The Otherworldly Circus - The America Thread

[Norm De Guerre]

I agree to a point here. That’s what I was trying to get across. If you lean left like you do you’ll see these decisions through your lens, like we all do. And you won’t agree with Thomas and Alito but they are doing their best.
The Supreme Court for all its faults needs to exist. Their’s is a big messy system, all elected officials are rightly governed by their state and general constitutions. 300,000,000 plus million will never agree so this system is working for all modern media tells us every little thing that doesn’t work.

As somebody who has visited the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom nerding out for an hour reading the various drafts and the actual constitution as best I could given the security and the dim lighting.

Ive got to ask. In what world can making a President in effect above the law be seen as the work of people "doing their best" and not what it was in reality, blatant partisan political hackery?

I couldn't care less whether a conservative or progressive Supreme Court had made that decision.

I'd still call it the same way.

 

[King Harold]

Now Thomas and Alito “ are doing their best “

What .? at corruption ?

Seriously what right wing echo chamber do some people live in.

Shovel , hole , deeper

 

[Next Waiting]

Again. For the 100th time. I'm not on either side. This thread has proven that batshit crazy left and batshit crazy right are equally crazy.
Call me a hippie, but I'm just anti war. I'd love to see no wars started, funded, encouraged, orchestrated, manovered or set up by the US OF A.
There should be peaceful (relatively) means to solve international disputes.

Unfortunately your fighting against human nature. If there's an us, there has to be a them and there will always be those willing to exploit that predisposition.

 

[Freshwater]

Fresh - are you all good with Thomas and Alito of the Supremem court being on the take from Republican rich crooks like the Koch brothers? For influence of course.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

Clarence Thomas Broke the Law. Why Is He Not Being Prosecuted?

Of course I wouldn’t be with anyone if they were ‘on the take’. But the left/right divide is like a bloodsport for so many now, that they believe anyone not on their side could not possibly have a different way to see the world, they must surely be corrupt. They just see the world differently.
For more than a decade interesting and thoughtful sociologists have written great books on the different way conservatives and progressives see the world. Jonathan Hait and David Goodhart as examples. They classify them as somewhere’s and anywhere’s for example, where they talk to people from opposing camps and they literally think the other side is not just wrong, but evil or ‘deplorable’ etc. They have much different world view from each other. But this is where the States come in, they can individually make their own laws to suit their constituents. If one state wants this law and the other state doesn’t, that is not only good, but great for democracy and diversity. The two tribes eat different food, they have different occupations, different religions or none, live in different towns more and more these days. Barrack Obama said about them “they cling to their guns and bibles” he doesn’t get them at all.
There are many on here who get nasty and condescending when I’m genuinely answering and articulating the best I can for them. I know you hate Trump with all your might, and a lot that will vote for him will hate him too, and many inbetween, but they only have the choice between Dem and Rep and they’ll have to make some choice. I don’t agree with half of what they do but can understand where they’re coming from. But I definitely am not putting nefarious motives on conservatives or even progressive's, they both believe their way is correct. Example;Progressive’s think we’re doomed by the weather and the conservatives think we are doomed by poor morals. But it the pull between that usually helps us muddle through which we will do again. These justices are doing the best they can with how they see the world.

 

[yebach]

Unfortunately your fighting against human nature. If there's an us, there has to be a them and there will always be those willing to exploit that predisposition.

Totally agree. And major political parties in the US & here use this thinking to divide the populace.
Most non crazy people don't want war. Want equal and fair distribution of wealth. Don't want to be discriminated by colour, gender, sexual orientation etc. Free health & education.etc regardless of who's in charge.

 

[Freshwater]

As somebody who has visited the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom nerding out for an hour reading the various drafts and the actual constitution as best I could given the security and the dim lighting.

Ive got to ask. In what world can making a President in effect above the law be seen as the work of people "doing their best" and not what it was in reality, blatant partisan political hackery?

A president is never above the law. As you would know, a president is meant to be the exact opposite of a King. A king rules his people, his is above them, the president is meant to be below the people he is their servant, the chief public servant.
I don’t know the details of the latest Supreme Court ruling but if that is their interpretation I agree it’s wrong.

She did concede. She rang Trump to say I concede and congratulations. She may not have truly meant congratulations, but in the interests of Democracy ... and convention and the peaceful transfer of power... she conceded and let the result stand unchallenged .... as every other presidential rival has done (in the time that telephones have existed) with the exception of Trump.

And then went on the public speaking tour for years, even to Australia and complained that she should have won and that Russia had something to do with it. How did this bellyaching not undermine trust in the count?

 

[King Harold]

Here we go again , another distraction . Never mind the fact that even Thomas and Alito have admitted to have taken “ gifts” from billionaires.

It is now ok for our Trumpian apologist for Supreme Court judges to be bought

Off we go on another history lesson.

The argument is so bad , I am now convinced we are being trolled !

 

[geoffjennings79]

I don’t think he tried to overturn the result

Man, I've read some delusional stuff on BF, but Fresh if you truly believe this, it tops anything I've ever read on here, on any board.

You suggest you're a student of history. Go back and read the calls Trump made and the numerous public servants and politicians in several states he tried to coerce and lean on to flip the results... Republicans pushed back against him as much as Democrats too in those cases.

But if you don't "think" it happened...

 

[Next Waiting]

A president is never above the law. As you would know, a president is meant to be the exact opposite of a King. A king rules his people, his is above them, the president is meant to be below the people he is their servant, the chief public servant.
I don’t know the details of the latest Supreme Court ruling but if that is their interpretation I agree it’s wrong.

And then went on the public speaking tour for years, even to Australia and complained that she should have won and that Russia had something to do with it. How did this bellyaching not undermine trust in the count?

Sure she questioned the tactics and manner of the victory for Trump. However, that's different to not accepting the result and actively seeking to overturn it. Surely you can see that.

 

[King Harold]

“ don’t know about latest Supreme Court ruling “
( But knows everything else — how convenient)

One of the most monumental decisions in the court’s history.
Plain words , we give the President criminal immunity ( meaning our boy Trump )

We are not debating someone on a good faith basis

 

[King Harold]

“ these justices are doing their best with how they see the world “

That’s not their bloody job .

Most normal thinking people know their personal views on any subject are / should not be a consideration on their rulings.
They are there to rule solely on the current legal merits of the argument.

 

[Next Waiting]

What would Rosa Parks make of all this?

 

[Norm De Guerre]

A president is never above the law. As you would know, a president is meant to be the exact opposite of a King. A king rules his people, his is above them, the president is meant to be below the people he is their servant, the chief public servant.
I don’t know the details of the latest Supreme Court ruling but if that is their interpretation I agree it’s wrong.

See this is your problem Fresh, you're always talking in the abstract and you don't seem to fully have a grasp on what's going on and the dangers they represent.

But your dogmatic adherence to the constitution and the lofty ideals of the Supreme Court and all that entails just flies in the face of reality. The Supreme Court ruled that the outer perimeter of what is considered a presidential act to be so broad that he or indeed she is in effect is above the law whilst in office. The only caveat to that is that those that he orders to act on his behalf are not and are subject to the law of the land thus theoretically negating the threat. However, they knowingly sidestepped the issue of the presidential pardons act and a presidents ability to pardon anything done at his behest.

Which brings the issue full circle. A President is now above the law and a King in all but name.

This is not a partisan issue. Its one that should concern anybody who truly cares about democracy.

And then went on the public speaking tour for years, even to Australia and complained that she should have won and that Russia had something to do with it. How did this bellyaching not undermine trust in the count?

So what? She isn't a candidate.

 

[BrisDog]

One is genocide.

I don’t disagree with you. Absolutely horrific what is occurring in Palestine.

Israel should be slowly and surgically removing Hamas, if that is possible.

 

[CarnTheScray]

And then went on the public speaking tour for years, even to Australia and complained that she should have won and that Russia had something to do with it. How did this bellyaching not undermine trust in the count?

Wait until you find out what the last political candidate in America did after losing an election!

 

[Freshwater]

See this is your problem Fresh, you're always talking in the abstract and you don't seem to fully have a grasp on what's going on and the dangers they represent.

But your dogmatic adherence to the constitution and the lofty ideals of the Supreme Court and all that entails just flies in the face of reality. The Supreme Court ruled that the outer perimeter of what is considered a presidential act to be so broad that he or indeed she is in effect is above the law whilst in office. The only caveat to that is that those that he orders to act on his behalf are not and are subject to the law of the land thus theoretically negating the threat. However, they knowingly sidestepped the issue of the presidential pardons act and a presidents ability to pardon anything done at his behest.

Which brings the issue full circle. A President is now above the law and a King in all but name.

This is not a partisan issue. Its one that should concern anybody who truly cares about democracy.




So what? She isn't a candidate.

I obviously don’t want a president to be above the law. All these things aren’t easy. The people/public hopefully hold him to account, I don’t know how it changes beyond that?? I really don’t?
Let’s take it to the reality you want to see. I’ve only really seen one or two politicians ever take on that king mantle and we had one here in Victoria where a premier made himself an infallible king. He was able to get a ‘state of emergency’ to go for a year so he acted like this king of his own domain. He made rules for the police to follow within hours, no process, no parliament. State of emergency’s are meant to last a couple of days at most, or a war. He did this way beyond what was fair, legal, rational or right. But I suppose his MAGA’s allowed it. Luckily the rest of the world didn’t act like this, saw it for what it was and had much better results on all metrics.
I hope this isn’t Trump. The congress needs to do its job. But every single politician that goes outside the rules undermines it for every other one.

 

[yebach]

I don’t disagree with you. Absolutely horrific what is occurring in Palestine.

Israel should be slowly and surgically removing Hamas, if that is possible.

Yes and then they should be slowly and surgically removing themselves from the land they have taken away from the Palestinians for the last 80 years.

 

[stefcep]

See this is your problem Fresh, you're always talking in the abstract and you don't seem to fully have a grasp on what's going on and the dangers they represent.

But your dogmatic adherence to the constitution and the lofty ideals of the Supreme Court and all that entails just flies in the face of reality. The Supreme Court ruled that the outer perimeter of what is considered a presidential act to be so broad that he or indeed she is in effect is above the law whilst in office. The only caveat to that is that those that he orders to act on his behalf are not and are subject to the law of the land thus theoretically negating the threat. However, they knowingly sidestepped the issue of the presidential pardons act and a presidents ability to pardon anything done at his behest.

Which brings the issue full circle. A President is now above the law and a King in all but name.

This is not a partisan issue. Its one that should concern anybody who truly cares about democracy.




So what? She isn't a candidate.

In principle this is nothing unusual in the slightest. High Court and Supreme Courts typically make decisions that are vague and general and have a broad effect. This is deliberate so as to not limit the range of things that lower Courts can consider and adjudicate on.

Its now up to the lower Courts to adjudicate what is official core presidential function that carries absolute immunity, an official act within the outer perimeter of the presidency that carries presumptive immunity, or an unofficial act that carries no immunity.

What rankles the left is not that the Supreme Court has defined Presidential powers, but that they thought it could abuse the power of the law to prevent him running at this election- how can it it be remotely just that both the prosecutor and judge are members of Trump's political opponents! Its a show a show trial of Eastern European quality. They're only sorry they kicked an own goal.

 

[King Harold]

In principle this is nothing unusual in the slightest. High Court and Supreme Courts typically make decisions that are vague and general and have a broad effect. This is deliberate so as to not limit the range of things that lower Courts can consider and adjudicate on.

Its now up to the lower Courts to adjudicate what is official core presidential function that carries absolute immunity, an official act within the outer perimeter of the presidency that carries presumptive immunity, or an unofficial act that carries no immunity.

What rankles the left is not that the Supreme Court has defined Presidential powers, but that they thought it could abuse the power of the law to prevent him running at this election- how can it it be remotely just that both the prosecutor and judge are members of Trump's political opponents! Its a show a show trial of Eastern European quality. They're only sorry they kicked an own goal.

The reality is this ruling is a “Trump ruling” specific for one person.
The court majority are all in on MAGA. And yes lower courts will adjudicate any charge of non Presidential criminality.
But what court in the end do you think will get to make the final call as to what was Presidential and wasn’t ?

Was being involved in a fraudulent scheme to use fake electoral votes a crime for a sitting President ?

I know where my money is if this court got to hear it.

They are banking on a Trump win.
( good news for their future holidaying and any other form of corruption they may want to take part in )

 

[stefcep]

The reality is this ruling is a “Trump ruling” specific for one person.
The court majority are all in on MAGA. And yes lower courts will adjudicate any charge of non Presidential criminality.
But what court in the end do you think will get to make the final call as to what was Presidential and wasn’t ?

Was being involved in a fraudulent scheme to use fake electoral votes a crime for a sitting President ?

I know where my money is if this court got to hear it.

They are banking on a Trump win.
( good news for their future holidaying and any other form of corruption they may want to take part in )

The reality is that it is no such thing.

I am glad that the Supreme Court is stacked in favour of Conservatives and it may have the final say. Otherwise there would be no legal counter-weight to the Democrats abusing the legal system to crush their opponents and democracy far more effectively than the jackasses that rioted at the Capitol, which they have clearly demonstrated they have every intent doing.

 

[Fossie 32]

In his speech at the convention Trump was encouraging his followers to turn up in force on poling day 'to make sure the opposition don't cheat again' or words to that effect. That and his fist pumping 'fight fight fight' seem to be inciting violence. I guess intimidating voter at polling booths is illegal?

 

[BrisDog]

Of course I wouldn’t be with anyone if they were ‘on the take’. But the left/right divide is like a bloodsport for so many now, that they believe anyone not on their side could not possibly have a different way to see the world, they must surely be corrupt. They just see the world differently.
For more than a decade interesting and thoughtful sociologists have written great books on the different way conservatives and progressives see the world. Jonathan Hait and David Goodhart as examples. They classify them as somewhere’s and anywhere’s for example, where they talk to people from opposing camps and they literally think the other side is not just wrong, but evil or ‘deplorable’ etc. They have much different world view from each other. But this is where the States come in, they can individually make their own laws to suit their constituents. If one state wants this law and the other state doesn’t, that is not only good, but great for democracy and diversity. The two tribes eat different food, they have different occupations, different religions or none, live in different towns more and more these days. Barrack Obama said about them “they cling to their guns and bibles” he doesn’t get them at all.
There are many on here who get nasty and condescending when I’m genuinely answering and articulating the best I can for them. I know you hate Trump with all your might, and a lot that will vote for him will hate him too, and many inbetween, but they only have the choice between Dem and Rep and they’ll have to make some choice. I don’t agree with half of what they do but can understand where they’re coming from. But I definitely am not putting nefarious motives on conservatives or even progressive's, they both believe their way is correct. Example;Progressive’s think we’re doomed by the weather and the conservatives think we are doomed by poor morals. But it the pull between that usually helps us muddle through which we will do again. These justices are doing the best they can with how they see the world.

Man, that was long winded. You are a Trumpian right-winger, too embarrassed to admit it to yourself.

You mentioned Johnathon Haidt on your message above - he despises Trump and references him frequently as a persona who is degrading our society.

It is not all rose petals and intellectuals holding hands out there. Anyone with sense can see that Trump is a shocking human being who is making society in general more divisive.

 

[King Harold]

The reality is that it is no such thing.

I am glad that the Supreme Court is stacked in favour of Conservatives and it may have the final say. Otherwise there would be no legal counter-weight to the Democrats abusing the legal system to crush their opponents and democracy far more effectively than the jackasses that rioted at the Capitol, which they have clearly demonstrated they have every intent doing.

“ Democrats abusing the legal system to crush their opponents and democracy”

Congrats mate , I have just anointed you the world champ for irony

 

[BEaston]

Flipping the script? Its a common trait of MAGA, "weaponised justice dept" etc. Pot meet kettle...

You might need to read some history, UKRAINE wanted to join NATO and Europe. PUTIN invaded, not Biden. Republicans held up the military aid Ukraine needs and Russia advanced, Dems and Biden got the aid through finally and Russias been in retreat ever since. Trump wants to stop aid to ukraine (he was impeached for that back in the day) to help his mate Vlad.

And you reckon Ukrainians dont like Biden? They love him. They know Trump and the publicans will stop the aid they rely on.

Agree. Some of the stuff I read in here is completely bewildering.

 

[Freshwater]

Man, that was long winded. You are a Trumpian right-winger, too embarrassed to admit it to yourself.

I’ve said before I’m somewhat conservative but by no means Trump. But am trying to say his people are good people with a difficult choice.
I reckon to is no more morality on the left than there is on the right. It’s all issues based and how you see the world.