The All Things Political Topic - In politics stupidity is not a handicap

[BruceVC]

35 minutes ago, rjshae said:

No, it may end up more like Putin's Russia with single party rule.

Yes I see what you worried about and yes that is possible 

I think its highly unlikely but its possible 

So the US will end up like Russia with "elections " and  " opposition " parties but the elections arent free and fair and  Putin is guaranteed to win

But to get to that level  of subversion of the Democratic process is a long way to go for the US 

So for example in Russia ( and all these factors play a part in Putins single party rule sustainability  )

 

• You cant seriously  publicly criticize the state or the war : In the US public criticism of any government and its decisions  occurs on a daily basis 
• People protest all the time in the US and these protests are often about issues with something government has done 
• In Russia there is no independent media so the official media narrative always supports the state  : In the US there is only private sector and independent media. Its mostly partisan influenced but the media constantly raises issues with the government depending on the political views of the media 
• Russia has no  separation of the judiciary from  what the state wants, any law Putin wants the judiciary will rubberstamp. You also  wont find things like successful class action suits in Russia against the state
• States in the US still  have vast degrees of independence from the federal government. Lots of examples of this in the US like R vs W
• During the elections in the US citizens are literally bombarded with political and endless partisan advertising and media focus on how terrible one party is or how failed the current President is. This is almost non-existent in Russia because of the lack of independent media so  the average Russian citizen isnt exposed to much media criticism of Putin or his policies during the electoral process 
• And finally the US does have free and fair elections, people do  vote and you see leadership change all the time in the US. This doesn't exist in Russia, Putin will never lose an election 

 

As I mentioned  I understand your concern and its valid. But the US has a long way to decline around its Democratic reality to end up like Russia but its definitely worth watching 

Edited Thursday at 07:04 AM by BruceVC

[Malcador]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

The US will never end up like that

How are you so sure? Muck about with officials and put the right people as judges, you can do a lot.

Long way to go, but the time needed to cover that distance isn't all that long.  One helpful thing would be a crisis to scare people, for example.  Americans like most are ok with a lot when worried about some boogeyman.

 

[uuuhhii]

maga are begging for a leader more like putin

the idea usa somehow have a long fall to oligarchy is absurd

Edited Thursday at 04:26 PM by uuuhhii

[Elerond]

15 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But you not  seriously suggesting that Trump is going to  somehow make the USA end up like WW2 Italy or Germany?

Thats full on authoritarian state where people dont vote for leadership change, the Constitution becomes irrelevant and you see the same  leader for life 

The US will never end up like that

I understand people dont like Trump  and have genuine concerns but lets  not exaggerate  about his 4 year presidency and what the consequences could be?

 

At first day in office they declared end of birthright citizenship, which is constitutional right in USA

Quote

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So that seem to be something that can only be done in authoritarian state where constitution is irrelevant

[ShadySands]

We're already an oligarchy and have been for a while, we just hide it better. Economic elites and moneyed interest groups almost always win out over the people.

There was a study on this like 10 or so years ago

[LadyCrimson]

I've been pondering if I'd prefer a Presidential term of 6 years (vs. 4) but you can only do it once.

I'm still of the opinion that short terms = difficulty in the US (or anywhere with short terms) of ever getting anything done because every President half-undoes what the one before did, if only because things took most of a term to even get off the ground in the first place. So what's the point, in a way. But of course, too long a term = a problem too. Edit: in the long run, changes are made, but this is often more a result of shifting general national and maybe world attitudes that the politicians are trying to follow to keep favor. At least in my uneducated bimbo opinion.

Also, Trump seems to forget there are checks and balances in our system and that our President doesn't have dictator powers. He can't just wave hands and say "Trump's will be done." Most of his blathering about what he's going to do is largely to keep his followers following, eg, amped up in the "gogo Trump is for the USA-first" emotional mindstate. Like he thinks he's a football rally making a speech. Or something.

Edited Friday at 12:21 AM by LadyCrimson

[BruceVC]

7 hours ago, Elerond said:

At first day in office they declared end of birthright citizenship, which is constitutional right in USA

So that seem to be something that can only be done in authoritarian state where constitution is irrelevant

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/

And this has already been blocked  by a Federal judge which Trump will appeal

And it was suspended because it is unconstitutional 

" "I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

The states argued that Trump's order violated the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen." 

Dont get confused between what Trump says and what he can legally implement or succeed on 

Thats why I mentioned the US has an independent judiciary and the courts dont just rubberstamp everything the president wants  which is one of the main characteristics of an authoritarian state like Russia 

 

[Malcador]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5104133-rep-andy-ogles-proposes-trump-third-term-amendment/

Ogles proposed an amendment on Thursday that says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

These people have too much free time.

[Elerond]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/

And this has already been blocked  by a Federal judge which Trump will appeal

And it was suspended because it is unconstitutional 

" "I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

The states argued that Trump's order violated the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen." 

Dont get confused between what Trump says and what he can legally implement or succeed on 

Thats why I mentioned the US has an independent judiciary and the courts dont just rubberstamp everything the president wants  which is one of the main characteristics of an authoritarian state like Russia 

 

Considering that he was able to create legally enforceable rule with his executive order that court had to suspend speaks says something else. Still government lawyers are arguing in courts that order is justified using tax payers money to do so and arguing that states don't have right to challenge the ruling because they aren't party in the ruling. I would also point that they were aware that it will be challenged in courts and they count on supreme court to change how 14th Amendment  is interpret as they appointed their judges there in Trump's last term. Meaning that they think that supreme court will rubberstamp their orders.

Another thing they are doing is to put out n+1 executive orders so courts too busy to handle them all, which give them ability to do what they want.

And they hope that people see temporal suspension of one of the orders as win as mark that checks and balances are working, without releasing that they have already appointed lots of judges, congress is in their pocket and best that people can expect from them is to pretend that nothing is wrong and worse they will do their best prevent anything that could hinder their new ruler.

[HoonDing]

< swear to uphold constitution

< immediately sign blatantly unconstitutional EO

How about impeaching him on his first day

 

 

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Considering that he was able to create legally enforceable rule with his executive order that court had to suspend speaks says something else. Still government lawyers are arguing in courts that order is justified using tax payers money to do so and arguing that states don't have right to challenge the ruling because they aren't party in the ruling. I would also point that they were aware that it will be challenged in courts and they count on supreme court to change how 14th Amendment  is interpret as they appointed their judges there in Trump's last term. Meaning that they think that supreme court will rubberstamp their orders.

Another thing they are doing is to put out n+1 executive orders so courts too busy to handle them all, which give them ability to do what they want.

And they hope that people see temporal suspension of one of the orders as win as mark that checks and balances are working, without releasing that they have already appointed lots of judges, congress is in their pocket and best that people can expect from them is to pretend that nothing is wrong and worse they will do their best prevent anything that could hinder their new ruler.

 I dont know, Trump signed  a massive amount of executive orders but they dont have the same significance or matter to US citizens in the same way 

But something like " denying people born  to illegal migrants   in the US citizenship " was always going to be challenged and rejected legally and Constitutionally

This will end up in the Supreme Court but unless you change the Constitution this law will always fail the Constitutional test 

And its highly unlikely Trump will be able to change the Constitution because you need a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and the GOP dont have that majority 

So the point Im making is the same, you need to separate what Trump says he wants to do and what he can do Constitutionally 

Dont get distracted by things that wont happen because the media  is outraged about it or its become a media focus point 

 

 

[Elerond]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

This will end up in the Supreme Court but unless you change the Constitution this law will always fail the Constitutional test 

United States v. Wong Kim Ark was 6-2 decision, so there are ways to see that it is constitutional even by judges in supreme court

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Elerond said:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark was 6-2 decision, so there are ways to see that it is constitutional even by judges in supreme court

Okay Im not a lawyer or have  much interest in long legal debates, I find them boring and I just prefer to understand the outcomes 

I looked this up and the Supreme Court cant change the Constitution, they can strike down laws that are unconstitutional and the US  Constitution is clear on citizenship and being born in the USA

So the only way to change this is if you change the Constitution and that requires the 2/3 majority in Congress, so I dont understand how the Supreme Court could rule any other way because its clearly defined?

Maybe Im not understanding something and if you can clarify that it would be interesting?

 

 

[Gorth]

Because you can never have enough misery... continued from previous thread!

 

[Elerond]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Okay Im not a lawyer or have  much interest in long legal debates, I find them boring and I just prefer to understand the outcomes 

I looked this up and the Supreme Court cant change the Constitution, they can strike down laws that are unconstitutional and the US  Constitution is clear on citizenship and being born in the USA

So the only way to change this is if you change the Constitution and that requires the 2/3 majority in Congress, so I dont understand how the Supreme Court could rule any other way because its clearly defined?

Maybe Im not understanding something and if you can clarify that it would be interesting?

Abortion right was based on constitution until it was not.

Supreme court has made lot of decision in history what constitution actually means. What will people do if they decide that interpret this clause to mean that if person's parent's aren't US citizens then the baby is not subject of US jurisdiction and therefore they aren't US citizens

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

[rjshae]

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."

— Plato

Seems like it's still true today. Politics never changes.

[uuuhhii]

4 minutes ago, rjshae said:

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."

— Plato

Seems like it's still true today. Politics never changes.

 

idiot doesn't always seek political power

power turn people into ignorant harmful idiot

[majestic]

Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025, silly leftists.

 

[Lexx]

7 minutes ago, majestic said:

Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025, silly leftists.

 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how surprised is Bruce right now

[Pidesco]

2 hours ago, Lexx said:

On a scale of 1 to 10, how surprised is Bruce right now

He probably looks like Pikachu.

[majestic]

Any suprised reaction is predicated on Bruce clicking the link and properly comprehending the contents. I'm betting that you'll be the ones having a surprised Pickachu face when he replies.

 

[majestic]

This board software is something else. Double posted 10 minutes apart because I left the boards open in the background.

[Pidesco]

2 minutes ago, majestic said:

This board software is something else. Double posted 10 minutes apart because I left the boards open in the background.

How do you mean, the board software is excellent, the best there is.

[majestic]

2 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

How do you mean, the board software is excellent, the best there is.

Ah, yes, my bad. Such a great software. So many good people developing it. I have great people on my team telling me how great this software is. Obsidian won bigly using it.

[Malcador]

4 hours ago, Lexx said:

On a scale of 1 to 10, how surprised is Bruce right now

Come now, he'ill just say it's media alarmists as we need to wait 4 years to judge the effects of everything.