239
top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 200 points 9 months ago

So... She's admitting he broke the law?

[-] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 54 points 9 months ago

A pardon is essentially that. But only literally in the case of a conviction. You can issue blanket pardons which basically say "if you did something, you are pardoned". These do not have the direct acknowledgement of guilt but it's obviously heavily implied.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 12 points 9 months ago

These don't side-step prosecution though, just the sentence if found guilty, correct?

[-] LufyCZ@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Well don't think there's a point prosecuting someone (i.e. spending insane amounts of taxpayer money) if, in the end, you achieve "nothing", in terms of punishment.

There might still be indirect punishment in terms of a hit to public image but eh

[-] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I feel like in a high profile case like this the prosecutor would still want to prosecute. If for nothing more than to help make a name for themselves. Of course it's likely that some funding for such a trial would be taken away after the pardon was issued. It would be an interesting states rights issue though. Can a president pardon someone for a state level crime? I think the consensus is no, but I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't really know.

[-] LufyCZ@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The governor of said state pardons for state crimes

[-] LocoOhNo@lemmus.org 177 points 9 months ago

Nikki Haley: Cool with treason.

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 74 points 9 months ago

Cool with treason committed by Republicans.

[-] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Really it's the Democrats fault. If they'd just been Republicans this never would have happened. -s

[-] NABDad@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Well, I blame the Republicans. The Democrats are trying to become Republicans, but the Republicans keep running farther right so fast the Democrats can't catch up.

[-] CasualPenguin@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

Isn't the majority of US power cool with treason (at least so far)?

He is a free man some 4 years later, and he isn't likely to face the consequence of not being allowed for president even

[-] ravheim@lemmy.world 86 points 9 months ago

Yep. She's not an alternative to Trump. She's just a Trump clone with better make-up and more stylish heels. Same for Ron Desantis. I don't think Ramaswamy wore heels, otherwise the same could be said about him.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

I didn't realize till recently she wasn't white, cause she does everything in her power to portray that she is

[-] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago
[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

Honestly, it kinda is. She's anglicized herself profusely to appeal to bigots. Denied that America is a country with issues with racism while at the same time claiming that she faced racial discrimination when younger. Giving everyone whiplash as she displayed either the depth of her dishonesty or ability to handle cognitive dissonance.

I would vote for an honest, intelligent nimrata any day over A soulless moral less fashy Nikki.

[-] jesuiscequejesuis@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

She's anglicized herself profusely to appeal to bigots

Not to defend her, but she has gone by her middle name, Nikki, since she was born. It's is a Punjabi name meaning "little one". She later took her husband's last name when they married, which is a pretty normal thing for people to do.

[-] testfactor@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

To be fair, she could simply be arguing that racism, while a major issue she faced in her youth, is now a largely solved issue in modern America.

Not that I agree. Just pointing out that it isn't an inherently dishonest position. Things change over time, and things are in fact better than when she was young.

Not solved by any stretch for sure. America still struggles with bigotry in all forms. But it wasn't that long ago that Barak Obama was actively arguing against gay marriage on national TV. We've come a long way for sure.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Some of us have. Others, like Haley enabled and encourage those that haven't. So while I agree it's possible for people in good faith to make that optimistically incorrect assertion. Haley can't.

And you aren't wrong about Obama. Ironically it was Biden of all people if I remember correctly. That pushed the issue passed the tipping point. With one of his patented gaffes. But that's why good people can justify supporting Democrats generally. Despite largely being as hurt to themselves and everyone else. They often are decent people deep down no matter how misguided they are. Eventually willing to change their views after enough pushback with facts and evidence. Haley and those like herself, however, are shown that they are just soulless selfish, sycophants in search of power.

[-] ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

How dare you say DeSantis heels aren’t stylish.

[-] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Great visual of DeSantis in heels now. ;)

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

No need to visualize it. If you've seen him, he was wearing heels.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/31/desantis-boots-shoemakers-00121044

[-] gloss@discuss.tchncs.de 56 points 9 months ago

she would pardon him to unify America.

What she means is that she would do it to placate Trumps dangerous cult. There are a thousand things republicans could do if they really cared about "unity" but letting a racist piece of trash criminal like Trump off the hook isn't one of them.

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Yeah this action would do the opposite of uniting me with them lol

[-] CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org 50 points 9 months ago

She's trying to position herself for Vice President candidate since it's becoming clear she can't win the primary.

[-] jaschen@lemm.ee 47 points 9 months ago

Trump already said she would never pick Nancy Pelosi to be his VP.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I don't understand this comment in this context.

Edit: thanks for explaining!

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

Trump mixed up Pelosi and Haley in a reference to Jan 6. Not just a single slip up.. but a full rant multiple times he said Haley instead of Pelosi.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Thanks! I can't believe I missed that.

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

His cognitive decline has caused him to constantly mix up names.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago
[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago

What can she say? She loves demented rapists.

[-] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago
[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 23 points 9 months ago

To conservatives the meaning of law and order is simple but not the same as it is for Liberals or Social Dems. For conservatives law exists to maintain the order of existing social hierarchies and to bind the people into those hierarchies. It binds women below men by stripping them of bodily autonomy, it binds black people below white people by stripping them of their vote then criminalizing protest, it goes on and on like this and becomes painfully obvious once we learn to see it for what it is.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago

I get what you're saying. But I still take a little bit of issue with it. Conservatives don't have a special definition of law and order. They are using law and order as it was intended. I think liberals etc. Have a false impression of what it was ever supposed to be. Laws absolutely can be and often are unjust. The order almost undoubtedly always is corrupt. And the laws are specifically to preserve the order. Nothing else.

What you want. What any good person should want. Is justice and peace. Things we aren't really allowed to have. All because of law and order. So I ask you, what good is law and order? Give it some consideration. I think you will come to a similar conclusion. Justice even if it's a threat to the order is necessary for meaningful peace. And laws don't bring justice.

[-] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If she wins and pardons Trump ... Trump, IMHO, would have her assassinated and try to take over the government. Again.

How can she not see that ?

[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

I mean, if I were running I'd absolutely say in public that I'd pardon him if he were to drop out. Then I absolutely would not pardon him after I won.

[-] st3ph3n@midwest.social 14 points 9 months ago

"Unify America" my ass. That's not what this move would do.

[-] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 12 points 9 months ago

"Feckless cunt" was the phrase I recall

[-] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago

Elect me and I will pardon your new lord and savior. I got his back! (Wink) À la Jeb: Please clap.

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

She can't pardon the state crimes. That would take a governor.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 11 points 9 months ago

Not in Georgia. They have a pardon and parole board, and without getting into the weeds, there is no way to escape incarceration through a pardon in GA.

The same board does have the power to commute sentences, though.

[-] SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de 9 points 9 months ago

trash woman

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago

Aid and comfort.

[-] Froyn@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

I hope her word is as good as his word was when it came to the Jan 6th rioters.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

You're assuming she will ever be president.

[-] RotatingParts@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Any time they talk about not looking back but looking forward "“We’ve got to leave the negativity and the baggage behind", it means -I'll forgive them for what they did in hopes the people that come after me will forgive me in the same way.

[-] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social -4 points 9 months ago

Well fuck I guess my safe vote is gone

this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
239 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2067 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS