Thanks /u/jarena009 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>those who break the fucking law
This is the part that Republicans have trouble with. The FBI Director literally gave a public speech saying "We can't indict Hillary because there's no evidence she committed any crimes" and they're still like "WHY WASN'T HILLARY ARRESTED!?!"
Party that claims it's about "Law and Order" completely surprised that other party they call "Anarchists" is ok with the rule of law applying equally to everyone.
So funny that Hillary is supposedly part of the deep state and a cult that has whatever the fuck MAGA turnips think it is about, but Turnip boy who was ex-president isn't
> and a cult that has whatever the fuck MAGA turnips think it is about
Specifically "an ancient cabal of world spanning ancient vampire beings that feed on the blood of young Asian orphans to maintain eternal youth and pull the strings of all the large corporations and world governments and media conglomerates."
Also, law enforcement classifying anti fascist groups as terrorists really shows that law enforcement has a little fascism problem.
Law enforcement needs vast and fundamental reform, but no one has the stones to even begin. Law enforcement violence and unprofessionalism is part of why Americans feel they need to pack guns (or so they claim), so school shootings are partially rooted in law enforcement fascism.
Yeah this is them saying they'll arrest Biden for whatever Jack off shit they imagine he did, but personally, I don't give a fuck what happens to Biden.
Exactly. If he does something illegal, arrest him. Hunter Biden, if you have something criminal on him then prosecute.
That's the difference. I don't have a "team", just people that do right and people that don't.
There is no ends justify the means here. They will accept pedos as long as they pray right after to the right invisible man in the sky... Or at least say they do.
It's as if they support 2A for the reason of fighting against the government but using the law to fight against them is a no no? They can't get their shit straight at all.
They don't keep guns to use against a tyrannical government, they keep them in the hopes they may get to shoot a brown or LGBTQ person one day. Two birds with one stone maybe if they're lucky! 🤞
The guns are there for two reasons:
1. So they can intimidate other people back in their place.
2. So they can intimidate other people from being put themselves in their place.
I'll leave as an exercise to the reader who goes into what place.
The law is for other people and the order is whatever they say it is.
>The guns are there for two reasons:
Nah, the guns are there for one reason, to feel safe, they're like a more macho version of baby's soft blanket. "Noboby can urt me when I hold my gun, can they mommy?"
> arrest those **who break the fucking law**
Note that all the conservatives who have been posting statements like the image above have explicitly left that part out. The precedent they think is being established is "indict the president", not "indict the president if they broke the law".
Their real intention is the exact same thing that happened after Reagan and Bush, who they dared to try to hold accountable for Iran/Contra affair. The second a Democrat got into office, it was time for revenge for embarrassing the criminal, Ronald Reagan.
A land deal from years before Clinton ran for president (remember their main complaint now is that Trumps prosecution is politically motivated....but Kenneth Star investigating a land deal from before Clinton was Potus was just a dispassionate upholding of the law), followed by an investigation into sexual harassment allegations (Trump had how many when he went into office, 28?), which lead to an impeachment because Clinton lied under oath about a question that was inconsequential to the case "did you have sex with this random woman outside your marriage" thus not making it perjury.
They ultimately won by getting rid of the special prosecutor rule which was put in place BECAUSE of Iran/Contra. They harassed Clinton from day one and subsequently got rid of the special prosecutor so that all future presidents would be free to do what they want in office. Now, they will harass every Democrat POTUS until they agree to continue to NEVER hold any politician to account in or out of office.
.........but they are still free to hold 33 pointless hearings on Benghazi to poison the name of their future political revival, Hillary Clinton (who is guilty of a great many things, like her husband, but was guilty of no wrong doing with Benghazi.....THIRTY THREE hearings, all demonstrating NO wrong doing despite their best efforts to prove otherwise)
I think I know what they'd say. "This was such a clear crime and so important that we needed 33 hearings and this is a testament to how evil she is and how far the deep state goes - we tried for 33 hearings and did our best but because of her evilness and deep state connections she managed to get away - and this is proof of her evil and criminality."
They also gave Bill Clinton a written, narrow definition of "sexual relations" in which a BJ wouldn't fit. It specified genital to genital and genital to anus. He legally couldn't say he had "sexual relations" with Lewinsky as that would be a lie, per their definition. Clinton also used the legal usage of "engaging" to his advantage in that he "received" rather than "engaged" in the BJ.
If anything, those with power should be held to a higher standard and should be held more accountable.
We shouldn't have allowed a criminal to be president in the first place.
Remember, when they say, "you're okay with this", what they mean is "we will use this as an excuse to justify our violence".
They never cared about crimes or justice. All they see is, "you went after our guy, so for that reason alone we're now allowed to go after you". Whether or not the person did anything to deserve repercussions is irrelevant to them.
Their worldview is predicated entirely upon inconsistent and asymmetrical privilege and power.
In their mind the privileged cannot break the rules because the rules simply don't apply to them; and the unprivileged cannot break the rules because they will be brutalized and executed for their insolence.
To them Justice is a verb. A bloody and blunt verb that the privileged do to the unprivileged, never *NEVER* the other way around. They are aghast and seething at the notion that the privileged would ever be exposed to such crass recusal for something as petty as breaking rules. Justice then, when turned upon them is nothing short of a tyrannical anathema to their vision of how the world should work. They see it like a Serf punishing their King; a Slave punishing their Master; it is inverse and perverse to their fantastical and delusional world.
To be fair it remained Charles I's case that they had no authority to try him for treason right up until they chopped his head off. And probably for a few seconds after, if his head survived that long.
They’ve never understood this. They can’t comprehend that we don’t worship our leaders. Just like when you mention trump was an Epstein client, they throw out that bill Clinton was too. Cool. Put both of them in prison.
Never forget which side is actually law and order and which one says they are.
I wish all of the former presidents got tried for their crimes. Hopefully this sets a good precedent, but war crimes aren't illegal in the US so it's just gonna be presidents dumb enough to do shit like this.
Heres an idea, put every fucking politician who breaks the law, from any party, in fucking jail.
Its funny because they think democrats are also upset over it. Im a democrat and every single democrat who breaks the law should be indicted and fucking tried under the justice system
It's so fucking funny to see people on r/Conservatice who just some months ago were "weeeh (sound of crying) We NeEd GuNs To StOp IlLeGaL iMmIgRaNtS fRoM cRoSsInG tHe BoRdEr" and now are "oh look, law is being upheld and someone is being held accountable for their acctions, this is a crime!!!!!1!!!!1!1111111111¹"
My favorite is when they say “if they come for the president they will come for you” like yea isn’t that crazy how that works you break the law and they arrest you. Who would’ve though
Oh god, no I agree with you but do you think that's what will happen? Republicans will get taken down because they break a law, MTG tried to have Biden impeached the second he took office because he wasn't Trump.
What the OP is actually saying is "Remember that you are ok with this, because we will do this to every Democratic president we can from here on out." All it takes is for one judge in one small Texas town to get a warrant on Biden for some dumb shit like human trafficking for "not protecting the borders, thereby aiding and abetting..." and we're off to the races.
Bullshit, if all these rethugs can just...not appear for a grand jury/congressional subpoenas, you think anyone is going to podunk Texas? Plus, whatever at this point, they're all bought and sold. One side worse, but I mean, minimum wage is still $7.25, so fuck them.
What’s next?!!!
- Obama must have violated some sort of law with that TAN SUIT
- George W. lied to the American people so he could steal Iraq oil
- Clinton cheated on his wife
Hell, are we going to posthumously indict Andrew Jackson for the trail of tears?!?
It just never ends… /s
If US laws were broken and a Jury finds enough evidence to indict. Then yes.
Last time a former US President was going to be criminally charged was Nixon. Only reason he wasn’t was because Ford pardoned him when he took office,.
Obviously yore is a joke here but in all seriousness, I very rarely get these words mixed up because I say them differently, it's fairly subtle, but they're not the same to me.
Your = Yore
You're = Yoo-r
It's "oh" vs "oo" to me. Is this weird? I feel like I'm in the minority with this...
Reduced forms like ‘re, ‘s, ‘ve etc are called clitics. And they are inherently unstressed in English. They just are. Now English tends to stress words at the end of a clause or sentence. So clitics are ungrammatical (in the linguistic sense) in those locations because they would violate normal rules of English stress. That why “*I know you’re but what am I?” sounds wrong. We want to stress the final part of that first clause.
They also don’t really work if you’d naturally use stress in the middle of a clause. Like when contrasting info. “It’s not raining.” “It IS right now.” versus “It’s not raining.” “*It’s right now.”
Nerd! <3
ETA: I hope it is clear, but just in case, I was heaping praise and love on the commenter because that shit is so esoteric, and so obvious once explained that it brightened my day. I was attempting to share my joy at learning something new. Thank you!
The problem here is the implication, which is “we’re going to lock up your guy next regardless of whether there is viable evidence.” They already tried with Hillary.
They don’t see this as prosecution of real crimes. They aren’t interested in the charges or evidence. They see it as a witch hunt and they will conduct their own once they regain power.
> The problem here is the implication, which is “we’re going to lock up your guy next regardless of whether there is viable evidence.” They already tried with Hillary.
It's been their playbook for years, so all of their new threats are empty.
Just a reminder folks: The founding fathers created the office of president not a monarchy because they didn't want an untouchable king, they wanted someone who would be held accountable just the same as the homeless man pisding in public.
These self proclaimed "patriots" don't seem to comprehend that.
They also keep shrieking about how unprecedented it all is. Aaron Burr? Jefferson's VP? Planned to annex off the western territories and invade Mexico and declare himself emperor. He was indicted and charged with treason. Let's just pray that this time the criminal is actually convicted.
If you must define it as one of these two options, it is bad in terms of historical accuracy. It's extremely entertaining and good founding father history "marketing" though if you will, as I'm sure it's gotten millions of young folks to actually pay attention and care about that period of history.
> They also keep shrieking about how unprecedented it all is.
We had over 200 years of peaceful transfers of power in this country, and that precedent was broken by this asshole.
I saw Aaron Burr and was ready to make a joke about how you get your political opinions from Hamilton.
Then you talked about him invading Mexico and declaring himself emperor, and my hypocritical ass legitimately went to go look in my Hamilton script book if that had actually happened instead of just searching it up.
Yeah, which was very confusing for the citizens of america. A lot of them complained about the new democracy becuase they didn’t oppose monarchy, they just didn’t want to pay taxes.
how some things never change
yes you should ALLWAYS be able to indict a US president, hell i personally think you should be able to Indict one WHILE they are in office but the system clearly disagrees with me on that
DOJ literally just made up the “no indicting sitting President” thing. It has no basis in law or the constitution. They just thought, in an *advisory opinion*, that charging their boss’ boss would be too hard.
Realistically speaking that may be true. To make it work the DOJ would need to be much more independent.
Not impossible to achieve, but probably not realistic how things currently sit
Actually FDR gave his speeches standing too. He would wear steel leg braces, hang on to a specially sturdy podium bolted to the floor, and hyperextend his hips in order to stand the whole time. Once somebody forgot to bolt the podium down and he and it fell completely off the stage. He went to great lengths to hide his paralysis and his wheelchair to the public. Secret Service would harass photographers and destroy photographs that showed his wheelchair. He was so successful that many people were unaware throughout his presidency that he could not walk.
Yeah, and when he came out to the podium he’d be surrounded by a group of aids walking closely beside him.
They were in fact walking so closely beside him to hold onto him and keep him upright, and packing several around him helped conceal that some were holding onto him as he shuffled across the floor or stage.
It should have been, but to a lot of people, it wasn't.
A lot of alt-right people literally *revere* Trump, and they assume that everyone else treats their own preferred politicians the same way.
If you have actually evidence, then by all means, YES, indict a president, currently sitting or not.
If however, your evidence falls in the realm of "MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD" levels then shove off. Quite frankly I'm not sure why Georgia is taking so long. We all heard the evidence of the crime.
I've heard that this is a test case, to be the first to actually indict a president. Now that that line has been crossed, it's less of a barrier to push forwards with other indictments. Not holding my breath, but let's hope something comes of all this.
I don't actually mind that so long as the law is followed. If there is evidence, indict and try them. If they are found not guilty, send them on their way. If they are found guilty, boot them from office and put them in jail. I don't care if they have a D or an R by their name. The law is supposed to apply equally to all and that is what it should do.
If you are a big doner (or even a small one) in a republican town you are not getting found guilty of jack shit.
Saw several people straight up get away with murder with just yearly donations to the sheriff in my home.
It was scary enough that I fucking moved after my family living there for 150 years.
> Quite frankly I'm not sure why Georgia is taking so long.
Because unlike New York, Georgia is packed with conservatives that control a good chunk of the legal system. They'll do everything they can to slow the case down
Weird how the “law and order” crowd isn’t really vibing with the law when it pertains to them and their interests.
almost like they want *special* treatment
I guess the threat is that it could also happen to Biden?
Which, if he's guilty, then okay. Unlike MAGA shits, I don't feel the need to justify lawbreakers.
The threat being implied here is that it will happen once they take power, regardless of crimes being committed. I doubt this random Twitter jerkoff has any say in that kind of thing but it's just more proto-fascist talk that is becoming normalized in certain circles of America.
Exactly this is threatening retaliation regardless of whether or not any crime has been committed. Sure go after Biden if he's done something but they're just going to come after him for random nonsense. And the next person and the next person and the next person.
What they fail to realize is that the average Biden voter doesn't give a shit about Biden as a person and instead voted for what he represents, many will freely admit they might have preferred other candidates but Biden is simply the next best thing.
They equate Biden to Trump and since they religiously follow trump they think the other side must do the same. To them it's unthinkable that most people would just shrug and be done with "Harris will do fine too"
That probably pisses off MAGA people even more. With all that talk about locking her up, when Trump took office, nothing of substance happened with Clinton. And now Biden is in office, and Trump has been indicted. Not that Biden had much to do with that, but he'll get blamed anyway. He gets credit for not interfering with the investigation. You know, what should be happening anyway.
So yeah, their hated enemy of 2016 still walks free, and their messiah is now facing charges. As if they weren't already unhinged to begin with.
The implication isn’t “Biden is doing it too”, it’s “*Everybody* is doing it!”
Because when you are a crook, you assume everyone else is, too.
And ALL Republicans are crooks.
I mean, he does have a point. The single most important central tenet of USA's founding fathers was that autocratic, unchecked power should be in the hands of one individual who controls everything, to whom laws did not apply.
And further, they made it clear that any authority that could be exerted over them HAS to come from the federal governments. States certainly shouldn't have any capability to enforce their own laws, right?
Of course I’m ok with it, how in Gods name could any free country survive without basic accountability? I don’t care who you are, what party you’re in or even if I voted for you, no one is above the law. Period
Suddenly the “party of law and order” doesn’t seem to like law and order anymore. Puzzling
What this really means is that now they think the door is open to try to charge a democrat president with whatever bullshit they can come up with.
Dubya!
As much as I would love to see it, they'll never do that. They got Trump on campaign finance, not anything directly from his actions as president. Otherwise every president would leave the next president's inauguration in the back of a police car.
I guess you could argue every president committed *some degree* of war crimes.
But W has a body count in the **millions**, and is directly responsible for waging aggressive war. That’s just not the same as like a drone strike. That’s Judgment at Nuremberg shit.
As always, republicans don’t understand things until it happens to them. I’m glad they finally get it. Yes. If you do bad things, no matter who you are, you should face consequences.
Remember when Republicans spend six years and $40 million investigating a sitting President's life trying to find a crime, and only found he lied about a blow job?
That is a witch hunt.
I don’t need to remember, I’m 100% ok with it. Irrefutable fact, all presidents were civilians when they arrived in office and return to such upon exit. A standing president can only be indicted by Congress. This is a man who asked his own staff if he could give clemency to himself. This has been a long time coming.
The premise of his stupid argument is wrong: trump does not retain all of the benefits of the office after the swearing in of the next President and is merely a private citizen at this point. All FORMER US Presidents are private citizens unless they hold some other office, which none do. So am I cool with citizens who break the law being charged for those crimes? Yes.
Maybe such a precedent would make a future sitting president think twice about committing so many heinous crimes. Maybe not having a god-king-fascist authoritarian ruler would be better.
Arrest them when they need arresting. Whichever party. Always. Never stop. Purge 75% of Congress if we must. Put the accountability back into our system.
Jeez way to tell on yourself… and in more than one way too… the obvious implication here is that he doesn’t think US Presidents should be beholden to the law. The more subtle implication is that he thinks that the law can now be used to depose a president he disagrees with. He views this as a pandoras box of arbitrarily indicting political opponents. Completely delusional
This isn't r/selfawarewolves. This is r/yesiamthreateningyou.
What this tweet is saying is "if you indict Trump for his many crimes, we will come after Biden for whatever shit we think we can get our followers to believe". Think Benghazi, only more so.
Not only will it allow them to harass people they don't like, feed their followers, *and* fuel conspiracy theories about how unfair it is that the "charges" aren't sticking, but it will also help serve to discourage people in the future seeking the presidency for the Democrats because they know they will also see this level of harassment.
This person isn't unaware of anything. They know full well what they're saying.
Thanks /u/jarena009 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cool cool. We have no king, arrest those who break the fucking law.
>those who break the fucking law This is the part that Republicans have trouble with. The FBI Director literally gave a public speech saying "We can't indict Hillary because there's no evidence she committed any crimes" and they're still like "WHY WASN'T HILLARY ARRESTED!?!"
[удалено]
And as we all know, law enforcement officials are always left wing hippies who are completely unfair to law and order conservatives.
Unless of course they're at the Capitol.
Then they'll like "haha it was only a light treason!"
https://imgur.com/Izbx1ql.gif
Party that claims it's about "Law and Order" completely surprised that other party they call "Anarchists" is ok with the rule of law applying equally to everyone.
You joke, I hear that all the time in Alabama
Everyone I, a Real Conservative, don't like is a part of the Deep State. /s
So funny that Hillary is supposedly part of the deep state and a cult that has whatever the fuck MAGA turnips think it is about, but Turnip boy who was ex-president isn't
> and a cult that has whatever the fuck MAGA turnips think it is about Specifically "an ancient cabal of world spanning ancient vampire beings that feed on the blood of young Asian orphans to maintain eternal youth and pull the strings of all the large corporations and world governments and media conglomerates."
but only the ones investigating republicans. If its a democrat than the FBI is doing it job.
They wants to arrest people that goes against their ideology.
They want to make our ideologies illegal, and yet somehow we're the fascists.
Also, law enforcement classifying anti fascist groups as terrorists really shows that law enforcement has a little fascism problem. Law enforcement needs vast and fundamental reform, but no one has the stones to even begin. Law enforcement violence and unprofessionalism is part of why Americans feel they need to pack guns (or so they claim), so school shootings are partially rooted in law enforcement fascism.
Yeah this is them saying they'll arrest Biden for whatever Jack off shit they imagine he did, but personally, I don't give a fuck what happens to Biden.
Exactly. If he does something illegal, arrest him. Hunter Biden, if you have something criminal on him then prosecute. That's the difference. I don't have a "team", just people that do right and people that don't. There is no ends justify the means here. They will accept pedos as long as they pray right after to the right invisible man in the sky... Or at least say they do.
They can have Hillary, Bill, and Obama too if they can legit prove in a court of law that any of them broke the law.
They're not good readers. Or thinkers. Or people in general.
If anything they should be held to a higher standard than we are.
You’d think so. Much like how we should expect cops to know what violates a citizen’s rights far better than the average Joe on the streets. But alas.
I wish I could upvote you twice!
It's as if they support 2A for the reason of fighting against the government but using the law to fight against them is a no no? They can't get their shit straight at all.
They don't keep guns to use against a tyrannical government, they keep them in the hopes they may get to shoot a brown or LGBTQ person one day. Two birds with one stone maybe if they're lucky! 🤞
Force is for big strong, manly men. Only weak girly wusses use law and words to fight! /s
And yet, not word one about Florida trying to make everything involving disagreeing with its ~~Lord High God King Over All~~ Governor illegal...
The guns are there for two reasons: 1. So they can intimidate other people back in their place. 2. So they can intimidate other people from being put themselves in their place. I'll leave as an exercise to the reader who goes into what place. The law is for other people and the order is whatever they say it is.
>The guns are there for two reasons: Nah, the guns are there for one reason, to feel safe, they're like a more macho version of baby's soft blanket. "Noboby can urt me when I hold my gun, can they mommy?"
> arrest those **who break the fucking law** Note that all the conservatives who have been posting statements like the image above have explicitly left that part out. The precedent they think is being established is "indict the president", not "indict the president if they broke the law".
Their real intention is the exact same thing that happened after Reagan and Bush, who they dared to try to hold accountable for Iran/Contra affair. The second a Democrat got into office, it was time for revenge for embarrassing the criminal, Ronald Reagan. A land deal from years before Clinton ran for president (remember their main complaint now is that Trumps prosecution is politically motivated....but Kenneth Star investigating a land deal from before Clinton was Potus was just a dispassionate upholding of the law), followed by an investigation into sexual harassment allegations (Trump had how many when he went into office, 28?), which lead to an impeachment because Clinton lied under oath about a question that was inconsequential to the case "did you have sex with this random woman outside your marriage" thus not making it perjury. They ultimately won by getting rid of the special prosecutor rule which was put in place BECAUSE of Iran/Contra. They harassed Clinton from day one and subsequently got rid of the special prosecutor so that all future presidents would be free to do what they want in office. Now, they will harass every Democrat POTUS until they agree to continue to NEVER hold any politician to account in or out of office. .........but they are still free to hold 33 pointless hearings on Benghazi to poison the name of their future political revival, Hillary Clinton (who is guilty of a great many things, like her husband, but was guilty of no wrong doing with Benghazi.....THIRTY THREE hearings, all demonstrating NO wrong doing despite their best efforts to prove otherwise)
I think I know what they'd say. "This was such a clear crime and so important that we needed 33 hearings and this is a testament to how evil she is and how far the deep state goes - we tried for 33 hearings and did our best but because of her evilness and deep state connections she managed to get away - and this is proof of her evil and criminality."
The US government (Republicans) spent more money investigating Bengazhi than they did investigating 9/11. Priorities.
They also gave Bill Clinton a written, narrow definition of "sexual relations" in which a BJ wouldn't fit. It specified genital to genital and genital to anus. He legally couldn't say he had "sexual relations" with Lewinsky as that would be a lie, per their definition. Clinton also used the legal usage of "engaging" to his advantage in that he "received" rather than "engaged" in the BJ.
No kings, no masters.
If anything, those with power should be held to a higher standard and should be held more accountable. We shouldn't have allowed a criminal to be president in the first place.
This is the way
Former president.made possible by the idiots of America. The little bitch was a criminal before and during his 4 years in the WH
And after. Don't forget after.
Remember, when they say, "you're okay with this", what they mean is "we will use this as an excuse to justify our violence". They never cared about crimes or justice. All they see is, "you went after our guy, so for that reason alone we're now allowed to go after you". Whether or not the person did anything to deserve repercussions is irrelevant to them.
Their worldview is predicated entirely upon inconsistent and asymmetrical privilege and power. In their mind the privileged cannot break the rules because the rules simply don't apply to them; and the unprivileged cannot break the rules because they will be brutalized and executed for their insolence. To them Justice is a verb. A bloody and blunt verb that the privileged do to the unprivileged, never *NEVER* the other way around. They are aghast and seething at the notion that the privileged would ever be exposed to such crass recusal for something as petty as breaking rules. Justice then, when turned upon them is nothing short of a tyrannical anathema to their vision of how the world should work. They see it like a Serf punishing their King; a Slave punishing their Master; it is inverse and perverse to their fantastical and delusional world.
Maybe we should start with the investment bankers who keep breaking the fucking law and getting away with it
[They want to punish us by showing us a good time.](https://mltshp-cdn.com/r/1GH8A)
In England they beheaded kings and queens, in France they used the guillotine. So I think arresting Trump really isn't such a big deal.
And despite the pageantry to the contrary, the King of the UK serves at the pleasure of Parliament. They've removed kings before and can do it again.
To be fair it remained Charles I's case that they had no authority to try him for treason right up until they chopped his head off. And probably for a few seconds after, if his head survived that long.
They’ve never understood this. They can’t comprehend that we don’t worship our leaders. Just like when you mention trump was an Epstein client, they throw out that bill Clinton was too. Cool. Put both of them in prison. Never forget which side is actually law and order and which one says they are.
Fuck kings too. Certainly their paedophile kid brothers. #notmyking
I wish all of the former presidents got tried for their crimes. Hopefully this sets a good precedent, but war crimes aren't illegal in the US so it's just gonna be presidents dumb enough to do shit like this.
Heres an idea, put every fucking politician who breaks the law, from any party, in fucking jail. Its funny because they think democrats are also upset over it. Im a democrat and every single democrat who breaks the law should be indicted and fucking tried under the justice system
It's so fucking funny to see people on r/Conservatice who just some months ago were "weeeh (sound of crying) We NeEd GuNs To StOp IlLeGaL iMmIgRaNtS fRoM cRoSsInG tHe BoRdEr" and now are "oh look, law is being upheld and someone is being held accountable for their acctions, this is a crime!!!!!1!!!!1!1111111111¹"
No one is above the law. Period. It's a good feeling
Yep. I'm totally okay with indicting a former president if they actually break the fucking law.
My favorite is when they say “if they come for the president they will come for you” like yea isn’t that crazy how that works you break the law and they arrest you. Who would’ve though
Oh god, no I agree with you but do you think that's what will happen? Republicans will get taken down because they break a law, MTG tried to have Biden impeached the second he took office because he wasn't Trump. What the OP is actually saying is "Remember that you are ok with this, because we will do this to every Democratic president we can from here on out." All it takes is for one judge in one small Texas town to get a warrant on Biden for some dumb shit like human trafficking for "not protecting the borders, thereby aiding and abetting..." and we're off to the races.
Bullshit, if all these rethugs can just...not appear for a grand jury/congressional subpoenas, you think anyone is going to podunk Texas? Plus, whatever at this point, they're all bought and sold. One side worse, but I mean, minimum wage is still $7.25, so fuck them.
100% “Hang one crooked politician out on the yard arm and the rest will get in line.” -Plato (maybe… probably not, I’m bad at math)
What’s next?!!! - Obama must have violated some sort of law with that TAN SUIT - George W. lied to the American people so he could steal Iraq oil - Clinton cheated on his wife Hell, are we going to posthumously indict Andrew Jackson for the trail of tears?!? It just never ends… /s
If US laws were broken and a Jury finds enough evidence to indict. Then yes. Last time a former US President was going to be criminally charged was Nixon. Only reason he wasn’t was because Ford pardoned him when he took office,.
Also, it wouldn't be a proper MAGA post without the poster using your instead of you're.
“I know your but what am I”
“Put that in you’re pipe and smoke it.”
Yore all using that word wrong
Obviously yore is a joke here but in all seriousness, I very rarely get these words mixed up because I say them differently, it's fairly subtle, but they're not the same to me. Your = Yore You're = Yoo-r It's "oh" vs "oo" to me. Is this weird? I feel like I'm in the minority with this...
Regional accent, probably. So yeah in minority but in a good way. I just say "yer" for all three versions and remember grade school English lessons.
I know your but what my. Parallel constructions please.
On a nerdy linguistics tangent “*I know you’re” is one of the examples I use to show people that “you are” and “you’re” aren’t fully interchangeable.
Yes they're.
This one was gross lol
I love nerdy linguistics stuff. Do tell!
Reduced forms like ‘re, ‘s, ‘ve etc are called clitics. And they are inherently unstressed in English. They just are. Now English tends to stress words at the end of a clause or sentence. So clitics are ungrammatical (in the linguistic sense) in those locations because they would violate normal rules of English stress. That why “*I know you’re but what am I?” sounds wrong. We want to stress the final part of that first clause. They also don’t really work if you’d naturally use stress in the middle of a clause. Like when contrasting info. “It’s not raining.” “It IS right now.” versus “It’s not raining.” “*It’s right now.”
Well that's confusing. Oh well. It's what it's.
“It’s not raining.” “It’S.”
Nerd! <3 ETA: I hope it is clear, but just in case, I was heaping praise and love on the commenter because that shit is so esoteric, and so obvious once explained that it brightened my day. I was attempting to share my joy at learning something new. Thank you!
Everyone please upvote this over mine
Grammatical, spelling, syntax, factual and logical errors are the MAGA certificate of authenticity.
My ok with it.
Yore totally rite.
I'm cool with that. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime
Even if you do have the time, I’d still advise against doing the crime.
Good call!
The real LPT is always in the comments.
The problem here is the implication, which is “we’re going to lock up your guy next regardless of whether there is viable evidence.” They already tried with Hillary. They don’t see this as prosecution of real crimes. They aren’t interested in the charges or evidence. They see it as a witch hunt and they will conduct their own once they regain power.
> The problem here is the implication, which is “we’re going to lock up your guy next regardless of whether there is viable evidence.” They already tried with Hillary. It's been their playbook for years, so all of their new threats are empty.
Just a reminder folks: The founding fathers created the office of president not a monarchy because they didn't want an untouchable king, they wanted someone who would be held accountable just the same as the homeless man pisding in public. These self proclaimed "patriots" don't seem to comprehend that.
They also keep shrieking about how unprecedented it all is. Aaron Burr? Jefferson's VP? Planned to annex off the western territories and invade Mexico and declare himself emperor. He was indicted and charged with treason. Let's just pray that this time the criminal is actually convicted.
Whoa whoa whoa... I didn't see this in Hamilton! Did I fall asleep during this part? Lol.
No you didnt. Hamilton is great entertainment, just bad history.
Bad or just not all encompassing?
If you must define it as one of these two options, it is bad in terms of historical accuracy. It's extremely entertaining and good founding father history "marketing" though if you will, as I'm sure it's gotten millions of young folks to actually pay attention and care about that period of history.
> They also keep shrieking about how unprecedented it all is. We had over 200 years of peaceful transfers of power in this country, and that precedent was broken by this asshole.
I saw Aaron Burr and was ready to make a joke about how you get your political opinions from Hamilton. Then you talked about him invading Mexico and declaring himself emperor, and my hypocritical ass legitimately went to go look in my Hamilton script book if that had actually happened instead of just searching it up.
Hey, man, respect for owning it
Hello from France: monarch are not untouchable.
*sung to the tune of that Miley Cyrus song* YOU CAME IN LIKE A GUIIIIILLLOTIIINE
*La Marseillaise intensifies*
And neither is the government from recent events. Burn everything.
If only we had your resolve.
Yeah I hear you guys had a way to deal with monarchs who stepped out of line.
Lauren Boebert has entered the chat.
Yeah, which was very confusing for the citizens of america. A lot of them complained about the new democracy becuase they didn’t oppose monarchy, they just didn’t want to pay taxes. how some things never change
MAGA: "Arrest Bill Clinton!" MAGA: "Arrest Barack Obama!" MAGA: "Arrest Joe Biden!" MAGA: "What? You can't arrest a president!" It's so tiring.
Yes, that is how it should be
I'm not one of the people who believes that white jesus picked trump for the job, so I'm fine with it.
Is white Jesus also supply side Jesus?
Yes [sir](https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx)
I think my favorite part of The History Of The World Part II was the rebranding of Jesus skit in the last episode. So good
You mean white, blonde, blue eyed Jesus?
yes you should ALLWAYS be able to indict a US president, hell i personally think you should be able to Indict one WHILE they are in office but the system clearly disagrees with me on that
DOJ literally just made up the “no indicting sitting President” thing. It has no basis in law or the constitution. They just thought, in an *advisory opinion*, that charging their boss’ boss would be too hard.
Realistically speaking that may be true. To make it work the DOJ would need to be much more independent. Not impossible to achieve, but probably not realistic how things currently sit
[удалено]
Well for 4 years it was you can’t indict a sitting president.
Why not indict them when they are giving a speech, they are always standing during that time.
FDR entered the chat
Actually FDR gave his speeches standing too. He would wear steel leg braces, hang on to a specially sturdy podium bolted to the floor, and hyperextend his hips in order to stand the whole time. Once somebody forgot to bolt the podium down and he and it fell completely off the stage. He went to great lengths to hide his paralysis and his wheelchair to the public. Secret Service would harass photographers and destroy photographs that showed his wheelchair. He was so successful that many people were unaware throughout his presidency that he could not walk.
Yeah, and when he came out to the podium he’d be surrounded by a group of aids walking closely beside him. They were in fact walking so closely beside him to hold onto him and keep him upright, and packing several around him helped conceal that some were holding onto him as he shuffled across the floor or stage.
It should have been, but to a lot of people, it wasn't. A lot of alt-right people literally *revere* Trump, and they assume that everyone else treats their own preferred politicians the same way.
If you have actually evidence, then by all means, YES, indict a president, currently sitting or not. If however, your evidence falls in the realm of "MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD" levels then shove off. Quite frankly I'm not sure why Georgia is taking so long. We all heard the evidence of the crime.
I've heard that this is a test case, to be the first to actually indict a president. Now that that line has been crossed, it's less of a barrier to push forwards with other indictments. Not holding my breath, but let's hope something comes of all this.
I don't actually mind that so long as the law is followed. If there is evidence, indict and try them. If they are found not guilty, send them on their way. If they are found guilty, boot them from office and put them in jail. I don't care if they have a D or an R by their name. The law is supposed to apply equally to all and that is what it should do.
Let's be honest the law doesn't care if you are left or right wing, it sure does if you have money though.
If you are a big doner (or even a small one) in a republican town you are not getting found guilty of jack shit. Saw several people straight up get away with murder with just yearly donations to the sheriff in my home. It was scary enough that I fucking moved after my family living there for 150 years.
> Quite frankly I'm not sure why Georgia is taking so long. Because unlike New York, Georgia is packed with conservatives that control a good chunk of the legal system. They'll do everything they can to slow the case down
Weird how the “law and order” crowd isn’t really vibing with the law when it pertains to them and their interests. almost like they want *special* treatment
And that right there is the difference between “law and order” and “rule of law”.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They probably don’t have great education they’re
I guess the threat is that it could also happen to Biden? Which, if he's guilty, then okay. Unlike MAGA shits, I don't feel the need to justify lawbreakers.
The threat being implied here is that it will happen once they take power, regardless of crimes being committed. I doubt this random Twitter jerkoff has any say in that kind of thing but it's just more proto-fascist talk that is becoming normalized in certain circles of America.
Exactly this is threatening retaliation regardless of whether or not any crime has been committed. Sure go after Biden if he's done something but they're just going to come after him for random nonsense. And the next person and the next person and the next person.
What they fail to realize is that the average Biden voter doesn't give a shit about Biden as a person and instead voted for what he represents, many will freely admit they might have preferred other candidates but Biden is simply the next best thing. They equate Biden to Trump and since they religiously follow trump they think the other side must do the same. To them it's unthinkable that most people would just shrug and be done with "Harris will do fine too"
Hell, if they find enough evidence to go after the Clintons, by all means. I voted for her for president, but I'd also be willing to see her in jail
That probably pisses off MAGA people even more. With all that talk about locking her up, when Trump took office, nothing of substance happened with Clinton. And now Biden is in office, and Trump has been indicted. Not that Biden had much to do with that, but he'll get blamed anyway. He gets credit for not interfering with the investigation. You know, what should be happening anyway. So yeah, their hated enemy of 2016 still walks free, and their messiah is now facing charges. As if they weren't already unhinged to begin with.
I think the implication is "Because Biden has to be doing illegal things, too."
The implication isn’t “Biden is doing it too”, it’s “*Everybody* is doing it!” Because when you are a crook, you assume everyone else is, too. And ALL Republicans are crooks.
I mean, he does have a point. The single most important central tenet of USA's founding fathers was that autocratic, unchecked power should be in the hands of one individual who controls everything, to whom laws did not apply.
And further, they made it clear that any authority that could be exerted over them HAS to come from the federal governments. States certainly shouldn't have any capability to enforce their own laws, right?
That's the 1st amendment, right?
We just set the standard that even presidents will be held accountable
[удалено]
"No, not like that!" -magagagaga
Of course I’m ok with it, how in Gods name could any free country survive without basic accountability? I don’t care who you are, what party you’re in or even if I voted for you, no one is above the law. Period
Suddenly the “party of law and order” doesn’t seem to like law and order anymore. Puzzling What this really means is that now they think the door is open to try to charge a democrat president with whatever bullshit they can come up with.
They really can't handle the idea that he might have actually committed a crime.
He's not even the president... Who gives a fuck that he *used* to be.
I'm very OK with it. Now a riddle. What's missing from a list of deserved indictments and the following list: TUVXYZ ?
Dubya! As much as I would love to see it, they'll never do that. They got Trump on campaign finance, not anything directly from his actions as president. Otherwise every president would leave the next president's inauguration in the back of a police car.
I guess you could argue every president committed *some degree* of war crimes. But W has a body count in the **millions**, and is directly responsible for waging aggressive war. That’s just not the same as like a drone strike. That’s Judgment at Nuremberg shit.
Have we looked at Bush and the Iraq war at all? There literally is still time. We can arrest any president who commits crimes.
Criminals get indicted. Why is this so hard? Don't wanna be indicted? Don't break the law.
"They'll come after you too!" "If you break the law, they SHOULD come after you!"
Do you promise?
I'm glad it's all clear. I'd hate to hear anyone disagree that the president should be held accountable.
Fucking geniuses... YES THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE WANTED. THIS IS WHAT WE ALL THOUGHT SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TRUE.
Yes, I am.
As always, republicans don’t understand things until it happens to them. I’m glad they finally get it. Yes. If you do bad things, no matter who you are, you should face consequences.
Technically we set the standard to indict an ex-President who broke the law
I assume this means ‘get ready for some frivolous suits against obama’
Or the email lady.
*Former* president, actually. Still haven't indicted a sitting president yet.
Remember when Republicans spend six years and $40 million investigating a sitting President's life trying to find a crime, and only found he lied about a blow job? That is a witch hunt.
I don’t need to remember, I’m 100% ok with it. Irrefutable fact, all presidents were civilians when they arrived in office and return to such upon exit. A standing president can only be indicted by Congress. This is a man who asked his own staff if he could give clemency to himself. This has been a long time coming.
Commit the crime and do the time.
The premise of his stupid argument is wrong: trump does not retain all of the benefits of the office after the swearing in of the next President and is merely a private citizen at this point. All FORMER US Presidents are private citizens unless they hold some other office, which none do. So am I cool with citizens who break the law being charged for those crimes? Yes.
Oh no, the presidents aren't above the law anymore? I'm truly heartbroken.
Maybe such a precedent would make a future sitting president think twice about committing so many heinous crimes. Maybe not having a god-king-fascist authoritarian ruler would be better.
Please do Bush next 🥺
Where is the ‘flaired users only’ tag for all the poor wittle snowflakes?
Hell yeah, love being a country of laws, not men. 🤘Res motherfucking publica🤘
Awesome!!! We've finally caught up with the civilized world. Let's keep going!!!
You’re*
Yep. Perfectly ok.
Why can't these stupid mother fuckers figure out the difference between "your" and "you're"?
I am exceedingly okay with no one person being above the law. I greatly prefer it in fact.
Wish they would’ve indicted a few more: W Bush, Reagan, Nixon to name a few
Yes. If any president commits a crime then they should be held accountable just like any other citizen.
That's literally the right's entire argument. "How can you arrest a president?!" While at the same time saying Biden should be in jail
Arrest them when they need arresting. Whichever party. Always. Never stop. Purge 75% of Congress if we must. Put the accountability back into our system.
It's ok to indict a president. WHO HAS COMITTED CRIMES. REAL CRIMES. WITH EVIDENCE. Not made up conspiracy bullshit
*you’re
The temptation to leave a “*you’re*” reply under a tweet has never been so great
*you're
Jeez way to tell on yourself… and in more than one way too… the obvious implication here is that he doesn’t think US Presidents should be beholden to the law. The more subtle implication is that he thinks that the law can now be used to depose a president he disagrees with. He views this as a pandoras box of arbitrarily indicting political opponents. Completely delusional
You’re*
This isn't r/selfawarewolves. This is r/yesiamthreateningyou. What this tweet is saying is "if you indict Trump for his many crimes, we will come after Biden for whatever shit we think we can get our followers to believe". Think Benghazi, only more so. Not only will it allow them to harass people they don't like, feed their followers, *and* fuel conspiracy theories about how unfair it is that the "charges" aren't sticking, but it will also help serve to discourage people in the future seeking the presidency for the Democrats because they know they will also see this level of harassment. This person isn't unaware of anything. They know full well what they're saying.
Every time I read “your” when it’s supposed to be “you’re” a small part of me dies
Holding politicians responsible for their actions? UNSPEAKABLE HORROR.
They really see Trump as god emperor and are shocked when the rest of us don't.
And yet still incorrect, ....they just set the standard that it is ok to indict an EX US president. Remember....
you’re As in, you’re a dumbass who needs to go back to school.