US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Gar For Archer]

That could be the reason why RINO cucks insist upon losing.


You ever wonder if some guy DID invent time travel just to assassinate Hitler and every assassination attempt is that same guy failing to do it?

Actually, Hitler is just the latest in a line of dictators to pop up after the previous one was assassinated by time travelers. In the first iteration of the timeline, it was just 600 Jews, but with every new dictator the death toll would increase.

 

[Nate Higgers]

I was expecting 2004 John Cena.

I know Xian Xi Na is a retard but just hearing that little trumpet line at a Trump rally would make it worth it

 

[The Nothingness]

Jake Tapper: all my friends around the world say Jan 6th was horrible
Boris: lmao, no it wasn't, it was weird at worst

I guess Jake's friends also thought the "Summer of Love" was mostly peaceful.

 

[Exterminatus]

There's also the very damning fact that the legislative branch refuses to legislate anything that doesn't directly or indirectly make them richer.

Very true, over the years Congress has gradually surrendered various powers to the Executive branch, I mean hell they haven't even declared war on any nation since December 7th 1941; from that point onward they stopped caring about it even though it's one of the powers directly given to Congress by the Constitution.

Also reinforces the idea of bipartisanship being such a shit idea, that's you get trash like the Patriot Act or National Firearms Act; if Congress agrees on something it's likely bad for America.

 

[Leslie Nielsen]

I've missed this thread when I was gone, I love you sexy individuals.

 

[make_it_so]

I guess Jake's friends also thought the "Summer of Love" was mostly peaceful.

Jake and his friends don't mind the Summer of Love because it worked to support their power, while the 1/6 Boomer Tour threatened their power.

 

[Kane Lives]

Very true, over the years Congress has gradually surrendered various powers to the Executive branch, I mean hell they haven't even declared war on any nation since December 7th 1941; from that point onward they stopped caring about it even though it's one of the powers directly given to Congress by the Constitution.

Also reinforces the idea of bipartisanship being such a shit idea, that's you get trash like the Patriot Act or National Firearms Act; if Congress agrees on something it's likely bad for America.

Technically, isn't it also true that America hasn't formally been in a war since World War II anyway?

Like, the Korean War was framed as a police action (by the UN lulz), Vietnam War was authorized under the power of "self-defense" of conveniently placed American soldiers on Vietnam soil, the Gulf War was done under the auspices of UN "peacekeeping", and so on.

 

[verissimus]

Technically, isn't it also true that America hasn't formally been in a war since World War II anyway?

Like, the Korean War was framed as a police action (by the UN lulz), Vietnam War was authorized under the power of "self-defense" of conveniently placed American soldiers on Vietnam soil, the Gulf War was done under the auspices of UN "peacekeeping", and so on.

Yes. Congress has essentially passed only "war resolutions" since then.

 

[Gehenna]

Looking forward to West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency now. Will determine if the Executive branch can via fiat declare emission limits. More importantly, if it is a broad ruling it can be an opportunity for SCOTUS to -gut- executive authority.

Addition: There is a saying, "Once is chance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action". If SCOTUS does a broad ruling on West Virginia then it confirms something which has not occurred in a long, long time. A hostile SCOTUS.

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

That kind of thinking always seemed retarded to me, even if you where going to kill them someone else would had risen because the conditions that created Karl/Hitler/Stalin/Mao/etc. are still there, the same societies with the same troubles and the same power vacuums if it wasn't them then someone else would had seen the shifts in power forming.

Personally, I'd take out Genghis Khan while he was till Temujin, just to see how unrecognizable the world would be without it getting shitstomped by Mongols.

 

[LUNEKO]

Looking forward to West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency now. Will determine if the Executive branch can via fiat declare emission limits. More importantly, if it is a broad ruling it can be an opportunity for SCOTUS to -gut- executive authority.

Addition: There is a saying, "Once is chance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action". If SCOTUS does a broad ruling on West Virginia then it confirms something which has not occurred in a long, long time. A hostile SCOTUS.

Mind explaining that one? how is it being abused by the federal government?

 

[Kane Lives]

Looking forward to West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency now. Will determine if the Executive branch can via fiat declare emission limits. More importantly, if it is a broad ruling it can be an opportunity for SCOTUS to -gut- executive authority.

Addition: There is a saying, "Once is chance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action". If SCOTUS does a broad ruling on West Virginia then it confirms something which has not occurred in a long, long time. A hostile SCOTUS.

And I thought they were done for this session.

 

[AnotherPleb]

I don't believe it would be Biden, if the democrats goal is to be the eternal power with a sitting duck for opposition blowing up the economy in the next 4 years would fuck their public perception entirely
(which they still need because the plan to fortify elections failed and now everyone is skeptical as fuck of them)
They might be doing radical wild shit like shutting down oil production but i think they are only hitting where they know the US can take it, if anything it seems they are setting up for an obvious defeat in 2024 but they plan to leave enough remote detonating mines that'll blow everything to pieces once they loose power again and blame it on the opposition

The DNC needs a useful idiot GOP (Romney would be best, though they would also push Crenshaw) candidate to facetank that economic crash for their end goal, but the main thing fucking that up is the populist wing of the GOP not wanting to play ball.

EDIT:

Mind explaining that one? how is it being abused by the federal government?

Executive orders? It's only the way that the president does anything nowadays since the legislative branch is useless.

 

[Gehenna]

Mind explaining that one? how is it being abused by the federal government?

The case in question argues that setting emission limits should rightfully belong to the legislature but instead the executive branch has been unilaterally decreeing them via executive order. A broad ruling would be one which condemn executive orders in general and reigns in the ability to decree via order.

And I thought they were done for this session.

They have a small handful of cases as yet undecided.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

The case in question argues that setting emission limits should rightfully belong to the legislature but instead the executive branch has been unilaterally decreeing them via executive order. A broad ruling would be one which condemn executive orders in general and reigns in the ability to decree via order.


They have a small handful of cases as yet undecided.

When did this "Presidential rule by fiat" stuff start? I saw it get real bad during Obama's era, it's REALLY bad during Biden's era, but back in the bubble I heard the left screeching like madmen about Bush Jr doing it. (Again, with the emission limits IIRC.)

What are the odds that we'll see SCOTUS take that one up this term? It would be a trifecta, "King Biden's very bad no good month."

 

[Gehenna]

When did this "Presidential rule by fiat" stuff start? I saw it get real bad during Obama's era, it's REALLY bad during Biden's era, but back in the bubble I heard the left screeching like madmen about Bush Jr doing it. (Again, with the emission limits IIRC.)

What are the odds that we'll see SCOTUS take that one up this term? It would be a trifecta, "King Biden's very bad no good month."

Its been steadily increasing alongside the polarization of America ever since the uniparty got in power.

And they already took up the case, we are just waiting on a decision, It should be in the final batch of decisions they will release. If they rule against the EPA, it could signal... one hell of a shift in the courts. Something unseen in the history of the U.S.

 

[AnotherPleb]

Its been steadily increasing alongside the polarization of America ever since the uniparty got in power.

And they already took up the case, we are just waiting on a decision, It should be in the final batch of decisions they will release. If they rule against the EPA, it could signal... one hell of a shift in the courts. Something unseen in the history of the U.S.

If there's a broad ruling I could see whoever's in charge of the Biden Administration start making massive moves against the court - the Uniparty loves abusing Executive Privilege like nothing else.

 

[Gehenna]

To be a bit less vague post:
There are three types of cases that SCOTUS has been historically incredibly reluctant to rule on in any sort of major way. This is not to say no SCOTUS bench has ever ruled on them, but they are very rare and usually define any given bench of SCOTUS judges.

1st: Any decision which sees multiple states having to completely redo or throw out their laws.
2nd: Any decision which undoes major settled precedent, especially if said precedent has been used in other cases.
3rd: Any decision which sees a major curtailment or change in the power of the other two branches of government.

Keep in mind, these kinds of decision usually -define- a bench, you see one of them with any specific group of judges and then nothing until several retire or leave. And yet, within a week we have had the first and second ruled on and done. And a potential example of the third being on this very docket which we are waiting on. If they rule on all three it says outright this SCOTUS -does not give a fuck- and will make whatever ruling it damn well pleases, and if you have a problem with it you can go pound sand.


That has never occurred in the history of the United States.

 

[Trans Fat 41g]

Gehenna being of the most useful posters in here is putting out stuff to live rent free in my mind. Thank you for your well spoken delivery my dude. Needed refreshers on how stuff worked, appreciated.

Now time to lose sleep.

 

[LUNEKO]

The case in question argues that setting emission limits should rightfully belong to the legislature but instead the executive branch has been unilaterally decreeing them via executive order. A broad ruling would be one which condemn executive orders in general and reigns in the ability to decree via order.

Is the emission limit the one they are using to just completely cut gas supply for no other reason than
" saving the environment "?