Please start your comments with the following question answered at the top:
"Will you vote for Biden in the 2024 election?" [Y/N]
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
Man I just want to vote for a better candidate not strategically vote so the worst one doesn't get elected. Why tf isn't Trump in jail yet
Sometimes life is about making the least worse decision rather than the best one.
They had four years to prosecute him. At some point they're either stalling to make it an election issue, which is disgusting, or they're trying to run out the clock on the public's anger so they can look effective while avoiding angering his base. Which is also disgusting.
Trump has been prosecuted. This kind of slow process isn't unusual like you're implying, though. It's the norm for our system of justice.
Oh are the trials done? Did they decide to declare him not guilty and not tell the news?
Trials usually take a week. You're telling me that nowhere in the last four years we've had the evidence we could find a week to do it?
The word "prosecution" just means he's been officially accused in court.
Trials do not take a week. Maybe they do for speeding over 30. Not for mishandling classified documents or election fraud. That is not at all how things work.
There are people accused of crimes sitting in jail (not prison, jail) for 4, 5, 6 years before ever having a trial.
So the prosecutor is doing what then? What could possibly be the verb of their title?
And yes. The actual trial is generally pretty short.
The prosecutor has been going over literally tens of thousands of pages of evidence to build a case. The defense is also entitled to go over many of the same documents. Short of hiring a literal army of lawyers, there is no way to speed this up. Even hiring an army doesn't solve everything. Communication channels increase geometrically with the size of the team, and past a certain point, it slows things down more than it helps. Worse, combinations of things can be missed by two different people seeing two different documents that together would point to something, but it's never adequately communicated across the team.
The trial you speak of is the end result of months to years of this process. It typically takes 12-18 months for a federal prosecution to get to that point. Even that is after they've been gathering evidence for some time before that. Trump's case is nothing unusual in that regard.
On top of that, federal judges have an oversized case load. We could probably quadruple the size of the federal bench to get it to something reasonable. Which means there's a very good reason to expand the bench beyond unfucking the fact that Trump stuffed it after McConnell held a bunch of seats open under Obama.
The one thing that is uniquely slowing it down is the Supreme Court taking up the presidential immunity challenge. The other federal trials are on hold until they make some kind of decision. That wouldn't necessarily mean a full hearing of the Supreme Court, or if it does get that far, they may undo the stay that's currently stopping trials from proceeding. If so, that would be an indication that they don't think Trump has immunity, but want to put their stamp on a constitutional issue that hasn't come before the court before.
Otherwise, this is how the system works for everyone. It needs to be fixed in general, but Trump is not getting any special treatment. This length of time is far from unusual.
So put a literal army of lawyers on it. It's not like it's important or anything.
Let me get this straight - you want the government to cut a check made out to Donald Trump for a “literal army” of lawyers? Because that’s how that would work. The criminal justice system cannot place an unreasonable financial burden on a defendant that is presumed innocent.
Lmamamamamamamamao
Hold on.
Yup still laughing. Just a minute.
Okay okay. If Martha mother of 2 can end up homeless, in and out of jail, and jobless, because her court appointed attorney got her a not guilty verdict then Trump can fucking pay for lawyers.
Did you mean a guilty verdict? In either case, you have a point. The justice system is far from perfect, and what you’ve described is a perfect example of that: courts tend to respect financial burden more than they do conflicting obligations (e.g. a job). But should we be advocating for an objectively worse legal system because Trump is protected from being forced to choose between inadequate representation or shelling out tens of millions of dollars? I don’t think so.
That guy has no idea what they’re talking about.
No I didn't. I meant what I said.
And what happens with unpaid court fees?
Oh debtor's prison is back.
I don't care what the system is supposed to do on its best day. If this is how we're treating everyday Americans then those are our de facto rights. Trump shouldn't be getting extras.
you have no idea what you're talking about. I've been in trials that have gone months as an expert witness, it's not uncommon at all.
and it's prosecutors, how can you be so ignorant of the situation at hand and yet critical about things you obviously don't comprehend?
91 counts buddy, that's multiple court cases, multiple prosecutors, multiple trials, multiple appeals etc.
Multiple opportunities for Trump to get his base frothed up to murder people.
They only need to go fast on one.
yes, rush the trial so fuckwit mctreason gets off on a technicality?
BRILLIANT!
Inciting a riot would have worked for the first one and is a slam dunk considering he literally gave a speech inciting the riot.
oh I didn't realize you had your law degree, shit man, why didn't you take him to trial?
WHAT THE FUCK YO?
Oh, that's right. You're not a lawyer. You have NO idea what you're talking about.
Goddamn, but you keep talking shit like you can convince me - well bud, ya failed. Gonna do you a favor and block you now so I don't have to read anymore of your stupidity.
You’re out of your league intellectually. How dare you talk to someone with ALL THE ANSWERS like this!?
Oh no? The horror!
Then push your local reps to explore Ranked Choice voting.
Because if Biden moved any faster there'd have been zero reason to vote for Biden in 2024...
There should be zero reason to vote for Biden because he said he would be a 1 term president and should have used the time to push new voices of other members of the Democrat party up into the spotlight while working on big policy plans even if they wouldn't go through.
Instead even the vice president disappeared of the face of the earth and the DNC is considering Governors Newsom and Whitmer as replacements for Biden if he dies in office.
They waste so much time and do so little to actually make an impact in the minds of voters.
No, he didn't. Other people, who had absolutely no say in what Biden would do, said he wouldn't run again.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/474059-biden-campaign-denies-one-term-report/
Biden:
I mean he did, then rolled back on it but before his election.
But that's fair I didn't hear the rollback and he took it back before he was even elected. It doesn't make his Staffers saying he is too old to run again in 2024 all the way back in 2019 look very good though.
Is not anywhere close to
How about:
Cause he said it during an interview about his age before his first election and it's right there being ignored by you to pull a different part of his statement.
Did he backpedal even before he was officially elected, sure did. But he was happy to imply he was thinking about single term during the race.
Is also not anywhere close to
You keep waiting for the perfect statement, trying to weasel around the fact that he didn't directly say exactly what was implied. Even happy to pull apart the wrong parts of a sentence just to confuse the statement more.
Him talking about he feels good for being old but just because he feels ok now doesn't mean he will run for a second term, is him using language to imply that he is considering a single term. Which he reversed on so that the conversation wouldn't be about how old he is.
But I guess the card says moops.
I'm not trying to weasel around it, that's my entire point. You believed he said something but he never said or meant it. It was a narrative built up by others. He was considering a single term. He never decided on a single term.
I was quoting Biden! From the article about this where they talk about the interview he had before the election talking about his age and his reluctance to immediately say he was gonna run a second term! Also you respond so fast you are online way too much.
You have an idea of the answer you want. Which makes this conversation pointless. The card says moops so ha I'm wrong because the answer isn't perfect.
If he considered running for a single term and told people that, then he told people he was considering being a single term president.
He changed his mind because the narrative of him being to old to run again would make hime look weak. I get it but christ you just won't accept it. I'm not gonna argue with someone that uses logical fallacies to ignore reality. I've corrected my stance to align with reality I'm done trying to fix yours.
We need a term for this rhetorical trick. The one where you pre-emptively accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing. Although I think a lot of people do this subconsciously. You had an idea of what was true, that turned out to be wrong. That makes you feel hurt and frustrated, so you throw it at me.
They're obsessed with money because they forget money isn't the end goal.
Sure, it might cost millions of dollars to convince someone to eat a shit sandwich. But if the real goal is just getting them to eat, you could probably just give them a free pizza.
They compromise shitty candidates for donations to convince people to vote for the shitty candidate. But those compromises for donor money means they now need more do or money. It's a never ending cycle
If you mention we could just run a good candidate and need less money they start screeching. Because they like the lifestyle of being important and having wealthy connected people suck up to them.
This comment is so full of misinformation that I have to assume it is a GOP psyop
Nah just a pissed progressive Democrat using some slightly outdated statements for the term limitation as he backed off that and it was the stated goal from his staff not him.
Harris actually is getting bad numbers and there is casual conversation about not having the VP take over if Biden croaked.
That and im just generally tired of the bullshit.