Why would anyone want to veto election integrity?

[dgibbons]

It's quite a stretch. Those examples you cite spawn out of congressional authority broadly tied the the global war on terror passes after 9-11. Trump doesn't fit that.

Your vigorous advocation for this theoretical power that Biden now allegedly posseses has no precedent in either case law or actual practice.

The best practice is to defeat him by the rules of elections that we've abided by for almost 250 years. That's consistent. Trump doesn't accept those rules. That is a direct threat to our representative-democratic process. Taihtsat

Biden has been commander in chief since he was sworn in. The formal recognition of immunity is new. The airstrikes on the Houthis was not spawned out of the war on terror. That was result of the Israel-Hamas war.

The "best practice" appears increasingly unlikely, if not impossible. So, you're saying allow the existential threat to democracy be duly elected?

 

[UberCougars]

So, not an existential threat, right?

if Trump getting elected posed and “existential threat”, the Market would have crashed the day after the debate.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

There are some holes in this discussion.

The executive order is actually 3 executive orders and subsequent legislation. Its language is quite clear:

No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

It’s further expanded to bar indirect participation:

No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.

Here’s the issue: the entire EO is directed specifically at the intelligence community and intelligence gathering activities. The sections above are specifically within a section titled “Conduct of Intelligence Activities.” It’s not hard to argue that it’s not applicable to other government functions.

This is far-fetched on its face, but if Biden were to decide to liquidate Trump, this EO wouldn’t preclude it. He’s not employed by an intelligence agency, particularly not by any of those that are mentioned in the EO, so isn’t controlled by the first clause. He’s also not necessarily acting on behalf of the US government, so again…not restricted (tangent - the consitutional claim that the president is not an officer of the United States could also set him outside this).

The CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, and a couple of others - if ordered to perform an assassination -would be obligated to refuse under the language of the EO. But if, for example, the FAA was directed to fly Trump’s plane into the ground…the EO wouldn’t prevent that.

And then, the other big issue…it’s an EO. It can be redrafted and altered pretty easily.

There’s no doubt a mountain of legislation that addresses related things which might change these things. But there are definitely ways around the EO.

Love it! However, I see it differently. The first EO was more general, the 2nd one was necessary as a specific clarification for the intelligence community. That 12033 is all about the intelligence agencies.

As far as acting on behalf of the US government, it would be hard to fathom the highest ranking member of the US government orchestrating an assassination of a domestic political rival and NOT falling under the EO issued by Ford that was never undone by Reagan or Clinton or Obama (they just clarified additional points without overwriting - as I read it).

And if you make the argument that Biden isn't really acting on behalf of the US government or is not an officer of the United States, then he'd not be acting according to his official duties as president and would be open to prosecution, to counter dgibs claim that biden is covered by the recent SCOTUS ruling.

And IF all that is true, Biden would first be obligated to release a new EO declaring his new broad powers or overriding Ford's to specify that political douchbag rivals are fair game. Taihtsat

 

[dgibbons]

Love it! However, I see it differently. The first EO was more general, the 2nd one was necessary as a specific clarification for the intelligence community. That 12033 is all about the intelligence agencies.

As far as acting on behalf of the US government, it would be hard to fathom the highest ranking member of the US government orchestrating an assassination of a domestic political rival and NOT falling under the EO issued by Ford that was never undone by Reagan or Clinton or Obama (they just clarified additional points without overwriting - as I read it).

And if you make the argument that Biden isn't really acting on behalf of the US government or is not an officer of the United States, then he'd not be acting according to his official duties as president and would be open to prosecution, to counter dgibs claim that biden is covered by the recent SCOTUS ruling.

And IF all that is true, Biden would first be obligated to release a new EO declaring his new broad powers or overriding Ford's to specify that political douchbag rivals are fair game. Taihtsat

Not release, just sign one before the drone strike. The executive has all necessary authority to amend or rescind an existing executive order.

 

[Coug90]

So, take him out now. That's what you're saying right? Drone strike or Seal Team 6?

No. That’s not what I’m saying. Trust that democracy will do its job as it did 4 years ago.

Your obsession with this idea is impressive though.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

If you can't remember if you voted for Romney in 2012 then I you shouldn't be voting now.

How the hell can your brain be functioning if you don't remember the difference between Romney and Obama?

You guys are so funny. Every one of you Trumpers takes delight in flinging out putdowns and personal insults pretty much in every single post. Others of us try to make rational points, quote semi-legitimate news sources, and for the most part avoid the vitriol. Why is that?

And now that I think about it, I'm not 100% certain that I even voted in 2012, and could have checked off some 3rd party candidate since my vote doesn't matter in Washington anyway. Then I licked the envelope and went on with my day and my life. Congratulations for being able to remember every single thing you did, said or read during your entire life. I am in awe.

 

[95coug]

Love it! However, I see it differently. The first EO was more general, the 2nd one was necessary as a specific clarification for the intelligence community. That 12033 is all about the intelligence agencies.

As far as acting on behalf of the US government, it would be hard to fathom the highest ranking member of the US government orchestrating an assassination of a domestic political rival and NOT falling under the EO issued by Ford that was never undone by Reagan or Clinton or Obama (they just clarified additional points without overwriting - as I read it).

And if you make the argument that Biden isn't really acting on behalf of the US government or is not an officer of the United States, then he'd not be acting according to his official duties as president and would be open to prosecution, to counter dgibs claim that biden is covered by the recent SCOTUS ruling.

And IF all that is true, Biden would first be obligated to release a new EO declaring his new broad powers or overriding Ford's to specify that political douchbag rivals are fair game. Taihtsat

Ford’s order was created with the specific intent of ended CIA political assassinations. Its stated purpose is to

establish policies to improve the quality of intelligence needed for national security, to clarify the authority and responsibilities of the intelligence departments and agencies,

It goes on to list the intelligence agencies and specify their duties, responsibilities, and restrictions. The prohibition on assassinations itself is under a section entitled “RESTRICTIONS ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.” So, it can also be easily argued that its scope is also narrowed.

The Carter and Reagan EOs expanded the Ford one by deleting the word “political.” Ford’s EO applied only to political assassination, Carter and Reagan made it apply to any assassination activity, and to direct or indirect involvement.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Biden has been commander in chief since he was sworn in. The formal recognition of immunity is new. The airstrikes on the Houthis was not spawned out of the war on terror. That was result of the Israel-Hamas war.

The "best practice" appears increasingly unlikely, if not impossible. So, you're saying allow the existential threat to democracy be duly elected?

He's only:

Section 2​

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

His powers are not absolute and all-powerful, unlike what Stephen miller said about (Trump's) authority "will not be questioned".

So explain how Biden being commander and chief (as defined in the US Constitution) and beholden to current EO's prohibiting "political assassinations" could do this?

How could he skirt around the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity when this would not be within his official duties?

 

[dgibbons]

No. That’s not what I’m saying. Trust that democracy will do its job as it did 4 years ago.

Your obsession with this idea is impressive though.

Trusting the voters. Bold. They didn't come through for Hillary in 2016.

 

[95coug]

if Trump getting elected posed and “existential threat”, the Market would have crashed the day after the debate.

Doubt it. Business and industry are his best friends, and don’t really care about democracy as long as they keep making profits.
It’s certain that he’ll push another tax package to extend the one he pushed (with an 2025 expiration) in 2018. His new GOP platform says outright that he’ll reduce taxes more. Within that extension there will be another big tax cut for business.
He’ll also continue working on deregulating everything, especially any EPA regulations, and he’ll probably start going after OSHA worker protections. Industry and manufacturing will love that. The market will spike briefly if he wins.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Not release, just sign one before the drone strike. The executive has all necessary authority to amend or rescind an existing executive order.

Trying to catch up this morning. Are we still talking about whether Biden now has the authority to order a strike on Trump?

 

[95coug]

He's only:

Section 2​

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

His powers are not absolute and all-powerful, unlike what Stephen miller said about (Trump's) authority "will not be questioned".

So explain how Biden being commander and chief (as defined in the US Constitution) and beholden to current EO's prohibiting "political assassinations" could do this?

How could he skirt around the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity when this would not be within his official duties?

This is easy. The EOs apply to intelligence activities, not military. And, the air strikes were not targeted to specific individuals, they hit encampments. Maybe there was a person we wanted, but that was a secondary goal within a military one. Same applies to the hunt for bin Laden and the strike that killed the Iraqi general a few years ago. Military actions, not intelligence activities.

 

[Cougini5591]

You guys are so funny. Every one of you Trumpers takes delight in flinging out putdowns and personal insults pretty much in every single post. Others of us try to make rational points, quote semi-legitimate news sources, and for the most part avoid the vitriol. Why is that?

And now that I think about it, I'm not 100% certain that I even voted in 2012, and could have checked off some 3rd party candidate since my vote doesn't matter in Washington anyway. Then I licked the envelope and went on with my day and my life. Congratulations for being able to remember every single thing you did, said or read during your entire life. I am in awe.

Dude... don't bitch at people about ANYTHING regarding voting if you can't remember who you voted for.

Especially for President of the United States.

I'm not joking on this.

If your brain isn't functioning... don't vote.

Being able to vote for the leader of the greatest country on Earth is an honor and a privilege.

If your brain doesn't work... you shouldn't be choosing/voting.

Nor should you be driving.

Or are you just doing this now to be like Biden?

Seriously... do you want your kids out on the road with someone who is malfunctioning while driving?

Why would you want your country to be led by someone who's obviously being directed and told what to do... when to do... and most likely has various visions and delusions daily?

 

[dgibbons]

He's only:

Section 2​

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

His powers are not absolute and all-powerful, unlike what Stephen miller said about (Trump's) authority "will not be questioned".

So explain how Biden being commander and chief (as defined in the US Constitution) and beholden to current EO's prohibiting "political assassinations" could do this?

How could he skirt around the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity when this would not be within his official duties?

The president has all necessary authority to change an executive order, since the executive power is vested in the president per Section 1 of Article II. What part of "shall be" restricts the president's authority as commander in chief?

By the way, the War Powers Act doesn't apply unless the drone strike is outside the US.

 

[Coug90]

Dude... don't bitch at people about ANYTHING regarding voting if you can't remember who you voted for.

Especially for President of the United States.

I'm not joking on this.

If your brain isn't functioning... don't vote.

Being able to vote for the leader of the greatest country on Earth is an honor and a privilege.

If your brain doesn't work... you shouldn't be choosing/voting.

Nor should you be driving.

Or are you just doing this now to be like Biden?

Seriously... do you want your kids out on the road with someone who is malfunctioning while driving?

Why would you want your country to be led by someone who's obviously being directed and told what to do... when to do... and most likely has various visions and delusions daily?

The president is a figurehead. Sure there’s certain capabilities which are in his/her hands, but there’s a reason he/she has advisors on military operations, global economy, trade, disease, etc. You absolutely want the president being “advised” on all of these topics at all times because one person can’t be an expert in all of them, and one of their primary responsibilities is to surround themselves with people who are.

Of course in your world Trump is the end all be all knowing of all things, the chosen one, smarter than all scientists, more in tune with global affairs than all global diplomats combined, and has conference calls with Jesus Christ and the Pope weekly. And when he needs advice, which should be never, Jared and Ivanka are perfect choices.

 

[95coug]

So, returning to the actual topic of this thread….i read the text of the SAVE act this morning, and figured out why people would vote against.

It’s because - in many states, including Washington - it doesn’t really do anything. It duplicates things that are already in place. In fact, it’s less restrictive than the current voter registration requirements in Washington. And, it has the same loophole where people without evidence of citizenship can still just sign an affidavit swearing they’re eligible…and lacks a mechanism to verify that.

What this bill really does is give the Republicans a partisan opportunity to look like they’re doing something without actually doing anything. And the democrats give them exactly what they want by voting against it, letting the R’s accuse them of wanting illegals to vote.

The reform that really needs to happen is that the REAL ID requirement needs to be implemented for real - no more delays like Washington has used for a decade. That requires at least some verification of eligibility to be in the US. More importantly, the state voting systems need access to verify eligibility through DHS, SSA, and INS. There are thousands of vendors who can do background checks for guns in a matter of minutes, so it should be pretty easy to set this up, if the feds really want to.

The vote was almost exactly split on party lines - only 5 democrats supported it - so it makes the Dems look pretty bad. But the reality is that they were voting against a duplicative and ineffective regulation (the kind republicans are supposed to hate). There were some who cried about making some people provide 2 pieces of evidence of citizenship (which really shouldn’t be that hard), but in the end…that requirement already exists in a lot of places.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Dude... don't bitch at people about ANYTHING regarding voting if you can't remember who you voted for.

Especially for President of the United States.

I'm not joking on this.

If your brain isn't functioning... don't vote.

Being able to vote for the leader of the greatest country on Earth is an honor and a privilege.

If your brain doesn't work... you shouldn't be choosing/voting.

Nor should you be driving.

Or are you just doing this now to be like Biden?

Seriously... do you want your kids out on the road with someone who is malfunctioning while driving?

Why would you want your country to be led by someone who's obviously being directed and told what to do... when to do... and most likely has various visions and delusions daily?

I didn't bitch at anybody regarding voting. WTF?
Oh and nice insults. Yet again. I'm so hurt. almost suicidal. Guess I'll go turn in my driver's license and rip up my voter registration card.

 

[95coug]

What the Hell is wrong with you, 95? Not only are you saying the quiet part out loud, you are demonstrating exactly how it is done! Shame on you.

It happens the same way in CA, BTW, and I doubt that those are the only two states that operate that way.

That’s not surprising. California has been making Washington’s rules for a while now. I m hoping Dave Reichert takes the governorship, I think that might slow our californication.

I attended an agency rulemaking public hearing in 1023 (a few of them, actually). I asked the presenters why we felt it was necessary to implement this poorly written, difficult to implement rule. Their explanation was - completely serious, direct quote - “this is what California is doing.” Nothing further - they felt that was sufficient justification.

 

[mikalalas]

Well said. And the simple fact is, which I’ve said several times before, changing demographics don’t favor the party right now. Trumpers are aging and dying, new voters are overwhelmingly democrat. The party is going to take decades to recover from the orange stain and those who have bent the knee to him.

The Repubs need to not only get back to Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 1, Winston Church Hill, Margaret Thatcher, etc, moral, conservative, teach people how to fish, flatter taxes, tax rates, tax cuts, job creation, job expansion, business expansion, reduced govt spending, more fiscally efficiently run programs, more budget balancing, more paying off debt, more fiscally efficiently run education, more doing more with less, doing a better job educating, etc, more responsible compassion(like workfirst welfare reform), etc, but also do a better job at having younger politicians like Candace Owen's, that young, and Diverse, that younger people relate to, and do a better job at recruiting, relating, teaching, etc, younger people, or else the party of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party, right conservative values, will die, lose out to libtardism, socialism, communism, Marxism, the WRONG SQUAD, AOC, etc, that has Hi Jacked the Democrat Party.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

The president has all necessary authority to change an executive order, since the executive power is vested in the president per Section 1 of Article II. What part of "shall be" restricts the president's authority as commander in chief?

By the way, the War Powers Act doesn't apply unless the drone strike is outside the US.

We agree, the president has the power to overwrite prior EO's. These are things under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. No argument.

I've asked you for where you think Biden has the authority to kill a political opponent/rival. You seem to think all that power is vested in article 2. Trump is not a foreign power/agent/entity. He is a US citizen subject to US laws and protections, as well as "due process under the law".

If Biden were to "take him out" claiming he eliminated an "existential threat" and you were tasked with defending Biden, what defense would you offer? How would Biden be justified?

 

[mikalalas]

Well, I don't believe that a President has that kind of immunity and I believe that a future court is going to throw out this decision as a partisan fraud that should have never happened. So, in that sense, I don't think he should.

Also, as much as I despise the Donald, I can't morally support murdering him. Trump is a horrible human being, but I don't think that it's Joe's place to make the decision to take him out. Immune or not, we would truly be a Banana Republic if our President is out there ordering the assassination of political rivals, no matter how much of a scumbag that I might think that they might be.

Would I shed a tear if something happened to the Donald? Nope.

President's WRONGFULLY are, have immunity, are ABOVE THE LAW.

The worst that can happen to Presidents, is they get impeached.

I know this sounds horrible, but past president's have authorized illegal hit jobs, assassinations, murdered, done illegal so called police action wars, etc, all while in office as a sitting president, and they have either gotten away with it, or threatened with impeachment at worst.

If a US President were found to be guilty of actual real murder, the worst that would happen to that president, is impeachment, which is WRONG, BS.

It's time that law allow a president to actually goto jail, face the death penalty, not be above the law, etc, if they murder, etc, if found guilty of murder etc.

It's time for presidential immunity, or only getting impeached, being above the law to end.

It's time that if a sitting president murders, etc, that they face the death penalty, life in prison, etc.

What's sad, if a Hitler type president were to become president in our country, were to murder, etc, that the worst that would happen to them is impeachment.

It's time for that Stupid BS to End.

The founding fathers, many a good man died, etc, trying to fix a system where the British Parliament, Crown, was above the law, and could do whatever, etc.

Then the founding fathers stupidly turned around and made US president have impeachment be the worst that could happen to president's.

No Jail time, no life in prison, no death penalty, just impeachment.

Total BS stupidity.

 

[mikalalas]

How exactly are illegal aliens getting ballots to vote with?

Oh right, they aren't.

Dude, I have seen various Hispanics vote without ID at the STA bus plaza.

So it is possible that a illegal alien immigrant undocumented, etc, non citizen Hispanic person could get away with voting.

This is why Voter ID is important.

 

[dgibbons]

We agree, the president has the power to overwrite prior EO's. These are things under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. No argument.

I've asked you for where you think Biden has the authority to kill a political opponent/rival. You seem to think all that power is vested in article 2. Trump is not a foreign power/agent/entity. He is a US citizen subject to US laws and protections, as well as "due process under the law".

If Biden were to "take him out" claiming he eliminated an "existential threat" and you were tasked with defending Biden, what defense would you offer? How would Biden be justified?

First, the military can and has operated within the geographic boundaries of the United States in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the various Indian wars. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to protect the Little Rock 9, and federalized the Arkansas National Guard (which is a militia in Constitutional speak). LBJ federalized the Alabama National Guard to enforce the Civil Rights Act. Those are instances I can think of off the top of my head where the military was deployed domestically. I'm sure there are others. The point is you are hung up on foreign versus domestic actors for no particular reason other than convenience.

This leads us to 10 USC 251, 252 and 253. In particular, Section 252 grants the President authority to use the military when unlawful obstructions "against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings...." You do not seem to dispute that Article II vests the president with all executive power, including that of the commander in chief. 18 USC 2384 criminalizes seditious conspiracy. Seems like ole Joe would have no problem determining that Trump advocated overthrowing or destroying the government on January 6 and afterward with his own rhetoric and nonsense, which would fall under 18 USC 2385. Since you've decided that Trump will implement Project 2025 there's that too. I suspect there are other statutes that could be applicable as well.

I interpret "justified" to mean carry out an official act which would be immune under the recent Supreme Court decision.

So pull that trigger Joe. But, of course, it's all BS. Biden does not believe Trump is a threat to democracy. But even in his diminished state, ole Joe is certainly opportunistic enough to stoke fear for votes.

 

[Cougini5591]

The president is a figurehead. Sure there’s certain capabilities which are in his/her hands, but there’s a reason he/she has advisors on military operations, global economy, trade, disease, etc. You absolutely want the president being “advised” on all of these topics at all times because one person can’t be an expert in all of them, and one of their primary responsibilities is to surround themselves with people who are.

Of course in your world Trump is the end all be all knowing of all things, the chosen one, smarter than all scientists, more in tune with global affairs than all global diplomats combined, and has conference calls with Jesus Christ and the Pope weekly. And when he needs advice, which should be never, Jared and Ivanka are perfect choices.

Trump over Biden? Without question.

To think that makes a person 100% always/everything pro-Trump?

That's just flat out stupid.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

First, the military can and has operated within the geographic boundaries of the United States in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the various Indian wars. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to protect the Little Rock 9, and federalized the Arkansas National Guard (which is a militia in Constitutional speak). LBJ federalized the Alabama National Guard to enforce the Civil Rights Act. Those are instances I can think of off the top of my head where the military was deployed domestically. I'm sure there are others. The point is you are hung up on foreign versus domestic actors for no particular reason other than convenience.

This leads us to 10 USC 251, 252 and 253. In particular, Section 252 grants the President authority to use the military when unlawful obstructions "against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings...." You do not seem to dispute that Article II vests the president with all executive power, including that of the commander in chief. 18 USC 2384 criminalizes seditious conspiracy. Seems like ole Joe would have no problem determining that Trump advocated overthrowing or destroying the government on January 6 and afterward with his own rhetoric and nonsense, which would fall under 18 USC 2385. Since you've decided that Trump will implement Project 2025 there's that too. I suspect there are other statutes that could be applicable as well.

I interpret "justified" to mean carry out an official act which would be immune under the recent Supreme Court decision.

So pull that trigger Joe. But, of course, it's all BS. Biden does not believe Trump is a threat to democracy. But even in his diminished state, ole Joe is certainly opportunistic enough to stoke fear for votes.

I'm sure glad that I am not the client that you are billing today as you post a dozen or more times and do all this research. Me? I am just an early retired bum and have all day to do and say whatever the F I want.

Oh and wasn't the military or National Guard around when Wallace stood on the doorstep at Alabama? I only know this because I watched Forrest Gump.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Dude, I have seen various Hispanics vote without ID at the STA bus plaza.

So it is possible that a illegal alien immigrant undocumented, etc, non citizen Hispanic person could get away with voting.

This is why Voter ID is important.

No you have not. This is just a blatant lie.

 

[Observer11]

First, the military can and has operated within the geographic boundaries of the United States in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the various Indian wars. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to protect the Little Rock 9, and federalized the Arkansas National Guard (which is a militia in Constitutional speak). LBJ federalized the Alabama National Guard to enforce the Civil Rights Act. Those are instances I can think of off the top of my head where the military was deployed domestically. I'm sure there are others. The point is you are hung up on foreign versus domestic actors for no particular reason other than convenience.

This leads us to 10 USC 251, 252 and 253. In particular, Section 252 grants the President authority to use the military when unlawful obstructions "against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings...." You do not seem to dispute that Article II vests the president with all executive power, including that of the commander in chief. 18 USC 2384 criminalizes seditious conspiracy. Seems like ole Joe would have no problem determining that Trump advocated overthrowing or destroying the government on January 6 and afterward with his own rhetoric and nonsense, which would fall under 18 USC 2385. Since you've decided that Trump will implement Project 2025 there's that too. I suspect there are other statutes that could be applicable as well.

I interpret "justified" to mean carry out an official act which would be immune under the recent Supreme Court decision.

So pull that trigger Joe. But, of course, it's all BS. Biden does not believe Trump is a threat to democracy. But even in his diminished state, ole Joe is certainly opportunistic enough to stoke fear for votes.

Project 25 is a cannard to deflect from the true Agenda 47.

You already know that, I’m quite certain.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

First, the military can and has operated within the geographic boundaries of the United States in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the various Indian wars. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to protect the Little Rock 9, and federalized the Arkansas National Guard (which is a militia in Constitutional speak). LBJ federalized the Alabama National Guard to enforce the Civil Rights Act. Those are instances I can think of off the top of my head where the military was deployed domestically. I'm sure there are others. The point is you are hung up on foreign versus domestic actors for no particular reason other than convenience.

This leads us to 10 USC 251, 252 and 253. In particular, Section 252 grants the President authority to use the military when unlawful obstructions "against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings...." You do not seem to dispute that Article II vests the president with all executive power, including that of the commander in chief. 18 USC 2384 criminalizes seditious conspiracy. Seems like ole Joe would have no problem determining that Trump advocated overthrowing or destroying the government on January 6 and afterward with his own rhetoric and nonsense, which would fall under 18 USC 2385. Since you've decided that Trump will implement Project 2025 there's that too. I suspect there are other statutes that could be applicable as well.

I interpret "justified" to mean carry out an official act which would be immune under the recent Supreme Court decision.

So pull that trigger Joe. But, of course, it's all BS. Biden does not believe Trump is a threat to democracy. But even in his diminished state, ole Joe is certainly opportunistic enough to stoke fear for votes.

Thank you for providing your reasons. I disagree, of course. Under your broad interpretation Biden or any president can knock off any opponent without any fear whatsoever of punishment. Kinda like an old fashioned king. Do you think the founding fathers agree with your interpretation of intended presidential powers?

I think I explained my distinction between domestic and foreign. I would say you are hung up on the legal protections of the president towards foreign actors. Trump, as a domestic citizen, has legal rights that protect him from being knocked off simply because the current president claims he's an "existential threat". Do you disagree with this?
Do you really think the president would need to resort to military action against a US citizen (kill him) because there was no other course of action because all current resources or action "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings...."

Dgibbons, with all due respect, the founding fathers placed a procedure to remove a president for crimes as low as MISDEMEANORS. You really think the original intention was to allow ordering the killing a US citizen (without trial) for political gain or an alledged supreme benefit to the nation? As the kids say today, c'mon man! Taihtsat

 

[dgibbons]

Thank you for providing your reasons. I disagree, of course. Under your broad interpretation Biden or any president can knock off any opponent without any fear whatsoever of punishment. Kinda like an old fashioned king. Do you think the founding fathers agree with your interpretation of intended presidential powers?

I think I explained my distinction between domestic and foreign. I would say you are hung up on the legal protections of the president towards foreign actors. Trump, as a domestic citizen, has legal rights that protect him from being knocked off simply because the current president claims he's an "existential threat". Do you disagree with this?
Do you really think the president would need to resort to military action against a US citizen (kill him) because there was no other course of action because all current resources or action "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings...."

Dgibbons, with all due respect, the founding fathers placed a procedure to remove a president for crimes as low as MISDEMEANORS. You really think the original intention was to allow ordering the killing a US citizen (without trial) for political gain or an alledged supreme benefit to the nation? As the kids say today, c'mon man! Taihtsat

When do you admit that the “existential threat to democracy” rhetoric is BS?

I understand impeachment just fine. Sounds like you just discovered the concept. Locking up nearly 100,000 American citizens in internment camps without due process happened during World War II. Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated and had their property seized because they looked like the bad guys. FDR was not impeached.

When there is a genuine existential threat to democracy serious shit happens.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

When do you admit that the “existential threat to democracy” rhetoric is BS?

I understand impeachment just fine. Sounds like you just discovered the concept. Locking up nearly 100,000 American citizens in internment camps without due process happened during World War II. Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated and had their property seized because they looked like the bad guys. FDR was not impeached.

When there is a genuine existential threat to democracy serious shit happens.

I do realize this has been your angle all along (You don't need to be condescending, I haven't been with you). Instead of rolling out these dubious arguments that do not hold up. Simply stating "it's irresponsible for the leader of the free world to making such hyperbolic claims that really only serve to, at best exaggerate the threat and at worst radicalize a sizable portion of the electorate to whom knows what...don't you agree?" And I would.

But I also realize hyperbole is a main play in political campaigns. You don't really think trump is correct when he calls the press the "enemy of the people" do you? Or that his claim in late 2020 that the Democrats (and Biden) "Hurt the Bible. Hurt God. He's against God. He's against guns. He's against energy." And that (Biden and the Democrats would "Take away your guns, take away your Second Amendment. No religion, no anything," Is that rhetoric Bs?

But that didn't get you nearly as worked up as Biden portraying a former president whom (at best encouraged a mob to swarm and march on the capital and at worst incited a violent riot that disrupted a constitutionally democratic process. Oh, and still hasn't conceded that he lost a fair election...the ONLY former president to EVER do so.

I've asked you a number of pretty direct questions (in bold) that you have not addressed. I didn't actually suppose you could or credibly would. We're just having fun here anyway, and I've enjoyed it! Taihtsat

 

[dgibbons]

I do realize this has been your angle all along (You don't need to be condescending, I haven't been with you). Instead of rolling out these dubious arguments that do not hold up. Simply stating "it's irresponsible for the leader of the free world to making such hyperbolic claims that really only serve to, at best exaggerate the threat and at worst radicalize a sizable portion of the electorate to whom knows what...don't you agree?" And I would.

But I also realize hyperbole is a main play in political campaigns. You don't really think trump is correct when he calls the press the "enemy of the people" do you? Or that his claim in late 2020 that the Democrats (and Biden) "Hurt the Bible. Hurt God. He's against God. He's against guns. He's against energy." And that (Biden and the Democrats would "Take away your guns, take away your Second Amendment. No religion, no anything," Is that rhetoric Bs?

But that didn't get you nearly as worked up as Biden portraying a former president whom (at best encouraged a mob to swarm and march on the capital and at worst incited a violent riot that disrupted a constitutionally democratic process. Oh, and still hasn't conceded that he lost a fair election...the ONLY former president to EVER do so.

I've asked you a number of pretty direct questions (in bold) that you have not addressed. I didn't actually suppose you could or credibly would. We're just having fun here anyway, and I've enjoyed it! Taihtsat

I'm supposed to apologize for the Ds' rhetoric? Sorry, not happening.

Why haven't you been saying "it's irresponsible for the leader of the free world to making such hyperbolic claims that really only serve to, at best exaggerate the threat and at worst radicalize a sizable portion of the electorate"? If that is actually what you believe. Perhaps you should examine your personal failures as a citizen. Instead you're obviously happy to float along, getting spoon fed, and still believing what you're told no matter what your eyes and ears tell you.

And your moral superiority is noted. Talk about hyperbole.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I'm supposed to apologize for the Ds' rhetoric? Sorry, not happening.

Why haven't you been saying "it's irresponsible for the leader of the free world to making such hyperbolic claims that really only serve to, at best exaggerate the threat and at worst radicalize a sizable portion of the electorate"? If that is actually what you believe. Perhaps you should examine your personal failures as a citizen. Instead you're obviously happy to float along, getting spoon fed, and still believing what you're told no matter what your eyes and ears tell you.

And your moral superiority is noted. Talk about hyperbole.

Did I ask or suggest you apologize for biden's rhetoric? I wouldn't expect you to.

Why would I say it's irresponsible for biden to say that from the get go when that wasn't what I was pushing you on? Your argument has been that Biden should simply knock-off trump to save the democracy. THAT is what I've asked you to defend, and only that. You've refused to. I could point to a number of direct questions you've sidestepped.

We should all examine our personal failures as citizens. Take our debates for instance. I was kinda a dick to you several years ago in how I addressed you. That was a failing. I do actually enjoy a good spar and have with you. These can be fun and keep us sharp in our arguments.

We're not going to agree on this but, to me, it's enlightening to see how folks think and how they come to that thinking. You're one of the better ones at, at least, sticking around to give an argument for why you believe what you do. Most all the others either run and hide or resort to insults. Stretch is good too.

Anyway, I think he should drop out and they should elevate Harris. Crazy, I know. Taihtsat

 

[Coug90]

When do you admit that the “existential threat to democracy” rhetoric is BS?

I understand impeachment just fine. Sounds like you just discovered the concept. Locking up nearly 100,000 American citizens in internment camps without due process happened during World War II. Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated and had their property seized because they looked like the bad guys. FDR was not impeached.

When there is a genuine existential threat to democracy serious shit happens.

So, I get that your premise with this argument is that there’s no existential threat now. Trumps not in any position of power at the moment.

Are you really gonna say January 6th wasn’t “serious shit”? And that Trump had nothing to do with what transpired? I guess if you believe that it’s pretty easy to believe there hasn’t been nor would be an existential threat with him in power.

 

[dgibbons]

So, I get that your premise with this argument is that there’s no existential threat now. Trumps not in any position of power at the moment.

Are you really gonna say January 6th wasn’t “serious shit”? And that Trump had nothing to do with what transpired? I guess if you believe that it’s pretty easy to believe there hasn’t been nor would be an existential threat with him in power.

Existential threats are treated as existential threats.

 

[dgibbons]

Did I ask or suggest you apologize for biden's rhetoric? I wouldn't expect you to.

Why would I say it's irresponsible for biden to say that from the get go when that wasn't what I was pushing you on? Your argument has been that Biden should simply knock-off trump to save the democracy. THAT is what I've asked you to defend, and only that. You've refused to. I could point to a number of direct questions you've sidestepped.

We should all examine our personal failures as citizens. Take our debates for instance. I was kinda a dick to you several years ago in how I addressed you. That was a failing. I do actually enjoy a good spar and have with you. These can be fun and keep us sharp in our arguments.

We're not going to agree on this but, to me, it's enlightening to see how folks think and how they come to that thinking. You're one of the better ones at, at least, sticking around to give an argument for why you believe what you do. Most all the others either run and hide or resort to insults. Stretch is good too.

Anyway, I think he should drop out and they should elevate Harris. Crazy, I know. Taihtsat

Read better, think better. Stop polluting this board with lies. Point them out, and do it accurately and honestly. I went back and expressly answered the question you said I dodged. Be honest about every sidestep and deflection you've engaged in.

If Biden actually believed Trump was an existential threat to democracy he has all the authority and immunity he needs to eliminate that threat. Biden does not (nor do the Democrats at large) actually believe that. As commander in chief he has failed to act upon that supposed threat. The reason is that it's BS. But it resonates with base, and is great fear porn.

 

[Coug90]

Existential threats are treated as existential threats.

Answer the questions

 

[Stretch 74]

I do realize this has been your angle all along (You don't need to be condescending, I haven't been with you). Instead of rolling out these dubious arguments that do not hold up. Simply stating "it's irresponsible for the leader of the free world to making such hyperbolic claims that really only serve to, at best exaggerate the threat and at worst radicalize a sizable portion of the electorate to whom knows what...don't you agree?" And I would.

But I also realize hyperbole is a main play in political campaigns. You don't really think trump is correct when he calls the press the "enemy of the people" do you? Or that his claim in late 2020 that the Democrats (and Biden) "Hurt the Bible. Hurt God. He's against God. He's against guns. He's against energy." And that (Biden and the Democrats would "Take away your guns, take away your Second Amendment. No religion, no anything," Is that rhetoric Bs?

But that didn't get you nearly as worked up as Biden portraying a former president whom (at best encouraged a mob to swarm and march on the capital and at worst incited a violent riot that disrupted a constitutionally democratic process. Oh, and still hasn't conceded that he lost a fair election...the ONLY former president to EVER do so.

I've asked you a number of pretty direct questions (in bold) that you have not addressed. I didn't actually suppose you could or credibly would. We're just having fun here anyway, and I've enjoyed it! Taihtsat

I actually DO believe that the American MSM is the enemy of the people. They are supposed to be unbiased journalists and accurately report the news for the American public. They are not supposed to be try to influence those that read/listen/watch their products unless it is properly labeled as an opinion piece. Sadly, this no longer happens, and that is most definitely NOT in the American public's best interest.

 

[Stretch 74]

Did I ask or suggest you apologize for biden's rhetoric? I wouldn't expect you to.

Why would I say it's irresponsible for biden to say that from the get go when that wasn't what I was pushing you on? Your argument has been that Biden should simply knock-off trump to save the democracy. THAT is what I've asked you to defend, and only that. You've refused to. I could point to a number of direct questions you've sidestepped.

We should all examine our personal failures as citizens. Take our debates for instance. I was kinda a dick to you several years ago in how I addressed you. That was a failing. I do actually enjoy a good spar and have with you. These can be fun and keep us sharp in our arguments.

We're not going to agree on this but, to me, it's enlightening to see how folks think and how they come to that thinking. You're one of the better ones at, at least, sticking around to give an argument for why you believe what you do. Most all the others either run and hide or resort to insults. Stretch is good too.

Anyway, I think he should drop out and they should elevate Harris. Crazy, I know. Taihtsat

You better be careful or you just might ruin my reputation!

 

[justinbgocougs]

Nobody wanted Kamala, not the black population or the democrats.

She is a cackling moron that is in her position not because of her merit but strictly because of her skin color.

 

[dgibbons]

Answer the questions

OK. All true. Trump = existential threat. So, Joe has to pull the trigger, right?