3 ms·

The actual headline (from the local ABC station) was "Trump suggests Tesla vandals should face 20 years in jail, be sent to El Salvador." And even that's a lit

The actual headline (from the local ABC station) was "Trump suggests Tesla vandals should face 20 years in jail, be sent to El Salvador." And even that's a little sensationalistic. (Trump says a lot of things. And this is an off-hand comment he made on Truth Social...) But even there he only went as far as to say the vandals had "a very good chance" of going to jail for "up to" 20 years, and that "perhaps" they'd go to El Salvador. Also, we all know judges issues sentences, right? I mean, a president can say what he hopes will happen... But ABC7.com shouldn't be this credulous.

kadoban 2y ago
He nominates judges. He's also threatening judges that go against his whim. He's _also_ instructing law enforcement to do things without the involvement of judges, including sending them to El Salvadoran prisons. You are a fool if you think this isn't a threat.
- MilnerRoute 2y ago
  > I don't think it's sensationalist to report that something might happen I guess I'd put it this way. I think we can agree that it is sensationalistic to report something that won't happen. I'm not a Trump booster - but I do think these two HN comments are giving him too much power. Presidents have no power to remove judges. (And everybody knows it - especially judges.) Wishing that his friends in Congress would help him out by launching impeachment hearings won't make it happen -- mainly because it would need something like 7 Democratic votes in the Senate to actually succeed. (So "threatening" a judge... does nothing. You might as well stand in a field and say "Ooh, I wish you weren't a judge any more!") It's also convoluted to say there's some credible threat in the fact that Trump nominates judges. (What are you saying -- that during the vetting process for future judges he'll ask each candidate, "What's your stance on sending future parking lot protesters to foreign prisons for 20-year sentences?") It's mildly newsworthy that he's talking out loud about such an outrageous hypothetical. But it's clearly just posing as powerful and in control for his base. A president does not have this power - and I honestly don't think he even cares. He just wants to act like he does for a few moments on Truth Social. The only really newsworthy thing here is the protests upset him enough that he had to specifically address it with some made-up hypothetical to make himself and his base feel like he's not losing popular support.
  - esseph 2y ago
    They are threatening judges, and have been. That's the playbook, and the last hurdle to complete power.
  - kadoban 2y ago
    You're going to be telling yourself "he can't do that!" right up until he just does it, and then again for the next thing. Who is going to stop him from doing whatever he wants?
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    A huge amount of what he has already done falls into the general category of “he can’t do that”. No-one really appears to be that excited about stopping him. It is not unreasonable to report on him threatening to do _yet another_ unconstitutional thing. Though, actually, even if you are correct and there is a magic line in the sand of unconstitutionality that he somehow will not or cannot cross, that’s _still_ news, in that it must then be read as “president is issuing illegal threats” or “president is stark raving mad”. There is no way to read this as “not news” or as “not concerning”.
happytoexplain 2y ago
I don't think it's sensationalist to report that something might happen that the president says he wants to make happen, even if there's not a clear legal path for him to accomplish it in one step. The fact that US president "says a lot of things" doesn't make it reasonable to take what the US president says not seriously.

kadoban 2y ago

He nominates judges. He's also threatening judges that go against his whim. He's _also_ instructing law enforcement to do things without the involvement of judges, including sending them to El Salvadoran prisons. You are a fool if you think this isn't a threat.

MilnerRoute 2y ago
> I don't think it's sensationalist to report that something might happen I guess I'd put it this way. I think we can agree that it is sensationalistic to report something that won't happen. I'm not a Trump booster - but I do think these two HN comments are giving him too much power. Presidents have no power to remove judges. (And everybody knows it - especially judges.) Wishing that his friends in Congress would help him out by launching impeachment hearings won't make it happen -- mainly because it would need something like 7 Democratic votes in the Senate to actually succeed. (So "threatening" a judge... does nothing. You might as well stand in a field and say "Ooh, I wish you weren't a judge any more!") It's also convoluted to say there's some credible threat in the fact that Trump nominates judges. (What are you saying -- that during the vetting process for future judges he'll ask each candidate, "What's your stance on sending future parking lot protesters to foreign prisons for 20-year sentences?") It's mildly newsworthy that he's talking out loud about such an outrageous hypothetical. But it's clearly just posing as powerful and in control for his base. A president does not have this power - and I honestly don't think he even cares. He just wants to act like he does for a few moments on Truth Social. The only really newsworthy thing here is the protests upset him enough that he had to specifically address it with some made-up hypothetical to make himself and his base feel like he's not losing popular support.
- esseph 2y ago
  They are threatening judges, and have been. That's the playbook, and the last hurdle to complete power.
- kadoban 2y ago
  You're going to be telling yourself "he can't do that!" right up until he just does it, and then again for the next thing. Who is going to stop him from doing whatever he wants?
- rsynnott 2y ago
  A huge amount of what he has already done falls into the general category of “he can’t do that”. No-one really appears to be that excited about stopping him. It is not unreasonable to report on him threatening to do _yet another_ unconstitutional thing. Though, actually, even if you are correct and there is a magic line in the sand of unconstitutionality that he somehow will not or cannot cross, that’s _still_ news, in that it must then be read as “president is issuing illegal threats” or “president is stark raving mad”. There is no way to read this as “not news” or as “not concerning”.

happytoexplain 2y ago

I don't think it's sensationalist to report that something might happen that the president says he wants to make happen, even if there's not a clear legal path for him to accomplish it in one step. The fact that US president "says a lot of things" doesn't make it reasonable to take what the US president says not seriously.