Here you go. Feel free to read and be terrified of the big scary plans. It doesn't say much of DeFranco's desciption, with the one true aspect being "hire conservatives in DC". Oh noooo, the end of democracy!
US supreme court rules Trump has ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
Here you go. Feel free to read and be terrified of the big scary plans. It doesn't say much of DeFranco's desciption, with the one true aspect being "hire conservatives in DC". Oh noooo, the end of democracy!
Not even remotely true. You guys legitimately believe this? The thing is, if you actually believe this, America can already be considered a dictatorship because the people that actually care who you vote for, you're all voting for who they want you to every single time. Both parties play the same exact game, vote for us or the worst possible thing will happen so then you can't not vote for someone else because then you not voting for your team could cause the other team to win so you have to keep voting the same people in over and over again.Yeah the GOP don't give a shit about Trump, but they do give a shit about staying in power, now that they know they can just keep it by going "actually we won" forever, why would they not? Look at the shit they're openly saying. This isn't paranoia, this is just being mildly informed.
A conservative leading the pro-Trump Project 2025 suggests there will be a new American Revolution
The leader of a conservative think tank planning for a massive overhaul of the federal government says we are in the midst of “a second American Revolution” that will be bloodless “if the left allows it to be.”apnews.com
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,957
- 3,832
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Oh right, I always forget that you're a russian asset and thus pointless to message at all.
Couldn't find an "I know, right?" gif that seemed to fit. Oh, you know that "I'm not a crook...by today's standards" meme of him from a few years ago? Literally the truth.
(Oh, does that mean Bill Clinton did nothing wrong?)
Well, in regards to Monkia Lewinsky, I do wonder what the political landscape in America would look like if he'd just laid his nuts on the lectern and said "Yep, I asked Miss Lewinsky to suck my dick under the Resolute Desk and she was kind enough to oblige."
Of course it could have changed nothing.
Oh, please. Acts such as those for which Trump is being held "accountable" had been fully normalized for decades, in some cases centuries. The path to this moment was found, mapped, worn, paved, painted, lighted, and convenience stops built along the way by nearly every preceding administration before. The only way in which Trump is any different, was he was less competent in performing them, less interested in hiding them, and less capable of manufacturing consent for them among the general electorate.
Name one thing Trump did even remotely comparable to Ronald Reagan. Specifically, I'd direct your attention to the bombing of Libya, invasion of Grenada, Iran-Contra, and the S&L crisis for Reagan's overt criminality. And in the "legal, but morally reprehensible" category, I'd direct your attention to the provision of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, unequivocal support for apartheid South Africa and Ferdinand Marcos' fascist regime, busting federal employees' unions, destroying national mental health care, and blocking funding for AIDS research in the middle of a national health crisis.
That's a single president within living memory. Don't make me break out my history books.
As I've said (and have been saying), this isn't about asserting the rule of law, preventing a Constitutional crisis, rolling back the unitary executive, preserving separation of powers, or even holding a criminal accountable. This is about getting payback for (albeit accidentally) withdrawing the veil of ignorance over the American public's eye.
I don't think payback is quite right, it's more strategically feigning ignorance. Sorta like this:
When you said "Not every action of a president is part of their constitutional authority", there are two ways to interpret that: actions that use powers granted by the constitution, or actions that are part of the role set out by the constitution.
I was making clear that Trump's action that saw him indicted fit the first interpretation but not the second. And ordering the Seals to deal with a political rival also fits just as well.
I wonder if back in the 30's if someone said 'Man, I wish Hitler would just die' you got the response of 'Oh, you can't say that, just because you disagree with him'. There's some names that I won't name but am certainly thinking that in 50 years time we'll look back on with a resounding 'Man, I wish they had just died'.
"A forum tantrum"-- that's rich, from the single most tantrum-inclined individual on the entirety of the forum. You tend to start slinging shit the moment someone disagrees with damn near anything you say.
No, I mean criminal prosecution, the subject of the ruling.
Of course, when nothing is objectively our undeniably set out, the SCOTUS will draw on whatever is most convenient to what they want to rule. Much like how they'll appeal to something being "historically significant" when it's useful.
Nice try, but that's a tremendously weak equivalence. Some actions are taken as part of a President's duties. Some are not.
For what it's worth, there are plenty of actions for which Obama (and half the other Presidents) should absolutely be indicted for, in an ideal world. But it's fun to see you argue for letting them all off the hook after condemning them for so long.
That's it? "The damage is already done" so no use pursuing justice? Cool, I'll be sure to try that if I ever get taken to court. I can't do exactly the same crime again, so just drop it eh, its moot.
Probably not so much, they were likely more cheering him on. IIRC, it was only very late before opinion (in Allied nations) turned against him, and he had plenty of support even as the war began. And there was still plenty of hatred for the groups he got to power by using hatred of.
Pretty sure that isn't directly comparable to anything Reagan did in the US, but not perhaps in the way that Eacaraxe meant.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,957
- 3,832
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Its interesting that no one has brought up the fake electors scheme. Conservatives have really done a great job of letting that one fly under the radar.
This is literally an attempt to coup the government and with this supreme court ruling, it can't even be investigated.
This is literally an attempt to coup the government and with this supreme court ruling, it can't even be investigated.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,957
- 3,832
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
That's just because he's focused on body count since its easy to understand. Not the continuation of democracy, which is more complex.
1.) People tried to kill HItler a freaking amount of times, even before WWII.
2.) Replacing debate with violence on the street and all major parties ending up having their own militia (Freikorps, SA, Stahlhem, Spartakus, Reichsbanner, Eiserne Front, Antifa) did make the middle class scared and helped the NAZIs get into power.
"Letting fists and weapons speak" is always what the extreme right wants. Because their arguments are poor but they have many violent followers. That is why so many MAGA nutters phantasize about civil war.
Ordering the Seals to deal with a political rival does not fit just as well, as that is not something the Navy Seals are allowed to do. The President has the constitutional authority to command those beneath him in how to fulfill their particular roles. The president does not have the authority to command those beneath him to do things outside their roles. Biden can't just order the AG to do his laundry. Investigations of election fraud are within the role of the Justice Department. Assassinating US citizens is not within the role of the Navy Seals. As such, the President ordering them to do so would be outside his constitutional authority.
Having electors set for both major candidates, prepared to vote depending who wins, is normal procedure in every presidential election. The fear mongering over this relies on electoral ignorance. In 1960, Hawaii had a close race, and despite losing, Kennedy's electors did the same thing these "fake electors" did, and when the election flipped on recount, their votes became the legally valid votes. If any of the races in 2020 miraculously got flipped or thrown out as a result of the many legal challenges, those "fake electors" would be the valid ones, and Biden's electors would be void. As it happened, none of them did, so those votes were legally meaningless.
Wanting to win and being prepared to try to win through every legal means is not a coup.