Nightwingdragon

@Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

Nightwingdragon ,

He has so many sympathetic fascist-state wannabes in positions to affect his crimes being brought to trial that it is just incredibly difficult to do.

No, no it is not. Many of the crimes he committed were literally committed live and in real time on Twitter or on TV for the world to see. Outside of having to battle through Trump's seemingly unlimited supply of shitty lawyers, many of the cases were so blatantly obvious that a random law student could have handled it if the DOJ were even remotely close to serious.

It took individual states to act like NY and GA and then a special federal prosecutor Jack Smith to actually bring meaningful charges against him. In NY, it was delayed because the AG at the time was in his pocket and had been for decades. The GA prosecution was delayed because the AG was busy going after sycophants he used as tools so as to use their convictions to bolster his case. Jack Smith only got appointed in 2023 and he’s been working his ass off on multiple cases simultaneously.

No, the reason it took so god damned long is because Merrick Garland has proven to be a spineless coward of an AG. And it wasn't much better at the state level, where a whole bunch of AGs were standing around with their dicks in each other's hands wondering who was going to go first. And even then, Bragg's charges in the pornstar case were little more than him sticking his head out a bit with light charges in a largely meaningless case hoping it doesn't get blown off. Once he wasn't immediately assassinated or something, then the rest of the AGs finally decided to do something, even though it has led to everybody involved in these cases so far handling Trump with kid gloves because heaven forbid Trump be subject to the same justice system as the rest of us.

So yeah it takes time. I’m frustrated too. It would’ve been great if all of this had played out the minute Biden got into office but that just wasn’t up to him - the processes had to play out on their own. Otherwise we’d create a politicized justice system (well, more than it already is) with a fucking gestapo going after political opponents. That’s just part of the price we have to pay for keeping an semi-blind justice system.

It wouldn't have been a gestapo thing.

Start with the crimes that he committed live on television. Start with the low-hanging fruit. And then as you're working on those cases, you can simultaneously investigate the larger crimes and just tack on more charges later. But nope. Gotta give Trump all that special treatment because he's Trump.

This is the US government. Probably the most powerful entity on the planet, with a war chest that would put Trump's to shame even if his net worth was what he claims it is. Even the state governments have far more resources at their disposal than even the most powerful elites have available to them. It's been 3 years. If they were even in the ballpark of being serious about holding Trump accountable, these trials would already be over and he'd be sitting in a jail cell by now.

Fuck Merrick Garland for starting off as a spineless coward and getting worse from there.
Fuck the state AGs who knew that Trump committed crimes but all sat on the charges because they're afraid of retaliation.
Fuck each and every judge who has so far bent over backwards to repeatedly defer to Trump and refuse to hold him accountable for his courtroom actions that would have landed him in jail pending his trial if it were literally anyone else on the planet.
Fuck the media who admit that they continue to cover Trump the way they do, knowing the damage it is causing but not caring because they're making bank.

Our entire legal system is falling apart, and a lot of it has to do with the US government proving that when push comes to shove, even they will cower in the corner despite having infinitely more resources at their disposal. I mean, the US government has El Chapo, and he actually had an army! Why the fuck they continue to cower at Trump's feet of all fucking people continues to baffle me.

Nightwingdragon ,

So I want to try to look at all of these from the eyes of a sane person.

He will indict Biden and his other political enemies.

This is one of those things that, if it would have been said by literally any other person, would have signalled the end of their political careers, full stop. But this is Trump. This should scare everyone outside of the extreme MAGA community, but there is a scary enough number of people who are willing to accept this, even if begrudgingly.

He will round up, intern, and deport undocumented immigrants

This wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing if done properly. Prioritize getting those who have committed serious crimes out of the country first, work your way down from there. A proper plan to identify and increase the rate of deportations would probably appeal to a lot of people, but we all know Trump's version is to just round all the brown people up and ship them to wherever.

He will send the military to the border

I'm actually going to say I don't really see a problem here. I will admit to being right-leaning on immigration, and states like Texas that have to bear a disproportionate amount of the burden that comes with illegal immigration do have a point. There's 2000 miles of border to guard. I certainly don't want our military just blindly shooting at every person that comes across the border, but having the national guard to help out with border patrol duties isn't a bad idea.

Of course, the problem is that Trump will just devolve it to "Just shoot the brown people."

He will invade Mexico

There's an argument to be made that a joint US/Mexico exercise could easily take out the cartels, who openly admit that they'd be no match for US forces. And I believe such an exercise would be of great benefit to both countries. But Mexico doesn't seem to have an appetite for it, and the US should not be once again unilaterally deciding that Mexico suddenly needs to have freedom sent over to them via ballistic missile.

Once again, there's something that could be appealing if done properly, but we all know Trump will just go back to "Just shoot the brown people."

He will round up the homeless and send the National Guard into cities to fight crime

So let me get this right. It's going to be the National Guard vs. the Homeless. And what are all those gun-toting, 2A doomsday preppers going to do when they welcome Trump's national guard in with open arms, only to find out that since they're the ones carrying all the guns, the national guard looks at them as the threat?

He will bring back the death penalty in a big way

It never went anywhere. The death penalty is already an option at the federal level.

He will make stuff more expensive by taxing all imported goods

You know what? If done properly, I'm actually OK with this at the retail level at least. Not for imported goods that we need for essential services or anything. But if it'll help cut down on all the low quality Chinese garbage at Amazon and in places like Walmart in favor of US goods, I'm all for it. But we all know how this would go: Critical goods will be heavily taxed, but Trump will make exceptions for whatever countries or companies line his personal pockets.

He will reevaluate America’s participation in NATO

There's an argument for saying that the US is going to scale back funding for NATO until other countries who have been slacking off start to pay their share. I could see that. But let's be realistic: The US withdrawing from NATO would effectively signal the end of NATO. And that should be looked upon by anyone with more than 2 active brain cells as batshit insane.

He will roll back all of Biden’s climate progress and reinvest in fossils fuels

I'm not saying I necessarily like the idea or anything, but an argument can be made that some of the goals and deadlines that have been established to combat climate change may have been too ambitious. Re-evaluating those goals and setting more realistic deadlines is a good idea; keeping idealistic but unrealistic deadlines will only lead to more missed deadlines which just leads to diminished enthusiasm and apathy with regard to climate change. Better to have goals that are realistic and achievable vs. pie-in-the-sky ambitions that were never realistic to begin with that will only cause disappointment.

He will construct “freedom cities” filled with flying cars

So he's trying to secure the "8 year old boy" vote? Someone may want to tell him kids can't vote.

He will try to overhaul the education system in the MAGA image

They're already doing that now.

He will torch the First Amendment by going after non-MAGA media

To be fair, we really are relying on a document that is almost 300 years old and was written by people who couldn't even begin to conceive of how life would be in modern society. In an ideal world, I could see the argument that the Constitution needs to be severely updated not only for clarity but also to reflect the realities of modern life. This would actually include increasing media protections, for example, in an era where doxxing of sources is a very real option, and toning down the 2nd amendment to allow for the self-defense that our founders envisioned while keeping weapons that those founders could never have dreamed of out of the hands of ordinary people.

But there is NO possible way I would want a Constitutional Convention to happen in this political climate or anything like it. We'd end up living in the Handmaid's Tale.

He will legally delegitimize trans Americans

There is some debate over what kind of care that trans children should receive. Should they be allowed to go through life-altering procedures such as puberty blockers? Are they capable of making those kind of life-changing decisions at all? How do you handle trans children who are competing in sports where some biological differences between the sexes (Bone density, lung capacity, etc) come into play and give trans children a significant advantage? What bathrooms should they be able to use?

Both sides have legitimate points on issues like this, and we as a country need to come up with a solution that all can agree on. That much I can understand. But again, that's not what would happen. We all know that it would just be "Round up every boy wearing a dress, throw his parents in jail for abuse, strip the doctor of his license for treating them, and don't forget to fire the 3rd grade teacher that referred to the child as 'her' that one time."

He will pardon the Jan. 6 rioters

The entire presidential pardon system has been abused by every single president in modern history. Trump is hardly the first one to pardon cronies, family members, people of influence, etc. He's just threatening to do it en masse and right away, instead of just waiting until his last day in office and just writing up a blanket pardon 5 minutes before the next guy's inauguration like past presidents did.

He will gut the federal government and take unprecedented control of what’s left

This is the scariest part. Because there's no reason to believe that the Supreme Court wouldn't back him up. And especially if he manages to control Congress like he did the first half of his first term. If that happens, it's all over. There will not be another election. Our system was divided up into 3 branches in such a way so the other two branches will be able to constrain the third if one goes rogue. The problem is that Trump is proving that the system is in no way equipped to do anything about it if two branches, or even all 3, collaborate to take over. The SC has already signalled its willingness to be on board, and most of the GOP congressmen are campaigning on essentially jumping on the train as well. There is a non-zero chance he may get his wish.

Vote. I don't care if it's for POTUS or your neighborhood dog catcher. Vote. Because the GOP have spent decades building the party from the ground up by establishing themselves at the bottom and working their way up from there. If we're going to combat that, we're going to have to start doing the same thing.

Nightwingdragon ,

Upvotes and downvotes are meaningless numbers which are little more than "I agree/ I disagree". I put zero value on them. It does show a prime example of how polarized discussion on almost any sensitive subject has become: Everything has an "us vs. them" mentality now, and even discussing the possibility that the other side may have a point on something is akin to treachery. People in general do not want to discuss things on social media; they just want to find an echo chamber of people telling them what they want to hear. Rather than have a discussion, people would rather just downvote you, insult you, and move on. You know how many messages I've gotten from people labelling me a "MAGA apologist" or something, from people who clearly didn't take a look at my posting history? Their downvotes mean nothing to me because they were never looking for legitimate discussion in the first place; they were looking for their echo chamber.

Nightwingdragon ,

You severely underestimate the level of apathy in this country when it comes to actually taking action. If it requires them to step away from being keyboard warriors, most people in this country want no part of it.

Nightwingdragon ,

I know, I know. We're talking about Trump and his lawyers here, which means nothing makes sense by default.

But wouldn't the counting of the votes be a congressional inquiry? I mean it's literally answering the question of "Who won the election?".

Can we go back to the days where a sane Supreme Court would have laughed this entire argument out of the room?

Nightwingdragon ,

Let's be realistic. She was hired because (a) no lawyer with any desire to keep their reputation intact would touch this case with a 10 foot pole, and (b) because she looks like a smaller, more pissed off version of Melania. Which means he didn't hire her for her legal skills. He hired her because she's a starstruck, young lawyer hoping to be able to boost her career and he sees an opportunity to get her into bed.

And she has two goals, neither one of them involve winning the case. (1) Spew out as many frivilous monkey wrenches into the works as possible, knowing full well the judge is going to rule against 99.9% of them, so Trump will be able to leave the courtroom every day and twist those rulings in order to show that the judge is "biased" against him in his glorified campaign rallies, and (2) To delay as much as possible until after the election in hopes that Trump wins and is just able to make everything go away.

(And yes, including the state stuff. If he wins the election, he would just hand-wave it away and basically tell the states "You've made your decision, now let's see you enforce it", and he'd most likely be correct in his belief that either the states would lose any appetite for trying to enforce anything, and the courts would likely say that the need for him to carry out his presidential duties supersedes the states' needs to enforce punishment and that they'd have to wait until his 2nd term is over before pursuing him if they wanted to try.)

Nightwingdragon ,

How is everything related to this man such a fucking joke and HOW IS HE SO POPULAR

  • His 2016 campaign was initially seen as a joke (Even by Trump, who just wanted to use it to launch his next grift anyway). It essentially became a meme that quickly spiraled out of control. People voted for Trump "for teh lulz" early on, the same way they voted for the 15 year old kid, "Deez Nuts", and other joke candidates. The problem is that unlike those other joke cases, Trump didn't go away once the joke was over. He started winning.

  • He started ramping up the bigotry and racism, and just started spewing out what people wanted to hear. And then when the racists and bigots realized that "one of them" actually had a non-zero chance of winning the primary, they started jumping on board. Then you add in a whole bunch of people who liked everything he was saying but hadn't yet learned that he had no way of actually delivering on his promises, and suddenly you've got the "everyman". The man who's going to "tell it like it is". And he got away with it because nobody had ever peeked behind the curtain, and there was no appetite to do so so long as this man continued telling them what they wanted to hear.

  • Even beyond the dedicated MAGA base, he has been very successful in finding a boogeyman to point to to get even moderate Republicans to begrudgingly support him. If it's not those dirty Mexicans coming up here to take your job away, it's kids who want to pretend to be the opposite sex so they can enter the girls' bathroom and molest your daughter. Or its about a woman who actually has the audacity to want to murder their baby without at least getting the blessing of their local politicians (remember Dr. Oz?) first. Or the gays that are using rainbows to recruit your children. Whatever it is. But Trump knows that if you give a man a "them" to blame for all of his troubles, he'll follow you anywhere. And Trump is a master of blaming everyone else.

  • Having exposed exactly how many racists and bigots are in this country, he was able to start threatening the rest of the party into submission by (correctly) pointing out that those racists and bigots now dictate their political careers and that their choices are to either march in lockstep behind him or commit political suicide. Most chose to either get on board or retire. The rest saw the end of their careers in Congress.

Nightwingdragon ,

The problem is that Trump has successfully turned any form of accountability into a campaigning and fundraising opportunity. Everybody insisted that his trials would sink his campaign, and they've done nothing but bolster it. His court appearances now are little more than glorified campaign rallies. And once Trump realized that not even court proceedings are enough to rattle his base, he has been exploiting that ever since.

He doesn't care about the outcome of this or any other trial any more, except for the SC case that would effectively remove him from the ballot. All he cares about is turning the court cases into circuses he can fundraise off of, and stalling for as long as possible until he wins a 2nd term in office and just makes all of it go away (Yes, even the state stuff, because he'd be in a position to say "you've made your decision, now let's see you enforce it.)

And the thing is, there's a non-zero chance he very well may get his wish

Nightwingdragon ,

Here's the thing: You're both right.

(Disclaimer: I am discussing incestuous relationships between two consenting adults. Relationships with children are and should be illegal already, regardless of family relationships. The same goes for non-consentual relationships. Those are just straight up rape and should be treated as such. At no point should anything I say be taken out of context or imply that I condone some 40 year old pedo diddling his 12 year old niece. That is, always will be, and always should be considered straight up rape with the perpetrator being jailed for life.)

One of the big talking points on the right when it comes to restricting gay marriage is the argument of "next, people are going to want to legalize incest". (Or pedophilia, or beastiality, or whatever. They make them all.). Any attempt at removing any time of restriction around incest is going to IMMEDIATELY be met with fierce resistance from both sides, with the republicans especially out there basically saying "See? I told you!". Any attempt at validating incest would almost certainly have a negative impact on marriage equality in general, and I really don't think there's all that much of a community out there of people willing to legalize incest, even if it is between two consenting adults who cannot bear biological children. Regardless of your opinion on the subject, the political will is just not there and any attempt to do so would be guaranteed to cause far more harm than good, particularly in the LGBT community no matter how much they would try to distance themselves from the idea.

But with that said, there is a point to be made about sexual relations between consenting adults who happen to also just be genetically related. Let's be realistic: Some 50 year old guy having sex with his 50 year old cousin down in Alabama isn't going to hurt anyone else. In reality, it's nobody else's business. They're never going to have children. And hell, if they don't say they're cousins, they could go the rest of their lives without anyone figuring it out anyway. A point could be made that these people deserve the same rights to be with their chosen partner as much as anyone else does.

The problem with it, though, is that even among otherwise consenting adults, you can't guarantee that there's a power dynamic influencing their decisions. It's one thing, for example, if Steve and Sarah fell in love then found out they were long-lost siblings. It would be another if Steve was her older brother and was basically the "dominant" sibling of the two for their entire lives, or even in a father-figure type of role. Then it becomes a matter of mutual consent vs. that dominant role he had played extending beyond normal sibling relationships. Same could be said for cousins or any other family relationships. There's way too much muddy water there that would be ripe for abuse.

Honestly, I could see an argument for relaxing some incest laws in limited circumstances. While I have no data to support this at all, I'd be willing to bet that accidental incest probably happens more often than we would think. Think about it......one deadbeat dad has 5 or 6 baby mamas around town. Do you think anyone is able to keep track of all of the first and second cousins those kids have? I'd be willing to bet that most of these kids have no idea how many cousins, if any, live in the area. And given the prevalence of absentee fathers in some parts of the country, it's not unrealistic to think that some of these kids may even be boning their half-siblings without ever realizing it. I'm not saying there are entire towns who should change their anthem to Sweet Home Alabama or anything, but I'd be willing to bet it happens more often than people think.

Nightwingdragon ,

Gay sex and interracial sex are NOT the same thing as incest sex. You do realize you’re advocating for dads to bang their own daughters? Cause that’s what incest usually results in.

This is a slippery slope argument that absolutely nobody is advocating for. It's the same type of argument used to deny trans children the rights to use the bathroom of their choice (because people will pretend to be trans so they can molest your daughters in the bathroom) or to deny LGBT people the right to marry (Because next they'll want to marry their daughters, or their pets, or their car).

Do you think two cousins in their 50s who have decided to have consentual sex is the same as some 40 year old pedo diddling his daughter or some 60 year old creep molesting his 12 year old niece?

They're all incest. Except the first is a decision between two consenting adults and the others are just straight up rape.

Nightwingdragon ,

Now, if every party is an adult and capable of informed consent, it is possible to test for likelihood of genetic defects based upon the parents’ genes. So, I can’t think of a non-subjective objection if, for example, they met for the first time as adults and didn’t know of such relation. Still pretty weird to me but I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to interfere with healthy, loving relationships.

I was actually thinking more about this when I replied to another comment yesterday. I'd be willing to bet that this happens at the very least more than people think, and I'd be willing to bet there are at least some couples out there who simply do not and may never know they're genetically related. Think about one deadbeat dad, for example, in a given area. Multiple children from multiple mothers. Do you think anybody in those families have any idea of exactly how many cousins, for example, they have living in the area? Worse, if the father is unknown or out of the picture or whatever, there's the possibility of people out there who may be sleeping with their half-siblings and not even know it. I'm not saying there are entire towns of people out there who should be singing Sweet Home Alabama or anything, but I'd be willing to bet the number is above zero.

In cases where children could be produced, I'd fully support incest being illegal. You are subjecting potential children to the increased risks that come along with being a product of incest, along with putting a social stigma on them that they will never be able to shake. I do not believe a child should literally have to spend their lives literally paying for the sins of their parents. But if there is no possibility of children being produced (Say, for example, a homosexual couple or if the woman is beyond child-bearing age) and there's no power dynamic influencing one or both of them (For example, a couple who have been together for a while and didn't know they were related), I can't really say I'm against it either. I don't have to agree with their decisions, but if they're not hurting anybody else, I don't believe it's my place to say no to it either.

(And I'll say again, I'm talking about healthy, consentual relations between two adults who happen to be related. This should not be interpreted to be justification for some 60 year old guy to try to marry his 13 year old niece, or cases where one sibling (or parent or cousin or whatever) pressures another into entering a sexual relationship they wouldn't have otherwise consented to. Those cases are just straight up rape, and should be treated as such -- with the creep thrown in jail to rot for the rest of their lives.)

Nightwingdragon ,

This doesn't happen just on Lemmy. This happens on all social media. Everyone has their own little bubbles these days, and you must be 100% dedicated to the cause. Even the mere suggestion that the other side may have a point on anything is considered weakness and will get you labelled as a traitor to the cause. This is not only the state of politics these days, but the state of any topic of controversy: Sex, politics, religion, women's rights, LGBT rights, anything. You either must be 100% for or 100% against. Try to find a middle ground and you're just likely to find yourself ostracized by both sides.

Nightwingdragon ,

I do not, however, think that the comparison to homophobia or other discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is a good comparison. The majority of relationships that LGBTQ+ people engage in are consensual and do not cause harm to anyone. The majority of cases of incest involve sexual abuse and frequently pedophilia. Offspring of close relatives are at high risk for significant biological and social harm (in cases of abuse add psychological harm).

I think the guy you're referring to isn't trying to compare incest to gay rights or anything. He's merely pointing out that the argument against incest among consentual couples is a slippery slope argument similar to the slippery slope arguments used by the far right to deny the LGBT community their rights: "If we let them do _________, then the next thing they're gonna want is ___________". It's a bad argument to make no matter the subject or which side of an issue you're on. There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to support incest without having to resort to slippery slope arguments.

There's also the fact that if one were to seriously try to legalize incest among consenting adults, the immediate response from the right would be "See? We told you that if we started letting gays marry, they'd want to marry their cousins next! What's next, their pets?". And you and I both know that they would immediately start using this argument to further isolate and marginalize the LGBT community, even if they try to distance themselves from the idea.

Go back some time and see what happened when NAMBLA tried to shoehorn themselves into the LGBT rights movement. The LGBT community immediately denounced the group and distanced themselves from them as quickly and as forcefully as they could, and the far right still shit all over them for it, saying "See? They're starting already!". The same thing would happen here -- the LGBT community would distance themselves from the idea right from the get-go, but that wouldn't stop bigots from blaming them anyway even though they have nothing to do with it.

Trump Wants CNN, NBC Off Air for Spurning His Iowa Victory Speech ( www.thedailybeast.com )

“ Donald Trump lashed out Tuesday at a pair of cable networks not named Fox News for their decision not to air all of his Iowa caucuses victory speech as it happened, suggesting that what they did was so heinous that they should “have their licenses, or whatever they have, taken away.”...

Nightwingdragon ,

Yeah, but here's the thing........like it or not, it's worked for him.

Nightwingdragon ,

I could be wrong, but I believe it was a CBS executive who once said that covering Trump the way they do was absolutely terrible for democracy in this country and that he is a real danger to our way of life -- but they were still going to keep covering him anyway because covering him is absolutely great for their bottom line.

Nightwingdragon ,

No, he wants to eliminate them.

Nightwingdragon ,

they should be able to overcome voter apathy.

You severely underestimate the power of apathy.

Nightwingdragon ,

It's not demoralizing. It's acknowledging the reality of the situation.

Nightwingdragon , (edited )

Here's the thing.

Mitch McConnell spent decades cultivating the GOP into the party that isn't there to govern, but to just be against anything the Democrats do purely for the sake of contrarianism. It doesn't matter what the Democrats do; the GOP must take the exact opposite position at all costs. However, this was largely just GOP ideology, which often did take a back seat when push came to shove. At the end of the day, they'd hem and haw over it, but at the end of the day, a deal would always be struck.

Donald Trump came along and turned what was previously a GOP ideology that could at least be reshaped when push comes to shove and turned that into a cult-like dogma that can never be disobeyed under any circumstances, consequences be damned. Logic be damned. Truth be damned. And he managed to get 70 million or so people to follow him, forcing the rest of the party to either fall in line and push the MAGA agenda or see the end of their political careers. No price, in his eyes, is too high a price to pay (mostly because he's not the one that has to do the paying). And that's GOP dogma now. How does the saying go? "Many of you will die, but it's a price I'm willing to pay."

And that's where we are now. Pick a subject, and the GOP must be against it. Try to say that doing so will affect something else, and they'll suddenly be against that too. Trying to reason with them about their position being too extreme only causes them to get more extreme. Try to tell them that exceptions must be made for the good of society, and they'll gladly tell you what they think of society. Because that's what their 70 million voters have been conditioned to want, even when it's against their own best interests. As long as it's hurting "them", no price is too steep for them to pay. If the only way to defend your position is to argue in favor of something that is irrational, illegal, nonsensical, heartless, and hurtful, then you still take that position, because GOP dogma must be maintained at all costs.

You know why the GOP are suddenly against exceptions for rape or life of the mother? Because the Democrats showed that these reasons are a need for why abortion care is necessary in the first place.

You know why the GOP are suddenly all sorts of interested in restricting interstate travel? Because Democrats pointed out that blue states will continue to provide abortion care, even to those travelling from out of state.

The answer to the question of "Well, what do we do about this?" or "What do we do about that?" isn't to reflect and adjust their position as the evidence guides them. It's just "Ban that too!". And if that causes even more problems? Keep swinging the banhammer. Don't address anything inconvenient. Ignore it. Sweep it under the rug. Forget about it. Ban it. The fallout? That's a future generation's problem. Dogma must be preserved at all costs, including the cost of the lives of you and your loved ones.

And that's where we are now. Because Democrats want to shore up abortion rights in their states, the GOP must be on a crusade against it. It is required. It is dogma. And anything that goes against the dogma must also be eradicated. Exceptions for things like rape and viability of the mother are no longer acceptable, because a woman might be able to use that reason to actually get an abortion. And their hard-line stand on the subject means that whenever someone like Kate Cox or the 10 year old rape victim from Ohio comes along and offers themselves as proof of why abortion care is necessary, they are literally treated as collateral damage. A sad statistic that can be dismissed 5 seconds after you read it. Because anything else would be an acknowledgement that they were wrong. It would poke a gigantic hole in what I very loosely refer to as their "logic". It would go against the dogma. And that is absolutely not allowed. If it's a choice between going against dogma and saving the woman's life, or letting both the woman and fetus die anyway in order to not break the narrative, they'd rather just let both of them die for what they consider the "greater good", even though their version of the "greater good" is basically a script from the Handmaid's Tale.

This is where we are now. The GOP are on one road, and they must stay on that road under any circumstances. If you come between them and their ideology, you will be run over. You will be made an example of. Even if it means you die. Never mind the fact that the fetus they're supposedly trying to "save" is going to die too. That part is conveniently ignored because it doesn't jive with their dogma. But their dogma must be preserved, defended, and advanced at all costs. Today's GOP will accept nothing less.

Nightwingdragon ,

How would this be a surprise to anybody? He's already been proven to have numerous ties to Epstein. His base simply doesn't care.

Nightwingdragon ,

What’s wonderful is that the next few days are going to be full of coverage of the scandal-free Carter presidency, Carter marriage, and Carter family.

Unfortunately, I expect it to be full of coverage of Trump shitting all over Carter's presidency, marriage, and family. Trump has never passed up the opportunity to get one last kick in on someone who's literally on their death bed.

Nightwingdragon ,

The headline is incorrect. The corrected version should read: "Judge in NY fraud trial threatens to jail Trump for violating gag order, ends up doing nothing."

These people need to shit or get off the pot already. This really is a legalese version of "I'm going to count to three......"

Nightwingdragon ,

a "lack of direct involvement" would be something like showing up to the Capitol to protest, happening to be right in the gray area between the peaceful protestors and the violent ones, and getting rounded up by the capitol police who mistook you for one of the violent ones.

Stealing a riot shield and macing people is the textbook definition of direct involvement.

Nightwingdragon ,

A stupid criminal is still a criminal.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •