I don’t know that anybody should be satisfied. This is a terrible moment for our country to have a former president accused of these terribly important crimes. The only satisfaction is that the system is working. That all of the efforts by Trump and his allies and enablers to try and silence the truth and undermine democracy have been brought into the light. And justice is being pursued.
Not exactly mocking Trump. There was some laughter as she was introduced as a reference to the irony of having now been twice a guest on an indictment day, both times her appearance scheduled prior to the indictments being announced.
Charges that make you scratch your head. Yes, let’s piss off people higher up in our own party. How do you think that you’ll get away with doing something like this?
Edit: As Santos is not charged here, just his aide, he is referred to as “Candidate #1” in the indictment.
If we needed more evidence for why public figures need to be careful in what they say…
The Daily Beast article (and others) link the tirade to the “I’M COMING AFTER YOU” pseudo-tweet, although I suppose it’s possible the link is a bit wishful.
My point is that there is a segment of the population that believe use of force is justified for just about anything they want. I would say that a good portion of this crowd would be Trump supporters.
I agree that there aren’t other candidates where this statement would be true in the same manner as we’re seeing for Trump. IMO, Trump is simply tapping into this specific group and claiming innocence about the results.
And there are plenty of people out there that will “just go along” when a mob action is taking place and seeing what they can get away with. I’m sure that many who joined in the Jan 6 events were simply trying to see if they can get into an otherwise restricted area. I’m also sure that many who joined in the Floyd riots were going along just to see if they can get something “free”. And this latter group makes it extremely difficult to get the instigators.
Oh. It sounded like you were trying to @both sides” it, but no it looks like you are saying “the one side is going to want to be violent anyway, and they’ve just latched onto Trump at the moment”.
I agree wholeheartedly. The United States is a representative democracy and we get to choose our rep to go govern us no matter what we know or say. it is of the utmost importance that every single person who wants to participate is heard regardless of what they know about the United States. Our laws protect us from any unscrupulousness that might arise from these voters choosing “wrong” candidates. The right to vote IMO shall not be infringed upon any more than is absolutely necessary to ensure people don’t get to vote more than once.
While true, part of the problem is our national origin story is “patriots used force to overthrow tyranny”. If you really believe that the election was stolen (despite lack of proof), is it right to let that stand? It would be a crime of epic proportions. We permit use of force to enforce laws/respond to crimes that have less impact on society. What would catch the hypocrites would be “If the 2024 election was stolen from Joe Biden, would the use of force be justified to restore him to office?”
Because younger people skew Democrat, and young Democrat voters are more likely to register/be registered and more likely to vote than young Republicans.
Agreed as well.
In fact, no one should have to register to vote. You’re 18, you have some kind of ID (SSN, DL, other), then you should be automatically put onto the voter list. People have every right to choose not to vote (I don’t want to be one of those places that forces people to vote). No government should be trying to make voting onerous.
One of the issues that differentiates voting from OASDI or DL is that resident location matters (more). There is a significant portion of people who are mobile, and even unhoused. How do we make sure people vote where they reside?