Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Starlord said:

The Kennedys roll over in their grave....

 

And I'd wonder how many of his supporters look at a Trump endorsement and ask themselves, "I was supporting this candidate?"

 

IIRC, most of the family had already disavowed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Washington Post had reported on August 14 that Kennedy had tried to get a meeting with Harris to pitch endorsing her for a cabinet seat, but that he had been denied a meeting. It's also been reported that he had been in discussions for a place in the administration with the Trump campaign, as well.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/14/rfk-jr-kamala-harris-cabinet-trump/ (may be behind a paywall)

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4829150-robert-f-kennedy-jr-kamala-harris-cabinet-position-2024/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More facepalmings, more saying the quiet part out loud

 

Republican group cites notorious Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president

 

Quote

The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has cited the infamous 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which stated that enslaved people weren’t citizens, to argue that Vice President Kamala Harris is ineligible to run for president according to the Constitution.

The group also challenged the right of Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haleyto appear on Republican primary ballots.

The Republican group’s platform and policy document noted that “The Constitutional qualifications of Presidential eligibility” states that “No person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The same document included former President Donald Trump’s running mate Ohio Senator JD Vance on a list of preferred candidates for vice president.

The document and the citing of the Dred Scott decision were initially noted by lawyer Andrew Fleischman on X, formerly Twitter.

The group goes on to argue in the document that a natural-born citizen has to be born in the US to parents who are citizens when the child is born, pointing to the thinking of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cygnia said:

 From the article:

 

Quote

The US Archives states on its site that the Scott v Sandford ruling is “considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court.”

 

Well, 2nd worst now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oklahoma teachers were told to use the Bible. There's resistance from schools as students return (msn.com)

 

Quote

But he [Bixby Public Schools superintendent Rob Miller] said a Bible simply doesn’t make sense for a seventh grade math classroom or a high school chemistry class.

 

“As a Christian myself, I am a little offended by diminishing the word of God to a mere classroom prop," he said.

 

It is unclear how many, if any, Oklahoma school districts are resuming schools this month with a Bible in every classroom. A spokesperson for the state education department, Dan Isett, said the mandate is not optional and that the superintendent has “a wide range of tools to deal with rogue districts” that do not comply.

As one person notes in the article, there are opportunities here for malicious compliance. If anyone imagines having the Bible rammed down their throat will magically make children pious and virtuous, well, somehow I doubt they're remembering the adulteries, murders, usurpations, and other "Game of Thrones" content in the Old Testament.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

Hey, there's no need to be insulting flat earthers like this.... :winkgrin:

You are right. I have worked with Flat Earthers. Outside of their thing, they are smarter than this. Same with the Trumpers I work with. It comes across as a giant blind spot when you deal with them.

 

These people are showing that they know better than to do this, but are trying to do it anyway.

CES  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

You are right. I have worked with Flat Earthers. Outside of their thing, they are smarter than this. Same with the Trumpers I work with. It comes across as a giant blind spot when you deal with them.

 

These people are showing that they know better than to do this, but are trying to do it anyway.

CES  

 

Because, IMO, they don't care.  They're just throwing up....mud, yeah, let's just say mud...by the carload, with the wind tunnel fan on high, and enjoying the spectacle as it hits.  ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that can be used to insult, discredit, or some impugn an opponent is fair game for them...because it IS a game to them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Got to disagree.  The ruling putting presidents above the law is the worst now, and IMO, it's not even close.  Mind, that's not trying to minimize the vileness of Dred Scott.

 

The whole point of the Bill or Rights was protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority.  Dred Scott was not merely a failure in this but a complete betrayal, and had a crucial role in the start of the Civil War.

 

The presidential immunity ruling is also a horrible ruling and sends all the wrong messages.  However, it is not the complete presidential carte blanch that it is made out to be, and the threat of later criminal prosecution has never been one of the major checks on presidential power and overreach.  Executive actions can still be struck down by the courts, legislative actions can still still be passed and vetoes overwritten, impeachment is still on the table, people can refuse to obey illegal commands, and most of all the all the electorate can choose not to vote in would-be dictators.  Frankly, after all the that Trump has done, if the people vote him back into office, then a strongly conservative SCOTUS is the least of our problems and we have only ourselves to blame.  

 

So, yes it is a very bad ruling but it is no Dred Scott.  We continue to be a free nation which is more than we could say after Dred Scott without putting one of heck of an asterisk after the statement.  However, as always, this freedom must be earned and held onto to.  So, in that sense, the presidential immunity has changed nothing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

The whole point of the Bill or Rights was protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority.  Dred Scott was not merely a failure in this but a complete betrayal, and had a crucial role in the start of the Civil War.

 

I'd feel your argument was stronger if slavery wasn't intact for multiple decades, despite the Bill of Rights.  

I also feel the 'limitations' you mention are close to meaningless.  Impeachment has been gutted;  it's practically impossible.  Refusal to follow orders will get you fired for cause, and potentially arrested on serious charges.  Executive actions *can* be struck down...but that's long after the fact.  It's the degree of outright license this affords the office that's the great change.

 

I think we're pretty much trying to distinguish between 2 Great Evils, tho...who was worse, Cassius or Brutus?  (With apologies to the who never read Dante.)  So let's agree to disagree.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgia governor seeks legal advice on removing Trump-backed Board of Election members

Quote

Georgia's governor is seeking legal guidance on whether he can boot three members of the state's Board of Elections who were praised by Donald Trump just months ago.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) is requesting guidance from the state's attorney general on whether he "has the authority to remove members of the State Election Board."

"Voting rights groups, Democrats and even some Republicans have raised alarms about the rightwing majority’s recent votes," according to the report.

The three members, Janelle King, Rick Jeffares, and Dr. Janice Johnston, face ethics complaints filed earlier this month that follow their approval of changes that require election boards to search for voting discrepancies before certifying results.

Those changes have been criticized by many, including Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gov. Kemp is no champion of voting rights, but as The Economist notes in a recent issue, it was not smart for Trump to pick a fight with him. Kemp is popular among Georgia Republicans; he does not need Trump; and he is not stupid. Economist doesn't go into this, but Kemp must realize that an Election Board that nullifies votes to hand a victory to Trump can also nullify votes to hand a victory to Kemp's next primary challenger.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a bunch of campaign mail on the floor underneath my mail slot, all with the message, "Kamala Harris: Dangerously Liberal". I'm kind of reading it like Chester Cheetah telling me that Cheetos are "Dangerously Cheesy".

 

Trash day's tomorrow, but I wish they weren't high gloss cards or I'd recycle them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...