502
submitted 11 months ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/9405812

“We are going to do something that I will say is slightly controversial but it shouldn’t be. We are going to indemnify policemen and precincts and states and cities from being sued. We want them to do their job. Our police and law enforcement has to come back and they want to come back and they want to do their job. And we are going to indemnify them so they don’t lose their wife, their family, their pension, and their job. We are going to indemnify policemen and law enforcement. We are going to tell them to get out, we love you, do your job.” – Trump, speaking last night at the New York Young Republicans Club gala.

Trump going after the tyrant vote.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 128 points 11 months ago

Motherfucker wants a police state, but one he and his buddies are totally not accountable in, fuck this geriatric wannabe dictator.

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 71 points 11 months ago

Of all the 60+ million people who intend to vote for him next year, this ridiculous rhwtoric will dissuade exactly none of them.

Meanwhile the left needs to be cajoled and won over and made to feel special just to get them to the fucking polling station.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 54 points 11 months ago

BuT BiDeN nEeDs To EaRn My VoTe!

If we manage to avoid a fascist takeover, it will be in spite of the naive progressive idealogues who think they have the privilege to vote their conscience.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

It's the political reality that you need the votes of people to your left who you hate. Get to it.

I'm already voting for Biden. You'll scream at me anyway because you don't want to treat voters you need as though you need their votes.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 18 points 11 months ago

people to your left who you hate

I don't hate them. I said certain ones are naive (aggravatingly so, to clarify further). Too many people talk and act as if they can choose this time and keep that ability to choose next time.

If you have the sense to see what you stand to lose in this dumb FPTP system, then we are in the same boat. I understand the desire to have your elected leaders actually do something progressive, or doing something that makes you truly proud of them.

But as someone said, voting is a chess move, not a love letter.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

I don’t hate them. I said certain ones are naive (aggravatingly so, to clarify further). Too many people talk and act as if they can choose this time and keep that ability to choose next time.

in the time that I've been voting... the US has only slid right. The democrats have done exceedingly little to halt that.

Rear guard delaying actions, to use the military parlance, do not win wars. Biden is moderate only in consideration that the GOP are so much further to the right as to actively embrace fascism. We cannot keep acting as we always have and expect something to magically fix itself. So now is the time to start changing how we vote and the people we send to be voted for.

it's really that simple.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 8 points 11 months ago

It's not. We are four years too late. We need to prevent a fascist takeover, then try to make progress.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

That is what they said last time, too. Complete with a promise of “one term”

Why should anyone believe you (and Biden) this time?

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 9 points 11 months ago

That is what they said last time, too. Complete with a promise of “one term”

Why should anyone believe you (and Biden) this time?

What alternative do you have? What viable plan can you enact to change the likely outcome and still avoid fascism?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

I don’t hate them.

Don't lie to me. I know how you've responded to me in the past when I didn't include that I was voting for Biden in my comment.

I understand the desire to have your elected leaders actually do something progressive, or doing something that makes you truly proud of them.

I very much doubt that.

But as someone said, voting is a chess move, not a love letter.

And the move expected of the progressives you hate is always "forfeit."

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

look, you can say what you want about progressives. Just know, I think you believe you have the privilege of dictating who I vote for... which is not democracy, and you can go fuck off with trump (who, believe it or not, shares that belief.)

You want people to vote for your candidate? you should maybe not piss them off first. Besides which, right now, it's the primary and not even about Biden vs Trump. for the DNC, it's a question of which candidate is the best.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

Get better messaging, then. Screaming at them ain't gonna work.

Scream at me for pointing it out. It beats trying to get votes.

(I'm voting for Biden. "Not Trump" has convinced me. It won't convince all the voters you'll need to win, and you'd rather lose than stop punching left.)

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

It's easy, the Right are fanatics doing fanatic things, the Left haven't had something to be "fanatical" about since Obama, Biden has done a great job for the most part, obviously with some disappointment here and there, no presidency is perfect, but Old man Biden just doesn't excite people, and it's only Trump keeping him running, if Don the Con would go to prison and stop running we'd be able to hopefully elect somebody under 60, and most of those Republican candidates are just as scary as Trump, and bless Chris Christie and Liz Chaney for finally committing political suicide by fighting against the fascism in their party, especially after enabling it for so long.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 90 points 11 months ago

I love how the man continues to give reasons to not vote for him every time his mouth opens.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 74 points 11 months ago

And yet millions of people still want to vote for him! It's baffling!

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago

That's because they think it'll only apply to "those other people" that they don't like. For example, with police brutality, the white, straight, Christian right thinks the police will only beat "black thugs" so it's perfectly fine in their book.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

Cite your sources!

SOURCE: 01/06

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Academia notwithstanding, common knowledge doesn't generally need to be cited unless it includes statistics. Asking the guy to cite his source for that statement would be like me asking you to cite a source when you claim that water is wet. It's just kind of obvious, you know?

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Guess my joke wasn't "kind of obvious"? Crud.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] mandelbrotvurst@lemmy.world 75 points 11 months ago

Guarantee Trump learned the word "indemnify" right before that speech.

[-] cannibalkitteh 23 points 11 months ago

Just wait until he learns about qualified immunity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mercano@lemmy.world 45 points 11 months ago

How about the capitol police who responded to the January 6th riot? Did he even think the whole statement through?

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago

Did he even think the whole statement through?

Come on man, you know the answer to that.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

Nah, doesn't count. Seen all the twisting they've had to pull to not admit the cops weren't on their side? They were anitfa, FBI plants, whateverthefuck. The one thing the capitol police were not, were a bunch of cops doing their job. Because that don't fit the narrative.

Look at 'em go after the guy that shot Traitor Barbie through the neck. Somehow that was not a legitimate use of force against a mob trying to kill our Congresspeople?!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mutch@discuss.tchncs.de 31 points 11 months ago
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 12 points 11 months ago

NoOo It'S tHe DeMoCrAtS tHaT aRe ThE fAsCiStS!

/wrist

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 30 points 11 months ago

This would be setting fire to the first amendment.

Besides freedom of speech, of and from religion, the 1st recognizes our right to get redress from the government for grievance.

The government CAN NOT do whatever they want to us. That rule has been there the whole fucking time.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] No1@aussie.zone 30 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Trump continued:

"And so we can distinguish our brave police who have taken up our indemnification, we've designed a new uniform for them. They will have brown shirts and ties. i like brown, you like brown, everybody loves brown. And we will want a really good name, the best name for our brave Brownshirts. I was thinking something like the Storm Division. What do you think, isn't that the greatest? I think it's the greatest."

[-] groupofcrows@lemmy.ca 15 points 11 months ago

but some pepple dont like division because it divides people. i dont agree but some say this. maybe it can be a team or a squad, like squad cars or storm squad. they can have a cool storm logo with a lightening bolt and use S S for super sexy, because thats what they are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

Trump and his supporters are so gross.

[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

There's a lot to unpack in this statement, but the short of it is that he's thinking like a terrorist- that the role of police is to instill fear and the thing keeping them from fulfilling it is that they fear being sued. He's telling his supporters that he wants cops to do crimes with impunity

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 24 points 11 months ago

Alright, so, real talk, this is an appeal directly to the people in police work who are in it for the authority (spoiler: too many, unfortunately), as well as to the asset owning class that depends on the police to keep them from losing their investments or worse. The message being sent is: vote for me, work for me, and you'll be free from accountability.

[-] rez_doggie@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

This nazi fuck needs to be thrown in prison.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] quinkin@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

Embracing authoritarianism to own the libs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dipshit@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Criminal wants more police brutality. Idiots set to vote for Criminal come november.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

Someone should explain qualified immunity to this chucklefuck. What's next, he gonna tell us he would fight a war with no rules so he would win every time?

How brain dead do you have to be to even listen to his ravings let alone follow him and think he is a leader.

[-] Cowbee@lemm.ee 15 points 11 months ago

It's one thing to claim police brutality isn't that big of an issue. Still wrong, but not uncommon.

It's another thing entirely to somehow be pro-police brutality.

What the fuck?

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

This is just the alt-right with masks off.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

I'm not really sure what liberals are all concerned about. Don't they have any faith that they can simply "fix" this inherently fascist institution - oops, sorry, I meant to say "law enforcement" - through "reform" and more "training?"

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

That’ll get him a few more votes from the fence sitting fascists.

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

A promise to indemnify from an individual who is famous for not paying their bills... awesome!!! /s

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
502 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2342 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS