this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
857 points (97.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

5575 readers
2982 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Any Accountability At All Commission

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 18 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I remember hoping that Obama would prosecute Bush for all of his crimes, in hindsight it was really naive.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 17 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

We JuSt NeEd To MoVe On AnD hEal As A nAtIoN!

.... /Vomit

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 26 minutes ago (3 children)

Bush was mostly lawful evil. Trump is just a Captain Planet villain.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 minutes ago

Trump is just a Captain Planet villain cosplayer.

FTFY.

Trump is simply not competent enough and never has been.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

Bush wasn’t evil. He was a good man but in over his head. His entire cabinet was evil men that knew exactly what they were doing and they largely called all the shots

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 2 points 23 minutes ago* (last edited 23 minutes ago)

Is lying about "weapons of mass destruction" in order to convince the country to invade another so the dickbag trio could get more wealthy legal? Cheney, Rumsfield and Bush agree I guess.

Free speech and all would make lying legal, so I guess you're right... Lawful evil it is then :/

[–] bcgm3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Right? I hate that phrase as it's used here. How are we supposed to move on when national traumas are left unresolved?

[–] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 41 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

The third political party in the US should be The Woodchipper. You don't vote for candidates, just The Woodchipper. If The Woodchipper gets the majority of votes, all the candidates on the ticket get tossed in a fucking woodchipper and we start the election over with new candidates.

This fixes our problems, in a uniquely American way.

[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 2 points 36 minutes ago

Televise this, just as Carlin intended.

[–] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 1 points 25 minutes ago

This is, indeed, a more realistic solution for America than, let's say, let the president have less power. Or getting rid of the electoral college.

[–] Huckledebuck@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Who gets to throw them in?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 14 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 points 3 hours ago

They're still bitter about Groundhog Day. I say, let them have it.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 19 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

I don't want Trump to win because he's more likely to create a "presidential crimes commission" full of political appointees going after the other party.

We have the legal system, if there are crimes they should be charged. The answer is not some additional political tribunal.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 1 points 14 minutes ago

Judge shopping and legislation via court ruling have called into question the fairness and legitimacy of a once ironclad judicial system. It's being gamed right now by the wealthy and powerful to get what they want.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

We have the legal system

I mean...do we?

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 8 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Ha ha ha ha your legal system is the laughing stock of the planet

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

glances at Europe

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago

Creating a Department dedicated entirely to Justice.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

If we can't even get Trump to stop running despite being a convicted felon, I don't even know if we can catch up with the next fucker. Dude could literally shoot someone on 5th Ave and the government would go "Well, they're the president, what are you going to do about it?"

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Having convicted felon be able to run for office is a good thing. I don't want a Navalny situation in my country.

An insurrectionist, though? Fuck that noise. Trump should be hanged. He tried to violently overthrow the government.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't he directly say he could shoot someone and still win the (2016) election? I swear I remember seeing that he flat out said that, I think around the time of the Republican primary debates

[–] Talisker@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago

Haha yeah the government that’s currently enabling war crimes is gonna totally make a commission to hold presidents liable for crimes.

This is why nothing changes. If you start looking at one of them you have to look at all of them.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

organize and take to the streets (and their pockets) if you want that to actually happen.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 75 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Impeachment exists, if only there were a functioning body of government left to do such a thing.

[–] pyrflie@lemm.ee 13 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I will believe Impeachment means something once someone is removed from power until then it's a political threat that means nothing.

At this point it's an untested power.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 11 points 6 hours ago

Arguably, it has been tested, several times. Each time it failed, after a fashion. We should be concerned what message that sends to the next person who would contemplate engaging in such impeachment-actionable behaviors.

[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 50 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Why stop there? Have every President, Senator, and Member of Congress investigated at all times. Whether we think they’re corrupt or not.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Maybe a stupid question, but shouldn't the FBI be doing that?

[–] pyrflie@lemm.ee 11 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

They should, but don't, and haven't ever. At this point I don't really trust them to.

Especially given their pinkerton start.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 hours ago

The same FBI that was dismissed by Trump when they looked into him, even though he was totally guilty? Or the same FBI that told civil rights protestors to kill themselves?

The FBI is the Federal police for crimes the common man commits, not the rich.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I can actually see how that would be a problem.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It's innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until investigated.

But yes, it would be politicized immediately. If only there was a way to have bad faith actors run a government smoothly, then we'd be cooking with gas.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Getting the money out of elections would go a long way. The problem is that more than half the ones who need to choose to get the money out benefit from it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 31 points 18 hours ago
[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

Jailing a president is tough. We need to jail their enablers. No president acts alone