The All Things Political Topic

[Hurlshort]

Why would anyone watch the debate? These aren't new candidates. You aren't going to learn something from them. What a waste of time and energy.

[Gorgon]

Well, we found out that Biden is past it and that the smart move would be to replace him

[ShadySands]

They won't. The only thing that can happen now is that Harris takes over once Biden is deemed unfit... but I still think Trump is going to win.

Quote

You know it's funny when it rains it pours
They got money for wars, but can't feed the poor

Say there ain't no hope for the youth and the truth is
It ain't no hope for tha future

 

Edited June 29 by ShadySands

[Pidesco]

I'm really curious to hear what @Gromnir has to say about the recent Supreme Court decisions.

Seems like that's where the consequential stuff is happening right now.

[Gfted1]

Huh he hasnt been on since 3 Mar.

[Malcador]

Guess we can just hope the Dems take the Senate and House.

[Zoraptor]

I missed the debate completely. Not sure I really want to catch up from the descriptions.

20 hours ago, majestic said:

Yes, Trump's mental state is mostly okay. Of course. He is a stable genius after all. The most brilliant mind of the century. Ah, what am I talking about, he's the greatest thinker of the modern age. That half of the US population thinks that this moron with the intelligence of a lobotomized chimpanzee represents and embodies them is a scathing indictment of the US education system.

The weird thing is that he wasn't that far off. People were researching sunlight (UV) treatments and using lavage at least as a treatment at the time.

(Very little chance Trump was thinking of that though. Very little. And as with his shilling of horse dewormer, dangerous to say even if he had been that extensively briefed)

15 hours ago, Malcador said:

Being easily mocked doesn't mean you're funny though.

Hard to get away from Trump being real when it comes to him being funny. You can laugh at easily mockable characters like Mr Bean as is, but if you had to potentially deal with a very real President Bean it would not be funny. A fictional Trump... well he'd probably be thought of as being a US Alan B'stard, more a unrealistic overdone caricature than mockable per se.

(Of course Tory politicians somehow managed to make Mr B'stard look toned down and reserved over the next 30 years, ho hum)

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, Gorgon said:

Well, we found out that Biden is past it and that the smart move would be to replace him

But thats  the problem  and real  criticism  towards the Dems political  Biden strategy making him  the candidate

We didnt find it out, we " knew  "   Biden had a  deterioration of his mental  acumen and the Dem strategists  ignored  this.  They got  over  confidant after  the midterms but they should have started  preparing a different candidate back then 

But now its  too late. Anyway only the undecided  voters  can save the Dems now but its  impossible to predict how they will vote 

 

 

 

[Zoraptor]

I ended up catching the 'highlights' of the debate. Far worse than I imagined in some ways, in others almost exactly as expected. I mentioned Mr Bean previous, and watching that I far too often had 'Bean cringe' where vicarious embarrassment* made me want to hide behind the couch.

Managing to pick one candidate that lost to Trump was astounding, and it looks like the Democrats have somehow contrived to do it twice. It's certainly not that that was a vote winning performance for Trump- if his opponent was a pot plant we might be getting President Cyclamen next January based on his performance- but that had to be hugely demoralising for the democrats, especially anyone considering holding their nose to vote for a candidate they don't really like or want. It may still be possible to generate enough antienthusiasm for Trump to get the vote out but it's going to be far more difficult to have enthusiasm for Biden.

There doesn't seem to be much self reflection in the Democrat hierarchy about how they got here either, much the same as blaming Berniebros and anything/ anyone else for Hillary losing. I actually agree with Bruce, this was not a surprise to anyone except perhaps Democrat bigwigs living in their self reinforcing circle. That was a terminal performance, there is nothing that can be done to fix it. The only hope is that Trump contrives to do worse.

*at times it was far worse than embarrassment, it was far closer to pity. As one of the people the BBC interviewed for their report said, at times it just felt cruel and a bit sad.

[Bartimaeus]

All I have to do is remember the Supreme Court and their ongoing spree of suspect decisions - with the possibility of Trump getting to nominate even more of his justices while also trying to make good on unitary executive theory - and I suddenly get very enthusiastic about voting for Biden again. Of course, I didn't watch the debate in the first place because seeing both of these guys speak makes me uncomfortable, albeit in different ways: ignorance in this particular way, at least, is bliss.

[Hurlshort]

A vote for Biden is a vote for his team,  which are likely pulling most of the levers at this point. They are going to push the agenda of the party so they can all keep their jobs.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. Sure, he has a team, and they may try to influence him, but they are also just trying to hang on until they have enough stories to cut loose and write a good memoir. 

[Gorth]

 

 

[BruceVC]

19 hours ago, Gorth said:

 

 

That was probably the funniest juice media ad I have ever seem, it really made me laugh  

"oh no, killer robots "   The girls imitating accents are always hilarious 

I love the end " authorised by John Connor " 

 

[Bartimaeus]

A 6-3 Supreme Court decision has declared that the United States president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any official acts during their terms. I think Biden's first act as Emperor of the United States should probably be to kill the entire Supreme Court and appoint a new one that makes better decisions.

[HoonDing]

So Nixon really was not a crook!

[Azdeus]

38 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

A 6-3 Supreme Court decision has declared that the United States president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any official acts during their terms. I think Biden's first act as Emperor of the United States should probably be to kill the entire Supreme Court and appoint a new one that makes better decisions.

Wait, so Biden can off Trump now and get away with it? ****in A!

[Bartimaeus]

30 minutes ago, Azdeus said:

Wait, so Biden can off Trump now and get away with it? ****in A!

The dissent authored by Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and joined by the other two liberal justices starts on page 68, a direct excerpt:

Quote

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex-change for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

Will Biden use his new extralegal powers to make sure this ruling does not stand? It's not really his modus operandi, but letting Trump waltz into the Oval Office while this Supreme Court does its best to kick start another civil war (it wouldn't be the first time) and crown a dictator is absolute madness.

I do wish Gromnir were around to, uh...say something. Some legal analysis that the media isn't necessarily doing the best to cover would be much appreciated right now.

Edited July 1 by Bartimaeus

[Azdeus]

20 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

The dissent authored by Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and joined by the other two liberal justices starts on page 68, a direct excerpt:

Will Biden use his new extralegal powers to make sure this ruling does not stand? It's not really his modus operandi, but letting Trump waltz into the Oval Office while this Supreme Court does its best to kick start another civil war (it wouldn't be the first time) and crown a dictator is absolute madness.

I do wish Gromnir were around to, uh...say something. Some legal analysis that the media isn't necessarily doing the best to cover would be much appreciated right now.

Yeah, the same, it'd be really interesting to hear his take. I'm going to hope that Legal Eagle drops a youtube video in the coming days.

I feel sorry for all you Americans.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think it's funny that the same body has made the President a term-limited (for now) dictator shortly after dismantling the regulatory apparatus of the executive branch. So courts no longer have to defer to federal regulatory agencies in matters that are vague (such as what constitutes a stationary source of pollution emitting devices), but a president could threaten all judges or litigants to get in line or get the drone? Real galaxy brain stuff.

You have to wonder just how far the ruling classes will go before they break the camel's back. By their seeming inability to slow down I honestly have to wonder if they truly desire the fate of 18th century French aristocrats, like they actively desire sparking a revolution against themselves by being so blatantly terrible. Did they pay so little attention to history that they think such things materialized out of the air?

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Azdeus said:

Yeah, the same, it'd be really interesting to hear his take. I'm going to hope that Legal Eagle drops a youtube video in the coming days.

I feel sorry for all you Americans.

This wouldnt apply to unofficial acts or decisions the US president made. I think the ruling  makes sense, for example lets say the US president orders the assassination of drug cartel leaders and that is an official decision. But lets say something goes wrong and civilians are killed accidently, should the president be now prosecuted because he approved the operation?

The US president can still be prosecuted for unofficial decisions like 6 January or lets say something like sexual violence or rape

This only protects the US president for decisions made in the interests of the US in his capacity of president 

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

This wouldnt apply to unofficial acts or decisions the US president made. I think the ruling  makes sense, for example lets say the US president orders the assassination of drug cartel leaders and that is an official decision. But lets say something goes wrong and civilians are killed accidently, should the president be now prosecuted because he approved the operation?

The US president can still be prosecuted for unofficial decisions like 6 January or lets say something like sexual violence or rape

This only protects the US president for decisions made in the interests of the US in his capacity of president 

Is it the US presidents job to assassinate drug cartel leaders? I don't think it said that anywhere in his job description? He may wield the power to do so, but if he does so because he doesn't like said cartel leader, it's personal, not part of the job. Same thing goes for the Jan. 6th incidents. Starting an insurrection to seize power and overthrow the election was not part of his job. I'm sure there are some kind of electoral committees to ensure things happens by the book. He simply didn't like he was losing and wanted to seize power. Not part of his job description (ok, I've never actually read the job description and sometimes you get surprised).

If he declares war on another country and a bunch of people gets killed, sure. That might be part of the job. Even if was more personal for Bush Jr. to avenge Bush Sr. blunders by fabricating reasons to go for war than any actual legitimate reasons (i.e. no threat to US citizens or security, he simply felt his family had been embarrassed). That one the voters will sort out, eventually.

The ruling makes perfect sense in that regard. What is as clear as mud is what constitutes "the presidents official duties"?

[BruceVC]

45 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Is it the US presidents job to assassinate drug cartel leaders? I don't think it said that anywhere in his job description? He may wield the power to do so, but if he does so because he doesn't like said cartel leader, it's personal, not part of the job. Same thing goes for the Jan. 6th incidents. Starting an insurrection to seize power and overthrow the election was not part of his job. I'm sure there are some kind of electoral committees to ensure things happens by the book. He simply didn't like he was losing and wanted to seize power. Not part of his job description (ok, I've never actually read the job description and sometimes you get surprised).

If he declares war on another country and a bunch of people gets killed, sure. That might be part of the job. Even if was more personal for Bush Jr. to avenge Bush Sr. blunders by fabricating reasons to go for war than any actual legitimate reasons (i.e. no threat to US citizens or security, he simply felt his family had been embarrassed). That one the voters will sort out, eventually.

The ruling makes perfect sense in that regard. What is as clear as mud is what constitutes "the presidents official duties"?

I agree that the contentious legal point to this ruling is going to be " what is official and unofficial " 

But I dont see why that should be complicated? For example if a US president goes to a fund raising and then sexually assaults a waitress thats not official and he should  be charged

But you can make a direct link between Fentanyl that is ending up in the US and how several cartels are involved in smuggling this drug so if you stop the cartels bringing in Fentanyl thats in the best interests of the US and particularly the Fentanyl crisis and higher levels of overdoses. So if a  US president says " we going to assassinate Cartel leaders until they stop bringing in Fentanyl "  thats an official government decision based on a specific outcome 

So there is a difference between official and unofficial decisions and can the US president be charged and I do think 6 January was unofficial 

 

[ShadySands]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

So there is a difference between official and unofficial decisions and can the US president be charged and I do think 6 January was unofficial 

Without the supreme court defining it or absent any strict definition, they will argue that everything he does is an official act...except for the stuff they don't want made public record, those things will be private and personal when it suits him.

[Sarex]

22 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

A 6-3 Supreme Court decision has declared that the United States president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for any official acts during their terms. I think Biden's first act as Emperor of the United States should probably be to kill the entire Supreme Court and appoint a new one that makes better decisions.

Aren't they just copying Putin's homework at this point?

[Pidesco]

https://youtu.be/MXQ43yyJvgs?si=tDsp3X4QuhuRI63k