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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: ThisIsGonnaBeGood, The Shredder, ActualCracker and 120 others
Click to expand...
mandatorylurk said:
Trump released his 20 core promises (contract with America) and this is all you need to show people.

View attachment 6299431
View attachment 6299435
Click to expand...
>11. Rebuild our cities, including Washington DC, making them safe, clean, and beautiful again
That's assuming the people running the cities will let him. Otherwise this will wind up turning the blue ones into more CHAZ areas, and then what? Last time he didn't do anything because he knew it was a trap. What's to say it won't happen again?

>8. Restore peace in Europe and the Middle East
lulz... good luck with that one. Korea is one thing, this is an entirely different ball game.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Seven Blasphemous Deaths, World Famous Quasi Payer, Chuckwagon and 3 others
autistic dog said:
22 days has the Muslim jazz god cum Allah added an issue section to they/their campagin website yet?
Click to expand...
Um, the only important issue is stopping Drumpf from creating the 4th Reich and banning gays, sweaty.

draggs said:
Jesus, please stop reading Wikipedia and pick up a real book

Nixon was seen as a centrist by the public lololol I can't with this. Nixon was the second most prominent cold warrior of the late 40s and the 50s until McCarthy crashed and burned, then he was number one. He was the reactionary fuck the hippies and pinkos candidate in 68 and 72. Nixon was only seen as a centrist by post hoc rationalizers who came into prominence on the right years and years after his resignation
Click to expand...
Nixon had no love of hippies, but he did make efforts to talk to and outreach to young people. He was as much for ending Vietnam as them, he just wanted an honorable peace and orderly withdrawal so you don't get what just happened in Afghanistan.

He was staunchly anti-Communist and probably didn't change much between the 40s-70s. But he was a pragmatist and tried to deal fairly and make overtures to the USSR and China. Which really pissed of the MIC, not because McDonnell Douglas and Dow Chemical and the CIA were MORE anti-commie, they just wanted forever war to keep the cash flowing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, GetToTheChoppa, World Famous Quasi Payer and 6 others
Jade Philosophies said:
The Frankfurt School.
Click to expand...
Second wave feminism had more to do with Betty Friedan, who was a regular Marxist, than the Frankfurt School. Hormheimer and Adorno were from an earlier, pre-WWII school of thought which followed Nietzchean ideas that the Enlightenment (and all of modern Western society) was a mistake. Read Dialectic of Enlightenment if you care. Unfortunately, it's impossible to read about cultural Marxism since TPBT scrubbed it from the Internet.

I have read Horkheimer and Adorno and they really were as awful as you've probably read. They are very, very clear and serious about what they mean by cultural Marxism in the aforementioned book.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, Marchesa of the Vast, Chuckwagon and 3 others
Rimanah said:
The constitution isn’t a normal law. It’s the framework for the government, outlining the powers the government has, and the restrictions on it. It’s the meta-physics to regular statutes physics.

Thus, the violation of the constitution doesn’t work in the same way that violation of a normal law does. So if, for example, a law or administrative regulation, allowed a third amendment violation, you don’t go arresting the violators. The law is ruled unconstitutional, essentially deleted out of existence. And the victims would also likely recover damages for the violation, but that would depend on the particulars of the suit.

In this particular case, you wouldn’t arrest them for committing a crime. You’d sue them under section 1983, and seek damages, and seek to have the law ruled unconstitutional.

This is all a very sky high overview, but in short, the Constitution doesn’t work nor is it executed the way normal laws are.

Edit: I will note that the local Police and DA could theoretically arrest them for home invasion or something similar, under a
theory that the lacked the power to commit their actions due to their unconstitutionally. But that’s still the same sort of idea as a civil suit, just on the criminal side of things. It’s also a far less likely scenario than just suing them under 1983. Could be fun though, and a headline grabber for a Conservative DA looking to make their way up the political ladder.
Click to expand...

So basically it's virtually useless and is only being upheld in certain cases by the skin of its teeth or when it benefits the government's agenda?
 
King Metalia said:
Nothing would make me happier than this DNC being equally or more chaotic than the 1968 convention. Oh how sweet it would be if Kamala was meet with a chorus of boos after accepting the nomination.
Click to expand...
Sadly, the absolute un democratic support Kamala has received was precisely to avoid this scenario. We’ll instead get astroturfed with news as to why the DNC this year was the best and how the RNC was lame in comparison.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Pig Cups, King Metalia, Conan and 2 others
Jade Philosophies said:
They think it's only the government who can give you rights like freedom of speech and willingly obey the government without question.
Click to expand...
It IS the government that grants you rights, though. Rights aren't something that you grab as you walk through the countryside, they don't exist outside a state structure of some sort. There are no rights in anarchy save for the right of he who is strongest.
 
  • Dumb
  • Disagree
  • Autistic
Reactions: Fatsuit Shinji, bucolic, Brahma and 27 others
Jade Philosophies said:
So basically it's virtually useless and is only being upheld in certain cases by the skin of its teeth or when it benefits the government's agenda?
Click to expand...
No, it just operates in a vastly different way than normal laws. It sets the boundaries for what laws can and cannot do, it doesn’t create crimes or civil actions.
Congress has since passed a law, the aforementioned section 1983, that courts have interpreted as allowing suits against parties who infringe on people’s constitutional rights. IIRC it’s far and away where the plurality (I can’t recall if it’s the majority) of civil lawsuits in federal courts come from.

But that’s separate from the Constitution and its role within the American system.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: World Famous Quasi Payer and spiritofamermaid
CoolFool said:
Has Trump said anywhere how many illegal immigrants he would deport?
Click to expand...



Kankichi Ryotsu said:
It IS the government that grants you rights, though. Rights aren't something that you grab as you walk through the countryside, they don't exist outside a state structure of some sort. There are no rights in anarchy save for the right of he who is strongest.
Click to expand...

No, God grants the rights and the government can only take them away and it's the people's duty to resist that as much as possible. The government can grant privileges though.

Rimanah said:
No, it just operates in a vastly different way than normal laws. It sets the boundaries for what laws can and cannot do, it doesn’t create crimes or civil actions.
Congress has since passed a law, the aforementioned section 1983, that courts have interpreted as allowing suits against parties who infringe on people’s constitutional rights. IIRC it’s far and away where the plurality (I can’t recall if it’s the majority) of civil lawsuits in federal courts come from.

But that’s separate from the Constitution and its role within the American system.
Click to expand...

So it is basically virtually useless and little more than libertarians' mythical NAP that the US government just hasn't taken the plunge and totally cast aside yet?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Brahma, lukewarm coffee, Exterminatus and 6 others
ForgedBlades said:
View attachment 6300110
View attachment 6300112
Click to expand...
Funny thing is as VP Kamala cast the tie-breaking vote on the bill that cracked down on hospitality workers not paying taxes on their tips.

Kankichi Ryotsu said:
It IS the government that grants you rights, though. Rights aren't something that you grab as you walk through the countryside, they don't exist outside a state structure of some sort. There are no rights in anarchy save for the right of he who is strongest.
Click to expand...
Errr, no, you have rights regardless of the government. That's what inalienable means. Your teachers have failed you.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Brahma, Netizennameless, make_it_so and 26 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back