MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Jul 2, 2024 1:21:19 GMT
Like, I genuinely do not want to sound too glib about it. Even if I doubt that some of the more extreme stuff is going to happen (Trump says a lot of bullshit that he never follows through on), a second Trump presidency is still going to be an absolute shit show.
But there's a tendency to pay obsessive attention to (and freak out about) American politics, which maybe isn't warranted for people who aren't actually living in America, with no say in their elections (notable exception for Ukrainians). And I understand the appeal! I'm trying to pay less (but not zero) attention exactly because I used to obsess over it a lot.
But as I think I've mentioned before, my mum knows who MTG is. It helps nobody to know what MTG is, aside from an extremely nerdy card game.
|
|
MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Jul 2, 2024 1:21:54 GMT
Sorry I couldn't put it in a haiku.
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 2, 2024 4:58:46 GMT
Agree, I am definitely trying not to be as invested this time around. I have no agency and whilst there are/will be wider ramifications, the impact is in the US first and foremost. Watching the likes of John Oliver and John Stewart probably isn't helpful either.
I should add getting off Twitter might be a good idea too.
|
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,043
|
Post by cubby on Jul 2, 2024 5:42:34 GMT
As people were saying during Trumps presidency, Trump isn't necessarily the problem here it that he's demonstrated what can be gotten away with that an even worse and smarter wannabe dictator will have taken notes on. This ruling is genuinely going to cause massive ramifications, even if it isn't by Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 2, 2024 5:50:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bill the kidding on Jul 2, 2024 6:00:21 GMT
Is impeachment basically the only check on a US President's powers?
Maybe check isn't the right word. There are checks in terms of the houses and the supreme court when we're talking about going through proper channels. But if the president decides to do something illegal, is impeachment the only way to punish them, and the only ultimate deterrent?
Nixon was charged for Watergate, right? Isn't that a precedent, or did he get pardoned before a verdict was given?
Even if we go with the supreme court's decision that 'official' actions are immune, I don't get their reasoning for saying ordering Pence to overturn the result of the election was 'an official act'. Surely that's a purely personal act?
|
|
|
Post by peekconfusion on Jul 2, 2024 6:43:05 GMT
Agree, I am definitely trying not to be as invested this time around. I have no agency and whilst there are/will be wider ramifications, the impact is in the US first and foremost. Watching the likes of John Oliver and John Stewart probably isn't helpful either. I should add getting off Twitter might be a good idea too. It sounds ridiculous but my mood measurably improved when I stopped reading r/WhitePeopleTwitter.
|
|
Ulythium
Full Member
Lily-livered
Posts: 6,688
|
Post by Ulythium on Jul 2, 2024 7:51:33 GMT
Trump's already trying to have the hush money conviction overturned.
I guess we'll soon find out whether or not paying a porn star to keep quiet about an affair constitutes an "official act."
|
|
|
Post by elstoof on Jul 2, 2024 7:54:30 GMT
He’s been convicted of falsifying business records, not paying a porn star hush money
|
|
Ulythium
Full Member
Lily-livered
Posts: 6,688
|
Post by Ulythium on Jul 2, 2024 8:30:25 GMT
Yeah, that's true.
All part of the same sordid saga, and hard (if not outright impossible) to see how it could be deemed an "official act", but a fair point all the same.
|
|
|
Post by tonyferrino on Jul 2, 2024 9:07:24 GMT
I don't think he was in office when he did that, so it wouldn't be in the scope of the ruling ( I think)
|
|
otto
New Member
Posts: 844
|
Post by otto on Jul 2, 2024 9:11:58 GMT
People are right to be concerned, but the problem isn't really the courts. The problem is that the Republican party and its electorate have gone insane. The problem is definitely the courts. The Republican Party captured the Supreme Court in plain sight by breaking with convention; the Democrats failed to stand up to them at the time; ever since then, this was coming. When the Presidency has captured the Court and when it has one or both houses of Congress then the checks and balances are gone and it has essentially free rein. And when the system for appointing/electing the President is hopelessly broken - which it is - then you are looking at the perfect storm. So: you're looking at the perfect storm. I can't see how democratic America (small 'd' intentional) escapes this snooker.
|
|
|
Post by Bill the kidding on Jul 2, 2024 9:15:01 GMT
BBC article says he signed them off while in office.
Quite how his business can be considered an official act is beyond me, but then it's a very nebulous term, and maybe an official act is whatever the kingpresident says it is.
He's probably mainly just trying to delay things until after the election.
|
|
otto
New Member
Posts: 844
|
Post by otto on Jul 2, 2024 9:16:59 GMT
But there's a tendency to pay obsessive attention to (and freak out about) American politics, which maybe isn't warranted for people who aren't actually living in America, with no say in their elections (notable exception for Ukrainians). And I understand the appeal! I'm trying to pay less (but not zero) attention exactly because I used to obsess over it a lot. I get incredibly annoyed at the tendency of people (and press) in the UK to obsess over US politics, but this is now much more important than mere US domestic politics. A second Trump Presidency means several things for us, but most importantly: (1) Forget about the world achieving net zero or doing anything to keep climate change to within 2 or 3 degrees - so it's no exaggeration to talk about an actual extinction event (2) By enabling Putin he leaves Europe with a stark choice: move to a much higher degree of military readiness, which will cost an enormous amount of money, hitting living standards for all of us; or let Putin win in Ukraine which amounts to the same thing. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but I'm extremely depressed today and very pessimistic.
|
|
|
Post by skalpadda on Jul 2, 2024 9:19:05 GMT
Is impeachment basically the only check on a US President's powers? Maybe check isn't the right word. There are checks in terms of the houses and the supreme court when we're talking about going through proper channels. But if the president decides to do something illegal, is impeachment the only way to punish them, and the only ultimate deterrent? Nixon was charged for Watergate, right? Isn't that a precedent, or did he get pardoned before a verdict was given? Even if we go with the supreme court's decision that 'official' actions are immune, I don't get their reasoning for saying ordering Pence to overturn the result of the election was 'an official act'. Surely that's a purely personal act? Impeachment is the only route to remove a president *. For criminal prosecutions after a president has left office I suppose it would ultimately be subject to what the supreme court would deem an act taken in an official capacity (which is obviously hilariously arbitrary given the political influence on SCOTUS).
Nixon resigned before the impeachment could be concluded and IIRC was pardoned before criminal charges were brought.
You'd think it would be a given that it's not the president's job to subvert democracy, and running elections is the purview of states, so it would have to be an action taken as a candidate and not as the president, but I guess not.
* Except for that provision that a president can be removed due to inability (illness, etc). I forget what it's actually called.
|
|
|
Post by technoish on Jul 2, 2024 9:37:43 GMT
The most common way to remove a president in office is I believe assassination.
|
|
|
Post by Bill the kidding on Jul 2, 2024 9:43:36 GMT
If impeachment is only for sitting presidents, and criminal prosecutions afterwards now severely limited, it seems like the US should have some kind of impeachment system for dealing with crimes by past presidents. Though of course that runs the risk of being just as politicised as regular impeachments have been recently. Either that, or a pretty explicit list of non-official actions, such as interfering with election process, taking bribes, ordering the arrest or assassination of US citizens, etc.. The most common way to remove a president in office is I believe assassination. In the US, yes. Surprisingly common.
|
|
|
Post by simple on Jul 2, 2024 9:56:43 GMT
So whoever wins the election will have essentially more royal powers than any actual sitting monarch ?
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Jul 2, 2024 15:05:27 GMT
A bit of good US legal news.
|
|
hicksy
Junior Member
I'm good for some but I'm not for everyone
Posts: 1,549
|
Post by hicksy on Jul 2, 2024 16:59:14 GMT
From what pub exactly?
|
|
Onny
Junior Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by Onny on Jul 2, 2024 19:29:10 GMT
|
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,043
|
Post by cubby on Jul 2, 2024 19:33:58 GMT
Ah yes, all crimes committed by a president fall under the official act of a president, even if he wasn't even president yet.
|
|
|
Post by JuniorFE on Jul 2, 2024 19:35:44 GMT
Person with no morals given unlimited power decides to abuse it, more at 11
|
|
|
Post by elstoof on Jul 2, 2024 20:35:38 GMT
Fingers crossed the judge sentences him to prison in september eh
|
|
|
Post by simple on Jul 3, 2024 6:19:47 GMT
Maybe Biden should flex this royal prerogative immunity thing he’s just been awarded, as president, and just revoke Trumps citizenship so that he can’t run.
Perfectly legal now sucker, what you gonna do?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wonderstuff on Jul 3, 2024 7:45:06 GMT
The US is really going down the toilet - Project 2025 is horrific. Really.
|
|
|
Post by JuniorFE on Jul 3, 2024 8:09:43 GMT
Maybe Biden should flex this royal prerogative immunity thing he’s just been awarded, as president, and just revoke Trumps citizenship so that he can’t run. Perfectly legal now sucker, what you gonna do? First thing he has to do is deal with the conservative SCROTUS "Justices", otherwise they're just gonna go "Um akchually we don't like this so we decided 6-3 it's not an official act" But he's not gonna do a thing unfortunately*, because he's still playing by the rules and decorum the Republicunts wipe their asses with, and that's what they're counting on: that he won't use the cheat code, so Trump will have the chance to abuse it (he's already doing it!) without repercussions *G'won Joe, prove me wrong!
|
|
|
Post by simple on Jul 3, 2024 8:11:33 GMT
Just dissolve SCOTUS and reconstitute with literal cats and dogs, they’ve given him unchecked power
|
|
|
Post by Bill the kidding on Jul 3, 2024 8:15:22 GMT
I read one proposal that supreme court justices should get fixed 18 year terms. This would mean each president would get to appoint the same number of justices, rather than a 1 term president being able to appoint a whole bunch at once. Changing the way the supreme court works is going to be almost impossible though.
It's mad really that such a small bunch of people have so much power over the entire system, when they are politically appointed almost at random.
It works as long as they're independent, honest and bi-partisan, but any illusion of that has been blown out of the water.
|
|
lukasz
New Member
Meat popsicle
Posts: 626
|
Post by lukasz on Jul 3, 2024 16:03:51 GMT
www.huffpost.com/entry/project-2025-bloodless-threat_n_6684dd34e4b038babc7d6e99" “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless ― if the left allows it to be,” Kevin Roberts, president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, said on Real America’s Voice. " They are not even hiding anymore their plans. They are fully preparing everything so they will never lose power ever again. and if they fail, they will still do a lot of damage and a lot of people will be hurt.
|
|