The bus is always idling at the curb; Trump cronies never seem to realize that eventually, everyone gets thrown under it.
Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
51–60 of 127 posts
Re: Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you include references for the studies you mention? > Trump notably had much smaller campaign budgets than his opponents in both winning elections I'm not sure where you're getting this information. > Fundamentally, it's presidential democracy that is flawed. No disagreement
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02613... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240633007_Measuring... TL;DR: Spending might matter up to a certain point, but becomes very inefficient. It's also more effective for challenges than incumbents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_in_the_2024_United... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_in_the_2020_United... https://www.washingtonpos…
Thanks!
Re: Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
#53The timing coincides with her office getting embarrassed in front of the Supreme Court, with Trump in artendance. P2025 had a plan but it was always going to struggle against the president's personality issues.
Trying to argue the 14th amendment doesn’t read as plainly as it does was a no-win situation. The government would have to argue it does not have jurisdiction (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) over illegal immigrants which would seemingly (IANAL) mean they’re immune to prosecution for any crime. You could probably find a hair splitting argument that the child must be born in an actual ‘State’, but aside from that…
> That being said, Pam Bondi was very bad at her job.
Perhaps so. (In fact, I suspect so.) But having a boss that keeps putting you in impossible situations is not conducive to good performance reviews. She got fired for failing to deliver on Trump's fantasies of how the legal system ought to treat him. A different AG isn't going to do too much better, because too many of Trump's positions are legally insane.
Re: Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
#54This means the Epstein connection must be much deeper than we already knew. We kind of need a global movement here that investigates all of those party-goers. Invading another country also serves as an ideal distraction.
I think the UK has been handling their end shockingly well, fwiw
Arresting Andrew does kind of indicate that they're taking it seriously...
Re: Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
#55The bus is always idling at the curb; Trump cronies never seem to realize that eventually, everyone gets thrown under it.
Yes, it always ends in tears.
Re: Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if enough people want to willing vote in a corrupt president Why do people do this though? Maybe it's inevitable, but I think there was a lot of pent up frustration with the government that led a lot of people to just say "fuck it". Not really excusing it (especially for his second term), but I feel like we're reaping years and years of a dysfunctional and ineffectual congress. Not that that's an especially easy pr…
It's worth noting that an ineffective and gridlocked congress is specifically a problem of presidential-style democracies. Parliamentary systems with a prime minister have some of their own shortcomings (notably a weak executive), but the government is actually controlled by the legislature. Countries that follow the presidential model regularly succumb to strong man type leaders. Ironically, in the modern era when t…
I don't think parliamentary systems help the legislature remain effective, since they're still elected in roughly the same way, no?
But yeah, it prevents an ineffective legislature from leading to strong-men, which does seem nice. :)
Re: Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we should change it. I think we as a nation need to understand the person we put in that office has that power, and choose accordingly . It's there for a reason. Sometimes, it's perfectly acceptable for the President to say "fuck this shit" for the good of the Nation. With that power though, comes the responsibility to wield it with respect. This country put the man abusing it in power . No one had seco…
> I think we as a nation need to understand the person we put in that office has that power, and choose accordingly. That's like taking the safety off a gun to remind people to be responsible. That doesn't work, and irresponsible people's decisions can negatively affect everyone (including other countries). We need all the safety measures we can get.
We had safety measures. It was called the Electoral College, and the entire reason it was put there was to get a small group of people separated from groupthink to really think " Are you SURE this is the right candidate?" Then states decided to pass laws to penalize the act of being a faithless elector, which is EXACTLY the mechanism of protection to keep a demagogue out of office. You can't sit here and whine about what a criminal demagogue President can do not being safe when the Safety got stripped not more than 4 Presidencies in by the machinations of political parties. You had the safety of the impeachment process by Congress. Your Senators refuse to rein the man in. You had the Safety of the Judiciary. Your Senators did everything to stack that too. There is no one else to delegate the responsibility of clemency oversight to. In fact, systemically, you can't. Not while maintaining the President's inherent check on the Legislature & the Judiciary and thereby creating problems elsewhere. You just weaken the system. We put a felon in the White House even after seeing what they did the first time. That's the effing problem. It isn't the position. It's who got put in it. That's the only damn thing you can fix. The only people who should be ashamed are the ones who got taken in by this idiot's campaign, and couldn't be arsed to understand the levers they were putting him in front of. I bloody well did. I didn't vote for him. Even if I had to swallow my disgust and vote for someone else I was somewhat less doubtful of the efficacy of. There is no blood on my hands for this Presidency. Not a drop. I did my part. Now I'm doing my part for the next one in hopefully galvanizing people to wake up and take this crap seriously, unless they wish to remain a laughing stock to the rest of the world for the foreseeable future, even though, to be quite honest, I'm pretty certain that ship has sailed. Alas, it is my civic duty, no matter how hopeless the chances of success.
For every problem there is always a solution that seems quick, simple, and is almost certainly, entirely wrong in the grand scheme of things. Dorking with the Pardon, is one of them. Is it controversial? Yes. Is it necessary? Yep. Sure is. Someone has to be able to stop the wheels of the System from continuing to grind when the System changes it's mind, and that's what the Pardon is for. It is vested in a single person. To the rest of the system, it doesn't even factor in. Take this as a lesson learned, and don't put it in front of manchildren to be abused with wild abandon. Then just as we move forward to recover from this turbulent learning experience, we'll just have to clean up the mess.
You can't fix stupid. You can only clean up after it.
Re: Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
#58Re: Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
#59The bus is always idling at the curb; Trump cronies never seem to realize that eventually, everyone gets thrown under it.
I suspect many do, but you can grift a lot before that happens
Re: Trump fires Pam Bondi as attorney general
#60The bus is always idling at the curb; Trump cronies never seem to realize that eventually, everyone gets thrown under it.
Every power hungry maniac thinks their power of sycophancy is going to be better. If they had any shred of reflection they wouldn’t be working for this man.