United States Corrupt Twattery

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
Don’t be so obtuse.
I'm not being obtuse. That's how the law works. Presidential immunity on a wide range of topics isn't some magical sprout that appeared from nowhere.

Lots of people getting butthurt by a completely unsurprising happenstance because Bad Man isn't going to get pummelled the way they hoped.

I just think it's time for reasonable people to stand up for the lesser of two evils, which applies to both the US and the UK. I don't think now is a time for champagne anarchism.
I don't think Labour will be any materially less evil than the Tories.

Don't get me wrong. Tories are out. They need to be out. But like the popular vote is showing - people aren't looking forward to Starmer. And the incoming Labour government is going to go one of two ways - either they lied about tax increases and they'll increase an already record tax burden (now they've hamstrung themselves with the Tory bullshit policy of having to keep borrowing down - when it's been 2.5x higher as a proportion of GDP in the past) so they can actually DO something, or they're going to keep to their tax and spending line, and they'll have to cut a load of services.

The problem with a labour majority with no money to do anything real to make people's lives better (rather than a bit of dick-waving window-dressing shite) is that they'll do what Labour always does - erode our civil liberties and start legislating what our morality should be (according to them). They're interminable fuckheads. And with no cash to make a material difference to people's lives and fuck all else to do - they'll ramp up big style on their internal desires to mandate how everybody is allowed to think. They can't help it, and legislation is cheap - especially when you've a massive majority.

People don't need to stand for a lesser evil - we should be given an option of genuine change. But then we live in a technocracy, not a democracy, so we ain't gonna get it.
 
Last edited:

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
I'm not being obtuse. That's how the law works. Presidential immunity on a wide range of topics isn't some magical sprout that appeared from nowhere.

Lots of people getting butthurt by a completely unsurprising happenstance because Bad Man isn't going to get pummelled the way they hoped.
It must be tiring trying to maintain such a level of ignorance.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
It must be tiring trying to maintain such a level of ignorance.
Easier than the flips and twists you must be doing to maintain rabid partisanship on a wide range of issues. :)

I've said Trump is the uber-cunt. He's worse than the Dems. But it's not enough for you. I have to bleed blue. And I don't. Biden, and the democrats, are massive massive hypocritical wankers.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,858
I think you're (or maybe I) confused in thinking we support Biden and Labour, I probably distrust both more than you do, but I accept they're clearly the better option.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
Easier than the flips and twists you must be doing to maintain rabid partisanship on a wide range of issues. :)

I've said Trump is the uber-cunt. He's worse than the Dems. But it's not enough for you. I have to bleed blue. And I don't. Biden, and the democrats, are massive massive hypocritical wankers.
That’s not even relevant. The statement of yours I was replying to was just nonsense.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
That’s not even relevant. The statement of yours I was replying to was just nonsense.
So before this ruling you were totally unaware that the president of the USA has always benefitted from wide-ranging legal protections?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
So before this ruling you were totally unaware that the president of the USA has always benefitted from wide-ranging legal protections?
DoJ guidelines were not to prosecute a sitting president. That doesn’t mean he was immune. Different thing entirely. There would have been nothing to pardon Nixon for if that were the case. There was never a guideline not to prosecute former presidents. Not that it was ever an issue before. It’s not even vaguely similar if you have any idea of the difference between the law, the constitution and how prosecution works.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
Now a president can accept a bribe to pardon a criminal and the law does not apply to him. That’s just for starters. ‘No man is above the law’ no longer applies.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
And if you think that people are butthurt because they hoped Trump would get prosecuted for the crimes he committed you are totally underestimating them. People are much more concerned about what the ruling will allow Trump to do in his second term. Put a little bit of thought into it rather than the usual knee-jerk edgelord response.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
Example - Trump can order, as commander-in-chief, elements of the military to kill an opponent or critic. Now, they can refuse an illegal order. Problem solved? Not at all. He has the absolute ability to fire any government employee and rehire until he finds someone who will carry out the order. But, that person would still have broken the law surely? So what, he can pardon them. And because that's all within his core powers they can't even investigate it, let alone prosecute him. Everyone involved can be pardoned and no one has any authority to even question why he did it and if he did it for illegal reasons.

He wouldn't even need to do that though. He could get a PMC to do it and pardon them.

Don't even start on what he could do with the 2028 election. No point in bothering. This is a ruling that would have made Putin blush.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
But sure - the remedy is impeachment so America is saved :rolleyes:
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
Erg. This is the guy the Dems might turn to if Biden does step aside:

I can't seem many Dems turning to him. The rest of the Kennedy family have said he's a dick. His talking points about vaccines and 'peace' are more in line with MAGA.

They'd probably just not vote instead.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
Anyway, more reasons this decision shouldn’t stand. Clear perjury during confirmation and clear reasoning that the constitution does not support it.


View: https://twitter.com/amoneyresists/status/1808020301986337163?s=61&t=iv1E1O7hVRuRm0TFdyUzyw


But I can’t see anyone willing to go to the lengths needed to reverse it.


I don't understand why you're failing to understand the point: The immunities granted to the President are the law.

So he's not above the law. There's legal provision for his immunity. At no point did any of these judges commit perjury. It's a puerile, juvenile argument.


Now, the most recent ruling by the Supreme Court has clearly opened up some questions about levels of immunity from certain actions. However, that is something that can be legislated for. If Congress deems the provisions unacceptable then they're the most powerful legislative body in the US. If something needs to be done about it and Congress wants to act - Congress can.

Everyone's pissing in their pants about the most extreme example of Trump ordering assassinations of political opponents (ignoring the fact that if Trump will have them, then Biden already has them - and if he really thinks Trump is the biggest threat to continued existence of the USA as we know it is he really the sort of guy who wouldn't use it? - or is it simply an OUTRAGED bullshit hypothetical). It ain't gonna happen.


I'm still more interested in Sleepy Joe Biden* propping up genocide in Gaza than this sideshow politics-as-entertainment bullshit.


*proven right eh? Everyone's shut up about that. In fact, as far as I can tell, the number of people calling him Sleepy Joe seems to have slowed in the face of his obvious mental decline.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,440
Example - Trump can order, as commander-in-chief, elements of the military to kill an opponent or critic. Now, they can refuse an illegal order. Problem solved? Not at all. He has the absolute ability to fire any government employee and rehire until he finds someone who will carry out the order. But, that person would still have broken the law surely? So what, he can pardon them. And because that's all within his core powers they can't even investigate it, let alone prosecute him. Everyone involved can be pardoned and no one has any authority to even question why he did it and if he did it for illegal reasons.

He wouldn't even need to do that though. He could get a PMC to do it and pardon them.

Don't even start on what he could do with the 2028 election. No point in bothering. This is a ruling that would have made Putin blush.

Soooo....have certain SCOTUS members removed on national security grounds, pardon yourself. Off you go Joe, for the lols if nothing else.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,375
Soooo....have certain SCOTUS members removed on national security grounds, pardon yourself. Off you go Joe, for the lols if nothing else.
Wouldn't need to pardon himself. He's immune from the law when exercising his presidential powers now.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,440
Wouldn't need to pardon himself. He's immune from the law when exercising his presidential powers now.
He should do it. These cunts have jobs for life and seem to have zero consequences for anything they do. Make them see the consequences.

And then he should pull out and give the nomination recommendation to Gavin Newsom.
 

Ormorof

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,853
Trump is under what, 80-odd criminal enditements?

There's loads - Obama could have fallen foul of a load of criminal charges (which, clearly, he'd actually be immune from given the recent ruling). Yadda yadda yadda...
I mean, there's zero evidence that Obama committed any crimes... Trump on the other hand there's so much evidence they are willing to go for it even knowing that if they don't nail him, and even if they do, pretty much everyone involved in the prosecution will be hounded for years and years by his cult, and these people have shown their willingness to commit violence on his behalf. The "they're both the same" argument rings extremely hollow these days. Even if they weekend at bernies Joe Biden into office it would still be a better choice.
 

Jupitus

Old and short, no wonder I'm grumpy!
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
3,332
I mean, there's zero evidence that Obama committed any crimes... Trump on the other hand there's so much evidence they are willing to go for it even knowing that if they don't nail him, and even if they do, pretty much everyone involved in the prosecution will be hounded for years and years by his cult, and these people have shown their willingness to commit violence on his behalf. The "they're both the same" argument rings extremely hollow these days. Even if they weekend at bernies Joe Biden into office it would still be a better choice.
Sad, but true. I really hope they get a suitable replacement, and quickly.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,391
The "they're both the same" argument
It's not the argument I'm making despite you repeating it. Although I said I wouldn't I'll say it again - Trump is measurably worse.

But in terms of policy - there's nothing materially different between GOP & Dems, or Labour & Tories.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom