Pretty much everything the president does while in office is official. So the more important question is what is within the president's powers.
The problem with immunity rather than changing the law is that all he has to do is prove that in some circumstance he has that power and that he believes that circumstance existed at the time and he used that authority to do it.
For example, he has the power to order the military to assassinate, so the specifics of whether it was legal to assassinate a certain person can't be questioned in court, only whether he has the power to issue that type of order. Because once it's established that it is within his power and he states that he used his authority as president to issue the order, he is immune to any further prosecution. Also, it doesn't matter if he ordered the CIA to do it and they don't have that legal authority to act inside the US. In that case the president is breaking the law, he just can't be prosecuted for it, only the CIA agents involved could be. It's not presidential authority that is being violated in that case so it's off the table for prosecution regardless of how illegal it is.
Just so I’m reading this correctly, young women are almost at the turning point to becoming more right wing as well, right? With what appears to be only a .01 or .02 difference from young men.
Sounds like the article should be more focusing on why everyone in the world except the boomers are feeling more despair and the young are rapidly trending towards “control”.
I don’t think you’re reading it correctly. Men 18-34 were the only group that trended towards the control axis compared to 2014. Both women and men 18-34 went much lower on the despair axis compared to 2014, but women still moved towards the freedom axis instead of the control axis.
Look at young women, they went from 3.69 to 3.70, a rapid slow down and only 0.02 point off from a complete reversal.
The next age of women went from 3.45 to 3.55, a much larger move to “freedom”, but they also barely grew despaired.
Young women are almost at the turning point of being more control oriented as well.
In a few more years young women will be more to the control side as well.
What’s alarming is that both young age groups have a massive increase in despair and both are trending towards control, with men leading the path by only a 0.02 difference.
If you extrapolate from that, it will be on the control side in short order. That is a trend, we can predict what will happen based on the observed changes.
You could also interpret those results as young women hitting a wall on how much towards freedom they will go. Every other group was much lower on the freedom scale, so they had more room to move.
I'm not sure I follow. Freedom is a huge issue for young American women, which is why we lean so much towards freedom on the scale. I would imagine the lack of hope would move young women to push for freedom, since a lot of this 'control' stuff involves controlling women. I think it's just as likely if not more likely that the increase in despair didn't change the political leanings because they are already so freedom leaning rather than the young women are a few bad days away from embracing fascism.
Went toward freedom in any amount of time, extrapolated to any other time, will still be in the same direction, aka toward freedom. The direction cannot change when you have two data points and linearly extrapolate
If they went up 0.1 in 10 years, if you extrapolate 10 more years, they'll go up 0.1. If you extrapolate 5 years, they'll go up 0.05. They'll always go up at the rate of 0.1/10 years
Not if you look at the rate of change as well as the change. If it’s trending towards zero, it can be a curve rather than straight line. That can then trend negative.
Think of a car going fast, then applying the brakes. It slows down until it eventually stops.
Now think of a boat. It doesn’t have a brake. It has a reverse throttle. When you want to slow down, the motor goes backwards. When you hit zero, you start to then go backwards. That’s what they are extrapolating.
There's only 2 points, not 3. You can't look at the change of the change with only 2 points. For all we know, if they had done the survey in 2005, women would have been further towards freedom and moved towards control for 2014 and the change of the change would show they're accelerating towards freedom.
The problem, for the likes of Reuters (who is owned by the Thompson family, who are the richest people in Canada) that the problem is the very system that's enriched them and people like them over the last fifty or so years.
They'd need to admit they were wrong in their desires to dismantle the post-WW2 New Deal era, and that while neoliberalism has worked out just dandy for them, it's been a net loss for a lot of people and is only getting worse. And that admission would mean they'd have to make do with less. Not that they'd be poor, but they'd need to be less obscenely rich.
And because this is such a hard admission to make, and because neoliberal technocracy has been working great for them so far, they'll nibble at the edges of the problem, maybe scapegoat a group or two, or fret about culture wars or indulge in the macroeconomic version of bikeshedding instead of dealing with the core issue.
Upton Sinclair was bang on with "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
For anyone who read to the end of the comment above, The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is one of the most powerful books of the 20th century. It is credited with the formation of the FDA and the growth of labor movements throughout the United States. If you have not read it before, read it now.
He also ran as a socialist, and it was the first time in history when the Republicans and Democrats banded together publicly to defeat a 3rd party candidate. They didn't care which of them won, as long as a socialist didn't win. He still won something like 35% of the votes.
Note that the younger generations here (18-34) are primarily comprised of people who were not in that cohort the last time this survey was done. Only 18-24 from the first dot is still in that cohort.
Most of that cohort moved into the middle aged group already.
Oh this can absolutely happen at the less luxurious positions. For instance, FAANG (the big 5 tech companies, if you don't work tech like 3/4 of the Fediverse) can afford to pay salaries well above any other employers. We're talking 200k-400k here, not obscene billionaire-class stuff. Once they grab you, they can treat you worse once you get adjusted to the salary that no one else can match. I've seen it happen to a lot of people who end up miserable until they leave and have to go through the readjustment period.
Until he notices the horse with a placard saying, "Person, man, woman, TV, camera", at which point he'll know he needs to be on his A game. But look at all the horsies, his dad owns a stable full of the fastest horses and the hardest workers, too. You wouldn't believe how fast one of his horses could plow a field.
We all did know, the entire time. So do his cultists. Unfortunately tens of millions of white supremacists will elect an incompetent con man if it means hurting people they consider beneath them.
I don't think anyone has ever said they were stable without being called unstable multiple times...
Like, especially next to genius, no one brags about being stable except people who aren't. It's just not something stable people mention.
Like if you meet someone and they immediately and umpromptly deny that they're on LSD, it's a pretty safe bet they're tripping balls. Because why else even bring it up?
I'll have you know that not only am I not on LSD, I'm also not on speed, I didn't just snort a line of coke, I don't own a crack pipe that I keep in a shoe box, and everything I own doesn't smell like weed.
That's literally what happened. A book was published in which white house officials shared stories which questioned his mental fitness. The stable genius thing was from a series of tweets he sent attacking the book.
“Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” the President continued. “Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star … to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius … and a very stable genius at that!”
Can you imagine the chaos that must come out of TS now? Stupid shit spouted to masses of gullible cultists who must drink it up like it's from the mouth of god. Gibberish, worship... is Trump Pentecostal?
If current disqualifications hold, Trump will have lost access to 33 electoral college votes and needs 270 to win. Assuming it's Trump vs Biden in the general, that's almost half a California.
2020 went 306-232.
Trump won 2016 304-227 partly due to faithless electors.
At the current pace and schedule of the impending Trump trials, and after accounting for judgments already rendered and how those are affecting Republican party bankrolls, it's gonna be a blowout. He's on track to lose another 3 dozen electors by October and that's guessing hyper conservatively
Haley is almost as bad for America, and definitely worse for Palestine and Ukraine than Biden, who she is projected to beat. The difference, quite frankly, is just how blatant the corruption will be.
In the debates, Haley pretty strongly advocated to sending lethal aid to Ukraine (I guess you could be arguing that sending aid to Ukraine, prolonging the war, is bad for Ukraine).
The entire Republican party is a threat to democracy and human rights at this point in time. Project 2025 will likely go ahead with any Republican president. Crazy right-wing, christo-fascist, and "states rights" civil servants and justices will be appointed, and they'd probably be able to lock Demcrats out of control of the federal government for decades to come (by allowing intense gerrymandering, strategic polling location placement, giving state governments the ability to override voting results, etc).
She will do a bunch of dumb Republican stuff and make America objectively worse for a lot of people. But the Republic will survive her presidency at least.
I'm baffled as to how people can knowingly make things worse and feel good about because what they did was "right". The whole idea that an action can be right despite making things worse for everyone is completely alien to me, but I know that's literally how some people think.
If they are voting in the primary, I doubt they will skip the general election. It's more than likely a reminder to the administration that their voter base is not happy with the current decision making. If they are protesting stuff like this, they are most likely D voters anyway (over 90 % of D voters are pro-ceasefire vs 53? % for the R voterbase.
Correct me if I'm wrong but being removed from the primary ballot has no real standing for general election. It doesn't matter that he can't be on the primary when the GOP has chosen him already. It's just posturing. He hasn't lost any electoral votes.
I just said I didn't understand your comment. That was your chance to explain to me what you meant or what I was missing. Instead you turned to insults. So I'll just assume not only was your comment wrong and you couldn't explain yourself, you took it personally. That's all the clarification I needed. Cheers!
You feel insulted because I said you stopped short? It's the truth. I fully and openly qualified what I said as a projection into the general election. Your comment seemed to be based on everything up to the words "in the general."
I'll switch to insults if that's what you really prefer.
You’re an odd little monkey. They didn’t say they were insulted, nor did they try to insult you. You’re being overly hostile at not being understood, and honestly I have no idea what you’re trying to say either.
Literally quotes "assuming it's Trump vs Biden in the general" to try and prove their point no one understands. Then gets mad that the comment after is made about the literal 8 words they quoted as a rebuttal. You are a comical person.
You're not wrong. However, it's still massively consequential because if he can be taken off the ballot for the primary, he will also be taken off the ballot for the general. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules. Will they decide to create a new legal test at the federal level? Will they throw it back to Congress? Since they supposedly love states rights so much, will they leave it up to each state to decide?
Each option is incredibly consequential. Option 1 allows the Supreme Court to disqualify candidates. Option 2 turns it into a political contest, like an impeachment proceeding. Option 3 is absolute chaos, since we know some states will disingenuously retaliate by removing Biden from their ballot regardless of whether there is any merit to an insurrection charge.
Right. I wasn't trying to say that this isn't setting precedent that will help for later rulings. Let's just not count our chickens before they hatch. Some people are acting like Trump is already down electoral votes because of this, which he isn't. That's the only point I was trying to make l.
It's not just a count of electoral votes, the votes are not '50/50' shot.
Colorado has been consistently democrat for 16 years , Illinois and Maine for like 30 years. These weren't going to Trump no way no how.
Also true that Biden cancelled it in his first months in office... Who knows how long it takes to get fully up to speed on everything bad we have going on?
Also Also true that it started and ran longer under a different regime.
The military program started under former President Donald Trump and continued months into Joe Biden’s presidency, Reuters found – even after alarmed social media executives warned the new administration that the Pentagon had been trafficking in COVID misinformation. The Biden White House issued an edict in spring 2021 banning the anti-vax effort, which also disparaged vaccines produced by other rivals, and the Pentagon initiated an internal review, Reuters found.
???
Not saying I'm super impressed with the bidden admnistration, but "started it with an explicit goal of spreading misinformation and "took them a couple months to put a stop to it" are not the same thing. Your statement sounds like it's trying to draw that false equivillency.
That’s not enough. We want investigations that bring consequences.
Edit: the people who are commenting below about how “we have no control” etc etc, I just want to say, “Shut the fuck up.” Nobody wants you around anymore. Just because YOU have been a weak POS your entire life spouting off weak, sad bullshit trying to divert REAL change doesn’t mean that the rest of the country is like you. Go back to your holes because I promise if you don’t and you keep acting up, we will put you there in finality. The public isn’t stupid, and they aren’t weak. It’s scumbags within the wealth class that are protected by losers like you all naysayers and class traitors who try to make it seem that way. Trump and Biden is a symptom of class traitors turning on the public, not a show of force by the elites. Best recognize.
What we want, and what happens in reality, have absolutely no connection. Money is what makes the world go around. Money is the only thing that matters to our society.
No, it’s the only thing that matters to our current leadership. That can be changed. Either by changing their minds, or by removing and replacing them.
Oh I’m not assuming the system isn’t owned by the rich. But the people in power can still be removed and replaced, even if the methods in place aren’t setup for it. The French are pretty good at it, for example.
Do we really though? Don't get me wrong it's some of the most entertaining content I've seen on the Internet but I think it brings more harm than good on the whole, especially with the fervor around GME that spun off into being downright delusional. I'd prefer if we don't end up bringing that over here tbh.
I think the 'old' wsb even would be sort of borderline with the egging on and memefication of gambling one's life savings on weeklies
I think what may buoy them is the fact that you must append “Reddit” to searches, however, ChatGPT, DuckDuckGo, and Kagi are giving them a run for their money
Not financial advice, but there's been a few times I wanted to short something (I didn't in the end) but one thing to watch out for after an IPO is the date insiders are allowed to start selling stock. It's often 6 months or so after the IPO and can cause share price to drop.
So if a company jumps in value post IPO, there might be an opportunity to short it at some point, with the options expiring a period of time after the insider sell off date.
I imagine I'm going to do some paper trades on reddit on this and see what happens. I'm rooting for them to do poorly. Fuck u/Spez
Edit: And to clarify, I mean buy puts on something. I'd never short something directly.
2021-01-02 Trump on a call with Georgia election officials asked them "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Not an official act on any planet in this solar system, how is this not a loss for Trump?
The court decides which acts are official. They will declare whatever they want official. "He was doing it in his capacity as president to protect the election. He knew he won, so the votes must just be missing."
Problem is that with this, proving that it fell under one power basically means all other laws, even ones that specifically were meant to restrict that power, are meaningless. What he did could be 100% illegal, but he can't be prosecuted for it, so he can't be removed from office or punished after he leaves office.
If he was making that call as the official president of the United States, speaking in an official capacity, then it doesn't matter if the order he gives is illegal if it was within his power to order the Governor of a state to do anything at all. If it's not in his power for him to give an order to the Governor, then he just has to say it was an official suggestion as the president of the US. There's no restriction that says a president can't suggest that the Governor of a state does something to benefit the president. Doesn't matter that the thing he asked for was illegal because it can't be questioned in court at all to determine its legality.
Now it depends on if the Governor were to actually do it. And if as president Trump decides to order the assassination of that Governor once he refused, that would not be prosecutable. The assassin would be the only one who could be punished for the illegal act.
Immunity from prosecution doesn't mean the thing you're doing isn't legal, it means that no one has the right to punish you for that act. It's still unethical to break the law, but there is no enforceable consequence.
"Chief Justice Roberts determines that “official conduct,” which garners presumptive immunity under the Court’s framework, may not be used as evidence of other crimes when prosecuting former presidents."
My understanding, a president having an "official" meeting with his staff regarding commiting a crime that falls outside of his normal presidential duties is no longer admissible as evidence for the criminal act.
He can be charged for private acts, but as long as he used official communication to discuss it with others that can't be used as evidence. Then the stacked courts get to decide what is official and private, so private is effectively immune as well.
reuters.com
Top