U.S. Politics

[nick76]

Ohio voters kicked pro-life extremists into touch overnight! 

[nick76]

4 hours ago, maqroll said:

11 hours ago, Captain_Townsend said:

The planet is burning and that stupid, thick, narcissistic, fascistic, climate change denying word removed Donald Trump is the main political issue in one of the few countries that could actually help us save the planet if they could get their act together.

What a stupid species we are.

The problem is not just Trump, but the entire GOP, which is an enemy of the world.

I watch so much of various formats of American news from both sides of the political spectrum but I just dont understand some of the really extreme views of some of those on the right.  There are always extremists on both sides but somehow the right extreme has become more mainstream on that side of the aisle.  I understand the silent voters on the right maybe more moderate but even with that I'm not convinced of these days because how would the vocal extremists on the right be getting so much traction on so many issues.  Thankfully at least there are still some sanity on women's health with the 'No' majority from voters in the Ohio election overnight.

[nick76]

 

[Stevo985]

On 05/08/2023 at 00:37, Davkaus said:

If America elects a sex-offending thief of national secrets, they deserve all they get.

Electing someone who is physically in prison would be next level, even for the USA

[limpid]

So, under the 14th amendment, Trump is already disqualified from running for federal office.

According to the federalist society (right / libertarian). Not published yet, but have the  ready.

[maqroll]

55 minutes ago, limpid said:

So, under the 14th amendment, Trump is already disqualified from running for federal office.

According to the federalist society (right / libertarian). Not published yet, but have the  ready.

Significant seeing as most of the right wing SC justices are members. So if Trump is convicted in any of these cases and appeals to the SC for the final judgement, they might be inclined to show no mercy. This would be particularly devastating to Trump in the Georgia case because he would not be able to be pardoned by any future GOP president, including himself if he actually wins the election (if allowed to continue to run, which I think he will). So if the Georgia jury convicts him and the SC doesn't overturn it, Trump could actually go to prison for a number of years.

[trekka]

The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president (Vox.com)

Interesting read on the above link.  There's a lot more to it, but here's a little quote:

Two conservative legal scholars, members of the Federalist Society in good standing, have just published an audacious argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for president, and that state election officials have not only the authority but the legal obligation to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

The legal paper, authored by University of Chicago professor William Baude and University of St. Thomas professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, centers on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — a provision that limits people from returning to public office if they have since “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort” to those who have. Baude and Paulsen argue that this clearly covers Trump’s behavior between November 2020 and January 2021.

“The most politically explosive application of Section Three to the events of January 6, is at the same time the most straightforward,” Baude and Paulsen write. “Former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.”

[limpid]

2 minutes ago, trekka said:

The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president (Vox.com)

Interesting read on the above link.  There's a lot more to it, but here's a little quote:

Although that article says it's published, I can't find it anywhere (yet).

[cyrusr]

5 hours ago, trekka said:

The constitutional case that Donald Trump is already banned from being president (Vox.com)

Interesting read on the above link.  There's a lot more to it, but here's a little quote:

 

 

Reading the amendment and without reading the paper, I still suspect that a finding of insurrection would be necessary in a Court to determine he has be found to have  “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort”. The latter is certainly more profound but again would be up for debate. However, if the Supreme Court RW Judges have had enough of him I suspect that at least 1 or 2 would be persuaded by the "legal arguments".

[cyrusr]

6 hours ago, limpid said:

Although that article says it's published, I can't find it anywhere (yet).

FYI - I think this is the paper (all 126 pages of it...).

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751

[TheAuthority]

2 hours ago, cyrusr said:

Reading the amendment and without reading the paper, I still suspect that a finding of insurrection would be necessary in a Court to determine he has be found to have  “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort”. The latter is certainly more profound but again would be up for debate. However, if the Supreme Court RW Judges have had enough of him I suspect that at least 1 or 2 would be persuaded by the "legal arguments".

Well Kavanaugh will never go against Trump. Trump made the whole Senate GOP crowbar in a completely inappropriate SCJ - I wouldn’t trust Kavanaugh to umpire a girls under 12 softball game, and if he did he’d probably be drunk from the night before.

Amy is a complete psychopath- absolutely certifiable and a religious ( Catholic ) zealot hand picked by the Federalist Society - I wouldn’t be surprised if she was a Manchurian candidate.

So that leaves the corrupt, racist (anti-black ffs) Clarence Thomas and then we are really stretching any kind of victory for common sense. I would be in shock for the rest of my life if this SC went against Trump.

[cyrusr]

7 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Well Kavanaugh will never go against Trump. Trump made the whole Senate GOP crowbar in a completely inappropriate SCJ - I wouldn’t trust Kavanaugh to umpire a girls under 12 softball game, and if he did he’d probably be drunk from the night before.

Amy is a complete psychopath- absolutely certifiable and a religious ( Catholic ) zealot hand picked by the Federalist Society - I wouldn’t be surprised if she was a Manchurian candidate.

So that leaves the corrupt, racist (anti-black ffs) Clarence Thomas and then we are really stretching any kind of victory for common sense. I would be in shock for the rest of my life if this SC went against Trump.

I would expect Thomas to support Trump given his/his wife’s actions over the last few years but the rest I’m not convinced. If Amy is a Federlist (honestly I don’t know much about the individual SCOTUS save the top line knowledge) as well then maybe she will back this line of thinking in the paper. Is so they actually only need 1 more vote (presuming the left leaning Judges agree to bar him).

The reason the right has so verdantly backed Trump was so they could pack the Courts with right wing Judges and certainly that has happened; particularly in SCOTUS. However, what use is he now to the “established” element of the right? What can he provide to them? There are question marks over whether he can win another election and what would another 4 terms yield? There’s more risk that he will be found to be a fraud. Why not back another, take a loss but a lesser one, wait 4 years of more chipping away at Biden/Democrats and then take the office then?

Politically, it would make sense to me. We’ve seen Judges in lower Courts appointed by him in essence go against him (the one dealing with the Florida case is IIRC). They have packed the Courts and got rid of abortion rights, so I don’t think Trump has much use for them, in fact he may now be more of a hindrance than a benefit to them.

[StefanAVFC]

This is huge in right wing circles atm

The lyrics are hilariously lame

[sne]

54 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

This is huge in right wing circles atm

The lyrics are hilariously lame

 

[TheAuthority]

1 hour ago, sne said:

 

Read his policies - he's a nasty piece of work.

[sne]

1 minute ago, TheAuthority said:

Read his policies - he's a nasty piece of work.

Sure can rap thou 

[luckyeddie]

9 minutes ago, sne said:

Sure can rap thou 

Yeah, should have Theresa May dancing behind him

[TheAuthority]

25 minutes ago, sne said:

Sure can rap thou 

Fair enough - he gets my vote!

 

[Marka Ragnos]

Dang -- Trump's begging for jail. He wants attention / spectacle of remand? If he keeps messing with Judge Tanya ... she will put him in jail. She has a rep for brooking no bs. After all Trump's lifetime of absolutely vile racism, particularly towards black women, seeing him getting brought to ground by brilliant black women judges and prosecutors --- well, it's poetic justice.

Quote

WashingtonCNN — 

Donald Trump’s frustration over his ability to speak publicly about his federal election conspiracy case is fueling his plans to continue posting about it on social media, slamming the judge over the weekend after she warned him not to intimidate witnesses, obstruct justice or try to muddy his ability to have a fair trial, according to sources close to the former president.

Trump criticized Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, as “highly partisan” and “very biased & unfair” on Truth Social early Monday morning, setting up an early test of the limits that Chutkan has imposed on Trump’s speech as a criminal defendant under the law.

The former president has insisted it’s his First Amendment right to defend himself publicly and has always viewed social media as his most direct way of communicating with his voters, two sources close to Trump told CNN and according to legal arguments made by his lawyer to Chutkan.

“He’ll share what he feels is necessary and if she has a problem with it, [she] will address it,” one Trump adviser said, referring to Chutkan.

That could prove risky for the former president. It’s plausible that if Trump crosses a line with his social media posts, Justice Department prosecutors would bring the issue to the court. Chutkan could also place greater restrictions on him including even revoking his ability to await trial outside of jail.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Marka Ragnos

[nick76]

1 hour ago, Marka Ragnos said:

Dang -- Trump's begging for jail. He wants attention / spectacle of remand? If he keeps messing with Judge Tanya ... she will put him in jail. She has a rep for brooking no bs. After all Trump's lifetime of absolutely vile racism, particularly towards black women, seeing him getting brought to ground by brilliant black women judges and prosecutors --- well, it's poetic justice.

 

He’s going to keep pushing and it’ll get worse and more intimidating, just wondering what will be the line for judge and what she’ll do about it.  The question will be if he goes too far, which is on the cards, will she have him held pre-trial.  I can’t she will but he’s going to test her isn’t he.,.