USA Politics

____no5 said:
There is a certain denial from people to see things as they are, this « Biden had a cold » is obviously a BS as next day he was energized and commanding as fuck.
Not to mention that Obama or Harris didn’t bother to offer « cold » as excuse.
So no, he hadn’t catch a cold. Doctors screwed up with the drugs and they kicked in a day later :D

This.
Click to expand...
It was also broadcasted late in the evening, at a time he typically isn't doing any speeches. Look, Biden is old (as is Trump, and while he is mostly energetic, he certainly has cognitively declined in the past four years, but Fox et al. are as blindly ignoring it as the Dems are with Biden), and while I do think he's had significant legislative triumphs, he should have stuck to his original intention of being a one-term President. The drugs whatever thing is just a unsubstantianted talking point though, same as the occassional Left talking point about Trump having taken sedatives during the trials and then some kind of booster drug to get energized while leaving for his court speeches.

However, Biden yell-talks in most of his speeches and it sounds fine. When he's speaking softly, his vocal cords sound - Old.
 
Last edited:
Yes Trump has visibly declined too, though to be fair he is going through a massive legal war against him -or fair legal battle, whatever you like to call it- which it’s still on-going and mega stressful.

Joking apart, I’m not too anti-drugs, like in sports, drugs enhance a skill you already have. Top athletes and politicians do take drugs, how to handle and manage drugs is also a skill and it's a decades (in the case of politicians) long race.
And because I like to give credit when credit is due, I admitted that Biden gave a terrific performance the day after the debate.
 
Last edited:
This proves that Donald J Trump is indeed treated differently in legal matters. Turns out it's not "lawfare"; it's a corrupt SCOTUS bending over backwards for him.
 
I think it's tacky as hell on myself for pivoting to viewing what this does for the election, but, this Supreme Court while delivering victories for Conservatives in terms of decisions has done a mighty fine job energizing Democrat voters. Striking down Roe v Wade has delivered big for Dems in various special elections (outdoing various polls), and the quick (anecdotal) reaction I've gathered from this is this just made it much more clear how important it is to deny the convicted felon of the White House.

Heat's still there on Biden, but this throws a wrench in thing.
 
Flaming Blimp Crash said:
Supreme Court just ruled that former presidents have immunity from official actions in office, but not for private conduct. Hmm, well that doesn't sound dangerous whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Completely outrageous. In a sane society there would be an immediate bipartisan call for a constitutional amendment to rectify this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
Jer said:
Completely outrageous. In a sane society there would be an immediate bipartisan call for a constitutional amendment to rectify this.
Click to expand...

You castrate the President of US if you don't give immunity. Everything revolves around the President and together with some solid institutions it's a good thing. On the other hands now the door is open and the playbook is there for a future Trump to take over.
But it won't happen as long as Americans stay vigilant about their democracy the way they are today. And they are.

The bipartisan action does required though but not as a patch or emergency. Things like a more fair representation in the Senate for example.
 
____no5 said:
You castrate the President of US if you don't give immunity.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The whole point of the U.S. Presidency was to no longer have an unaccountable king who was above the law. Today’s SCOTUS decision, supposedly led by originalists and textualists, has apparently decided that the Declaration Of Independence can go fuck itself.

Let me quote from the Declaration:
“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. […]”

I mean, it’s right there in black and white. The very first of the list of grievances against the King was that he put himself above the law, and now SCOTUS has done that with our President. It’s beyond laughable and incredibly sad.
 
Go figure tjat
Jer said:
Nonsense. The whole point of the U.S. Presidency was to no longer have an unaccountable king who was above the law. Today’s SCOTUS decision, supposedly led by originalists and textualists, has apparently decided that the Declaration Of Independence can go fuck itself.

Let me quote from the Declaration:
“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. […]”

I mean, it’s right there in black and white. The very first of the list of grievances against the King was that he put himself above the law, and now SCOTUS has done that with our President. It’s beyond laughable and incredibly sad.
Click to expand...
And here I was, believing "Conservative" judges should conservatively interpret the Constitution and read it by the letter...
Silly me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jer
Well, that's the Declaration, which isn't the Constitution, but is one of the Founding Documents that the Court is supposed to consider.

It's also a propaganda piece that does not accurately represent the formations of the American Revolutionary War, but either way, the USA is supposed to have a leader that is restricted significantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top