troph

I think you and many fail to realize what "switching" means from an operational standpoint. It's not a light switch. There are machines built by campaigns over years in some cases. It would not be an easy thing to do to switch, it might even be next to impossible with enough time to guarantee a better outcome. no time to iterate on messaging, no time to build up a staff, you hope the biden campaign team just moves over in support. in theory that makes sense, but it's not going to be clean, quick or easy. and we have only 120 days.

his position is 100% understandable. I share it. But I will vote for a corpse because of fascism.

regulated capitalism is the best system we've come up with to date. exactly. one of many forms of deregulation in the last 40 years.

that's a more traditional analysis of "qualified immunity" which if applied correctly would result in these kinds of findings. It's why I had a hard time figuring out what was so bad, I assumed initially that absolute immunity was for things like pardon, going to war, appointing judges, etc. and that the rest was qualified on official or unofficial acts where ALL evidence is germane. She's attacking the most relevant evidence is deemed irrelevant. Hey, if he's wearing the flag pin on his lapel, it's official, immune. She's somewhere much closer to normal on a qualified immunity framework. If Barrett had the pen for the majority, we would probably be "okay" in some sense, though if she acquiesced to absolute immunity for conversations with the AG no matter the subject - which I think she did - then we are still turbo fucked. I still contend the analysis should be unofficial includes ultra vires acts even in your official capacity. act in question is criminal? yes. You knew it was criminal? yes. you did it anyway? yes. There is clear evidence? yes. Ok, not an official act, no immunity.

I think he was way more than that, but I could be wrong.

people didn't watch him shoot the shit with voters at the wafflehouse at 1am after the debate either. He was grandpa old but he was in his element and did great even had a repeatable zinger "it's hard to debate a liar." I don't know what happened, I honestly think it's a function of (i) age - acknowledging some kind of decline, (ii) stuttering is coming back (hard to control as you age), (iii) a slight panic attack at the mile a minute lies, (iv) he was coached to be someone other than "look here" folksy grandpa Joe, (v) a cold, and (vi) later in the evening. But all of us are navel gazing about Biden, Trump was an angry lying asshole. He's not gaining ground on his performance, it was abysmal. all of that said, I would prefer a different candidate, but I think there is a real concern about the logistical ability to switch - the campaign funding apparatus, the campaign staffing, the intel, and the GOTV apparatus. These things are "owned" mostly by the candidate and built over years, not days. There are also interconnections with other organizations, GOTV non-profits, etc. etc. that will be disrupted to some extent. Biden's campaign, even if you handed it ALL over to the next candidate is not going to simply keep running as is. Switching 120 days out is a very dangerous move. so in this set of circumstances, I will vote Dem no matter what. Anyone who sees Trump as a threat should do the same, and maybe, just maybe in four years its Kamala or Gavin versus Haley and we can have a real debate about the candidates.

My hope is that the worst of it turns the US into two separate kinds of states, almost two unions in one (gee that worked last time didn't it?), blue states and red states and SCOTUS and the feds (taken over by the fascists) make the feds an awful place for "others" allowing red states to do the same, but still allowing blue states to be accommodating to "others". If that's it, we just play a nationwide musical chairs and we leave for a blue state and they leave for a red state and we all self-segregate. I actually think this is the most likely scenario. But I'm not stupid, I know it could go farther.

islands aren't safe (hurricanes). Southern Europe is burning hot these days. and fascism is on the rise everywhere. Right now I think Portugal, Costa Rica (maybe even in the mountains), shit where else? Northern Europe maybe. South Pacific is hotAF.

once I find a safe place, i'll do that. i did the first 2 years of the biden admin, it was great.

My wife is annoyed with me too and we are in Colorado working and supposed to be checking out otherwise and enjoying the weather and outdoors.

I’m talking about the rise in fascism in Europe and Canada. The US is leading but they are close behind.

The problem is where we go the rest of the western world will follow. So there’s really no where to go.

I’m just trying to cope while I drink a cup of coffee man. Why you gotta put ice in it?

I agree I think the current felonies should be upheld. I also think there is a chance some of the remaining indictments will survive, but the damage is done, weaponizing the DOJ has been ruled as subject to absolute immunity.

Done. Love it. In fact we will call it the Loving Act. Now give me money for my campaign.

im good with that 100%. I honestly would say no restrictions but it seems some are required. so I would revise to no restrictions until viability. That’s 22-24 weeks now? ps sorry for not thinking it through I was thinking and typing too fast.

Abolish electoral college, pack the court, reverse Dobbs/ codify the right to choose (see below) troph the tranny for president. hi I’m troph and I approve this message.

I have no problem with immunity for prosecution let’s say for GWB and war crimes - he sought legal counsel, got it, right or wrong, forced or unforced he relied on legal advice. Torture is criminal, a violation of international law but I would say he is immune. That’s an egregious example too. That analysis was (pun intended) tortured. immunity from prosecution should not apply to criminal acts where POTUS knows it’s criminal, takes the criminal act anyway, and there is clear evidence of both. this decision says illegality is relevant, motive is irrelevant, evidence of the illegality is irrelevant. you are saying illegality is irrelevant but my response is standing alone, fine. GWB executive orders re torture were criminal. But at least from the surface his motive was to follow the law and he did not know his acts were criminal hence the request for and following a legal opinion from White House counsel. His motives make him fully immune in that case. here we have multiple criminal acts, legal advice telling Trump it’s illegal, motives clear to violate the law, and pristine evidence of his violations of criminal statutes. immunity should protect GWB here and not trump.

Dream campaign: 1. constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college and elect the president and vice president by popular vote. 2. Codify the right to chose with no questions asked early abortion (before age of viability), health and safety of the mother and viability of the fetus after that with immunity for doctors acting in good faith. Also repeal Dobbs see 4 below. 3. Pack the court to 15 to ensure radical shifts from left to right and right to left nearly impossible. 4. Promise to appoint justices that will undue blatant disrespect to stare decisis and undue the last four years of garbage decisions. Then have them do it over 2-3 years. 5. Revamp impeachment rules and eligibility rules judges. 6. codify abuse of power, obstruction of justice and misuse of the DOJ along with clear language there is not absolute presidential immunity - do this with a constitutional amendment if necessary. 7. Expand EPA powers to include regulation of greenhouse gasses and fund $500 billion or more per year on climate change initiatives for the next 20 years. Time to fucking go. 8. pass the equality act making LGBTQ people full class citizens (note reproductive status and veteran status are also included in that language). 9. Modernize voting rights act to ensure all citizens have an easy path to vote and end political and racial gerrymandering. 10. Term limits for congress. 6 terms / 12 years for congressmen and women, 4 terms / 24 years for senators.

“We believe the alternate slate of electors was an official act of the presidency.” that needs to be put on blast.

I was awake at 3am thinking about judicial impeachments too, I don’t like the idea I don’t like packing the court but what is left for us to do? this court has given the Johnny cash middle finger to stare decisis. The notion that the court can just do whatever it wants is now here. Is that ok? republican voters don’t even realize this court is against them too.

How could I forget that one, I guess so much has happened in 3 years. provided we defeat Trump in November it will be his Court that proves to be the greater threat than him.

This is a fun thread now!

Sotomayor quoted the federalist papers in a bit of a “what the fuck?” response to Roberts using originalism against them. i may read the opinion later but I’ve been reading about it, quotes from it and listening to a number of analyses - this is a sneaky opinion with a nothing burger headline - we lawyers all understand the idea of qualified immunity no big deal - this opinion is wildly not that. It’s arguably one of the most dangerous opinions the court has ever given. Not hyperbole.

Nina Totenberg was on Maddow and said the scholars she’s talked to both conservative and liberal thought the court gave Trump more than he even asked for. she highlighted Barrett’s concurring opinion where she disagreed with the majority in their ruling that the actions taken in an official capacity could not be used as evidence in a claim of official versus unofficial acts - example being a bribe for a pardon. she also said that maybe the court wouldn’t agree but based on the opinion it is a reasonable interpretation to conclude the president can use the the DOJ for personal revenge, and that yes Nixon should be given his presidency back (maddow’s words but she agreed). Totenberg seemed solemn but still rather shocked. She mentioned that scholars of her age assumed this was settled law in US vs Nixon. I think the key issues are narrowed to four points: (1) core constitutional acts are absolutely immune - this outlined in the opinion and held that conversations with the AG are exactly that, (2) with respect to official immunity the determination of official versus unofficial cannot consider (i) legality of the act, (ii) presidential motivations, and (iii) the actual acts taken in that official capacity (i.e. the actual bribe). In essence, the only question is if POTUS didn’t know it was illegal, didn’t intent to break the law, and didn’t break the law would it be an official act? If yes then immune. again, absolute immunity for abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and blatantly illegal acts while acting as president cloaked in language of qualified immunity.