What's your point? I simply answered your question. My point was that it's silly to just give credit or blame to a sitting President based on the status of the economy. — Relativist

My point is, you cited one example of his bill, and then you went on to criticize it. I responded by saying, that while the democrats did not vote for it, I asked you if they indeed partake in the lowering of their tax liabilities. It's in effect from 2018 to 2025. Do you understand that the 2017 TCJA is still in effect until 2025? You probably benefited from it when you filed your taxes.

I don't see that there should be a confusion in my response to your post.

Do you understand that the 2017 TCJA is still in effect until 2025? You probably benefited from it when you filed your taxes. — L'éléphant

Yes and yes. Do you think that's the full story? Do deficits and debt not matter?

Yes and yes. Do you think that's the full story? Do deficits and debt not matter? — Relativist

I didn't say that's the full story. I'm just stating the fact that no one opposed to it once it's in effect. So, everybody contributed to the deficits and debt.

That's not really true. Sure, everyone is happy to take home more money, but lots are unhappy with the way the tax cuts were divided up. Many are also unhappy that the corporate tax cut was permanent while the individual tax cut was temporary. And since you agree deficits and debt matter, you should agree the long term effects are relevant to the analysis- irrespective of people liking the extra cash.

Whatever you say, dude.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules against claim for immunity that has been holding up the Federal election interference trial of Trump and company.

The next step will be to file the appeal to the Supreme Court, and this will probably be on the deadline date of Feb 12 (they'll squeeze every possible millisecond of delay possible). Some analysts have suggested SCOTUS might decline to hear it, letting the DC appeal's court ruling stand. My guess is they'll hear it.

Maybe they will hear it.

One factor in the language of the decision is that it puts the Supreme Court in a difficult position. If the Supremes end up agreeing with it after a drawn-out process, the time taken will stand out as politically motivated. If they come down against the decision on the basis of constitutional parameters, they will have to put forward interpretations that negate the grounds of the DC appeal decision. That language directly addresses the problem of the separation of powers.

I bet the Supreme Court will punt.

They don't want to go anywhere near this thing. Maybe one or two do, but not four. What is there left to say, really? We have presidents, not kings. They're not above the law.

I find the whole court case fucking dumb and would throw it out for being frivolous. It's longstanding legal fact in every constitutional democracy that in the exercise of discretionary powers, courts cannot review the exercise of such powers. But such powers are granted; so the court can always assess whether the discretionary power was actually granted or not. If the conclusion is no such power has been granted, then that behaviour is outside of any possible immunity. And we all know we do not grant Presidents the power to do something the law explicitly prohibits.

My guess is that they delay it long enough that they can then declare it moot, allowing Trump to be a candidate, but not issuing an actual judgement on the issue.

Just to be clear, the immunity issue (which is what we were discussing) has no bearing on his candidacy. He could be rotting in prison and still be a candidate for President.

Right, I'm getting court cases mixed up. There's another one starting tomorrow about whether or not Trump can be removed from the ballot.

I wonder which excuse they'll use to overturn Colorado's decision. My guess: inadequate due process.

My initial guess was that they would rule that a criminal conviction for insurrection would be required, but then I read that a criminal conviction has never been required for past cases where the clause was used to disqualify.

It would seem to me that the current court cases are the due process. Each court so far, when faced with the evidence on both sides, has ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection. The Supreme Court is now in a position to do the same.

So if they were to actually rule on the merits of the case rather than just delay, I suspect they will rule that there's insufficient evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection.

Is the US supreme court allowed to rule on the facts of a case or only on the interpretation of law?

Just finished listening to the oral arguments. One element that I found interesting was how the general concern about disunity of state results expressed by all the Supremes was most succinctly challenged by Colorado attorney Shannon Stevenson who said the existing balance of State and National powers could deal with that messiness.

A lot of fear that people refuse to address, refuse to introspect.
— baker
Absolutely! — L'éléphant

And it's a problem, because it makes them ineffective against those they oppose.

It doesn't look promising. It was a long shot to begin with. The Court is going to look for any reason to stay out of that mess.

That they take concepts, words and language and twist them does not mean the core of their sentences mean the same. That they manipulate people through twisting language just becomes another tool of power.

If people can't tell the difference between propaganda and analysis... well, then there's nothing to be done. If you can't understand the difference, then how could anything ever put you into expanded perspectives? — Christoffer

Since I don't believe that democracy is a good or viable way to organize society, the point is moot anyway. If anything, I'm a monarchist.

They're having elections in Pakistan. Many people there are illiterate, so the ballots have graphic symbols for each candidate. On the news, there was a short interview with an illiterate man, who said he voted for the candidate whose symbol is an eagle, because he likes eagles better than lions (a lion was a symbol for another candidate).
This example illustrates the depth of democracy rather well.

But yes, hey, your contempt is well-noted. So democratic.

It's not "Shakespearean". Please.
— baker

It's not wrong either.

"Shakespearean" implies a measure of class, dignity. There's no such thing in the political matters we're discussing.

BREAKING
Special counsel says there is evidence Biden 'willfully retained and disclosed classified materials' but will not be charged
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/special-counsel-says-evidence-biden-willfully-retained-disclosed-class-rcna96666

Pathetic.

"Special Counsel Calls Biden ‘Elderly Man With A Poor Memory’ But Doesn’t Charge Him In Classified Documents Probe"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2024/02/08/special-counsel-calls-biden-elderly-man-with-poor-memory-but-doesnt-charge-him-in-classified-documents-probe/?sh=5a0658b23905

Biden needs to drop out. There's no way around it.

Yes, the nature of the questions show that the Supremes are just narrowing down the basis for rejecting Colorado's ruling.

I was just disappointed that Jackson and Kagan blew off the prerogatives of the States so summarily. Shannon's defense was the only instance where the principle of State's power was put forward as such as a dimension of constitutional law.

BREAKING
Special counsel says there is evidence Biden 'willfully retained and disclosed classified materials' but will not be charged
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/special-counsel-says-evidence-biden-willfully-retained-disclosed-class-rcna96666 — RogueAI

The full quote, in the body, continues with:

but the evidence "does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Biden needs to drop out. There's no way around it. — RogueAI

Sure, after Trump.

"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,”


“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Biden won't be charged, but this is a scathing indictment of a president. They're politely saying he's too addled for a jury to convict.

Yikes. Biden stole classified documents and gets off. Never did he have the unilateral declassification powers a president had. A former president who had those powers is subject to prosecution by Biden’s own DOJ. Banana republic.

What's going on with this? literally no idea of hte context and no impetus to trawl sources.

It gets worse:

"Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.

In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (“if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?”), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (“in 2009, am I still Vice President?”). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he “had a real difference” of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Biden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama."
https://www.mediaite.com/biden/elderly-man-with-a-poor-memory-devastating-doj-report-says-biden-did-not-remember-when-he-was-vice-president-and-when-his-son-died/

Basically, Trump was found to be hoarding classified documents, and while everyone was pointing fingers at him, classified documents were found at Biden's house. A special counsel was appointed to look in to the matter, and now he's found that Biden willfully kept the documents, but is too senile to prosecute.

LOL. Cheers for the content of the comment about yours response to me

Since I don't believe that democracy is a good or viable way to organize society, the point is moot anyway. If anything, I'm a monarchist. — baker

I agree that democracy has problems, but the solution isn't autocracy. It's to evolve democracy into a better system.

The problem, however, is that people in society doesn't seem to have the capacity to actually evolve systems and ideas. Rather, they attach their identity to a system they prefer and defend it to death.

Democracy is far better than any other system in existence right now. However, it is easily skewed by corruption and demagogues. So the solution needs to take care of those problems as a feature of the system. Right now, countries with low corruption and responsible politicians do actually show examples of how good a society can be if things function, but there are no guardrails against such a society falling into corruption and irresponsible politics, so we're basically just accepting democracy as being a thin bridge with a drop to the death underneath, and hope that we can balance the strong winds without guardrails.

Then, let's build the damn guard rails instead of thinking that we should just bash old concepts against each other like any of them are a solution. None of them are, all of them have faults. We should look towards what works and what doesn't, and build from that. But society is too naive, too up their own asses in thinking they are intellectuals. Marx didn't have a theory to bash against capitalism, he looked at the problems and pointed them out with a new theory. And while I'm not saying Marxism is the solution, I'm saying that no one actually does any damn thinking towards improving society, people only play political philosophy these days.