Live data from Hacker News

Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

nytimes.com

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#141

[flagged]

Last line:

>don't take sides

First line:

>This has the makings of a Liberal (capital L, sic) pileup

Any criticism or callout of your factual or logical fallacies will only reinforce your conspiratorial mindset. Since there aren't any "facts" to debate in your post, I'll just say you're wrong and move on.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems wild to make this argument before the indictment has been unsealed. Shouldn’t we wait to see the allegations before we declare them baseless?

Apparently 34 charges.

The sheer number of baseless charges does not grant additional weight to any of them individually.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#143

Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. We are overdue for setting the precedent of a former President being charged with a crime, and we ought to go back and charge a few other former Presidents with crimes while we’re at it.

Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

I really hope the US doesn’t agree to give up full sovereignty of its judicial process.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#144

I am going to post a mildly unpopular opinion on what it actually means. In a word: nothing. Regardless of how you see Trump, he is, and has been basically since he became President, the presumptive nominee of the Republican party with remaining candidates hoping to take him down. With all that in mind, what does this indictment actually mean in terms of possible penalty? In a word: nothing. Felon can still run for P…

[flagged]

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#145

Nearly the entire point of the United States at its founding was that the law should apply to political leaders. We are overdue for setting the precedent of a former President being charged with a crime, and we ought to go back and charge a few other former Presidents with crimes while we’re at it.

Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

Seems problematic for compatibility with US Constitution though

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#146
post #84

Hacker News is better without unrelated political news.

My knowledge of political events is sparse because I haven't dedicated the time it takes to acquire the prerequisite knowledge. However, I'd be interested in learning more from those here who do have that knowledge and are willing to share perspective on these sort of events. In general, I think it's valuable to be curious about things you're not necessarily interested in.

Wikimedia maintains a world news section [0] that is well linked to the context. Hacker News is not optimized to provide the prerequisite context for a topic like this. Topics like these attract bikeshedding value statements rather than extended breakdowns of topics and links to primary sources.

[0] https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#147

This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election. Jailing a person who could as likely as not be be supported by a majority of voters for the presidency would probably be the single most anti-democratic act to ever occur in the US. I never thought we could outdo secret trials, but here we are, doing a speedrun into total collapse. I'm just astounde…

The guy is a fucking criminal and this is long overdue. Your rant is unhinged.

0 convictions and he's a criminal?

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#148

This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election. Jailing a person who could as likely as not be be supported by a majority of voters for the presidency would probably be the single most anti-democratic act to ever occur in the US. I never thought we could outdo secret trials, but here we are, doing a speedrun into total collapse. I'm just astounde…

This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election

Yeah, we should just let politicians get away with criminal activity because of some vague concern that civil war is going to break out.

the centrist blob thinks that they can get away with this utilizing a largely right-wing military, an extremely right-wing police force, and a extremely well-armed and numerous right-wing element of the population. It's madness.

It's astonishing to me that your view is that we shouldn't pursue justice out of fear that the right-er half of the country will react violently. You're literally just saying that we should give in to terrorists before they've even shown their hand. Absolute insanity.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#149
post #84

Hacker News is better without unrelated political news.

The unfortunate thing is that many people do look at this article as a political piece. That it is, but it is also a piece of news that carries with it significant impact to our judicial system. It is an unprecedented case. Surely its novelty alone qualifies it for HN readers, much less its complexity or implications. Whether looking at it as a political piece, or a curiosity, that is a choice.

Re: Grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump

#150

This seems like an obvious call to civil war when we jail an ex-president who is the frontrunner for the next election. Jailing a person who could as likely as not be be supported by a majority of voters for the presidency would probably be the single most anti-democratic act to ever occur in the US. I never thought we could outdo secret trials, but here we are, doing a speedrun into total collapse. I'm just astounde…

The problem isn't the payment. It's the payment with campaign contributions.
Post reply on HN