@ArneBab keep in mind how tenuous these connections are getting.
If the destination is Democrats being blocked from electing a Democrat, then here we're talking about a legal case of questionable standing based on arrangements that Democrats made for themselves with questionable legal basis even if standing is proven resulting in restrictions on the use of some funds.... and all of that still requiring the leap to "and therefore Democrats can't elect their candidate."
It's quite a long reach.
@nilsskirnir not at all. The ruling was very clear that presidents can only act within legal authority, and Biden has no legal authority to arrest the Supreme Court.
@blainsmith it's like choosing between hammers and screwdrivers: they are completely different tools with completely different use cases.
BitTorrent is a dumb system for transferring bulk files as fast as possible, while IPFS is an intelligent database for managing small bits of information.
It's like asking to choose between a sports car and a semi truck: they're simply different for doing different things.
@nilsskirnir the SCOTUS ruling specifically did not grant such monarchic powers, though.
Anyone saying otherwise is telling you falsehoods in contradiction to the actual ruling.
@dougiec3 the ruling went out of its way to emphasize that the president definitely doesn't have absolute authority.
The ruling specifically went through examples of limitations on presidents' powers, talking about prosecuting presidents.
There's so much misinformation out there that's easily debunked by simply reading the ruling.
@waysideollie but he has no official authority to "fix" SCOTUS, which is core to the ruling.
@Handydude Trump is so hated that so many of us are begging for a workable candidate to vote for.
Almost anyone. Put almost anyone on the ballot and we will vote for them.
Unfortunately Biden and Harris have tarnished their records so badly that they might be the only ones that could lose to Trump.
Give us any vaguely competent nominee.
@Phracker2Art then I don't understand what your central argument is.
What are you trying to say?
@ArneBab of course it's how law works. And we can see that play out everyday as we watch Court decisions come down and impact the real world.
That's how we know our legal rights and responsibilities. We point to law. Like, driving down the road we point to the speed limit sign to know that we can drive this fast.
Yes, this is how law works.
@Phracker2Art It's not nitpicking because pointing it out completely undermines the claim that they would be able to underpay their employees.
If you're saying that's the mechanism by which they would underpay employees than it really matters that the mechanism you're identifying doesn't exist.
No, challenging that law would not lead to the result that you bring up, so it's core to what you're saying.
@Nonilex It's a bizarre thing to say that originalism stole the Constitution since originalism is all about promoting the Constitution. So it's hard to imagine what this person might be talking about, it seems paradoxical and contradictory on its face.
@DoesntExist If you read their ruling, scotus said the opposite, they spent paragraph after paragraph explicitly laying out that the president should face legal repercussions.
Heck, their conclusion was that the lower court should continue to pursue repercussions against Trump.
Yes, there's a lot of loudmouths trying to misinform everybody. You should stop listening to them because they are lying to you.
@samohTmaS No, that's not how the law works.
@ArneBab No that's not how the law works either. The Supreme Court doesn't decide the election, is decided by the EC as presided over by the people that we elect to Congress.
@ArneBab okay fine, here you go
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
@Phracker2Art having the nlrb declared unconstitutional would not allow them to break the law and underpay their employees.
So no?
That's not how that works.
@rightardia The problem is that whom the Democratic candidate is directly determines who wins the presidency.
@ErosBlog I mean, no less believable than the nonsense you spouted above.
Yeah Biden sucks. But no, the last guy didn't pack the Supreme Court with drunks.
@claralistensprechen3rd but they would if the Democrats chose a more electable nominee
@pinhman It's just really notable that after all that hassle nothing was actually accomplished.
These children need to be called out for what a waste of time they are.
@ZaneSelvans are you an anarchist trying to bring down the government?
That kind of ticket would be so amazingly ridiculous.
Since I guess everything is political these days, I'll identify as extremely liberal but without a home in US politics.
Mainly, there's so much misinformation out there that people in society have trouble even organizing into coherent political groupings. So I'd rather not talk about politics but instead focus on information and education. Nothing else matters until the bedrock of fact is buttressed.
But... people are always going to be wrong on the internet, as the saying goes.
So: Old man yells at clouds is a famous joke from The Simpsons, and it probably fairly describes what we do when venting on social media.
Just speaking into the void, since I figure it's an exercise in futility to conduct discussions on these platforms.