Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[NoiseTank13]

Anyone watch the debates? I am legit afraid to do so. Heard they were arguing about their golf handicap for awhile and Trump of all people said they were acting childish.

there is no point unless you just want to be sad.

[Celista]

Not really worth it, imo. Biden was acting old, Trump lied every time he opened his mouth. I was curious about the fact checking afterwards, and Trump literally lied about every claim he made, while Biden was about 50/50, with everything he got wrong having some sort of basis for it, albeit still wrong.

there is no point unless you just want to be sad.

Yeah that's what I suspected.

[Polgara]

Not really worth it, imo. Biden was acting old, Trump lied every time he opened his mouth. I was curious about the fact checking afterwards, and Trump literally lied about every claim he made, while Biden was about 50/50, with everything he got wrong having some sort of basis for it, albeit still wrong.

This, and the actual takeaway for me is that CNN used it to knowingly help propel the "biden is too old and incompetent" narrative by subversion. Live fact checking would have made this a pretty slam dunk win for Biden, even if you accept every misstep or slight recorrection required since trump would be perpetually stopped and corrected.

I'm still stronger on the part that the biggest thing to take away is don't fucking trust the 24 hours news cycle, they WILL cheer in Trump, because it'll be a fucking money printing machine for them. Biden looked old and struggled a bit with remaining on topic/consistent with his discourse, but Trump came across as a chronic dementia patient, and that's being hidden due to subversive bothsidsing.

[Gestopft]

Anyone watch the debates? I am legit afraid to do so. Heard they were arguing about their golf handicap for awhile and Trump of all people said they were acting childish.

Summary: Biden said little that was intelligible (for anyone not steeped in politics 24/7 at least)
Trump said basically nothing that was true
CNN Moderators: could've been replaced by computer prompts for all the absolute nothing they did.

[Breccia]

Without Presidential Immunity, a President of the United States literally could not function! It should be a STRONG IMMUNITY, where proper decisions can be made, where our Country can be POWERFUL and THRIVE, and where Opponents cannot hold up and extort a Future President for Political Gain.

It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!

As a reminder, Trump is facing charges due to ordering a violent terrorist attack against the United States. That's what he needs immunity for.

Now we've seen a recent influx of Trump supporters refusing to defend Trump, playing the "oh oh Biden is old oh no oh deary me" card. But this is a forum for genuine, honest posters who want a constructive discussion.

So I'm going to pick two genuine, honest posters at random. People who have proven that politics in the United States is a topic they chose to comment on routinely, and have opinions on the subject they voice routinely.

And they are...(dice clatter)...oh what luck, @Flarelaine and @tehdang man, what are the odds!

I am asking both of you to comment on Trump's intentional public statement, that the difference between the United States being "great" or "withering" is whether or not the President can order a violent terrorist attack.

"Whoa whoa whoa, what if either poster disagrees that Trump led a violent terrorist attack?"

Well they're free to say so, but that's not the issue. Trump didn't post "I didn't do it". Trump posted "I need immunity". So whether or not they think Trump led the violent terrorist attack is something not even Trump is denying. The issue in question is whether Trump can be prosecuted for it, and by Trump's intentional public statement, whether or not that makes the United States a great or withering country by that decision.

Both posters are not just allowed to, but encouraged to, reply however they want.

[Flarelaine]

I am asking both of you to comment on Trump's intentional public statement, that the difference between the United States being "great" or "withering" is whether or not the President can order a violent terrorist attack.

Politics, especially international politics, is often a dirty business and the circumstances can be such that the executive finds they need to act outside the law or at least outside established procedure. That might include ordering a violent terrorist attack - do not forget that many qualify Obama's numerous drone strikes as such. (I'm not saying here they were or they were not, they are just an example.)

But they need to remain accountable.

Accountability is the fundamental difference between a democracy - or, if one reading should feel obliged to point out the United States are, in fact, a Republic - between a government of the people, by the people, for the people and a tinpot dictatorship.

[Breccia]

That might include ordering a violent terrorist attack - do not forget that many qualify Obama's numerous drone strikes as such.

This is a valid point, one that could hold up its own thread -- and probably has.

Well, now we wait for tehdang's turn. Although, since we two honest, genuine posters (and of course others reading this) are discussing the issues, I suppose it's fair to assume tehdang, as a long-time demonstrated Trump supporter, agrees with Trump unless he says otherwise, when specifically and directly asked? I mean, that's a reasonable conclusion an honest and genuine poster would reach by refusal to comment, right?

[Endus]

I am asking both of you to comment on Trump's intentional public statement, that the difference between the United States being "great" or "withering" is whether or not the President can order a violent terrorist attack.

I'm not either, but I'll comment.

The problem is (not only, but at least in part) that the President has too much power, too much protection. These kinds of issues don't occur in parliamentary systems, generally, because not only can the party generally just replace the Prime Minister with a simple internal vote overnight (meaning the current PM returns to being a mere MP, not that they're out of government entirely), and operations continue the next day without any ripple whatsoever. In practice, it usually isn't that fast, but it could be. Beyond that, there are non-confidence options whereby other parties can, in theory, cast a vote to bring Parliament down entirely and force an election, if the current government is fucking around. In practice, this isn't used that commonly, because if the will of the people hasn't shifted the same people will go back into office and it's a waste of time and resources, but the option means that governments have to play ball with the opposition much more so than in the USA.

A Prime Minister being charged with felonies would just see them removed as PM and replaced by, well, anyone else, and then they're just a vote in a seat. Once they're tried and convicted, they'll be removed and a by-election will be called to replace them. This is all very simple and pretty basic parliamentary stuff.

If you're hand-wringing over the possibility of members of government or even the President facing criminal charges, it's because your system of government is designed badly. This shouldn't be a problem in the first place, other than in terms of morale.

[Shkar]

This is a valid point, one that could hold up its own thread -- and probably has.

Well, now we wait for tehdang's turn. Although, since we two honest, genuine posters (and of course others reading this) are discussing the issues, I suppose it's fair to assume tehdang, as a long-time demonstrated Trump supporter, agrees with Trump unless he says otherwise, when specifically and directly asked? I mean, that's a reasonable conclusion an honest and genuine poster would reach by refusal to comment, right?

Congratulations Breccia! For the first [citation needed] time, someone you asked to comment on a political subject actually responded!

[Shadowferal]

...partial immunity, with no definition of acts...fucking idiots.https://thehill.com/regulation/court...supreme-court/

[Paranoid Android]

Posting here.

Original post/link messed up

Aww fuck my link and previous post.

So anyways, Fuck this Supreme Court.

Basically giving Trump immunity from stealing documents.

Then kicking it back to lower courts which means this is done if Trump wins. Also Biden can't Seal Tean 6 (verb) his ass.

[masterhorus8]

[QUOTE=Paranoid Android;54494058]Posting here.

Aww fuck my link and previous post.

So anyways, Fuck this Supreme Court.

Basically giving Trump immunity from stealing documents.

Then kicking it back to lower courts which means this is done if Trump wins. Also Biden can't Seal Tean 6 (verb) his ass.

The only hope I see regarding the stealing of the documents is that Jack Smith goes for the "okay, he wasn't President when he took these."

[Endus]

I'd like to point out, keying off my other post a few above this; you wouldn't need presidential immunity at all if you hadn't let rank morons design your governmental system in the first place, and resisted any attempts to make it properly functional in the 250 years since. This is a bad patch over a deeply flawed system that solves nothing important.

- - - Updated - - -

The only hope I see regarding the stealing of the documents is that Jack Smith goes for the "okay, he wasn't President when he took these."

It's also only immunity for "official acts". There's processes to withdraw or declassify classified materials like Trump had, and we know he didn't follow those processes, so it could easily be argued that, therefore, taking those documents could not be considered an "official act" for which Trump would have immunity.

[Shadowferal]

The court ruled against him on Monday, 6-3, stating that the president of the United States does not have the ability to be protected from any and all prosecution. However, the court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.

"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," the decision from Chief Justice John Roberts.

[Paranoid Android]

I'd like to point out, keying off my other post a few above this; you wouldn't need presidential immunity at all if you hadn't let rank morons design your governmental system in the first place, and resisted any attempts to make it properly functional in the 250 years since. This is a bad patch over a deeply flawed system that solves nothing important.

That's why always trying to do strict interpretation of the Constitution when the amendments are very much vague.

Still the worst is Supreme Court being real pieces of shit. Since we all know if Trump wins the DOJ is dropping this hot potato.

[masterhorus8]

I'd like to point out, keying off my other post a few above this; you wouldn't need presidential immunity at all if you hadn't let rank morons design your governmental system in the first place, and resisted any attempts to make it properly functional in the 250 years since. This is a bad patch over a deeply flawed system that solves nothing important.

- - - Updated - - -



It's also only immunity for "official acts". There's processes to withdraw or declassify classified materials like Trump had, and we know he didn't follow those processes, so it could easily be argued that, therefore, taking those documents could not be considered an "official act" for which Trump would have immunity.

True. After just reading that, I remember when Barrett was questioning Trump's lawyer(s), they both said that Trump's Jan6 stuff when consulting Giuliani was personal business because Giuliani wasn't a white house lawyer.

Additionally, I'm seeing something about "constitutional powers", so I'm guessing that they're covering their asses that if it was something unconstitutional, they're not protected.

Edit:TLDR; they're just kicking the can down the road...

[Breccia]

"a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers"

So now Team Trump will argue that taking top secret/SCI documents to a vacation hotel is part of his core Constitutional powers. I'd like to see that argument attempted and rejected. And, yes, he wasn't a WH resident when the FBI kicked his door down. I think Jack Smith still has a case here, at least, a case that'll last until November.

[Kaleredar]

So now Team Trump will argue that taking top secret/SCI documents to a vacation hotel is part of his core Constitutional powers. I'd like to see that argument attempted and rejected. And, yes, he wasn't a WH resident when the FBI kicked his door down. I think Jack Smith still has a case here, at least, a case that'll last until November.

My take would be that Trump didn’t have the constitutional power to retain them seeing as… he had them when he wasn’t president.

[Breccia]

My take would be that Trump didn’t have the constitutional power to retain them seeing as… he had them when he wasn’t president.

Agreed.

The issue with ordering the violent terrorist attack will need to demonstrate that this wasn't a core Constitutional power. That will be tougher, but needs to be done.

Also:

At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.

SCOTUS is full of cowards. They know damn well what this is about.

[Shadowferal]

This was always about delay, delay, delay.