this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
361 points (95.0% liked)

politics

18966 readers
4 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 192 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not paying is very on brand for Trump.

[–] [email protected] 99 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The meat:

“Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending,” he huffs. “This fact nullifies risk to the judgment creditor and weighs heavily in favor of an unsecured stay.”

Only problem with that is that it's not Plaintiff who is requiring a bond pending appeal. It is the United States of America.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I thought it was the state of New York, but whatever

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The E. Jean Carroll defamation case was in federal court.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It really is hard to keep track of all of his criminal trials.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago

Yes, but the E. Jean Carroll case was a civil trial.

In case anyone thought there was any aspect of the law Trump hasn't shit on.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

What bullshit mental gymnastics of an argument. "I am above the law" is how it reads.

"I'm a great driver, so why are you giving me a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, officer?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So basically what he is saying is that he wants social security (as in GoFundMe, sponsors and such). So we should call him what he is. A socialist. I bet his clan will love that.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago

It really smells like "My cash flow is drying up and cannot fill all those obligations". Well, he's the one who was able to lose money with a casino, so that wouldn't surprise me at all.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And I'm too handsome to date Amy Adams.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You mean the judgement that he has to start paying this week? The one which I'm pretty sure he hasn't even filled a boneless appeal in.

Not to mention he already posted the 5M+ bond to appeal the other Carroll defamation ruling. If he's too rich to have to secure his judgement, why'd he do that?

This waste gets up and complains about the 2 tiered justice system and says he's a victim of it, yet he's trying to create a tier just for himself.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

He didn't post a $5M Bond. He put up cash. Makes you wonder if the companies that provide bonds may consider him to risky to bond.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

Guaranteed they do

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How do you hire a bounty hunter to drag someone into court who is protected by Secret Service agents?

Why are we in a reality where the above question even needs to be asked?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

Largely because of this. Someone took it upon themselves to edit the law, and it wasn't noticed by anyone that cared to actually enforce the law for almost 140 years.

If that law were enforced fully, no one would have immunity from prosecution. Period. End of sentence. Not even a Sitting President. That's why we have a VP, and a chain of Command.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm too rich to fly to the moon, so I won't do it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

I'm too rich to cure cancer, so i wont do it.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

The only thing Trump ever does is contort his reality to protect his ego, so this statement could have been anticipated

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

If he wants to be a part of the gang then he needs to pay up. He needs to pay his dues.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

This is deep post-truth territory.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

One of the few billionaires where I don't actually believe "cmon baby I'm good for it"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Donny doesn't seem to understand that the opposite of 'priceless' isn't 'too rich'.

load more comments
view more: next ›