A fringe website featured the purported names and addresses of the Fulton County grand jury that indicted Trump and 18 others for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
  • @[email protected]
    155•1 year ago

    Great way to prove your guy is innocent. Imagine if a democrat would have released this information about pending case against Biden or Obama. Republicans vilified the email lady just for being a woman.

    • Xariphon
      58•1 year ago

      Republicans would be lining up all the way to Russia to crucify a Democrat who did even a fraction of what Dullard Grump bragged about on television.

        • @[email protected]OP
          78•1 year ago

          Fine, thanks. The connections between Trump’s campaign and Russian intelligence assets are thoroughly proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fact that he’s their favorite American politician isn’t even up for debate.

          Sorry it’s so hard to support the traitorous fucker, but have you considered… not supporting the traitorous fucker? I mean, since he’s going to prison soon, might as well start reclaiming your mind from him now.

          • @[email protected]
            -98•1 year ago

            Fourth time is the charm, I guess. Not.gonna happen. Just keep throwing shit at the wall. It won’t stick.

            • @[email protected]OP
              62•1 year ago

              Bet you thought Hillary was going to be indicted, too. And that the wall would be built. And that infrastructure week was real. And that Trump would win reelection.

              Here’s what’s going to happen… Now that Trump isn’t protected by the presidency, he’s going to be in court as a defendant in multiple jurisdictions. And just like he lost every one of the 60+ cases he filed falsely claiming election irregularites - many in courts run by judges he himself appointed - he’s going to lose as a criminal defendant.

              During the trials, you’ll hate every second of it and you’ll scream and rant and holler about how unfair it is, how somehow it’s the “deep state” all coordinating together, how all the Republican witnesses were secretly Democrats all along… Just generally getting more and more unhinged as you watch your demented orange shit-gibbon messiah face the consequences of his actions.

              Meanwhile, you’ll privately be worrying that the mountains of evidence presented by the prosecution in each of the four different cases is absolutely damning. You’ll strive with all your might to ignore the little voice in your head whispering “he’s guilty,” because you don’t want it to be true. After all, if its true, then the way you’ve invested every iota of your being into your Identity as a Trump supporter is all just wasted. And you can’t stand that.

              So you’ll buy into every cockamamie defense his “lawyers” (for lack of a better word) come up with. First amendment? Shit, who hasn’t called the Georgia secretary of state and demanded he manufacturer extra votes? Can’t imprison a man for that! Presidential Records Act? Sure, why the fuck not? Every document created by the government is a presidential record, right? Right?

              When the day finally comes, and he’s inevitably found guilty, it’s going to hurt you even more. That day it’ll feel like you’ve been imprisoned, because so much of you is invested in him.

              But there’s a way to avoid that. Stop today. Ditch the asshole. He doesn’t deserve your love and adoration. Do it now, and it won’t hurt so bad when the time comes.

              • @[email protected]
                8•1 year ago

                You forgot the best part. When he eventually dies of old age in prison, we’re going to put a hydroelectric generator in his coffin, and it will be able to power a large city off of the torrential quantity of piss that is going to be raining down through it.

              • @[email protected]
                -50•1 year ago

                If he did wrong throw his ass in jail. And throw all the other corrupt ones with him. Your side also has corruption just be fair when throwing stones

                • Jordan LundEnglish
                  44•1 year ago

                  The Democrats did not attempt to overthrow a legally elected government. You can’t “both sides” that.

              • @[email protected]
                -52•1 year ago

                I’m going to save this and change the name to Biden and send it back to you and watch you flip tf out.

            • @[email protected]
              20•1 year ago

              I’m curious why people think Trump is some kind of Emporer capable of doing no wrong now. It amazes me that a guy who habitually lies and refuses to pay people who work for him is considered smart to some people.

    • @[email protected]
      34•1 year ago

      I understand you guys are frustrated by Republican hypocrisy but it is literally designed into/a selling point of conservatism.

      Wilhoit’s Law:

      Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

      • @[email protected]
        10•1 year ago

        That’s very interesting, I had never heard of it. Thanks!

        Edit: looked into it more; here is an article about it that includes an interview with Wilhoit himself. This is the actual site where the comment with the quote was made (scroll down some in the comments section).

        The actual comment in its entirety (very impressive comment section on that site tbh…high quality):

        Frank Wilhoit 03.22.18 at 12:09 am

        There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

        There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

        There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

        Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

        There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

        There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

        For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

        As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

        So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

        Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

        No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

        The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.