There was literally already a report saying he did crime but while he was president could not be prosecuted! Just fucking memory-holed by the Attorney General because somehow ignoring crimes because the criminal is a politician is supposed to be not-political.

Yes, and they were willing to say that and put it into practice. Guess which side was successful? The feigned indifference to any sort of larger picture by people like Chutkan and Garland contributed to this result.

The idea that there can be no special cases that demand high priority, even when the case is itself about an attack on the republic, is the failure of blind institutionalism. The public also has a right to know that trials will resolve in a timely manner, especially when the trials are about attacks against the People themselves.

“Justice takes time, let Mueller/Garland/Smith work” was the mantra of failure. There was a fetishization of a higher path, where the machinations of law take as long as they need to, with no deadlines or pressing public questions, but instead of leading to a purer and incontrovertible justice, it led to no justice at all.

Garland (and Biden as the one who appointed him) have a very direct responsibility for the loss of degradation of the American republic. Even should Trump’s term just pass as a bad four years, long-term damage has been done through this failure.

You can always blame the monarchy for perpetuating the monarchy. “They didn’t, as a whole, proactively reject our bullshit” doesn’t mean they have to keep doing the bullshit. Everyone has agency, stop pretending one of the richest and most privileged people in the world just doesn’t have any other choice.

He doesn’t have to abdicate, he can just stop pretending he’s special. Tell them “no thank you, I don’t think my role as king of a colony is appropriate”. Let’s see that democracy you think loves monarchy pass a measure to depose an absent king and choose a successor. The monarchy exists because people are lazy and just let it keep existing, not because they’re deeply devoted to maintaining this dumb farce. But he’s not going to do that, not because he cares about democracy, but because he believes he’s special and is happy to tour “his” colonies.

Musk’s new job doesn’t have any power to do anything. He can lobby Trump, the same power he already had as a rich man who gave campaign contributions. Musk may be dangerous to the US government, but it’s not because he was given a fake title.

That other villains exist in the story of the British empire doesn’t matter to whether he has to play king in Australia. It’s not a duty and he’s not a put upon civil servant. If he actually agreed that his position was illegitimate he could simply say so and stop performing it, with no meaningful loss to the world. But he’s a rich douche who’s happy to ride on his inherited privilege and claim to bestow his special personage to people across the world. People calling him illegitimate is the right and proper response to him pretending he has some special place in Australian society.

He could simply not go play king in Australia. If you don’t want to be king of a country your ancestors forcibly colonized, you can just not. None of this is an obligation.

He needs people he can relate to.

Yes, of course, in the campaign where she ignored the left, campaigned with and for Republicans, and abandoned minority groups, the real problem was wokeness. While there’s always a factional blame game after an election loss, never in history has the argument from the centrists been so detached from the actual campaign that occurred.

Ah, the nostalgia of early net flame wars. Those were the days.

First, I’m not the guy you were replying to.

Second, there may be a limit to what the United States can do in Gaza, but we know for sure Biden didn’t ever even try to reach it. It’s a much more strained interpretation to believe a highly empathic person cared deeply about the harm he was causing and did practically nothing to reduce it than to believe someone who has spent their entire life pursuing greater personal power, including multiple times where he supported wars in the Middle East, might be a bit of a sociopath. Making the former work requires inventing these unobservable stresses and reasons to explain why a seemingly immoral response is in fact secretly moral, while the latter lines up with our general understanding of people at the highest levels of power and the plain observations. The morality of a genocide is not complex.

I do take issue that you think he doesn’t care, at a human level I just don’t think that’s true.

How would you have any read on his personal feelings at all? And why would you care that they’re being besmirched? His actions are what matter to the world and the only path by which any of us has to judge him.

Susan Collins expressed concerns, everything’s going to be ok folks!

The article has a vague statement trying to make it sound like there were lots of restrictions, but I think it’s just the 2000 lb. bombs, and maybe some sort of guidance system (IIRC). Because it’s a fucking Fox News article for some reason.

Currently, U.S. restrictions include an embargo on a certain weapons shipment and limitations on various combat-related equipment, even if they do not involve explosive ordnance.

Allowing them is definitely more bad, but it’s going from like 95% of maximum complicity to 100%.

Man, I’ve been dying to see people get fired for fucking up the election, but it seems like this woman/Michigan did ok. And to replace her they mention a nepo-baby insider revolving-door lobbyist/politician/appointee who lost his race. I swear Democratic party positions are often just make-work jobs for insider failures.

Warren called it a genocide before Bernie did.

She did. She was calling for ceasefires within the first month and seven months ago was the first senator to call it a genocide and calling for an arms embargo.

Don’t forget the fires and injuries!

From the Washington Examiner no less. Let’s see if this conservative opposition persists through the seating and confirmation votes. I’m not confident.

Yeah, people act like politics is governed by some strictly enforced rules that can never be violated. They can kind of just do whatever they want and the worst they’ll get is a tsk tsk.