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

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

They have to. They can’t admit publicly to the world they not only rigged an election but tried to throw the rightful winner in prison. Everyone knows they did and that alone is causing massive issues. Admitting the world controlling power is not better than the dictators it complains about would cause massive amounts of damage

Yep. Nobody, not even Trump, would win if the system imploded so hard as to admit a complete scandal on its face. Better to let Trump drudge up some evidence and Deny it, and leave it as a sort of "Everyone is pretty sure but nobody knows for certain" kind of deal. The alternative is basically delegitimizing the entire process, for everyone, until its massively overhauled, if it gets to that. Accepting "yea we fucked with it that happened" just opens the curtains on so much other shit.

 

[Åland Island Observer]

I've seen it discussed as a good thing online, saying that it allowed Texas' law to take effect?
https://twitter.com/LeadingReport/status/1764694547458605085?s=19
I'm not a lawyer (I have actual skills and self-love) can we get a confirmation on what the right take is?

No, it doesn't matter if he gets impeached or resigns. The law would go into effect immediately after his replacement takes office because that is when the vacancy in the governorship occurs under Texas law. It has nothing to do with the timing of the inauguration for the new president and vice-president, which could be days or weeks later.

Federal appeals court, yes. That's the second link in my post. Supreme Court granted stay instead, and temporarily stopped the law (until March 13th, with possible further stays)

The key difference is that a federal appeals court does not have the power to tell state judges what they can or cannot do. A federal circuit court has appellate jurisdiction over district courts in multiple states but it still only has jurisdiction over those lower federal courts, and it has no authority at all over state courts unless there is some sort of diversity jurisdiction involved (which isn't the case here). The Supreme Court however can issue a rit of certiorari to bring a case up from a state court or a federal circuit court.

JFK lost to Richard Nixon in 1960 his friend of his vice president mayor James Daly of Texas and severals can Patriots were convicted of committing voter fraud but Nixon being someone who didn't like causing unnecessary on West refuse to challenge the results you probably would have won especially in the 1960s

I don't think that is true at all. The vote was extremely close, and even if there were several thousand votes stolen it wouldn't be enough to overturn a lot of states. Nixon lost Illinois by only about 8,000 votes out of almost 5 million cast, Texas by less than 45,000 out of nearly 3 million (and that was with Lyndon Johnson on the ticket), and New Mexico by just under 2,000 out of a little over 160,000.
That's not even counting California where Nixon lost by less than 450,000 votes out of about 7 million cast or Missouri where he lost by only 3,800 out of just under 2 million. Even if you could prove that thousands of votes were stolen in each of those states it wouldn't be enough to overturn the results there either because margins are so small.

Say hypothetically, Biden goes down in a humiliating, crushing defeat and the usual suspects completely turn on him and entirely blame him for the loss. Do you think they’d keep maintaining the fiction he won in 2020 also? Or would they tear down that Potemkin village as proof he was the wrong candidate?

It really depends how bad it is I guess, but if it's a massive landslide defeat like Trump had then you bet your ass the narrative of him stealing the 2020 election will crumble and they'll just say "Well we should have picked someone else".

They have to. They can’t admit publicly to the world they not only rigged an election but tried to throw the rightful winner in prison. Everyone knows they did and that alone is causing massive issues. Admitting the world controlling power is not better than the dictators it complains about would cause massive amounts of damage

I think there are a lot more people who just don't know or care than you realize. It seems like every day some new story comes out about another state where they found hundreds or thousands of votes that were cast illegally but the mainstream media never reports on them and most Americans have no idea it is even happening.

Yep. Nobody, not even Trump, would win if the system imploded so hard as to admit a complete scandal on its face. Better to let Trump drudge up some evidence and Deny it, and leave it as a sort of "Everyone is pretty sure but nobody knows for certain" kind of deal. The alternative is basically delegitimizing the entire process, for everyone, until its massively overhauled, if it gets to that. Accepting "yea we fucked with it that happened" just opens the curtains on so much other shit.

That's exactly what I think will happen too because they dont want to admit what they did and they know if there is a full investigation into voter fraud then every single state in the country would have some problems with it because Democrats cheat whenever and wherever they can. They also know that most Republicans are just as corrupt so they wouldn't do anything about it even if they were aware of it but at least they could pretend like they cared for a little while until all the evidence gets buried under mountains of bureaucracy and forgotten forever.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Accepting "yea we fucked with it that happened" just opens the curtains on so much other shit.

And all of the stuff it lifts the curtain on is so much worse than ‘we rigged an election’

 

[pwnest injun]

Isn't that why they're referred to as "natural rights" instead of "God given rights?"

You can think of the standard for Natural Rights as, "does a dog, standing in a wood, have the inborn ability to:"
express itself
defend itself
keep its own territory
not be induced to harm itself
not suffer coordinated persecution or cruelty without recourse
etc.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Say hypothetically, Biden goes down in a humiliating, crushing defeat and the usual suspects completely turn on him and entirely blame him for the loss. Do you think they’d keep maintaining the fiction he won in 2020 also? Or would they tear down that Potemkin village as proof he was the wrong candidate?

An interesting idea but probably not because then that would vindicate j6 Freedom Fighters and that Democratic machines would have to be investigated and the Democratic party would have to adapt and run on s*** that people actually want you know like representing the workers anti free trade or something like that or universal healthcare or actually adopt left wing populist policies and no I don't mean Marxism

 

[Rekeita's Kidneys]

Total Journalist Death.

 

[Mutthole]

You can think of the standard for Natural Rights as, "does a dog, standing in a wood, have the inborn ability to:"
express itself
defend itself
keep its own territory
not be induced to harm itself
not suffer coordinated persecution or cruelty without recourse
etc.

The dog has the ability to try and do all those things, just as humans have the ability to try and do all those things, until some bigger, badder human comes along.

The dog's rights end as soon as a bigger, meaner animal comes along that doesn't respect those rights. This is the state of nature. There are no rights in the state of nature.

Your example seems to disprove the existence of any rights at all.

 

[TerminalTryHard]

Say hypothetically, Biden goes down in a humiliating, crushing defeat and the usual suspects completely turn on him and entirely blame him for the loss. Do you think they’d keep maintaining the fiction he won in 2020 also? Or would they tear down that Potemkin village as proof he was the wrong candidate?

Absolutely not. They can never admit that. It's probably the only reason they are having Biden run for reelection instead of step down due to age or health. They have to maintain the perception that Biden legitimately won, so now they have to pretend that he's a sharp minded and super competent statesman.

 

[pwnest injun]

The dog has the ability to try and do all those things, just as humans have the ability to try and do all those things, until some bigger, badder human comes along.

The dog's rights end as soon as a bigger, meaner animal comes along that doesn't respect those rights. This is the state of nature. There are no rights in the state of nature.

Your example seems to disprove the existence of any rights at all.

The right is in the attempt. A right isn't an ability, it's a lack of restriction.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

The dog has the ability to try and do all those things, just as humans have the ability to try and do all those things, until some bigger, badder human comes along.

The dog's rights end as soon as a bigger, meaner animal comes along that doesn't respect those rights. This is the state of nature. There are no rights in the state of nature.

Your example seems to disprove the existence of any rights at all.

The ability to exercise a right, and the ability to succeed at your goals with such are distinctly separate. You can try to defend your home and property from an intruder if you want, but the implicit right to do so does not mean you'll succeed, he might shoot your ass before you get him. The most important part of a right is the ability to choose to exercise it. You can decide yourself, do I want to defend myself, or do I want to try something else to protect my life and property, such as surrendering, calling the police, calling for help, etc.

 

[Romulus augustulus]

JFK lost to Richard Nixon in 1960 his friend of his vice president mayor James Daly of Texas and severals can Patriots were convicted of committing voter fraud but Nixon being someone who didn't like causing unnecessary on West refuse to challenge the results you probably would have won especially in the 1960s

Fun fact, Joseph Kennedy said he would support Nixon if JFK had not got the nomination, and the Kennedy's backed and donated to Nixon in the 1950 CA senate race over Helen Douglas. Nixon considered JFK a friend and they maintained good relations until the assassination.

 

[Barry McKockner]

"Hurr durr they already impeached him for it!"
He was acquitted you subhuman journoscum faggot. Goddamn I hate these people so fucking much.

So what people are now trying to use as a gotcha is that the majority voted to convict also, so even though he wasnt removed, he was found to be an insurrectionist in both chambers by a majority vote.

It's as dumb of a cope as it sounds.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

I’m actually relieved (though, still concerned) that the Supreme Court actually did its job and tell other states to knock it off with trying to turn into a Banana Republic state for trying to delegitimize a former sitting U.S. president running for re-election again.

However, I then saw this and I couldn’t help but be amused:

 

[Sicko Hunter]

Reminder Nixon negotiated the release of all POWs from Vietnam, but the government refused to honor his deal to pay for them (Just like the French did with their POWs) because "The United States does not lose wars" and then they buried the issue allowing for thousands of American soldiers to be forgotten.

Where can I read more about this?

 

[MrJokerRager]

AOC learns the hard way that it's never good enough.

View attachment 5783774
View attachment 5783776
View attachment 5783777
View attachment 5783778
View attachment 5783780

AOC deserves every bit of this, for being a grifter all along to her own retarded voters, and a pet for Nancy Pelosi.

Sometimes I think I can find common ground with these people when they say things like "Fuck Israel and Fuck AOC."

Then they say things like "I'm unblocking aoc just to tell her how I feel" and I'm like nah fuck that.

Things like this.

Are probably why a lot of people would have Russia just nuke Ukraine out of existence.

Given how many of the online Kung flu lockdown simps and simps for The Squad(tm) turned into full fledged bandwagon supporters for that other shithole.

 

[Abraham Lincoln]

Democrats being niggers as always.

Now will folks stop blaming me for dividing the country.

They started the fire and I made it bigger.

 

[Qtinterval]

Monopolies and price fixing rent in some Midwest city's are reaching at 1500 a month (Waukee iowa) Kansas City Milwaukee ect
Oceanside CA has rent about that.

I doubt oceanside is that. When I was stationed at camp pendleton from 97‐01 a 2 bedroom was 1100. No way in hell in 20+ years it only went up 400 dollars.

 

[Dog-O-Tron 5000v5.0]

Fun fact, Joseph Kennedy said he would support Nixon if JFK had not got the nomination, and the Kennedy's backed and donated to Nixon in the 1950 CA senate race over Helen Douglas. Nixon considered JFK a friend and they maintained good relations until the assassination.

In his autobiography and the long form interviews he did, Nixon tells a story about how he and JFK were on a train together to DC when they were younger and spent all night talking about politics and the world instead of sleeping like two girls at a slumber party.

IIRC he also gave JFK a call to advise him during either the Bay of Pigs or Cuban Missile Crisis. Probably the former, as it had been set up during the Eisenhower/Nixon admin.

Nixon was a fantastic President. Only thing he did wrong was taking us off the Gold Standard.

 

[mlanguishi]

In his autobiography and the long form interviews he did, Nixon tells a story about how he and JFK were on a train together to DC when they were younger and spent all night talking about politics and the world instead of sleeping like two girls at a slumber party.

IIRC he also gave JFK a call to advise him during either the Bay of Pigs or Cuban Missile Crisis. Probably the former, as it had been set up during the Eisenhower/Nixon admin.

Nixon was a fantastic President. Only thing he did wrong was taking us off the Gold Standard.

I really doubt if Nixon won instead of JFK, the Cuban Missile Crisis would've been that different. It wasn't like The Watchmen IRL. It's not really now either. There was and are brinkmanship things. But remember Nixon helped start the EPA.

 

[Corn Syrup Connoisseur]

Loving the cope and sneed

https://archive.ph/7YKga

As of Monday, March 4, 2024, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution is essentially a dead letter, at least as it applies to candidates for federal office. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision striking Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot, even insurrectionists who’ve violated their previous oath of office can hold federal office, unless and until Congress passes specific legislation to enforce Section 3.
In the aftermath of the oral argument last month, legal observers knew with near-certainty that the Supreme Court was unlikely to apply Section 3 to Trump. None of the justices seemed willing to uphold the Colorado court’s ruling, and only Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave any meaningful indication that she might dissent. The only real question remaining was the reasoning for the court’s decision. Would the ruling be broad or narrow?
A narrow ruling for Trump might have held, for example, that Colorado didn’t provide him with enough due process when it determined that Section 3 applied. Or the court could have held that Trump, as president, was not an “officer of the United States” within the meaning of the section. Such a ruling would have kept Trump on the ballot, but it would also have kept Section 3 viable to block insurrectionists from the House or Senate and from all other federal offices.
A somewhat broader ruling might have held that Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion or provide aid and comfort to the enemies of the Constitution. Such a ruling would have sharply limited Section 3 to apply almost exclusively to Civil War-style conflicts, an outcome at odds with the text and original public meaning of the section. It’s worth noting that, by not taking this path, the court did not exonerate Trump from participating in an insurrection.

But instead of any of these options, the court went with arguably the broadest reasoning available: that Section 3 isn’t self-executing, and thus has no force or effect in the absence of congressional action. This argument is rooted in Section 5 of the amendment, which states that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

But Section 5, on its face, does not give Congress exclusive power to enforce the amendment. As Justices Elena Kagan, Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in their own separate concurring opinion, “All the Reconstruction amendments (including the due process and equal protection guarantees and prohibition of slavery) ‘are self-executing,’ meaning that they do not depend on legislation.” While Congress may pass legislation to help enforce the 14th Amendment, it is not required to do so, and the 14th Amendment still binds federal, state and local governments even if Congress refuses to act.

But now Section 3 is different from other sections of the amendment. It requires federal legislation to enforce its terms, at least as applied to candidates for federal office. Through inaction alone, Congress can effectively erase part of the 14th Amendment.
It’s extremely difficult to square this ruling with the text of Section 3. The language is clearly mandatory. The first words are “No person shall be” a member of Congress or a state or federal officer if that person has engaged in insurrection or rebellion or provided aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution. The Section then says, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.”
In other words, the Constitution imposes the disability, and only a supermajority of Congress can remove it. But under the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the meaning is inverted: The Constitution merely allows Congress to impose the disability, and if Congress chooses not to enact legislation enforcing the section, then the disability does not exist. The Supreme Court has effectively replaced a very high bar for allowing insurrectionists into federal office — a supermajority vote by Congress — with the lowest bar imaginable: congressional inaction.

As Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson point out, this approach is also inconsistent with the constitutional approach to other qualifications for the presidency. We can bar individuals from holding office who are under the age limit or who don’t meet the relevant citizenship requirement without congressional enforcement legislation. We can enforce the two-term presidential term limit without congressional enforcement legislation. Section 3 now stands apart not only from the rest of the 14th Amendment, but also from the other constitutional requirements for the presidency.
In one important respect, the court’s ruling on Monday is worse and more consequential than the Senate’s decision to acquit Trump after his Jan. 6 impeachment trial in 2021. Impeachment is entirely a political process, and the actions of one Senate have no bearing on the actions of future Senates. But a Supreme Court ruling has immense precedential power. The court’s decision is now the law.
It would be clearly preferable if Congress were to pass enforcement legislation that established explicit procedures for resolving disputes under Section 3, including setting the burden of proof and creating timetables and deadlines for filing challenges and hearing appeals. Establishing a uniform process is better than living with a patchwork of state proceedings. But the fact that Congress has not acted should not effectively erase the words from the constitutional page. Chaotic enforcement of the Constitution may be suboptimal. But it’s far better than not enforcing the Constitution at all.