'Murica! (67 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
Well you cant deny the positive effects for us if you read the text
- - - Updated - - -
I have always voted left (SP) and voted NSC and SP during novembers elections here. A center and left party
- - - Updated - - -
I have always voted left (SP) and voted NSC and SP during novembers elections here. A center and left party
There is no normalcy in US politics no matter what side youre on - no idea what you see over here as normal?
- - - Updated - - -
Not sure how SCOTUS 3 liberal justices came to the same conclusion? Are you saying all 9 are afraid of republican states?
to me the decision was simple - states can’t interfere like that in federal elections. Even the 3 libs questioned the decisions pretty hard in the oral arguments. Voters will decide who they want in November. To me, that’s the only thing the left seems to be afraid of?
- - - Updated - - -
Not sure how SCOTUS 3 liberal justices came to the same conclusion? Are you saying all 9 are afraid of republican states?
to me the decision was simple - states can’t interfere like that in federal elections. Even the 3 libs questioned the decisions pretty hard in the oral arguments. Voters will decide who they want in November. To me, that’s the only thing the left seems to be afraid of?
Last edited:
I think the ruling was that Congress would have to declare it an insurrection and invoke the 14th, then theoretically states could do whatever they want after that point.
State AGs or election officials can’t invoke the 14th or declare an insurrection. They are however in charge of elections and have their own rules for getting on the ballot. As long as a candidate meets those and they can’t boot them off.
State AGs or election officials can’t invoke the 14th or declare an insurrection. They are however in charge of elections and have their own rules for getting on the ballot. As long as a candidate meets those and they can’t boot them off.
This falls on congress - either they do it or they don’t. I agree but it’s a clear overreach by these states so much so that they got skunked by SCOTUS. All the court did was tell the states that congress needs to fix this.
As I said earlier - if the left is so convinced they have the superior chance this November why not let the voters make that call? It’s like saying they don’t trust democracy. States suddenly wiping out the will of massive voting block because one side doesn’t like the candidate (which I can’t remember what justice brought that up - Gorsuch maybe) is dangerous.
——
ROFL @doritos
As I said earlier - if the left is so convinced they have the superior chance this November why not let the voters make that call? It’s like saying they don’t trust democracy. States suddenly wiping out the will of massive voting block because one side doesn’t like the candidate (which I can’t remember what justice brought that up - Gorsuch maybe) is dangerous.
——
ROFL @doritos
It’s probably because I’m outspoken about LGBTQ here, which dominated the news last year and in my opinion isn’t even a movement which stands for traditional left values, it’s more a very extreme progressive ideology.
In terms of housing, healthcare, social services, not making the gap between rich and poor to big, im very left in fact but somehow those subjects don’t dominate public debate, therefore I can understand if someone gets the idea that I’m more right oriented. And if someone denies the problems with migration at this point you’re just blind to the facts.
I think with fragmentation in politics it isn’t wise to define yourself as either right- or left and therefore exclude the option to vote for parties at either side. There will be times where left is the best option and there will be times where right is the best option.
As for NSC, they’re the roadblock in the formation here now, not willing to form a right government. They’re right on climate (for nuclear options instead of windmills and stuff), right on migration, but definitely left on social services and human rights. Oddly enough Wilders party is left on social services aswel, but their opinions on Islam puts them on the right end of the spectrum.
Personally I’m hoping that Wilders becomes president. Might be a contradiction to the things I’ve just said but it’s simply acknowledging what public opinion wants here, that should be respected imo. In for referendums aswel, sometimes the outcome isn’t what we’d like but after all politics should listen to the civilians and not the other way around.
In terms of housing, healthcare, social services, not making the gap between rich and poor to big, im very left in fact but somehow those subjects don’t dominate public debate, therefore I can understand if someone gets the idea that I’m more right oriented. And if someone denies the problems with migration at this point you’re just blind to the facts.
I think with fragmentation in politics it isn’t wise to define yourself as either right- or left and therefore exclude the option to vote for parties at either side. There will be times where left is the best option and there will be times where right is the best option.
As for NSC, they’re the roadblock in the formation here now, not willing to form a right government. They’re right on climate (for nuclear options instead of windmills and stuff), right on migration, but definitely left on social services and human rights. Oddly enough Wilders party is left on social services aswel, but their opinions on Islam puts them on the right end of the spectrum.
Personally I’m hoping that Wilders becomes president. Might be a contradiction to the things I’ve just said but it’s simply acknowledging what public opinion wants here, that should be respected imo. In for referendums aswel, sometimes the outcome isn’t what we’d like but after all politics should listen to the civilians and not the other way around.
Yes.
There is real fear of republicans. There are no lows republicans will not sink down to at this point.
The decision - to me - is one born out of pragmatism. The Supreme Court did not investigate whether Trump was an insurrectionist or not. We all know he was. The core of the decision are these lines:
"Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations. Some States might allow a Section 3 challenge to succeed based on a preponderance of the evidence, while others might require a heightened showing. Certain evidence (like the congressional Report on which the lower courts relied here) might be admissible in some States but inadmissible hearsay in others. Disqualification might be possible only through criminal prosecution, as opposed to expedited civil proceedings, in particular States. Indeed, in some States—unlike Colorado (or Maine, where the secretary of state recently issued an order excluding former President Trump from the primary ballot)—procedures for excluding an ineligible candidate from the ballot may not exist at all. The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record). The “patchwork” that would likely result from state enforcement would “sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States” as a whole.".
And I agree. It's just not practical to have candidates that could be barred from holding office in some states, but not in others. The outcome could probably even lead to violence and I read the last phrase as saying that it could result in civil war. This is correct.
The Supreme Court goes on to say:
"But in a Presidential election “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast”— or, in this case, the votes not allowed to be cast—“for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 795. An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result—if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.".
This is all very true. It feels very uneasy to allow the election to be disrupted in this way.
None of this changes the fact that Trump was an insurrectionist, tried to take the presidency by force on January 6th and should not be allowed - by Congress - to run for the presidency this time around. The fact Congress does allow him as a candidate confirms that the republican party simply does not care about the core democratic principles of the United States of America.
So what is the left afraid of? A dictatorship. Clear and simple. And they have every reason to be afraid. Again, this is not a vote between two normal parties. This is a vote for either a party that respects basic democratic rights or a vote for a party with a candidate that presents himself as a dictator. You get to decide if you care about liberty.
There is real fear of republicans. There are no lows republicans will not sink down to at this point.
The decision - to me - is one born out of pragmatism. The Supreme Court did not investigate whether Trump was an insurrectionist or not. We all know he was. The core of the decision are these lines:
"Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations. Some States might allow a Section 3 challenge to succeed based on a preponderance of the evidence, while others might require a heightened showing. Certain evidence (like the congressional Report on which the lower courts relied here) might be admissible in some States but inadmissible hearsay in others. Disqualification might be possible only through criminal prosecution, as opposed to expedited civil proceedings, in particular States. Indeed, in some States—unlike Colorado (or Maine, where the secretary of state recently issued an order excluding former President Trump from the primary ballot)—procedures for excluding an ineligible candidate from the ballot may not exist at all. The result could well be that a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record). The “patchwork” that would likely result from state enforcement would “sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States” as a whole.".
And I agree. It's just not practical to have candidates that could be barred from holding office in some states, but not in others. The outcome could probably even lead to violence and I read the last phrase as saying that it could result in civil war. This is correct.
The Supreme Court goes on to say:
"But in a Presidential election “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast”— or, in this case, the votes not allowed to be cast—“for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 795. An evolving electoral map could dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times. The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election result—if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation has voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the Inauguration.".
This is all very true. It feels very uneasy to allow the election to be disrupted in this way.
None of this changes the fact that Trump was an insurrectionist, tried to take the presidency by force on January 6th and should not be allowed - by Congress - to run for the presidency this time around. The fact Congress does allow him as a candidate confirms that the republican party simply does not care about the core democratic principles of the United States of America.
So what is the left afraid of? A dictatorship. Clear and simple. And they have every reason to be afraid. Again, this is not a vote between two normal parties. This is a vote for either a party that respects basic democratic rights or a vote for a party with a candidate that presents himself as a dictator. You get to decide if you care about liberty.
Why are rights for everyone considered "extreme"?
That probably explains why the "Libertarians" (and also even some left-leaners, apparently) are really just Christofascist authoritarians now. As well as others on the far right.
I really hope Trump doesn't listen to these scumbags and just focuses on the economy.
That probably explains why the "Libertarians" (and also even some left-leaners, apparently) are really just Christofascist authoritarians now. As well as others on the far right.
I really hope Trump doesn't listen to these scumbags and just focuses on the economy.
The economy was pretty decent under Trump's first term. The President can only do so much when it comes to inflation since the unchecked Federal Reserve can do what it wants with monetary policy, but at least Trump would try to open up more sources of nat gas and oil drilling in the country. And whether people like it or not, reducing taxes across the board is usually a good thing for the economy.
But they don't. That's the point.
But they don't. That's the point.
I think the short term impact of presidents (or other world leaders) is usually vastly overrated. The economy could have been booming because of measures taken by Obama, because by its nature most policy needs time to generate an effect. The same goes for Biden btw. He's credited for lowering unemployment rates in recent years, but is it that easy to trace back such a huge phenomenon to just the decisions made by Biden? I have my doubts.
There are dozens of reasons not to vote for Trump though. There is of course the fact he's a lying rapist. I mean, even in this strange world that is still a good enough reason to vote on someone else. I'm not sure why so many people are casually ignoring this. But on the top of my list would be that he's not in a secure place financially and is susceptible to influence from just about any foreign power willing to throw him a bone. What happens if Putin says he wants to give him a billion for making a certain judgment call?
I think it's odd that Americans are willing to take such a security risk, when this is usually something they care about a lot more than Europeans.
- - - Updated - - -
The way they voice their message annoys me to no end. I haven't forgotten them hijacking the Qatar debate about labor rights.
But in what way do they ask for special rights? Could you name one such right?
There are dozens of reasons not to vote for Trump though. There is of course the fact he's a lying rapist. I mean, even in this strange world that is still a good enough reason to vote on someone else. I'm not sure why so many people are casually ignoring this. But on the top of my list would be that he's not in a secure place financially and is susceptible to influence from just about any foreign power willing to throw him a bone. What happens if Putin says he wants to give him a billion for making a certain judgment call?
I think it's odd that Americans are willing to take such a security risk, when this is usually something they care about a lot more than Europeans.
- - - Updated - - -
The way they voice their message annoys me to no end. I haven't forgotten them hijacking the Qatar debate about labor rights.
But in what way do they ask for special rights? Could you name one such right?