The Real timschochet

This is not my understanding of the decision. If you can’t be tried it’s more than a presumption. Also the American way is the presumption of innocence not the presumption of immunity.

Maybe, Goldwater was convinced he was and convinced Nixon of the same. We’ll never know: But times have changed. I don’t think Nixon gets convicted by the Senate in 2024, to paraphrase Trump, POTUS could murder someone on 5th Avenue and it wouldn’t matter. The bottom line is that neither of our two major political parties would be willing to give up power to the other side. (And yes I know that technically it wouldn’t because the power passes to the VP, but we all know that it would be a landslide for the other side in the next election. And no party would ever allow that. So it will never happen.)

I did address this. 67 votes are required to remove a President under impeachment. I believe this is an impossible goal.

It is. But it creates a precarious situation because, at least IMO, we’re about to elect a President who is quite willing to break the law in order to pursue corrupt goals. I know you disagree with me about this as regards to Trump, and believe my description better describes Biden. But suppose either of us are right? Hasn’t the SC just removed the guardrails?

It seems to me that the fear of prosecuting a former President for political reasons is valid, but ultimately solved by the system in place. My argument is that if Trump or Biden or whoever is prosecuted for what are clearly political reasons a jury of 12 will acquit them.

But see the partisan thing is part of the problem. No true impeachment is possible because the Senate is too partisan; you’ll never get 67 votes. But McConnell told us don’t worry about it because, in the case of Trump, the courts would take care of it. Now the courts tell us no they won’t take care of it, impeachment is the way to take care of it. It seems to me that everyone is passing the buck.

I agree with this. On the other hand, both Trump and Biden have been accused of pressuring foreign leaders to do things for personal corrupt reasons. Suppose either accusation is correct: should they be immune from prosecution because these acts were “official”? I would say not. And what happens if a President orders real war crimes or crimes against humanity? Not collateral damage from bombing but the real thing? Suppose a future President decides to order torture, or false imprisonment? Suppose AOC becomes President, doesn’t like Fox News, and orders its top journalists arrested? Woodrow Wilson did it 100 years ago. So did Abe Lincoln. Putin and Victor Orban do it. Should there be no consequence? As you wrote these are tough questions and I don’t have good answers.

While I continue to be unsure about this decision, I can say this: the reaction to it, here and elsewhere, sucks. Because it’s become part of the stupid game. Basically almost everyone who is on Trump’s side likes this decision. Almost everyone who is opposed to Trump hates this decision. This goes for Trump himself. He says he strongly approves of what the Court did. But we all know that he has no real clue exactly what it did, only that it favors him. And if the shoe was on the other foot he would damn the decision of course. But that’s to be expected because he’s so transactional. Unfortunately so many others are too. AOC really pisses me off too. She wants to impeach SC justices because she disagrees with them? Fock her. I’ve defended her a lot in the past but this is ridiculous.

Which is why I wrote I’m unsure and uncomfortable. I also don’t understand exactly what is and what is not an official act. For example: Nixon authorizes a bunch of thugs to break into the Watergate hotel Democratic headquarters. I assume that is NOT an official act. But then, when the attorney general (Elliot Richardson) calls for an investigation, Nixon fires him- I assume that IS an official act. Yet the latter act was just as corrupt as the former act- perhaps more so. So based on this ruling Nixon gets away with Watergate? I don’t know, just asking.

I see your argument. I’m honestly not sure. I’m torn on this. As I wrote it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t know if I’m against it.

I’ve always understood it. I just don’t agree with it. I don’t agree with defunding police either.

Agreed.

Hey there @Strike! Hope you’re having a good summer. Yes the vast majority of undocumented immigrants do not commit violent crimes. Not all, but the vast majority. Thats what the statistics say.

If Biden stays in (and most signs indicate he will) then the message of his campaign comes down to 4 words: Trump would be worse. Thats the bottom line. Rather than defend Biden’s cognitive abilities, or try to dissuade voters who disapprove of his policies to change their minds, the campaign needs to pound away at this message and hope that enough voters will believe it to be true. Because it is true. Will such a message succeed for Biden? Gonna be tough. It’s an uphill battle at this point.

With regard to replacing Joe Biden- my strong feeling is that if the polls that come out in a week or so show a significant change as a result of the debate then he will be convinced to quit. If they don’t show that he won’t. All the talk occurring now on either side of this issue is just that- talk- until we get those poll numbers. Then we’ll see.

I disagree with so much of your post, and so much of it is factually wrong as well. Let’s get right to to the heart of the matter at the center of post: 1. Neither Marxist nor Hamas supporters have taken over any college campuses. Democrats support free speech and peaceful protests. 2. There are no open borders and never have been. There is a crisis currently caused by increased migration which is only going to get worse. The main culprit for this is man-made climate change. No amount of border policing can ever be anything more than a band-aid and will not alleviate this crisis. But even if it could, the current Republican “solutions” are morally unacceptable. Finally, undocumented immigrants are in no way “prioritized” over American citizens. Thats nonsense. 3. DEI is a good idea. Woke is a good thing. There are excesses to each that don’t always work. In general they are a positive. 4. Inflation is mainly a world wide phenomenon and can’t be fought by using more fossil fuels, domestic or otherwise. More importantly it’s ignoring the major source of most of our problems: man made climate change. We are focked if we don’t address this. It may be that a majority of voters currently agree with your sentiments. We’ll find out soon enough. If they do then we will as a nation take a step backwards, but then ultimately reverse ourselves in 2028. Or 2032. It doesn’t matter: I am a long term optimist. I believe that my core principles are right and will win out. But even when they do the one thing I will never write is “Fock off Republicans, you brought this on yourselves”- because I believe that the vast majority of conservatives are well-meaning and, just like liberals, truly want what’s best for this country, and that’s what bothered me most about your post. The true extremists- the radical leftists and extreme MAGA types and Marxists and white supremacists- they can go fock themselves. But they’re not anywhere close to the majority. The rest of us shouldn’t let them win. Yeaterday the tour guide in Amsterdam told me they have 26 political parties in Amsterdam. That’s true democracy and it’s also total chaos. I think our system is better than that and achieves better results.

I know how to read a map.

We can’t defend Taiwan once it’s attacked. The only way to defend Taiwan is to convince China that the consequences of attacking Taiwan would be too costly for them. But once they are attacked we are helpless to prevent it.

Anyone remember Fernwood Tonight and America Tonight? Hilarious shows from my youth.

This was one reason I voted for Hillary. Let’s put it this way: in your scenario I trust Biden more than Trump. Better advisors and less inclined to do something impulsive. Or do nothing.

I think Biden should absolutely do an interview with Fox News. Or even a townhall. I would advise that right away. What a great idea.

Both of your points are true. As I wrote well know a lot more in a week.

Why not? When you listen to a conversation between two people you can tell if one of them understands the conversation. Of course it was a softball interview, but the point is that Hisen understood the questions he was asked and replied intelligently. Just as he did last night in the second half of the debate.

So long as you don’t live in a battleground state do whatever you please. But if you live in one of the states that will decide things I strongly urge you to reconsider. Even an incompetent Biden, led by his advisors, is vastly preferable to Donald Trump. It’s not even a close call. And in those states if you don’t for Biden you’re voting for Trump. There’s no way to avoid that choice and responsibility.

That’s not really so though. In the last month Inlistened to the Biden interview with Howard Stern as well as at least one long exchange he had with some supporters. Both times he spoke off the cuff without prepared remarks. Both times he appeared very lucid and sharp. I would note that in the second half of last nights debate he also appeared lucid and sharp at times. So I think you’re wrong, there is plenty of evidence that whatever his deficiencies are he currently is still on top of things enough to be President.