RupertKBD Posted Friday at 06:31 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:31 PM My prediction (and take it FWIW) is 6-3 against immunity. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch continue to carry Trump's water, while ACB, Kavanaugh and Roberts actually care about not putting one person completely above the law.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Friday at 06:34 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:34 PM Just now, Elias Pettersson said: I say they vote against Trump and do no give him "absolute" immunity... I think they are going to end up with a ruling that narrows in on Trump and his situation one way or another and at the same time avoids making a sweeping declaration about a president's immunity in office. These justices aren't dummies. They know how much weight this ruling can potentially have. If they rule on presidential immunity as a whole, they can end up either end up diminishing it or making it a mini-dictatorship. It's also possible, one or the other is their true intent. The only thing that would surprise me is a unanimous vote. I can see this ruling going a number of ways. This ruling has the potential to reshape the political landscape so I'm hoping that they just get to the nuts and bolts of Trump's specific case rather than make sweeping changes to the executive branch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Friday at 06:37 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:37 PM 7 minutes ago, 24K said: They gonna split the difference and just rely on delaying the while thing. Gonna just kick it back to the lower courts and give them a giant list of guidelines to litigate through.l that will take them well over a year to do. That's very possible too. It would pretty much put the ball in the elections court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted Friday at 06:39 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:39 PM (edited) 6 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: I think they are going to end up with a ruling that narrows in on Trump and his situation one way or another and at the same time avoids making a sweeping declaration about a president's immunity in office. These justices aren't dummies. They know how much weight this ruling can potentially have. If they rule on presidential immunity as a whole, they can end up either end up diminishing it or making it a mini-dictatorship. It's also possible, one or the other is their true intent. The only thing that would surprise me is a unanimous vote. I can see this ruling going a number of ways. This ruling has the potential to reshape the political landscape so I'm hoping that they just get to the nuts and bolts of Trump's specific case rather than make sweeping changes to the executive branch. Do you really think they will vote based just on one case? They will most likely set precedent with this ruling. It will definitely reshape the political landscape. I say they vote against absolute immunity and it will be a split vote most likely along party lines. 5-4 or 6-3. However, the decision may affect future court cases. If they vote against absolute immunity, does that not open up a Pandora's box if Trump becomes the President again? Remember, he will be on his revenge tour. If you take away immunity fro, him, you also take it away from every other former President... Edited Friday at 06:40 PM by Elias Pettersson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K Posted Friday at 06:39 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:39 PM 5 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Sorry, I can't get behind this idea. As imperfect as it is, I still believe the one person - one vote system is the best we've got. I would love to see corporate money get out of politics though. IMHO, the Citizens United case opened the door for large companies to buy elections and they have been doing so (or trying to) ever since. Meh, was just spitballing. We humans always want to feel some sort of control rather than leaving thing to the whim of the lottery ball. Also a bad idea cause no one getting randomly selected would have any idea what they are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted Friday at 06:42 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:42 PM Just now, Elias Pettersson said: Do you really think they will vote based just on one case? They will most likely set precedent with this ruling. It will definitely reshape the political landscape. I say they vote against absolute immunity and it will be a split vote most likely along party lines. 5-4 or 6-3. However, the decision may affect future court cases. If they vote against absolute immunity, does that not open up a Pandora's box if Trump becomes the President again? Remember, he will be on his revenge tour. If you take away immunity for him, you also take it away from every other former President... Honestly, I am not confident in any one scenario. I'm actually hoping at this point that it's a narrow decision on just Trump. I'd rather the apportioning of power stay in the people's and Congress' hands, not decided by the judicial branch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted Friday at 06:43 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:43 PM 8 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: Sorry, I can't get behind this idea. As imperfect as it is, I still believe the one person - one vote system is the best we've got. I would love to see corporate money get out of politics though. IMHO, the Citizens United case opened the door for large companies to buy elections and they have been doing so (or trying to) ever since. I agree to a point, but even though I'm a JB supporter, I think this is self-inflicted. Joe beat Trump fair and square in 2020 and he was probably the only Dem who could have pulled it off at the time. Now it seems like he's convinced himself that he's still the only one that can beat Trump, when the truth is likely the opposite. I have no idea what America is doing, but here in Canada: The key principle of democracy that I feel we must adhere to is local representation. In a given region a human being needs to be selected to go to Ottawa and represent that 'riding' who is accountable to those who elected them. Whatever mechanism we want to employ First past the post, ranked ballot or any other initiative that guarantees the selection gets either the most votes, be it 50% +1 or simply the most of the contestants locally. I feel this disqualifies Proportional Representation because that simply gives parties all the power to send their insiders and cronies to Ottawa. It also eliminates the local regions representation to Ottawa. I am still convinced the Ranked Ballot is the way forward democratically to reform our election process. It might be the only way forward. Even the Conservative Party uses a ranked ballot to select its leader. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted Friday at 06:44 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:44 PM 3 minutes ago, 24K said: Meh, was just spitballing. We humans always want to feel some sort of control rather than leaving thing to the whim of the lottery ball. Also a bad idea cause no one getting randomly selected would have any idea what they are doing. Which wouldn't automatically make them a worse choice..... I'd replace MTG with Joe the Plumber, or Jane the nurse in a heartbeat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantomex Posted Friday at 06:49 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:49 PM 24 minutes ago, 24K said: I am a fucking idiot. What I am saying I want experts to vote. Why should someone working an oil rig need to vote on public health. Why would a scientist vote on economic policies. No one is smart enough to vote reasonably on everything. The one fallacy of everyone one vote is that it expects everyone to be an expert on everything. This is just going to get worse with ai where disinformation abundant. We now can't even trust videos and photos anymore. We are demanding too much from voters is the point. China has a great system, you'll enjoy it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSVII Posted Friday at 07:00 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:00 PM 34 minutes ago, 24K said: I am a fucking idiot. What I am saying I want experts to vote. Why should someone working an oil rig need to vote on public health. Why would a scientist vote on economic policies. No one is smart enough to vote reasonably on everything. The one fallacy of everyone one vote is that it expects everyone to be an expert on everything. This is just going to get worse with ai where disinformation abundant. We now can't even trust videos and photos anymore. We are demanding too much from voters is the point. Democracy is messy but the technocratic approach is basically another type of Oligarchy. You're just seeing the messiness of what happens in Democracy when several of the complex mechanisms required for a healthy one have been steadily eroded and starved the last few decades. Education, Healthcare etc... 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted Friday at 07:09 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:09 PM Speaking of the Supreme Court, this is no laughing matter..... https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/watching-too-much-fast-and-furious-gorsuch-accused-of-yikes-moment-with-major-error/ar-BB1p1kQk?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=0144bbb8b83a4c168729005fb81c7cd0&ei=22 Quote In a 5-4 decision where the Supreme Court temporarily hindered a Biden Administration policy to mitigate cross-state smog, Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion glaringly misnamed the gas. "Justice Gorsuch's opinion refers five times to 'nitrous oxide' (aka laughing gas) rather than the entirely different chemical compound -- smog-causing "nitrogen oxides" -- actually at issue in the case," reads a tweet posted by Sean Donahue. In one paragraph alone, the gas was mentioned twice. When mentioning a Federal Implementation Plan to enforce the reduction of ozone emissions — Gorsuch's opinion reads: "in particular: nitrous oxide... And it sought to impose nitrous oxide emissions-control measures that 'maximized cost-effectiveness' in achieving 'downwind ozone air quality improvements.'" The very next paragraph, Gorsuch blundered again and again. "First, the agency identified various emissions-control measures and, using nationwide data, calculated how much each typically costs to reduce a ton of nitrous-oxide emissions," according to the opinion. "Next, the agency sought to predict how much each upwind State’s nitrous-oxide emissions would fall if emissions-producing facilities in the State adopted each measure." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24K Posted Friday at 07:17 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:17 PM 14 minutes ago, DSVII said: Democracy is messy but the technocratic approach is basically another type of Oligarchy. You're just seeing the messiness of what happens in Democracy when several of the complex mechanisms required for a healthy one have been steadily eroded and starved the last few decades. Education, Healthcare etc... Yeah your right. But also things are getting way to complex now also compared to the past with the rise of social media and ai. Very easy for someone to be given bad information nowadays and fall into group think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted Friday at 07:36 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:36 PM 1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said: Who is many? Name some names. Haven’t seen anyone publicly call for Biden to be replaced. Until last night. Only a few months ago there was many in this thread claiming Biden has less cognitive issues than Trump. These people still believe that I wonder? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted Friday at 07:41 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:41 PM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted Friday at 07:42 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:42 PM 4 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: Only a few months ago there was many in this thread claiming Biden has less cognitive issues than Trump. These people still believe that I wonder? I don't know that "many" made that claim. What I do know is that I was one of many who were frustrated by the fact that Biden's cognitive issues were seen as disqualifying, while Trump's are virtually ignored.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted Friday at 07:43 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:43 PM 1 hour ago, Bob Long said: tbh I really think we're looking at early Parkinson's with Joe. It would explain a lot. That would be sad... my wife's dad has it...just awful... A CNN snap poll showed that Trump won the debate with 67-33 percent. “This was like a champion boxer who gets in the ring past his prime and needs his corner to throw in the towel,” a Democratic lawmaker told NBC News off the record, adding Biden should exit the race. It’s “time to talk about an open convention and a new Democratic nominee,” a second Democratic lawmaker told NBC News. Biden already has sealed the Democratic nomination. The easiest and perhaps only way to replace him would be for him to voluntarily withdraw in the face of polling data implying he cannot win. Biden, 81, already trailed in multiple battleground state polls heading into Thursday’s debate and needed a solid performance to reassure voters he still has the stamina for the job. Instead, voters saw the opposite. Former U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, all but said Biden should withdraw. “[It’s] more than hand wringing tonight. I do think people feel like we are confronting a crisis,” McCaskill said on MSNBC. Biden “had one thing he had to accomplish, and that was reassure America that he was up to the job at his age. And he failed at that tonight,” McCaskill said. McCaskill applauded Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom for defending Biden in post-debate interviews but added, “Those two people are signaling to a whole lot of Americans that are paying attention, ‘How come they’re not running? How come the Democratic Party doesn’t have them at the top of the ticket instead of using them to shore up what has become after tonight some pretty glaring weaknesses in our president.’” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sharpshooter Posted Friday at 07:43 PM Author Popular Post Share Posted Friday at 07:43 PM 14 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: Only a few months ago there was many in this thread claiming Biden has less cognitive issues than Trump. These people still believe that I wonder? I still do. Because of his ability to still be a better President than Trump. I support old over crazy. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted Friday at 07:47 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:47 PM 4 minutes ago, Kootenay Gold said: That's great Joe.... Just a couple of hours too late.... Now you've pretty much handed the most powerful office on the planet to a complete shit stain of a human being. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted Friday at 07:47 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:47 PM 10 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: Only a few months ago there was many in this thread claiming Biden has less cognitive issues than Trump. These people still believe that I wonder? Considering Trump has never been playing with a full deck, absolutely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted Friday at 07:49 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:49 PM 5 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: I don't know that "many" made that claim. What I do know is that I was one of many who were frustrated by the fact that Biden's cognitive issues were seen as disqualifying, while Trump's are virtually ignored.... Look I don't like Trump. But after watching that debate last night, it's fairly clear that one has cognitive issues and the other just likes to spew like he has tourrettes. Neither should be on that stage but that's 'Merica for ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted Friday at 07:50 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:50 PM 1 minute ago, King Heffy said: Considering Trump has never been playing with a full deck, absolutely. There's a difference between being an asshole and having cognitive issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted Friday at 07:52 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:52 PM 1 minute ago, Ricky Ravioli said: Look I don't like Trump. But after watching that debate last night, it's fairly clear that one has cognitive issues and the other just likes to spew like he has tourrettes. Neither should be on that stage but that's 'Merica for ya I don't disagree about Joe, but I do disagree about Trump. Time after time, he's confused Biden with Obama.....Haley with Pelosi....he even confused E Jean Carroll with his ex-wife, FFS.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Ravioli Posted Friday at 07:53 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:53 PM 9 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said: I still do. Because of his ability to still be a better President than Trump. I support old over crazy. I believe what you mean is you support the people making decisions for him. He's clearly not doing that anymore lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted Friday at 07:53 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:53 PM 2 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said: There's a difference between being an asshole and having cognitive issues. We should all defer to the expert on this one, guys.... Sorry Ricky. Couldn't resist..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted Friday at 07:54 PM Author Share Posted Friday at 07:54 PM 1 minute ago, Ricky Ravioli said: There's a difference between being an asshole and having cognitive issues. True. Being a narcissist gets better with age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.