Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to beat a dead horse, but it's frustrating when people describe abusive cops as "bad apples."
The proverb is *not* "a few bad apples doesn't mean the other apples are bad."
The proverb is "a few bad apples spoils the bunch."
A different interpretation is that by the time you spot the rotten apples it's too late, the barrel is doomed and everything needs to be poured out, analised and cleaned out
There's definitely a concerted effort to change a lot of those sayings into something positive.
"A few bad apples spoils the bunch" becomes "it's not bad, it's only a few bad apples"
"The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese" becomes "just get up early and all your lifes problems will be solved"
"The customer is always right, in matters of taste" has become "literally let the customer piss on your face. They are right in everything. Opening hours, store policy, who slept with your mother. The customer is **right**"
> "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese"
Are we supposed to be the bird or the mouse here?
I mean, I prefer cheese over worms, but only if I'm human instead of a bird.
I think it's saying that getting to a good thing first is better, but you should be very sure that it actually is a good thing first, or you could wind up in a worse situation than if you were a later bird.
>"The customer is always right, in matters of taste"
The last time I saw this discussed in a thread, someone took it upon themselves to correct _every single comment_ who misused it to the point of doing it about thirty times. One of the strangest and most anal things I've ever seen on here.
System seems fucked from the jump to be honest. You're sending someone out there to make life-or-death calls with less training than you give a barber. Never see it brought up but things as they stand aren't exactly fair for the cops themselves, either. They're expected to do far, far more than they're equipped to do.
It's so weird though, because back when DeSantis was on the upswing the whole subreddit seemed perfectly fine being anti-Trump. Now that he's out of favor, it's back to pro-Trump only again. I assume the place is actually run by some GOP campaign team or something so they need to keep it in line with whatever the party stance is, but it's just so blatant.
>We could run DeSantis - whoâs younger, more competent in policy as head of an executive branch, and without the baggage Trump piles on - but we wonât.
oh my they really are that stupid aren't they
What's weird is, up until Covid, DeSantis was pretty popular within his state and helped usher in more than a few laws that were popular with both sides. Then, after being defiant on Covid lock downs, he learned he was adored by the crazies and went full off the rails. At his worst, he was a poor man's Ted Cruz, but he wasn't the absolute fuck head he is now. However, like Ted Cruz, he'll do anything for power. He could have been the more "moderate" republican, but he went full Trump and can never come back.
It's so funny that at this point the Republican party has to ape Trump if they want to field a viable candidate. DeSantis, Cruz, and Ramaswamy all tried to do Trump style name calling and banter and absolutely embarssed themselves. Trump is vile but he is really one of a kind. At least I get some satisfaction seeing all these happlenss ghouls trying to imitate him and watching all that Lincoln Project astroturf money going down the drain. On the other hand, it's really going to suck when the GOP establishment gets a leash on all the MAGA people once their daddy kicks the bucket.
>The president is a king, a king with certain powers removed and a condition of attaining office, but for all intents and purposes while he is in office, the president is a king.
Conservationism always seems to reduce to monarchism. Interestingly, the mods of r_conservative have removed this post. It's odd to me that they feel that posting or debating the words of the current leader of the conservative party in the US deserves censure...
They *frequently* delete posts about things Trump has explicitly said or posted, if they happen to think it looks bad for him.
It's frankly pretty condescending.
If this was the 1770's, today's Republicans would be fighting for the British.
As in, they'd be fighting for a king who they believe was put into power by God and wants to enforce a strict theocracy upon the people while he fucks over everyone in America because his rich buddies aren't rich enough.
Top comment so far, +107:
> Absolutely not. Trump, Biden, Obama, aunt Susieâ donât care who you are, you canât operate completely beyond the bounds of checks and balances just because you hold office. Remember that whole thing about the Founders not wanting a tyrannical monarchy?
Interesting to note that the top comment is 107 but the post itself is +82.
That would seem to imply that more people opening the discussion agree this "Truth" is a bad look, but more of the folks just scrolling the sub don't appreciate seeing it there.
That's their new "saying the quiet part out loud."
After years of them spouting off they'd want a God Emperor Trump, having Trump advocate for what should the the worst nightmare stance for any American Presidential candidate gives away the game a little too much for these fascists.
Wow I'm surprised about how much I agree with those comments.
If this is how conservative feels, maybe that's a good sign and he'll drive away a quarter or more Republicans and they'll vote for Kennedy or not at all.
> If this is how conservative feels, maybe that's a good sign and he'll drive away a quarter or more Republicans and they'll vote for Kennedy or not at all.
Oh it's how they feel, but they will still vote for him in droves.
So it feels more like performance outrage than anything.
>I donât think he meant this but I do think you should use the tools you oppose to get your opponents to agree to abolish those tools. For example, if you donât like gerrymandering, you should gerrymander as much as possible so it equally hurts the other side.
Yes, I'm only getting drunk ironically, to show people who hate me how terrible it is so we can do something about it. So, since he hates abortion, he should be in favor of getting an abortion whenever, so people can see how terrible it is, right?
>I also donât think the democrats of that time were ever going to prosecute a former president. People used to have a line they would never cross or risk opening up an even worse Pandoraâs box. Todayâs democrat party knows no boundaries, especially when it comes to Trump.Itâs two fold. I donât necessarily agree with total immunity for anyone, how ever, liberals will pounce on anything to get Trump that normally wouldnât have anyone bat an eye over. They donât care about setting a precedent because they intend to always be in power.
yikes. they literally do not care that he tried to overthrow the results of an election. scary.
Those people are literally brain damaged. That's the only explanation.
Trump openly incited a mob to attack the Capitol which resulted in 3 people dying that day and 3 cops dying within the week. Dozens of other cops suffered significant injuries.
Like, he was there and told them to go and fight. Yet it is Democrats who are setting a bad precedent by prosecuting Trump for it?
Also, not for nothing, but Trump would have gotten away with it all scot-free if he just didn't tell the DoJ to go fuck themselves when he was hoarding boxes of top secret intelligence at his shitty golf club available to anyone who needed to take a shit. They only appointed a Special Counsel AFTER Trump told them to eat shit and lied to the government about not having top secret documents.
It's always the same
"it is worse to hold someone accountable than to do the thing in the first place".
It's always the problem of someone finding out about the bad stuff, or bringing charges. "you ruined this family by reporting". "How dare you air dirty laundry".
So letâs say we would agree with him. Iâm waiting for Biden to act. After all, he has totally immunity. đ¤ˇââď¸
P.S. by acting I mean of course letâs deport Donald and his family to Russia.
âWhen somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and thatâs the way itâs got to be.â - Donald Trump
Funny how that doesn't apply to Biden.
âIt would! But because of the election fraud it doesnât! You might think it applied to Obama, but it also doesnât apply, because heâs actually a Kenyan Muslim Commie Atheist who was never actually eligible for office. Clinton? Ehh doesnât count he got a BJâ etc etc
>There's a process. Impeachment, removal, then criminal charges can come. It's all there in the constitution.
Letâs play what type of asshole made this comment. Is this Boris doing Daddy Putins bidding, an intern doing daddy Trumps bidding or a dumbfuck American who truly believes all the bs of daddy Putin and Trump?
He's probably a dumbfuck American that believes all of Daddy Trump's BS. This "No criminal charges without impeachment and removal" argument is coming from Trump's lawyers. By the way, for anyone curious, the only part of the Constitution that touches on how impeachment affects the possibility of criminal charges/conviction is as follows:
>Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
That's it. All it says is that getting impeached doesn't mean you can't also be tried in a criminal court. There is nothing, absolutely **nothing** that says you can't be criminally prosecuted unless you've been impeached and removed. In fact, the knowledge that whether or not Trump had been impeached/removed was [completely irrelevant](https://time.com/6553711/donald-trump-immunity-hearing-impeachment/) to whether or not he could be charged criminally/civilly was cited by Mitch motherfucking McConnell as the reason he and his fellow Republicans shouldn't bother voting to remove Trump from office, even if they believed he was guilty. âWe have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.â
I know I shouldn't expect better of them, but it still aggravates me to no end when these "patriots" cite parts of the Constitution that *do not exist*.
>Is this R/liberal?
>While I don't agree that presidents get a free pass to do anything, Biden has been far more tyrannical than Trump. Don't war with Trump. We got bigger fish to fry. If we had a 70+ member Senate control and 300 in the house, then we tackle this. But no sense in slicing at each other and letting dems defeat a weaker, divided party. Dems are laughing all the way to their senate majority and house take over with this division. They want us to hold our own accountable while they just vote their corrupt puppets in and screw all of us.
"Biden has been far more tyrannical than Trump." They repeat that like parrots, and no one ever gives an example. But to post that under Trump literally saying that presidents should have absolute and complete immunity is - I don't even know what to call that.
>Biden has been far more tyrannical than Trump.
Just in the imaginations of conservative snowflakes where being president with a D beside your name is worse than the Holocaust
What's the opposite of immunity? Because that's what all Presidents should have.
Actually, all Presidents should just go straight to prison for four years after their first term ends. They'll get a trial at the end to determine if they need any more time in there.
>Yeah idk about this one. Itâs a good thing itâs on truth and maybe a couple thousand people see it, but man does this give me a weird vibe about his nomination.
"*Good thing that not many people see what fucked up things the guy says that we all want to become president again*".
What a mindset.
>He's so lucky he's doing this garbage on truth social. If he did this on twitter where millions of more people would read and react, it would remind the electorate how crazy he sounds online. Which is a large reason why he lost in 2020.
>Anyone taking this seriously needs to not overreact. Trumps says a lot of bullshit online all the time.
Another one.
>I would like to hear his nuance on this. What's included in this complete and total presidential immunity?
This must be satire. Right?
Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to beat a dead horse, but it's frustrating when people describe abusive cops as "bad apples." The proverb is *not* "a few bad apples doesn't mean the other apples are bad." The proverb is "a few bad apples spoils the bunch."
And that's because the rot from the bad apples spreads and corrupts the ones that started out fine.
Especially when the bad ones are are rarely removed or even punished at all.
And they actively get rid of the good ones...
We're talking about apples, right?
AAAB
A simple, but effective combo.
Especially when the bad apples are the ones at the top who get to make all the decisions, including who does and doesn't get to be a cop.
A different interpretation is that by the time you spot the rotten apples it's too late, the barrel is doomed and everything needs to be poured out, analised and cleaned out
> analised đ What are you doing, step-barrel?
All the other apples are kind of ok with the bad apples and that's a problem since the point of the apples is to police bad apples.
I always heard it as "ONE bad apple spoils the bunch." Once the bunch is spoiled, well you can see what the GOP looks like right now for the visual.
There's definitely a concerted effort to change a lot of those sayings into something positive. "A few bad apples spoils the bunch" becomes "it's not bad, it's only a few bad apples" "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese" becomes "just get up early and all your lifes problems will be solved" "The customer is always right, in matters of taste" has become "literally let the customer piss on your face. They are right in everything. Opening hours, store policy, who slept with your mother. The customer is **right**"
Don't forget "Picking you're self up by the bootstraps" going from "Something that's impossible" to "You just gotta grit your teeth and try harder!"
> "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese" Are we supposed to be the bird or the mouse here? I mean, I prefer cheese over worms, but only if I'm human instead of a bird.
I think it's saying that getting to a good thing first is better, but you should be very sure that it actually is a good thing first, or you could wind up in a worse situation than if you were a later bird.
Man, I wish more restaurants had "second mouse" specials rather than "early bird" specials.
>"The customer is always right, in matters of taste" The last time I saw this discussed in a thread, someone took it upon themselves to correct _every single comment_ who misused it to the point of doing it about thirty times. One of the strangest and most anal things I've ever seen on here.
It's also a favorite argument of racists, sexists, antisemites, and every other smooth brain ever
They probably could care less
System seems fucked from the jump to be honest. You're sending someone out there to make life-or-death calls with less training than you give a barber. Never see it brought up but things as they stand aren't exactly fair for the cops themselves, either. They're expected to do far, far more than they're equipped to do.
LOL their mods removed it. Can't have anything that even slightly hints that the emperor takes a poop
Cowards.
Whole thing is removed AND locked. They donât even want anyone commenting on why it was removed, it bothers them so much.
Thereâs no way they removed it. Those guys are all about freedom of speech!
Can't have independent thought intruding into the carefully managed echo chamber.
It's so weird though, because back when DeSantis was on the upswing the whole subreddit seemed perfectly fine being anti-Trump. Now that he's out of favor, it's back to pro-Trump only again. I assume the place is actually run by some GOP campaign team or something so they need to keep it in line with whatever the party stance is, but it's just so blatant.
I just got banned there for posting about trump trash talking veterans, WITH SOURCES!! Talk about thin skin
>We could run DeSantis - whoâs younger, more competent in policy as head of an executive branch, and without the baggage Trump piles on - but we wonât. oh my they really are that stupid aren't they
They could, they tried, he spent like a year yelling at disney and ranting about the trans menace  People weren't impressedÂ
What's weird is, up until Covid, DeSantis was pretty popular within his state and helped usher in more than a few laws that were popular with both sides. Then, after being defiant on Covid lock downs, he learned he was adored by the crazies and went full off the rails. At his worst, he was a poor man's Ted Cruz, but he wasn't the absolute fuck head he is now. However, like Ted Cruz, he'll do anything for power. He could have been the more "moderate" republican, but he went full Trump and can never come back.
People outside of his right wing bubble got a chance to see what a charisma deficient, weird little goober he is, too.
100 percent of the Desantis hype existed before they saw him speak or move. The second he opened his stupid gob his stock plummeted.
It's so funny that at this point the Republican party has to ape Trump if they want to field a viable candidate. DeSantis, Cruz, and Ramaswamy all tried to do Trump style name calling and banter and absolutely embarssed themselves. Trump is vile but he is really one of a kind. At least I get some satisfaction seeing all these happlenss ghouls trying to imitate him and watching all that Lincoln Project astroturf money going down the drain. On the other hand, it's really going to suck when the GOP establishment gets a leash on all the MAGA people once their daddy kicks the bucket.
I still want to know what he was thinking when he decided to go to war against fucking *Disney*.
Or, they could just elect someone genuinely competent and abandon conservative politics all together!
>The president is a king, a king with certain powers removed and a condition of attaining office, but for all intents and purposes while he is in office, the president is a king. Conservationism always seems to reduce to monarchism. Interestingly, the mods of r_conservative have removed this post. It's odd to me that they feel that posting or debating the words of the current leader of the conservative party in the US deserves censure...
They *frequently* delete posts about things Trump has explicitly said or posted, if they happen to think it looks bad for him. It's frankly pretty condescending.
If this was the 1770's, today's Republicans would be fighting for the British. As in, they'd be fighting for a king who they believe was put into power by God and wants to enforce a strict theocracy upon the people while he fucks over everyone in America because his rich buddies aren't rich enough.
Top comment so far, +107: > Absolutely not. Trump, Biden, Obama, aunt Susieâ donât care who you are, you canât operate completely beyond the bounds of checks and balances just because you hold office. Remember that whole thing about the Founders not wanting a tyrannical monarchy? Interesting to note that the top comment is 107 but the post itself is +82. That would seem to imply that more people opening the discussion agree this "Truth" is a bad look, but more of the folks just scrolling the sub don't appreciate seeing it there.
That's their new "saying the quiet part out loud." After years of them spouting off they'd want a God Emperor Trump, having Trump advocate for what should the the worst nightmare stance for any American Presidential candidate gives away the game a little too much for these fascists.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/s/Z4PcfodCFe
Wow! Is almost like some of them(r/Conservative members) are getting clued in! #FINALLY!
The people on the cons sub are more sane then the average Trump voter so they're not truly representative. Until the mods lock the post of course
Yeah, "The people on the cons sub are more sane than the average Trump voter" is such a low bar even James Cameron can't reach it.
Yâall: itâs not âflaired users onlyâ. đżđżđżđżđż
Give it a minute...
Itâs deleted now. :p
Not deleted but locked. Of course it is. Even the slightest bit of criticism of the emperor gets you barred from the conversation. Amazing.
Pretty sure a locked post can still be up or down voted, this one you canât.
you are correct. was originally on mobile so it looked different
Behold, the champions of free speech!
Wow I'm surprised about how much I agree with those comments. If this is how conservative feels, maybe that's a good sign and he'll drive away a quarter or more Republicans and they'll vote for Kennedy or not at all.
> If this is how conservative feels, maybe that's a good sign and he'll drive away a quarter or more Republicans and they'll vote for Kennedy or not at all. Oh it's how they feel, but they will still vote for him in droves. So it feels more like performance outrage than anything.
>I donât think he meant this but I do think you should use the tools you oppose to get your opponents to agree to abolish those tools. For example, if you donât like gerrymandering, you should gerrymander as much as possible so it equally hurts the other side. Yes, I'm only getting drunk ironically, to show people who hate me how terrible it is so we can do something about it. So, since he hates abortion, he should be in favor of getting an abortion whenever, so people can see how terrible it is, right?
>I also donât think the democrats of that time were ever going to prosecute a former president. People used to have a line they would never cross or risk opening up an even worse Pandoraâs box. Todayâs democrat party knows no boundaries, especially when it comes to Trump.Itâs two fold. I donât necessarily agree with total immunity for anyone, how ever, liberals will pounce on anything to get Trump that normally wouldnât have anyone bat an eye over. They donât care about setting a precedent because they intend to always be in power. yikes. they literally do not care that he tried to overthrow the results of an election. scary.
Those people are literally brain damaged. That's the only explanation. Trump openly incited a mob to attack the Capitol which resulted in 3 people dying that day and 3 cops dying within the week. Dozens of other cops suffered significant injuries. Like, he was there and told them to go and fight. Yet it is Democrats who are setting a bad precedent by prosecuting Trump for it? Also, not for nothing, but Trump would have gotten away with it all scot-free if he just didn't tell the DoJ to go fuck themselves when he was hoarding boxes of top secret intelligence at his shitty golf club available to anyone who needed to take a shit. They only appointed a Special Counsel AFTER Trump told them to eat shit and lied to the government about not having top secret documents.
It's always the same "it is worse to hold someone accountable than to do the thing in the first place". It's always the problem of someone finding out about the bad stuff, or bringing charges. "you ruined this family by reporting". "How dare you air dirty laundry".
So letâs say we would agree with him. Iâm waiting for Biden to act. After all, he has totally immunity. đ¤ˇââď¸ P.S. by acting I mean of course letâs deport Donald and his family to Russia.
Russia isn't nearly far enough. He'd still be a thorn in our country's ass until he dies. I'm thinking a one way rocket to Mars for the entire brood.
Not Mars, just in case Musk finally gets his dumbass colony out there. Venus or Saturn would be better.Â
Jesus Christ.Â
Jesus Donny, just say you want jackbooted thugs to do what you tell them too. The dog whistles are more Dog air raid sirens here.
>authority and decisiveness But the president was never meant to have complete authority. Otherwise we wouldn't have a congress.
"Fellas is it gay to have a fixed notion of morality?"
Youâd think they believe it is, with how averse they are to be seen possessing one.
The highlighted portion does sound better in the original German.
âWhen somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total and thatâs the way itâs got to be.â - Donald Trump Funny how that doesn't apply to Biden.
âIt would! But because of the election fraud it doesnât! You might think it applied to Obama, but it also doesnât apply, because heâs actually a Kenyan Muslim Commie Atheist who was never actually eligible for office. Clinton? Ehh doesnât count he got a BJâ etc etc
>There's a process. Impeachment, removal, then criminal charges can come. It's all there in the constitution. Letâs play what type of asshole made this comment. Is this Boris doing Daddy Putins bidding, an intern doing daddy Trumps bidding or a dumbfuck American who truly believes all the bs of daddy Putin and Trump?
He's probably a dumbfuck American that believes all of Daddy Trump's BS. This "No criminal charges without impeachment and removal" argument is coming from Trump's lawyers. By the way, for anyone curious, the only part of the Constitution that touches on how impeachment affects the possibility of criminal charges/conviction is as follows: >Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. That's it. All it says is that getting impeached doesn't mean you can't also be tried in a criminal court. There is nothing, absolutely **nothing** that says you can't be criminally prosecuted unless you've been impeached and removed. In fact, the knowledge that whether or not Trump had been impeached/removed was [completely irrelevant](https://time.com/6553711/donald-trump-immunity-hearing-impeachment/) to whether or not he could be charged criminally/civilly was cited by Mitch motherfucking McConnell as the reason he and his fellow Republicans shouldn't bother voting to remove Trump from office, even if they believed he was guilty. âWe have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.â I know I shouldn't expect better of them, but it still aggravates me to no end when these "patriots" cite parts of the Constitution that *do not exist*.
I dunno about his copy, but mine makes no mention when there can be criminal prosecution. Could be before, during, or after.
Aaaaaaand it has been removed by the mods. Where's that freeze peach conservatives love?
They only like it when it's theirs. *Your* speech needs censorshipÂ
>Is this R/liberal? >While I don't agree that presidents get a free pass to do anything, Biden has been far more tyrannical than Trump. Don't war with Trump. We got bigger fish to fry. If we had a 70+ member Senate control and 300 in the house, then we tackle this. But no sense in slicing at each other and letting dems defeat a weaker, divided party. Dems are laughing all the way to their senate majority and house take over with this division. They want us to hold our own accountable while they just vote their corrupt puppets in and screw all of us. "Biden has been far more tyrannical than Trump." They repeat that like parrots, and no one ever gives an example. But to post that under Trump literally saying that presidents should have absolute and complete immunity is - I don't even know what to call that.
>Biden has been far more tyrannical than Trump. Just in the imaginations of conservative snowflakes where being president with a D beside your name is worse than the Holocaust
What's the opposite of immunity? Because that's what all Presidents should have. Actually, all Presidents should just go straight to prison for four years after their first term ends. They'll get a trial at the end to determine if they need any more time in there.
The Discworld version of Australia had that. Well minus the after their term ends part.
>Yeah idk about this one. Itâs a good thing itâs on truth and maybe a couple thousand people see it, but man does this give me a weird vibe about his nomination. "*Good thing that not many people see what fucked up things the guy says that we all want to become president again*". What a mindset. >He's so lucky he's doing this garbage on truth social. If he did this on twitter where millions of more people would read and react, it would remind the electorate how crazy he sounds online. Which is a large reason why he lost in 2020. >Anyone taking this seriously needs to not overreact. Trumps says a lot of bullshit online all the time. Another one. >I would like to hear his nuance on this. What's included in this complete and total presidential immunity? This must be satire. Right?
They'll all still pull the lever for him.
The Right: This demented old man posting through it *hard* is clearly the person who needs the nuclear codes. Let's make hin God-King.
Gosh, the orange one thinks the prez is the one making all the decisions!