If you look at 2020 and 2021 was when the most violence was, and that was almost all from the left. I dont really know what part of that doesnt make sense.
It's irrelevant to the topic of politic parties. One party is eroding US democracy för seemingly the sole purpose of fattening their owners, the fossil fuel industry, and the other party wants to pretend this isn't happening.
Outside of violence, the left side is also the side trying to destroy the system that makes all of our lives better. And no, the right isnt the only one giving handouts to the large corporations.
In short, the right may be cool with big oil, but the left is either more in bed with big corporations (democrats) or literally want to detroy it all (leftists).
Better than what will actually happen- fail to use powerful new tool for presidential oppression, watch the other side use it, surprise pikachu, hand wringing, impotent mewling, get sent to death camps for failing to salute your neighborhood God emperor proxy fast enough.
It's never fine, but at this point we're just arguing over which direction the national corpse collapses. Insurrection is more what happened before this point.
This isn't really anything new since whenever executive orders became a thing. With executive orders, a president can start a war or force the entire population to stay home or wear masks in public. I think it's way too much power and needs to be scaled back big time. But here we are anyway.
It's funny you say how insurrection is fine when one side does it meanwhile January 6th was a literal coup attempt that has been downplayed by every politician involved.
All those present are given slaps on the wrist while the masterminds behind it remain in power with no repercussions whatsoever to the point the main leader of the coup was just given fucking immunity to commit domestic terrorism and act like a fuckin king.
So yeah it would be perfectly fine if Biden called for the assassination of not only Trump but every current sitting scotus member and whatever congressman he deems fit for execution.
January 6 is not even close to the same league as assassination of political rivals and overthrowing the Supreme Court, and if you think it is then you are either insane or are willfully blinded by partisanship.
I'm not sure exactly what they were trying to do on Jan 6, but the fact nobody had guns, there was no clear plan, and it didn't even come close to working, makes it significantly less of a problem than straight up murder of the opposition and the entire government. Actually not sure why I'm even having this conversation. You have to be either insane or trolling me.
Donald Trump called the election a fraud months before his loss, told his supporters to show up and force Pence to declare him president despite losing the election. His supporters showed up, erected a noose, demanded Pence be hanged, and came very close to killing him by Pence's own testimony.
it didn't even come close to working
Contrary to your beliefs that the thousands of right wing extremists that stormed the capitol were completely unarmed, plenty were heavily armed and came very close to being face to face with Democratic members of Congress. Things could have gone very differently that day if the insurrectionists had managed to go as far as they were willing to. We're lucky that our representatives were able to get to safety before the mob arrived.
Well I looked into it, and there were 4 confirmed people who brought guns. I'm certain there were others who were never discovered, but clearly violence was not a serious part of the plan to overthrow the government. I'm certain that some of the more extreme members were capable of violence and even murdering certain politicians, but that has always been true. It has also always been wrong and we should never act like it's ok no matter who is attempting it.
clearly violence was not a serious part of the plan to overthrow the government.
This is the single most delusional string of words I've ever read.
You go from claiming that there was no coherent plan, to saying that the plan is "clear" enough that we can rule out violence as a part of it.
4 people fucking died in a coordinated attempt to storm the capitol where an armed mob assaulted and killed police officers, smashed through windows, pissed and shit in hallways and offices, and demanded that politicians be killed.
And you're saying that violence "clearly" wasn't part of the plan?
Is this some kind of bit where you pretend to be as stupid as possible, because I don't get it.
Well except there is a whole police force in the way, and they ALL have guns. The one person who possibly posed a danger to congress members was immediately shot dead when she tried to get close.
For once, I just want Democrats to take a fucking bold brazen move. Seriously. This is why Democrats never control the narrative because they're always too gun-shy to do the right thing and stand by their own beliefs.
Ditch the 81-year-old clearly suffering cognitive decline; run what would be a viral media frenzy that is an open convention and an American Idol contest for the American people.
Or fuck it: AOC will be old enough to be President this year. Even if she can't get the nomination, she should start campaigning literally today until 2028, just like Trump does.
Edit: Sorry, going to move this to the top of the thread because it's too important:
Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we're not fucked. I really do. The past three days I've gone into detail about how I think we're fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I've yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.
There is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.
Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I've so far seen:
To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."
So I don't know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let's recap:
We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.
Biden took this debate because he is currently losing and needed to break the stagnant, steadily-declining polls.
Biden's performance is worse than his 2020 run and in fact, worse than Hillary's losing run in 2016 by every single metric I can find.
There is a MASSIVE amount of risk that Biden's condition deteriorates more rapidly between now and November, and following the convention there is no more backing out.
If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.
Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.
While I understand what you mean, we also have to recognize that doing that would 100% give trump the election. Splitting the votes is not what we want to do.
With all due respect if we're speaking in terms of certainty, I am 100% certain that Biden will give Trump the election—and I guarantee I have more evidence to support that statement than anyone does to the opposite conclusion. Staying this course is a disaster in slow-motion. The Titanic already hit the iceberg and now we're just sinking for 4 months straight. We either jump ship now, or we are going to lose, or we start gearing up for 2028 now.
I completely disagree. While the debate felt disastrous, there is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.
The worst possible thing we can do right now is just jump ship this close to an election. Biden has one bad debate, and is fine the day after(another thing people conveniently love to ignore) and we're just supposed to restart. What if the new candidate does poorly at the second debate? We just pick another person again?
Biden beat Trump last time. Trump has only grown weaker and lost support, while Biden has been extremely successful. Everyone is upset about the debate performance, but it will not be even close to as impactful as people are convincing themselves it will be.
Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we're not fucked. I really do. The past three days I've gone into detail about how I think we're fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I've yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.
There is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.
Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I've so far seen:
To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."
So I don't know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let's recap:
We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.
Biden took this debate because he is currently losing and needed to break the stagnant, steadily-declining polls.
Biden's performance is worse than his 2020 run and in fact, worse than Hillary's losing run in 2016 by every single metric I can find.
There is a MASSIVE amount of risk that Biden's condition deteriorates more rapidly between now and November, and following the convention there is no more backing out.
If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.
Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.
Yes, beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting and ideological purity testing. Most Democrats are terrified of taking stances on wedge issues because any stance they take could break up a coalition that has all the durability of a Faberge egg. Republicans either don't have this problem, or they don't have it as bad. Despite having as many if not more factions than the Left, they all value loyalty and in-group cohesion, which allows them to come together every 4 years to form a unified voting bloc.
Fear and Hatred run the Republican Party, and unites them.
You have idiot outliers like the Log Cabin republicans who, for whatever fucked up reason (its money. its always money) chose to align themselves, and you'll have the occasional group break away briefly from the groupthink.
But when it comes to the polls, they are a pretty unified bloc.
I'll be honest, Linkerbaan — and you may know this from our previous discussions — I can even see the high-stakes situation with Israel and not like it but understand why in the grand scheme of politics (AIPAC, Jewish American voters, and the risk of withholding arms and then a false-flag terrorist attack occurs on Israeli soil, only to cause an immediate end of Biden's campaign and an installation of someone FAR more pro-genocide).... But nevertheless, your point raises something I think we can both agree on: Ditching Biden also helps, as Mehdi Hasan has pointed out, ditch the baggage of Israeli genocide complicity.
I don't believe witholding offensive weapons would risk anything.
I agree with you about AIPAC. But playing their corrupt games does not excuse anything. If Biden wanted he could ban AIPAC.
It's like people are admitting that israel controls America and are just fine with it. I'll never understand it.
Progressives don't differ between Biden or Trump. Genocide is Genocide. Biden is getting all the flak simply because he's in power right now and he's the one who can stop the Genocide. It would be very convenient if Trump was in power for Democrats right now. Everyone would rally against Trump for doing what Biden is doing now.
The moment Biden stops the Genocide is when I'll stop dunking on him every 5 seconds. I've stated that... Eight months ago... Sad reality.
Of course the Kremlin, and Israel as well as other state actors are; but the obvious question then becomes — what is the Biden campaign actually doing to offset that effect? They are losing the battle and time is running out.
Small clarification, Nate is no longer part of 538. He got laid off by ABC out of nowhere a year or two ago. He does his own thing, 538 has a different person at the helm for the model (Morris).
She wont be able to do anything. The reason supreme court decided to move forward with this decision is because they are 100% confident that Trump will win presidency and republicans will control both the house and the Senate. After seeing Biden in the last debate, I believe they are right.
Or — just maybe — the guy is able to judge reality for what it is. We’re getting trump unless there’s some black swan. I’m voting Brandon, but he’s a fucking disaster right now and the swing state polls are grim as fuck. Best case scenario he fucks off to the next life and we get a new nominee.
Before you accuse me of wanting trump, check my fucking comment history.
I'm going to vote for Biden. I will vote for a used condom before I vote for Trump. But it is my opinion that we already lost the election. We must point fingers and hold the responsible parties accountable, otherwise we will make the same mistake again and again and again...
Biden has dementia! I have seen it with my two eyes. My father was diagnosed with dementia 3-4 years ago and my father is Albert Einstein compared to Biden right now. DNC and establishment Dems have been lying to us! All in order to push a corporate backed establishment president down our throats. We could have younger and more able presidential candidate if DNC acted accordingly 2 years ago. I'm too fucking pissed off to bite your "calling DNC on their bullshit will turn you to a trump supporter" line!
I am aggressively attacking DNC and all of their astroturfing on Reddit and here because I am 100% confident that we lost the election already.
The Supreme Court must be impartial regardless of legislative and executive political mudslinging of the time. That's the whole point of different branches of government.
If SCOTUS made the decision after seeing Trump and Biden debate, or knowing Republicans will control both houses, then they aren't doing their job as they should. There's a reason why juries are encouraged not to watch TV or media that would cloud their decision, and the same should apply to judges.
People forget the bloody whole point of checks and balance!
I'd be okay with a violent one. Drag the justices out and tar and feather them. They want to make this country great again? Fine. Let's show them what made it great: vigilante justice against tyranny.
The Supreme Court must be impartial regardless of legislative and executive political mudslinging of the time.
then they aren’t doing their job as they should.
There were times in my life when I was pretty much a functioning alcoholic. If you think that the supreme court has even a shred of decency left, then I want to drink what you are drinking. I don't think I ever got that drunk it my life.
They didn't forget: they explictly and knowingly realized they could abuse the checks and balances and there would be no consequences. And they have so far been right.
It breaks my heart to say this but my father was diagnosed with dementia few years ago and he has been battling dementia ever since then. Before we insisted on taking him to the doctor, we could see a lot of signs that made us think "can it be that?". My father is Albert Einstein compared to Biden at the debate.
If you think "Biden just had a bad night" or "He just had a cold" then I regret to inform you that is copium and you are coping. There is no fucking way in hell that was just one bad night or cold. There is no fucking way in hell his cabinet or DNC has not been aware of these issues for at least couple years.
As my father's doctor explained us, there is no cure for this. He will continuously get worse no matter what. What we are trying to do with all these drugs is to slow down his progress, so his natural end of life happens before his quality of life totally disappears.
Fuck man, this is such hard thing to bear and type out.
Maybe the Supreme Court knows something we dont.... for example some folks on the electoral college having been promised bribes... I mean "gratuities" for voting Trump in no matter what the popular vote is.
I'm not saying that's definitely happened, but at this rate the corruption in our government has gone so far it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Especially with the absolute crock of shit that's been pouring out of the Supreme Courts rulings and how it's conveniently setting them up for this, or something similar.
No need to. Biden can have the 6 corrupt justices killed. He has the immunity and he can pick new justices. If members of the senate refuse to put the new justices on the bench, have them killed too. No rules anymore.
Who says he can't? The Supreme Court just said that he's immune from "official acts" without even defining what that would mean. Who determines what is and isn't an official act? The President? The Supreme Court? Right now, as this ruling is worded, all bets are off. There's nothing stopping a sitting President from just arbitrarily declaring someone as a threat to national security and having them picked off by ST6 as an "official act to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States", then just having the details classified.
Having something criminal declared as an "official act" is piss-easy, especially when you're in charge of the branch making the decision and you have one of the other branches in your back pocket, possibly both.
The laws about that were just thrown out the window with this ruling. Everything is an official act as long as he was president when he stated it to he done. Ordering fries from McDonald's is now an official act as well.
Don’t bother with this “user”. Look at their comment history. The person showed up today to defend this obvious act against democracy. My guess is a Russian/Chinese misinformation promoter.
You can organize a coup to overthrow the government and claim it's an official act, there's absolutely nothing stopping a president from claiming assassinations are an official act now. Hell, the commander in chief already organizes assassinations on foreign targets.
The Democrats might not abuse this, but the Republicans will, and they have given themselves carte blanche to start killing political dissidents.
There's some hyperbole in these threads for sure, but not a lot. The president can't handwave away the bill of rights, because nothing in the constitution gives them that power.
However, the president does have the authority as commander in chief of authorizing lethal force against individuals. If Biden authorized Seal Team 6 to execute Trump, that is in fact an official act that he has the authority to perform. Sure maybe it is technically not legal, but that doesn't matter since the president has complete immunity from criminal law. The house could still draft articles of impeachment but the senate would be unable to remove the president because the president is immune to criminal proceedings.
And if Trump wants to create an organization to round up and execute all the gays (and the Jews, of course), he has the power to do that; and with today's ruling, he will never face consequences for doing so.
Irreparable damage has been done to American democracy today.
The supreme court Supreme Court Justices disagree with you, but OK I'll bite.
Why can't a president kill an american citizen on american soil? Because it's illegal? Do you understand that that that no longer applies to the president?
The president can't commit criminal acts and claim it was an official capacity, lol.
What the fuck do you mean "lol". That is PRECISELY what this ruling does. It removes criminal liability for anything that is done as an official act, which is entirely fucking subjective, and up to the interpretation of a corrupt, coopted judiciary. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
The stupidity of this statement truly strains belief given the actual verbiage in this ruling. May you suffer the full weight and consequences of that stupidity.
A person of power cannot commit a crime and claim it was in official capacity, because the act itself is against the law and cannot be committed without consequence.
This whole ruling is because of a person in power (Trump) who committed a crime (fake electors plot to overturn the 2020 election) and is claiming it as an official capacity of the office. That's the whole point of the case which was appealed to the Supreme Court.
So what consequence will Trump face for his crimes now based on this ruling?
While i agree with you, it's a huge grey area. Like Biden could have trump assassinated and then claim that his constitutional duties require him to protect the cotus from enemies both foreign and domestic.
In fact, it would have to be the DoJ or Congress that did so - Biden could order the DoJ to stop, and arguably could have anyone in Congress killed or jailed without trial by stating that they presented a clear danger to democracy by trying to impeach him.
“Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution” makes pretty much anything fair fucking game.
“The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,”
I don't understand how you can confuse this sentence. People act like the president can commit any crime they want. That is categorically false. Crimes committed in the name in the highest office of the land are not o in an official capacity.
The U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that limit the powers of the president and prevent the president from committing crimes without consequences:
Article I, Section 2 and Section 3: These sections provide the House of Representatives the power to impeach the president and the Senate the power to try and convict the president. Impeachment is a process by which the president can be removed from office for committing "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Article II, Section 4: This section specifically states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The president must take an oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This oath implies a legal and ethical obligation to adhere to the law and Constitution.
Checks and Balances: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, whereby the legislative and judicial branches can limit the actions of the executive branch. Congress can pass laws, override presidential vetoes, and control the budget, while the judiciary can review the constitutionality of presidential actions through judicial review.
Together, these provisions and principles ensure that the president is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.
The problem here is that Trump stole and likely sold classified documents. This ruling now allows him to sell secrets that can cause grave danger to the country without consequence.
When confronted with fascist Threats liberals always blink. They'll wade through masses of bodies to destroy what they perceive to be a leftist threat, but they don't stand up to fascists.
All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea.
Yeah. There was also the title, literally "dictator", that was bestowed on individuals in times of crisis (or perceived crisis), and in some cases the power of the dictator was returned to the republic when the crisis was addressed (see Cincinnatus). Rome had an established process for giving power to the dictator.
Liberal politicians do not need to be the ones to make sure #1 happens. The second amendment literally exists so the citizens have the capacity to do that ourselves.
He does, but why would the president tell the army to do nothing when the people are rising up against said president? Nobody is that stupid, any rise up against the government will end with the military curb stomping it in about 15 minutes.
Domestic wars are never pretty, no matter how powerful the military. Most people in the military don't serve to shoot their own country. Countries don't want to damage their own infrastructure or enflame their own people. Oligarchs won't support a war that damages their bottom line. People vastly over simply how easy it would be to stop an armed resistance.
Most of those where cops only larping as military. Military operations are a completely different thing. No country wants to fight their own people. Your own logistics, intelligence, supply chains, and financing all rely, in part, on the very people you are fighting... You can't trust or count on the chain of command at any point, at any point your keys to power can turn on you and you're dead. Leaders with half a brain know you usually don't have a long life attacking your own people.
It wasn't a joke from me. Democracy dies when the good man does nothing. I am a good man and I will fight for this democracy, as fucked up as it is. The right believes the left to be weak pacifists because we choose compromise, tolerance, and acceptance over bigotry, hate, and subjugation. They will need to learn the hard way that we choose that because we know that mutually beneficial social contracts make living better and provide a safe, prosperous world. They obviously do not want to be party to these social contracts with me, so I will not allow them any of the safety or benefits.
What does Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with America and taking arms up against our government? You really think a bunch of hillbillies with guns are going to do shit against our military?
Option 2 is suicide. I guess that's it for American Democracy. Of course, option 3 being that the Democrats win every election until the Republican party collapses. At which point the Democratic party will likely split, with one part becoming a moderate party, and the other half absorbing the remains of the Republican party.
The quickest way to save the country would be for Biden to kill the 6 justices that ruled in favour of immunity (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even mind since they're the ones that made it legal), install 6 liberal judges and the new court can overturn every ruling the corrupt court made. Which means Biden would probably end up in prison, but hey, it's a small price to pay for democracy.
Yep. They made an official ruling, Biden acts on it appropriately, new Justices get appointed in a month (or else), new Court orders a review of every case the six fascists ruled on.
Oh, what do you know, first out the door, no, extrajudicial murder powers aren't supported by the Constitution!
"Hey everyone, things are NOT going our way in the Supreme Court, and we need to change everything about our judicial, political, and constitutional system!" - Sincerely, Democrats.
Blatant misinformation and a fundamental lack of understanding of the ruling. Nothing changed. President cannot commit a crime and say it was in official capacity. Obviously.
And you have all the reasons to be terrified, the US in case of a Trump victory will either:
a) Go isolationist, dissolve the NATO, then let the power vacuum to be filled by Russia and China (one is better than the other), all while a big ultranationalist movement will claim to fix the issues.
b) Make whatever insanity Trump's christofascist call "morals" into the global standards for human rights, heavily censor the internet, etc.
A second Trump victory will have dire consequences for the rest of the world.
If the President can communicate with the DoJ or VP, even about doing something illegal or as part of some illegal scheme and be immune to prosecution because being in contact with the VP and DoJ are part of his duties, why would talking to the CIA to ask them to "retire" SCOTUS justices not be an official act that's immune to prosecution?
Shooting political rivals probably isn't an official act, but presumably he could ask, she could shoot and he could pardon and I think it would be untouchable?
The dissent said the president can now assassinate someone. The president enjoys no such authority, and therefore, the dissent must be discarded as not a serious opinion.
People have been saying that for years. Why not make voting something we don't need to get out to do though? I think it's ridiculous and frankly anti-democratic to only count votes from people that travel to a polling station in the 21st century.
Voting gives us no control with the current party system. We need ranked choice voting, end campaigns and advertising. Only 1 website will have the candidates and their platforms, tax funded only, anyone who wants to run can run and ranked choice voting will make the actual most popular acceptable candidate win.
Yes, but until we have rcv, we make do with the system we have, flaws and all. Unless you're suggesting we don't vote at all because we are unhappy with the system...?
the democrats literally cancelled their effective primary and selected Biden. Remember Tulsi Gabbard? They won't let her run cause she'd fucking win, same as Sanders. It's a one party state, and it's not subtle
That's simply not true, Tulsi Gabbard had the opportunity to submit her name to the primary election after getting enough signatures just like Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson did.
She didn't even do that, the most basic step of trying to become president, I wouldn't blame the DNC for her not bothering with the basics.
During a Fox & Friends interview on March 6, 2024, Gabbard was directly asked about serving as Trump's vice-president. She responded, "I would be honored to serve our country in that way and be in a position to help President Trump..." In March 2024, Gabbard was cited by Trump as one of his potential choices for his vice presidential running mate.
I'm a little confused. Isn't their ruling just a deferral back to lower courts?
They didn't grant him absolute immunity, they just reaffirmed the incredibly broad language in Article II Section 3 of the Constitution.
They're not giving him immunity for everything he did as president, they just aren't interested in being the authority that decides what is or isn't an "official act". They are letting lower courts decide that.
If there's something I'm missing here, I would love to know, but it feels like people are misunderstanding this decision en masse.
It allows for immunity to any "official acts" by the president while they are in office and does not define what an "unofficial" act would be. So if an action is challenged from the lower courts it'll end up at the supreme court where they will deem it official or unofficial.
Which brings the onus of dethroning a king president up to the Congress to impeach them. Which has never happened. However, we have impeached a supreme court justice in the past.
This, to my understanding, is how things already worked. We've just never had to draw the line before because we haven't ever had to charge a former president with a crime. My understanding is that the SCOTUS refused to draw the line, not that they granted the office of president absolute immunity.
They did rule that you can't question a president about his motivations or reasons for any particular act when determining whether it was official or not. Only whether the act itself qualifies as official or not, regardless of the reason behind it.
I think the Dems are trying to spin this as another item in the "war for Democracy" when really it's just the SC re-affirming the constitution. It's also very conveniently timed to detract attention from the growing calls for Biden to step down after his less than ideal debate performance.
When an item gets put onto the political agenda list, it becomes polarized and if you are on Party A or Party B you immediately support or reject it based on affiliation with little thought.
Can we also acknowledge how horrible reporting is on major cases and rulings? I've seen barely any coverage of Loper Bright and what the headlines say about it is largely inaccurate.
This is standard campaigning strategy. If the news cycle is bad for your candidate, try to refocus the narrative. Now people aren't talking about Biden's age but the SC decision.
They're making a bigger deal about it than it actually is in order to better their chances for campaign.
I don't see the conspiracy in this, it's standard stuff.
So, the Biden administration had the majority conservative Supreme Court rule that Presidents are immune from prosecution. Obviously, Biden is hiding his power level. /s
You're not understanding me. I'm not claiming he orchestrated this decision. I'm saying his campaign is using this decision as an opportunity to deflect attention away from the concerns around his age that erupted after the debate.
Never let a good crisis go to waste and all that. Am I speaking Greek?
They're making a bigger deal about it than it actually is
If, however, the court’s decision frees future presidents to act in corrupt, even criminal ways, then the “rule for the ages” articulated in this opinion will have a major impact upon the separation of powers among the three branches of government, potentially giving far more power to the president than has been the case throughout American history. That will have huge implications for the functioning of the presidency and the stability, if not existence, of American democracy. source
It’s a big deal. Of course Biden would rather talk about the case, it undermines the entire democracy. His age will continue to be a focus of the election, Republicans will not let it go.
I've read a couple of the majority opinions and dissenter opinions
The president already had presumptive immunity for official acts. This basically just reinforces the precedent and sets up a framework for determining official vs unofficial.
Nothing about this ruling fundamentally changes Trump's position except that he has the option of claiming he was "acting officially" for example during Jan 6th. Then it will go up to USSC and they will determine the specifics case by case
Why does it not matter as much as it seems? Because a president already had presumptive immunity for official acts before.
Yes, it's important. But it's not the end to democracy. It essentially creates a check against the executive branch by the judicial branch. And honestly, I'm OK with that considering how powerful the executive branch is.
Biden's campaigners don't care about any of that. It's their job to get people to vote. They don't care about the truth. I get it, I would do the same thing in their position.
Everybody talking about replacing you because of your terrible debate performance? Blast the "End to democracy" tagine as loud as you can so that news cycle changes.
It worked like a charm, I think it was a good strategic move
So what am I afraid of? I'm afraid of, first of all, that people don't recognize what a big deal this is. This isn't an adjustment in the law. This is a change in our entire constitutional system. It says that there is one of the three branches of government that cannot be checked by the other two.
And I don't think that people necessarily understand what that means. And all you have to do is look to any authoritarian country. Look, for example, right now in Hungary, where Viktor Orban is busily taking control of other countries' companies that are within his country, because he can do that now. He's not checked by the courts.
Look at Vladimir Putin's Russia, for example, where he can simply throw his people into the maw of a meat grinder in that war because they can't say no. We have just — our Supreme Court has just done the same thing. sourceHeather Cox Richardson
You're getting downvoted because Lemmy, but that's more or less how I read the ruling as well. They ruled very specifically in a way that let them punt on all the other questions these trials have created.
That's like letting your oldest kid do whatever he wants, and after punching your other two little kids and eating their candy you let him figure out if he should be punished and you let him punish himself.
I guess I just don't understand Sotomayor's response. She says that Trump got the immunity he asked for, but that's not true. He was asking for everything he did as president to be considered an "official act", and they deferred to the lower courts.
It doesn't appear that anything actually changed. I am assuming I am wrong on that, but none of the articles I have read so far have answered that question. There are just a lot of assertions that he was granted absolute immunity, which doesn't match the language of the court's opinion.
I would have preferred that they draw a line on specific acts not being considered "official acts", especially as we draw the line between Trump's presidency and his 2020 reelection campaign. I'm just not seeing a lot of honest discourse as to what this decision actually means from a legal perspective.
What it does set up though is an official legal stand to say that the supreme Court gets to decide what's "official". Meaning they can decide that all Trump's actions are official and all of Biden's (or whatever dem president) are not
This was already the arrangement. That's why Trump was even at the Supreme Court. He was asking for them to decide that everything he did as president was an "official act". They gave the right to decide that back to the lower courts, where it could theoretically come back to them with a more specific set of actions that they need to decide upon.
Of course, the idea that the SCOTUS is corrupted to the point that they would protect Republicans and sabotage Democrats is a worth discussing, but that seems like a wholly different issue that we allowed the highest court in the country to be corrupted by overt partisanship.
It doesn't seem so much that the claim is that the SCOTUS gave Trump immunity, but that nobody trusts the court system to draw that line to begin with.
The American justice system works on the idea of precedence. Cases have ruling decisions and the interpretation of the law that comes from those decisions becomes law. It wasn't clear before the ruling because there was no precedent. Now the precedent that has been set that going forward, the supreme Court (currently politically motivated to the right) will have final say over whether or not a sitting or former president may be tried and prosecuted for decisions they made or actions they took in office. What would have been the correct thing to do with the least political implication (the supreme Court is meant to be free from political biases) would have been to define what actions are illegal according to the law. But they didn't want to define actions as legal or illegal, they want the ability to justify them making case by case judgements which give them the opportunity to push their aforementioned bias.
I think your confusion is warranted, because it's not clear how SCOTUS' decision is different from what the Constitution comes right out and says. On the surface, it does seem to just reaffirm what we already know, and maybe the liberal justices are just whinging.
The trick is that they did it in a way that causes a lot more work in the courts. In turn, that means Trump's trials get delayed further.
Nobody sane is going to argue that getting a hostile crowd to surround and storm the capitol while an important procedural vote is taking place is an official act of a President. But now it has to be ruled on, specifically, and that's one more thing to add to the pile before the obvious verdict can be reached.
Trump's lawyers have already filed an argument in the hush money case that certain points of evidence should be removed because they were official acts. If so, that would potentially result in a mistrial, and so the only Trump criminal case that went forward would have to be redone.
What worries me is that if is the case that the liberal justices are just whinging, then we're in even deeper shit, because that would suggest that the liberal justices are making decisions directly in the context of restraining the threat of a future Trump presidency, and that means every single member of the SCOTUS has abandoned being an impartial constitutional judge...
I would have preferred that they draw a line on specific acts not being considered "official acts", especially as we draw the line between Trump's presidency and his 2020 reelection campaign. I'm just not seeing a lot of honest discourse as to what this decision actually means from a legal perspective.
Well, that's exactly the problem that has everyone up in arms here. They have made this ruling but conveniently failed to rule on what constitutes an "official" act. Therefore whenever a major ruling has to be done about this, they can decide at that time whether an act was official or not based on what flavor of president they're ruling for or against, and until then the lower courts can take the heat off the SCOTUS directly by just ruling that everything Trump has ever done is legal because he was president once.
It's a very transparently partisan ruling, setting the stage for further partisan ruling in the future by being extremely vague about what their ruling actually is. This ruling boils down to "the president is allowed to do anything he wants when we say so, and is subject to rule of law only when we say so, and whether we say so will be determined after the acts in question." In this way the conservative-packed supreme court can easily enable a conservative president or trap a liberal one.
They’re not giving him immunity for everything he did as president, they just aren’t interested in being the authority that decides what is or isn’t an “official act”. They are letting lower courts decide that.
That's pretty much what they did but that's not how it's being presented by the media so you've got 30,000,000 people all riled up and ready to riot. I would have preferred if SCOTUS found a way to definitively settle this without the Remands but I understand why they did it.
The lower court will take about an hour to decide that this stuff was "unofficial" and write the legal narrative supporting that. Hell I'd be shocked if it wasn't already done. This isn't even close to over.
The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.
Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.
I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.
This is what leadership is, what voters want, and what wins elections.
Doesn't matter if it works, it's trying and highlighting that issues can be fixed. We might not succeed the first time, but we'll keep fucking trying till we do.
Put the votes on record and show voters where people stand.
And yet, she'll never win a presidential election because she's too polarizing. There's literally no other way to win here if somebody else steps in. Sad that people try to do good in their job as a public representative for their people, and just fucking can't.
Edit to say: don't just take my word for it. Ask Bernie Sanders. Did he win the presidency at some point? I just must have..,..
And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing
Imagine saying that after Obama flipped a bunch of red states and brought in a shit ton of down ballot races.
AOC is polarizing, but not as much as Obama and it's easier the second time around.
Hell, no body even really mentioned Biden being Catholic in 1988. You should have seen the shit they said about JFK. And similar time-frames passed between.
And strictly police wise, the country is a lot more open to progressive policy than in 08, and again, everyone said Obama was too "polarizing" right up till election results.
There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now
What?
Literally what's how what works?
Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.
Fair and open primaries, mate.
I've been saying it since NH had their delegates stolen.
Well, this cycle, almost a decade now in total. This ain't exactly a new problem, and it's not like no one can think of a solution.
It's just not easy beating corporate money in primaries until enough Dem voters demand the party sets higher standards. And most people only pay atteyonce every 4 years, then they're too exhausted to care about politics.
I will vote for her so hard given the chance. Unfortunately, I'm still just one vote. I want to agree with you, but I'm not sure I can. I'd sure love to see her give it a real run, with a DNC that supporter her and didn't drag her to the center or actively undercut her primary chances.
I don't understand your point... Obama won two presidential elections in a row. It would seem as though that "selling himself as a progressive convincingly worked out pretty well for him id say.
So you're saying that the people want a progressive candidate, but the Dems would, at most, give us the option of someone who sells themselves as progressive but is an actual neo-liberal?
Oh, maybe I do get it after all. I was going to say that Gore was pretty progressive and did technically win, but that was 25 years agola
They'd call trump Joseph Stalin if there was a D by his name.
It literally doesn't matter how progressive a candidate we run, because they'll say the same shit about anyone.
Moderates try to defend and talk about how conservative they really are. Alienating their voters. AOC would fucking own that shit and explain how it helps everyone.
What we're doing isn't working. And Biden himself keeps saying he's powerless as president, so why not fucking try what worked for literal decades and there was no rational reason we ever stopped?
I really don't think that's true. People said the same with Obama, and he really never faced that in voters, the GOP was viciously attacking him and it never stuck. There is a stage big enough, that the most vicious attackers do get lost in the crowd.
Yup, never stuck. They won all the mid terms during his administration handily. Maintaining super majorities in Congress the whole time. Nope, they were never ever shellacked (Obamas phrasing) in the midterms over "obamacare". No matter how you phrased it obamacare or ACA the publics approval was always the same they adored it right?
She shares a lot of views with Bernie Sanders, and Berni would almost surely have defeated Trump where Hillary failed.
As I see it, she is not nearly as polarizing as Trump. The only ones strongly against her, are probably extreme Christians and Nazis.
That doesn't really make her polarizing, that's just the right wing media treating her unfairly, as they do with every progressive Democrat, except a bit more, because she is popular.
No, it makes her polarizing because the viewers of certain media thinks she's a fucking liberal who will literally sweep your house, take you gums, sell them, and give the profit to "illegals'.
This was a literal interpretation about her from ImfoWars. It's a fucking thing. She won't win.
People who follow infowars are already radicalized, and will say any moderate is polarizing. They want a Fuhrer, they want to exterminate LGBT and colored people. Their opinion is irrelevant, because there is no talking sense to those people. Just see how the MAGA people threw a fit, because their house leader "compromised" after 8 months of negotiating, and getting everything they asked for!!!
They are beyond reach, and they are the ones polarizing, not rational sensible people like AOC, that actually tries to make life better for most people.
If not only wanting to do things for the rich, the white and Christians, makes you polarizing, then a polarizing candidate is the only reasonable option.
Literally, anyone who threatens the interests served by right-wing media is going to see themselves transformed into a bogeyman by right-wing media. That's how it works. That AOC is "polarizing" according to them is because of the threat she poses to them. If you're letting right-wing media define the boundaries of who is an acceptable candidate, you will never defeat them.
That is why she'd be so successful. She'd give them strokes. She'd get constant media coverage. They would give her so much publicity the news would always be about her. She's good looking and talks well. She'd look badass in the White House.
Republicans boosted Sanders, not because they liked him. But because they knew it would, and did divide their opposition for the next decade or more. Had Sanders gotten the nomination. They'd have smeared him worse than Clinton.
The fact that they didn't take the time to really try to smear him doesn't mean he's hard to smear. There were a lot of accusations that could have gotten a lot of play Propaganda wise. Like him and his wife honeymooning in Russia. That got bare minimal play during the campaign because it was much more handy to keep the Democrats divided. In fact I think it was probably Democrats that pointed that out. But since they don't directly control the messaging machine. And the people who do did not want that message out it didn't get out.
Just to point this out to you since you seem to not understand. Smears don't have to be true. Often they aren't. All you need to smear someone successfully is a consistent message driven into them.
Repubs have spent decades feeding propaganda to their fear-addicted voting base. And they're still squawking away with Fox and Sinclair. I'd love to see her run but I'm not certain it would be successful.
Because entrenched Democrats are under a ridiculous belief that everyone who isn't voting for them is conservative. So if you spout "extreme" leftist ideals, you're too scary to the people they are courting, which is conservative voters who aren't Trumplicans.
IMHO, the only reason she’s “polarizing” is because the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her. People like her are a threat to them. She’s young, smart, and charming. She’s like Obama once was, only she’s even younger than he was. She’s still a year too young to run.
the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her
And they run smear campaigns on EVERYONE with a D in front of their name, regardless of how far to the left they actually are. Democrats are playing a losing game by worrying about how the Republican media are going to portray them.
Their screaming means nothing anymore. Conservative media will panic-attack absolutely anyone who runs against the GOP with the exact same extreme deception and conspiracy theories.
We have to undo decades of policy enacted the much longer politically aware and active owner class. They've had a head start on us, so it's going to take tome to dismantle the political machinery they've created while minimizing harm done to the rest of us.
A single progressive president means they get to name the DNC chair and a bunch of voting positions.
It's literally that easy to take over the party.
Obama just didn't do it because he didn't need the party after they turned on him for opposing Hillary.
If he'd have rebuilt it, we'd have a functional progressive party planning decades ahead already. And trump would still just be that guy from the Mac Miller song. The SC would be a progressive majority. The situation and Gaza wouldn't have turned into an open genocide, COVID would have been handled appropriately.
It's not some insurmountable task, but it gets harder and harder every cycle.
By all rights we should have had protests in the streets calling for Biden and the DNC leadership to step down for stealing NH's delagets. But not enough people had crossed their personal lines by then.
If we'd have had the fight then, we'd have had a full primary almost to figure shit out.
We should have learned that confidence is the one thing you can't fake. A candidate can be confident for illogical reasons, but that's still more convincing than being right but not being confident. It creates this weird effect where once people get too smart, they become less decisive and people perceive that as less confident.
The stereotypical nerd.
Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn't sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn't even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn't even let it run down to the final vote.
But I think its important to note not a single Dem Senator challenged it either which would have been even better than Gore challenging it
Bernie would have most likely, but he wasn't in yet. Biden could have done it, but he didn't, same with most of the current Dem leadership.
So Gore should have planted his feet, and voters should have gotten behind, probably would have. But the party didn't have Gore's back either. And Gore wasn't confident enough to try it without the party.
It's crazy how shit comes so close and has such widespread consequences. Just one Dem senator back then dragging it out till a final count would have done it.
Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.
He pushed right up to the deadline. Like, Bush v Gore was decided literally hours before the state deadline to certify the vote.
We've had this sort of situation before, FDR was radically progressive on a lot of policy decisions, he made great strides ad pulling us out of the Great Depression, leading us through world war 2, dramatically reduced the wealth disparity and was so popular with the voting public he was elected 4 times. Then the politically connected wanted to make sure that kind of presidency never happened again, so they paid to get the political machinery altered to suit their needs, term limits were introduced, influential think tanks were created to push favorable public policy and install favorable political assets, launched propaganda campaigns to sway public perception and consolidated economic power.
I agree that a single properly progressive president can do a lot to make things better, and a president who actually wields power can make some very important structural changes within the political party but it doesn't disassemble the political machinery that led us to our current situation in the first place. It doesn't disassemble the vast propaganda networks and think tanks, it doesn't stop the flow of dark money into politician pockets. All these positive changes can be undone if the next guy that comes in is a shitbag.
During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.
Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.
During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.
Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.
We have a party entirely dedicated to the ownership class with literally 0 internal conflict, and we have a party almost entirely dedicated to the ownership class with some internal conflict (the squad.)
What we don't have is a party that gives one solitary fuck about the labor class and actively fights those that get too close to real power. The squad is a useful token to point to and say "see we aren't all corpo fascists! We allowed them to exist!" (Because there's only like 5 of them so they have no power whatsoever)
Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…
We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.
I'd be happy if we just had an administration where no one in the DOJ, State Department or Cabinet quits in disgust. The last time that happened was what, Bush Sr.?
Literally has had one minor mis-step with the railroad union strike, telling them to go back to work, and they still got the deal they wanted in the end. She hasn't just earned my vote for POTUS should she choose to run, but she's got my full support. Heck, I might start throwing campaign contributions her way if she makes a POTUS try.
I’m not the one waiving a magic wand thinking Biden is a perfect candidate.
You are.
As I’ve said elsewhere, baring Biden himself stepping down it’s suicide for any one to oppose him. So no I’m not going to enter that fucking argument with someone who can’t even see what’s clearly before them.
Especially considering I’m guessing you give credit for the American recovery act to Biden even as you’d scramble to insist Biden doesn’t have the power to pass law.
Secondly, what I really want is to stop the slow slid into Fascism. Biden is, in my opinion, demonstrably incapable or unwilling of doing that. You're welcome to share your opinions, and we can have a discussion about it. Though, also in my opinion, you don't like hearing alternative viewpoints, considering the name calling and accusations.
EDIT:
Third, I already have. the argument goes no where. Before the primary it was "Save it for the primary," during the primary it was "Don't undermine the incumbent, you idiot", in now its "name your candidate". in 2019 it was "learn to compromise". I'm not interestedin the argument because you- or people like you- are unwilling to listen. Biden is problematic. but you're not going to be able to shore up his election campaign by digging your head in the sand.
Other "missteps"? Gaza and Immigration feature prominently, too.
not codifying RvW as promised, not protecting voter rights, not protecting civil liberties...
Conservatives (including Manchin and Sinema) stopped all of that. I hate the Dem party and despise neoliberals (AKA the other conservatives), but conservatives are fully to blame for those specific issues.
for the record, I think I must have replied to the wrong thing in my notifications. deleted my comment. (however, I do stand by my criticism of Biden. AoC on the other hand would be freaking phenomenal.)
(by the way. not a fucking bot. might want to hone that paranoia of yours.)
You don't get a choice where you get a progressive instead of Manchin. You get Manchin or a far right Republican. I voted for Manchin, for the same reason I voted for Clinton and Biden - they might suck, but holy shit is the alternative WORSE.
You apparently don't understand the difference between being a dictator and actually getting off your ass to stir up support for something.
stop acting like biden is powerless because one body of congress is in republican hands. biden is not powerless. If Biden is so powerless to get shit done in congress, how is it he claims credit for the American Recovery Act and the other big ones early term? that's right. He did some lifting for it. (he was, however, far from the only person, and a lot of people did a lot of heavy lifting to get that done.)
Trying to get anything through them is like preschoolers playing Red Rover against the New England Patriots.
I'm not saying they don't try. It's important to try, as long as they immediately call out the opposition at any and every opportunity. And loud. But if it comes from a D, fat chance actually getting it passed.
I saw him speak the other day and he was totally with it. Like that super old person who lives to be 120 and is sharp as fuck right until their body gives up, but until then they are firy and physically fit.
People will call this sort of thing performative since the legislation will be dead in the water, but you're spot on. An important part of politics is virtue signaling. You're telling your supporters what you stand for and that you're at least trying.
Whether it's progressive or moderates doing so, it's an important political tool, and sometimes the only tool at their disposal. Showing people you're willing to fight, even if you know you're going to lose, is a big deal.
is biden better than trump? yes. am I voting biden? yes, there's no other real option. is he a feckless snivelling coward that only cares about people if they offer him a chance for power? yes. does he actually intend to do anything to improve our country and stave off a christofascist totalitarian takeover? hell no he doesn't lmao
he won't do a good god damn thing if the corporations who have their fists up his ass don't force him to, and they don't give a shit about any of this because when it all turns red come inauguration day, regulations and protections will be stripped away and they'll have no restriction on how they can abuse us and our planet for their own gain.
he has this new power, and just like with the power he holds now, he won't do anything with it that will actually move the needle and improve quality of life for anyone unless it serves his interest. the next guy will use it though. bend over, y'all.
if you're not American, I would understand that to be a reasonable suggestion. not how it works here, though.
under our system of voting, third party votes are less than worthless. I would rather that not be the case, but here we are.
If you're American or if you're not simply ignorant of that fact, I assume you're salivating at the idea of getting a reluctant biden voter to vote third party to help secure your authoritarian party win.
Authoritarian party win? Do you even know who I was going to vote for? I guess any third party means authoritarian to you? No, and its not just Biden voters, its people who vote for Trump as well. We all need to pick a different canadite now. I'd personally vote for Chase Oliver.
You may think that's how the system works, but at it's root, you can pick other choices, not just one or the other. The more you say that, the more real it becomes, and the more hopeless you make everyone else feel. You have a very nuanced view of how everything works and what type of person I am.
The system is set up to only have two options. It's intentional. Also the VP used to be the party that lost. That's how much it matters to vote after the parties pick a nominee.
Big tough guy on the internet, but let's see how you feel when Trump's brown shirts are knocking on doors to check if you're harboring any trans people...
I wish I was joking, but be prepared because this shit can happen fast. Then maybe you'll think back on this election and wonder what could have happened if all you stupid motherfuckers would just shut the fuck up and vote for Biden.
"Wahhh we had four years to choose a better candidate and we did FUCKING NOTHING. Now we're looking literal fascism in the face and we're suddenly all concerned about who our presidential candidates are." You know we have a whole process for this, right? It doesn't start 5 months before the election.
It's so fucking juvenile. We get it, you're not going to vote. Stop spreading your cancer.
Glad to hear that one party is playing by imagined rules and that the other party is playing by what is actually written.
Good thing that we're getting fucked either way.
I don't think that many people have realized this yet, but we are all fucked no matter who is in office.
It's very evident that nothing is getting better no matter who from our two choices is in charge.
I'm actually losing weight (that I don't need to lose) because the cost of living is too high. I've had to start working more, and it's barely helping.
Thank the good lord that the DNC is following decorum though. So glad that they're being polite while we are being absolutely fucked.
I wasn't implying it was a good thing, just the explanation of why they don't get more done.
That said, they have improved a few things. It just isn't as much as we need. Insulin, for example, is in a much better place, and that should be expanding to cover more drugs. Thr democrats are significantly better than the Republicans. They are not both the same. They just aren't as good as we deserve.
I'm sorry to vent at you. It wasn't really meant to be directed at you. I'm just very frustrated.
My girlfriend is a diabetic, and insulin is indeed more affordable. It still costs her about $120 a month for something that costs pennies to produce.
My real point though, is that it doesn't matter who is in power. Things are getting dramatically worse every year no matter who is in the White House.
The Supreme Court is obviously completely fucked. They literally made it legal for them to be bribed. And they are not elected by citizens, and also have a lifetime appointment.
There is nothing that we as citizens can legally do to curb their power. We are quite literally at their mercy, and they are not being merciful.
And I haven't even touched on our actual real long-term problems.
The president cannot impeach them unilaterally, and is explicitly out of his power.
He could, however, potentially send them to a blacksite as a prisoner or conveniently kill them as part of that arrest. They could claim collusion with domestic terror groups, espionage, corruption, etc, as very plausible justification for arrest, and that would probably qualify as official duties, at least how this SCOTUS would classify the same actions if executed by a republican president.
