this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
578 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5921 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 127 points 8 months ago (7 children)

I saw this on twitter and it was really funny/bizarre to see how many blue check marks were going “wow… hope this MR OLIVER enjoys going to jail for BRIBERY” and like, making threats of ‘reporting him’, quoting legal statutes.

It’s just so goofy, like comically dumb. Aside from “obviously a joke” points, who are the big Clarence Thomas defenders??? Do people really just make their opinions based on “well, liberals don’t like him… which means he must be good!!”

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 126 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Half of the schtick John Oliver is making is pointing out the absurdity of his offer being legal. The fact that people are reporting him just shows how they think there should be laws against paying off a Supreme Court judge, which is the exact point being made in the segment.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 58 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's totally legal. He's not offering to pay Thomas to change his rulings or rule in his favor. It's so he resigns. Closer to an early retirement offer.

If the highest court in the land can be paid to go away, they shouldn't have been justices because they were in it for the money. It also says damning things about our society and how money can trump extreme satisfaction at your job.

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 20 points 8 months ago

Pretty sure it's a bog standard job offer. No, you can't keep your current job, sorry. No over employment here.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 72 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Do people really just make their opinions based on “well, liberals don’t like him… which means he must be good!!”

That's exactly what those muppets do

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I have literally had people tell me they didn't like someone they voted for, but they really piss off the liberals.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 41 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's not illegal, though. That was a big part of the whole offer.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

I don't know man, a bunch of dipshits on Twitter are probably just as good as the lawyers John Oliver checked with.

[–] JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 8 months ago

Yeah, if influencing a judge on the bench isn't illegal, how would influencing one off of it be?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 28 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So... John would be bribing Thomas to NOT be a supreme court justice...? What... what do they imagine the penalty for that would be?

I get that most of these people aren't rational, but I'm struggling to even imagine what the mental gymnastics on this look like. Is there some penalty for bribing someone who is not a public official?

[–] Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Plus it's not even a bribe. It's a not-job offer at best.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 15 points 8 months ago

A retirement offer.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago

Yes that is what people base their opinions on.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Checkout the conservative comm on Lemm.ee
Heads in the sand.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're a smarter man than I am

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It was always a struggle to not check r/conservative to see their braindead takes back on Reddit.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 months ago

Sometimes I check those spaces to try to wrap my head around their mindset, but nothing's really made much sense to me yet

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 66 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Look, I'm just glad HBO let's it happen. Fucking Apple got their panties in a knot when Stewart just said words.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago

This is a topic that Apple probably wouldn’t have cared about. Stewart had a lot of episodes about terrible people in American government.

The rumored problem with The Problem is that he wanted to start tackling topics like China and AI. In the China example, Apple was probably terrified that China would do what they’ve done to every other media company that talk shit about the CCP. China halts sales of their products.

All in all, it’s not the words, it’s the money. It’s always about the money at the end of the day.

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 24 points 8 months ago

In the end, Stewart at least assumed that Apple knew what his messaging was, how hard he would work to send that message and how many zero fucks he gives.

In the end, Apple tucked tail and hid behind dollars and made it obvious.

At least HBO gives this vibe of, yes, he wastes our money to create large animatronic eagles, but wedges in building websites to absolutely fuck with people to get his message across. Oliver has never mentioned HBO saying no to him.

I am also in no way defending HBO. They have done some gross stuff, too. This is simply an Apple vs. HBO argument.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

This is not HBOs money, it's actually his

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yup. Fuck Apple. Fuck Blizzard... Man, there's a list now... Whose keeping track? Please post it.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Embracer Group.

Black Rock.

Goldman Sachs.

[–] RHSJack@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Let's make it difficult. Companies you LOVE but hate what they have done: Trader Joes Nintendo My favorite hot chocolate mixer with a "brand" name that has a cute website and social media and everything<-wholly owned by Nestle which is not mentioned anywhere in the label.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 48 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

I’d totally be willing chip in $20/month for the next 10 years.

[–] Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 61 points 8 months ago

Sally Struthers on the verge of tears: For less than the price of a cup of coffee each week, you can help remove a corrupt Supreme Court Justice and bring hope to millions.

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

I'd triple that. I'd eat Ramen twice a day to afford it but God dammit I'd do it.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 8 months ago

Sometimes I think the world is full of people who would be worth bribing to go away. For example, businesses that save 3¢ per unit of some food product by using unsafe ingredients. If only we could just pay them 3¢ per unit not to do that!

I realize it feels awful to pay off evil people and it would incentivize even more bad behavior, but I'm just shocked at how much damage people are willing to do for so little benefit to themselves.

[–] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 46 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

In case anyone wants to watch the video, like I do on Monday mornings, turns out HBO is now posting them on youtube on Thursdays so as to "drive up viewership" on Max.

[–] DataDisrupter@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

To the high seas it is then!

[–] XTornado@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

They just told you that is free on YouTube 😂 no need for the high seas. Well some AdBlock might advised.

EDIT: That said... all I could see is older videos... so maybe either is region locked and that's why I don see them, not from the US, or I misunderstood something from Op.

[–] spooksboots@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The latter I think, it's not online because it isn't Thursday yet :)

[–] XTornado@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah but I didn't see the previous week one that was my point as he already was on it last week.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 months ago

Plus it's not the full ep on yt, just the main segment

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maeve@kbin.social 32 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Will his handler/s allow that?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 32 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Nope. They need an amoral chode in place to defend white/christian nationalism.

Which is vaguely ironic considering.

[–] Beefytootz@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

After Roe v. Wade was overturned, there was a lot of speculation Loving V. Virgina would be on the chopping block next. I'd argue that's a strong contender for Irony, wouldn't you agree?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

so, part of why Harlan Crow (Nazis, white supremacist rich fuck) and Clarence Thomas make less-strange bedfellows is because Clarence Thomas is/was a black supremacist. Basically they make the same arguments while playing for a different team.

That Thomas was a black guy willing to fuck over civil rights made him a very useful tool to white supremacists.

Loving V. Virginia is... offensive to black assholes, too.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 8 months ago

I started reading the link and thought "wow, what are the chances they had the same last name... Wait..."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frefi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Thomas is probably already being paid more than that to just keep doing what he's doing

[–] KingJalopy@lemm.ee 22 points 8 months ago

It's a well-known recorded fact that he is.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Plus, taking the deal would be publically admitting that he knows what he's currently doing is wrong.

[–] frefi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, good point. Also, I think Oliver knows Thomas wouldn't take the offer (even if it was higher) and he's basically just doing this for the lols, which I can appreciate

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 8 months ago

I think it's more than just for the lolz...it reframes the issue. It makes you think "how could we get this POS off the bench?"

It's like when he buys up debt or whatever... He's demonstrating how the problem is clearly fixable, even if he only fixed one drop in the bucket

[–] books@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My guess is that Thomas will use this as an opening bid and see if he can get more from conservatives to wait until a Republican president is in office.

[–] chetradley@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Good. If people can just straight up buy Supreme Court justices they should at least be expensive.

load more comments
view more: next ›