're looking at the parties on a measure of integrity and trustworthiness. And found both lacking.

You claim non voters saw the felon Trump and Harris and said to themselves “both sides are the same, I’m not voting”?!

This reeks of republican talking point.

[-] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago

Bullshit. The DNC said nothing. Biden wiped the floor with every other candidate in that primary fair and square. Maybe blame the voters or rather the people who couldn't be assed to come out.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 18 points 1 month ago

Maybe blame the voters or rather the people who couldn’t be assed to come out.

Absolutely this.

Old-ass biden wins primaries because the only people who could be bothered to vote in ANY election that isn't just the general election, are other old people. They vote for the people most like them, fellow old people...

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Why is it that every time Trump gets away with corruption you try to turn it into FUD towards democrats?

[-] irreticent@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's chronic with that user. The Boost app allows you to tag usernames and it's very helpful for tracking bad faith accounts.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Ya, it’s been pretty obvious for a while and I don’t even use boost or keep track.

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Literally name one thing that points to a bad faith argument here. Is anything critical of the party 'propaganda' now? That sure sounds familiar to a certain other party's rhetoric.

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

How can you witness the DNC lose two elections and barely win another by razor-thin margins during a time of unprecedented turmoil and think the party is doing well or above reproach?

All you're doing here is an ad hominem against the messenger and failing to give a single reason why you think their argument is wrong.

Trump got away with corruption because the DNC dragged their feet on pursuing charges until the 11th hour and now it's too late. That seems like a damn good reason to criticize the people leading the party.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The DNC isn’t the DOJ. Trump was successful at delaying almost all of his trials at no fault to the DOJ. I repeat:

At Trump’s request, judge delays immunity filing in Jan. 6 prosecution

You’re obviously being disingenuous by using Trumps success to spread FUD

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The head of the DOJ is appointed by the president though and they waited until a little over a year ago in August '23, after he won the RNC nomination, right in the ramp up into the election to charge Trump. Most of the delays are related directly to this and his candidacy for president as no judge wants to directly meddle in the election.

Why didn't they charge him in the nearly three years prior to that? They'd been prosecuting plenty of the January 6th participants during that time. Why not prosecute him for refusing to return all those top secret documents during that time? We had pictures, eye witnesses testifying that he had them in his bathroom, and admissions from Trump directly during that time.

You’re obviously being disingenuous by using Trumps success to spread FUD

How is that? You just admitted yourself "Trumps success" in avoiding any accountability, yet you call it "FUD" when people point out why he was successful in avoiding prosecution. How is this even FUD to begin with? The fact that you keep linking to the definition of it like it's some obscure term makes me think you just learned about it or something. There's no fear, uncertainty, or doubt that Trump will never be held accountable for any of this because we all just witnessed him get away with it.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Trump got his case delayed. The DOJ can’t just hold their own trial. If the trial is delayed by the judge the DOJ can’t have the trial. So it makes no sense for you to blame the DOJ but you still do.

There are certain accounts on lemmy that try to drum up hate for democrats by blaming them for Trumps actions. It’s been obvious to more than just me.

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee -2 points 4 weeks ago

The case was delayed after they waited nearly two and a half years to charge him which put the trial too close to the election. Why are you completely glossing over this while talking about 'drumming things up?' You're clearly trying to obfuscate the facts here.

Trump didn't wait until August '23 to bring any indictments against himself. That was the decision of Merrick Garland who was appointed directly by Joe Biden in March of 2021.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Why are you pretending Trump hasn’t gotten away with many other crimes already?

Each time anyone tries to prosecute Trump he claims it’s a witch hunt.

Each time he gets away with it the public believes his narrative a little more.

This means the DOJ can’t just go after him recklessly. They have to build an air tight case against not just your average defendant, but Trump.

Otherwise they lose another case and Trump is empowered by it.

This is what has happened time and time again. But people like yourself are acting like you’ve been living under a rock this whole time by pretending it is easy to pin down Trump and being disingenuous by trying to pin the blame on the DOJ and the DNC for Trump getting away.

Do you really think you know more than the DoJ about this situation?

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 0 points 4 weeks ago

This means the DOJ can’t just go after him recklessly. They have to build an air tight case against not just your average defendant, but Trump.

Otherwise they lose another case and Trump is empowered by it.

Like they did here leading to him getting away with a multitude of felonies? A single state government managed to successfully prosecute and convict him, but you're telling me the DOJ with the full resources of the federal government couldn't manage to do the same because it's too hard?

Do you really think you know more than the DoJ about this situation?

Do you really feel like an "appeal to authority" argument is valid, especially in this context? You want to act like I'm an idiot because 'they have a solid, air-tight plan' as we're here commenting on an article about how all charges against him have been dismissed. That sounds like the exact opposite of a solid plan. Who ever could have imagined that a defendent would try to delay their case from being heard in court? Obviously, this completely blindsided the DOJ as it's such an unprecedented tactic, so it's perfectly understandable why they have to let him walk away.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Like they did here leading to him getting away with a multitude of felonies?

If they try and fail they can’t try again.

but you're telling me the DOJ with the full resources of the federal government couldn't manage to do the same because it's too hard

Nope I’m explaining to you what happened. They had to build a case first, that took time. By the time they were ready, a judge delayed the trial at Trumps request.

You want to act like I'm an idiot because 'they have a solid, air-tight plan' as we're here commenting on an article about how all charges against him have been dismissed.

I’m acting like you’re an idiot because the trial was dismissed after Trump delayed it long enough to get re-elected and said he would fire the prosecutor.

But your armchair internet legal analysis is that it wouldn’t be delayed if they just did it sooner. Which doesn’t make any sense.

But if you really think you’re smarter than the entire DOJ then why don’t you go stop Trump. Show them how it’s done.

[-] CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee 0 points 4 weeks ago

If they try and fail they can’t try again.

There's no "if" about it. They've already failed and this trial will never happen.

By the time they were ready, a judge delayed the trial at Trumps request.

Based on what exactly? Can you provide some sources that actually state that they didn't have enough to charge him until 2.5 years after his crimes occurred? What are you

But your armchair internet legal analysis is that it wouldn’t be delayed if they just did it sooner. Which doesn’t make any sense.

Where did I state this exactly? I'm arguing that delays wouldn't have mattered if they had charged him long before he'd already campaigned and won the Republican nomination. He was able to avoid a trial precisely because they waited until this point in time to do anything. Delaying is a common tactic in cases with people like him. Who couldn't have seen that coming? Are you arguing that Garland nor anyone else in the DOJ could have predicted this outcome? How do you argue that th

But if you really think you’re smarter than the entire DOJ then why don’t you go stop Trump. Show them how it’s done.

Well I can surely have a case against Trump dismissed as an armchair legal expert, so I guess that makes me equally competent to the best that the DOJ had to offer under Biden and the DNC's leadership.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

From the article:

Smith said he was seeking to drop the charges against the president-elect “without prejudice,” which would keep the door open for charges to be brought again in the future.

Unless you’re pretending you can see the future.

Based on what exactly? Can you provide some sources that actually state that they didn't have enough to charge him until 2.5 years after his crimes occurred? What are you

Based on the order of events. You’re the one claiming they built their case then didn’t do anything until there was just enough time to delay. The burden of proof is on you to support that claim.

I'm arguing that delays wouldn't have mattered if they had charged him long before he'd already campaigned and won the Republican nomination. He was able to avoid a trial precisely because they waited until this point in time to do anything. Delaying is a common tactic in cases with people like him.

If they charged him before he would still delay. You said it yourself. It doesn’t matter when they charge him. Either way he delays until after the election.

Well I can surely have a case against Trump dismissed as an armchair legal expert, so I guess that makes me equally competent to the best that the DOJ had to offer under Biden and the DNC's leadership.

You couldn’t even read the article or support your claim that the DOJ waited before charging Trump.

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Because the DNC is not blameless, and while we can't control Trump or his followers, the DNC is something we (should) have control over. Being critical of the things we have control over is literally the only way to improve them.

And for the record, DNC != Democrats. The person you are responding to is being critical of the DNC, not democrats. That is a very important distinction.

Also did you just link to the wiki article on FUD as though people might not know what you're referring to?

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 8 points 4 weeks ago

You can't lay that on Smith. He accomplished a lot. But, no surprise, a Trump judge derailed it.

this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
295 points (98.0% liked)

News

23655 readers
3005 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS