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

 

[Betonhaus]

"Worked on the Biden campaign" has to be absolute poison for your political career right now. I don't mean the dickheads in charge who jump from one trainwreck to another before landing a cosy directorship, I mean the poor, starry eyed staff who do the grunt work at the ground level.

they could probably get a good job managing a seniors center tho

 

[Puff]

Recently had to change my car battery, cost me $200. 4 years ago I bought the exact same battery from the exact same chain for $160.

That's actually doing better than food is as far as inflation is concerned.

 

[Barry McKockner]

I'm honestly annoyed that so many people are so damn wrong on this, but it's the culmination of "trust the experts":



"Are you all not listening or reading any lawyers today?"

No sweet, sweet dumb summer child. I'm not "trusting the experts" to give me THEIR take on the ruling when the supreme court wrote it in such a way that a layman with a high school degree that wasn't a product of "no child left behind" could understand it. It's actually so well written for the common person to understand it that I'm thinking that it's the entire reason it took so long to produce. Blind trust of "the experts" and credentialism is going to tank this country, and that's not hyperbole. People will look at "lawyer" Tristan Snell or Lawrence Tribe's twitter bio, see that they are affirming how they feel instead of giving honest analysis, and say "well, this is what the experts say!" It's going to be the death of this country.

 

[draggs]

The ride never ends!

(Morgan Freeman): The ride, in fact, would be ending in six months

 

[xX_rAcE_wAr_420_Xx]

I'm honestly annoyed that so many people are so damn wrong on this, but it's the culmination of "trust the experts":

View attachment 6145131

"Are you all not listening or reading any lawyers today?"

No sweet, sweet dumb summer child. I'm not "trusting the experts" to give me THEIR take on the ruling when the supreme court wrote it in such a way that a layman with a high school degree that wasn't a product of "no child left behind" could understand it. It's actually so well written for the common person to understand it that I'm thinking that it's the entire reason it took so long to produce. Blind trust of "the experts" and credentialism is going to tank this country, and that's not hyperbole. People will look at "lawyer" Tristan Snell or Lawrence Tribe's twitter bio, see that they are affirming how they feel instead of giving honest analysis, and say "well, this is what the experts say!" It's going to be the death of this country.

How depressing. Like, I could understand if this dude's response was "that's up for debate, and here's my legal theory as to why" then it would be interesting at least. But no, it's just "wow how are you not spending all day scrolling through Twitter reading people who claim to have a law degree?". Don't forget Rekieta has a law degree, you want his take on this? Or Caraballo, or the one pooner one from the ADL I think, or any of them?

Also, which is it? The decision seems pretty clear-cut to me, in that it references powers explicitly defined in the Constitution as well as those that are implicitly derived from them. The only way I can think this would cause you to think it's up for debate is how vague you think that second category is - and to be fair it certainly will be debated - but the way they talk about it suggests they think that anything could be justified by that. "Well he's commander in chief, so killing someone on the street is justified if he thinks they're a threat to national security!" ignoring that I'm pretty sure it's explicitly AGAINST the constitution to do that. And if you think the US is such a bizarro anarchist state with a vague and useless Constitution like that, why would you have such a boner for listening to what lawyers think? They worship a gay piece of paper that implies the President can ice people he doesn't like, they must be scum. So is the US a bastion of legal principles that we must stick to, or a wasteland where saying "the President is not criminally liable for acting within his station" is tantamount to saying he can do whatever he wants?

 

[The Gene Genie]

He's going after the Court. Mark my words.

 

[Quixotic Man]

Sotamayor always cracks me up. How do you go from "we can't prosecute the President for performing acts laid out in the constitution" to "the President is going to have Seal Team 6 kill all his opponents."

If anything laid out by the Constitution is an official act, isn't anything explicitly forbidden then not an official act? Guess our courts are so stupid, that if the President ordered "no more due process, Arkansas dies tonight." during the State of the Union, there would be no separation of the two. She would probably be equally fooled if the President declared opposite day or psych before any dubious command.

 

[ForgedBlades]

HE'S SPEAKING IN COMPLETE SENTENCES WE'RE SO BACK BIDENBROS!

 

[The Gene Genie]

He's going after the Court. Mark my words.

I was wrong, it was just a shitty boilerplate campaign speech.

 

[likeacrackado]

TLDW: "muh Jan 6" "niggress judge said the president is now king because reasons"

 

[The Last Stand]

1000 hours in photoshop
View attachment 6144917

I wish Hillary Clinton would've won so that many of her critics would go missing under constitutional law.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I wish Hillary Clinton would've won so that many of her critics would go missing under constitutional law.

You aren't even American, why do you lust after Hilldog and her theoretical ability to kill people? I don't get it.

 

[Fishmalk Observer]

I'm honestly annoyed that so many people are so damn wrong on this, but it's the culmination of "trust the experts":

View attachment 6145131

"Are you all not listening or reading any lawyers today?"

No sweet, sweet dumb summer child. I'm not "trusting the experts" to give me THEIR take on the ruling when the supreme court wrote it in such a way that a layman with a high school degree that wasn't a product of "no child left behind" could understand it. It's actually so well written for the common person to understand it that I'm thinking that it's the entire reason it took so long to produce. Blind trust of "the experts" and credentialism is going to tank this country, and that's not hyperbole. People will look at "lawyer" Tristan Snell or Lawrence Tribe's twitter bio, see that they are affirming how they feel instead of giving honest analysis, and say "well, this is what the experts say!" It's going to be the death of this country.

Or, at home, a Lawyer ala Rekieta

 

[The Last Stand]

You aren't even American, why do you lust after Hilldog and her theoretical ability to kill people? I don't get it.

You're right. I'm sorry. Canada is boring this time of day.

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

I don't think they will jail Trump now, it's just too risky. It's a huge gamble

I think the judge will hit Trump with a huge sentence then suspend it. That way the Dems can still crow FELON FELON 34 FELONIES!!! But then Trump can still stay free and win the PotUS.

The DNC and it's elite masters have really really really screw the pooch this time. No matter what the judge does...someone is going to pay and pay heavily.

The judge sends Trump to jail and risks riots and civil war
The judge doesn't send Trump to jail and risks riots and civil war

 

[Glowing In The Streets]

Drone striking the delivery guy on his way away from your home because the 20 nugget box was one short is not.

Your honor, I paid using official gov funds. Thus, the deliveryman committed fraud agaisnt the nation and high treason, and had to be neutralized.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

Not at all. They’re just frothing at the mouth for blood


View attachment 6144115

View attachment 6144116

View attachment 6144117

View attachment 6144118

it's called martial law and Biden can do it. would the US military police US cities? doubtful on that.

 

[Account]

I can understand not liking the ruling because a former president could avoid being punished for something they should be punished for by wasting the courts time with mountains of legal bullshit.

Of course, if the president starts assassinating political opponents and going "I can do what I want" the legal system isn't going to help you, no matter what the supreme court says, that's a civil war tier situation.

 

[Breadbassket]

Here is a statement from the DNC relating to the Trump v. United States situation.

DNC Statement on Trump v. United States​

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison released the following statement:

“Today’s ruling only underscores the stakes of this election – this is not just about partisan politics, this is about freedom. Here are the facts: on January 6, Donald Trump inspired a mob of violent insurrectionists, who attempted to overturn the results of a free and fair election. He has repeatedly put himself above our democracy, our constitution, and the American people. It’s hard to believe, but Trump has only become more unhinged in the years since he lost to Joe Biden, promising to be a dictator on ‘day one,’ suggesting the ‘termination’ of our Constitution to overturn valid election results, and warning of a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses again. The only thing standing between Donald Trump and his threats to our democracy is President Biden – and the American people will stand once again on the side of democracy this November.”

Trump is still pushing baseless lies about his loss by over seven million votes in the 2020 election that helped lead to the January 6 insurrection — and won’t commit to accepting the results of the upcoming election.

Interviewer: “There have been other close races and men have said, ‘listen, for the betterment of the country, we’re going to move on, we’re going to accept the results of the election.’ Would that have been the right course of action?”

Trump: “No, it would’ve been a terrible thing.”

Interviewer: “Would you accept the results of this election?”

Trump: *refuses to say yes*

Associated Press: “[Trump] is flooding the airwaves and his social media platform with distortions, misinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories about his defeat.”

NBC News: “Re-litigating the 2020 election, repeating false claims it was stolen and casting aspersions on the security of mail voting remain major fixtures for [Trump] on the stump. … He regularly refers to the 2020 election as ‘rigged’ on his social media channels.”

Associated Press: “Trump, running for the White House for the third time, has signaled that the 2020 election will remain an integral part of his 2024 presidential bid.”

Trump continues to praise and promise to pardon January 6 insurrectionists – who he calls “hostages” and “patriots.”

TIME: “Trump has sought to recast the insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. ‘I call them the J-6 patriots,’ Trump tells TIME. When asked whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says: ‘Yes, absolutely.’”

Washington Post: “Former president Donald Trump on Thursday praised and embraced a woman convicted of defying police orders on the U.S. Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021. … Trump has steadily escalated his advocacy for people charged in the Capitol riot, including by pledging to pardon them if he returns to the White House, praising them as patriots, participating in a recording with Jan. 6 prisoners singing the national anthem, and playing it at his first rally of the 2024 campaign last month.”

The Hill: “Trump describes imprisoned Jan. 6 rioters as ‘hostages’”

Washington Post: “Trump vows pardons, government apology to Capitol rioters if elected”

NBC News: “Former President Donald Trump promised Wednesday night that if he is elected he will pardon a ‘large portion’ of the people convicted of federal offenses for their participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.”

Trump: “January 6, it was the largest crowd I’ve ever spoken to. And they were there proud, they were there with love in their heart. That was an unbelievable — and it was a beautiful day.”

Business Insider: “Then-President Donald Trump didn’t want to specifically call for the Justice Department to prosecute January 6 rioters or forcefully condemn those who stormed the Capitol as unrepresentative of the MAGA movement.”

NBC News: “Trump spoke at a fundraiser for Jan. 6 defendants”

Trump has threatened political violence and warns of a “bloodbath” if he loses in November, and he is vowing to be a dictator on “day one” if he wins.

TIME: “Donald Trump Says Political Violence ‘Depends’ on ‘Fairness’ of 2024 Election”

Edward-Isaac Dovere, CNN: “Many people have lost American presidential elections over the last 230 years – Trump is the only one to say about violence if he loses ‘it depends.’”

NBC News: “Trump says there will be a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses the election”

Rolling Stone: “Trump Says There Will Be a ‘Bloodbath’ and Elections Will End if He Isn’t Reelected”

New York Times: “Trump Defends His Warning of a ‘Blood Bath for the Country’”

The Atlantic: “Trump Says He’ll Be a Dictator on ‘Day One’”

Associated Press: “Trump declines to rule out abusing power to seek retribution if he returns to the White House”

Washington Post: “Trump calls political enemies ‘vermin,’ echoing dictators Hitler, Mussolini”

The Guardian: “Donald Trump says he will lock up his political enemies if he is president again.”

Forbes: “Trump said of his relationships with dictators, ‘the tougher and meaner they are, the better I get along with them,’ which he insisted is ‘not a bad thing.’

“‘The easy ones,’ Trump said, referring to America’s allies, ‘I maybe don’t like as much or don’t get along with as much.’”

Article Link

 

[Nate Higgers]

Cause Obama didn't drone US citizens, I guess.

He did, but they were brown (usually male) Muslims in middle eastern countries. It doesn’t count unless it’s ethnically ambiguous genderqueer trans folkxs; preferably ones who are undergraduate/grad students of an Ivy League (or “public Ivy”) edit: they also have to be stateside, in a major metropolitan city