110

Trump calls for jailing and “televised military tribunals” of "Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Mr. Pence, Mr. Schumer, Mr. McConnell and Nancy Pelosi." I think he is trying to get my vote. (hexbear.net)

submitted 4 months ago by Yuritopiaposadism@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-treason-jail.html

Mr. Trump has repeatedly called for the imprisonment of his political opponents, often singling out members of the Jan. 6 committee. But the two posts that Mr. Trump amplified on Sunday particularly stand out.

One proposed jailing an extensive list of high-ranking officials, including Mr. Trump’s former vice president, the top Republican in the Senate and the current president and vice president. The other invoked the dictatorial imagery of a televised military tribunal, which would strip Ms. Cheney of her right to due process similar to the military courts used to prosecute terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Hestia@hexbear.net 42 points 4 months ago

waow-based

Trump is on the list too though.

[-] HamManBad@hexbear.net 39 points 4 months ago

Too bad leftist organizers of any stripe are also definitely on his list of people to prosecute, otherwise I'd actually be looking forward to this

[-] grey_wolf_whenever@hexbear.net 32 points 4 months ago

Prosecute? Ha, noooo. Assassinate.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

and they know who all of yall are, no way to hide. why do you think they spend so much in surveillance.

[-] LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net 22 points 4 months ago

Right, as soon as they took out a couple big name D's, its open season on any and every actual leftist organizer. Not that they were ever off the table, but now the feds wouldn't even have to pretend.

[-] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 months ago

Fortunately I'm safe because the only thing I do is posting

[-] CascadeOfLight@hexbear.net 31 points 4 months ago

Love to have a court 'reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals', implicitly suggesting those two things are on the same level of illegality.

[-] porcupine@lemmygrad.ml 31 points 4 months ago

Trump was president for 4 years, and Hillary Clinton is still walking around free.

[-] D61@hexbear.net 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I know that, rationally, this is bad and I shouldn't ever want to see it attempted.... but now that he's said it... I kinda wonder what would happen if Trump wins.

Will he just "forget" about it as soon as the inauguration happens?

Will it go the route of the overturning of the Affordable Care Act? Remember that? For the first two years of Trumps presidency, it seemed like there were monthly votes to overturn the ACA but every time there'd be some technicality or just straight up not being able to get enough conservative votes to make it happen. Then one day, the votes stopped, the bills stopped being put to vote, and all conservative commentators just stopped talking about it like it was not a campaign promise that had been failing for two years straight.

Will it actually happen? Will he actively persecute Republicans who spoke out against him? Clinton, Biden, Obama, Pelosi?

Will the Supreme Court step in to stop it? Will he then persecute the Supreme Court Justices (fuck that'd kinda be amazing)? i really want to have a crystal ball that can show me the possibilities in detail without having to actually live through them.

[-] Adkml@hexbear.net 33 points 4 months ago

Will he just "forget" about it as soon as the inauguration happens?

I'm going to say yes based on the fact that's exactly what happened last time.and he even explained that to his supporters.

They started chanting lock her up after he was elected and he waved them off and said "yea that was great and all during the campaign but I'm actually president now relax"

[-] D61@hexbear.net 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

There's a part of me that thinks there's a chance that things will be different (not a high chance, just higher than with Hillary).

I remember there being specific campaign slogans about Hillary but it seemed like all of the focus was on her specifically.

I find myself wondering if the shotgun approach of talking about going after EVERYBODY will require somebody to actually be drug into a courtroom. (Though with Trump starting his presidency from day one as a lame duck... I guess it won't really matter.)

[-] Adkml@hexbear.net 9 points 4 months ago

I remember there being specific campaign slogans about Hillary but it seemed like all of the focus was on her specifically.

They chanted drain the swamp constantly.

[-] D61@hexbear.net 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

True but talking about doing something" about general corruption and graft in government has always been a thing. Its like "the deep state", it doesn't typically specify any specific individual just ... blobs of bureaucracy.

[-] Adkml@hexbear.net 7 points 4 months ago

Right it's been a thing forever to talk about it and not do it that's why what he's doing isn't anything new or unique.

Dems say they're going to do good things if elected, republicans say they'll punish the people they hate.

They're both full of shit. Republicans will crank up the cruelty against vulnerable people but they have class co science, they aren't going after each other.

[-] emizeko@hexbear.net 25 points 4 months ago

The other invoked the dictatorial imagery of a televised military tribunal, which would strip Ms. Cheney of her right to due process similar to the military courts used to prosecute terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay

"oh no, a wealthy white woman might experience the violence we use on the untermensch!"

[-] Ideology@hexbear.net 22 points 4 months ago

When you watched Death of Stalin as an instruction manual.

[-] LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net 16 points 4 months ago

Is that any good? I know its gonna be lib as fuck, but I keep seeing that clip of Zhukov tossing off his coat and that part looks fun.

[-] grey_wolf_whenever@hexbear.net 16 points 4 months ago

I really liked it, I thought it was really funny. I dont think I'd describe it as lib as fuck at all, could be biased because I thought it was funny, but its not like red scarey at all. Its not pro Stalin, but its not anti Communist.

[-] CascadeOfLight@hexbear.net 39 points 4 months ago

Man, did we watch the same movie? The very opening sequence is based on an apocryphal tale, that Stalin had been listening to a radio broadcast of an orchestra one night, called up the broadcast studio after it was finished to congratulate them on how good it was and then, in a fit of Soviet patriotism, the orchestra chose to play the whole show again in order to record it and send the record to Stalin - a story that is almost certainly made up, but the point of which is to show how much the Soviet people loved Stalin.

Meanwhile in the film, Stalin calls up to gruffly demand a recording of the show to be handed to him by the morning, so the exhausted orchestra has to repeat the performance in a new fit of terror for their lives at the implication their heartless tyrant will have them killed if they don't. Now, aside from the film's obvious protrayal of itself as a comedy/satire, it still claims to essentially represent the sequence of events surrounding the succession of Stalin by Khrushchev, so anti-communism-primed lib audiences would probably take this to be an exaggerated depiction of something that actually happened rather than a made-up story with the point of it completely inverted.

And that's just the opening few minutes. The entire rest of the film has this atmosphere that, at any moment, anyone could just be arrested by the secret police or summarily executed as part of someone's play for power, as if that's how it really was in the USSR. I mean, there's a scene after Stalin's death where for no apparent reason the whole staff of his dacha is just getting executed in the background by soldiers, who then stand there and wait to be executed by other soldiers! If it didn't market itself as a comedy it would just be a very extreme anticommunist screed.

I'm not saying the film wasn't funny or that it isn't worth watching, but the writer is obviously a liberal with the fundamental anticommunist brainworms that comes with. It's really a comedy about bureaucratic dysfunction, just like many of the writer's other works like The Thick Of It, but he still chose to set it in the USSR and indulge in all these anticommunist tropes, presenting them in a way the audience isn't really sure if it's an exaggeration or something that really happened. It's the very definition of lib as fuck.

[-] grey_wolf_whenever@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago

okay, youre right it is anti communist. I just thought it was funny so I missed it I guess.

[-] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

it's a funny movie, but it is definitely anticommunist lol

[-] D61@hexbear.net 7 points 4 months ago

It was better than what I thought it was going to be.

[-] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

And if he becomes president it'll be legal too.

Not that he would actually do it since he had the chance the first time he was El presidente

[-] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 15 points 4 months ago

Lol, is this how we get our Covid Tribunals?

[-] Civility@hexbear.net 15 points 4 months ago

😠

[-] TrashGoblin@hexbear.net 15 points 4 months ago

geordi-no Military tribunals

geordi-yes Revolutionary tribunals

[-] CoolerOpposide@hexbear.net 13 points 4 months ago

The frontier yearns to return home

[-] anaesidemus@hexbear.net 12 points 4 months ago

wow, such a populist

[-] Yor@hexbear.net 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

ideally, amerikkka falling apart will happen in the funniest way possible. fingers crossed

[-] pooh@hexbear.net 12 points 4 months ago

My prediction is that Trump will win the election but not make it to the White House. Let’s see if this pans out.

[-] Owl@hexbear.net 11 points 4 months ago

He's a reality TV show host so I'm sure he'd do great at it.

Clueless enough not to realize that he'll get got in the last episode, too.

[-] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 10 points 4 months ago

Red brown alliance: sounds good, doesn't work sad-boi

[-] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 4 months ago

Good thing the supreme court didn't just give the president the power to do whatever they want recently. This would be an actually actionable threat otherwise.