You know what you are getting with Trump and you still support him?

Here’s hoping you get the government you deserve( but somehow I don’t).

BTW, only two politicians have actually said anything like “let’s take away their guns”. Beto and Donald Trump,

MAGAs gonna get an ugly surprise when he turns on them too, as all tyrants do when they get to the paranoid stage. And the list of loyal allies he’s turned on is endless. You are no different. Just smaller,

Hint: Nobody was EVER dictator for just one day. Never. It’s not in their nature.

Good luck,

Whatttt????

There’s a billion billion examples.

Let me give you just a few off the cuff examples of the most earthy, nontheoretic dangers he presented to each and every American’s life.

1). When he was having his whole kindergarten sandbox exchange with Kim over “my red button is bigger than yours” (over Nuclear weapons!!!!), at one point he was right on the verge of just impulsively tweeting that he was ordering all military dependents out of South Korea, for their safety.

The State Dept and Intelligence Agencies knew for a fact that internally, North Korea had already decided that this would be a RED ALERT sign that attack by America was imminent. They are wildly paranoid, and have nukes. That tweet alone could well have triggered North Korea to preemptively strike.

They jumped on and stopped the tweet. We were THAT close. Trump had NO IDEA that his tweet would be dangerous. Fortunately, it wasn’t one of his 2AM tweets while in boxer shorts. It was during the day and adults were watching. True fact.

2). His erratic behavior after he lost was so concerning to China that they were seriously preparing for the contingency that he might start a war so that he could claim he needed to stay in power. Maybe that’s crazy, but that’s what THEY were concluding.

Gen Milley had to call their top military guys and say “it’s ok,that won’t happen, don’t do anything rash, it’s not that bad”

The right wing media sphere retells this as “Gen Milley committed treason” How they got to “preventing confusion from causing an accidental war with our strongest geopolitical foe IS TREASON!”, God only knows! Think about that spin!!!! Insane!!!! Propaganda is a crazy thing.

True fact: our top generals talk to our “foes” all the time about things to prevent misinterpretation from starting a war. It’s called “sanity”. (Hey, just FYI, we’re doing an exercise here. Don’t freak out and think we are attacking you). Milley also cleared it with the Sec of Defense and State Dept beforehand

3). Once, in the Oval Office, he told (in front of Journalists) the Russian Ambassador information that could be easily used by the Russians to track down our friendly Intel people in Russia. (Who began to suddenly disappear with scary frequency). And outed one of our allies’ Intel apparatus. Documented. He had no clue he was doing that. God only knows how much Intel this ally subsequently wisely didn’t share with us.

4). Once, he tweeted a picture of a missile site taken by our satellites. For the whole world to see. You and me. That pic betrayed classified info about our surveillance satellite capabilities. He had NO CLUE he was doing that!

5). He wanted to shoot protestors in DC in the legs.
Would have been some horrible multiple of Kent State X The Boston Massacre = Trump’s response to Black Lives Matter. His advisors/baby sitters had to tell him it was illegal and they just wouldn’t do it. They didn’t bother to point out it was immoral. I guess they figured that was not convincing to him!

The experienced people at top Governmemt had to literally follow this guy around and say “Don’t put your finger in that outlet sir!l”

Does FOX tell you guys about this kind of stuff? No, it doesn’t.

Just his ignorance, incompetence and impulsiveness alone was a massive, massive, massive danger to each of us individually. Repeatedly.

BTW. These are just a few one off “goofs”. I didn’t even open all the big policy ones.

I agree he’s got his flaws. But if you don’t vote for him, you don’t redress the mistakes of the past,

Instead, you get the alternative. Trump.

Unfortunately, you have to vote based on which of two candidates is the “least worst”, and hope we live to the next day to set past mistakes right,

Please, I IMPLORE you, I PLEAD with you. Look at the alternative. Trump. The guy who thinks Kyle Rittenhouse is a pretty good guy. Trump wants to lock up a lot of people. This could get much, much worse than the 90s,

THAT’S what you’ll get if you don’t vote against Trump.

I don’t think he’s the right candidate at all. But all he has to do to get my vote is to keep breathing.

The alternative is Satan

Horrible as this is to say, but to save our democracy, we may ultimately need to do much more than vote

If you can just dismiss the dissents of three Supreme Court Justices as “lying” because you disagree with their politics, then the subtly of the law for which you got your degree was completely wasted on you.

Any lawyer worth the oxygen he breaths would at least understand that law and Supreme Court opinions are nuanced., and areas of grey. New areas unexplored.

That you just wave all that off as “lying” tells me all I need to know. Either you are a not a lawyer or you are so remarkably concrete in your thinking that you didn’t learn much,

I have a degree too. But the profession has members at all tiers I guess.

Good luck in traffic court.

Upside down in murky water.

For real,

Didn’t Mitch McConnell’s sister in law sue in a Tesla (not the Cybersuck) in a pond cause they couldn’t open the doors?

Yo! Congress! You got anything to say about this? Mitch?

How could this POSSIBLY pass consumer safety standards?!?

Don’t answer, I know. It won’t

Agree. If they would just do the right thing and remember:

America first.

Party perhaps second

Self third.

Right now the order is reversed.

You do know that democracies have repeatedly died exactly this way multiple times since Athens. And in each case, the troops sided with the coup (or it fails).

A coup is not at ALL off topic. It IS the topic .(That and a non violent dictatorial takeover). This case specifically bears on Trump possibly being prosecuted for a possible coup attempt.

A coup presumes a new government, new Constitution. So, the army gets a pass with the new rules makers. The losers go in mass graves

No, a coup is no more nor less likely than before this ruling (in theory).

WHAT is very likely is that a President would be less at risk to be prosecuted for a failed coup. A certain orange guy with a bad comb over? This is literally now on the top of the plate.

Was he innocent? Was he guilty? The point is, we may be forbidden from even hearing the evidence and even rendering a judgment.

I would argue that a perception of immunity makes Trump MORE likely to try it.

Right now he’s clearly stating that he thinks this gives him power to do all sorts of antiDemocratic stuff.

So, as far as Trump is concerned, he very clearly IN ALL CAPS thinks and declares he’s off the leash .

It matters little that you disagree.

Agree. I find myself exceedingly anxious recently. Made far, far worse after Thursday’s debate. I think about 340 million Americans on both sides AND the rest of the world feels it too.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic. But impeachment has been gutted as a useful mechanism by both sides. Sigh.

Sigh, you are saying the crime or violation of the Constitution would be a violation of his duty. But he can’t be even tried for those acts??? So how is that to be determined?

He has, for instance, a duty to protect us from domestic terrorism. But while doing that, he decides to just kill suspected domestic terrorists, or send them to Guantanamo without due process,

Or maybe he orders his Secret Service to spy on his political rivals?

Illegal, right? But he did it under the umbrella of his duty.

In no way is the Constitution nor even the law comprehensive or specific enough to permit or forbid all possible acts as part of duties.

By the way, Trump is just crowing like wild right now about how he believes this empowers him to do all sort of stuff that the rest of us know is illegal and unethical (like, just tonight, for example,, to have a “televised military tribunal try Liz Cheney”). You cannot possibly deny he will abuse this. He promises to abuse it. Incessantly.
Do you deny this?!?

So, whatever YOU think, It’s clear how Trump interprets it. And it’s bad. Very, very, very bad.

And that’s my whole point.

You kidding me?!?

You do know I mean he uses armed forces, right? Troops. The military or security forces. Secret service. Seal Team 6, remember? Maybe tanks in the street outside in the way it is usually done (because leaders who turn dictator DO act this way). The people he commands. Right? (Presuming they obey and support him, or he just got done who do)

I’m not suggesting the most powerful man in the world would physically do this himself.

That’s the point. He’s not “the most powerful man in the world” because he works out in the gym. Huh?

Ahhhhhh. BUT! BUT!

The recent decision very explicitly states that the President’s intent (or motive) may not be considered in making decisions about these things. Nor conversations with associates (evidence)

So, intent is out the door.

The 2016 opinion was written by John Robert. Same guy who wrote the recent opinion on immunity.

But it is true, there are new faces who voted for the recent ruling.

But the Supreme Court decisions on Constitutionality are intended to be relatively timeless. Which is why Robert’s described this decision as “one for the ages”.

Point goes to me.

Once again! You keep conflating “official act” as “a legal use of power” or even Constitutional.

That is NOT what an “official act” is! An official act” as legally specified, is any “ANY act or decision taken in the performance of the duties of office”. ANY. Legal or illegal.

An official act may be legal or illegal. Constitutional or not. Nixon ordering his guys to break in and spy on the opposition was an official act as President. The Court interpreted it so. And illegal.

(Which is just exactly why Ford had to pardon him, lest he be prosecuted. )

Until now, the Courts would block illegal or Unconstitutional official acts, and have frequently done so. Or, prosecute illegal “official acts” after the fact. And has frequently done so. Precisely BECAUSE they were illegal to commit as official acts.

The Court very very very clearly specifies this. As I said, in the specific case of McDonnell, they specifically said his corruption was not illegal UNLESS it was for official acts. So: illegality DOES NOT make an act nonofficial.

,

But now, one guy, just one, cannot be prosecuted for illegal “official acts” after he commits them.

Presumably they can still block illegal or unconstitutional acts by the President, such as an unconstitutional Presidential policy decision.

I agree.

ANOTHER option would be to pronounce “As President I officially declare the following six addresses in the DC area to be confiscated by me for government purposes. Whether that is legal or not is irrelevant.” Then list the addresses of the 6 Judges and say “they will be in the street in 2 hours, oh, and I confiscated their financial assets too, for official reasons. And NO, you can’t prosecute me. And I don’t have to tell you why.”

Then wait.

I have ZERO expectation this or anything like this. The Dems will wring their hands and worry and say crap like “If they go low, we go high!”

That’s a surefire way to lose a knife fight with people who intend to do whatever it takes to win.

Agree

Bravo! While you have em, get that too!

Let me rephrase: Unless this is fixed, it is inevitable that it will be abused sooner or later. And then, we will be done. Unable to fix it.

I agree, there’s a total lack of ethics and good intent amongst the people who can fix this.

They do not have the power to override the Courts ruling about immunity FOR official acts.

My point is: The Congress DOES have the power to legally define what are official acts.

In fact, in 2016, the Supreme Court specifically suggested that Congress do such legal specification about what is official and what is not. (McDonnell vs United States).

The Supremes literally said then “Congress has the power to define what are and are not official acts”. So, they can define what the President has immunity for, but not remove that immunity.

Three Supreme Court justices disagree with you. In fact, they opined this makes the President a defacto king. Their words.

Mind you. He won’t do this. It would be the Ultimate Constitutional Crisis and a black day for America. But to end it by making it only to kill itself? Greatness.