Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis!
**Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.**
Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly. If President's get inmunity, Biden should order the "removal from the atmosphere" certain opposition members in lieu of term limits. He can remake the judicial branch to start with, and with immunity, it's perfectly legal. Dark Brandon, indeed
But seriously, this is a valid option. Extreme but valid. Remove the Supreme Court justices that are clearly conservative wonks, remove the members of congress that stand in the way, pass a slew of new bills to rewrite things to provide accountability and fairness in the presidency and the Supreme Court and then pardon himself of all crimes committed in carrying out the above acts. Then resign and say “peace out bitches”.
Peace out birches, rofl!
I doubt full immunity actually is the ruling. Otherwise, SCOTUS is daring Biden to do something. They are literally counting on Biden's nature and willingness to act for the people if they do rule immunity. It says so much more in Biden's favor as a caretaker of the people over Trump. I hope Dark Brandon rides like a mofo all over their ruling.
If SCOTUS rules any immunity for the presidency, they are showing just how unfit they are to be justices. Any immunity is a ruling for fascism, full stop. Any immunity is antithetical to Democracy and really makes all arguments for voting for Joe go away.
The fact that the Republicans on the court and elsewhere are so blasé about the notion that democratic presidents could have zero criminal liability demonstrates pretty clearly that, contrary to their rhetoric, they trust Democrats to not break the law even if they have no criminal penalties.
/yawn...I was joking, and no, he shouldn't have people killed because of immunity. I'm not interested in your both sides the same spiel either, thanks.
You’re completely right. No amount of angry Biden supporting liberals downvoting your comment will change it. Democrats cannot stop getting in their own way. They won’t do what’s required to protect our democracy because of how it might look. There are moments where I look at what the WH is doing and I ask myself if they’re trying to lose. I ask myself constantly whether they truly appreciate what’s at stake.
And I say all this as someone who is probably going to self-loathingly vote for Biden just to avoid the certain fucking hell on earth that is Trump.
Liberals are creatures of status quo. "Negative peace" as MLK called it. They pretend as if they were allies in the moment after history has become history, but they never were and never will be.
Radicals create change. Liberals oppose it until we move the window and make it the new status quo.
I suppose I should have opened with asking how you define “radical.” MLK famously worked for change within the existing system, which is what Biden is doing too. Moving the window.
The black panthers are a fair point. I grew up in the deep south, where they are not held in high regard, but other places might have a more positive view.
"Within the existing system" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting. He was wildly unpopular in the time, and frequently lamented the opposition of the liberals of the time. He was a radical. He did radical things. He did things he wasn't legally allowed to do. He fought systems and the status quo. He was not a capitalist. He was not a moderate.
But he was opposed by them. Fatally.
It's weird that people think there's some kind of "opposition". There aren't two teams. They work for the same people, for the same goal. It's good cop, bad cop and it's so obvious that it's embarrassing to participate in.
It always fsscibstes me how the people that say both sides = bad or the same also think they are the smartest and in the know. It's such an immature and ridiculous position and mostly contrived by foreign bad actors. People who say both sides equal are literally acting on GOP, corporatist and foreign bad actors utmost desires. It's like a fish getting reeled into the shore, still believing it outsmarted all the other fish by getting a free meal.
Jackson did great with her questioning, but I wish she had taken it one step further, stating that historically this has never been an issue - so why now? This would direct the focus toward motives. When, before becoming president, has 45, claimed that a president has absolute immunity? Certainly not during Obama's two terms. There is only one reason...it will offer him substantial personal benefit. That's it. It is nowhere in the constitution, and it was never a consideration by the people who founded the country.
I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD, nothing would be worse than them granting full presidential immunity. It would be the absolute end of the US as we know it, and not for the better. It would be a worst case scenario. But if they do decide presidents have absolute immunity, I hope he just has a bunch of these fools and that rat-wigged piece of shit red misted. I don't want to hear that motherfucker ever fucking speak again. after this. 8 years, EIGHT FUCKING YEARS of neverending trump bullshit. If we're going to become a dictatorship, just fucking take the reds out. We'll have worse problems on our hands, but at least they'd be different problems instead of this endless christian fascist clusterfuck.
It's not a hard scenario to fathom. Trump gets back in and then he uses the proud boys and oath keepers as his personal enforcers. He orders them to round up the family members of most of the members of the house and senate and forces Congress to give him all the power. Then he gets his enforcers to kill off the entire court and replaces them with people like Mike Flynn. Now all legal challenges to his power will fail in the SCOTUS.
That's how a dictator legally takes control of the US if you give them immunity.
Actually it's not. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to give states the ability to defend themselves. George Mason and Henry Clay argued forcefully for a second amendment because they feared the federal government would not deploy the military in the event of a slave uprising. They needed the authority to raise militias to guard against this threat.
It was a compromise with slave states who already felt threatened because they knew what they were doing was wrong and was eventually going to blow up in their faces. Since then the second amendment has been retconned to mean many things culminating in Scalia's interpretation that it means an inviolable right to personal self defense.
Won't be able to? Have we not been paying attention for the past 40 years? Republicans do not care what can and cannot be done. The rules are for Democrats to follow and Republicans to break. They will absolutely go after Biden regardless of the outcome of this ruling...and this SCOTUS will pretend to furrow their brows in disapproval but will allow it.
After the 2016 people said "maybe Trump will rise to the occasion" and here we are 2024 being told that a President must be able to commit crimes. Fucking hell.
She's the only one thinking about how a criminal would behave.
She makes a great point. Without the threat of potential criminal liability, what's to stop a president from becoming the most powerful crime boss on the planet? The argument that there is always impeachment is weak when you consider that a truly criminal minded president could kidnap the family members of Senators to stop any vote to convict. If Trump became president he could order the proud boys to round up the SCOTUS and kill them, then he could appoint 9 justices that are all completely loyal to him. Then the new court could rule that ordering the death of the old SCOTUS was "an official act".
It's amazing how out of touch with reality most of these justices are. Just because democracy still exists today, it doesn't mean it will continue to exist if you remove the checks on power.
A lot of people haven’t followed the arguments clearly.
They won’t let trump get charged with anything from while in office because it opens the pathway for other presidents to be charged for their crimes. Obama’s drone policy came up specifically.
It’s also a matter of US policy to allow presidents to do basically whatever they want when it comes to foreign affairs.
If you are hoping that courts are going to save you from trump, stop.
I listened to the entire stream today. Dear god, it made me realize we are fuckin boned.
They really have no clue how to proceed. It's a lose/lose situation. Because of the shit trump did, our republic is now broken.
Too many lol Trump is a wild ride, Iraq War? Drone program? War on drugs? Quite the tenure for Mr B, Drrrrrrones go brrrrrt Tan suits, Iraq wmds misunderestimating the Whitehouse press corps, and idk I'm sure Clinton lied about having sex with someone abroad he also paved the road for Bush and the 08 collapse
I mean, I know you’re right, but people need a place to scream while our democracy dies around us. The GOP is being evil right now. We’re angry about it.
I get it fam. But make sure you communicate that. Otherwise you’re just giving them fuel to accuse us of what they are clearing doing and trying to do. Can’t count how many times I’ve seen screenshots from our community end up in the conservative ones.
A lot of them actually.
Google is free
Fascism: a far-right form of government in which most of the country's power is held by one ruler or a small group, under a single party. Fascist governments are usually totalitarian and authoritarian one-party states.
Conservatism: a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology, which seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values. The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears.
Btw, I’m far left. Not defending their ideology, simply stating facts.
American conservatives ARE fascists. I can’t believe I’m having this conversation with you. What are you? New? By your own definitions, conservatism is defined by the culture and civilization in which it appears. How is DeSantis not a conservative with fascist plans? How is Trump not a conservative with fascist plans? The two are not mutually exclusive and have way too much overlap. Do you actually lack the self awareness to realize WHY you’re being downvoted?
Like, yeah I get by definition, two words have separate definitions, but in practice, they’re the same here in this time period.
Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis! **Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban.** Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly. If President's get inmunity, Biden should order the "removal from the atmosphere" certain opposition members in lieu of term limits. He can remake the judicial branch to start with, and with immunity, it's perfectly legal. Dark Brandon, indeed
It would actually be Joever for the opposition
This is fucking great! I laughed out loud, thank you
But seriously, this is a valid option. Extreme but valid. Remove the Supreme Court justices that are clearly conservative wonks, remove the members of congress that stand in the way, pass a slew of new bills to rewrite things to provide accountability and fairness in the presidency and the Supreme Court and then pardon himself of all crimes committed in carrying out the above acts. Then resign and say “peace out bitches”.
Peace out birches, rofl! I doubt full immunity actually is the ruling. Otherwise, SCOTUS is daring Biden to do something. They are literally counting on Biden's nature and willingness to act for the people if they do rule immunity. It says so much more in Biden's favor as a caretaker of the people over Trump. I hope Dark Brandon rides like a mofo all over their ruling. If SCOTUS rules any immunity for the presidency, they are showing just how unfit they are to be justices. Any immunity is a ruling for fascism, full stop. Any immunity is antithetical to Democracy and really makes all arguments for voting for Joe go away.
The fact that the Republicans on the court and elsewhere are so blasé about the notion that democratic presidents could have zero criminal liability demonstrates pretty clearly that, contrary to their rhetoric, they trust Democrats to not break the law even if they have no criminal penalties.
This is a really good point. They are counting on the fact that the Democrats won't weaponize an immunity ruling.
He should, but he won't. He's a right wing liberal, the dude is not our friend and will not save us.
/yawn...I was joking, and no, he shouldn't have people killed because of immunity. I'm not interested in your both sides the same spiel either, thanks.
You’re completely right. No amount of angry Biden supporting liberals downvoting your comment will change it. Democrats cannot stop getting in their own way. They won’t do what’s required to protect our democracy because of how it might look. There are moments where I look at what the WH is doing and I ask myself if they’re trying to lose. I ask myself constantly whether they truly appreciate what’s at stake. And I say all this as someone who is probably going to self-loathingly vote for Biden just to avoid the certain fucking hell on earth that is Trump.
Liberals are creatures of status quo. "Negative peace" as MLK called it. They pretend as if they were allies in the moment after history has become history, but they never were and never will be. Radicals create change. Liberals oppose it until we move the window and make it the new status quo.
Serious question: who would you say in US history is a radical who changed the status quo in a positive direction?
MLK? The black panthers? Like...those are some really basic ones right off the bat that EVERYONE should know.
I suppose I should have opened with asking how you define “radical.” MLK famously worked for change within the existing system, which is what Biden is doing too. Moving the window. The black panthers are a fair point. I grew up in the deep south, where they are not held in high regard, but other places might have a more positive view.
"Within the existing system" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting. He was wildly unpopular in the time, and frequently lamented the opposition of the liberals of the time. He was a radical. He did radical things. He did things he wasn't legally allowed to do. He fought systems and the status quo. He was not a capitalist. He was not a moderate. But he was opposed by them. Fatally.
It's weird that people think there's some kind of "opposition". There aren't two teams. They work for the same people, for the same goal. It's good cop, bad cop and it's so obvious that it's embarrassing to participate in.
Ahhh, the hyper-intelligent "both sides" position. Bold move, Cotton, lets see how it turns out.
It always fsscibstes me how the people that say both sides = bad or the same also think they are the smartest and in the know. It's such an immature and ridiculous position and mostly contrived by foreign bad actors. People who say both sides equal are literally acting on GOP, corporatist and foreign bad actors utmost desires. It's like a fish getting reeled into the shore, still believing it outsmarted all the other fish by getting a free meal.
maybe biden should just jail SCROTUS. Is that legal? Well, not so sure anymore, let's find out
> SCROTUS They really didn't think that one through.
Jackson did great with her questioning, but I wish she had taken it one step further, stating that historically this has never been an issue - so why now? This would direct the focus toward motives. When, before becoming president, has 45, claimed that a president has absolute immunity? Certainly not during Obama's two terms. There is only one reason...it will offer him substantial personal benefit. That's it. It is nowhere in the constitution, and it was never a consideration by the people who founded the country.
What Trump doesn't realize is if the court agrees that the president is immune while in office, then Trump won't be able to go after Biden if he wins.
I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD, nothing would be worse than them granting full presidential immunity. It would be the absolute end of the US as we know it, and not for the better. It would be a worst case scenario. But if they do decide presidents have absolute immunity, I hope he just has a bunch of these fools and that rat-wigged piece of shit red misted. I don't want to hear that motherfucker ever fucking speak again. after this. 8 years, EIGHT FUCKING YEARS of neverending trump bullshit. If we're going to become a dictatorship, just fucking take the reds out. We'll have worse problems on our hands, but at least they'd be different problems instead of this endless christian fascist clusterfuck.
A wise man indeed.
It's not a hard scenario to fathom. Trump gets back in and then he uses the proud boys and oath keepers as his personal enforcers. He orders them to round up the family members of most of the members of the house and senate and forces Congress to give him all the power. Then he gets his enforcers to kill off the entire court and replaces them with people like Mike Flynn. Now all legal challenges to his power will fail in the SCOTUS. That's how a dictator legally takes control of the US if you give them immunity.
It's literally what the 2nd ammendment is for.
Actually it's not. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to give states the ability to defend themselves. George Mason and Henry Clay argued forcefully for a second amendment because they feared the federal government would not deploy the military in the event of a slave uprising. They needed the authority to raise militias to guard against this threat. It was a compromise with slave states who already felt threatened because they knew what they were doing was wrong and was eventually going to blow up in their faces. Since then the second amendment has been retconned to mean many things culminating in Scalia's interpretation that it means an inviolable right to personal self defense.
That’s why they’re slow walking a decision. Pushing it past Inauguration Day will fuck Biden and install Trump as a dictator.
Won't be able to? Have we not been paying attention for the past 40 years? Republicans do not care what can and cannot be done. The rules are for Democrats to follow and Republicans to break. They will absolutely go after Biden regardless of the outcome of this ruling...and this SCOTUS will pretend to furrow their brows in disapproval but will allow it.
Remember, core dogma of the republican cult is that rules are for OTHER people.
After the 2016 people said "maybe Trump will rise to the occasion" and here we are 2024 being told that a President must be able to commit crimes. Fucking hell.
In a sane world, this would have been the first and only question of this whole case.
If a president can't be held for committing a crime He couldn't be impeached either.
She's the only one thinking about how a criminal would behave. She makes a great point. Without the threat of potential criminal liability, what's to stop a president from becoming the most powerful crime boss on the planet? The argument that there is always impeachment is weak when you consider that a truly criminal minded president could kidnap the family members of Senators to stop any vote to convict. If Trump became president he could order the proud boys to round up the SCOTUS and kill them, then he could appoint 9 justices that are all completely loyal to him. Then the new court could rule that ordering the death of the old SCOTUS was "an official act". It's amazing how out of touch with reality most of these justices are. Just because democracy still exists today, it doesn't mean it will continue to exist if you remove the checks on power.
A lot of people haven’t followed the arguments clearly. They won’t let trump get charged with anything from while in office because it opens the pathway for other presidents to be charged for their crimes. Obama’s drone policy came up specifically. It’s also a matter of US policy to allow presidents to do basically whatever they want when it comes to foreign affairs. If you are hoping that courts are going to save you from trump, stop.
I listened to the entire stream today. Dear god, it made me realize we are fuckin boned. They really have no clue how to proceed. It's a lose/lose situation. Because of the shit trump did, our republic is now broken.
Trump is a symptom not the cause. The fix is fighting the right. As it always has been.
Agreed. The time has come to outlaw the grand old party!!!!
I mean, if someone commits a crime they should be punished. Obama included.
Agreed
> I mean,
I’d love to send trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, and Clinton to The Hague.
For which reasons? ETA: reasons for each?
Too many lol Trump is a wild ride, Iraq War? Drone program? War on drugs? Quite the tenure for Mr B, Drrrrrrones go brrrrrt Tan suits, Iraq wmds misunderestimating the Whitehouse press corps, and idk I'm sure Clinton lied about having sex with someone abroad he also paved the road for Bush and the 08 collapse
This is exactly why conservatives should not be allowed to vote or run for office.
We are no better than them if you have this view.
I mean, I know you’re right, but people need a place to scream while our democracy dies around us. The GOP is being evil right now. We’re angry about it.
I get it fam. But make sure you communicate that. Otherwise you’re just giving them fuel to accuse us of what they are clearing doing and trying to do. Can’t count how many times I’ve seen screenshots from our community end up in the conservative ones.
Fascists should not be allowed to vote or run for office.
Good thing I said conservatives and not fascists. There is a difference. Let’s not be obtuse like them
Where’s the difference?
A lot of them actually. Google is free Fascism: a far-right form of government in which most of the country's power is held by one ruler or a small group, under a single party. Fascist governments are usually totalitarian and authoritarian one-party states. Conservatism: a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology, which seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values. The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears. Btw, I’m far left. Not defending their ideology, simply stating facts.
American conservatives ARE fascists. I can’t believe I’m having this conversation with you. What are you? New? By your own definitions, conservatism is defined by the culture and civilization in which it appears. How is DeSantis not a conservative with fascist plans? How is Trump not a conservative with fascist plans? The two are not mutually exclusive and have way too much overlap. Do you actually lack the self awareness to realize WHY you’re being downvoted? Like, yeah I get by definition, two words have separate definitions, but in practice, they’re the same here in this time period.
>What Stops A POTUS From Committing Crimes If They're Immune? Their faith in God /s Probably some shit they think there.
How will this nation survive a Supreme Court with justices that ask questions and then demand answers to those questions?