Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_CerealDefense t1_jdrjp4e wrote

That staffer and their office has no jurisdiction there. It’s all for show.

227

Gaytaino OP t1_jdrjvno wrote

Yeah republicans are all for state rights until it’s inconvenient.

190

The_CerealDefense t1_jdrkvsg wrote

I think if the case was opposite you’d have Dems calling instead.

It’s just for show, nothing else.

−185

Gaytaino OP t1_jdrm7k3 wrote

Oh you’re one of those both sides guys.

112

sutisuc t1_jdsws7k wrote

Both sides tried to overthrow a democratically elected government right? Right?

32

Gaytaino OP t1_jdsx53t wrote

Well they did try to blame Antifa, so I wouldn’t doubt that there’s MAGAts that still believes that.

19

CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdsus3c wrote

Your argument doesn’t invalidate the truth of this opinion

−22

LurkerTroll t1_jdtdo0d wrote

There is no truth as it's never happened

7

CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdtjjkz wrote

Both sides suck. Still don’t change the truth of their opinion. It is as shitty an argument as one could come up with, and you just tried it again

−8

LurkerTroll t1_jdtkgdq wrote

You're welcome to provide evidence instead of arguing non-existent hypotheticals in your head

7

CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdtsa6i wrote

The response was “oh you’re one of those both sides guys”. There was nothing more. That in and of itself is a shit argument that proves nothing, and you agreed with it, which makes your argument shit.
but, since you want evidence you can look at Hillary Clinton, paid a fine for the exact same thing they’re trying to nail Trump for just replace a porn star with people giving her campaign bogus info on Russian ties for Trump.

Both sides suck, you can play this game all day, it’s just moronic to even think the dems are any better than the reps.

−6

LurkerTroll t1_jdtvoz9 wrote

I'm going to side with the team that doesn't ban books, doesn't deny the results of an election, and doesn't have Nazis and KKK members siding with them. If you think this applies to both sides then you need to get your head checked

6

CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jduu0d2 wrote

Lol, you asked for proof and then when given some evidence you just change to something else. Again, a low quality argument. None of what you said is actually true though.

−1

LurkerTroll t1_jduw3le wrote

You're obviously delusional for thinking so.

1

CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jduwosq wrote

Delusion is asking for some evidence and then when provided just calling names. Nazis and KKK members? You realize the Democrat party elected an actual KKK leader, right?

−1

LurkerTroll t1_jduxb2g wrote

It's almost like things change over time. You realize they only show up for one political party now right?

4

CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jduypg8 wrote

The Democrats elected one of his biggest supporters, Joe Biden. You realize as much as you think things change, they really don't. Both sides suck, quit being a jackass.

−2

LurkerTroll t1_jduz7ge wrote

I've never seen KKK or Nazis at a Biden rally, Trump on the other hand ...

There's no other reason than being dense to think both sides are the same.

3

CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdv3hbf wrote

I think I would be more concerned with KKK supporters in the government (see Biden and Hillary Clinton) than a small fringe voting block.

Again, let me make this simple for you since this is obviously what you need, BOTH SIDES SUCK!

−1

LurkerTroll t1_jdv72qf wrote

You're welcome to provide evidence that they support the KKK.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong they are. Dems aren't perfect but by far they are the ones enacting policy that benefit the most people.

1

CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_jdvgd7c wrote

I provided you with evidence earlier and you ignored it. Why would I do it again? They elected a leader of the KKK, Hillary and Biden (among many others) called him a friend. It is indisputable. The Democrats are the party of slavery, it is in their history. It is their lineage.

−1

LurkerTroll t1_jdvwyli wrote

Like I said, it's like things change over time. Republicans used to root for unions. Democrats are the ones taking down confederate monuments. It's shocking how little you understand or just choose to be with willfully ignorant on politics

1

[deleted] t1_jdvyawv wrote

[removed]

−1

nyc-ModTeam t1_jdvyl65 wrote

Rule 1 - No intolerance, dog whistles, violence or petty behavior

(a). Intolerance will result in a permanent ban. Toxic language including referring to others as animals, subhuman, trash or any similar variation is not allowed.

(b). No dog whistles.

(c). No inciting violence, advocating the destruction of property or encouragement of theft.

(d). No petty behavior. This includes announcing that you have down-voted or reported someone, picking fights, name calling, insulting, bullying or calling out bad grammar.

0

The_CerealDefense t1_jdrmjlw wrote

No. Not at all. But you gotta recognize that these guys are all about the show. That’s how the system works for everyone. Everyone needs their sound bites, clips, PR, stance, etc. Its showmanship at a circus not reality.

−88

3little_Winklers t1_jdrx63j wrote

How dare you make a cogent point! /s

It’s all theatre. I vote democrat and I think if Republicans got their way we’d live in a dystopian Police state, but it’s the same tactics on both sides. Your getting downvoted just shows that the tactics are effective.

−46

savageo6 t1_jds6euy wrote

Such a stupid argument, the GOP has done shit at the state and city level where they have legislative and judicial control. That the federally elected democratic government fundamentally disagrees with say voter ID laws. But you didn't have Democratic reps calling DAs or state legislature to piss and moan and say they have the right to stop it. Because they don't, they appeal the rulings to the higher courts. This is fascists covering for their fascist leader to save face until they see which way the primaries break. Then the rats will swim to the ship that isn't sinking like all of the Ted Cruz lackeys did in 2016

39

NYCFIO t1_jdssl7h wrote

If it’s so clear to you all that democrats are all good and republicans are all bad and there’s never any nuance then we certainly shouldn’t need elections, right? Sounds like there’s really no point from your perspective. We have good guys (democrats) and bad guys (republicans) so why do we even bother with elections? Why don’t we just assert our moral righteousness and clear away any friction as necessary so we can achieve our societal goals of tolerance, equality, and freedom of (certain acceptable) expression? Since democrats never engage in tribalism or partisan political theater, I would be quite happy to just hand the reins over to whichever cuomo relative’s turn it is to bleed us dry to their benefit in light of all your conviction; so inspiring /s

There’s a difference between centrism and just being honest that these hyper-intense, dogmatic political loyalties are obviously not it. The world is too complex. Different politicians across all kinds of systems with different parties and ideological landscapes engage in similar tactics in similar situations. You can argue about the degree and who is worse and insist that your team is the less bad cheater if you think that kind of feckless discussion has a point (“at least the blue guys spit on theirs before shoving it up my ass!”) It is truly terrifying to see how stubbornly and ignorantly dogmatic so many of you are and it is abundantly clear where that self righteous stupidity and willful ignorance/arrogance is taking us. You’re all just mouth shitting what you think you’re supposed to say and it’s truly tragic.

−14

Xendarq t1_jdstndk wrote

If you had even an iota of self awareness you'd see that you're engaging in classic whataboutism, as unproductive an argument as is possible to make.

9

NYCFIO t1_jdsue09 wrote

Help me understand how what I’ve said is whataboutism. It is literally a criticism of whataboutism.

If you are a politician who breaks the law, you should be prosecuted. If someone in a party is being legitimately prosecuted, others in that party shouldn’t interfere. Period. Both parties have done it. I don’t care which is worse because in any event it falls below the threshold of what is acceptable.

−9

RayseApex t1_jdt0lic wrote

> If someone in a party is being legitimately prosecuted, others in that party shouldn’t interfere. Period. Both parties have done it.

Source?

2

NYCFIO t1_jdt2h4s wrote

If you actually need a source to believe something very much qed, then you’ll obviously just reject whatever source is put in front of you, further entrenching your childish heuristic. Also, if you actually have a sincere interest in determining whether there are instances of democrats interfering in prosecutions of democrats, you can look yourself or enroll in a U.S. history course of some kind since that is all it would really take. But you don’t and so an argument is futile. You’ve reached your conclusion and the threshold to change that doesn’t exist. I’m an experienced debater against authoritarians and know you’re tricks!

You’ve all wasted a bunch of time responding to a person who thinks this view you all hold that being loyal to something slightly less unacceptable (though part of the same broken machine) somehow gives you a moral high ground is moronic; you’re sinking time and text into a person who thinks you are actively lying to and deluding yourself for bullshit feel good points. I posted so that the other people whose jaws were dropping as they scrolled through just how simpleminded, irrational, hypocritical, and gullible your points are know that there are other sane people out there willing to embrace the downvotes of the hive mind and call out the infantile stupidity for what it is. I’m not even American lol.

−2

RayseApex t1_jdt2mqq wrote

> then you’ll obviously just reject whatever source is put in front of you,

Brother, have you tried simply putting a source in front of me? You typed all that shit out (that I’m not gonna read) when I simply asked you to provide a source. One source.

2

NYCFIO t1_jdt4pc4 wrote

You are not asking for a source in good faith, but for fun I’ll let you waste some time explaining to me why Nancy pelosi shouldn’t have been charged for insider trading or maybe how Ted Kennedy ended up with a suspended sentence for murdering someone. But I have zero respect for you because you would line me up against a wall and put a bullet in my head for not failing in line. Your brain is broken and it’s not my job to fix it.

−2

RayseApex t1_jdt50dc wrote

> You are not asking for a source in good faith,

My only comment in this entire thread was me asking for a source so I’d love to know how you came to that conclusion…

> I’ll let you waste some time explaining to me why Nancy pelosi shouldn’t have been charged for insider trading or maybe how Ted Kennedy ended up with a suspended sentence for murdering someone.

This is what I was asking for, just a more verifiable source…

3

[deleted] t1_jdt6prz wrote

[removed]

0

RayseApex t1_jdt6t3s wrote

That was after I asked for a source and you wrote a goddamn novel instead of just sending me a link or two like I asked… and that only applied to your novel, I read your previous paragraph and I’m still confused as to how you know so much about me based on me asking for a source.

3

NYCFIO t1_jdt75um wrote

It took me 3 minutes to write. It’s not a novel, you’re just outmatched.

0

RayseApex t1_jdt7jo3 wrote

It’s called hyperbole.

> you’re just outmatched.

I was unaware this was a competition..

3

NYCFIO t1_jdt7g6e wrote

A link or two lol??? You’re a dud, pal.

−1

RayseApex t1_jdt7mi9 wrote

Yes.. I would’ve happily looked at a few links to verify what you were saying..

2

NYCFIO t1_jdt8q0d wrote

Re- read this back. I said you’d wack a mole if I engaged and that’s what you’re doing. Google is your friend. Then you don’t have to trust (and you can’t just dismiss) my sources. I have you two of the most obvious and basic examples. Google them and actually do something diligent on your own if you give a half a fuck. If you don’t give a shit and have no room to change your opinion (I.e. asking for a source in bad faith) then you’d do exactly what you’re doing right now.

It is the exception to the rule when parties DONT interfere with their people being investigated.

Here’s a big federal list. If you were sincere in wanting to answer the question “have democrats interfered with investigations of democrats?”, you can use your own brain and your own judgement by googling these instances yourself. I am not credible to you and therefore the more productive approach is to just give you instances. But you don’t have a sincere interest in answering the question, you already know the answer is “no”, and you’ve demonstrated that here just as anticipated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

0

RayseApex t1_jdt9bqj wrote

> I said you’d wack a mole if I engaged and that’s what you’re doing.

No, you said I wouldn’t take your sources in good faith. You’ve yet to provide a source.. I’m still only interacting in hopes that you do.

> Google is your friend.

Surely you realize that it would be a biased google search, right? I’m asking you to provide me with information outside the echo chamber I’m trying to avoid. Yet here you are arguing with me about whether or not I’m engaging in good faith when all I did was ask for a source for your claims.

> If you were sincere in wanting to answer the question “have democrats interfered with investigations of democrats?”,

I didn’t ask that question, just give me a source to support your claims.

1

RayseApex t1_jdt9nor wrote

I hate when people edit comments after I respond already…

I didn’t ask for a list of convicted politicians, I asked for a source that proves Democrats interfered in the prosecution of another Democrat. If I’m as biased as you think I am then why don’t you think my google search would be biased?

1

NYCFIO t1_jdtaxaq wrote

You are truly not comprehending anything going on in this conversation. And I didn’t edit anything after you responded - certainly no material edits. I forgot to actually include the link the first time, that’s it and I added within 30 seconds; not sure what you’re suggesting there since you haven’t even attempted to articulate it. At this point your insincerity (or maybe you’re just really really dumb or very young) is confirmed.

−1

RayseApex t1_jdtbcge wrote

Are we having the same conversation? Because I simply asked for a source and have yet to receive one.

I have no point to articulate because I only just wanted a source, I’m not here to “dunk on you” or some shit. I just wanted to read more about the shit you were saying from some source other than a Reddit commenter. You made this a whole thing because from the start you assumed I wasn’t “on your side.”

I have ZERO comments on this topic or on this post aside from me asking you for a source.

1

savageo6 t1_jdsukgd wrote

That there is some exemplary self fellating projection.

So as someone else in this thread mentioned...both sides bad right? So you can just jabber on from the sidelines bitching about how everyone is trying to fuck all of us and do absolutely nothing about it.

Because my friend the truth is you nor I can't do a fucking thing about it. It's too deep into people who have pockets and influence deeper than either of us will likely ever truly know.

Are they both fucking people over to get theirs absolutely. But I also live in the real world outside your dystopian soliloquy. Our choice is between the GOP full of literal white supremacist christo fascists funded by fundamental billionaires who want everyone in the world to be subservient to them and have zero rights to be who they are or do what we want unless we're in their club, which we will never be.

Or the Democrats, now a right of center party full of old as fuck white dudes who want to maintain their status quo power funded by the largest corporations. They don't want to shake the boat and quickly suppress anybody even in their party who they see as that. But generally they let people go about their lives and have implemented some generally good social platforms in the past. Is the same corruption and bullshit there absolutely. But there's at least a slight glimmer of potential progress. There isn't anywhere else outside of violently tearing it ALL down and hoping whatever survives is an improvement.

So I support the side for what tiny sliver of impact I have in order to keep that slight glimmer of potential progress alive. Because if the GOP rolls back into complete control they'll NEVER give it up again because it's the only way they can stay in power. Then we'll see real complete dystopia...

5

NYCFIO t1_jdsw457 wrote

I’m not telling you not to take a side, I’m saying hold your side accountable and don’t be a hypocrite. Both sides realize they have a bunch of useful idiots ready to die over their half baked incoherent platforms.

And most importantly - and people used to be more aware of this before 2016 - the conflict you observe between the two party system is synthetic and the power pillars you talk about are equally plugged into “both sides” to keep poor people arguing about pronouns and PTO.

It’s hilarious to be criticized in this way by someone who would actually put that last paragraph in writing.

−5

3little_Winklers t1_jdsbr0m wrote

I’m not making a 1:1 comparison regarding making phone calls to city/state officials. I’m saying that the republicans are carrying out a performance to pander to their base. So their base can look at this and feel outraged about democratic officials hanging up on congress when, in reality, congress has no business making those phone calls in the first place. Democrats do the same shit. At the end of the day, it’s all just theatre meant to get already entrenched partisans riled up and yelling at the other side. It’s two different camps with different talking points but the same blinders on.

Personally, I think all of the attention Trump is getting bc of this is a good thing. It’s making him relevant again. Hopefully he holds on to enough momentum long enough to siphon support away from a more viable candidate and the republicans have a looong, devastating primary.

−15

notanangel_25 t1_jdshd00 wrote

>So their base can look at this and feel outraged about democratic officials hanging up on congress when, in reality, congress has no business making those phone calls in the first place. Democrats do the same shit.

I don't think this is accurate because the GOP does it because they know their base generally doesn't know that they're lying or making something out of nothing.

Dems, otoh, know their base tends to have a better understanding of how government works.

Dems tend to do a very poor job of messaging to their base and to voters in general. Republicans have mastered this because they make stuff up or shorten things into "slogans" or other rhyming phrases so their base can just repeat it and it's easier to say/kinda understand. The GOP also tends to straight up lie about stuff or say things without needed context, which allows for those small soundbites/slogans.

11

hau5keeping t1_jdsklra wrote

Take your “both sides” noise to r/enlightenedcentrism

36

Charming-Fig-2544 t1_jdsobjp wrote

Except for it hasn't. Andrew Cuomo, a true cog in the Democrat establishment machine, was ousted and investigated by his own party in his own state for sexual harassment. You didn't see Dems in Congress calling Tish to get involved and interfere. Dems trip over themselves to call each other out and punish each other, to the point where it's a little embarrassing and I wish they'd let some things slide because we're pushing out good people for small affronts (looking at Al Franken here). This isn't a both sides issue. Dems fuck each other up for even minor things, Reps are supporting literal fucking traitors.

30

mhsx t1_jdsgupy wrote

Talk about how it would be if the roles were reversed, if it was a Democrat who was facing indictment. If…

But that’s not the case.

28

GettingPhysicl t1_jdsk773 wrote

well..this evil thing...that my party did...and keeps doing. I bet the demoCRAPs would do it too! in theory!

12

Yetimang t1_jdsydie wrote

I guess we'll never know because Democrats don't elect criminals to be president.

7

ifiwereaplatypus t1_jdsq6h0 wrote

I’m curious as to whether you actually understand the issue.

What is the particular situation that the other political party would do in the reverse?

4

roguemedic62 t1_jdvmjei wrote

They're throwing shat at a wall and hoping it sticks. Left or right, this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. But don't try to have an adult conversation on this page with these mutants. They live in a blue bubble that going to pop if this weaponizd court gets Trump reelected. A failed prosecution will gain victim hood points. Even old school democrats know this is a bad political move.

2

wabashcanonball t1_jds5piu wrote

Exactly, state’s are sovereign entities and, as such, are entitled to enforce their own laws without interference from the federal government.

29

ctindel t1_jdtqapf wrote

I think none of you know what the word "sovereign" means. It means there is no higher power. States do have a higher power, its literally what the federal government is.

9

pioxs t1_jdwryu9 wrote

Its a separate sovereign though. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separate_sovereigns_doctrine

The federal government isn't a higher power than the states, its just a different power. Some stuff, like interstate commerce it was given the power to regulate. But all power not given to the federal goverment is reserved by the states.

2

ctindel t1_jdxbce1 wrote

Some powers are reserved for the states but the supremacy clause makes clear that the federal constitution and federal laws take precedence over state laws and constitutions.

If we can use the interstate commerce clause to regulate commerce that stays completely within one state as SCOTUS says we can, then in reality the rest of it all bullshit.

1

pioxs t1_jdxgw3g wrote

Nope, reverse that. Some powers are given to the feds, but the states have all the power not given to the feds.

1

ctindel t1_jdxn957 wrote

Yeah I know the theory I’m talking about real life here. The feds tax us more and control the vast majority of the things that affect us everyday.

The fact that interstate commerce clause allows the feds to control commerce that never leaves a states boundaries is all you need to know for who is really in control.

1

werdnak84 t1_jdsvh35 wrote

which actually makes no sense. Why label states as sovereign entities and yet still have a federal government!?!?

−15

wabashcanonball t1_jdswa66 wrote

From the U.S. Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

12

casanovaelrey t1_jdt1430 wrote

Simply put it was because the colonies were separate entities that banded together to form a country and the southern colonies preferred a confederation similar to how the colonies were rather than a federalized country. The northern colonies preferred a federalized country, mostly.

They tried the confederacy for about 10 years and it didn't work so they created the Constitution and a federal republic. The South has ever since been trying to create a confederacy once through war and now through laws weakening the federal government. The Constitution is a compromise of those ideals.

I personally think the Federal government should have the majority of the power that they then devolve to states. Being that I'm a non-white person, historically that makes sense, since state's rights have almost always been the antithesis to civil rights and it's been in the federal government's interest most of the time to, at least nominally, promote equal civil rights..

6

werdnak84 t1_jdt21bq wrote

Well the South lost. They need to get over it.

2

casanovaelrey t1_jdt6036 wrote

No. Don't get me. Fuck the confederates. Fuck the "state's rights" crowd. You're ABSOLUTELY right.

4

NotAnnieBot t1_jdt2vr5 wrote

Because they are ‘sovereign’ in so far as the powers that are not delegated to the federal government in the constitution. That’s why they are sovereign states and not nations.

2

unndunn t1_jdv8un6 wrote

Simply put, because the federal government’s power comes from how it allocates money, not from any document that actually gives it power.

The federal government is responsible for a) foreign relations (including national defense), b) handling interstate disputes (including interstate crimes) and c) implementing a national budget. There are a few other things it does, but those are the big three.

Of course, the last one allows it to say things like “pass this law to let us handle xyz or you get no money for it”, and most of the time, states will pass the law, as long as it’s for fundamental shit like roads, bridges, hospitals, food safety, etc. But for things like prosecuting crimes within a single state (which this is), the feds can’t do shit.

2

kokisucks t1_jds7n1v wrote

To prevent this kind of shit, the grand jury is supposed to meet behind closed doors. Whoever the witness was who gave information to Trump must be beat in the ass.

11

RChickenMan t1_jdt1kjc wrote

Wait, there was a witness who spoke to Trump? Last I'd heard, Trump just completely fabricated the whole thing. Yes, it's known that an indictment is likely due to the fact that the grand jury offered for him to testify (standard practice at that point in the procedure), but Trump pulled that whole "this Tuesday" thing completely out of his ass, whipped up the media, and congressional Republicans took the bait.

5