Part of what we’re seeing is the fracturing of a very contoured, selected image of a man.
A lot of his supporters likely didn’t know that he’s a blithering, withering dementia ridden personification of the word baffled, because they’ve been fed that image, and led to believe anything to the contrary is fake.
This is America right now:
That’s probably true for the average supporter on the streets, but what about the dozens of inner circle people and media members who vouched for his mental sharpness? If they had really seen mental sharpness, their response to the debate performance would be shock. If I saw a man who I personally knew to be mentally competent and coherent act like that, my first response would be to assume that he had suffered some sort of acute brain injury.
But we don’t see that reaction anywhere. It’s a bunch of people that realize they were caught in a lie. Not a bunch of people who were shocked to learn something new.
There’s that too. The professionals who created that image, carefully selected and edited the clips, etc.
I’d love to see even more heads roll over this. All the people who called themselves journalists while creating this web of lies, but if they were fired, there wouldn’t be anybody left.
which pressing problems would that be? Immigration disaster with millions of parasites coming into the country to drain its resources, or the failing social security program, or maybe the failing infrastructure? Out of the myriad of problems our country is facing, highly doubtful calling that waste of space kamala harris “camel toe” is the real problem.
Wow, you sure told me.
You’ve come on here several times to bemoan the state of the average American citizen. People letting themselves go, becoming overweight and unhealthy, lack of accountability and self-respect, etc.
I actually largely agree with you. But if you think Americans in the past were better than they are today, part of that is because of how they conducted themselves. I’m not a Democrat, nor do I agree with a lot of our vice president’s stances. But I was raised to be the kind of man who had enough respect for women (and people in general) that I don’t have to resort to calling them vulgar (and quite frankly, un-creative) names when I don’t like them or disagree with them.
Amen!
Well, this morning’s SCOTUS ruling giving complete immunity to POTUS for any official actions taken as POTUS is scary.
We will now have to rely on the good character of POTUS to not abuse power. I’m not liking the chances.
Per the decision, chief justice Roberts says " in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the presidents motives. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law"
Its like a Will To Power paradox.
The best guys for the job don’t want it, and the guys that do, well…
The actions of the POTUS are subject to review by Congress through the impeachment process. That’s far better than simply allowing any court in any jurisdiction in the nation be able to prosecute him.
There is literally nothing trump could do that would get Republicans on board to impeach/convict him. Let alone that as POTUS he would be immune from the law (high crimes and misdemeanors), so charging him with anything would be near impossible.
POTUS should be scared of the law. This removes that fear and opens Pandora’s box.
If Biden loses the election, he should put this ruling to the test in his last days in office, to at least establish guardrails for djt.
If POTUS is in a serious enough situation that they feel it necessary to break the law as part of their official duty then it should be a serious enough scenario where going to jail for a couple months, 4 years down the line, is a risk they would GLADLY take, every time. We didn’t need to make it 10x easier and safer for them to break laws. Especially if a convicted felon with a long history of flippantly breaking laws gets voted in. JFC
TDS apparently
Honestly, this is pretty damning for the Democrats - the conservative SCOTUS judges believe them incapable of dictatorship. Now that’s disrespect.
In any other country it would be political suicide (or literal, for that matter) to set up a dictatorship framework while your opponent is still in office.
Here it’s just “hey guys, we know you’re too chickenshit for actual tyranny so we’ll start our preparations six months in advance before our guy comes into power who’ll actually use these powers we’ve arbitrarily assigned hi… I mean the office of POTUS”
Ignorance, writ large.
No question that there should be oversight of the POTUS. It’s simply a question of what mechanisms and institutions can best provide that oversight in an impartial and constructive manner. I’d agree that Congress isn’t really great at providing this oversight, but I’m just not convinced that the court system had proven its capability to do better.
Contending that the SCOTUS has resolved this case incorrectly is a self-defeating argument. If SCOTUS did this incorrectly (and potentially for biased political reasons), why do we want to entrust the legal system (which is overseen by this supposedly biased and flawed SCOTUS) with oversight of the POTUS?
POTUS is now largely exempt from the law for any “official action”…
The decision states that courts cannot inquire about the motives behind an “official action” (ie an executive order), and they cannot deem an action “unofficial” just because it violates the law.
Where is there oversight!?
Its been this way since George Washington
if they don’t like it, change the constitution
Same place it has effectively always been. With Congress. Congress being dysfunctional doesn’t change that.
High crimes and misdemeanors no longer apply. POTUS is immune.
Impeachment is the bark, the legal system was the bite. An impeached POTUS removed from power for high crimes and misdemeanors feared going to jail… real repercussions. The only repercussion POTUS now faces for blatantly awful crimes is forced retirement… I mean impeachment.
And now we have a candidate leading in the poles who has openly talked about “being dictator for a day” to go after political enemies, and has shown numerous times in his personal and political life a disdain for laws and regulations.
I suppose that until recently the question had never been decided by the SCOTUS. But my understanding of impeachment (and this goes back to the semen-stained dress days) was always that after impeachment that was the end. The ability to try an impeached and removed president in the legal system was always questionable. The ability to try and impeached and acquitted president even more so.
And you haven’t answered why you think that giving oversight power to the courts is the solution. If you think the SCOTUS got this wrong, why do you want to give this power the courts when they are clearly getting things wrong?