ID: comic showing a homeless person sleeping in a doorway when a cop comes and tells them it’s illegal to sleep in public. The homeless person replies saying they guess they’ll just go to a hotel tonight, or maybe their townhouse or the Hamptons, then make a mock call to “Smithers” saying their “super fun street sleeping holiday” is over and asking which mansion they should sleep in, as the cop thinks “next: outlaw sarcasm”
Thank God. I’d much rather a strong libertarian than either of the candidates. But since that’s not going to happen, I have to pick the less of two evils.
It was a no-win situation. The DNC gave in - once again - to their republican-lite mindset of ‘capturing undecided voters’ and agreed to get socked in the face , twice, for absolutely no gain and everything to lose.
DNC consultants have always been morons, but now they’re morons-from-the-90s who still don’t understand what’s changed.
Having “debates” be this ridiculous mud-wrestling that only benefits trump or another conman is the big step back and the loss to democracy.
They are apparently unable to create a forum in which a position can be taken and defended with facts and reason. UNABLE. Because the republiQans are fielding a demented sociopath and a compulsive liar.
The format is beyond broken, and there isn’t a way to fix it when one party has no intention - never had any intention to follow the rules, or decorum, or common decent behavior.
We found that out eight years ago. I can’t believe they walked right into it again.
Literally any half competent debater could have torn Trump apart up there.
The failure wasn’t the moderators but the opposition candidate to Trump letting him run hog wild.
If Trump claims he’s going to end the war in Ukraine before even taking office, you point out how absurd that claim is and that Trump makes impossible claims without any substance or knowledge of diplomacy. That the images of him photoshopped as Rambo must have gone to his head if he thinks Putin will be so scared of him to give up.
If he says hostages will be released as soon as he’s nominated, you point out it sounds like maybe there’s been a backroom tit-for-tat deal for a hostage release with a hostile foreign nation, and ask if maybe the intelligence agencies should look into that and what he might have been willing to trade for it.
The moderators have to try to keep the appearance of neutrality, but the candidates do not. And the only reason Trump was so successful in spouting BS and getting away with it was because his opposition had the strength of a wet paper towel.
Literally any half competent debater could have torn Trump apart up there.
He’s “debated” a large number of half-competent people in primaries and post-convention. Which one tore him apart? Examples please.
The failure wasn’t the moderators but the opposition candidate to Trump letting him run hog wild.
While the visual of hog-tying trump by a cowboy-hatted Biden is fun, it’s simply not his job to chase the gish. That’s why trumps insane rambling works; it’s not possible to practically address each batshit claim or outright lie. It’s just not. Biden’s already got the job of presenting and defending his own platform.
It is absolutely the moderators’ job to check him and a failure to do so means not only that it’s wide open Crime Time for trump but that the proceedings themselves lend authority to his lies.
The moderators have to try to keep the appearance of neutrality, but the candidates do not.
The appearance of neutrality? As opposed to just neutrality? Okay, well either way, again - no. The moderators have to acknowlege reality and remind the shit-talkers that they can’t say what they just said because it’s bullshit. And once again, they can’t do that with trump because he’s a compulsive liar who is incapable of acknowledging anything but his own reality.
And the only reason Trump was so successful in spouting BS and getting away with it was because his opposition had the strength of a wet paper towel.
Spouting BS and getting away with it is the entirety of what trump does. He’s not an authority on anything, he can’t function as any sort of manager without a stadium’s worth of assistance, and - really, hear me now - he is utterly. incapable. of not lying.
Nothing will stop him from trying to babble nonsense and if the moderators, effectively the referees, the arbitrators, refuse to hold him to any standard, there’s no other outcome than to watch helplessly at his idiot spewhole as it disgorges lie after lie after lie.
Biden blew it, yes, but if you think there was something to be gained by engaging with trump, i encourage you to consider the simple fact that trump is not able to acknowledge truth if it does not directly benefit him, and any attempt to do so will be met with more lies, more vitriol, and no one will succeed.
It’s unconscionable that anyone at this late date would even consider that even a remote possibility.
That’s it for me. I’m not voting for anyone who sounds confused for 10 seconds. Unless maybe they ran against someone who sounds confused for 10 years, but only in that circumstance.
The problem is that there was no live fact checking. Wtf can you do against a constant Gish Gallop of blatant lies? Even if they drugged him, I’m not sure what he could’ve done with that debate format.
There’s one way to fix this… elect a landslide blue majority in the HoR and Senate and redefine explicitly the role of every federal agency. That way Republicans in the future can’t weaponize doing nothing as easily.
Removing the filibuster so those things can be accomplished even if the Republicans have 41 Senators will also be necessary. That is what led to the minor improvements in the ACA instead of actually implementing something better like single payer healthcare.
Biden pulled a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Instead of declaring that he would not run for reelection early on, we now find ourselves in a situation where the end of American democracy is not only possible but probable.
EDIT: Downvote away but if you think a Trump win isn’t the end of American democracy, then you are delusional.
I think its only a RBG situation if Biden dies soon.
It’s more of a Diane Feinstein situation, where everyone can see the dementia progressing, but everyone around them has a vested interest in keeping the status quo.
I don’t think I’m capable of articulating just how fucked up it is that that level of nuance is even possible, let alone backed up with recent examples.
The obstruction of an official proceeding statute makes it a felony crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison to “obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.”
But the law, first passed in the wake of the 2001 Enron scandal, is vague about what constitutes an official proceeding and what conduct would constitute an illegal effort to obstruct one.
the law, as originally conceived in 2002, was intended to criminalize the type of evidence destruction and witness tampering that stymied Congressional investigators during the Enron collapse. It was not meant, they argue, to apply to any form disruptive conduct that interferes with any act of Congress.
But federal prosecutors and lower courts have ruled that the statute’s language is vague enough to encompass the type of disruption that brought the Congressional certification of the 2020 electoral vote to a halt during the Jan. 6 riot.
the court concluded the obstruction charge was only intended to apply in limited circumstances involving tampering with physical evidence. It doesn’t apply to the type of behavior that disrupted Congress’ certification of the 2020 vote, the majority ruled.
They just gave themselves a huge amount of extra power…If you want any proof that the court is corrupt, there it is.
Interpreting the law is a power the courts have always had; it’s their core function. It wasn’t until Chevron when the courts willingly gave a portion of this power to the executive. Now they are simply taking it back; a power they always had that the executive abused.
I heard no end to the complaints while Trump was president about how he was able to do dozens of things and Chevron was a big reason for them; the judiciary simply letting the executive do what they want via creative interpretations of the law.
This isn’t just about the EPA, this applies to other agencies as well. Including ones that charge individuals for offenses that were lawful prior to a reinterpretation made by unelected officials.
And it’s also about the EPA. And it’s about the most important issue in the world- climate change.
And now it’s in the hands of a bunch of people who don’t even believe it’s real and if they do, think the emissions should keep happening anyway because they don’t give a shit.
Before any new administration can come in, appoint their hacks, and throw off long term climate plans. This also puts power into the legislature (and by that the people) allowing for the enactment of environmental laws that have firm regulations that won’t disappear in 4 years. Enabling us to meet long term goals and commitments.
This can be circumnavigated by crafting legislation that leaves little for interpretation or judical review. Legislative definitions and unambiguous language have and will always act as handcuffs on the judiciary.
SCOTUS is currently deciding whether or not the president can legally commit murder. That doesn’t even need special legislation. There isn’t even a question. And yet SCOTUS is looking into the question. And you want me to trust them with ecological disasters?
Yeah, things will have to get worse, but when there’s no peaceful means of fixing the problem…
I’m not advocating for violence, I can just recognize that they’re guaranteeing it. A much better resolution would be to amend the constitution to allow votes of no confidence, but that’ll never happen.
It isn’t a new power necessarily. Judicial review has been around for a while. This just shifts back from when they granted the Executive branch a section of that power in the 80s.
In the off chance they do replace him, they’re going to force the worst possible candidate on us (Kamala?). Because what else are you going to do, let the bad guy win?
A bland and unprincipled candidate whose positions shift based on polling numbers. Not to mention her prosecutorial background and close proximity to SF corruption scandals makes her an easy target.
They might be talking about her primary run for President specifically, but she had dropped out way before then I’m pretty sure. That is, I am not sure if California even had a chance to vote for her. It’s one of the parts that suck about US primaries and being in a late state. Sometimes you don’t even get a chance to vote for the person you wanted to vote for before they drop out.
Running Kamala would be making the same mistake they made back in 2016. She is polarizing, and extremely unlikeable. Anyone that worked with her or her department when she was in law in CA has nothing but bad things to say about her.
Running Kamala would be giving Trump a second term.
Not worth the risk to lose his governorship for a shot in the dark. I don’t know why the Democrat Party hasn’t been building alternatives for the last 4 years. Hell, I only recall seeing Harris when she was yelling at poor immigrants to stay away. They failed this country.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.