631–640 of 656 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> largely by the Democrats at the time. Who was president in 2020?
Was the pandemic limited to 2020?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s take the ACA. That was designed to fix the problem “healthcare in the US is insanely expensive and insurance companies can deny coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.” How could you fix that problem individually?
My argument there wasn't actually that all of those could have done bottom up, only that they are examples of us granting the government more power and asking for a collectivist solution. That isn't always a bad thing, but it does point to the trend that I recognize (potentially due to my bias as pointed out above).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay? Then you disprove their claims and their bad sources. If they don't want to understand that, there's nothing to do. They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point. Them denying nature's truth doesn't allieve them from nature's forces.
Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence? Go watch some flat earther videos on YouTube. Lots of people are very committed to a particular conclusion and have developed elaborate processes for disregarding evidence that would persuade a rational person. The US political system right now is built on believing easily disprovable lies. Unfortunately, their bad choice…
No I do not:
>They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point.
but if people insist on arguing, that's your approach.
I just don't debate on Youtube. The people who matter aren't there anyway. Those people have to go through a slower process but one that doesn't care about the feelings of youtube comments complaining about Hilary emails (iroinc, isn't it?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this was an order from the President as an official act, no scrutiny can be applied here in any court (broad immunity recently granted by the SCOTUS: absolute immunity for actions within his core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts)... so good luck proving any wrongdoing without any evidence... If you go after any of the underlings who executed such order, they are likely getting…
That's not true. The restriction applies only to scrutiny of the President himself -- his agents still can be prosecuted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let him keep pardoning. Sometimes the best way to set new rules is to show the limits of abuse of that power in practice. I don't think even his packed SCOTUS would appreciate Trump overturning their judgment by pardoning recently convicted agents. They still are the people who are tasked with interpreting the constitution. Push the line too hard and they will push the line back to spite you.
In most cases, I would think the SCOTUS would point to Congress in a situation like this. It's Congress' role to step up and provide checks and balances for a president that goes off the rails. As long as a president has support by their fellow party members in congress to be immune against impeachment, I doubt the SCOTUS would step in. Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce…
But yes, it's up to congress to actual impreach/convict. The SCOTUS can just keep slapping the president if he keeps overstepping his bounds.
>Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent risk to the whole system of government. Like pardoning people who (provably) organize large scale voting fraud, etc.
it would be a very interesting, constitutional crisis. I'm not sure if it has anything built in for that. Even Watergate was simply going to go through the impeachment process before Nixon stepped down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s take the ACA. That was designed to fix the problem “healthcare in the US is insanely expensive and insurance companies can deny coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.” How could you fix that problem individually?
My argument there wasn't actually that all of those could have done bottom up, only that they are examples of us granting the government more power and asking for a collectivist solution. That isn't always a bad thing, but it does point to the trend that I recognize (potentially due to my bias as pointed out above).
We forget that the US has been far, far more collectivist in the past, particularly from the 20's - last 70's. The shift towards hyper-individualism is, in my opinion, a wealth extraction mechanism masquerading as a strength. It is highly beneficial to every wealthy person to have low regulations and low requirements for care. The ACA is just common sense - the reason we didn't have it isn't because of individualism, but rather because by not having it you can make a lot more evil and consequently make a lot more money as an insurer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence? Go watch some flat earther videos on YouTube. Lots of people are very committed to a particular conclusion and have developed elaborate processes for disregarding evidence that would persuade a rational person. The US political system right now is built on believing easily disprovable lies. Unfortunately, their bad choice…
>Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence? No I do not: >They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point. but if people insist on arguing, that's your approach. I just don't debate on Youtube. The people who matter aren't there anyway. Those people have to go through a slower process but one that doesn't care about the feelings of youtube co…
The people who matter are the ones who vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence? No I do not: >They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point. but if people insist on arguing, that's your approach. I just don't debate on Youtube. The people who matter aren't there anyway. Those people have to go through a slower process but one that doesn't care about the feelings of youtube co…
> The people who matter aren't there anyway. The people who matter are the ones who vote.
But sure, if anyone feels they can change minds in 2 years before midterm, go for it. That is not where I am useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most cases, I would think the SCOTUS would point to Congress in a situation like this. It's Congress' role to step up and provide checks and balances for a president that goes off the rails. As long as a president has support by their fellow party members in congress to be immune against impeachment, I doubt the SCOTUS would step in. Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce…
SCOTUS can't impreach, but they can make sure the next BS pardon is illegal to do. They can re-interpret the law to limit pardons and deny future ones. That's the extent of their power. But yes, it's up to congress to actual impreach/convict. The SCOTUS can just keep slapping the president if he keeps overstepping his bounds. >Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent r…
But since then, congress has become more and more partisan, with less and less ability to act together in important issues. This was particularily obvious in all 3 impeachment processes that have happened since. In all 3 cases, impeachment was done without the proper bipartisan basis needed for a conviction, basically just to achieve short term political gain.
Like the boy who cried wolf, each repitition means the probability that people will take it seriously next time goes down.
And when the day comes where a president does something that really requires a bi-partisan conviction during an impeachment, congress may be so used to voting along party lines that this becomes impossible.
And maybe worse: presidents may even begin to consider such a conviction an impossibility, and act with fewer inhibitions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Trump just pardoned the violent attackers of Jan6 He let violent criminals out of jail. Unsurprisingly, they’re going on to commit crime. It’s wild how similarly the far left and right act when they’re given power; in an alternate universe, Chesa Boudin is pardoning them because abolish prisons or whatever.