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

 

[pwnest injun]

Four. More. Years.

No, this has not been put up by the Kremlin. It has been put up by Biden's team. Let's FINISH THE JOB!

Here is my attempt at a BingAI Garrison comic explaining their platform

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

You, of all people, should know the answer to that. Not even Commiefornia has the balls to just unilaterally declare multiple SCOTUS decisions null and void.

Fuck it, revoke Hawaii's statehood. They're still a colony in spirit. They're liberal because they have the luxury of being an island where joggers can't afford to live.

I'm game for that.

Interesting fact. Hawaii was a Republican dominated territory and was let in to balance the then Democratic dominated Alaska. Shortly thereafter both states flipped affiliations.

I'm conservative and hate degeneracy, hence I'm not a Democrat, but my long term hope is for restoration of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Then every rich California transplant gets the Captain Cook treatment. Just kidding. Mostly.

 

[GamerGateSurvivor]

Can the SCOTUS disbar the Hawaiian judges that ruled on this, or...? I mean outside of the whole social construct thing keeping Judges from doing this (which the left has increasingly decided in recent years only applies when it's to force the rest of the country to obey a lefty in power) what's the solution here? "SCOTUS says we can't do this but we think they're wrong" -- what the hell do you do with this as a defendant or a lawyer? Or when they try to punish you for breaking a law the SCOTUS explicitly invalidated?

This is a problem that's just going to get more severe as the lowered Bar and Law School standards conflate with the marxists' activism. So we need a solution that doesn't involve [FEDPOST REDACTED], and fast.

There are mechanisms in place to deal with states that defy SCOTUS. One of them involves cutting off federal funding which I can't imagine would bode well for a state like Hawaii.

And I honestly don't know how the feds will handle this. On one hand, you have an asleep at the wheel dementia patient running the executive branch and his party's rabidly anti 2A. On the other hand, Hawaii is openly challenging the fed's authority and they are threatening the Supreme Court's ability to render decisions. It could go either way.

 

[pwnest injun]

I'm game for that.

Interesting fact. Hawaii was a Republican dominated territory and was let in to balance the then Democratic dominated Alaska. Shortly thereafter both states flipped affiliations.

I'm conservative and hate degeneracy, hence I'm not a Democrat, but my long term hope is for restoration of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Then every rich California transplant gets the Captain Cook treatment. Just kidding. Mostly.

As a counter offer, would you instead accept 20 planeloads of Venezuelans every day for the next 5 years?

 

[DiggieSmalls]

There are mechanisms in place to deal with states that defy SCOTUS. One of them involves cutting off federal funding which I can't imagine would bode well for a state like Hawaii.

And I honestly don't know how the feds will handle this. On one hand, you have an asleep at the wheel dementia patient running the executive branch and his party's rabidly anti 2A. On the other hand, Hawaii is openly challenging the fed's authority and they are threatening the Supreme Court's ability to render decisions. It could go either way.

Its going to be a "look, look at texas" thing. One one hand we have a governor defying scotus because its killing the state and the country. On the other, we have libs doing exactly what libs want to do and take away your rights. So guess which one will actually be dealt with

 

[OrangeJuliusEvola]

As a counter offer, would you instead accept 20 planeloads of Venezuelans every day for the next 5 years?

We kind of already have something like that. Hawaii is the main dumping ground for migrants from the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Right off the plane and straight to the welfare office.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

There are mechanisms in place to deal with states that defy SCOTUS. One of them involves cutting off federal funding which I can't imagine would bode well for a state like Hawaii.

And I honestly don't know how the feds will handle this. On one hand, you have an asleep at the wheel dementia patient running the executive branch and his party's rabidly anti 2A. On the other hand, Hawaii is openly challenging the fed's authority and they are threatening the Supreme Court's ability to render decisions. It could go either way.

The feds will handle this in the same way they're protecting the border: They won't.

Meanwhile if Texas decided to declare the SCOTUS or even some stupid fucking 9th circuit injunction fake and gay they'd have drones flying over their heads within a few hours.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

Its going to be a "look, look at texas" thing. One one hand we have a governor defying scotus because its killing the state and the country. On the other, we have libs doing exactly what libs want to do and take away your rights. So guess which one will actually be dealt with

On the other hand, they may hesitate for fear of setting a precedent. They may even decide its preferable to basically have a mechanism that allows them to completely rule their fiefs without outside influence, if the cost is just letting a few border states close off. The other ones will let people in anyway, so they get both things they want then.

I won't go so far as to say this train of thought kills the union, but this train of thought may cripple the federal government part of it.

 

[Absolutego]

So how much electability do you think Biden could curry by dropping Kopmala's dead weight?

I think my least favorite thing about her is her plainly disingenuous affect.

Kamala has spent most of her tenure hiding under a desk and lashing out at the Biden wing because she doesn't have the influence she thought she'd get and Biden threw the biggest problem the administration was going to face during their term her way, when the privately held goal was never to fix the border. Between that and her appalling lack of charisma, she's only routinely exposed to hardline Democrats who are actually fans of hers.
Biden is ultimately the man at the top (publicly, at least), and despite their best efforts they can't totally hide him from the public, so everyone has to watch this decrepit old man shuffle around being obviously incompetent and saying the quiet part out loud while everyone around him pretends things are fine. It's familiarity that breeds contempt, after all.

So while Harris is probably more consciously evil and self-serving as a politician, the people who already don't like her can largely ignore her and dropping her off the ticket would just be an invitation to step on another rake when they risk pissing off her fanbase by doing it.

 

[pwnest injun]

Its going to be a "look, look at texas" thing. One one hand we have a governor defying scotus because its killing the state and the country. On the other, we have libs doing exactly what libs want to do and take away your rights. So guess which one will actually be dealt with

He's not defying SCotUS though. The ruling was that BPD can cut razorwire as necessary in order to perform their duty. They never said that Texas couldn't put down razor wire or that BPD must remove it. The larger issue is still under appeal.

 

[dustbuster]

There are mechanisms in place to deal with states that defy SCOTUS. One of them involves cutting off federal funding which I can't imagine would bode well for a state like Hawaii.

And I honestly don't know how the feds will handle this. On one hand, you have an asleep at the wheel dementia patient running the executive branch and his party's rabidly anti 2A. On the other hand, Hawaii is openly challenging the fed's authority and they are threatening the Supreme Court's ability to render decisions. It could go either way.

Time for Florida to start defying Obergfell.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

So we need a solution that doesn't involve [FEDPOST REDACTED], and fast.

There is, its called the federal government enforcing the laws already on the books.

18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right.

Unlike most conspiracy statutes, §241 does not require, as an element, the commission of an overt act.

The offense is always a felony, even if the underlying conduct would not, on its own, establish a felony violation of another criminal civil rights statute. It is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment unless the government proves an aggravating factor (such as that the offense involved kidnapping aggravated sexual abuse, or resulted in death) in which case it may be punished by up to life imprisonment and, if death results, may be eligible for the death penalty.

Section 241 is used in Law Enforcement Misconduct and Hate Crime Prosecutions. It was historically used, before conspiracy-specific trafficking statutes were adopted, in Human Trafficking prosecutions.

18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. It is not necessary that the offense be motivated by racial bias or by any other animus.

Defendants act under color of law when they wield power vested by a government entity. Those prosecuted under the statute typically include police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and prison guards. However other government actors, such as judges, district attorneys, other public officials, and public school employees can also act under color of law and can be prosecuted under this statute.

Section 242 does not criminalize any particular type of abusive conduct. Instead, it incorporates by reference rights defined by the Constitution, federal statutes, and interpretive case law. Cases charged by federal prosecutors most often involve physical or sexual assaults. The Department has also prosecuted public officials for thefts, false arrests, evidence-planting, and failing to protect someone in custody from constitutional violations committed by others.

A violation of the statute is a misdemeanor, unless prosecutors prove one of the statutory aggravating factors such as a bodily injury, use of a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, death resulting, or attempt to kill, in which case there are graduated penalties up to and including life in prison or death. If charged in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 250, as noted below, all sexual assaults under color of law are felonies.

There already is a solution. As with most things involving liberal fuckery, all we need is for someone to stop cucking long enough to enforce the laws and the fuckery stops.

 

[dustbuster]

18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Time to start arresting judges.
Mark the calendar: 1/20/2025

 

[MrJokerRager]

I know people don't want to believe it.

But Newsom can be president in 2028 unless the country implodes.

 

[The Last Stand]

View attachment 5701274View attachment 5701289

The EU's also looking to punish him for doing this interview.

You know things are crazy when the fucking Krassenstein brothers are going out of their way to defend him.

What was even the point of that interview? Free trip to Russia?

 

[Would]

View attachment 5701289

If it happens to him it can happen to anyone

That is, in fact, the plan.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

So is it true what I heard, that the female republican nominee actually manage to lose to herself?

 

[UnKillFill]

So is it true what I heard, that the female republican nominee actually manage to lose to herself?

Worse than that, Failey literally lost to "none of the above" by like 2:1.

 

[Breadbassket]

So is it true what I heard, that the female republican nominee actually manage to lose to herself?

Worse than that, Failey literally lost to "none of the above" by like 2:1.

Losing to herself would be more dignified then what actually happened , from a polling perspective she was rejected outright by the voters.

 

[Sister Miriam Godwinson]

Losing to herself would be more dignified then what actually happened , from a polling perspective she was rejected outright by the voters.

So what happens if the Supreme Court tells Trump "lol no u cant run becuz treasun"? Does she win the nomination regardless as the last woman standing?