Agreement is irrelevant. We could agree because you threatened my wife, or because we're family and I'm partial, or simply because I like you and not the next guy. These are merely economic transactions, not moral ones. You need to be deeply steeped in a capitalist society to equate economic transactions with moral ones, so the mistake is understandable but it's a rather simplistic and unexamined position. That's where almost everything goes wrong with most of your thinking. — Benkei

Yes indeed. An entire ideological system that has been so useful to the ruling class rests entirely on bogus notions of freedom, individuality, and human nature. Simplistic, transactional, soulless.

Proof is in the pudding: these people vote for, and endlessly defend, Donald friggin’ Trump. Tribalistic hacks to the bitter end.

Recall the last time the Trump and Biden debated.

By that time Hunter Biden, the Biden crime family bagman, had stupidly left his laptop in a repair shop, and the contents found its way into the pages of the New York Post. The reporting displayed his numerous crimes for the world to see.

But the propaganda wing of the Biden campaign brewed up some misinformation in order to fool their base and any undecided voters. The Big Lie they conjured was that the laptop was Russian disinfo. They called in some favors from former deep state apparatchiks to help sell the lie to the gullible, and it worked. The information was censored and discredited in public discourse. And when Trump brought up laptop in the debate, Biden reiterated the lie.

This was one of the largest disinfo campaigns in recent memory and it defrauded the country, and exists as an exemplar of election interference. To this day no one has been held accountable.

I’m excited to see what Biden comes up with next.

Any evidence, nos4? Btw, are you a paranoid schizophrenic?

For the Nos4ora2, all forms of exchange beyond what one body can do to another are not shown by what they seem through the evidence for them existing or having existed but are products of "statism".

The "social contract" as conceived by Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, etcetera, is the adoption of a belief, not an attempt to understand the formation of society as something that has happened. So, there is no way to challenge N's idea on its own terms since it denies a means of comparing it to others.

I feel Baden staring down at me, questioning the relevance of that observation to the matter of the Donald as a particular being. I propose the decoupling is essential to the Trump phenomena. The petri dish, as it were.

Refresher prior to the forthcoming debate, on what Trump did after the last election and has done since:

• Continued to spread baseless lies that the election had been stolen from him
• Blocked federal officials from working with Joe Biden’s transition team
• Demanded Georgia’s secretary of state “find” him the exact number of votes he needed to turn his loss their into a win
• Pressured the DOJ to investigate the absurd claim that Italian satellites had changed Trump votes to Biden ones
• Urged state legislators to “decertify” their election results
• Incited a violent riot that left numerous people dead
• Let said violent riot go on for hours before he half-heartedly told people to go home (and also told the mob, “You’re very special” and “we love you” and “Remember this day forever!”)
• Said Mike Pence deserved the chants calling for his hanging
• Continues, nearly four years later, to claim the election was stolen from him
• Won’t commit to accepting the outcome of the 2024 election
• Says there will be further violence if he loses again
• Regularly threatens to  use the government to go after his enemies if he wins
• Said he will be a dictator on “day one” in office

Because of all of the above, and because Joe Biden has notably done none of the above, you might think it would be pretty clear to people that of the two candidates, one of them is good for democracy and one of them is bad, and that the latter is very obviously Trump. But according to the results of a terrifying new poll, that is, somehow, very much not the case.

That poll, conducted by The Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, reveals that in the six swing states Biden won in 2020, more voters classified as “Deciders”—that is, they are likely to decide the outcome of the election—think Trump is better equipped to handle threats to democracy than Biden. — Vanity Fair

“The worst in the history of our country’s life.” — the stable genius with the best words

:lol:

CNN just lobbed the question to Donald Trump about Jan 6th. First of all he completely ducked it, attacking Biden over the border, and then he tried to pin the blame on Nancy Pelosi for not calling the National Guard, which is another lie. He then follows up by saying that Hunter Biden is a convicted felon, another lie (apparently true, but not relevant). Overall, almost everything Trump is saying in this debacle, um, debate, is a lie. Shame is, half the electorate will believe him.

Trump is very worked up about the story that he called military casualties 'loosers and suckers' and repeatedly said the story has been 'debunked'. But it was presented in The Atlantic on September 3, 2020:

When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, near Paris, in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.

Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed. — The Atlantic

By way of a coda my sister and I both thought that everything Trump said was a lie, but that Joe Biden looks like he should be in a rocking chair on the front porch with a blanket over his knees.

God help us. :yikes:

Fraudster-Ra(p)ist-Insurrectionist-Convicted Felon-1 "outperformed" POTUS tonight. :sad:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912686

Another win for Trump and loss for Biden. The supreme court has ruled in FISCHER v. UNITED STATES that Biden's DOJ, including Jack Smith, stretched the law beyond the constitution in order to prosecute J6 political prisoners and Donald Trump. Much of the government's case regarding the charge against Trump, "obstruction of an official proceeding", relies on this stupid theory.

The real criminals, it appears, are the ones running the justice system. The scam is crumbling in real time.

I will toot my own horn on this one because I received quite a bit of pushback from it, even from self-described lawyers. When failed congressman Jamaal Bowman pulled the fire alarm in congress I joked that he should be prosecuted under the same legal theory that the Biden justice department was prosecuting j6 prisoners and Donald Trump. Out of fairness or stupidity, one or the other, other posters agreed. The problem was the theory was nonsense.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/841733

The Supreme Court ruled presidents have absolute immunity for official acts, likely delaying the government’s persecution of Donald Trump a little longer. If Biden’s DOJ could learn to follow the letter of law and judges took their time rather than force it through the courts to influence an election, none of these cases would be an issue.

1July24

SCOTUS rules, in effect, that POTUS is a "King" with Absolute Immunity from criminal prosecution for Official Acts.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-supreme-court-immunity-1.7251423

So, as an official act of National Security, POTUS aka "King Joseph I" SHOULD "decree" by Executive Order (A) immediately strip US citizenship and Secret Service protection from, (B) immediately freeze and then seize all domestic and foreign assets from, and (C) immediately incarcerate in The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp Trump and his MAGA gang of January 6 & Russian Collusion co-conspirators indefinitely.

But will "King Joseph I" do this?

No. Even though, as of today, it's (apparently) legal for POTUS to do so. :angry:

It must hurt to have unconstitutional and illegal mechanisms to do politics taken away from you, so I wager Biden is quaking in his boots. But should Biden do something stupid as you suggest, there are still legal and constitutional paths to check executive power, and it’s called impeachment.

Obviously, NOS, you have not yet thought through how the MAGA Six Justices just gave Dark Brandon a get out jail free card! If the MAGA caucus in Congress tries to impeach POTUS, "The King" can order any or all of those morons rounded-up and shot before the vote to impeach even happens. :mask:

That’s when the 2nd amendment comes into play. Just another reason why the tyrant Dank Brandon regime fears the constitution.

:lol:

You really are a child, nos4. I think you live in England; why don't you grab a bat and try bashing your way into Parliament - see how far that gets you. We'll watch for news of you.

The question of what does and does not count as an official act is one that is not likely to be determined in the cases against Trump. The Court knows this. They are willfully and deliberately protecting him. Effectively allowing the clock run out in the Trump cases by not issuing a ruling until the clock on their term was running out.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. ...

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
— Supreme Court Justice Sotomayer, Dissenting on Presidential Immunity

A beautiful irony is found in Thomas’ ruling. While the fevered dissenting opinions opine about the president as king, Thomas’ concurring opinion notes the illegal means with which Jack Smith was appointed, in a way similar to how the King of England created offices out of thin air.

By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.

The limitation on the President’s power to create offices grew out of the Founders’ experience with the English monarchy. The King could wield significant power by both creating and filling offices as he saw fit. He was “emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoint[ed] to all offices, but [could] create offices.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

This could be the end of the Biden regime’s illegal and monarchical persecution of their political opponents.

Addendum to

Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal. — former president Richard Nixon, interview 1977

... for fuck's sake, like Rome, the Pax Americana has finally explicitly devolved from republic to dictatorship. :brow:

like Rome, the Pax Americana has finally explicitly devolved from republic to dictatorship — 180 Proof

It couldn't happen to a nicer country. :cry:

How is Trump worse than several other presidents in recent times, who started illegal wars and supported genocides and revolutions with literally millions of victims? (I'm thinking Vietnam, East-Timor, the Middle-East, etc.)

Appearances don't count for much anyway, and a politician's words should be disregarded off-hand.

If Trump's previous presidency is anything to go by, it's really not that bad. He can't hold a candle to some of the absolute demons that preceded him.

It should be understood that you don't get to be President by having any moral standards at all. So, Trump declaring openly he doesn't is, yes, meaningless.

Reading the ruling, I still think there's enough room to prosecute where "content, form and context" points to the President speaking in an unofficial capacity. And as the court clearly states:

"The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office."

And this is really no different from other countries. You need to establish an act by an official is either "ultra vires" or "unofficial".

I can't find issue with the ruling so far but will read Sotomayer's dissenting opinion as well before giving a final opinion but wanted to give you a first reaction.

Anyhow, the ruling is a gift to the Dems. The focus moves from Biden's ineptitude to Trump's potential tyranny. Might even save them.

You can be sure the Dem press will be licking its lips at this.

Any Republican celebrating this is going to look comically misguided if the upcoming and inevitable Dem fear strategy works and their people turn out in droves to vote against the Trump monster regardless of whatever personal state Biden is in.

:cool:

:up:

"The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office." — Benkei

Sure. But why would anyone need immunity from prosecution? Because they broke the law. Why would anyone want immunity? Because they did and they will.

Would you ever say to a parent, "Acting as a parent, you can not be prosecuted for anything you do to your child"?

Addendum Barrett (this points to an ultra vires argument I already mentioned):

"The Court leaves open the possibility that the Constitution forbids prosecuting the President for any official conduct, instructing the lower courts to address that question in the first instance. ... I would have answered it now. Though I agree that a President cannot be held criminally liable for conduct within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority and closely related acts,... the Constitution does not vest every exercise of executive power in the President’s sole discretion, " — Barrett

Although the decision itself is silent on it. Barret at least would allow prosecution of official acts if:

"applying it in the circumstances poses no “‘dange[r] of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” — Barrett

and then continues:

"For example, the indictment alleges that the President “asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the legislature into session to hold a hearing” about election fraud claims.The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power." — Barrett

It seems Sotomayer is of the opinion that there's no immunity for former Presidents from criminal prosecution. The immunity is in place for current Presidents only as not to worry about prosecution when acting in an official capacity. That reason for immunity would be undermined if Presidents have to worry about criminal liability once they are former Presidents. Immunity covers, for instance, decisions to go to war or how to run it, etc. The act must be judged against the rules that apply at the time the decision is made, which is as then-current President and not as former President. I think that principle should be rigourous in its application.

Treating it differently is like having a bread, eating it and then pretending there never was a bread. It doesn't make sense to me.

Sure. But why would anyone need immunity from prosecution? Because they broke the law. Why would anyone want immunity? Because they did and they will.

Would you ever say to a parent, "Acting as a parent, you can not be prosecuted for anything you do to your child"? — tim wood

All civil servants have civil immunity. Judges and prosecutors even have absolute or qualified immunity.

"Acting as a parent, you can not be prosecuted for anything you do to your child"?

But this is exactly what happens. Anti-vaxxers get to not vaccinate their kids. Other people get to vaccinate. Some people teach them to believe in fairy tales. Some love their kids, some don't. You cannot be prosecuted for bad parenting, only for things that clearly fall outside of your responsibilities and obligations as parents. And the ruling is the same; everything a President does within the remit of the powers conferred to him is protected by immunity and even then they could be prosecuted if prosecuting poses no danger or intrusion on the authority and functions of the Edecutive Branch.