President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
He didn't backtrack, cases were heard, and i was right 50 days ago.
See how that works rococo?
Sure. If you talk out of your ass about legal stuff, sometimes you will be correct. That's always true.
Because same as trump abusing IEEPA (which *i said a month ago in this very forum was obviously illegal*), this is not something that came out today as a topic.It's stuff that has already been discussed by actually capable rightwing people like we do discuss all trump admin attempts to push laws and interpretations and see what sticks.That's the actual project 2025, to get deci
Luciom on the law reminds me of the old George Carlin bit about getting out of jury duty.
A co-worker once told me that he served on a jury with a lady who said during deliberations of the defendant "well he looks guilty, and if he ends up being innocent and we send him to prison, he'll get his rewards in heaven" or something to that effect.
Sure. If you talk out of your ass about legal stuff, sometimes you will be correct. That's always true.
I wasn't talking out of my ass about worldwide tariffs not being an option allowed by IEEPA, nor i am now when i claim the executive has full discretion about removing parole from deportation from paroled aliens.
I really would though like you guys to explain how the fear mongering that the Democrats do is so fundamentally different from the fear mongering that the GOP does or why whatever that difference is matters
Maybe because the Trump administration shitting on the US Constitution is not fear-mongering because it can demonstrably and objectively be proven to be true? Do we need to change your name to Lucybox?
A co-worker once told me that he served on a jury with a lady who said during deliberations of the defendant "well he looks guilty, and if he ends up being innocent and we send him to prison, he'll get his rewards in heaven" or something to that effect.
I'm sending a note to the judge if I'm on a jury with that woman.
The constitution was supposed to prevent a King Donald and failed spectacularly. Shitting on it is hardly the worst part of the regime.
Maybe because the Trump administration shitting on the US Constitution is not fear-mongering because it can demonstrably and objectively be proven to be true? Do we need to change your name to Lucybox?
I like "Lucy's box", has a certain ring to it.
Just a quick sampling of what we're dealing with here:
No surprise for where he is getting his legal updates.
Because you're seeing "fear mongering" as the defining characteristic rather than what the fear is actually of.
If one person is telling you afraid of ghosts and another person is telling you to be afraid of the serial killer who just escaped from maiximum security prison and is loose in your neghbourhood, are they both "fear mongering", or is there a bit more to it?
Do you actually believe that Trump is going to be the "end of democracy". If so then lol.
You don't want to be drinking your own kool-aid it's not healthy.
Do you actually believe that Trump is going to be the "end of democracy". If so then lol.
Do you think "threat to democracy" and "end of democracy" are synonymous? If so then lol. If not, then ask yourself why you changed it.
The constitution was supposed to prevent a King Donald and failed spectacularly. Shitting on it is hardly the worst part of the regime.
By shitting on it, I mean trying to circumvent and ignore its laws. This is the first time it's been challenged to this degree and Congress is failing miserably.
😆
Do you actually believe that Trump is going to be the "end of democracy". If so then lol.
Guess you haven't been paying attention for the last 10 years then. All this stuff has been addressed here ad nauseam and Rococo in particular has posted very eloquently and rationally in the past about the legitimate concerns in this regard.
In any case, that's not the point. The point is you seem incapable of differentiating between different things that share characteristics, which is why one day you'll end up drinking piss for breakfast.
Maybe because the Trump administration shitting on the US Constitution is not fear-mongering because it can demonstrably and objectively be proven to be true? Do we need to change your name to Lucybox?
it can, but so could Biden admin.
Biden attempted massive, unprecedented stuff that SCOTUS later determined to be outrageously unconstitutional.
OSHA vaccine mandate, and the big parts of the student loan relief attempt come to mind .
trump birthright order is blatantly unconstitutional, his tariff setting clearly illegal under the law as written, and possibly some other stuff as well.
now you cannot claim any difference is there, if the claim is "he is a danger because he will disregard the constitution" then that was found to be true by courts for Biden as well.
you can claim what trump attempts to do is "worse" because of your personal preferences about violating which parts of the constitution is worse, but so can people claiming democrats are a real and present danger for the constitution, if they think other violations are more dangerous.
By shitting on it, I mean trying to circumvent and ignore its laws. This is the first time it's been challenged to this degree and Congress is failing miserably.
😆
lol a democrat interned hundreds of thousands of Americans in concentration camps (with SCOTUS at the time saying it was legal to do so) but this is the first time the constitution has been challenged to this degree ffs.
Do you think "threat to democracy" and "end of democracy" are synonymous? If so then lol. If not, then ask yourself why you changed it.
Are you serious right now?
it can, but so could Biden admin.Biden attempted massive, unprecedented stuff that SCOTUS later determined to be outrageously unconstitutional.OSHA vaccine mandate, and the big parts of the student loan relief attempt come to mind .trump birthright order is blatantly unconstitutional, his tariff setting clearly illegal under the law as written, and possibly some other stuff as
Cool, but I only read the first sentence of this whaddabout.
The difference between Biden and Trump, if you want to assert that Biden was trying to overstep his powers, is that Biden would never ignore the courts.
And as much as you want to assert that Garland was biased, Bondi is literally functioning as Trump's personal attorney.
So you do think they mean the same thing. LOLOLOL
The difference is, simpleton, democracy still exists, so he hasn't ended it, but he has UNQUESTIONABLY already harmed it. Which means he was and STILL IS a threat to it.
One is already demonstrably true, the other isn't at present.
The distinction is OBVIOUSLY important, which is why you changed it.
You really do give yourself away as a complete moron when you start posting about politics.
It's disingenuous to frame the question as if there will be a binary outcome.
lol a democrat interned hundreds of thousands of Americans in concentration camps (with SCOTUS at the time saying it was legal to do so) but this is the first time the constitution has been challenged to this degree ffs.
So no Constitutional crisis then?
Perhaps you should have gone with secession of South Carolina?
In one way there is more democracy today than 10 (or 20 or 30) years ago.
Turnout was higher in the last two presidential elections than it was before, you have to go back to the 60s for the same or higher turnout.
Now for some people that's irrelevant, for others that a sign of a reversal of a worrisome trend of declining turnout.
In a very literal sense the more people vote the more democracy exists in practice ceteris paribus.
In one way there is more democracy today than 10 (or 20 or 30) years ago.Turnout was higher in the last two presidential elections than it was before, you have to go back to the 60s for the same or higher turnout.Now for some people that's irrelevant, for others that a sign of a reversal of a worrisome trend of declining turnout.In a very literal sense the more people vote the
What you wrote above is a juvenile way of measuring the health of a democracy. And tacking on ceteris paribus at the end doesn't solve the problem because all other things are not remaining constant in the real world.
Google electoral authoritarianism and then look at voter turnout rates in various countries that are widely regarded as autocratic.
You might also consider reading this article.
Elections also bolster authoritarian regimes’ claims of legitimacy. Electoral systems are characterized by the expectation that incumbents have the right to rule because they have secured the assent of the majority through a process of political competition (Chapman Reference Chapman2018; Manin Reference Manin1997, 85). Many authoritarian leaders are eager to retain the rhetorical mantle of democracy that elections confer even as they jettison traditional liberal safeguards (Isaac Reference Isaac2017). Likewise, authoritarian regimes often encourage turnout in order to show that they represent the popular will (Frantz Reference Frantz2018). Expressing disappointment with the low turnout in the first round of the 2024 presidential elections in Iran, its unelected Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei declared: “People’s participation is a support for the Islamic Republic system, it is a source of honor, it is a source of pride” (Fassihi Reference Fassihi2024).
The fact that authoritarian regimes use elections to stabilize and legitimate their rule creates a dilemma for citizens who are broadly committed to democracy. On the one hand, this commitment may motivate citizens to seek political change through the ballot box rather than support riskier ways to overturn the regime. On the other hand, voting may contribute to the longevity of the authoritarian incumbent even when casting a ballot for the opposition. Furthermore, turning out may be interpreted as implicit approval of the outcome and bolster the regime’s claim to legitimacy.
This is a juvenile way of measuring the health of a democracy. Google electoral authoritarianism and then look at voter turnout rates in various countries that are widely regarded as autocratic.
North Korea must be the healthiest democracy in the world!
