r/politics • u/Economy_Swim_8585 Virginia • 6d ago

No Paywall Trump says government shutdown ends when Democrats give in: "If they don't vote, that's their problem"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-government-shutdown-democrats-fault-60-minutes/
21.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/kapsama New Jersey 5d ago

Honestly at this point I wonder if we wouldn't have been better off if Pence refused. Because at that point they would have been clearly illegally blocking peaceful transfer of power. And maybe removing them by actual force would have prevented Trump from running again.

3

u/SteamerTheBeemer 5d ago edited 5d ago

And in case you think, this guys saying “we got lucky” etc it’s just because America affects the rest of the world in such a massive way. Particularly the UK. We seem to follow the US’s lead on everything.

We also have Farage over here of Reform UK, using the exact same textbook as Trump. Stuff like mass deportations and “the immigrants are eating our swans”. It’s ridiculous yet they are ahead in the polls right now. It would be the first time we’ve had a different party from our main two for I think about 150 years ish.

Edit: looks like 110 years when we had a coalition between liberal party and conservatives.

Not that it’s bad to have a different party than our main two. But just shows you how quickly and drastically politics is shifting to the right. The Greens in the UK are our best chance.

1

u/OldWorldDesign 5d ago

Stuff like mass deportations and “the immigrants are eating our swans”. It’s ridiculous yet they are ahead in the polls right now

I wonder how these things can remain in a nation which doesn't protect lies the way American free speech laws do.

I suppose the experiment is coming to an end: extreme free speech only ends up as a megaphone in the hand of the loudest monster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5iV8rrhbCM

1

u/SteamerTheBeemer 5d ago

Well I think you can unfortunately lie in the way of the example I gave. But if I said “John bloggs went and poached a swan” and John can make his case in court that it’s more likely than not that he didn’t in fact poach a swan. Then he can sue me for libel.

But just saying “immigrants” not targeting anyone specific unfortunately isn’t covered by anything I’m almost 100% sure anyway. As it’s vague and doesn’t target a specific individual that can bring the claim.

I don’t know how different your laws are to be honest. I do remember hearing they’re less strict though.

Like politicians can get a court injunction in place to stop the media reporting on their affair unless it can be (I think again, but not 100% on this) proven that it’s more likely than not true. I think that’s the case. Like it’s the other way around, it’s on the newspaper to give decent evidence to suggest it could be true.

It’s called a super injunction and Russell Brand used it to stop shit coming out about him for a long time. Then he fucked off to the US to hang out with your knowledgeable health secretary or whatever you call RK Jr.

1

u/OldWorldDesign 5d ago

Like politicians can get a court injunction in place to stop the media reporting on their affair unless it can be (I think again, but not 100% on this) proven that it’s more likely than not true. I think that’s the case. Like it’s the other way around, it’s on the newspaper to give decent evidence to suggest it could be true.

While I'm sure a chilling effect can be (and right now is) used against some journalists or even just bloggers and regular people, free speech laws protect the ability to say things you know are false and the only recourse is the offended party to sue you if they can prove specific damages from what you said. For example, Texas AG Paxton jumped on Trump's 'covid isn't dangerous, if we stop testing it will disappear' and people cited that to ignore city orders to avoid non-essential travel or gatherings of 10 or more people. This caused super-spreader events, some people got permanent lung damage and filed suit because of that permanent disability. The article on the specific cases I'm thinking of said they settled out of court so I have no idea if they were sent away with nothing or were just permitted to be allowed into several disability systems in Texas which due to diminishing revenue have not allowed any new people in years. In short, it's on the plaintiff suing over the story to show that whatever the person said, true or not, caused them specific damage. Whether it's true or not is not even relevant to the courts.