USA Politics

One of the lessons we can take from the downfall of democracies is that democracies without safeguards inevitably get people who can work around the edges of the system to destroy it. There's too many people in love with the concept of the system to accept when it's time to fight to protect it. The USA put a tool in the Constitution to protect from that. It's a weak tool and requires a failed first attempt to enact, but Trump seems to have been part of a failed first attempt, and that should be resolved in the courts.

With a functioning SCOTUS, they would look at the 14th Amendment and create a test for whether or not someone has committed insurrection, and then apply that test to Trump and determine if he was disqualified as a result. We do not know if this SCOTUS can function. There's 2 justices who, guaranteed, have no interest in considering the question, and three of the others were appointed by Trump and may or may not want to evaluate fairly. Just another example why the SCOTUS system is broken.
 
____no5 said:
@Jer I’m genuinely not familiar with Russian elections and I don’t have a clear opinion.
I was triggered from the article that more or less called Erdogan & Orban dictators. That’s a huge distortion of reality and it probably fells into propaganda territory. Erdogan had made his intentions clear that he wanted to change the constitution and in which direction. People still voted for him. This is democracy.
Click to expand...

Putin does what Porfirio Diaz did here in Mexico. There would be elections, but somehow he'd always win... for 30 years. Then, starting in the 1920s the PRN, now known as the PRI, came up with a better system. Hold elections, but the party's candidate would always win. There are reports now-a-days that confirm what people have always suspected (known), the PRI stole several elections to stay in power and Sadly so did the PAN back in 2006 to ensure that Lopez Obrador (our current president) wouldn't become president back then.

Just holding elections doesn't make a country a "democracy," being elected doesn't mean you're NOT a dictator. It's all show.
 
LooseCannon said:
With a functioning SCOTUS, they would look at the 14th Amendment and create a test for whether or not someone has committed insurrection, and then apply that test to Trump and determine if he was disqualified as a result. We do not know if this SCOTUS can function. There's 2 justices who, guaranteed, have no interest in considering the question, and three of the others were appointed by Trump and may or may not want to evaluate fairly. Just another example why the SCOTUS system is broken.
Click to expand...

We do have instances where some of the judges appointed by Trump have ruled fairly. I do remember one case where Trump said he felt confident the judge would, "do the right thing." When she ruled against the GOP he was pissed, mouthed off and then that judge had to say she was a judge not Trump's personal lapdog and she had a job to uphold.
 
Everybody, you all know how incredibly frustrated I can get with 5, but the last two pages - in which I have also participated - are starting to look like bullying. Let's please all take a deep breath and consider that we are talking to a person, and not to the anti-democratic collective of our time. Like all of us, he has the right to his opinion, and he has the right to be wrong, objectively and in our subjective views. He is not answering for Putin, Trump, Xi, or any of that scum, he is expressing and defending an opinion, as objectionable as we may think it is.
 
You are right @Perun and I'm sorry if I came across as too aggressive. My issue isn't even the opinion itself; anyone can have whatever opinion they want. What frustrates me to no end is when someone makes objectively false claims, gets proven wrong time and time again sometimes even with links and evidence, but then the same claim is shared a week or a month later as if there was no endless discussion beforehand. It's incredibly insulting, particularly when the same person keeps talking about how important it is to be cordial to one another and to be respectful, while at the same time showing no respect whatsoever to the people who are talking to him.
 
Vaenyr said:
You are right @Perun and I'm sorry if I came across as too aggressive. My issue isn't even the opinion itself; anyone can have whatever opinion they want. What frustrates me to no end is when someone makes objectively false claims, gets proven wrong time and time again sometimes even with links and evidence, but then the same claim is shared a week or a month later as if there was no endless discussion beforehand. It's incredibly insulting, particularly when the same person keeps talking about how important it is to be cordial to one another and to be respectful, while at the same time showing no respect whatsoever to the people who are talking to him.
Click to expand...

I know and see this, but this point has been made and sometimes you just have to take a lack of response as an answer and let it go.
 
LooseCannon said:
We do not know if this SCOTUS can function. There's 2 justices who, guaranteed, have no interest in considering the question, and three of the others were appointed by Trump and may or may not want to evaluate fairly.
Click to expand...
I actually have pretty high confidence that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will make independent decisions without explicit political considerations. I may not agree with their decisions, but I don't think they're just straight up in the bag for the GOP the way Alito and Thomas are. It's too early to say with Coney Barrett.

This suggests to me that 14th Amendment disqualification is still possible, because 5-6 of the judges will legitimately consider the idea. I guess we'll find out soon.
 
The people who have real respect for the others you can spot from the way that they engage, much more than their content. Content can be big words which mean nothing if one gets too much heated, prejudiced or ironic. When those qualities do not meet is better not to reply. This is due to respect, rather than lack of.
 
____no5 said:
When those qualities do not meet is better not to reply. This is due to respect, rather than lack of.
Click to expand...
Yet it is also a convenient tactic to avoid addressing a hard truth that may completely undermine the point you are attempting to make. And when it appears that you are using it tactically in this way while framing it as etiquette, that only serves to further frustrate the people whose counterpoints you are ignoring, making them more likely to respond in a way that you can use as yet another excuse to avoid responding yourself.

When the substance of your argument is challenged, you need to address those challenges directly in order to have your argument taken seriously, even if you don’t like the manner in which the challenge was made. You can always address decorum separately.
 
____no5 said:
The people who have real respect for the others you can spot from the way that they engage, much more than their content. Content can be big words which mean nothing if one gets too much heated, prejudiced or ironic. When those qualities do not meet is better not to reply. This is due to respect, rather than lack of.
Click to expand...
:D how convenient and PATHETIC.
 
LooseCannon said:
One of the lessons we can take from the downfall of democracies is that democracies without safeguards inevitably get people who can work around the edges of the system to destroy it. There's too many people in love with the concept of the system to accept when it's time to fight to protect it. The USA put a tool in the Constitution to protect from that. It's a weak tool and requires a failed first attempt to enact, but Trump seems to have been part of a failed first attempt, and that should be resolved in the courts.

With a functioning SCOTUS, they would look at the 14th Amendment and create a test for whether or not someone has committed insurrection, and then apply that test to Trump and determine if he was disqualified as a result. We do not know if this SCOTUS can function. There's 2 justices who, guaranteed, have no interest in considering the question, and three of the others were appointed by Trump and may or may not want to evaluate fairly. Just another example why the SCOTUS system is broken.
Click to expand...
Ironically, I have more faith in the Trump appointed justices to act independently and without political motivations than two justices not appointed by Trump. I guess one of the very few saving graces of the current SCOTUS is that we all know that Trump did not personally choose any of those judges. Not sure if that would be the case in a second term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
Oh man that brings back memories. What song is in the original vid? Pantera? Slayer? Or was it Metallica? Anyway, a classic lol 'MURICA! lol
 
As it should be. Trump is just a man and a citizen like everybody else. He should face the consequences for his actions. Having been the president shouldn't make someone immune from the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
They just need four justices to want to hear the case. I don’t expect the court to reverse the decision but it’s a low threshold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top