US Presidential election 2024 thread. - Page 51 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15319946
Potemkin wrote:I don’t just mean one party being elected in place of another. I mean the entire constitutional and legal order being replaced by another. I mean a POTUS simply declaring the US Constitution to be null and void and writing another one from scratch. The Constitution does not allow for its own deletion. In fact, whenever a new amendment has to be cancelled, they can’t simply delete it; they have to add another amendment explicitly cancelling the previous one. That’s how much the Constitution doesn’t allow for its own overthrow.


Actually , the Constitution itself had superseded the prior Articles of Confedration . The Articles of Confederation , in spite of what certain Sovereign Citizens might have you believe , no longer has any legal standing . And theoretically anyway , there could be another Constitutional Convention to replace the current U.S. Constitution .

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-constitutional-convention-good-idea
#15319947
Rancid wrote:Indeed

and this...



Is another key point people aren't understanding here. This ruling is now nearly impossible to reverse.

Some sort of challenge has to occur, but for that to occur, might require real damage done by the president, but not so much damage that the whole system collapses (because then there would be no nation to begin with). Further, it has to happen when a SCOTUS that isn't as corrupted as this one (See Thomas).

@wat0n, I suggest you watch this:



Effectively, Trump via the compromised SCOTUS he put in have destroyed the government permanently. This is not hyperbole, by placing the executive outside of checks and balances so strongly, it means one of the key foundational principals of this government is now gone. The President really is king above the law. That is really not an overstatement. Last, all of this coming from conservatives justices that claim the founders as near gods.

All it takes now, is one asshole president to take advantage of this, and fuck everything up. Every 4 years now needs to be a vote for or against potential tyranny. We seem to have a shit ton of pro-fascist, pro-authoritarians too. Every 4 years, and that's if such a president allows an election.

This nightmare scenario, while not inevitable, has gone from a near impossibility, to a real possibility every 4 years.

The other key thing is the difference between unofficial and official acts. The consensus is, it's going to be VERY easy for a corrupt president to claim just about anything as official. There is little protection there.

Also Justice Thomas has already indicated he's willing to throw out the documents case if it makes itself to the supreme court. A very corrupt set of justices we have.

Congratulations MAGA, Checkmate, you won.

The US will be much like Russia in the future. A depoliticized population with a crony elite. In the long term, probably more imperialist too.


I had been meaning to get around to watching that video from Legal Eagle . In response , I will say that it is my opinion that in the event of an impending second Trump Administration , the current Pres. Biden should then preemptively issue Executive Order 65 , in order to safeguard the Republic . As to enumerated executive powers , the Constitution actually does give the Federal government broad authority to suppress domestic threats to the constitutional order . Although , the last president who invoked such expansive power was Abraham Lincoln , during the Civil War , which was controversial in its time.

https://uclawreview.org/2021/03/08/a-state-of-emergency-the-unbridled-expansion-of-u-s-presidential-authority-under-the-emergency-powers/

https://www.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/10/revoking-civil-liberties-lincolns-constitutional-dilemma

#15319987
I am old enough to remember the Watergate scandal first-hand. Some future president to do exactly what Nixon did, and it would all be legal. He could set up something like to Plumbers inside the DOJ to conduct burglaries, bribery, impede investigations, etc., etc. According to our Supreme Court, it would be an official action, and he has absolute immunity. Those who committed the crimes could be charged, but the president could pardon all of them for the crimes he directed. And even if the next president tried to charge him with criminal conspiracy, no documentation from his DOJ (such as the Nixon tapes) could be admitted as evidence by the prosecution, nor could any evidence of criminal intent for his conduct be offered to the jury. That is what Roberts says (pp. 16-32 of the Opinion). Look it up. The Supreme Court has come a long way since 1974, when fellow Republicans and the Court forced Nixon to resign.
#15319992
Loads of "clever" people across the US and this forum, downplaying the Supreme Court decision, would be precisely the type of Roman citizen 2000 years ago celebrating Octavian's 'restoration of the Republic' because their ackshually nonsense absolutely misses the forest from the trees.
#15319993
Fasces wrote:Loads of "clever" people across the US and this forum, downplaying the Supreme Court decision, would be precisely the type of Roman citizen 2000 years ago celebrating Octavian's 'restoration of the Republic' because their ackshually nonsense absolutely misses the forest from the trees.

Some of us don't grovel to the Liberal elite. Why in God's name should the average Rome citizen mourn the defeat of Brutus and Casius? Why should the average citizen have supported the domination of the Senate, and not just the Senate but the pre Caesarean Senate with its much lower class and ethnic diversity?
#15319997
Rich wrote:Some of us don't grovel to the Liberal elite. Why in God's name should the average Rome citizen mourn the defeat of Brutus and Casius? Why should the average citizen have supported the domination of the Senate, and not just the Senate but the pre Caesarean Senate with its much lower class and ethnic diversity?


I am not gonna write a handbook on how to transition from semi-democracy/(Republican Elite Rule?) to a full monarchy/dictatorship but @Fasces leads you to a proper point. Even if you are decently competent and want to do it then obviously you don't want to appear to the public that you want to do it for obvious reasons hence the optics and the subjectivity.

There are plenty of examples from Ceasar and Augustus on that topic. And even more so through out history if you are willing to look around. Modern Dictators/Autocrats are all that actually. They have learned the lesson more or less besides few exceptions like Kim and may be now Putin/Lukashenko.
#15320024
A little more on the Supreme Court opinion. Roberts says the trial court has to make a finding of fact whether Trump organizing a criminal conspiracy to use fake electors to overturn the results of the election was an official act within his constitutional authority. Roberts says he can use the defense that the election was rigged and it is Trump’s job as president to ensure that election laws are faithfully executed. Roberts says the trial court must presume that Trump was acting officially. He also says the trial court cannot introduce evidence showing Trump’s motive for his action was something else. I assume (hope) the trial judge will find that Trump was not acting within his official authority, Trump will appeal, and the case goes back to the Supreme Court. Normally, any court of appeals will defer to the trial court on findings of fact. Roberts even says that. I will be surprised if that happens, and it will delay the case once again.

Of course, if Trump becomes president again, his DOJ will do everything possible to prevent him from going to trial on any of his indictments.
#15320038
The Supreme Court decision is absurd.

President orders the military to kill political opponents. He's commander in chief so it's an official action unless his motive is to secure power but his motive can't be investigated, so by default, his order isn't illegal.

The military has a duty to disobey illegal orders so the guys who ordered it can be punished.

But then we go back to the President who can immediately pardon them, which is an official act the motive of which can't be investigated.

It's a disaster.

And the "bribery is legal if it doesn't affect their decision making but you can't investigate their decision making" is legalized kleptocracy.

Roberts' court finished the coup. Pack the court already, Biden, you've lost the election anyway.
#15320091
Will you be voting for Dementia, or King Casino in the next election?

What about the Third-Party Zionist who is in the Irish mob?

How many organized crime groups have a horse in the upcoming race?

Do any candidates without organized-crime-backing... have any chance of being elected in the bankrupt USA in 2024?
#15320093
Rugoz wrote:"pornographic outlook on life"? Wtf? :lol:


@Rugoz

Yes, the West is now overrun with essentially sterile and onanistic obsessives who can barely channel their libidinal drives into things like politics, and only that poorly, cannot tell the Real from the Simulacrum, and desire instant gratification at all times.

They have Bad Orange Man on the brain for a reason.

I used to blame Cartesian philosophy at least as a symptom, but it goes deeper and further back than that.
#15320096
Fasces wrote:The Supreme Court decision is absurd.

President orders the military to kill political opponents. He's commander in chief so it's an official action unless his motive is to secure power but his motive can't be investigated, so by default, his order isn't illegal.

The military has a duty to disobey illegal orders so the guys who ordered it can be punished.

But then we go back to the President who can immediately pardon them, which is an official act the motive of which can't be investigated.

It's a disaster.

And the "bribery is legal if it doesn't affect their decision making but you can't investigate their decision making" is legalized kleptocracy.

Roberts' court finished the coup. Pack the court already, Biden, you've lost the election anyway.

Can't wait until Trump pardons himself and everyone else he knows. POTUS pardons are really stupid.
#15320137
68% of voters find it more concerning that a president doesn't tell the truth, than being too old to serve as president.
32% of voters find it more concerning that a president is too older to server, than doesn't tell the truth.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp

32% of these people are pieces of shit it seems. :lol:

Anyway, could mean that the Biden Gaffes (which he's done for decades) isn't as big of a problem as the media is making it out to be.

Also, seems like people have totally forgotten that Trump has mixed up names recently as well. Any of you remember when he mixed up Haley and Pelosi? Why aren't there dipshits crying about that?
#15320153
Fasces wrote:The Supreme Court decision is absurd.

President orders the military to kill political opponents. He's commander in chief so it's an official action unless his motive is to secure power but his motive can't be investigated, so by default, his order isn't illegal.

The military has a duty to disobey illegal orders so the guys who ordered it can be punished.

But then we go back to the President who can immediately pardon them, which is an official act the motive of which can't be investigated.

It's a disaster.

And the "bribery is legal if it doesn't affect their decision making but you can't investigate their decision making" is legalized kleptocracy.

Roberts' court finished the coup. Pack the court already, Biden, you've lost the election anyway.


I don't think it's THAT easy. I mean the motive would be pretty obvious in the political assassination case. I doubt it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The motive is irrelevant when it comes to constitutional functions. But there's the question to what extent the POTUS can use the military domestically. The constitution says the POTUS is commander-in-chief, not that he can use the military whenever he likes. I guess he would have to invoke the insurrection act first.
#15320154
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.”

This is what Roberts (p.4) says in the Opinion. It is plain English. The president can claim that the person assassinated is a member of the deep state and had to be terminated for national security reasons. The courts may not inquire into the truth of this stated motive. Even if the official conduct orders somebody in the military or DOJ to violate generally applicable laws against murder, bribery, obstruction of justice, etc., the courts may not use the criminality of the conduct as a basis to rule that the conduct was unofficial. Where there is doubt whether the conduct was official, the courts must presume that it was official.
Last edited by Hakeer on 16 Jul 2024 02:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15320159
The document's case, the so called "Hardest to beat", was just beat by Trump. Mainly due to two corrupt judges. Cannon and Thomas.

Thomas hinted to Cannon that he would support her if she threw the case out. His motivation was personal, as his impeachment process would probably call for a special council to investigate him. Of course he would say this is "unconstitutional". The other corrupt conservative judges would probably back him up, mainly to protect Trump.

The corruption in the US court system is more blatant than ever, yet, everyone thinks it's all good.

Curious what @wat0n thinks. Seemed like you were very confident in this one.

What a shit hole nation the US is. Hopefully it crashes.
#15320162
Rancid wrote:The document's case, the so called "Hardest to beat", was just beat by Trump. Mainly due to two corrupt judges. Cannon and Thomas.

Thomas hinted to Cannon that he would support her if she threw the case out. His motivation was personal, as his impeachment process would probably call for a special council to investigate him. Of course he would say this is "unconstitutional". The other corrupt conservative judges would probably back him up, mainly to protect Trump.

The corruption in the US court system is more blatant than ever, yet, everyone thinks it's all good.

Curious what @wat0n thinks. Seemed like you were very confident in this one.

What a shit hole nation the US is. Hopefully it crashes.


I am more confident about the Georgia case than this one.
  • 1
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 56

It's not. Trump needs to drop out because he's s[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Thats because these people can negotiate and ha[…]

Musk is an absolute fucking moron.

But will those White males vote Trump? That's wha[…]