my dad always taught me not to let the workings of the world affect my personal mood
even if the world is going to shit, you can carve out a little slice of life for yourself and the people you love. take care of those people, take care of what you own, do the things you’re passionate about and let God worry about the rest
and I say that as an atheist. it’s a metaphor
yeah exactly. when the system is about to blow up, they turn a valve and release a little steam
that’s one of two paths we are headed towards today. the pressure is building up. we either need to turn the valve soon OR we’re gonna blow up
i have a feeling though we’re headed for the explosion route
i think most legislation is explicitly for the capitalist class. that much we probably agree with
but i do think every once in a while, when there is a ton of pressure and the elites are scared, they throw a bone to the working class.
it happened with the antitrust act, it happened with the New Deal, and it happened in the 1960s with the Civil Rights era and the end to Vietnam
yes, capitalism will eat itself. it’s what we’re essentially seeing right now in slow motion. but there is something there in democracy beyond just capitalism. even if it’s buried deep down and impotent
it’s an eternal battle. every once in a while we pass legislation to try and reign in corporate power. like for example the anti trust act in the early 1900s
the issue is that public attention is temporary. eventually we move on to the next crisis and people forget. grow complacent.
corporate interest, however, is eternal. it’s persistent and never gives up. it keeps pushing, infallibly, in order to weaken the structures meant to reign in their power. whether by legislation/policy (AT&T and friends unilaterally killing Net Neutrality some years back, Disney signing into law expansion of copyright, etc) or through more subtle methods (buying politicians and getting people into positions of power that have no intention of enforcing the laws)
this is inevitably what happens with every democracy. eventually the vigilance fails and the structures of power are hijacked by opportunists.
although having said all that, I don’t think greed had much to do with the inflation we saw. Sure, some companies took advantage and raised prices more than they needed to just to inflate that extra juicy profit margin.
but realistically we’re headed to war and war means massive government spending which means inflation
And it wasn’t. The supply chain breakdown would have happened no matter who was in office
if i remember correctly, COVID brought our inflation up to roughly 6%. then the Ukrainian war took it the rest of way where it peaked near 9% (over 10% in my home state)
these things would have happened anyway, although choosing to prolong the Ukrainian war as long as possible most definitely increased inflation. people think we only gave 2 or 3 hundred billion, but realistically the American public has paid more than a trillion in the invisible tax that is inflation. hundreds of thousands of layoffs because of higher interest rates are also connected to this
It’s because, in the liberal and activist communities, it’s become customary and accepted to treat men like shit.
this is just as dumb as the opposite “they didn’t vote for Kamala because she’s a woman”
people don’t like Kamala because she’s an extension of Joe Biden and Biden has been a failure. that’s why she lost. she offered status quo when people want change. the DNC is incapable of changing quick enough to avoid fascism
i think you give too much credit to Trump. the economy has been rigged against the working class for a long time. it’s just getting progressively more brutal which makes people feel increasingly insecure.
an insecure working class elects strongmen who promise simple solutions
Did everyone just collectively agree to forget 2016? The polls were all favoring Clinton by a dramatic margin. CNN famously had a headline where they predicted Clinton had a 99% chance to win off of the polls.
And what ended up happening? 538 (before bought and neutered by ABC) gave the odds 65-35 or so, in Clinton’s favor. Trump ended up winning that 35%. This year, according to polls, Trump’s odds are better than in 2016. Kamala has the upper hand, but
A) lots of things can change suddenly before the election (like the Hilary emails thing)
B) polls are not the ultimate arbiter of who will win an election- actual real votes are
C) Trump more than likely has some “extracurricular plans” in store, much like Jan 6th, that has a chance of working.
Tldr: don’t get drunk on positive news. Keep a level head and you’ll see this election is still very close to a coin flip
There are laws against excessive fees like this. In my home state of Florida, a landlord cannot charge more than 20% the rent in late fees.
And trust me, Florida is not known for its consumer protections. So chances are your state has a similar law which is probably better.
So if I were you I would look up the law and not pay.
Assuming of course you are telling the full truth- your full rent payment was late for a short period of time.
English Spanish Portuguese
I want to learn Russian and Chinese
I don’t think it’s taking shelter as much as trying to find an answer to something that has no answer.
For example Eistein I don’t think was trying to take shelter from reality. He wanted to look at reality as deeply as possible and he managed to peek through and see more than almost anyone ever had before.
But he still believed in a God. This is one of those reasons I always call myself an agnostic instead of atheist.
In a practical sense, I’m an atheist. I don’t think Jesus turned water into wine or the Buddha achieved enlightenment and entered a higher plane of existence or whatever.
But I acknowledge there might be supernatural or supranatural items / phenomenon/ or even beings that we can’t ever fully understand.
We can discuss what people should do all day. I’m talking about what people will do. Biden is losing this election. People are talking more about whether he is even capable of the job and nothing about the good things he can do for the country. His own party is rebelling against him, with Dems from swing states calling for his resignation.
Biden’s toast, and the DNC with him. It’s unfortunate but it is what it is.
Speaking confidence has nothing to do with lying or telling the truth. Go back 20 years ago and look at a Biden speech and compare it to today. Hell, go back 4 years ago to the last Biden v Trump debates.
Biden isn’t half the capable public speaker he was before. He mumbles and gets lost. He sounds unsure.
Trump doesn’t care if what he’s saying truth or not, he just says things with the conviction of a conman.
You have to look at it from the GOP perspective. Trump is the most popular candidate, he managed to accomplish big ticket items in his administration, and he is more “mentally there” than Biden.
Just look at debate. Trump spoke quickly and confidently. Biden mumbles and forgets what he’s talking about, stands there with mouth open staring, etc.
There’s a reason in 2020 debates, polls showed most people thought Biden won the 2 debates. But in the last one, overwhelming % of people thought Trump won debates- even democratic voters.
I think you misunderstand who is asking Biden to drop out and why.
Dems are interested in who is the DNC candidate and Republicans are interested in the GOP candidate.
Republicans as a whole are OK with Trump. He’s not incredibly popular, but he has some achievements under his belt and has a relatively small but very loyal core group of voters. The average Republican believes that a) Trump has good chances of winning election and b) will likely move forward conservative policy objectives.
Therefore, why would they want him to drop out?
If we look on the other side at Biden. A growing group of people believe that he is not 100% mentally there because of his age. Because of this, not only does he a) have lower chances of winning the election but also b) is he really competent enough to be president? Sure, there’s a sort of shadow administration behind him but people still put value in having a strong and mentally quick head of state.
Beyond that, there’s also a small group of progressive voters who are unhappy with Biden’s policies. He simply isn’t a very effective leader and is one of the most unpopular presidents in US history. He’s even more unpopular than Trump, who was also a deeply unpopular president.
So, people want Biden to resign because they believe other people would not only a better chance of winning election, but would be more effective leaders in terms of advancing DNC policy objectives.
Greedy people are more likely to end up wealthy. Greedy people are also more likely to end up doing ethically dubious things.
Of course, any wealth at all is unethical if you’re being honest with yourself. There’s a famous passage in the Bible.
Jesus was out teaching his disciples or healing people- whatever he did. And a rich man comes up to him and asks
“Jesus, I want to follow you and go to heaven. Please tell me what I should do”
What did Jesus say? Jesus told him to a) sell all of his shit b) give that money to charity c) physically follow me around
What did rich guy do? Have an epiphany about morality and living the good life?
No, he cried. He cried because he didn’t actually want to let go of the good things he had for morality.
All of us in first world nations are guilty of this to some extent. The way our world is shaped you essentially have to be unethical to survive. There are levels to it, of course. But I think your perspective is too black and white and needs a little nuance. Seem like a teenager.
If your argument is: the Supreme Court is compromised and will intentionally ignore the constitution and the laws to protect Trump- then what difference does this ruling make?
Why did the courts not hand the election to him? He sued in many courts over the 2020 election drama. Fake votes, rigged election, etc. He lost every court case.
I think people assume the 9 justices are politically motivated but they in general hold a deep respect for the laws and the constitution. Every single decision is documented and you can read their opinions. Everything has legal reasoning, nothing happens just because
For example the Roe v Wade one. I don’t think they should have repealed it for practical purposes- but the ruling legally makes sense. The courts are not legislators. Congress should be the one passing legislation to give right to abortion, not the courts.
Why did Congress not pass anything since 1974? There were many Democratic majorities since 1974.
I wouldn’t have repealed just because of the damage it caused, but I understand the legal argument.
So to summarize: they follow the law. Not necessarily what is best for the country
everything could be viewed as official in the right lens
No, isn’t true. Insider trading? Not official. Is a crime and can be prosecuted.
And note that it is “presumptive immunity” not absolute immunity. Therefore even official actions can be criminally prosecuted on a case by case basis. It’s just that because it’s presumptive, there’s a higher threshold of evidence the state would need to prosecute.
If president had immunity, why Nixon
Nixon did not act in an official capacity. He was guilty of obstruction of justice, breaking into office, etc. These things he did not do in an official capacity.
I think a better example would be the Iran Contra affair. I think that’s a very legitimate concern. If I order the CIA to do something - is it official? What if it’s something clearly against the laws and/or against interests of the USA? Here I think there is a valid concern although that doesn’t mean the ruling is the end of democracy like people are making it out to be
It’s OK to do insurrection
He can still be held criminally liable for the insurrection. He will argue he was acting officially, it will go to a lower court, then bubble up to the USSC and they will rule.
I think it’s fairly obvious it was not official
OK to use official employee
Yeah I think this is wrong and a valid concern. Although keep in mind: they already had this presumptive immunity. The difference is now the law is clearer and there’s a process to remove this immunity whereas before it wasn’t there
denying people who actually understand the law, like professors, etc
You can find just as many legal experts who agree with the majority opinion. It was 6-3 in the Supreme Court.
But again- appeal to authority doesn’t work. You make arguments, like you did in this comment. I respect you more than almost anyone else because you took the time to read and give reasoning
I don’t believe what someone says just because they’re an expert. I listen, but I look at the reasoning. Look up “Nobel disease” . Experts sometimes say some wild things
our Congress is deadlocked
Yes they are a mess and we’re headed towards fascism. Not because of this ruling though
Pt2: had to split in two because of length. See other comment first
_______continued…
my response to this is: if there is immunity, but not for criminal prosecution, what does the immunity apply to?
moving forward, the dissenter discusses the “framework for prosecution of unofficial acts”
Quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former President can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” Ante, at 15. Of course he can. No one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial acts Even Trump did not claim immunity for such acts and, as the majority acknowledges, such an immunity would be impossible
essentially saying, yes. unofficial immunity would be absurd.
It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action
they are arguing that the statement is too broad. that it would be effectively impossible to distinguish an item from “official” to “unofficial”
so their problem is not that there doesn’t exist a method to prosecute a president for criminal actions, but that the proposed framework is not going to be effective in doing so
to conclude: i’ve read a couple dissenters and i’ve read a couple of the majority. i personally don’t think this ruling is as important as everyone is making it out to be
why?
the president already has these powers, except it has been in a gray legal area up until now. it is essentially writing down active policy. the president had presumed immunity for official acts before this
it creates a framework to determine whether or not a president is acting in his official capacity. this power gets thrown to the courts.
what this does is it gives the legislative branch [edit: judicial] a check against the president. i support more checks against the president because i think the executive is too powerful in general
now, i understand the viewpoint that should the courts want to, they could rule everything the president does as “official” and therefore the president is effectively immune should the court politically be aligned with the president.
however, i would repond that is the courts are politically aligned, they would have inevitably ruled in the same manner should this case have come up 10 yearse from now.
this case, while important in the sense that it officially reinforces this precedence, it doesn’t functionally change anything going forward
now that i’ve written out my reasoning, if you disagree with any specific points, feel free. i’m not an expert i’m a layman with a mild interest in constitutional law. i’m more than happy to admit i’m wrong. i’m not a conservative so please believe me i’m not partisanly motivated to see one side or another here. i’m going off of my own independent interpretation
Pt1:appeal to authority means nothing to me, and it shouldn’t to you, because experts and authorities can be wrong just like anyone else. i care about the merits of the argument, as everyone should
and for that, we need to critically think and analyze reasoning on its own merits.
so let’s actually read the court opinion, which you can easily find on the supreme court website if you’re actually curious.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts
so essentially - that’s exactly what i said. president has immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. what is the court’s reasoning?
Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”
It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.
So, the court’s opinion is that when a President is within his constitutionally defined powers he cannot be held criminally liable. Otherwise, for example, virtually every president for the last few decades could be held criminally liable for some crime. I brought up the examples of the classified document mishandling previously, but there are many more should you go looking.
Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers
So, not everything a president does falls within this immunity bubble. How do we decide what is official and what isn’t? Well, first we look at the seperation of powers outlined in the constitution. You know, the stuff you were taught in elementary school. 3 branches of government. What is within the scope of the executive branch, president has authority over.
The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.”
Essentially, the argument is: the President should not be afraid to act because of fear of criminal prosecution. For example, if something like killing a political leader of an enemy state is deemed critical to national security - he has the ability to choose this course of action without fear of being charged for murder. If we did not allow for this, the president’s office would be weaker. The opinion shares many court cases and items of the constitution that reinforces this authority the president is granted.
At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
So he can actually be prosecuted for specific acts if the proseuction can show that it doesn’t impede on the use of his constitutionally appointed powers.
As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct.
Again, like my previous comment - unofficial acts do not hold immunity. Items outside of his legal presidential powers are not protected.
The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.”
So, how do we determine what is “official” versus “unofficial”? Well, the courts decide. However, as the Supreme Court is intended by the constitution to be a “final destination” the process must start at the lower courts and work its way up to the Supreme Court.
So essentially, the decision states a) president has immunity for official acts, b) does not have immunity for unofficial acts, and c) it presents a framework and process for determining the difference between the two
the decision was ruled 6-3
so what did the dissenters say? well here’s justice Sotomayor
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President
They are saying that the argument that the president neesd to act “bold and unhestitatingly” as specified by the constitution is not enough reason to warrant immunity.
the next couple pages, which i won’t quote here for brevity, outlines the crimes that Trump committed circa Jan 6th. None of this has anything to do with the argument above, but has more to do with how Trump blatantly broke the law during this event and lists several examples
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution.
self explanatory, we’re going back to the topic at hand
The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.”
i disagree with the statement “completely insulate presidents from criminal liability”. as we showed before, there is a framework for prosecuting presidents should they act in a manner outside of their constitutionally protected powers. the next statement, of course, is just a rehashing of the decision. president has immunity for his “core presidential powers”
a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.
this is patently false. if they act in an unofficial manner, they do not get immunity. the courts have the power to determine acts “unofficial” and prosecute him
The Constitution’s text contains no provision for immunity from criminal prosecution for former Presidents
well, this is up for debate and interpretation. it’s been widely recognized that presidents have immunity for official acts. this has been the accepted situation for very long time. if you want to read about the history of this precedence: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/article-ii--presidential-immunity-to-criminal-and-civil-suits.html
that article from way before this court case, goes over both the constitutional basis for the precedence as well as supreme court cases that reinforced the precedence
so while the constitution does not explicitly state that the president has immunity, it can be implied that these powers arise from both the powers and responsibilities vested to the office of president
the dissenting judge says as much in the next statement
Of course, “the silence of the Constitution on this score is not dispositive.”
essentially saying - the lack of explicit mention does not by itself necessarily mean the opinion of the court is incorrect.
they then make the argument, which i will summarize for brevity, that a) the framers of the constitution provided for limited immunity for legislators and b) state constitutions at this time period had immunitities
therefore, the framers would have been aware of this and would have explicitly mentioned this if they intended this. therefore, they argue it was not intended by the framers of the constitution
my statement is - this is a valid argument. perhaps the framers not only did not intend for immunity, they left it explicitly unmentioned because they did intend for the president to have immunity.
however i believe this statement alone is not enough to justify a dissent with the opinion. mainly because there’s a lot of things that framers intended or didn’t intend that we have modified since. i don’t think i have to elaborate here.
then the dissenter goes on
Aware of its lack of textual support, the majority points out that this Court has “recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.’” Ante, at 10 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749). That is true, as far as it goes.
essentially saying - yes, the majority points out the established precedence that the Supreme Court has on this topic, and they are correct in using that as an argument
Nothing in our history, however, supports the majority’s entirely novel immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
however, nothing in the precedence applies explicitly to criminal prosecution. essentially saying - the precedence holds for presidential immunities but not from criminal prosecution.
i grew up an illegal immigrant in the US. we were poor and struggled but ultimately I had a good upbringing and I have a good life now.
the world is uncaring and unjust. you have to stick up for yourself and build something for you and the ones you love. nobody else will do it for you.
unless you are a silver spoon trust fund baby of course (which isn’t exclusive to any race or gender… although being straight & white definitely increases the chances). most of us don’t get that privilege