Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)BO
Posts
0
Comments
385
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • WTF? I'm not ignoring it; the entire point of my comments has been pointing it out.

    You're ignoring that Biden won't do it, Dems wouldn't allow him to do it, and the bad faith actors in place aren't Democrats. So no one, at any level, is going to allow Joe Biden to take any of those steps.

  • I've seen polling that says that Michelle Obama wins by like 20 points, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that polling.

    There's so much "not Trump" feeling in this country, but running a doddering octogenarian against him decreases those people willing to vote for "not Trump". I'm absolutely voting for the Dem candidate, but I have some very real concerns about it.

  • You're really, really relying on this notion that the noble bureaucrats won't comply, and also won't get replaced with lackeys who would.

    No, I'm being realistic. It's a system of checks and balances, but it only works when you have a sufficient number of good faith actors. When you have a sufficient number of bad faith actors, or those willing to go completely over-the-top in their corruption, the system doesn't work. Immunity, at the end of the day, is a moot point against that level of bad faith malfeasance, a point you choose to seemingly ignore.

  • And you continue to ignore the supreme court sanctioned method of "cutting the gordian knot" with seal team six.

    This isn't a thing. If Biden ordered the assassination of justices he'd be prosecuted by the DoJ and the FBI. You're insane if you think otherwise.

    So it is very clear you are not arguing in good faith

    Not arguing in good faith? You cannot give a specific example of what Dems could have done to avoid this or what they can do now. You backed yourself into a corner and are now screeching seal team six nonsense.

    Biden wouldn't do it, Dems wouldn't stand for it, and SCOTUS wouldn't sanction it. It's a nonsense argument to distract from the other vague nonsense you've said.

  • By who, a SCOTUS well within Seal Team Sixing distance?

    No, the DoJ and the FBI, you know, the entities that prosecute people.

    Immunity doesn't make something legal, it simply puts the person beyond the reach of the law. You're talking about a commander-in-chief using the military against citizens on US soil. All members of the military are trained to reject unlawful orders.

    So first you're assuming seal team six accepts and carries out an unlawful order. Then the entire DoJ ignores it, or is murdered, until they accept it. Then any legislators or justices that attempt to rein in such power are also assassinated. That's what is required for your idea to make sense.

    Guess what, SCOTUS is irrelevant to the calculation. Assuming you have all those things above, it doesn't matter if SCOTUS conveys immunity or not. That president is beyond the bounds of the law anyway, with or without immunity.

  • You really need to read Sotomayor’s dissent in Trump v. United States.

    I have.

    He may need Congress' "consent" for some things but he can Seal Team Six any Congressperson who doesn't "consent," so effectively he can do whatever he wants.

    1. He wouldn't. 2. If he did he'd be prosecuted. 3. This was never meant to allow Biden any power, R is the in group, D is the out group. 4. Republican ideology doesn't treat in and out groups the same, the rules are different.

    So please stop.

  • republicans and dinos are just looking out for their own self interest. I don't care if we need to rebuild Epstein's Island and dedicate most of an annual military budget to get them on our side, we do it.

    Here's the problem, they understand the power of the Supreme Court. There's nothing you can offer them to untie this particular knot, none of them are voting to expand the court.

  • Polls haven't shifted one way or the other as of yet. If this does anything, then there might need to be a different conversation.

    Biden has been trending down since April and has been behind in the polls since then. His an incumbent who is down in the polls.

    How about the fact that he looks confused a lot too? He's very old and doddering. At his age he couldn't be a judge in my state, but he can be president?

  • Stack the court how? Congress can set a different number, what's the plan to get it through the House and Senate?

    pull out every single stop

    Like what? You don't have the numbers. This is my issue, this is the equivalent of saying "stuff, just do stuff".

  • But Democrats and The Left are hellbent on tearing down their candidate for a multitude of reasons

    Reasons like he may not be fit to do the job, he's trailing in the polls, and is likely to lose?

    and have consistently refused to do anything that could possibly have prevented the current mess of a supreme court.

    Such as? Everyone says this but never gives the next sentence, what they should have done.

  • Jun 28 - July 2

    YouGov: Trump 44%, Biden 40% N=2,815 LV

    NY times: Trump: 42%, Biden 37% N= 1,532 LV

    MOE: < 3% for both polls

    If the demographic data shows 18 to 20-somethings supporting Trump, it doesn't count.

    Why focus on a group that doesn't vote? Polls show Biden ahead in that demographic though...so these count?