@Moyessa, please use YouTube clips to support the argument you are putting forward, rather than as a stand-alone point.
An eight minute YouTube clip, preceded (for me at any rate) by two minutes of adverts, without any commentary from you as to what point exactly you are making, and which the clip is posted to support, is not helpful.
Hostly hat off
North East Quine, Purgatory host
I am actually trying to lear how to do that. In the process of learning, I am making mistakes - for wich I sincerly apologize; it would be annoying to me & I will have to type more slowly and deliberately.
And assuming that there’s anything left to try in any of those cases, now that the self-described originalists on the Supreme Court have discovered in the Constitution a guarantee of presidential immunity that somehow escaped the attention of everyone, including members of the Supreme Court, for over 230 years.
To say nothing of the Founding Fathers. But then again, the courts have historically turned a blind eye to the "well regulated militia" language in the Second Amendment, so perhaps they turned an extra-sharp eye to whatever language could be construed, however wildly, to grant presidential immunity.
You do not seem to want to take my word for it, but amongst the people I interact with there is the whole spectrum from near-color-blindness to in-group preference which seems to be inborn, IME Malicious racism ( which I do understand could be hidden from me), I have only ever seen in media dramas.
Perhaps we need to analyze what you consider "near-color-blindness". Do any of the people you interact with condescendingly refer to Harris as a "DEI hire"? That may sound neutral, but it is not. It is just racism and sexism disguised in political gobbledygook.
Of course, there are reasons people articulate for voting for Trump that have nothing to do with sexism and racism. But those reasons do not stand up to analysis. Some say he would be good for the economy--but his term in office was horrible for the economy and his promise to institute tariffs is economic disaster for the US.. Some say he is a "strong" leader, yet in his first term he caved in to both Putin (favoring Putin's word over that of Trump's own intelligence advisers) and sucked up to Kim Jong Un in contravention of longstanding US policy over BOTH Republican and Democrat Presidencies.
And that doesn't even touch how badly he botched the response to COVID, resulting in the deaths of Americans. His "clever" idea to intentionally downplay the virus to "avoid a panic" directly led to untold numbers of unnecessary deaths for which he still has not been held accountable.
In short, even if one ignores Trump's blatantly evident racism and sexism, there are still good and valid reasons to oppose his Presidency. His actions in his last presidency has proven himself unworthy of the office.
...if you don't care to take my word for it, look at the mere fact that Trump was elected at all--which seems to me a pretty clear backlash against our first ever election of a black man to the presidency. He managed to harness the forces of racism and sexism to win the presidency, a win which would otherwise be completely imcomprehensible.
LC
You do not seem to want to take my word for it, but amongst the people I interact with there is the whole spectrum from near-color-blindness to in-group preference which seems to be inborn, IME
Malicious racism ( which I do understand could be hidden from me), I have only ever seen in media dramas.
The fact that you can see no other reasons for the election of DJT might be cause for you to examine the bases of your own analyses IMHO.
I have never said that your experience was false. We live in two very different situations. It would be good if you could trust me about my own experience, which is also true.
Forgive me, but why exactly do you think that people would display their racism around you as openly as they would around me?
They never displayed it around me until I dated, then married, non-white people. Before that, I was very much convinced that racism was almost entirely a thing of the past. I was very surprised at the treatment my new husband and I received at the hands of people I formerly respected, even honored.
For me, the racial issue has been settled. Obama overcame that twice. Historically, though, we have never had a female president. That is a glass ceiling she will have to contend with. That should not be an issue really since she is a strong advocate for women's rights.
Seems like the right is going after her being childless. Really??
2003: 3-way race for San Francisco DA, Harris came in second and then won the run-off, defeating the incumbent
2007: re-elected, ran unopposed
2010: won the Democratic primary (we still had party primaries for state offices) for CA DA, then the general election
2014: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general for reelection as state DA
2016: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general election for US Senator
2020: on the ticket as Biden's VP, won
So that's 9 contested elections, counting primaries. I don't know who said she ran unopposed every time, but they don't know what they're talking about.
I thank you for your comprehensive reply. I assure everyone that I did not invent the content of my earlier post
2003: 3-way race for San Francisco DA, Harris came in second and then won the run-off, defeating the incumbent
2007: re-elected, ran unopposed
2010: won the Democratic primary (we still had party primaries for state offices) for CA DA, then the general election
2014: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general for reelection as state DA
2016: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general election for US Senator
2020: on the ticket as Biden's VP, won
So that's 9 contested elections, counting primaries. I don't know who said she ran unopposed every time, but they don't know what they're talking about.
I thank you for your comprehensive reply. I assure everyone that I did not invent the content of my earlier post
But you believed it without doing any fact checking on your own. Talk about bearing false witness. That is what I reacted too.
2003: 3-way race for San Francisco DA, Harris came in second and then won the run-off, defeating the incumbent
2007: re-elected, ran unopposed
2010: won the Democratic primary (we still had party primaries for state offices) for CA DA, then the general election
2014: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general for reelection as state DA
2016: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general election for US Senator
2020: on the ticket as Biden's VP, won
So that's 9 contested elections, counting primaries. I don't know who said she ran unopposed every time, but they don't know what they're talking about.
I thank you for your comprehensive reply. I assure everyone that I did not invent the content of my earlier post
But you believed it without doing any fact checking on your own. Talk about bearing false witness. That is what I reacted too.
In my original post I asked a question. I merely reported what I had heard. I didn't say I believed it. Please strive for accuracy when having a go at me
2003: 3-way race for San Francisco DA, Harris came in second and then won the run-off, defeating the incumbent
2007: re-elected, ran unopposed
2010: won the Democratic primary (we still had party primaries for state offices) for CA DA, then the general election
2014: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general for reelection as state DA
2016: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general election for US Senator
2020: on the ticket as Biden's VP, won
So that's 9 contested elections, counting primaries. I don't know who said she ran unopposed every time, but they don't know what they're talking about.
I thank you for your comprehensive reply. I assure everyone that I did not invent the content of my earlier post
But you believed it without doing any fact checking on your own. Talk about bearing false witness. That is what I reacted too.
In my original post I asked a question. I merely reported what I had heard. I didn't say I believed it. Please strive for accuracy when having a go at me
Just asking the question was an attempt to raise doubt. If you took the time to do some factchecking you would have found your answers. Even when we gave you information, you continued to defend GB. Even when Harris' election history was listed, you continued to say--in so many words--it was not your fault. You could have said, you stood corrected, but no.
2003: 3-way race for San Francisco DA, Harris came in second and then won the run-off, defeating the incumbent
2007: re-elected, ran unopposed
2010: won the Democratic primary (we still had party primaries for state offices) for CA DA, then the general election
2014: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general for reelection as state DA
2016: finished first in the blanket primary and won the general election for US Senator
2020: on the ticket as Biden's VP, won
So that's 9 contested elections, counting primaries. I don't know who said she ran unopposed every time, but they don't know what they're talking about.
I thank you for your comprehensive reply. I assure everyone that I did not invent the content of my earlier post
But you believed it without doing any fact checking on your own. Talk about bearing false witness. That is what I reacted too.
In my original post I asked a question. I merely reported what I had heard. I didn't say I believed it. Please strive for accuracy when having a go at me
Just asking the question was an attempt to raise doubt. If you took the time to do some factchecking you would have found your answers. Even when we gave you information, you continued to defend GB. Even when Harris' election history was listed, you continued to say--in so many words--it was not your fault. You could have said, you stood corrected, but no.
I accept your admonition and I will strive not to do it again. I apologise
For me, the racial issue has been settled. Obama overcame that twice.
Obama was elected twice, but it didn't settle anything. Racists continue to be an enormous problem in the US. Just because they were outvoted a couple times doesn't mean we've made great strides. Systemic racism hasn't been eliminated, not even close.
The white population is shrinking with each decade. As of 2024 whites only make up 49.7 of the population, so even if you say 50% of whites are racist, you are talking about less than 20% of the total population. They are a dying breed. Trump will be their last great white hope.
An extended discussion of racism would belong in Epiphanies - if people wish to discuss it intertwined with the American election, we will need to specify this thread runs under Epiphanies guidelines.
I've reached the point at which, while this is shocking, the claim that he said it doesn't shock me. The level of callousness and evil he has shown doesn't seem to have a bottom level. God have mercy.
News outlets here are reporting quite a bit of (sometimes qualified) enthusiasm for Ms Harris on the part of younger voters.
Maybe America will do the right thing, and consign Trump to history (or prison)? Mind you, won't his wrath be fearful, if he does lose again...
At that point none of us will give a shit, with the exception of anybody in security. The rest of us will go out and buy shares in popcorn, which we will eat as we watch him sweat through his next three trials. Assuming he doesn't blow a gasket when he learns he's going to have to go through them, in which case we'll be facing an awkward state funeral...
Hopefully we'll be more prepared for an attempted insurrection after last time.
Because regular people like me don’t like to be labeled “racist” or “anti-semite” when we don’t have public evidence out there to disprove it. Also, despite his voice issues, he expresses himself much more clearly than I.
I missed something. Who here has called you "racist" or "anti-semite"?
...if you don't care to take my word for it, look at the mere fact that Trump was elected at all--which seems to me a pretty clear backlash against our first ever election of a black man to the presidency. He managed to harness the forces of racism and sexism to win the presidency, a win which would otherwise be completely imcomprehensible.
LC
You do not seem to want to take my word for it, but amongst the people I interact with there is the whole spectrum from near-color-blindness to in-group preference which seems to be inborn, IME
Malicious racism ( which I do understand could be hidden from me), I have only ever seen in media dramas.
The fact that you can see no other reasons for the election of DJT might be cause for you to examine the bases of your own analyses IMHO.
I have never said that your experience was false. We live in two very different situations. It would be good if you could trust me about my own experience, which is also true.
Forgive me, but why exactly do you think that people would display their racism around you as openly as they would around me?
They never displayed it around me until I dated, then married, non-white people. Before that, I was very much convinced that racism was almost entirely a thing of the past. I was very surprised at the treatment my new husband and I received at the hands of people I formerly respected, even honored.
I note that Russell Brand has made some pretty crass (and weird) comments about Kamala Harris.
Apart from all the other stuff (which we all know so I'm not going to repeat here), as far as anyone knows Brand doesn't get a vote in the USA and he's publicly stated that he's never voted anywhere in any election. So quite which game he is playing is beyond me.
I'm not in a position to say, and you will notice (if you read my post) that I said you may have heard something on GB News.
Did you?
It think it was on GB News. It was an american political commentator. If he was wrong it would be easy to find the names of people she has beat in a contest.
On this, might I respectfully suggest that you apologise having been comprehensively debunked by people who know more about it than you do.
Nobody here has to do your research for you, and when a simple basic search shows that you've been spreading misinformation then the first thing you should do is retract and apologise.
I'm not in a position to say, and you will notice (if you read my post) that I said you may have heard something on GB News.
Did you?
It think it was on GB News. It was an american political commentator. If he was wrong it would be easy to find the names of people she has beat in a contest.
On this, might I respectfully suggest that you apologise having been comprehensively debunked by people who know more about it than you do.
Nobody here has to do your research for you, and when a simple basic search shows that you've been spreading misinformation then the first thing you should do is retract and apologise.
And second is to stop taking at face value anything said on GB "News".
I learnt something important about race and lived experience in 2016.
I grew up in a UK city with a very small black population and a large Asian minority. At middle school and secondary school I had a few friends of different ethnicity. One such friend was born in the UK to Indian parents. I haven't seen him in about 30 years but by the miracle of Facebook, we reconnected over 10 years ago, so I see his life and he mine.
It is accurate to say that as kids and teenagers, we were a colour blind group. P. was not my Indian friend, he was my friend. We studied together, we played football together. There was no racism in our group, it simply wasn't there. So whilst I have never had any illusions that it exists and existed in the '80s and '90s, I saw very little of it.
Before I fast forward to 2016, there was a few years at Uni and working as a doctor. In all of my career, I have had the immense privilege of working with colleagues from many nations and my lived experience is very much one of enrichment by diversity.
In 2016, the UK voted to leave the EU and for reasons bizarre, stupid and oblique and yet very real, there was a big spike in all forms of racism.
At that time, P. posted on FB about the racism he'd lived through growing up and how angry he was that his daughter would now face it because the racists felt emboldened.
The thing is, I was surprised. I shouldn't have been, but I was. When he was with us, P. was never treated as anything other than British, as one of us, as an individual. You see, the racism happened away from the context in which he was with us. It was a part of his lived experience that I never saw, I never knew.
This is one aspect of white privilege. I get to not see it. Whilst others live it.
I have a parallel about sexism. When I was newly qualified, I often saw my female colleagues being called 'nurse' just because they are female, whilst everyone called me 'Dr.' My impression was that this was becoming less common. I mentioned this a couple of years ago and was instantly corrected by 4 of my colleagues who all said 'this week.'
Racism is very real. It is easy to find places (if you are white) where it does not exist. It is a mistake to think such places, whilst real and indeed a good thing, are representative of the whole. @Lamb Chopped's story depicts this reality beautifully.
Trump's win in 2016 was only possible because of the fact that many are attracted by his racism and misogyny. That does not mean that a) there are not other reasons for voting for him; or b) that everyone who votes for him is racist and/or misogynist. Both are logical fallacies. However, Trump has used dog whistles and blatant racism. Both are well documented. Moreover there is significant evidence (in their own words) that this is why many of the MAGAs vote for him. These are the things that (certain) people like about him. (We have the same phenomenon this side of The Pond).
So, LCs declaration that racists are a key part of Trump's past and potential future success is an accurate statement.
I will stop there on racism, so as to hopefully stay away from Epiphanies territory.
I will reiterate something I said before: with Harris as the opponent, I expect Trump to go a long way down the racist misogyny line. It will play very well with his base. My hope and belief is that it will repel more than it attracts. But let's not pretend that there are not some who are very attracted to this toxicity.
I'm not proposing to repeat everything Trump says, but yesterday/today he claimed that Kamala Harris was "against" Jewish people. She's married to a Jewish guy.
The main reason that the GOP is accused of spreading racist and sexist stuff is because their candidate repeatedly says racist and sexist stuff.
Also there are memes of unpleasant attacks on her. Which may or may not have actually come from their candidate, but have come from the environment where it is acceptable to say this stuff. Which was created by the GOP candidate and crew.
Racism is very real. It is easy to find places (if you are white) where it does not exist.
AFZ
Er no, it's really not as simple as 'white' - at all.
Only since I married someone (ethnically) Jewish have I really picked up on how much casual anti-Jewish prejudice there is among people of all races in the UK (well, strictly speaking I can only speak from first hand experience of England and Scotland). And sitting in a room of all white people or (visibly) mixed ethnicities doesn't seem to make a difference.
The situation in Gaza has made it far worse, and painted for me in bright neon letters the casual inability of far too many people IRL to make any distinction between 'Israel' and 'Jews'
but the privilege of being a passing-White Jew is that you get fed a daily diet of all this stuff because no one around you knows who you are...
Er no, it's really not as simple as 'white' - at all.
Only since I married someone (ethnically) Jewish have I really picked up on how much casual anti-Jewish prejudice there is among people of all races in the UK (well, strictly speaking I can only speak from first hand experience of England and Scotland). And sitting in a room of all white people or (visibly) mixed ethnicities doesn't seem to make a difference.
The situation in Gaza has made it far worse, and painted for me in bright neon letters the casual inability of far too many people IRL to make any distinction between 'Israel' and 'Jews'
but the privilege of being a passing-White Jew is that you get fed a daily diet of all this stuff because no one around you knows who you are...
True.
But slightly beside the point. In fact, you confirmed what I was saying. It is possible if you are not in a group that is regularly subject to racism to never see it.
I know that the Jewish experience is more nuanced but real. However, that's not really relevant to what I was saying here. Of course it's true but in the context of a long post, how many variations do you think I should cover?
I live in a mono-ethnic community (very few people who are not white) and the racism is very obvious and prevalent. I can't imagine how bad it must be to anyone from a minority.
I note that Russell Brand has made some pretty crass (and weird) comments about Kamala Harris.
Apart from all the other stuff (which we all know so I'm not going to repeat here), as far as anyone knows Brand doesn't get a vote in the USA and he's publicly stated that he's never voted anywhere in any election. So quite which game he is playing is beyond me.
I live in a mono-ethnic community (very few people who are not white) and the racism is very obvious and prevalent. I can't imagine how bad it must be to anyone from a minority.
I live in a very white community and (to me) racism is not obvious or prevalent (there is, however, sectarianism, which I've described previously as "racism for bigots who can't find enough brown people"). I have, however, seen some pretty blatant anti-tinker prejudice.
I live in a mono-ethnic community (very few people who are not white) and the racism is very obvious and prevalent. I can't imagine how bad it must be to anyone from a minority.
Indeed.
Such cliques clearly exist but the jump off point for this part of the conversation was someone who saw very little racism.
Trump's win in 2016 was only possible because of the fact that many are attracted by his racism and misogyny. That does not mean that a) there are not other reasons for voting for him; or b) that everyone who votes for him is racist and/or misogynist. Both are logical fallacies. However, Trump has used dog whistles and blatant racism. Both are well documented.
Given how clear the racism and misogyny are - not to mention the homophobia, the ableism, and pretty much every other nasty result of othering people - anyone who votes for him is at least okay with all of it. And they're not just bystanders. They're actively helping him.
If you know someone wants to deport millions of people based on their race, and you vote for that person, you're voting for a racist policy. You don't get to vote for high tariffs and low taxes without voting for racism.
Trump's number one policy is racist. Thousands of Republicans at their convention last week waved preprinted signs reading "MASS DEPORTATION NOW." I am quite comfortable calling anyone who votes for him a racist. They know what they're signing up for.
Trump's win in 2016 was only possible because of the fact that many are attracted by his racism and misogyny. That does not mean that a) there are not other reasons for voting for him; or b) that everyone who votes for him is racist and/or misogynist. Both are logical fallacies. However, Trump has used dog whistles and blatant racism. Both are well documented.
Given how clear the racism and misogyny are - not to mention the homophobia, the ableism, and pretty much every other nasty result of othering people - anyone who votes for him is at least okay with all of it. And they're not just bystanders. They're actively helping him.
If you know someone wants to deport millions of people based on their race, and you vote for that person, you're voting for a racist policy. You don't get to vote for high tariffs and low taxes without voting for racism.
Trump's number one policy is racist. Thousands of Republicans at their convention last week waved preprinted signs reading "MASS DEPORTATION NOW." I am quite comfortable calling anyone who votes for him a racist. They know what they're signing up for.
I agree but given where the conversation was above, I didn't want to go there straight away.
Yep. Plus it was a debate about reasons for voting for Trump. I accept there are other reasons that have nothing to do with race. Now, as you so eloquently described the it, to vote for Trump is to accept the whole package and therefore to tolerate this abysmal othering. But I wanted to cover the other parts completely first.
I thought Biden looked very weak. I know he has been sick with COVID, but I do not think he was at all up to another term. He can finish out this one and have time to do some critical final work with his excellent staff and advisories around him. I am very relieved he will not run.
President Biden spoke to the country last night from the Oval Office. Full video here. I didn't take from it the feelings and reactions I had anticipated I would. More on that later. British shipmates will have to pardon his repeated anti-monarchial comments (re: American governance). Did anyone else watch?
President Biden spoke to the country last night from the Oval Office. Full video here. I didn't take from it the feelings and reactions I had anticipated I would. More on that later. British shipmates will have to pardon his repeated anti-monarchial comments (re: American governance). Did anyone else watch?
I did. I thought the substance was good, while the delivery lacked energy.
And now I’m waiting for an oil change, and Fox News is on in the waiting area. Interestingly, no one waiting seems to be paying it much if any attention.
British shipmates will have to pardon his repeated anti-monarchial comments (re: American governance).
I would assume what he means by eg. "We're not ruled by kings" is something like "We're not ruled by absolute monarchs". Which would be true in the UK as well, but probably wouldn't be framed with reference to a king.
British shipmates will have to pardon his repeated anti-monarchial comments (re: American governance).
I would assume what he means by eg. "We're not ruled by kings" is something like "We're not ruled by absolute monarchs". Which would be true in the UK as well, but probably wouldn't be framed with reference to a king.
I think it was, at least in part, a reference to the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity, which essentially placed the president above the law.
British shipmates will have to pardon his repeated anti-monarchial comments (re: American governance).
I would assume what he means by eg. "We're not ruled by kings" is something like "We're not ruled by absolute monarchs". Which would be true in the UK as well, but probably wouldn't be framed with reference to a king.
I think it was, at least in part, a reference to the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity, which essentially placed the president above the law.
How easy (or not) would it be for President Harris to reverse that dangerous decision?
Yep. Plus it was a debate about reasons for voting for Trump. I accept there are other reasons that have nothing to do with race. Now, as you so eloquently described the it, to vote for Trump is to accept the whole package and therefore to tolerate this abysmal othering. But I wanted to cover the other parts completely first.
President Biden spoke to the country last night from the Oval Office. Full video here. I didn't take from it the feelings and reactions I had anticipated I would. More on that later. British shipmates will have to pardon his repeated anti-monarchial comments (re: American governance). Did anyone else watch?
I did. I thought the substance was good, while the delivery lacked energy.
I've mentioned this before but Joe Biden is probably the least engaging public speaker out of all of America's post-WWII presidents, with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush. I watched the speech on replay and thought it fairly effective, hitting the right points and playing for emotional resonance without being maudlin.
I think it was, at least in part, a reference to the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity, which essentially placed the president above the law.
How easy (or not) would it be for President Harris to reverse that dangerous decision?
It depends on how many appointments a hypothetical President Harris gets to the Supreme Court. The longshot, which is my personal recommendation, would be using Congress' power to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court. There was a tradition for a while that the number of Justices was equal to the number of federal appellate court circuits, but that hasn't been true for a while.
That decision can only be reversed by a subsequent SCOTUS decision or a constitutional amendment.
I kind of wonder if there is political hay to be made from a campaign for a constitutional amendment making clear that the President is not immune from prosecution, forcing Republicans to either publicly come out in favour of Presidents being allowed to commit crimes or remove Trump's protection.
Thank you @Nick Tamen and @Crœsos - I appreciate that the answer to my simplistic question is NOT easy...
Assuming the Republic survives, at some point an equivalent of Brown vs Board of Education and a complete repudiation of The Roberts Court is in order but we may have to wait a decade or two. Similarly, reversing Citizens United is desperately needed.
To me, the Supreme Court is really dangerous right now. The constitutional concept is three co-equal branches make up the Federal Government so that they check and balance each other's power. If the president oversteps his authority SCOTUS declares an executive action as unconstitutional. Similarly if Congress passes a law that is beyond their power, the court strikes it down. The check on the SC is that the President appoints them and Congress confirms and Congress has the power of impeachment if individual justices misbehave.
There is a lot of evidence of issues with several justices. The fact that they are not subject to the same Code of Conduct that every Federal Judge who is not on the Supreme Court must obey is unconsciousable. There is much that bears investigation but they have made themselves untouchable. My big fear is that if and when Congress steps up to start to fix this (as they really should), SCOTUS will (spuriously) strike down such laws.
The Court moves slowly and in some ways is a lot less dangerous than a runaway executive but it's much easier to get rid of a malovent president.
Most recently the Court has destroyed all Federal regulation. As in all modern democratic societies, the legislator grants to executive agency the delegated power to regulate complex, technical areas of life. Food safety, transportation, environmental standards etc. etc. The Court has massively undermined this and reserved all such powers to the Courts.
The US already has safety standards that are well below Europe's - especially in areas like food safety - but now they've laid it all open to litigation by unscrupulous corporations.
That decision can only be reversed by a subsequent SCOTUS decision or a constitutional amendment.
I kind of wonder if there is political hay to be made from a campaign for a constitutional amendment making clear that the President is not immune from prosecution, forcing Republicans to either publicly come out in favour of Presidents being allowed to commit crimes or remove Trump's protection.
Possibly but getting a Constitutional Ammendment adopted is practically impossible at the moment...
To me, the Supreme Court is really dangerous right now. The constitutional concept is three co-equal branches make up the Federal Government so that they check and balance each other's power. If the president oversteps his authority SCOTUS declares an executive action as unconstitutional. Similarly if Congress passes a law that is beyond their power, the court strikes it down. The check on the SC is that the President appoints them and Congress confirms and Congress has the power of impeachment if individual justices misbehave.
This has become a popular phrase lately, but the Framers of the U.S. government did not intend the branches to be "co-equal". They seemed to consider the Legislative branch to be the dominant part of the federal government, with the Executive and Judicial branches created to largely check Congress' power and to keep too much authority from being vested in one place.
The thing about the Roberts Court's ruling on executive immunity is that it seems to be a grant of power to the executive (the President can commit crimes), but it's really an arrogation of power by the judiciary (only a President's "official acts" get criminal immunity, and only the courts get to decide which acts are "official").
That decision can only be reversed by a subsequent SCOTUS decision or a constitutional amendment.
And we have far less polarizing Constitutional Amendments languishing (and therefore not adopted) because they haven't been ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures.
The substance was there in Biden's speech last night, but I also thought the delivery was lackluster. He's clearly spread pretty thin, and that's completely understandable. He's always elided words, particularly at the end of sentences, and he did a bit of that last night. The Presidency has visibly taken its toll on him, as it has on so many who've served in that capacity. I was re-relieved that he's stepped aside for VP Harris. And I felt more profound senses of gratitude and appreciation for his service. Perhaps he should and will go gently into that good night. I wouldn't fault him if he did.
That decision can only be reversed by a subsequent SCOTUS decision or a constitutional amendment.
I kind of wonder if there is political hay to be made from a campaign for a constitutional amendment making clear that the President is not immune from prosecution, forcing Republicans to either publicly come out in favour of Presidents being allowed to commit crimes or remove Trump's protection.
Possibly but getting a Constitutional Ammendment adopted is practically impossible at the moment...
The thing about the Roberts Court's ruling on executive immunity is that it seems to be a grant of power to the executive (the President can commit crimes), but it's really an arrogation of power by the judiciary (only a President's "official acts" get criminal immunity, and only the courts get to decide which acts are "official").
Comments
To say nothing of the Founding Fathers. But then again, the courts have historically turned a blind eye to the "well regulated militia" language in the Second Amendment, so perhaps they turned an extra-sharp eye to whatever language could be construed, however wildly, to grant presidential immunity.
Of course, there are reasons people articulate for voting for Trump that have nothing to do with sexism and racism. But those reasons do not stand up to analysis. Some say he would be good for the economy--but his term in office was horrible for the economy and his promise to institute tariffs is economic disaster for the US.. Some say he is a "strong" leader, yet in his first term he caved in to both Putin (favoring Putin's word over that of Trump's own intelligence advisers) and sucked up to Kim Jong Un in contravention of longstanding US policy over BOTH Republican and Democrat Presidencies.
And that doesn't even touch how badly he botched the response to COVID, resulting in the deaths of Americans. His "clever" idea to intentionally downplay the virus to "avoid a panic" directly led to untold numbers of unnecessary deaths for which he still has not been held accountable.
In short, even if one ignores Trump's blatantly evident racism and sexism, there are still good and valid reasons to oppose his Presidency. His actions in his last presidency has proven himself unworthy of the office.
IMHO.
I have never said that your experience was false. We live in two very different situations. It would be good if you could trust me about my own experience, which is also true.
Forgive me, but why exactly do you think that people would display their racism around you as openly as they would around me?
They never displayed it around me until I dated, then married, non-white people. Before that, I was very much convinced that racism was almost entirely a thing of the past. I was very surprised at the treatment my new husband and I received at the hands of people I formerly respected, even honored.
Seems like the right is going after her being childless. Really??
I thank you for your comprehensive reply. I assure everyone that I did not invent the content of my earlier post
But you believed it without doing any fact checking on your own. Talk about bearing false witness. That is what I reacted too.
In my original post I asked a question. I merely reported what I had heard. I didn't say I believed it. Please strive for accuracy when having a go at me
Just asking the question was an attempt to raise doubt. If you took the time to do some factchecking you would have found your answers. Even when we gave you information, you continued to defend GB. Even when Harris' election history was listed, you continued to say--in so many words--it was not your fault. You could have said, you stood corrected, but no.
I accept your admonition and I will strive not to do it again. I apologise
Obama was elected twice, but it didn't settle anything. Racists continue to be an enormous problem in the US. Just because they were outvoted a couple times doesn't mean we've made great strides. Systemic racism hasn't been eliminated, not even close.
Doublethink, Admin
I've reached the point at which, while this is shocking, the claim that he said it doesn't shock me. The level of callousness and evil he has shown doesn't seem to have a bottom level.
Hopefully we'll be more prepared for an attempted insurrection after last time.
I missed something. Who here has called you "racist" or "anti-semite"?
((((( @Lamb Chopped )))))
Apart from all the other stuff (which we all know so I'm not going to repeat here), as far as anyone knows Brand doesn't get a vote in the USA and he's publicly stated that he's never voted anywhere in any election. So quite which game he is playing is beyond me.
On this, might I respectfully suggest that you apologise having been comprehensively debunked by people who know more about it than you do.
Nobody here has to do your research for you, and when a simple basic search shows that you've been spreading misinformation then the first thing you should do is retract and apologise.
And second is to stop taking at face value anything said on GB "News".
I must read more carefully.
I learnt something important about race and lived experience in 2016.
I grew up in a UK city with a very small black population and a large Asian minority. At middle school and secondary school I had a few friends of different ethnicity. One such friend was born in the UK to Indian parents. I haven't seen him in about 30 years but by the miracle of Facebook, we reconnected over 10 years ago, so I see his life and he mine.
It is accurate to say that as kids and teenagers, we were a colour blind group. P. was not my Indian friend, he was my friend. We studied together, we played football together. There was no racism in our group, it simply wasn't there. So whilst I have never had any illusions that it exists and existed in the '80s and '90s, I saw very little of it.
Before I fast forward to 2016, there was a few years at Uni and working as a doctor. In all of my career, I have had the immense privilege of working with colleagues from many nations and my lived experience is very much one of enrichment by diversity.
In 2016, the UK voted to leave the EU and for reasons bizarre, stupid and oblique and yet very real, there was a big spike in all forms of racism.
At that time, P. posted on FB about the racism he'd lived through growing up and how angry he was that his daughter would now face it because the racists felt emboldened.
The thing is, I was surprised. I shouldn't have been, but I was. When he was with us, P. was never treated as anything other than British, as one of us, as an individual. You see, the racism happened away from the context in which he was with us. It was a part of his lived experience that I never saw, I never knew.
This is one aspect of white privilege. I get to not see it. Whilst others live it.
I have a parallel about sexism. When I was newly qualified, I often saw my female colleagues being called 'nurse' just because they are female, whilst everyone called me 'Dr.' My impression was that this was becoming less common. I mentioned this a couple of years ago and was instantly corrected by 4 of my colleagues who all said 'this week.'
Racism is very real. It is easy to find places (if you are white) where it does not exist. It is a mistake to think such places, whilst real and indeed a good thing, are representative of the whole. @Lamb Chopped's story depicts this reality beautifully.
Trump's win in 2016 was only possible because of the fact that many are attracted by his racism and misogyny. That does not mean that a) there are not other reasons for voting for him; or b) that everyone who votes for him is racist and/or misogynist. Both are logical fallacies. However, Trump has used dog whistles and blatant racism. Both are well documented. Moreover there is significant evidence (in their own words) that this is why many of the MAGAs vote for him. These are the things that (certain) people like about him. (We have the same phenomenon this side of The Pond).
So, LCs declaration that racists are a key part of Trump's past and potential future success is an accurate statement.
I will stop there on racism, so as to hopefully stay away from Epiphanies territory.
I will reiterate something I said before: with Harris as the opponent, I expect Trump to go a long way down the racist misogyny line. It will play very well with his base. My hope and belief is that it will repel more than it attracts. But let's not pretend that there are not some who are very attracted to this toxicity.
AFZ
The main reason that the GOP is accused of spreading racist and sexist stuff is because their candidate repeatedly says racist and sexist stuff.
Also there are memes of unpleasant attacks on her. Which may or may not have actually come from their candidate, but have come from the environment where it is acceptable to say this stuff. Which was created by the GOP candidate and crew.
Er no, it's really not as simple as 'white' - at all.
Only since I married someone (ethnically) Jewish have I really picked up on how much casual anti-Jewish prejudice there is among people of all races in the UK (well, strictly speaking I can only speak from first hand experience of England and Scotland). And sitting in a room of all white people or (visibly) mixed ethnicities doesn't seem to make a difference.
The situation in Gaza has made it far worse, and painted for me in bright neon letters the casual inability of far too many people IRL to make any distinction between 'Israel' and 'Jews'
but the privilege of being a passing-White Jew is that you get fed a daily diet of all this stuff because no one around you knows who you are...
True.
But slightly beside the point. In fact, you confirmed what I was saying. It is possible if you are not in a group that is regularly subject to racism to never see it.
I know that the Jewish experience is more nuanced but real. However, that's not really relevant to what I was saying here. Of course it's true but in the context of a long post, how many variations do you think I should cover?
AFZ
Well tbh this sentence from your second post is probably all you need have written in either, being short, pithy and unequivocal.
Publicity-seeking?
BTW, didn't he become a Christian recently?
I live in a very white community and (to me) racism is not obvious or prevalent (there is, however, sectarianism, which I've described previously as "racism for bigots who can't find enough brown people"). I have, however, seen some pretty blatant anti-tinker prejudice.
Indeed.
Such cliques clearly exist but the jump off point for this part of the conversation was someone who saw very little racism.
Given how clear the racism and misogyny are - not to mention the homophobia, the ableism, and pretty much every other nasty result of othering people - anyone who votes for him is at least okay with all of it. And they're not just bystanders. They're actively helping him.
If you know someone wants to deport millions of people based on their race, and you vote for that person, you're voting for a racist policy. You don't get to vote for high tariffs and low taxes without voting for racism.
Trump's number one policy is racist. Thousands of Republicans at their convention last week waved preprinted signs reading "MASS DEPORTATION NOW." I am quite comfortable calling anyone who votes for him a racist. They know what they're signing up for.
I agree but given where the conversation was above, I didn't want to go there straight away.
Yep. Plus it was a debate about reasons for voting for Trump. I accept there are other reasons that have nothing to do with race. Now, as you so eloquently described the it, to vote for Trump is to accept the whole package and therefore to tolerate this abysmal othering. But I wanted to cover the other parts completely first.
And now I’m waiting for an oil change, and Fox News is on in the waiting area. Interestingly, no one waiting seems to be paying it much if any attention.
I would assume what he means by eg. "We're not ruled by kings" is something like "We're not ruled by absolute monarchs". Which would be true in the UK as well, but probably wouldn't be framed with reference to a king.
How easy (or not) would it be for President Harris to reverse that dangerous decision?
Oh sure, everyone always talks about that other
Hidden text- link to article about the Holocaust - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
, but does anyone mention the Autobahns?
I've mentioned this before but Joe Biden is probably the least engaging public speaker out of all of America's post-WWII presidents, with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush. I watched the speech on replay and thought it fairly effective, hitting the right points and playing for emotional resonance without being maudlin.
It depends on how many appointments a hypothetical President Harris gets to the Supreme Court. The longshot, which is my personal recommendation, would be using Congress' power to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court. There was a tradition for a while that the number of Justices was equal to the number of federal appellate court circuits, but that hasn't been true for a while.
I kind of wonder if there is political hay to be made from a campaign for a constitutional amendment making clear that the President is not immune from prosecution, forcing Republicans to either publicly come out in favour of Presidents being allowed to commit crimes or remove Trump's protection.
Assuming the Republic survives, at some point an equivalent of Brown vs Board of Education and a complete repudiation of The Roberts Court is in order but we may have to wait a decade or two. Similarly, reversing Citizens United is desperately needed.
To me, the Supreme Court is really dangerous right now. The constitutional concept is three co-equal branches make up the Federal Government so that they check and balance each other's power. If the president oversteps his authority SCOTUS declares an executive action as unconstitutional. Similarly if Congress passes a law that is beyond their power, the court strikes it down. The check on the SC is that the President appoints them and Congress confirms and Congress has the power of impeachment if individual justices misbehave.
There is a lot of evidence of issues with several justices. The fact that they are not subject to the same Code of Conduct that every Federal Judge who is not on the Supreme Court must obey is unconsciousable. There is much that bears investigation but they have made themselves untouchable. My big fear is that if and when Congress steps up to start to fix this (as they really should), SCOTUS will (spuriously) strike down such laws.
The Court moves slowly and in some ways is a lot less dangerous than a runaway executive but it's much easier to get rid of a malovent president.
Most recently the Court has destroyed all Federal regulation. As in all modern democratic societies, the legislator grants to executive agency the delegated power to regulate complex, technical areas of life. Food safety, transportation, environmental standards etc. etc. The Court has massively undermined this and reserved all such powers to the Courts.
The US already has safety standards that are well below Europe's - especially in areas like food safety - but now they've laid it all open to litigation by unscrupulous corporations.
This Court is dangerous.
AFZ
Possibly but getting a Constitutional Ammendment adopted is practically impossible at the moment...
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/amendment-process
This has become a popular phrase lately, but the Framers of the U.S. government did not intend the branches to be "co-equal". They seemed to consider the Legislative branch to be the dominant part of the federal government, with the Executive and Judicial branches created to largely check Congress' power and to keep too much authority from being vested in one place.
The thing about the Roberts Court's ruling on executive immunity is that it seems to be a grant of power to the executive (the President can commit crimes), but it's really an arrogation of power by the judiciary (only a President's "official acts" get criminal immunity, and only the courts get to decide which acts are "official").
And we have far less polarizing Constitutional Amendments languishing (and therefore not adopted) because they haven't been ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures.
The substance was there in Biden's speech last night, but I also thought the delivery was lackluster. He's clearly spread pretty thin, and that's completely understandable. He's always elided words, particularly at the end of sentences, and he did a bit of that last night. The Presidency has visibly taken its toll on him, as it has on so many who've served in that capacity. I was re-relieved that he's stepped aside for VP Harris. And I felt more profound senses of gratitude and appreciation for his service. Perhaps he should and will go gently into that good night. I wouldn't fault him if he did.
Oh yes, I'm not expecting such an amendment to pass, merely that Republicans look bad opposing it.
Oh yes. It's a naked power grab by The Court.