Trump - Harris Presidential Election 2024

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
sideswipe said:
If you call someone an apex moron but misspell their name, do you push them off the apex, or just add to the base?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
Plebeian equals apex moron? a bit Trumpian - to stay on topic. Are you back in character or did you never leave and were just offended by the prospect of sails? You need to let me know about the boating hierarchy so I don't offend so disrespectfully again.
 
sr36 said:
Plebeian equals apex moron? a bit Trumpian - to stay on topic. Are you back in character or did you never leave and were just offended by the prospect of sails? You need to let me know about the boating hierarchy so I don't offend so disrespectfully again.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the post I was responding to. You’re trying too hard.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Log in to remove this ad.

IlovethePies said:
This thread has become ultra boring. Trump is a far more interesting topic than the inside babble of self satisfied d$@heads.
Click to expand...

One of the self-satisfied d***heads suggested to you that the association between Trump and fascism is alarmist tripe.

Your own view seems to be that Trump II heralds the end of American democracy.

I'm interested in the particular dangers you think that Don will present to the democratic project in the next 4 years.

The 'democratic project' is a wanky term which nevertheless captures my own sense that democracy always needs to evolve, to get better, and that it is (obviously) capable of going backwards.

In relation to Don, I've always seen him as a ghastly symptom of the internal threats to the US, and that those threats (cultural division, grotesque wealth inequality, political corruption, bankrupt economic ideology etc etc) both precede and will proceed the Big Orange.
 
JB1975 said:
One of the self-satisfied d***heads suggested to you that the association between Trump and fascism is alarmist tripe.

Your own view seems to be that Trump II heralds the end of American democracy.

I'm interested in the particular dangers you think that Don will present to the democratic project in the next 4 years.

The 'democratic project' is a wanky term which nevertheless captures my own sense that democracy always needs to evolve, to get better, and that it is (obviously) capable of going backwards.

In relation to Don, I've always seen him as a ghastly symptom of the internal threats to the US, and that those threats (cultural division, grotesque wealth inequality, political corruption, bankrupt economic ideology etc etc) both precede and will proceed the Big Orange.
Click to expand...

Wait, so I am one of the self satisfied dickheads? I didn’t make the connection.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JB1975 said:
One of the self-satisfied d***heads suggested to you that the association between Trump and fascism is alarmist tripe.

Your own view seems to be that Trump II heralds the end of American democracy.

I'm interested in the particular dangers you think that Don will present to the democratic project in the next 4 years.

The 'democratic project' is a wanky term which nevertheless captures my own sense that democracy always needs to evolve, to get better, and that it is (obviously) capable of going backwards.

In relation to Don, I've always seen him as a ghastly symptom of the internal threats to the US, and that those threats (cultural division, grotesque wealth inequality, political corruption, bankrupt economic ideology etc etc) both precede and will proceed the Big Orange.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think Trump represents a dire threat to US democracy. The Supreme Court has given the President unlimited powers, contrary to the US Constitution as it was first framed, in its recentt decision in the Trump vs United States case.

You just have to read the judgement of one of the dissenting supreme court judges to realise that the recent Supreme Court decision represents a counterrevolutionary moment in US political history:

I will reproduce a quote, at the risk of being boring and humorless, from what dissenting judge Justice Sonia Sotomayor said :

the presidential activities now immune from prosecution could include: instances when the president orders the military “to assassinate a political rival,” launches “a military coup to hold onto power,” and accepts “a bribe in exchange for a pardon.”

Another dissenting judge Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked that "murder" could fall within the realm of "official duty"

The majority group of judges who agreed to hand over unlimited powers to the presidency were of course those whom Trump had appointed.

If Trump wins the election, he will have unlimited power to break the Constitution at will.


He has already tried once to overthrow the US constitution, on Jan 6 2021.

If you see no grave threat in this record, then I believe that you are not looking closely enough.

Remember, Hitler came to power and given dictatorial powers by a piece of legistation passed in Parliament: The
Enabling Act.
 
My 93 year old father said something interesting today.
“Biden can save American democracy by ordering the assassination of Donald Trump”
He followed that up by stating that Trump has proven in court that a President can do anything they want and not be held responsible for it.
Obviously Trump wants that power for himself, but I wonder what he and his acolytes would think of that power if it was now used against them?
No doubt though, my old man certainly still has all his faculties!
 
Black_White said:
My 93 year old father said something interesting today.
“Biden can save American democracy by ordering the assassination of Donald Trump”
He followed that up by stating that Trump has proven in court that a President can do anything they want and not be held responsible for it.
Obviously Trump wants that power for himself, but I wonder what he and his acolytes would think of that power if it was now used against them?
No doubt though, my old man certainly still has all his faculties!
Click to expand...
Your father is a smart cookie. But the issue with such a response by the Democrats is that it would ignite a social explosion that might spiral out of all control. Also, the Democrats' orientation is to seek unity with and appease the Republicans, not to seek a conflict with them. The Democrats paramount concern is to continue the war drive in Ukraine against Russia and the war in Gaza against the Palestinians, aiming ultimately at Iran, as well as preparations for war against China. All they care about is maintaining the two party structure of US politics and getting the Republicans to collaborate with them on continuing war. That is why we saw after the assassination attempt Biden referring to Trump as "Donald", wishing him well and calling for "national unity".
 
IlovethePies said:
Your father is a smart cookie. But the issue with such a response by the Democrats is that it would ignite a social explosion that might spiral out of all control. Also, the Democrats' orientation is to seek unity with and appease the Republicans, not to seek a conflict with them. The Democrats paramount concern is to continue the war drive in Ukraine against Russia and the war in Gaza against the Palestinians, aiming ultimately at Iran, as well as preparations for war against China. All they care about is maintaining the two party structure of US politics and getting the Republicans to collaborate with them on continuing war. That is why we saw after the assassination attempt Biden referring to Trump as "Donald", wishing him well and calling for "national unity".
Click to expand...

I won't say too much on your view that Democrats seek unity for the sake of warring, except that I think it overstates things.

Many senior Democrats (not all of them senior citizens) have a genuinely held fear that the republic is in danger, and their apparent appeasement of Republican antics should mostly be seen in this light.

We saw it in the constitutional border dispute with Texas governor Greg Abbott. Biden saw that the issue could quickly flare into a conflict with southern states and promptly backed down. He was well-advised to do so, in my view.

They're trying to stay on the high road while Republicans outdo each other in nutjobbery. It might not stop the US from slipping into dysfunction, or it might, but it will at least give Americans a hope for the future by giving them a relatively stable link to the past.
 
JB1975 said:
I won't say too much on your view that Democrats seek unity for the sake of warring, except that I think it overstates things.

Many senior Democrats (not all of them senior citizens) have a genuinely held fear that the republic is in danger, and their apparent appeasement of Republican antics should mostly be seen in this light.

We saw it in the constitutional border dispute with Texas governor Greg Abbott. Biden saw that the issue could quickly flare into a conflict with southern states and promptly backed down. He was well-advised to do so, in my view.

They're trying to stay on the high road while Republicans outdo each other in nutjobbery. It might not stop the US from slipping into dysfunction, or it might, but it will at least give Americans a hope for the future by giving them a relatively stable link to the past.
Click to expand...
The issue is that the Supreme Court decision broke any link with the past. That decision marked the crossing of a Rubicon. The basic principe of the US Constitution, that the "people are sovereign" has been revoked, and the next president will be unaccountable to the people, with unlimited and dictatorial powers.

Those Democrats who you think are genuinely concerned about the Republic are not leading a campaign against this Supreme Court decision. Instead, they are appeasing the Republicans in every manner possible.

History has numerous examples to show that appeasing, seeking reconciliation with, seeking legal accommodation with fascists leads to paving the way to power for them.
 
IlovethePies said:
The issue is that the Supreme Court decision broke any link with the past. That decision marked the crossing of a Rubicon. The basic principe of the US Constitution, that the "people are sovereign" has been revoked, and the next president will be unaccountable to the people, with unlimited and dictatorial powers.

Those Democrats who you think are genuinely concerned about the Republic are not leading a campaign against this Supreme Court decision. Instead, they are appeasing the Republicans in every manner possible.

History has numerous examples to show that appeasing, seeking reconciliation with, seeking legal accommodation with fascists leads to paving the way to power for them.
Click to expand...

Have a Bex and a lie down. That dissenting judgement you quoted was hot garbage.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
IlovethePies said:
The issue is that the Supreme Court decision broke any link with the past. That decision marked the crossing of a Rubicon. The basic principe of the US Constitution, that the "people are sovereign" has been revoked, and the next president will be unaccountable to the people, with unlimited and dictatorial powers.

Those Democrats who you think are genuinely concerned about the Republic are not leading a campaign against this Supreme Court decision. Instead, they are appeasing the Republicans in every manner possible.

History has numerous examples to show that appeasing, seeking reconciliation with, seeking legal accommodation with fascists leads to paving the way to power for them.
Click to expand...

The recent court decision in relation to a President's capacity to commit crime in the course of duty is a concern, but I suppose I think that there is a bigger context which makes the US a deeply troubled place.

The strength of a constitution depends on the willingness of parties to abide by the compact. The Texas episode I mentioned touches on the increasing resentment of southern states and their apparent willingness to act against the law of the land.

It was in this context that a few Republican politicians talked about the desirability of secession.

The fault lines of American politics are complex, but there's no doubt that the US Civil War represents a deep divide and a fundamental difference in cultures. Earlier this year, when she was still in the running for nomination, Nikki Hayley was able to give an extended response on the causes on the US Civil War without once mentioning slavery. Instead, Hayley (like a lot of southerners) recalled the event as a war by the states fought against the absolutism of federal power.

Some notion of bipartisanship and the growth of US power throughout the 20th century did a lot to paper over these tensions. Now nothing is hidden.

---------------------------------------

You're right to say that history tells us not to 'appease' fascism.

History also tells us that the past never repeats itself precisely, and that events are contingent upon a diverse array of circumstances.

It's important to think about appeasement and what it means. Nifty Chamberlain made an agreement with Hitler which sold out parts of Europe and made fundamental compromises to European security in the hope that these would satisfy the hunger of a beast.

The Democrats are not doing anything similar. I think that they're trying to stop the worst of scenarios with whatever means are at their disposal, they're trying hard not to inflame a situation which is ready to explode, and they're also trying to position themselves --should things go sideways-- as the only legitimate representative of a united America.
 
IlovethePies said:
Why do you believe that it was "hot garbage "?
Click to expand...

Put simply, those quotes you provided, if correct, are horrendous and have no place in a judgement on Constitutional law. The judge should be using reasoning to show why or why not they have come to their decision, not coming up with examples of what a contrary legal opinion might allow in future.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
JB1975 said:
The recent court decision in relation to a President's capacity to commit crime in the course of duty is a concern, but I suppose I think that there is a bigger context which makes the US a deeply troubled place.

The strength of a constitution depends on the willingness of parties to abide by the compact. The Texas episode I mentioned touches on the increasing resentment of southern states and their apparent willingness to act against the law of the land.

It was in this context that a few Republican politicians talked about the desirability of secession.

The fault lines of American politics are complex, but there's no doubt that the US Civil War represents a deep divide and a fundamental difference in cultures. Earlier this year, when she was still in the running for nomination, Nikki Hayley was able to give an extended response on the causes on the US Civil War without once mentioning slavery. Instead, Hayley (like a lot of southerners) recalled the event as a war by the states fought against the absolutism of federal power.

Some notion of bipartisanship and the growth of US power throughout the 20th century did a lot to paper over these tensions. Now nothing is hidden.

---------------------------------------

You're right to say that history tells us not to 'appease' fascism.

History also tells us that the past never repeats itself precisely, and that events are contingent upon a diverse array of circumstances.

It's important to think about appeasement and what it means. Nifty Chamberlain made an agreement with Hitler which sold out parts of Europe and made fundamental compromises to European security in the hope that these would satisfy the hunger of a beast.

The Democrats are not doing anything similar. I think that they're trying to stop the worst of scenarios with whatever means are at their disposal, they're trying hard not to inflame a situation which is ready to explode, and they're also trying to position themselves --should things go sideways-- as the only legitimate representative of a united America.
Click to expand...
In regard to "appeasement", Chamberlain was not so much the example I was thinking of. Rather, I was thinking more of the example of Pinochet in Chile, where Allende sought constantly to find an accommodation with the fascists and paid for it with his life. The people of Chile of course paid the price for
JB1975 said:
The recent court decision in relation to a President's capacity to commit crime in the course of duty is a concern, but I suppose I think that there is a bigger context which makes the US a deeply troubled place.

The strength of a constitution depends on the willingness of parties to abide by the compact. The Texas episode I mentioned touches on the increasing resentment of southern states and their apparent willingness to act against the law of the land.

It was in this context that a few Republican politicians talked about the desirability of secession.

The fault lines of American politics are complex, but there's no doubt that the US Civil War represents a deep divide and a fundamental difference in cultures. Earlier this year, when she was still in the running for nomination, Nikki Hayley was able to give an extended response on the causes on the US Civil War without once mentioning slavery. Instead, Hayley (like a lot of southerners) recalled the event as a war by the states fought against the absolutism of federal power.

Some notion of bipartisanship and the growth of US power throughout the 20th century did a lot to paper over these tensions. Now nothing is hidden.

---------------------------------------

You're right to say that history tells us not to 'appease' fascism.

History also tells us that the past never repeats itself precisely, and that events are contingent upon a diverse array of circumstances.

It's important to think about appeasement and what it means. Nifty Chamberlain made an agreement with Hitler which sold out parts of Europe and made fundamental compromises to European security in the hope that these would satisfy the hunger of a beast.

The Democrats are not doing anything similar. I think that they're trying to stop the worst of scenarios with whatever means are at their disposal, they're trying hard not to inflame a situation which is ready to explode, and they're also trying to position themselves --should things go sideways-- as the only legitimate representative of a united America.
Click to expand...
In terms of appeasement, the example I was thinking of was that of Allende in Chile. Allende was doing everything he could to "not inflame the situation''. The Social Democrats desperately sought a compromise with the fascists through Parliament etc. The people of Chile paid the most horrific price.

You and I clearly differ profoundly on what the role of the Democrats is and what "national unity" means. My opinion is that the Democrats call for "national unity" is a call to the Republicans for appeasement and for accommodation. They are appealing to the Republicans to co-operate with them, regardless of who wins the upcoming election.

The Democrats are aligned with dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, and their priority is to continue the war, ie to keep backing Israel in Gaza and to keep inflaming the situation in Ukraine against Russia. If Trump were to agrees to continue along these very same lines, they would be happy to work with him.

Trump on the other hand represents the most openly fascist sections of the ruling class that have concluded that opposition to social inequality and to war must first be dealt with at home. Before the US embarks on global war the homebase needs to be secured.

One fundamental thing to observe is that both the Democrats and the Republicans depend totally on the role of the AFL-CIO. Biden himself referred to the AFL-CIO as the "NATO at home", and one section of the trade union bureaucrats was actually present at the Republican National Convention.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are totally reliant on the trade union bureaucracy to suppress and call off strike movements, rebellions among the huge industrial working class in the US

I keep coming back to it, but the Supreme court decision is the key indicator. Its meaning is this: the ruling class in America now requires a presidential dictatorship to implement its policies. That is why the Democrats are not "rocking the boat" at all about this fundamental attack on the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
sideswipe said:
Put simply, those quotes you provided, if correct, are horrendous and have no place in a judgement on Constitutional law. The judge should be using reasoning to show why or why not they have come to their decision, not coming up with examples of what a contrary legal opinion might allow in future.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
My quote was an excerpt from her remarks. She is permitted to do both: ie, give her reasoning to explain why the Supreme Court decision violated constitutional principles, and to give examples to illustrate her reasoning. Here is a fuller version of what she said:

[This decision] "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
“The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. When the president uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

“The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Again, not a full rendition of her remarks, but clearly her examples are used to illustrate her legal reasoning. Please point to any legal principle that says that her use of examples of the potential consequences of the decision she dissents with have no place in her arguments.
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top