Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AG
agentsquirrel @sh.itjust.works
Posts 0
Comments 64
Trump's Team 'Literally Popping Champagne' Over Supreme Court Taking Up Immunity Claim
  • But is it safe to assume they’re smart enough to realize that?

    Absolutely. One thing I've learned over the years is that intelligence and ethics are two totally separate qualities. I've listened to SCOTUS televised proceedings a few times and the level of mastery of the law and history, and the lines of thinking and arguments are quite stunning. I say this equally of both the conservative and liberal members of the court. But that's not to say they don't steer the arguments and decisions in a way that aligns with their ideology and/or their political allies.

  • Trump's Team 'Literally Popping Champagne' Over Supreme Court Taking Up Immunity Claim
  • And what forces SCOTUS to judge based on “legal support”

    Nothing, other than wanting to have an historically favorable legacy. But ignoring that, despite Alito and Thomas being unabashed GOP operatives, ruling in favor of immunity would be a stretch for even them. Undoubtedly all the justices realize that if they affirm presidential immunity for life, a president can Seal Team Six one or all of the justices, on a whim. A ruling to affirm immunity would neutralize the power of the court, something an even unethical and selfish justice would want to prevent.

  • Trump's Team 'Literally Popping Champagne' Over Supreme Court Taking Up Immunity Claim
  • Maybe Biden should take one for the country

    At the very least (and less gory of an outcome) Biden should assemble Seal Team Six in the Oval Office and publicize it. The media and pundits will run with it and it will put Trump, MAGA, and the conservative "think tanks" in a tizzy over the immunity claims, and perhaps make the conservative SCOTUS justices (who are going to ultimately rule against Trump anyways, after enough of a delay to torpedo the federal charge trials) squirm behind close doors. But Biden and the Democrats won't do it, because they're always taking the high road and won't use the media to their advantage, even when democracy is in the balance.

  • Trump's Team 'Literally Popping Champagne' Over Supreme Court Taking Up Immunity Claim
  • The second they rule in Trump’s favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.

    Well, that's the thing, they won't rule in Trump's favor. The lower court thoroughly destroyed Trump's case, to the point where the SCOTUS shouldn't taken the case in the first place and let the lower court decision stand. There's no legal support at all for Trump's claims. This all makes it pretty clear the conservative majority on the court merely wanted to toss Trump a bone with a delay and increase his chances of getting back in office.

  • Trump is winning big with his base, but there’s no sign that he's broadening support
  • The “legal definition”, if for some reason it doesn’t apply, is just an excuse to avoid confronting the atrocities we are complicit in committing. If the “legal definition” isn’t met, then it’s simply wrong. Some court case isn’t what determines whether it’s “truly genocide”, it’s that Israel, with our support, is and has been trying for decades to eradicate an entire people and culture.

    I don't think proving actual genocide is a prerequisite or requirement for bringing war crimes charges and holding people accountable. For example, if in war a military unit/leader/solider executes a group of unarmed civilians, it can be pursued as a war crime as it's intentionally targeting and harming civilians, but executing one group of civilians in this fashion isn't genocide, even if they were a specific race, religious sect, etc. Undoubtedly if there was a pattern of this occurring and there was provable support from leadership, it would be considered genocide. Genocide, like other terms like suicide, homicide, germicide, etc., has a specific meaning. Morality is much more subjective, and hence I'd call Israel's action quite immoral. Israel may indeed want to eradicate Gaza as a territory or political unit, however that doesn't mean it's genocide. Otherwise we could call Russia's desire to eradicate or annex Ukraine genocide. And after I write all this, I realize I'm debating the meaning of genocide. But I digress.

    a pretty good assumption that some portion of the cries of genocide are the result of foreign propaganda to both garner support for Hamas and the continuing disruption and outside influence of US politics.

    I do agree with this, and it’s really unfortunate. But yeah, if I was Hamas I would use the fact that Gazans are being genocided to drum up support too, it’s a pretty good argument. To avoid creating a situation where Hamas looks like the good guys, I think the best thing to do would be to, you know, stop murdering Palestinian children.

    On all this we can agree. I don't want innocent civilians killed, either. I take issue with the term genocide and the way it's being used, especially in the context of the US supposedly "promoting or supporting" genocide. That's simply not true. It's a complicated landscape and as we've been discussing this I see there is a ceasefire being pursued diplomatically by the Biden administration. I think the way the term genocide is being used here and elsewhere cheapens it and compromises the severity and seriousness of the term.

  • Trump is winning big with his base, but there’s no sign that he's broadening support
  • I'm not a legal expert and I doubt you are as well, but if you search the 'net there are plenty of articles from respectable news sources covering debates and discussions over whether it's legally genocide or not. I'm not going to debate it with you; I'll leave it up to those who are qualified to determine if it is truly genocide, and pursue war crimes charges as necessary. I never said it was morally correct what Israel is doing. The morality or lack thereof of their actions is separate from the legal definition of genocide. Furthermore, and quite ironically, the 1988 Hamas Charter specifically states as a goal to obliterate Israel in language that rhymes with genocide. While it certainly doesn't justify what Israel is doing right now, Hamas would be doing the same to Israel right now if it was within their capabilities. Israel could have taken over Gaza long ago, if it really wanted to do it. What's going on right now in Gaza is the result of Hamas launching an offensive with no strategic or worthy goals, against an enemy they knew they had no chance of winning against. It's a pretty good assumption that some portion of the cries of genocide are the result of foreign propaganda to both garner support for Hamas and the continuing disruption and outside influence of US politics.

  • Trump is winning big with his base, but there’s no sign that he's broadening support
  • It's questionable whether what is happening in Gaza is genocide from a legal perspective. Regardless, being concerned with Gaza but sitting out this election and not voting is asinine. Biden may not being doing enough to help stop the humanitarian crisis and him in office may not save any lives in Gaza, but I can guarantee Trump in office will get more people killed. Trump will happily use US military resources to flatten Gaza, and brag about it. Claims that Biden is facilitating or supporting genocide in Gaza ultimately benefits Trump and will doom the Gazan Palestinians if Trump gets in office.

  • Fetterman to Democrats criticizing Biden: ‘Get your MAGA hat’
  • Self criticism is the only thing keeping Democrats from becoming a clone of the GOP.

    Well, it also helps the Democrats don't have a criminal insurrectionist leading the party.

    Anyone telling me I can’t participate in discourse involving totally valid criticisms about any politician can go kick rocks.

    You can do whatever you want. What TV channels are interviewing you this week?

    Also, how is discussing his drastic turn towards conservative politics “amplifying GOP talking points”?

    I'm referring to what Fetterman was criticizing, not what the OP or others here discuss about Fetterman or Biden.

    Ahh yeah, America surely needs more brain damages politicians advocating for genocide…

    Oh, Gaza. Right. I am so sick of hearing about "genocide". It's BS. Despite what Israel has done over the decades, Hamas is responsible for this. They launched an offensive that had no clear objectives (like autonomy) other than killing Israelis, and specifically civilians. Now that they're getting their ass handed to them, which was inevitable, losing a poorly-conceived offensive is coined "genocide". Hamas thanks you.

    50-something 30+ year Democrat that has seen Democrats do a really good job at losing elections and letting the GOP walk all over them.

    Maybe because your generations idea of a progressive is John Fetterman? Maybe because Democrats have just become the GOP from the 90s, and thats not typically what actual progressives want?

    John Fetterman beat two other well-pedigreed Democratic Senate nomination candidates, won an election over a very publicly popular GOP candidate, and took the seat of Republican Pat Toomey. While this is one data point that you cite, it doesn't support that "my generation's" idea of progressive is losing elections. If a lack of "sufficiently progressive" candidates is losing elections for Democrats due to progressives not voting for Democrats, those progressives are shooting themselves in the foot as the only what to get more left-leaning Democrats is to actually win elections.

  • Fetterman to Democrats criticizing Biden: ‘Get your MAGA hat’
  • Regardless of Fetterman's ideology or any stated or perceived shift, he's a pragmatist and straight-shooter above everything else. He was that way long before the stroke. The fact that a lifetime grifter and department store rapist with 91 felony indictment counts has a good chance of winning the election is absurd. A bag of rocks running against Trump should win. Biden and the Democrats are in a very weak position, but it's clear that Biden is the chosen candidate. It makes no sense at this point to have Democrats amplifying GOP talking points, unless they're in any position of power with the DNC to change what is inevitable right now with the Democratic nomination.

    I'm in PA and I doubt his progressiveness got him elected. Anyone with a D after their name carries Philly and Pittsburgh by default. Fetterman's no nonsense approach and the fact that the working class can relate to him got votes in Pennsyltuckey, a segment the Democrats have been losing over the years. Democrats should be in a lab right now trying to figure out how to clone Fetterman.

    I'm sure I'll be labeled a Fetterman fan boy, but I'm a 50-something 30+ year Democrat that has seen Democrats do a really good job at losing elections and letting the GOP walk all over them. Fetterman no doubt has a cult-like following, but the DNC powers that be should be examining why that is.

  • Colorado Ballot: Supreme Court Justices Appear Skeptical of Arguments to Kick Trump Off State Ballots
  • It's called having eligibility criteria, and it's a fact of life everywhere. You wouldn't want a five year old driving a car or drinking alcohol, and the law addresses this. Insurrectionists are disqualified in the Constitution, plain and simple. At least Trump doesn't have to worry about being disqualified for being a rapist or bad businessman as the Constitution is silent on both of those items.

  • The Supreme Court seems poised to reject efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot
  • If a state wanted, it could just decide to let the state legislature pick the electors and not hold a popular vote at all.

    I was surprised this wasn't raised as a counterargument by the Colorado attorney when the "one state could determine who's elected" argument was made. (If it was, I missed it.) The justices are worried that states (let's just say it: "red states") could make up some frivolous reason to keep someone off the ballot and disqualify them, but the brutal reality is that they could do it already by screwing with the electors. (Hell, Trump and his co-conspirators tried sending fake electors from some states.) Setting a precedent allowing states to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment just give states another way to accomplish this. "Oh, Biden tripped walking up to a podium? That's insurrection!"

    What's really sad/outrageous is that Trump and the GOP have so terribly warped and perverted the political norms in this country that we have to even consider the possibility of states fabricating frivolous reasons to keep someone off the ballot. We can't keep a 91 felon count indicted insurrectionist, fraudster, and rapist from getting elected and destroying democracy because his friends may avenge him by abusing and misapplying the law in the future. This really sucks.