It's actually illegal to threaten the president. It's not protected speech.
And what are the consequences for Mr trump?
Based on his record, a few articles snd forum posts explaining what should happen, all of which will be ignored by the legal system, there won't even be a baliff giving Mr. Trump a heavy slap, which seems apropriate with how Mr. Trump behaves.
Maybe a judge issues a $1,000 scolding and begs him not to do it again.
None, as always. He's the embodiment of how broken the "justice" system is.
He’s the embodiment of how broken the “justice” system is.
Nothing broken about the (so-called) "justice" system. It's working exactly as designed.
Court costs for appeals should be based on the net worth of the appealing entity. Trump's entire strategy for business, politics and personal relationships for his entire life has been "my daddy left me a pile of money, so I can afford to sue you until the end of time, or you can just cut your losses and walk away now".
Court costs for appeals should be based on the net worth of the appealing entity.
In other words, you are proposing to actually break the (so-called) "justice system" so that it cannot work as designed.
You do understand that the (so-called) "justice system" was designed to keep you under control while enabling the parasite class (of which Trump is a proud member) to essentially do whatever they feel like and has never existed for any other reason?
Yes. I believe that is what I said.
Okay.
But why only go half-way?
Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.
No system is perfect, and no system is equal, and most importantly, people in a system will adapt to take advantage of the system. That's why it's useless to go "all the way", the system is there to keep us from just clubbing each other over the head whenever we feel wronged. It's much better that we have a dynamic and living system that can respond to loopholes and attempts to thwart it. Incremental change is the way the system should react.
It is a challenging question though. How do you afford the "little man" their right to appeal rulings, without giving the "big man" unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?
Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.
Where did you get this? At the local Fascist Fortune Cookie store? Hollywood, maybe?
Where is your evidence of this?
How do you afford the “little man” their right to appeal rulings, without giving the “big man” unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?
If you are unwilling to do away with the very systems that are designed to protect and enable the "big men" the answer is simple - you can't.
Oh, I must be a fascist because I think that going all the way back means going to a time before organized society and a structured code of law? Is that really where your mind jumps to when someone disagrees with you? Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!
Ad-hominems aside. How far back is "far back" enough for you that we could build a more just and equitable system? We talking Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? 10 commandments?
organized society and a structured code of law?
Where is the evidence that led you to conflate these two?
Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!
What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives? Assume the person doing the regurgitating is not beholden to fascist views?
I assume this is the first time you've been exposed to the fact that "Law & Order" narratives have always been the narrative espoused by the fascist element inherent to the liberal nation state long before Mussolini even gave fascism a name?
What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives?
I have yet to see a fascist argue that every justice system has inherent inequality, and that the only way to fix it is to have a dynamic and living system than can respond to the changes in society around it. I don't think that is a fascist view. Fascist by definition put all authority in an immutable entity that rules with an iron fist with the sole purpose of benefiting one particular group of people.
You might consider reading up on it a bit before you go start spreading it over everything that doesn't agree with your somehow very narrow yet ephemeral definition of a just society.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive unless you are willing to specify what in your mind, was the most recent equitable justice system in human history. You won't though, because you haven't thought about it that much, which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.
He constructed it a little cleverly: Said that if it was a Republican, they'd be in the electric chair. I don't think it was criminal.
Of course, he also openly tried to have his own vice president killed, and collects non-murder-related felonies like bottles for recycling, and at least so far all of that has been mostly okay of him to do, so I'm not sure how much it matters. 😕
It's actually illegal to threaten the president. It's not protected speech.
And what are the consequences for Mr trump?
Based on his record, a few articles snd forum posts explaining what should happen, all of which will be ignored by the legal system, there won't even be a baliff giving Mr. Trump a heavy slap, which seems apropriate with how Mr. Trump behaves.
Maybe a judge issues a $1,000 scolding and begs him not to do it again.
None, as always. He's the embodiment of how broken the "justice" system is.
Nothing broken about the (so-called) "justice" system. It's working exactly as designed.
Court costs for appeals should be based on the net worth of the appealing entity. Trump's entire strategy for business, politics and personal relationships for his entire life has been "my daddy left me a pile of money, so I can afford to sue you until the end of time, or you can just cut your losses and walk away now".
In other words, you are proposing to actually break the (so-called) "justice system" so that it cannot work as designed.
You do understand that the (so-called) "justice system" was designed to keep you under control while enabling the parasite class (of which Trump is a proud member) to essentially do whatever they feel like and has never existed for any other reason?
Yes. I believe that is what I said.
Okay.
But why only go half-way?
Because going all the way takes us back to caveman society.
No system is perfect, and no system is equal, and most importantly, people in a system will adapt to take advantage of the system. That's why it's useless to go "all the way", the system is there to keep us from just clubbing each other over the head whenever we feel wronged. It's much better that we have a dynamic and living system that can respond to loopholes and attempts to thwart it. Incremental change is the way the system should react.
It is a challenging question though. How do you afford the "little man" their right to appeal rulings, without giving the "big man" unlimited leeway to appeal and delay justice?
Where did you get this? At the local Fascist Fortune Cookie store? Hollywood, maybe?
Where is your evidence of this?
If you are unwilling to do away with the very systems that are designed to protect and enable the "big men" the answer is simple - you can't.
Oh, I must be a fascist because I think that going all the way back means going to a time before organized society and a structured code of law? Is that really where your mind jumps to when someone disagrees with you? Oh, this person must be a fucking fascist because they think differently than I!
Ad-hominems aside. How far back is "far back" enough for you that we could build a more just and equitable system? We talking Bill of Rights? Magna Carta? 10 commandments?
Where is the evidence that led you to conflate these two?
What else am I supposed to do when people regurgite fascist narratives? Assume the person doing the regurgitating is not beholden to fascist views?
I assume this is the first time you've been exposed to the fact that "Law & Order" narratives have always been the narrative espoused by the fascist element inherent to the liberal nation state long before Mussolini even gave fascism a name?
I have yet to see a fascist argue that every justice system has inherent inequality, and that the only way to fix it is to have a dynamic and living system than can respond to the changes in society around it. I don't think that is a fascist view. Fascist by definition put all authority in an immutable entity that rules with an iron fist with the sole purpose of benefiting one particular group of people.
You might consider reading up on it a bit before you go start spreading it over everything that doesn't agree with your somehow very narrow yet ephemeral definition of a just society. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Regardless, any talk at this point is unproductive unless you are willing to specify what in your mind, was the most recent equitable justice system in human history. You won't though, because you haven't thought about it that much, which is why you were offended by my caveman assertion.
According to the headline, he is to be flattened.
Then slammed, and flattened again, and then kneaded, rolled, blasted, and risen. Then he's gonna get SLICED.
A slap on the wrist with a soggy spaghetti.
He constructed it a little cleverly: Said that if it was a Republican, they'd be in the electric chair. I don't think it was criminal.
Of course, he also openly tried to have his own vice president killed, and collects non-murder-related felonies like bottles for recycling, and at least so far all of that has been mostly okay of him to do, so I'm not sure how much it matters. 😕