Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Not to bust out the grade school civics lesson but our country was built on a system of checks and balances. Can't just remove the head of one entire branch and expect things to sort themselves out. What many people don't seem to get about the presidency is that it isn't just "one guy". It's one guy and all the guys that he associates with, his picks for judges, cabinet positions, his endorsements of other politicians as the Face of an entire Party at that moment in time. We don't elect a king, we elect a delegator. 

I mean, sure, but...

6 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Historically speaking, the office of presidency was a pretty insignificant one. Heck, they couldn't even choose their own gosh darned vice president until the 19th century.

It's been trending towards that crown for, I'd say, centuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

34 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

okay so then we're not talking about the Colorado decision at all but some mystery future thing you are uniquely privy to?

Need I be a literal prophet to suggest that, if Colorado's decision is not overturned by the Supreme Court, some Republican-controlled legislatures or courts are likely to retaliate either in this election or a future one, spiraling into a series of gradually escalating tit-for-tats between the two parties? Is this not basic human nature?

Republican congressmen have already issued statements denouncing the Colorado ruling; whether rightly or wrongly, they view it as unjust, and people who perceive themselves as having been wronged are likely to believe they have a right to retaliate in kind.

34 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Historically speaking, the office of presidency was a pretty insignificant one.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, by which time the presidency had become a lot more powerful than it used to be and state legislatures were a lot less powerful. But even if it'd been ratified earlier, it seems like one hell of an oversight to not mention the presidency at all if they intended for presidents to be among those who could be barred for insurrection.

But at the end of the day, the point isn't that my interpretation is objectively right and yours is objectively wrong. It's that said constitutional ambiguity exists at all (notably, the Coloradan Supreme Court reversed a ruling by a lower court which arrived at the opposite conclusion), meaning SCOTUS has the power to decide one way or another.

34 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Imagine being so extremely online that someone responds to you once and you think you've nailed down their politics

Fair enough. It just seemed rather myopic that you believe your very strongly negative assessment of Trump, going so far as to assert that it's objectively illegal for him to run for office again, is shared by all but a fringe few Americans. It's a common human bias to assume that what your neighbors on the street think are what the average stranger a thousand miles away also thinks.

34 minutes ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Now having seen this poll, I'll acknowledge that it exists. Nonetheless, the fact stands that other polls which I've mentioned have suggested otherwise, almost three years after January 6. Here's one, released by the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/19/us/elections/times-siena-poll-registered-voter-crosstabs.html

Edited by Hrothgar777
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like to see other states follow Colorado and bar the Orange Turd from the ballot, I'm not holding my breath on it and expect the Supreme Court to shoot it down despite how hypocritical it would be.

DNC appears to be moving to cancel the primary in several states such as Florida which they've pretty much given up on at this point and doing this kind of shit is just gift wrapping 2024 to Trump. It's bad optics and it's a situation where they may as well let the primary play out regardless. The fools need to starve the Republicans, not feed their propaganda.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...