She couldn't care less. She's aiming for a Supreme Court pick if Trump gets re-elected. She'd be a perfect replacement for Clarence Thomas.
If a reckoning came her way, would it be a supreme Court thing right away? I do worry she'll skate if it is ... but I half worry J. Alito or J. Thomas feel they could simply whack a progressive counterpart and then have no court in which to defend themselves ... and thus skate as well to open up space for her.
Nightmare fuel and nothing more, of course.
Considering that right now fascists are gaining power everywhere in the "western world", it doesn't seem likely. Well, not until decades and probably a bloody war or two later, at any rate.
Fascist regimes don't last long because they all eventually turn their violence inward. They breed the sort of mistrust and lack of questioning that don't make them effective societies.
Tell that to Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Zimbabwe, China and North Korea, which have been authoritarian for decades now. I'm sorry, what does "lasting long" mean?
You are aware that there are more types of authoritarian governments than just "fascism," right?
"No, not like that..!!!!"
Well, you're just moving the goal post.
Fascist regimes don’t last long because they all eventually turn their violence inward.
Where in that sentence is implied that the countries I mentioned should be excluded?
Fascist regimes
^ Right here is where they specified that they weren’t talking about all authoritarian societies but a subset.
If you want to argue that your list is all fascist countries then do that, but they did not move any goalposts by correcting you after giving what you labeled authoritarian countries instead of fascist ones specifically.
Ok. Which of the countries I mentioned is not fascist and why?
The fact that me pointing out why your accusing someone else of moving the goalpost isn’t true and a mistake on your part is met by you immediately trying to make me disprove a claim you haven’t even made explicitly yet, makes me think this will go nowhere regardless of anything I might say.
Will you acknowledge your mistake and move forward? If so I’m open to discussing it further, but if you continue to avoid the points made as if to never acknowledge when you are wrong then I’m not going to bother.
I think you're seeing my question as confrontional, thinking that I will continue rebutting for the sake of rebutting.
I took a step back. Take one step back too. I'm willing to be corrected. I'm willing to question my reasoning.
But I can't just say "oh sorry" without seeing the whole picture.
Now, could you please answer the question? It was a genuine one. Don't be like the other one who said "ooh hoo u not worth it" when I was already open for a genuine exchange.
Real smart of you to change what we're talking about in the reply. That's a classic move to make yourself seem like you made a point.
Well, enlighten me instead of being gratuitously and unhelpfully sarcastic.
Nah, you're not worth it.
Edgy.
Would Franco's Spain and Pinoche's Argentina somewhat contradict that assertion? They both lasted a good long time before there was a slow transition away from their regimes from what I remember.
And she'll be a footnote, after she's spent her life ensconced in power and being showered with gifts for serving the cause. She'll have a much nicer life than people who had integrity and cared about their fellow man, but we'll be comforted that someday she'll get her judgement.
I doubt she'll get any judgement in life, and being agnostic I doubt she'll get any after it.
Unfortunately, much too often the reward of evil is wealth and power.
I hope contemporary will be harsh towards her.
Why wait? She'll live a long life. There's plenty of time to hold her accountable for aiding and abetting Trump.
She probably would not have denied it had the prosecutors had a 3-7 minute conversation with Trump's defense and had determined they couldn't have come to an agreement. Prosecutorial arrogance allowed them to just ignore procedure and they figured they could get away with it.
Also, if the prosecutors have such good evidence, maybe instead of worrying so much about what Trump is speechifying on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, they could just prosecute him? Are they really afraid that a jury is so stupid that they are going to be persuaded by Trump ranting tweets or Xes or whatever they are called now on that enshitified platform? Either they have weak evidence or this is just a power play to try to control Trump's ability to say what he wants (and ignore the court rules) and they thought they could get away with it.
This is the equivalent of thoughts and prayers. Get out and organize
Not much I can do on my end, considering I don't live in the US. I'll keep watching the dumpster fire from above.
Holy shit, how are things in heaven, and how do I get there?
Oh wait, you mean space? Same questions!
j/k just hoping the populist conservatism doesn't catch hold in Canada.
We have angry Milhouse stirring shit up North, so yeah populist conservatism is on the rise.
she's doing exactly what she was appointed to do.
I still find it mind-boggling that she's even participating in the case, much less judging (adjudicating?) it.
if the court rules are that both sides are supposed to talk to determine what is reasonable to discuss and not discuss, and the prosecutor just totally ignored that because "who cares" and Trump is clearly out of line, then the prosecutor still ignored the court rules. good for that judge for asserting that prosecutors can't just do whatever they want. i thought her words were actually funny and clever. she's pointing out that the rules specify it's really supposed to be a meaningful attempt, not just faking it or ignoring it or trivially trying to say they tried. A gag order is a big limit to free speech, I wish they were never even allowed, but she's at least being sensible with this and rejecting it on a limited basis based on procedural reasons
That may fly if Trump already didn't have a history of skirting or outright defying gag orders already. This lady needs to be removed immediately on nat sec grounds. This is fucking absurd.
Even if you don't like Trump, procedural fairness is important. You aren't supposed to just ignore procedure when it comes to a defendant being criminally prosecuted. There has been a trend of more and more procedural fairness being ignored because prosecutors know they can get away with it and it will be meaningless on appeal. The judge had to rule this way and if she hadn't she would have been a horrible judge. What is sad is that it actually had to be appealed to get to the level of normal procedural fairness. Even very awful people are supposed to get fair procedure in the US. The time procedure and fairness matter most is when someone is being deprived of liberty, that's when you want the rules to be fair, not broken. What would have been a better ruling? If she said "Eh, it's fine, the prosecutors can do whatever and it won't matter on appeal anyway because of the harmless error rule." Gag orders should also be illegal. The First Amendment was not supposed to be some weak idea that occasionally let's people speak their views. It's supposed to protect people like Trump who many people think have detestable speech.
Also, I hate Trump's views on Trans people and his treatment towards those who are different or he perceives as different. I have never voted for Trump. Give this judge a break, that was a good ruling.
This woman is shameless
I hope history will be harsh towards her.
She couldn't care less. She's aiming for a Supreme Court pick if Trump gets re-elected. She'd be a perfect replacement for Clarence Thomas.
If a reckoning came her way, would it be a supreme Court thing right away? I do worry she'll skate if it is ... but I half worry J. Alito or J. Thomas feel they could simply whack a progressive counterpart and then have no court in which to defend themselves ... and thus skate as well to open up space for her.
Nightmare fuel and nothing more, of course.
Considering that right now fascists are gaining power everywhere in the "western world", it doesn't seem likely. Well, not until decades and probably a bloody war or two later, at any rate.
Fascist regimes don't last long because they all eventually turn their violence inward. They breed the sort of mistrust and lack of questioning that don't make them effective societies.
Tell that to Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Zimbabwe, China and North Korea, which have been authoritarian for decades now. I'm sorry, what does "lasting long" mean?
You are aware that there are more types of authoritarian governments than just "fascism," right?
"No, not like that..!!!!"
Well, you're just moving the goal post.
Where in that sentence is implied that the countries I mentioned should be excluded?
^ Right here is where they specified that they weren’t talking about all authoritarian societies but a subset.
If you want to argue that your list is all fascist countries then do that, but they did not move any goalposts by correcting you after giving what you labeled authoritarian countries instead of fascist ones specifically.
Ok. Which of the countries I mentioned is not fascist and why?
The fact that me pointing out why your accusing someone else of moving the goalpost isn’t true and a mistake on your part is met by you immediately trying to make me disprove a claim you haven’t even made explicitly yet, makes me think this will go nowhere regardless of anything I might say.
Will you acknowledge your mistake and move forward? If so I’m open to discussing it further, but if you continue to avoid the points made as if to never acknowledge when you are wrong then I’m not going to bother.
I think you're seeing my question as confrontional, thinking that I will continue rebutting for the sake of rebutting.
I took a step back. Take one step back too. I'm willing to be corrected. I'm willing to question my reasoning.
But I can't just say "oh sorry" without seeing the whole picture.
Now, could you please answer the question? It was a genuine one. Don't be like the other one who said "ooh hoo u not worth it" when I was already open for a genuine exchange.
Real smart of you to change what we're talking about in the reply. That's a classic move to make yourself seem like you made a point.
Well, enlighten me instead of being gratuitously and unhelpfully sarcastic.
Nah, you're not worth it.
Edgy.
Would Franco's Spain and Pinoche's Argentina somewhat contradict that assertion? They both lasted a good long time before there was a slow transition away from their regimes from what I remember.
And she'll be a footnote, after she's spent her life ensconced in power and being showered with gifts for serving the cause. She'll have a much nicer life than people who had integrity and cared about their fellow man, but we'll be comforted that someday she'll get her judgement.
I doubt she'll get any judgement in life, and being agnostic I doubt she'll get any after it.
Unfortunately, much too often the reward of evil is wealth and power.
I hope contemporary will be harsh towards her.
Why wait? She'll live a long life. There's plenty of time to hold her accountable for aiding and abetting Trump.
She probably would not have denied it had the prosecutors had a 3-7 minute conversation with Trump's defense and had determined they couldn't have come to an agreement. Prosecutorial arrogance allowed them to just ignore procedure and they figured they could get away with it.
Also, if the prosecutors have such good evidence, maybe instead of worrying so much about what Trump is speechifying on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, they could just prosecute him? Are they really afraid that a jury is so stupid that they are going to be persuaded by Trump ranting tweets or Xes or whatever they are called now on that enshitified platform? Either they have weak evidence or this is just a power play to try to control Trump's ability to say what he wants (and ignore the court rules) and they thought they could get away with it.
This is the equivalent of thoughts and prayers. Get out and organize
Not much I can do on my end, considering I don't live in the US. I'll keep watching the dumpster fire from above.
Holy shit, how are things in heaven, and how do I get there?
Oh wait, you mean space? Same questions!
j/k just hoping the populist conservatism doesn't catch hold in Canada.
We have angry Milhouse stirring shit up North, so yeah populist conservatism is on the rise.
she's doing exactly what she was appointed to do.
I still find it mind-boggling that she's even participating in the case, much less judging (adjudicating?) it.
if the court rules are that both sides are supposed to talk to determine what is reasonable to discuss and not discuss, and the prosecutor just totally ignored that because "who cares" and Trump is clearly out of line, then the prosecutor still ignored the court rules. good for that judge for asserting that prosecutors can't just do whatever they want. i thought her words were actually funny and clever. she's pointing out that the rules specify it's really supposed to be a meaningful attempt, not just faking it or ignoring it or trivially trying to say they tried. A gag order is a big limit to free speech, I wish they were never even allowed, but she's at least being sensible with this and rejecting it on a limited basis based on procedural reasons
That may fly if Trump already didn't have a history of skirting or outright defying gag orders already. This lady needs to be removed immediately on nat sec grounds. This is fucking absurd.
Even if you don't like Trump, procedural fairness is important. You aren't supposed to just ignore procedure when it comes to a defendant being criminally prosecuted. There has been a trend of more and more procedural fairness being ignored because prosecutors know they can get away with it and it will be meaningless on appeal. The judge had to rule this way and if she hadn't she would have been a horrible judge. What is sad is that it actually had to be appealed to get to the level of normal procedural fairness. Even very awful people are supposed to get fair procedure in the US. The time procedure and fairness matter most is when someone is being deprived of liberty, that's when you want the rules to be fair, not broken. What would have been a better ruling? If she said "Eh, it's fine, the prosecutors can do whatever and it won't matter on appeal anyway because of the harmless error rule." Gag orders should also be illegal. The First Amendment was not supposed to be some weak idea that occasionally let's people speak their views. It's supposed to protect people like Trump who many people think have detestable speech.
Also, I hate Trump's views on Trans people and his treatment towards those who are different or he perceives as different. I have never voted for Trump. Give this judge a break, that was a good ruling.