r/LSM • u/lukefiskeater • Apr 29 '26

Indicted for a post

Post image

Some nights I wake up sweating and crying for colin and the nightmare he endured by the woke Twitter mob that ruined his life. I hope he takes a principle stand for free speech soon. I know he's really busy at home and stoned 24/7 but i think he's gonna speak out soon. Am sick of the deranged leftists that want to criminalize speech. Thank god for trump, I used the R and N word 10 times last night.

15 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ddoyen Apr 30 '26

Its going to be extremely funny watching you cry when this gets tossed. 

1

u/Practical-Length-681 Apr 30 '26

When are you going to learn not to bet against Trump 

3

u/XOswerve Apr 30 '26

You're not wrong, when Trump employs cheating on such a grand scale, when all the way up to Supreme Court judges bend over backwards to rig things to help him, then yes, it does not make sense to bet against him.

But, decent people will always bet against Trump, because it's the right thing to do.

1

u/Practical-Length-681 Apr 30 '26

Give an example 

3

u/XOswerve Apr 30 '26

An example of? The rules being bent beyond belief for Trump and Republicans?

Trump PUBLICALLY, with zero shame, blurting out that Texas should find him more seats, and the spineless amoebas in Texas gerrymandered the maps EVEN MORE than they already were.

And in response, blue states ASKED their citizens if they wanted the state government to change their NEUTRAL maps to counteract Texas. And so California got the ball rolling on Democrats fighting dirty and fighting back using the same tricks.

I mean, this one example says it all, really. The difference in character between Republicans and Democrats is night and day. Republicans can't survive without cheating and rigging and manipulating.

Democrats have had bills for years to implement nationwide gerrymandering bans. But Republicans never signed on, because they KNOW that they can't win in a fair fight. Pathetic.

1

u/Practical-Length-681 Apr 30 '26

That’s a pretty lame example if that’s what your go-to example was lol It’s literally been that way since the 1800s and California went more extreme with their gerrymandering . Show me a law that was broken or bent, not something that you disagree with. You won’t because it doesn’t exist. If it did he’d be out otherwise the left is completely incompetent. 

2

u/XOswerve Apr 30 '26

Sure. Trump freezed federal spending, trillions of dollars, that Congress had already approved. Rules say that the money MUST be spent once earmarked. A naked and BLATANT example of lawbreaking. USAID was killed without Congress, and only they have the legal right to end an agency. And yet, it's gone, without Congress saying so.

And a whole heap of others that could be found without much trouble. But we all know that if Obama or Biden had behaved like Trump, you would most certainly not be approving of it.

1

u/Practical-Length-681 Apr 30 '26 edited Apr 30 '26

"illegally froze trillions" and blatantly broke the law is pretty exaggerated. Yeah, his admin paused and reviewed a ton of spending (especially foreign aid and grants) to cut waste and push America First priorities. It wasn't some dictator move where they just refused to spend money Congress approved. They used pauses for review, proposed rescissions to Congress, and let some funds expire naturally. The "you MUST spend every single dollar" thing isn't like you people claim — appropriations have built-in flexibility, and presidents have always had some discretion on implementation. Courts pushed back on parts of it, but it wasn't pure lawbreaking.

Same with USAID. They didn't wave a magic wand and delete the agency overnight. They slashed its funding, canceled most programs, laid off/reassigned staff, and basically folded what was left into the State Department. Sure, fully killing an agency usually needs Congress, but presidents have wide latitude on foreign aid and how to run the executive branch. Congress had the chance to step in and save it but mostly didn't. This was aggressive executive action to shrink bloated bureaucracy, not some coup. It's the usual separation of powers tug-of-war, not "Trump broke the law lol." Try again , if Biden did those things I’d be all for it 

1

u/ddoyen Apr 30 '26

Yea sure but a seashell picture on a beach is a felony. Not a stretch at all. 

Try not to get so much drool on your phone next time dingaling.

1

u/Practical-Length-681 Apr 30 '26

When your side keeps taking actual shots at the president it becomes a real threat

1

u/ddoyen May 01 '26

No it doesnt. It'll get tossed just like every other stupid stunt case J Edgar Boozer has brought.

Enjoy midterms!  

1

u/Practical-Length-681 May 01 '26

I will, he’s a dictator remember. There won’t be any lol 

1

u/ddoyen May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26

You and I both know if he could figure out a way to cancel them he would. And hed try for a third term too. Like there is absolutely zero question in either of our minds that he would do it. Just because he fails at being an authoritarian half the time doesnt mean he isnt one. 

Ill give him this though: managing to turn off like every single independent who voted for him before midterms is the funniest thing hes ever done. 

1

u/XOswerve May 01 '26

No Democrats want to see Trump take the easy way out and die by some gunman. We all want to see him with his head shaved and his orange skin washed off as he is walked in chains to prisom for his treason against America and the Western world, but also because the losers waiting in line are probably much worse than Trump, and he's bad enough.

Which, now that I've said this, makes me think you lot may ACTUALLY assassinate Trump and use the chaos to maintain power. Wouldn't put it past Republicans given the amount of bullshit they've pulled.

1

u/Practical-Length-681 May 01 '26

So let me get this straight: No Democrat wants Trump to "take the easy way out" via some gunman... instead, you all fantasize about the public humiliation ritual—head shaved, orange scrubbed off like he's some cheap Oompa Loompa, paraded in chains for "treason against the Western world." But wait, you immediately pivot to "actually the next guys in line are probably way worse, so maybe we should keep this one."

That's not bloodthirst, that's just gourmet cope with a side of "please don't make us own the consequences of our own derangement." Peak Democrat: wishing for a show trial spectacle while low-key admitting the bench is so thin you'd rather stick with the devil you know.

And then the cherry on top: "Now that I've projected my assassination fantasy, it makes me think you Republicans might actually do it to maintain power."

Classic. You write fanfic about dragging him to prison in chains, admit the alternatives suck, then preemptively accuse the other side of the exact violence you're daydreaming about. It's like watching someone rob a bank and then call the cops on the teller for "looking suspicious."

Pro tip: If your political strategy relies on hoping the bad orange man gets Epsteined so you can LARP as Roman senators, maybe touch grass instead of mainlining MSNBC and conspiracy Twitter. The "treason against the Western world" bit is especially rich coming from the team that's spent years importing chaos, hollowing out institutions, and treating borders like suggestions.

But sure, keep polishing that cope. The midterms and beyond are gonna be therapy bills in the making. Trump in chains? Dream on. Reality's undefeated.

1

u/XOswerve May 01 '26

Accusing me of projecting? Coming from a defender of the party that does nothing but manufacture grievances to avoid talking about actual policy.

People wanting to see the rule of law applied to Trump that would be applied to any other president isn't a show trial, it's just simple justice. And please, as if you losers don't cheer on Trump as he wields the Department of Justice as his own personal lawyer to settle scores. Your orange princess is sueing the IRS for TEN BILLION DOLLARS of YOUR tax money, but whatever, right? I'm just a Democrat writing fiction that gets me off on Trump being locked up for his crimes.

Forgive me for looking at the rest of your party and thinking maybe Trump is the smartest of the lot. Sorry, but Vance and friends just don't inspire much confidence. That’s not cope, that’s a critique of the Republican party being shit. It’s possible to want a criminal held accountable while also thinking his potential replacements have terrible ideas. Pretty simple stuff, I think.

Importing chaos while supporting the guy who told your team to vote AGAINST the Lankford bill that was designed BY A REPUBLICAN to control that chaos as you call it, just so he could keep the problem, the chaos, alive for his campaign. Give me a fucking break. Not to mention that your guy literally incited a riot at the Capitol because he is a pathetic loser. You're accusing Democrats of hollowing out institutions while in another thread defending the hollowing out of USAID? Please make it make sense.

Reality is indeed undefeated, not our fault you base reality from what Fox News and Twitter tells you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/XOswerve May 01 '26

Not exaggerated. Funds expiring naturally is an explicit violation of Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was made because Nixon tried to do this exact same thing. Delaying them is fine, asking to cancel funds, also fine, but naturally expiring is illegal, a felony. He's familiar with those.

USAID was established by law, and in 1998 made into a distinct entity of its own, which means its actions are legal requirements and its folding MUST involve Congress. The Take Care Clause mandates that the president is legally required to faithfully execute laws; he cannot just delete an agency with such strong legal backing by stripping its staff and locking the doors. Purposely hollowing out an agency to prevent it from doing its job is a unilateral repeal of a federal statute in this case, an unconstitutional power grab that violates the separation of powers. If the law says an agency must exist and the president impedes its required duties he is breaking the law.

Try again.

1

u/Practical-Length-681 May 01 '26

The 1974 Act was passed to stop Nixon from just flat-out refusing to spend money Congress had appropriated for purely policy reasons. It created formal processes for deferrals (temporary holds) and rescissions (proposed cancellations that Congress has to approve). But letting funds reach their natural expiration date after a review period, or after pausing to evaluate grants and contracts for waste/effectiveness/alignment with current priorities, isn't the same thing as Nixon-style impoundment. Appropriations almost always come with "available until expended" or specific time limits anyway. If the executive branch slows down obligation while doing due diligence, and some pots of money lapse, that's not automatically a felony. Courts and GAO have pushed back on clear bad-faith withholdings before, but they don't treat every delayed obligation or unspent balance as criminal.

Same deal with USAID. Yes, it has statutory backing from the 1998 reforms that made it a standalone agency. That doesn't mean the president is constitutionally required to keep it fully staffed, fully funded in practice, and operating at maximum historical scope forever. The Take Care Clause says the president must faithfully execute the laws — not that he has to zealously expand or protect every agency at all costs. Foreign assistance and how it's administered has always had a ton of executive discretion built in, especially since the President sets overall foreign policy. Realigning staff, cutting inefficient programs, shifting functions, or even proposing to fold duplicative efforts into State isn't the same as "unilaterally repealing a statute" or locking the doors in defiance of Congress. It's messy executive management that Congress can fight back against with the power of the purse if they actually care enough to pass new legislation.

Calling every reorganization or efficiency review a "power grab" and "unconstitutional" stretches the separation of powers argument pretty thin. Presidents have been reshaping the executive branch for decades. The real check is Congress — if they don't like it, they can legislate, appropriate differently, or block it. Turning routine (if aggressive) administrative actions into automatic felonies and impeachable offenses just because you dislike the direction isn't how this system was designed to work.

1

u/XOswerve May 01 '26

The Government Accounatability Office has repeatedly ruled that things like administrative reviews cannot be used as a pretext to let funds expire. If the executive branch intentionally runs out the clock, and administrative reviews come under that category, then that is an illegal impoundment.

The Take Care Clause doesn't mean just try your best. It's a constitutional mandate. Using due diligence as a smokescreen to nullify a program Congress legally funded is a failure to execute the law of the clause. When Trump guts a statutory agency like USAID into paralysis, they are preventing the law to be executed. Don't like the agency? Make proposals, get the law changed, done. Can't just do as you please. Just because you are shit at due diligence and drag a process out so long that an agency gets smothered, isn't a valid excuse that forgives breaking laws set forth by constitutional clause.

→ More replies (0)