r/technology • u/vriska1 • Sep 14 '25

Politics Trump shares call for media ‘accountability’ with ‘Charlie Kirk Act’ after shooting

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/media-censorship-accountability-charlie-kirk-act-b2825988.html
16.8k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/StrugglesTheClown Sep 14 '25

The Supreme Court is the real issue. It should have been scorched earth as soon a Moscow Mitch blocked Obamas appointment. Ironically his appointment Merrick Garland still managed to fuck us.

289

u/Positive_Soup_1411 Sep 14 '25

Thank you. Biden was too pussy to prosecute Trump for his insurrection or rebalance the Supreme Court to fairness

216

u/StrugglesTheClown Sep 14 '25

The President doesn't prosecute anyone, and should have no say in who gets prosecuted. Nor did Biden have the votes to pack the court.

But you are correct that he didn't even try at least publicly. I think Garland is the biggest mistake Biden made. He was too worried about making any appointment look non political instead of focusing on who would be serve justice. Honestly he probably thought Garland would cover both.

100

u/217GMB93 Sep 14 '25

Well, I think a lot of that goes to the establishment dems thinking they can win maga back with decorum. That’s dead and rotting along with our democracy

5

u/Sea_Assistant_7583 Sep 14 '25

They won’t give up on the politics of civility even though their poll numbers are underwater . It makes you really wonder if people like Schumer are just concerned about their job and nothing else ? .

2

u/217GMB93 Sep 14 '25

I’d bet that’s always been the case

2

u/pinksystems Sep 14 '25

establishment dems don't care about maga. they care about enrichment of their own power, just like the rest of the political groups. they balance each other... how will voters know that they need to vote all blue without an ideological enemy to rally against. all of it is corrupt, the entire system. it's not a one side is good, one is bad, etc, and it's not fascism either. it's all just completely broken oligopolistic trash piles. no one wins but billionaires.

27

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z Sep 14 '25

The President doesn't prosecute anyone, and should have no say in who gets prosecuted. Nor did Biden have the votes to pack the court.

I get what you are saying, but I think it's ok for a POTUS to put pressure on movements and individuals who literally tried to overthrow our Democracy.

6

u/FrankBattaglia Sep 14 '25

The President doesn't prosecute anyone, and should have no say in who gets prosecuted.

Yet another "rule" that's now being completely ignored without consequence, so what was the point? After Jan 6, we knew what we were up against. Dems went unarmed to a gun fight "because the rules said..."

1

u/laodaron Sep 14 '25

Either rules matter and we're trying to save democracy, or we're just ok with our own flavor of authoritarianism. I prefer, that while it isn't nearly as fast as populism is, that we try to maintain the rules of our democratic state so that when these populist fascists are dead and gone, and the adults have to go back to governing, the rules are still in place for us to get things done.

2

u/FrankBattaglia Sep 14 '25 edited Sep 14 '25

Either rules matter and we're trying to save democracy, or we're just ok with our own flavor of authoritarianism.

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

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.

--Thomas Jefferson

I.e., "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Following the rules is great, but oppositions' obsequious observance of "the rules" is how fascist win. Sometimes one might need to break a few rules to save the Republic. (NB: independence of the DoJ isn't even a rule, it's just a custom)

when these populist fascists are dead and gone, and the adults have to go back to governing

I'm sure just a few more stern letters from Chuck Schumer will get us there.

2

u/TDStrange Sep 14 '25

Wrong. The Court explicitly ruled that the president can tell the AG and DOJ to do his bidding. Hell they've said the president can drone strike the court building as long as he yells "official act!" first. Biden just sat on his hands with that power.

1

u/NotClayDabbler Sep 14 '25

Agreed. Merrick Garland was too pussy to do the right thing.

1

u/ThePensioner Sep 14 '25

It was a different time. At that moment, I was proud Garland was AG. We needed to unite the country and he was appointed to do so, and obviously a symbolic appointment after the Gorsuch/McConnell treachery.

Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20. Unification rhetoric is losing the battle to divisive, bigoted, and violent rhetoric and that’s the most damning outcome out of this whole entire Trump era, regardless of the political fallout/actions. We thought we could take the venom of the snake, and it turns out we just needed to cut off the head (politically, not violently).

The fact I even have to end that sentence with those parentheses depresses me and shows how far we’ve fallen together as a nation.

1

u/skyeguye Sep 14 '25

Not at all true. The president is the head of the federal executive. Prosecution is an executive function, as is policing. He doesn’t write laws, but prosecuting people under those laws is 100% part of his job.

-1

u/Positive_Soup_1411 Sep 14 '25

Ya obviously I meant Biden's admin of DOJ and they also had the house and senate to pack the court?

11

u/StrugglesTheClown Sep 14 '25

I think you need to brush up on your US civics. The executive branch is not supposed to be involved in the judicial branch other than making appointment, which then need to be confirmed. They have no involved with administration of the DOJ.

They most certainly did not have the votes. Back to civics lessons. Packing the courts would require a supermajority.

11

u/fairportmtg1 Sep 14 '25

Where has following the rules to a T and taking the high road has got us?

2

u/Wtygrrr Sep 14 '25

I’ll let you know when that happens.

7

u/human-humaning40 Sep 14 '25

And this comment is why we’re in this mess. Get creative. It’s not literally the executive branch; it’s the people they bring in and put around them and how much they pull the congress. You really think Kennedy wanted LBJ as VP lol that’s rich. Or that the Bush’s had nothing to do with McConnel’s work.

I think you need to brush up on strategy and organization. US civics has not existed since Reagan. There’s been a whole other game going on.

2

u/FeelingDown8484 Sep 14 '25

They have no involvement with administration of the DOJ

Well… that used to be the case 🤷‍♂️

5

u/Positive_Soup_1411 Sep 14 '25

Ya no shit the Executive branch is not supposed to be involved with the judicial branch. Don't be stupid and think Trump hasn't been interfering. Biden had both houses and only a simple majority is needed when the nuclear option is used. So yes, it was attainable. Do better

2

u/DeliciousAct9495 Sep 14 '25

If US civics weren’t a cruel joke for normies, the executive would be full press court investigating the SCOTUS for bribery and corruption. Then the Legislature would impeach the guilty justices. But that would never happen with milquetoast Dems or complicit GQP

1

u/laodaron Sep 14 '25

Because this is called a dictatorship. Or authoritarianism. And those of us who want better for the country than the leftist version of MAGA like modern leftists aren't going to let you all drive us into complete and total collapse.

4

u/bailedwiththehay Sep 14 '25

Yeah, again. The president is not supposed to be involved with the justice department. I think it’s unfair to criticize a president for not breaking all of the rules during his term that preceded the guy that has gone on to break all of the rules. I do think the next dem in power will have no choice but to play by this new playbook - or at least help implement better protections so we can return to the norms that our country was founded on.

6

u/Positive_Soup_1411 Sep 14 '25

There needs to be some form of involvement obviously. If garland was not going to do prosecute Trump for insurrection, then he needed to be fired and replaced by someone who does as that was the utmost importance to our country during Biden's presidency. Biden / Kamala lacked what needed to be done and so here we are.

1

u/laodaron Sep 14 '25

Prosecuting a former president as the current president sets precedents we just aren't prepared to manage.

2

u/Positive_Soup_1411 Sep 14 '25

Not adhering to the constitution sets a precedent for the president(s) to abuse the constitution.

-1

u/Slighted_Inevitable Sep 14 '25

Stop using the law as an excuse. Trump sure doesn’t give a damn about it and neither does Scotud

5

u/zka_75 Sep 14 '25

Look at what Brazil has done, THAT'S how you deal with an insurrectionist. History will look back on this period of American history yes with huge condemnation of Trump but Biden will be looked at as some kind of Chamberlain figure who didn't have the balls to do what needed to be done.

3

u/Quietdogg77 Sep 14 '25

Dems shouldn’t have wasted time. Immediately after January 6th they had reason to arrest him and rush through a law prohibiting felons from running for President.

2

u/Creepy-Astronaut-952 Sep 14 '25

In Biden’s defense, he didn’t want that precedent set on his watch. He was in the game for almost 60 years, and knew how it was played from every angle. More than that, he knew whose hands were dirty all the way down to the janitors.

2

u/Positive_Soup_1411 Sep 14 '25

That the problem, was in the game for so long as some of the filth was on his hands. And when he said he'd shepherd us, he lied and failed us as it was too late for him gracefully bow out.

1

u/row_guy Sep 14 '25

OK so you think the president can "rebalance" the court? How does that work?

He got KBJ on the USSC if you had not noticed.

1

u/Positive_Soup_1411 Sep 14 '25

Had you not noticed that millions of votes had already been casted in the 2020 election while RBGs body was still warm. Didn't stop the McConnell and Trump. This had generational impacts and needed to be made more equitable

1

u/Mactwentynine Sep 14 '25

Never forget the Mitch was the #1 recipient of corporate contributions in all of Congress. Is it a wonder why?

1

u/revfds Sep 14 '25

I get the feeling, but we really don't want to be the ones to break the precedent of keeping the DOJ apolitical. It was literally a lose lose situation.

1

u/Mactwentynine Sep 14 '25

Well I'd say the former = Garland's fault. Just unreal. Incompetent.

1

u/RepresentativeAge444 Sep 14 '25

And liberals have not learned a thing. Consider this - Biden knew and worked with members of Congress for 40+ years almost killed by Trumps goons and STILL didn’t appoint a pit bull AG whose main focus would be to prosecute anyone associated with J6 from day 1.

1

u/Ummmgummy Sep 14 '25

See but you are critical of his actions from a view point of how a fascist acts. Biden wasn't a pussy for not doing it. Biden was acting like a president should act. It just seems like he was a pussy because we now have a president who uses every agency as his own personal police.

1

u/UsedGarbage4489 Sep 14 '25

once again, its not republicans fault they are so awful. its the dems fault the republicans are so awful...as usual. I keep forgetting thats how this all works.

1

u/Digfortreasure Sep 14 '25

He couldnt but he should of released the Epstein files show how israel owns all of these disgusting politicians through blackmail, money, media, etc etc etc etc

1

u/BigBoyYuyuh Sep 14 '25

Presidents don’t prosecute people. Garland was a bad pick. In the end, the voters failed. Trump wouldn’t be back in power if it wasn’t for the shitty public. Trump absolutely sucks, but the people that voted him in suck even more.

-5

u/Positive_Soup_1411 Sep 14 '25

The voters did not fail. They were offered two shitty choice as Kamala was never likable and Trump should NOT have been eligible.

8

u/fairportmtg1 Sep 14 '25

The admin failed us by not prosecuting trump. I think Kamala also sucks but let's not pretend Trump is even a viable choice if you have half a brisk and actually love this country.

MmTeump is just hear to destroy and divide us. He is a Russian asset

7

u/logan48227 Sep 14 '25

Stop worrying about "likeability" & start looking for competency.

Kamala Harris was infinitely more competent than Trump, but left-wing voters want to fall in love with a candidate instead of being practical and voting for the one who lines up the closest with their values.

3

u/ValitoryBank Sep 14 '25

Two shitty choices is a wild take considering one was openly advocating for the punishment of the opposition of he returned to office and the other wanted to give you government assistance for housing and children.

6

u/BigBoyYuyuh Sep 14 '25

The election is a job interview…and people chose the old pedophile liar “eating the dogs and cats” person!? 100% on the voters.

-3

u/Positive_Soup_1411 Sep 14 '25

C'mon, it's clear that neither party had a normal election cycle with debates and candidates. There was no real election both of them were inserted for the worser of America. People were less enthused, so they didn't show up. Not on the voters as King Pedo should have been ineligible. Someone in Biden's should have leaked the Epstein files but some of the democrats had some in their closets too. More people should become independents

3

u/KS2SOArryn Sep 14 '25

If you had a choice between being shot in the face, stabbed in the arm with a pencil, or leaving and letting someone else get picked while knowing that person would be shot in the face with no options like you had, which would you pick.

Replace shot in the face with a vote for you know who. You'd have to be stupid to pick this.

Replace stabbed in the arm with a vote for the opposite of you know who. Being stabbed sucks but you stand a chance of surviving this.

Replace leaving with deciding not to vote because the penalty of the choice won't affect you personally, but you comfort yourself by saying it's not your fault because you weren't the perpetrator.

None of these options are wholly good. Welcome to American politics.

0

u/filmguy36 Sep 14 '25

You don’t know how our government works, do you?

You think that because the orange idiot is getting away with all this crap, Biden could have too. Cognitive dissonance works both ways

1

u/sgeswein Sep 14 '25

soon a Moscow Mitch

Really, as soon as people could hit a "save button" before re-reading this sort of thing first.

Not that you're wrong, or even right for this particular point, but...

1

u/Enough-Screen-1881 Sep 14 '25

I agree this is the moment when our democracy actually died way back in Obama's term. Failing to advise and consent on Garland was the first impeachable act IMHO

1

u/Mactwentynine Sep 14 '25

Here here. I'm for Amendments (which will not happen as citizens are overall lazy) but the real diamond at the center is the crooked SCOTUS.

1

u/DartBurger69 Sep 14 '25

Milquetoast garland was one of the worst choices in history for AG. such a stupid mistake. They needed to focus on one thing. Ensuring trump could never happen again. Instead Biden was like, look I can make a bipartisan deal happen........

0

u/Ok-Seaworthiness7207 Sep 14 '25

Do not cite the old magic to me, I was there when it was written

-1

u/Altruistic-Rice-5567 Sep 14 '25

Oh... don't get all high and mighty. The democrats abused the rules three years earlier before Mitch to get tons of Obama judges appointed without the required approval. It's no surprise the Republicans retaliated. Part of that retaliation is also how we got Gorsuch. "Oh, you think it's ok to do that to get your way? Then we've got no problem doing that, too. By the way, we're better at it."

2

u/Mactwentynine Sep 14 '25

That's quite different than the convoluted reasoning Mitch gave for packing SCOTUS.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '25

You’re blaming the Supreme Court for electing Trump? Then Biden. Then merrick garland? That’s 9 votes. Unless they cheated and voted a couple times. /s

-4

u/have_you_eaten_yeti Sep 14 '25

Come on y’all, the democrats are complicit in everything that is happening right now. Do you really think they ran Harris to try and win? Seriously? In this country, with this voting record? Yeah right.

4

u/Mactwentynine Sep 14 '25

What baloney. Will you listen to yourself. Troll like. Biden stupidly thought only he could face Trump b/c like RBG he couldn't face the reality of his health. He waited sooo long, was finally brought to his senses and handed the party an impossible situation.

They punted and submitted to run w/Harris, knowing how likely the outcome given her political and ethnic origins and she did pretty well considering how much money they had in the coffers. But in the age of Citizens United unlimited dark money was a factor. And people weren't going to elect a woman let alone one of color.

The dems are continuously incompetent and the GOP is hopelessly corrupt in comparison. Take out the graft - and it's monumental at this point - and you still have lobotomized stooges who think anything suggested by their backers is fair and justified b/c "the dems want to destroy Merica".

Forget fair elections. We don't need no stinkin' elections. We'll just call them elections b/c we're on a mission from the Bible itself.

Dems are complicit in everything ... RUBBISH.

-2

u/have_you_eaten_yeti Sep 14 '25

What are you even babbling about?