US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[ArtDecade]

Duck season just closed. But don’t lose hope @ArtDecade, Turkey Season is right around the corner!
That is if I don’t get racially profiled and beaten to death by police first.

 

[DarkstarII]

You da man, Glades! Don't let these guys get you down. The rest of them =

 

[Dumple Stilzkin]

You da man, Glades! Don't let these guys get you down. The rest of them =

View attachment 138057

Yep, you got us all figured out. Whatever helps you sleep on yer Mike Lindell pillow at night.

 

[TheBlackBard]

You da man, Glades! Don't let these guys get you down. The rest of them =

View attachment 138057

Funny how that picture is an exact replication of every gravy seal who thinks that they can take on the entire government with their AR-15's and Jason Aldean records.

 

[spudmunkey]

Righ

Funny how that picture is an exact replication of every gravy seal who thinks that they can take on the entire government with their AR-15's and Jason Aldean records.

Right down to the shirt.

 

[TedEH]

I don't understand where the "leftist" caricature comes from. Most of the very vocally "leftist" people I've ever met have been people like tech bros or office workers or what have you, who are usually pretty well off. Or people who work in/with the arts, I guess.

I've run into my fair share of homeless / unemployed / indebted / etc. people in the last few years and they've not trended towards the progressive, so far.

But also, if your best political argument is "oh yeah, well I bet you're fat".... well.... I guess that speaks for itself.

 

[spawnofthesith]

I don't understand where the "leftist" caricature comes from. Most of the very vocally "leftist" people I've ever met have been people like tech bros or office workers or what have you, who are usually pretty well off. Or people who work in/with the arts, I guess.

I've run into my fair share of homeless / unemployed / indebted / etc. people in the last few years and they've not trended towards the progressive, so far.

But also, if your best political argument is "oh yeah, well I bet you're fat".... well.... I guess that speaks for itself.

One things for sure, the right can't make a funny meme to save their lives

 

[zappatton2]

I have seen a few articles recently, including one in Scientific American, on a link between those experiencing mental health crisis and a tendency toward right-wing conspiracy theories. The more disconnected and isolated people get, the more they gravitate toward anger, extreme views, and online communities peddling disinformation and feeding the rage machine.

Speaking anecdotally, I saw this first-hand today in my commute home. Some guy yelling at everyone on the train, specifically getting in the faces of young women, crowing about Communists and Trudeau (being in Canada) ruining everything and aiming to kill white men or some weird nonsense.

Clearly he was a desperate man in the throes of a full breakdown, but I think the right-wing narrative latches onto those sorts of mental breaks, and feed that instability until it becomes (mostly) men acting out, sometimes violently, usually as the result of a system that doesn't know how to take care of its people.

The power and wealth divide between capital and labour has become so wide, the social safety net and general social contract too broken to catch all the people that fall through the cracks, and the political right are masters at harnessing the anger of the powerless, pointing them against each other, providing easy answers and easy scapegoats while the rich just keep getting richer.

 

[wheresthefbomb]

I don't understand where the "leftist" caricature comes from. Most of the very vocally "leftist" people I've ever met have been people like tech bros or office workers or what have you, who are usually pretty well off. Or people who work in/with the arts, I guess.

I've run into my fair share of homeless / unemployed / indebted / etc. people in the last few years and they've not trended towards the progressive, so far.

But also, if your best political argument is "oh yeah, well I bet you're fat".... well.... I guess that speaks for itself.

it's more like....

 

[Drew]

You da man, Glades! Don't let these guys get you down. The rest of them =

View attachment 138057

no no no no no. Remember, Russians are the GOOD guys now, and Tucker Carlson is a Real American Hero for showing us that! Get with the program!

 

[Drew]

In other news, Justice Jackson's line of questioning about whether or not Article 3 was narrowly intended to stop ex-Confederates from using local popularity to get elected to Congress, and wasn't envisioned to stop one of them from running for President, and that the purpose was to "stop the South from rising again" wasn't on my punch card. Tough to say for sure how sincere this was though, since she was also behind the officer/office of questioning and that's a weird distinction to be making here.

 

[tedtan]

In other news, Justice Jackson's line of questioning about whether or not Article 3 was narrowly intended to stop ex-Confederates from using local popularity to get elected to Congress, and wasn't envisioned to stop one of them from running for President, and that the purpose was to "stop the South from rising again" wasn't on my punch card. Tough to say for sure how sincere this was though, since she was also behind the officer/office of questioning and that's a weird distinction to be making here.

They all sounded like they were trying to find any excuse to avoid upholding the Colorado SC’s ruling; I won’t be surprised if this ends up being 9-0 for overturning the Colorado ruling.

 

[Drew]

Also, regardless of your political views and what you think the courts SHOULD do, let's pause and recognize this for what it is - we have a legitimate constitutional crisis on our hands.

We have the leading presidential candidate for a major party who MIGHT be barred from holding office by a 160-year-old constitutional amendment that prohibits "officers of the US" from holding office if they engaged in insurrection. There's strong reason to include the Presidency here under both common usage ad the debate at the time it was passed... but it doesn't explicitly do so, so there's a little wiggle room there. There's more wiggle room, however, in the fact that while "engaging in insurrection" disqualifies you from holding office, insurrection isn't defined, nor is any standard set by which it can be determined if someone actually engaged in it.

Beyond that, beyond today's hearing... that same candidate is going to potentially force us to answer questions like, what happens when someone convicted of a felony, and potentially even someone actively serving a prison sentence, is elected president? Can they hold office, is the prison sentence deferred, or do they have to serve the sentence first? And can they just pardon themselves of crimes they are serving jail time for? What about if it's a state felony, the president can't pardon themselves for state crimes, if they can pardon themselves at all, but if they're serving a state prison sentence and are elected president, what happens? Can they be sworn in or is that not possible while they're in jail? Can they defer their sentence somehow? And is this even fair treatment when you have a candidate who legitimately might die of old age in the four year presidential term?

Like, these are extremely thorny questions, and on some level, it kind of doesn't matter if you think Trump is obviously guilty and should be in jail, or he's obviously innocent and is being persecuted with a witch-hunt because of his politics - we're getting AMPLE proof that so much of our legal system just assumes everyone will act like adults and be responsible and do things like, if you're being tried for like a half-dozen different crimes including trying to subvert a democratic election, you just don't run for President. Trump is just thrashing those conventions, though, and now we have a couple constitutional crises brewing thanks to it where there isn't a 100% black-and-white answer in the Constitution and some interpretation will need to happen, with incredibly high political stakes.

 

[Drew]

They all sounded like they were trying to find any excuse to avoid upholding the Colorado SC’s ruling; I won’t be surprised if this ends up being 9-0 for overturning the Colorado ruling.

I think it's tricky though because I don't think the Court can do something quite that narrow.

The court ruling is pretty narrow, basically whethwer or not Colorado has the ability to remove Trump from the ballot. And, regardless of how they rule on that, I think they also have to address the bigger question, which isn't if CO can take his name off a primary ballot, so much as is he even eligible to be sworn in as President.

Lots of ways you could game this out, but I think the best realistic case scenario for Trump (I don't think 'Article 3 doesn't apply to the President,' or 'Article 3 only applies to the Civil War' are realistic outcomes) would be the Supreme Court ruling Trump can stay on the ballot, and can run in the general electon if he wins, but in doing so also put some guidelines around what it means to have "engaged in insurrection" and set a reasonably clear standard, so if subsequently he IS found guilty of having tried to overturn the results of the election on January 6th, then he's clearly fallen afoul of the Court's standards and cannot be sworn in as president (or, likely, there would be constitutional and legal rather than merely political (i.e. - impeacment) grounds to remove him from office).

At that point, if the Court conservatives are pushing "let the people decide," then they can at least say they're helping them make an informed choice - "Sure, you can vote for this guy... but if you do, know that there's a good chance he might get stripped off the ballot if he's convicted before the election, or removed from office if he's convicted after."

 

[tedtan]

I think it's tricky though because I don't think the Court can do something quite that narrow.

The court ruling is pretty narrow, basically whethwer or not Colorado has the ability to remove Trump from the ballot. And, regardless of how they rule on that, I think they also have to address the bigger question, which isn't if CO can take his name off a primary ballot, so much as is he even eligible to be sworn in as President.

Lots of ways you could game this out, but I think the best realistic case scenario for Trump (I don't think 'Article 3 doesn't apply to the President,' or 'Article 3 only applies to the Civil War' are realistic outcomes) would be the Supreme Court ruling Trump can stay on the ballot, and can run in the general electon if he wins, but in doing so also put some guidelines around what it means to have "engaged in insurrection" and set a reasonably clear standard, so if subsequently he IS found guilty of having tried to overturn the results of the election on January 6th, then he's clearly fallen afoul of the Court's standards and cannot be sworn in as president (or, likely, there would be constitutional and legal rather than merely political (i.e. - impeacment) grounds to remove him from office).

At that point, if the Court conservatives are pushing "let the people decide," then they can at least say they're helping them make an informed choice - "Sure, you can vote for this guy... but if you do, know that there's a good chance he might get stripped off the ballot if he's convicted before the election, or removed from office if he's convicted after."

Trump hasn’t been charged with insurrection, so it isn’t before the court; I don’t see the SC ruling on that topic at this time.

As for Colorado removing Trump from the ballot, Justice Kagan summed things up with her question (paraphrased) “why should one State be allowed to single-handedly determine who becomes the president of all States?” In practice, Colorado wouldn’t be in a position to make that decision because they pledge the vote of their electors to whomever wins the national popular vote. But if Colorado is allowed to remove Trump based on its own interpretation of “engaged in insurrection”, then other States can do so as well. And in that case, who is to say that Florida. For example, won’t remove Biden from the ballot based on it’s State Supreme Courts’ interpretation of “engaged in insurrection” based on Biden’s involvement, to whatever extent, if any, it may have been, with Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

This is a hot potato issue and the justices want to punt it down the line as quickly as possible without getting involved. I don’t foresee them making any consequential ruling here. And even if it is 9-0 against, they could have nine or more reasons for voting against and it won’t really matter here; there is no real need for unified reasoning behind the decision in this case.

 

[JDB123]

"I think that the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States...what's a state doing deciding who other citizens get to vote for for president?" -Justice Elena Kagan

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the office of the presidency can be disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that if the Colorado decision is upheld, other states could kick other candidates from the ballot.

"It'll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election," he said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence."

Justice Samuel Alito said that states reaching their own conclusions could create an "unmanageable situation."

Supreme Court appears skeptical of Colorado booting Trump from ballot (axios.com)

 

[spawnofthesith]

And in that case, who is to say that Florida. For example, won’t remove Biden from the ballot based on it’s State Supreme Courts’ interpretation of “engaged in insurrection” based on Biden’s involvement, to whatever extent, if any, it may have been, with Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

I'm sorry, I must've missed something. Can you please educate me, specifically, what could be interpreted as insurrection there? Even in the most mental gymnasticy way?

 

[tedtan]

I'm sorry, I must've missed something. Can you please educate me, specifically, what could be interpreted as insurrection there? Even in the most mental gymnasticy way?

It would be a politically motivated move rather than a good faith attempt to protect the country, so as such, a republican controlled State, such as Florida, could even enact specific laws that would allow for that conclusion if necessary, and it would be up to that State’s Supreme Court to make the determination.

And to keep things in perspective, impeachment is supposed to be a remedy for an official who has committed “treason, bribery, and “other high crimes and misdemeanors””, yet the republicans in the US House just tried (and failed) to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas over a difference in policy (there were no substantive charges against him).

So mental gymnastics? Yes. But don’t overlook the possibility in this political climate.

 

[Grindspine]

Wow, reading Justice Robert's statements in this article is frustrating. What an annoying prick he must be.

5 key takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments over Trump's 2024 ballot eligibility

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case Trump v. Anderson, which involves whether former President Donald Trump is ineligible to hold office again.

www.cbsnews.com

From my understanding of the Colorado Supreme Court case, the justices used precedent set forth by Kavanaugh when he was in Colorado to justify the state having the authority to run their own election. The way they did this, Kavanaugh would have to go against his own opinion to overturn the Colorado court's ruling. Likewise, the other Supreme Court justices would have to turn on one of their own to successfully overturn the ruling.

However, from the excerpts out of today's hearing, there is so much hypothetical, hyperbole, and semantic assumption about what the "founding fathers intended" that it is a wonder anything gets done in that court. I get the impression that all of the justices have already decided which way to rule, the courtroom antics are just show for the masses at this point.

To quote a wise statement, "I've had tacos more supreme than this court."

 

[LordCashew]

"It'll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election," he said. "That's a pretty daunting consequence."

Like the swing states that already do this? Daunting indeed...