|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 02 2024 04:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 04:57 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2024 04:41 Labraid wrote:
Literally nothing about Biden's administration is a failure. I don't agree with him providing weapons to Netanyahu. But literally every US administration would have done that. And i don't agree with the decision to drip weapons into Ukraine and to take 2 years for Ukraine to finally get permission to strike into Russia. But the bigger problem with the US's Ukraine policy was thatt the house blocked the aid deal because Trump is Putin's little puppet boy and Trump picked up the phone and called the GOP speaker to block the funding. But those were both decisions carried out in highly competent ways.
There is literally no legal take possible to say that Biden is a war criminal for providing weapons to Israel. None.
It is an unhinged take that he just randomly drops in our faces as a pile of shit. If the debate were about Israel, because something happened there, he can say all he wants that he thinks Biden is a war criminal.
But this goes deeper. As with most of you here, something is wrong with his mental health that makes him do this. And the moderators do nothing about it. That's my point.
I'd be more civil. But I have done that for years over here. And only gotten shit. So I serve shit back. You'd think I am going to play nice when people here have tried to humiliate me here for years? Think again. I am going to slap you verbally so hard it will make your head spin. And that's all on you. It says a lot about the mdoeration here that literally crazy people like GreenHorizons can get tens of thousands of posts. But I can now only get about 10 or 20.
GreenHorizons never debates people who can actually debate. He goes and picks fights with the weakest debaters here. He always does. He is a coward. God, you're such a narcissist. Trump has nothing on you. Clearly you are so in love with the sound of your own voice (or typing) that you go to the effort of making alt after alt to keep posting about politics in a videogame forum. What's wrong, is your ban from r/politics harder to subvert? Anyway, yet another alt on borrowed time. I also noticed you ran out of Homerian heroes. Quite a feat to get the entire Illiad worth of names banned. He can always go with Simpson I suppose
Well played.
|
On July 02 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 02:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2024 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:
So, since the President is immune while doing official constitutional acts, and the constitution declares the President is the Commander in chief, SCOTUS has just ruled that Biden in fact can order seal team 6 to assassinate Trump and the conservative supreme court justices while being immune to prosecution. + Show Spoiler +
It seems that the most dangerous part is that federal cases can simply be decided by Trump's Supreme Court to always be "private" for Democratic leaders wanting to take action (not allowed, there are consequences) and always be "official acts" for Republican leaders wanting to take action (allowed, there are no consequences). Biden and Trump could literally do the exact same sketchy thing - not that Biden would have the stomach for it, but still - and the Supreme Court could just decide to punish Biden and not punish Trump, because the Supreme Court makes the final call. They could just make up a bullshit excuse, like "Biden tried it first in 2024 and that wasn't acceptable, but then Trump doing it in 2026 was acceptable because he was just reciprocating", or whatever arbitrary line the Supreme Court wants to draw.
Between the Supreme Court and Judge Aileen Cannon, Trump has been avoiding an insane amount of accountability. It sucks for us to keep saying "I told you so / I warned you" to the people who didn't vote for Hillary, and it's going to equally suck to say the same thing if Trump wins in November, because we'd much rather avoid a second dictatorial trainwreck. If only more people cared  This is heinous. Trying to twist not supporting someone actively engaged in genocide into "not caring enough" (among plenty of other legitimate reasons not to support Biden) is preposterous. Losing 2016 is completely on Democrats and those that supported Hillary through a sketchy primary knowing how grossly unpopular she was. Just like 2024 will be entirely on Democrats if they lose knowing they were nominating someone even less favorable than Trump, that most of their party didn't want to run, and is an active war criminal. If Democrats actually "cared" they wouldn't be in this spot. Where they have to circle up around a clearly debilitated war criminal in Biden that they openly admit could be genocidal, murderous, and/or incapacitated/infirm and still get their vote. All while asserting that anyone who doesn't still support him despite those things and more just "doesn't care enough". Democrats have no one but themselves (and Republicans) to blame for pied piping Trump into the white house in the first place. Same if they nominate someone they know people somehow like even less than Trump (as they are with Biden), and then lose to him. Repeating that Democrats are the only ones to blame, over and over and over again, doesn't magically make it true. There's plenty of blame to share, and while Democrats lack a backbone, Republicans are literally evil and non-voters are enabling them. I often critique Democrats for being bad at messaging and communicating their massive accomplishments, but plenty of people could also inform themselves a little bit more on the issues too.
I included Republicans? I disagree about Republicans being "literally evil", but they're certainly deplorable imo.
Democrats, including Biden insist on enabling Republicans constantly. He ran on working with them and lamented he can't get along with them like he could segregationists for cryin out loud. He's the one who platformed and failed to confront all the lies Trump spewed during the debate. I could go on for a while... Trying to turn that around blame non-voters is enabling the worst in both parties.
Everyone could and should pay more attention and be more informed. But if they did and were, neither party would exist, so Democrats/their supporters hop back on the Hamster Wheel and work with Republicans on compromises to usher in fascism.
|
On July 02 2024 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2024 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 02:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2024 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:
So, since the President is immune while doing official constitutional acts, and the constitution declares the President is the Commander in chief, SCOTUS has just ruled that Biden in fact can order seal team 6 to assassinate Trump and the conservative supreme court justices while being immune to prosecution. + Show Spoiler +
It seems that the most dangerous part is that federal cases can simply be decided by Trump's Supreme Court to always be "private" for Democratic leaders wanting to take action (not allowed, there are consequences) and always be "official acts" for Republican leaders wanting to take action (allowed, there are no consequences). Biden and Trump could literally do the exact same sketchy thing - not that Biden would have the stomach for it, but still - and the Supreme Court could just decide to punish Biden and not punish Trump, because the Supreme Court makes the final call. They could just make up a bullshit excuse, like "Biden tried it first in 2024 and that wasn't acceptable, but then Trump doing it in 2026 was acceptable because he was just reciprocating", or whatever arbitrary line the Supreme Court wants to draw.
Between the Supreme Court and Judge Aileen Cannon, Trump has been avoiding an insane amount of accountability. It sucks for us to keep saying "I told you so / I warned you" to the people who didn't vote for Hillary, and it's going to equally suck to say the same thing if Trump wins in November, because we'd much rather avoid a second dictatorial trainwreck. If only more people cared This is heinous. Trying to twist not supporting someone actively engaged in genocide into "not caring enough" (among plenty of other legitimate reasons not to support Biden) is preposterous. Losing 2016 is completely on Democrats and those that supported Hillary through a sketchy primary knowing how grossly unpopular she was. Just like 2024 will be entirely on Democrats if they lose knowing they were nominating someone even less favorable than Trump, that most of their party didn't want to run, and is an active war criminal. If Democrats actually "cared" they wouldn't be in this spot. Where they have to circle up around a clearly debilitated war criminal in Biden that they openly admit could be genocidal, murderous, and/or incapacitated/infirm and still get their vote. All while asserting that anyone who doesn't still support him despite those things and more just "doesn't care enough". Democrats have no one but themselves (and Republicans) to blame for pied piping Trump into the white house in the first place. Same if they nominate someone they know people somehow like even less than Trump (as they are with Biden), and then lose to him. Repeating that Democrats are the only ones to blame, over and over and over again, doesn't magically make it true. There's plenty of blame to share, and while Democrats lack a backbone, Republicans are literally evil and non-voters are enabling them. I often critique Democrats for being bad at messaging and communicating their massive accomplishments, but plenty of people could also inform themselves a little bit more on the issues too. I included Republicans? I disagree about Republicans being "literally evil", but they're certainly deplorable imo. Democrats, including Biden insist on enabling Republicans constantly. He ran on working with them and lamented he can't get along with them like he could segregationists for cryin out loud. He's the one who platformed and failed to confront all the lies Trump spewed during the debate. I could go on for a while... Trying to turn that around blame non-voters is enabling the worst in both parties. Everyone could and should pay more attention and be more informed. But if they did and were, neither party would exist, so Democrats/their supporters hop back on the Hamster Wheel and work with Republicans on compromises to usher in fascism.
Yes, Biden ran on working with them, because he successfully worked with them. Passing bipartisan legislation when one side is hell-bent on destroying the government is a huge accomplishment. So many non-voters complain that both sides create the same problems and that neither side wants to work with the other, and yet those same complainers simply don't care when they're proven wrong by Democrats stepping up while Republicans stoop lower and lower.
When Democrats manage to govern in spite of Republicans, the Dems get no credit. When Democrats can't govern because of Republicans, the Dems are yelled at too. It's impossible to win when the critics don't actually know or care about who's actually to blame.
As far as confronting Trump's lies are concerned, thousands of them have already been addressed. I can't imagine many swing voters are currently indecisive because they can't quite tell if Trump is an honest man. Biden's debate performance was a failure because he was incoherent and came across as very old, but there's nothing of substance he could have added, because everything of substance has already been said a hundred times and some people just don't care that his presidency has been massively more successful than Trump's.
|
For any of the legally educated folks around here, and I would particularly appreciate Farv’s perspective:
Humor me a bit here: what if Biden asked his fleet of lawyers at the DOJ to design a way for Biden to use this verdict from the Supreme Court to “illegally force” the documents trial to happen immediately? What would that even look like? I think people should be focusing on how this verdict allows a president to fundamentally reshape entire processes by ignoring illegal things.
|
Introvert might end up being right about there being very little post-debate change in the polls. Here are two sources/polls supporting that notion, although I'm sure more polls over the next week or so will add more context:
Morning Consult has Trump at +1 post-debate, compared to a tie and a -1 last week.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden
The Hill reports that another post-debate poll by Harvard CAPS/Harris says that Trump's 6-point lead hasn't changed (with 12% undecided), which is the same spread as back in May.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4750364-trump-lead-unchanged-biden-debate/
The latter article goes on to discuss other related scenarios too:
"When the undecided voters were required to choose, Trump’s lead narrowed to 52 percent to 48 percent, slightly closer than the May result, where he led 53 percent to 47 percent.
But Trump’s lead expanded in a three-way race with independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The former president led by about 6 points, with Kennedy at 12 percent, up from a 4-point lead in May.
When the 8 percent who were undecided were required to choose, Trump led Biden 46 percent to 39 percent, with Kennedy at 15 percent. That’s up from the 5-point lead Trump had in May.
Pollsters additionally found that evaluations of a five-way race including Green Party candidate Jill Stein and independent Cornel West showed the margins stayed roughly the same, with Trump having a 7- or 8-point lead before and after the debate."
|
On July 02 2024 05:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2024 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 02:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2024 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:
So, since the President is immune while doing official constitutional acts, and the constitution declares the President is the Commander in chief, SCOTUS has just ruled that Biden in fact can order seal team 6 to assassinate Trump and the conservative supreme court justices while being immune to prosecution. + Show Spoiler +
It seems that the most dangerous part is that federal cases can simply be decided by Trump's Supreme Court to always be "private" for Democratic leaders wanting to take action (not allowed, there are consequences) and always be "official acts" for Republican leaders wanting to take action (allowed, there are no consequences). Biden and Trump could literally do the exact same sketchy thing - not that Biden would have the stomach for it, but still - and the Supreme Court could just decide to punish Biden and not punish Trump, because the Supreme Court makes the final call. They could just make up a bullshit excuse, like "Biden tried it first in 2024 and that wasn't acceptable, but then Trump doing it in 2026 was acceptable because he was just reciprocating", or whatever arbitrary line the Supreme Court wants to draw.
Between the Supreme Court and Judge Aileen Cannon, Trump has been avoiding an insane amount of accountability. It sucks for us to keep saying "I told you so / I warned you" to the people who didn't vote for Hillary, and it's going to equally suck to say the same thing if Trump wins in November, because we'd much rather avoid a second dictatorial trainwreck. If only more people cared This is heinous. Trying to twist not supporting someone actively engaged in genocide into "not caring enough" (among plenty of other legitimate reasons not to support Biden) is preposterous. Losing 2016 is completely on Democrats and those that supported Hillary through a sketchy primary knowing how grossly unpopular she was. Just like 2024 will be entirely on Democrats if they lose knowing they were nominating someone even less favorable than Trump, that most of their party didn't want to run, and is an active war criminal. If Democrats actually "cared" they wouldn't be in this spot. Where they have to circle up around a clearly debilitated war criminal in Biden that they openly admit could be genocidal, murderous, and/or incapacitated/infirm and still get their vote. All while asserting that anyone who doesn't still support him despite those things and more just "doesn't care enough". Democrats have no one but themselves (and Republicans) to blame for pied piping Trump into the white house in the first place. Same if they nominate someone they know people somehow like even less than Trump (as they are with Biden), and then lose to him. Repeating that Democrats are the only ones to blame, over and over and over again, doesn't magically make it true. There's plenty of blame to share, and while Democrats lack a backbone, Republicans are literally evil and non-voters are enabling them. I often critique Democrats for being bad at messaging and communicating their massive accomplishments, but plenty of people could also inform themselves a little bit more on the issues too. I included Republicans? I disagree about Republicans being "literally evil", but they're certainly deplorable imo. Democrats, including Biden insist on enabling Republicans constantly. He ran on working with them and lamented he can't get along with them like he could segregationists for cryin out loud. He's the one who platformed and failed to confront all the lies Trump spewed during the debate. I could go on for a while... Trying to turn that around blame non-voters is enabling the worst in both parties. Everyone could and should pay more attention and be more informed. But if they did and were, neither party would exist, so Democrats/their supporters hop back on the Hamster Wheel and work with Republicans on compromises to usher in fascism. Yes, Biden ran on working with them, because he successfully worked with them. Passing bipartisan legislation when one side is hell-bent on destroying the government is a huge accomplishment. So many non-voters complain that both sides create the same problems and that neither side wants to work with the other, and yet those same complainers simply don't care when they're proven wrong by Democrats stepping up while Republicans stoop lower and lower. When Democrats manage to govern in spite of Republicans, the Dems get no credit. When Democrats can't govern because of Republicans, the Dems are yelled at too. It's impossible to win when the critics don't actually know or care about who's actually to blame. As far as confronting Trump's lies are concerned, thousands of them have already been addressed. I can't imagine many swing voters are currently indecisive because they can't quite tell if Trump is an honest man. Biden's debate performance was a failure because he was incoherent and came across as very old, but there's nothing of substance he could have added, because everything of substance has already been said a hundred times and some people just don't care that his presidency has been massively more successful than Trump's. So Biden's the chief executive of enabling them and insisting on keeping the people "hell bent on destroying government" around, and you want to praise him for working with them? Meanwhile, you want to criticise people not voting for the chief enabler or Republicans as enablers? It's nonsensical as well as heinous.
You, Biden, and his team all knew that there was nothing for Biden to gain before y'all enabled Trump to platform his lies for 50,000,000+ people live and in living color and countless millions more after the fact. It's just a preposterous critique for a Democrat/Biden supporter to lob at non-voters and pathetic to try to shame them as not caring.
I'd argue a party/system that has allowed slavery (and plenty of other terrible things) to continue in the United States (including Hillary who had slaves in her home) for generations doesn't actually care more than people that refuse to vote for them or Republicans.
|
On July 02 2024 06:08 Mohdoo wrote:
For any of the legally educated folks around here, and I would particularly appreciate Farv’s perspective:
Humor me a bit here: what if Biden asked his fleet of lawyers at the DOJ to design a way for Biden to use this verdict from the Supreme Court to “illegally force” the documents trial to happen immediately? What would that even look like? I think people should be focusing on how this verdict allows a president to fundamentally reshape entire processes by ignoring illegal things.
That's not how this works. This is criminal immunity. Which means that the president wouldn't be put on trial for a crime. Or actually it goes further because in the investigation of a crime, evidence regarding what the president does may not even be used.
Aileen Cannon is the judge on the documents case. It is her case and she has all the power. She has wide ranging powers to set the agenda and the time schedule and decide how the trial unfolds. And she has decided to slow down the trial by a lot. The only way to speed it up would be to remove her. The president wouldn't have to power to remove Cannon from that case. The executive and judicial branches are separated. She would have to be impeached. Or removed from the case by her fellow judges in the 11th circus.
Killing her would 'remove her from the case'. And it would be a crime. But sending seal team six to kill her would not. Then, another judge would get the case. If that's what you mean.
Biden cannot just say someone else gets the case, because he doesn't have that power. This SCOTUS doesn't think POTUS can cancel student debt. But this SCOTUS does think this POTUS can send out seal team six to kill their political opponents.
So you'd have to figure out through which crime Biden would be able to force the trial of the documents case to move forward.
BTW, Thomas said in his opinion that Jack Smith was illegally appointed. Which is really weird to add to your opinion.
It is also weird that they say the executive must be fearless and bold, but that Garland can go to jail for appointing Jack Smith. But Biden can not go to jail for sending out seal team six to assassinate Cannon.
It is just weird and incoherent. And it is being ripped to shreds all over the place by conservative actual legal scholars. People who might have been on this SCOTUS in a parallel universe. Like Luttig, Katyal and Tribe.
Thomas and Alito are clearly delusional. Chief Justice Roberts has lost the script, though. He overplayed his hand. This will have strong political consequences. For Roberts personally.
Let's not forget that Trump's lawyers asked for presidential immunity for potential crimes the president wasn't impeached for. And that you'd have to impeach a president first to prosecute him for a crime. But SCOTUS said that if Biden orders seal team six to assassinates Aileen Cannon, and congress impeached and removes Biden from office for that act. That then Biden would still be immune. Unless of course a court, of SCOTUS, argues that this was not an official act or part of the presidential conduct.
It is hard to see how realistically Biden committing crimes can put Trump in jail faster. Biden opening investigations into Trump personally was already perfectly legal for Biden to do. And never criminal conduct. And he didn't do it. And if he did, it is not obvious to see how it would move things ahead faster.
When Trump wins and Trump wants to put Biden in jail, this ruling would help Biden then.
User was banned for this post.
|
Just to be more clear what I am saying: when you start off by saying “that’s not how this works”, you are ignoring the expansive history of legal engineering to achieve a desired result. Every “way something works” has many links and dependencies. It’s all easily compared to a mechanical machine. Change enough pieces and the machine works differently. I think it’s very likely there exists some list of changes needed to force the trial to happen tomorrow. That list may be 20 pages long. It might be shorter. It might be longer. But I truly do think when “and Biden can order people to do illegal things” is put in the gas tank of this list, it’s suddenly entirely possible. But it’s also possible my request is not reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if what I am describing would require a fleet of experts to even design the idea.
|
On July 02 2024 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Just to be more clear what I am saying: when you start off by saying “that’s not how this works”, you are ignoring the expansive history of legal engineering to achieve a desired result. Every “way something works” has many links and dependencies. It’s all easily compared to a mechanical machine. Change enough pieces and the machine works differently. I think it’s very likely there exists some list of changes needed to force the trial to happen tomorrow. That list may be 20 pages long. It might be shorter. It might be longer. But I truly do think when “and Biden can order people to do illegal things” is put in the gas tank of this list, it’s suddenly entirely possible. But it’s also possible my request is not reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if what I am describing would require a fleet of experts to even design the idea.
I mean, I got it right here: Seal Team 6 takes everybody Aileen Cannon loves hostage. They threaten to shoot them one by one unless the trial starts tomorrow. Obviously not reasonable, but apparently now legal.
|
On July 02 2024 06:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Just to be more clear what I am saying: when you start off by saying “that’s not how this works”, you are ignoring the expansive history of legal engineering to achieve a desired result. Every “way something works” has many links and dependencies. It’s all easily compared to a mechanical machine. Change enough pieces and the machine works differently. I think it’s very likely there exists some list of changes needed to force the trial to happen tomorrow. That list may be 20 pages long. It might be shorter. It might be longer. But I truly do think when “and Biden can order people to do illegal things” is put in the gas tank of this list, it’s suddenly entirely possible. But it’s also possible my request is not reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if what I am describing would require a fleet of experts to even design the idea.
I mean, I got it right here: Seal Team 6 takes everybody Aileen Cannon loves hostage. They threaten to shoot them one by one unless the trial starts tomorrow. Obviously not reasonable, but apparently now legal.
That’s easy and we already know it would work. The more interesting thought experiment is to achieve it without violence. Just an overwhelming amount of other laws and regulations being violated or rewritten. I hope Farv or one of the other lawyers around here throws me a bone and gives me the gist of what it would entail.
|
On July 02 2024 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 05:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2024 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2024 03:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 02:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2024 01:58 Gorsameth wrote:
So, since the President is immune while doing official constitutional acts, and the constitution declares the President is the Commander in chief, SCOTUS has just ruled that Biden in fact can order seal team 6 to assassinate Trump and the conservative supreme court justices while being immune to prosecution. + Show Spoiler +
It seems that the most dangerous part is that federal cases can simply be decided by Trump's Supreme Court to always be "private" for Democratic leaders wanting to take action (not allowed, there are consequences) and always be "official acts" for Republican leaders wanting to take action (allowed, there are no consequences). Biden and Trump could literally do the exact same sketchy thing - not that Biden would have the stomach for it, but still - and the Supreme Court could just decide to punish Biden and not punish Trump, because the Supreme Court makes the final call. They could just make up a bullshit excuse, like "Biden tried it first in 2024 and that wasn't acceptable, but then Trump doing it in 2026 was acceptable because he was just reciprocating", or whatever arbitrary line the Supreme Court wants to draw.
Between the Supreme Court and Judge Aileen Cannon, Trump has been avoiding an insane amount of accountability. It sucks for us to keep saying "I told you so / I warned you" to the people who didn't vote for Hillary, and it's going to equally suck to say the same thing if Trump wins in November, because we'd much rather avoid a second dictatorial trainwreck. If only more people cared This is heinous. Trying to twist not supporting someone actively engaged in genocide into "not caring enough" (among plenty of other legitimate reasons not to support Biden) is preposterous. Losing 2016 is completely on Democrats and those that supported Hillary through a sketchy primary knowing how grossly unpopular she was. Just like 2024 will be entirely on Democrats if they lose knowing they were nominating someone even less favorable than Trump, that most of their party didn't want to run, and is an active war criminal. If Democrats actually "cared" they wouldn't be in this spot. Where they have to circle up around a clearly debilitated war criminal in Biden that they openly admit could be genocidal, murderous, and/or incapacitated/infirm and still get their vote. All while asserting that anyone who doesn't still support him despite those things and more just "doesn't care enough". Democrats have no one but themselves (and Republicans) to blame for pied piping Trump into the white house in the first place. Same if they nominate someone they know people somehow like even less than Trump (as they are with Biden), and then lose to him. Repeating that Democrats are the only ones to blame, over and over and over again, doesn't magically make it true. There's plenty of blame to share, and while Democrats lack a backbone, Republicans are literally evil and non-voters are enabling them. I often critique Democrats for being bad at messaging and communicating their massive accomplishments, but plenty of people could also inform themselves a little bit more on the issues too. I included Republicans? I disagree about Republicans being "literally evil", but they're certainly deplorable imo. Democrats, including Biden insist on enabling Republicans constantly. He ran on working with them and lamented he can't get along with them like he could segregationists for cryin out loud. He's the one who platformed and failed to confront all the lies Trump spewed during the debate. I could go on for a while... Trying to turn that around blame non-voters is enabling the worst in both parties. Everyone could and should pay more attention and be more informed. But if they did and were, neither party would exist, so Democrats/their supporters hop back on the Hamster Wheel and work with Republicans on compromises to usher in fascism. Yes, Biden ran on working with them, because he successfully worked with them. Passing bipartisan legislation when one side is hell-bent on destroying the government is a huge accomplishment. So many non-voters complain that both sides create the same problems and that neither side wants to work with the other, and yet those same complainers simply don't care when they're proven wrong by Democrats stepping up while Republicans stoop lower and lower. When Democrats manage to govern in spite of Republicans, the Dems get no credit. When Democrats can't govern because of Republicans, the Dems are yelled at too. It's impossible to win when the critics don't actually know or care about who's actually to blame. As far as confronting Trump's lies are concerned, thousands of them have already been addressed. I can't imagine many swing voters are currently indecisive because they can't quite tell if Trump is an honest man. Biden's debate performance was a failure because he was incoherent and came across as very old, but there's nothing of substance he could have added, because everything of substance has already been said a hundred times and some people just don't care that his presidency has been massively more successful than Trump's. So Biden's the chief executive of enabling them and insisting on keeping the people "hell bent on destroying government" around, and you want to praise him for working with them? Meanwhile, you want to criticise people not voting for the chief enabler or Republicans as enablers? It's nonsensical as well as heinous. You, Biden, and his team all knew that there was nothing for Biden to gain before y'all enabled Trump to platform his lies for 50,000,000+ people live and in living color and countless millions more after the fact. It's just a preposterous critique for a Democrat/Biden supporter to lob at non-voters and pathetic to try to shame them as not caring. I'd argue a party/system that has allowed slavery (and plenty of other terrible things) to continue in the United States (including Hillary who had slaves in her home) for generations doesn't actually care more than people that refuse to vote for them or Republicans.
1. Trying to make the best of a subpar situation, by working with Republicans so that governing can actually happen, is not the same as insisting on keeping them around. Biden can't just decide that Republicans are not allowed to hold office anymore; Republicans are still going to win elections and still be in positions to vote for or against changes to our country. Understanding that reality isn't the same thing as enabling it.
2. I never advocated for the debate. I was always skeptical about whether or not it would be worth it. As far as non-voters go, I can understand people not bothering to vote if they live in a clearly blue or clearly red state. What drives me crazy is when they incorrectly equate the two parties, or think that Biden and Trump are roughly the same on the issues, and then conclude that both presidencies would be roughly the same. They did no research, and then they Pikachu-face when they learn they're wrong... but then stubbornly don't vote next time either. In those cases, it's lazy and "heinous" and "pathetic", to use your words.
3. The country deserves to be destroyed by a second Trump term because Hillary Clinton exploited prison labor 30-40 years ago? Good to know she's continuing to be a scapegoat after all these years.
|
On July 02 2024 06:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Just to be more clear what I am saying: when you start off by saying “that’s not how this works”, you are ignoring the expansive history of legal engineering to achieve a desired result. Every “way something works” has many links and dependencies. It’s all easily compared to a mechanical machine. Change enough pieces and the machine works differently. I think it’s very likely there exists some list of changes needed to force the trial to happen tomorrow. That list may be 20 pages long. It might be shorter. It might be longer. But I truly do think when “and Biden can order people to do illegal things” is put in the gas tank of this list, it’s suddenly entirely possible. But it’s also possible my request is not reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if what I am describing would require a fleet of experts to even design the idea.
I mean, I got it right here: Seal Team 6 takes everybody Aileen Cannon loves hostage. They threaten to shoot them one by one unless the trial starts tomorrow. Obviously not reasonable, but apparently now legal.
You can't actually let Trump become president if he'll be able to legally do stuff like that day 1 right? You have to exploit that if you're Biden and you're left with no other choice but giving that power to Trump...right?!?
I haven't looked into whether the people carrying out such stuff would be immune or if refusing such an order would qualify as a crime in and of itself, but I wouldn't bank on Trump not being able to find enough sympathetic minds in the US military/police to do stuff like that and much worse for the Biden's and countless more people.
I don't know, I think in some ways it has really simplified Biden/Democrats options so that quite specifically and inarguably Biden and his supporters will be to blame if they hand such power over to Trump regardless of this election's results. Because ultimately, Biden will have the final say, and his supporters will be the reason he does.
|
On July 02 2024 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 06:49 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2024 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Just to be more clear what I am saying: when you start off by saying “that’s not how this works”, you are ignoring the expansive history of legal engineering to achieve a desired result. Every “way something works” has many links and dependencies. It’s all easily compared to a mechanical machine. Change enough pieces and the machine works differently. I think it’s very likely there exists some list of changes needed to force the trial to happen tomorrow. That list may be 20 pages long. It might be shorter. It might be longer. But I truly do think when “and Biden can order people to do illegal things” is put in the gas tank of this list, it’s suddenly entirely possible. But it’s also possible my request is not reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if what I am describing would require a fleet of experts to even design the idea.
I mean, I got it right here: Seal Team 6 takes everybody Aileen Cannon loves hostage. They threaten to shoot them one by one unless the trial starts tomorrow. Obviously not reasonable, but apparently now legal. You can't actually let Trump become president if he'll be able to legally do stuff like that day 1 right? You have to exploit that if you're Biden and you're left with no other choice but giving that power to Trump...right?!? I haven't looked into whether the people carrying out such stuff would be immune or if refusing such an order would qualify as a crime in and of itself, but I wouldn't bank on Trump not being able to find enough sympathetic minds in the US military/police to do stuff like that and much worse for the Biden's and countless more people. I don't know, I think in some ways it has really simplified Biden/Democrats options so that quite specifically Biden and his supporters will be to blame if they hand such power over to Trump regardless of this election's results. Because ultimately, Biden will have the final say, and his supporters will be the reason he does.
Even if the executioners aren't immune, they can be pardoned by your monarch. So, in practice, immunity. Unless it's a state crime, in which case Biden would also have to "exert pressure" on governors to obtain the desired outcome 
|
On July 02 2024 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Just to be more clear what I am saying: when you start off by saying “that’s not how this works”, you are ignoring the expansive history of legal engineering to achieve a desired result. Every “way something works” has many links and dependencies. It’s all easily compared to a mechanical machine. Change enough pieces and the machine works differently. I think it’s very likely there exists some list of changes needed to force the trial to happen tomorrow. That list may be 20 pages long. It might be shorter. It might be longer. But I truly do think when “and Biden can order people to do illegal things” is put in the gas tank of this list, it’s suddenly entirely possible. But it’s also possible my request is not reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if what I am describing would require a fleet of experts to even design the idea.
No, because not going to jail for a crime is different to having a formal power.
How is Biden speeding up a trial ever criminal? It never is a crime. He can write a executive order tomorrow that Trump's trial should be finished before the election. That wouldn't be a crime under any interpretation. You don't need immunity for that. Aileen Cannon will just not listen.
If Biden picks up the phone and calls Aileen Cannon. Or calls the judges on the 11th circuit. Or calls Jack Smith and orders him what to do, those would all be inappropriate. But it wouldn't be criminal. Because both Trump and the American people have a right to a speedy trial. Biden could call Aileen Cannon and threaten her to make her speed up the trial. That could be criminal. And that would require immunity. But I think that's not what you are asking for. You are asking for a smart legal trick to somehow speed up the trial 'because the president now have more power'. The executive powers of the president technically haven't changed.
There would be a crime if Biden does the opposite and delays the trial. For example because Biden wants to run vs Trump.
This immunity deal is about not having to go to jail. Biden isn't going to jail. He doesn't need criminal immunity.
Trump is a criminal. He does need immunity.
User was banned for this post.
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
As DPB stuck some numbers up earlier that polling reflects a surprisingly low shift in opinion after that disastrous debate performance by Biden.
I guess this is likely explicable by perhaps it being hard to find genuine undecideds, and thus you won’t see much movement. I’m not alone here in feeling this is gonna be an election not of favourability, those lines in the sand are mostly drawn already, but in galvanising turnout.
In this regard I mean, isn’t this Supreme Court ruling an absolute gift? I mean if your goals are to have a Democrat winning this election.
You combo this with the movement on Roe actually happening versus being hypothetical, or perpetual hot air and you’re kind of doing the kinds of thing that would worry even a very lukewarm potential Biden voter
|
On July 02 2024 07:40 WombaT wrote:
As DPB stuck some numbers up earlier that polling reflects a surprisingly low shift in opinion after that disastrous debate performance by Biden.
I guess this is likely explicable by perhaps it being hard to find genuine undecideds, and thus you won’t see much movement. I’m not alone here in feeling this is gonna be an election not of favourability, those lines in the sand are mostly drawn already, but in galvanising turnout.
In this regard I mean, isn’t this Supreme Court ruling an absolute gift? I mean if your goals are to have a Democrat winning this election.
You combo this with the movement on Roe actually happening versus being hypothetical, or perpetual hot air and you’re kind of doing the kinds of thing that would worry even a very lukewarm potential Biden voter
I think those are fair points and slight silver linings for otherwise tragic scenarios. If Biden wins in November, I still don't see him abusing the Supreme Court's ruling though. I don't think Dems have the stomach for that, even to merely prove a point. I think the next Republican President will do it though, especially if it's Trump.
|
On July 02 2024 02:08 Acrofales wrote:Apparently Mike Johnson said this with regards to the immunity case: Show nested quote +Today’s ruling by the Court is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith. The Court clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts. This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the Constitution and common sense. As President Trump has repeatedly said, the American people, not President Biden’s bureaucrats, will decide the November 5th election. If Biden were truly trying to weaponize something against Trump, hasn't the SC just given him cart blanche to weaponize... well.. actual weapons against Trump now? Why bother with the judiciary route when they have literally given you the freedom to take the extrajudiciary one? It's incredibly dangerous, because we trust Biden not to take that route, but there's the very real possibility that Trump will. He has stated as much himself. So is it justified to throw Trump in Guantanamo in order to prevent him from becoming the first King of the USA, thereby effectively becoming the first King of the USA yourself? How on earth did the SC not consider the horrors they have just given blanket immunity for?
SCOTUS considered it, they picked the solution that essentially makes them Kingmakers. They ultimately have the final say on what is official and what isn't.
What this does is basically create a Sulla v Rome sitution where a future President can really test the foundations of the Republic. And even if he isn't immune, can technically gum up the legal works for long enough that he can effectively get away with illegal behaviour.
The question at this point is whether or not you think the likes of Clarence Thomas actually cares about doing the right thing. I do not have high hopes.
On July 02 2024 07:40 WombaT wrote:
As DPB stuck some numbers up earlier that polling reflects a surprisingly low shift in opinion after that disastrous debate performance by Biden.
I guess this is likely explicable by perhaps it being hard to find genuine undecideds, and thus you won’t see much movement. I’m not alone here in feeling this is gonna be an election not of favourability, those lines in the sand are mostly drawn already, but in galvanising turnout.
In this regard I mean, isn’t this Supreme Court ruling an absolute gift? I mean if your goals are to have a Democrat winning this election.
You combo this with the movement on Roe actually happening versus being hypothetical, or perpetual hot air and you’re kind of doing the kinds of thing that would worry even a very lukewarm potential Biden voter
National polls aren't the issue for Biden, state polls are. Biden ultimtely can't magically make inflation go away in states like Michigan where food bank usage are at their absolute record.
|
On July 02 2024 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 06:49 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2024 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Just to be more clear what I am saying: when you start off by saying “that’s not how this works”, you are ignoring the expansive history of legal engineering to achieve a desired result. Every “way something works” has many links and dependencies. It’s all easily compared to a mechanical machine. Change enough pieces and the machine works differently. I think it’s very likely there exists some list of changes needed to force the trial to happen tomorrow. That list may be 20 pages long. It might be shorter. It might be longer. But I truly do think when “and Biden can order people to do illegal things” is put in the gas tank of this list, it’s suddenly entirely possible. But it’s also possible my request is not reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if what I am describing would require a fleet of experts to even design the idea.
I mean, I got it right here: Seal Team 6 takes everybody Aileen Cannon loves hostage. They threaten to shoot them one by one unless the trial starts tomorrow. Obviously not reasonable, but apparently now legal. That’s easy and we already know it would work. The more interesting thought experiment is to achieve it without violence. Just an overwhelming amount of other laws and regulations being violated or rewritten. I hope Farv or one of the other lawyers around here throws me a bone and gives me the gist of what it would entail.
I don’t have much to add to the present conversation, but agree broadly that the ruling is bad and will lead to bad unintended consequences. It definitely gives presidents a ton more leeway, but I’m not sure how much it can be used to do deliberately deconstructive things as opposed to comically evil things that probably cannot achieve deliberate policy goals. Funny to think about stuff like this ruling, in principle, makes it harder for Trump to go after Biden and his administration if he wins again. Of course, in practice, we’ve been given plenty reason to expect this SCOTUS to bend rulings however it pleases them. More worried about the loss of Chevron to be frank, but this sure ain’t good either.
The one thing we know for sure is that the courts are gonna play a central role in governance unless and until something dramatic happens or a future SCOTUS overrules some of what was issued these past few years.
|
On July 02 2024 08:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2024 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On July 02 2024 06:49 Acrofales wrote:On July 02 2024 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:
Just to be more clear what I am saying: when you start off by saying “that’s not how this works”, you are ignoring the expansive history of legal engineering to achieve a desired result. Every “way something works” has many links and dependencies. It’s all easily compared to a mechanical machine. Change enough pieces and the machine works differently. I think it’s very likely there exists some list of changes needed to force the trial to happen tomorrow. That list may be 20 pages long. It might be shorter. It might be longer. But I truly do think when “and Biden can order people to do illegal things” is put in the gas tank of this list, it’s suddenly entirely possible. But it’s also possible my request is not reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if what I am describing would require a fleet of experts to even design the idea.
I mean, I got it right here: Seal Team 6 takes everybody Aileen Cannon loves hostage. They threaten to shoot them one by one unless the trial starts tomorrow. Obviously not reasonable, but apparently now legal. That’s easy and we already know it would work. The more interesting thought experiment is to achieve it without violence. Just an overwhelming amount of other laws and regulations being violated or rewritten. I hope Farv or one of the other lawyers around here throws me a bone and gives me the gist of what it would entail. I don’t have much to add to the present conversation, but agree broadly that the ruling is bad and will lead to bad unintended consequences. It definitely gives presidents a ton more leeway, but I’m not sure how much it can be used to do deliberately deconstructive things as opposed to comically evil things that probably cannot achieve deliberate policy goals. Funny to think about stuff like this ruling, in principle, makes it harder for Trump to go after Biden and his administration if he wins again. Of course, in practice, we’ve been given plenty reason to expect this SCOTUS to bend rulings however it pleases them. More worried about the loss of Chevron to be frank, but this sure ain’t good either. The one thing we know for sure is that the courts are gonna play a central role in governance unless and until something dramatic happens or a future SCOTUS overrules some of what was issued these past few years.
Though I disagree with the thrust of this I'm glad to see someone not hysterical at least. To the bolded, rather than being funny I would say that thought, and considerations for every future president, were at the forefront in the mind of John Roberts the whole time. Trump too is also, amusingly, right that presidents of the future will thank him. But us falling more into an imperial presidency will not the fault of the courts.
|
Of course it will be, the courts have guaranteed and expanded their role in near every corner of governance. The garbage “official acts” test Roberts dreamed up is a malleable piece of trash that sets no real standard, meaning everything can be fought over in court using expansive terms that invite judges to apply all sorts of different views of government. And that’s only one among a host of court-empowering rulings.
This term wasn’t about Trump or Biden, it was about what this SCOTUS thinks of its power over the other branches and it has made its views on that issue very clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
