politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
They're saying the (current) justice department's allegations that the case was politically motivated is undermined by how slow the investigation went, AND that some insiders at the time thought it was moving too slowly. It can be both, and we're stuck with the consequences of not holding Trump accountable for at least 3 more years.
I stand by what I said. They act like they're above the law because Democrats are too corrupt and incompetent to apply the law to them. With this kind of opposition, they are above the law.
Honestly, I agree that it should have started faster...but that wasn't "corruption" or even "incompetence"...it was caution. If they had given the appearance of bias, it would have undermined their entire case, just like how that appearance of bias is currently undermining Trump's cases against his own enemies.
Was it maybe too much caution...yes. But only because in the end, they ran out of time. If the Supremes Court hadn't stepped in, and forced them to re-file the charges at the last minute, Donald Trump would be in prison right now instead of the Oval office. The "corruption" in this case, wasn't coming from the Democrats. It was coming from the Supreme Court.
But, aside from that, what Jack Smith and his team used, was good methodology. They followed every procedure to the letter, and cut no corners. Those cases were airtight. As opposed to Trump's rushed indictments, that are falling apart in court. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this...and it has nothing to do with anyone's "opinion" about who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are. That is decided by the evidence.
Being overly cautious and therefore failing to enact justice is incompetence. They weren't just following the rules, they were creating a wide fence around them so no one code possibly claim they weren't following them. And in the process they didn't enact justice, allowing corruption and fascism to fester and grow, and still didn't insulate the investigation from political attacks of "bias" that have never been based on actual actions in the first place.
But, that's not incompetence...that's caution.
Incompetence is what you see Lindsey Halligan doing in her cases against James Comey and Leticia James. Even just filing those cases shows a total lack of understanding of how the legal system works.
Incompetence is how Trump's lawyers in Portland, lied about how many Federal agents were required to "keep the peace" there, without realizing those numbers could be independently verified.
In all of these cases, they're going to lose. And those cases aren't just going to be thrown out...the lawyers that brought them in the first place, are probably going to face consequences for trying them. It's Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell, all over again. That's what incompetence looks like.
If they had been more competent, they would have shown far more caution than they did.
They were unable to succeed in the task.
I guess by your definition of the term, you think Donald Trump is the "competent" one, then? smh.
So someone who's driving an organ across town for a transplant and takes 10 minutes leaving the parking lot to wait for a completely clear road without a single car in sight and then slows approaching every intersection in case the light turns yellow and then finally triple checks with management that all the forms have been received and validated, leading to the patient dying, isn't incompetent?
No, just no. Unwarranted caution is incompetence just as much as insufficient caution, and this was egregious. And this is assuming the story and actions were errors in decision making rather than political direction (which would then be corruption). There's no possible way an error of this magnitude over this long a time with this great a consequence can be described as just a competent and upstanding civil servant trying to do a good job.
In that analogy, are saying the driver should not slow down at all...even when running through red lights? First of all, you're assuming there's no one else on the road. But if that's your strategy, then that organ isn't going to make it to its destination. That guy's going to get t-boned before he gets there.
What you're calling "unwarranted caution" really is a matter of perspective. Since you can't control every possible variable along the route, you have to use some degree of caution, or you're going to get hit. It's just a matter of how much caution, and that's also impossible to know in advance.
Sure...maybe you get lucky and everyone else on the road gives you a wide berth, and nothing goes wrong. But in this case, there's also someone out there actively trying to stop you from making that delivery. And that being the case, all your lack of caution does is provide them with more opportunities to stop you.
How do you even function in the real world?
Just like any other person. What world are you living in?