scoobdog

That's what I'm thinking as well. In fact, it's more likely than not that President would have had no immunity at the time of the Constitution's writing. The federal code was far less complete than it is right now, especially as a lot of the laws covered under the state at the time have been expanded to the Fed as the government has expanded its responsibilities. Some of the crimes Trump is accused of wouldn't have existed in the 1790s, like the presidential records laws, and things like "insurrection" would have been defined differently. I doubt the founding fathers would have anticipated having a bunch of goons showing up to disrupt an otherwise ceremonial proceeding at the behest of president who clearly has no idea how the government works. Having a catch-all outlet of impeachment would have covered most, if not all, conceivable crimes by a renegade chief executive. When it comes to election interference, I think the interesting thing is that this was always supposed to be a state issue. The states were supposed to handle their own business when it came to elections - the federal government only needed to make sure that each state had equal representation (regardless of population and economic importance). No state governor or legislature would ever allow the president to come in and push the state to throw an election. Part of that was an intrinsic faith in the institutions (like the specific makeup of the senate, House of Representative caps, and the electoral college) implemented to ensure that each state had an equal measure of determination. Part of it was the fact that each state still had a fairly robust militia to enforce their guaranteed rights. All of that changed with the Secession and ensuing Civil War. Aside from the fact Constitutional Originalism is fundamentally flawed because of everything that happened after the mid 19th century, it ignores the logical fact that now system of government exists without evolution. You can't interpret what someone would have intended with a broad guarantee of rights when it's likely the issues addressed wouldn't have been conceivable.

Just wanted to point out: You're telling us that you would rather have Bobo the Clown dictate greenhouse gas emissions than someone with a ph.D who conducted thirty years of studies determining the correlation between CO2 buildup in the upper atmosphere. That's not a failure of congress, that's a failure or logic - even if congress is completely populated with the illuminati (lol) they still have to defer to the scientific underpinnings of their decisions.

It’s something I use to mow down little children and slow moving adults…. so a battle wagon.

Happy Birthday, Sieg!

There are any number of excuses for saying she’s a bad candidate but most of it is bullshit. She certainly wasn’t the progressive AG Bonta is, but for all the performative display he doesn’t have any better results at curbing killer cops. I really don’t get the lack of personality thing; she’s just fine all the times she’s shown up on the local news (since she lives in LA). It maybe more that she keeps a low national profile. When it comes down to it, she a moderate democrat WOC which is antithetical to “safe” white male democrats and progressive democrats looking for a true liberal. That doesn’t mean she’s a good candidate, just that the only reason she’s personally disliked is because she’s a woman. It’s for that reason she would still have to be the front runner to replace Biden this election. She’s close enough to Biden to be a seemless transition with the same platform, and she’s a proven politician that has national credentials while being a non-white woman.

Happy Birthday UEMBER who might have come here to see Mexobioligist and left here severely disappointed…. just like Viper.

If it's that plastic faced governor of ND, it's not going to be good. I honestly don't understand why Harris isn't more popular than she is, but she would be an infinitely more capable President than the brown noser Trump comes up with.

I saw only a few seconds of Joe Biden speaking and I instantly knew why it was coming off bad. Dude's trying to suppress the stutter most people seem to have forgotten he's had his whole life.

Only if Trump pulls out a taser and accidentally tases himself in the melee.

Or, write in vote for the candidate. It worked for Lisa Murkowski when the Palin split the votes for Alaska's senate seat, so it could easily work for Colorado.

Happy Birthday!

Just goes to show STDs are a real bitch to get rid of.

I think that's mostly a here thing because it doesn't sound like the people he deals with IRL are receptive to anything. Just about everyone here would be receptive if he was just a tad bit more open about is history and motivations. He doesn't give anyone a chance when he drops these ultra vague tidbits about abuse only to immediately clam up as soon as pressed for more information, so I get where the anger comes from. Either don't talk about it at all if you're not ready to talk, or respond when people press you with something other than "ok".

Don't ruin the moment!

Now that is a legit unpopular opinion in these parts.

Look, the point isn't to get the guy in trouble. He already knows it's fucked up and he shouldn't be thinking it, but a lot goes into getting a severely corrupted perspective like that. The best way to diffuse it is letting him explain without him worrying that everyone is going to tear him to shreds.

Oh no you don’t. Even if you know it’s wrong, you said it because you believe there is a correlation and, specifically, you have an issue with pot and its adherents. Why do you dislike pot and pot smokers? It doesn’t have to be a reason you justify, just say what it is so you can dispel it.

Good.

What is the point of saying "...but the quote-and-unquote abusers are also heavy cannabis smokers..,"?

Once again, that's abuse. You assuming that all cannabis users are going to attack you is not the same thing as abusive people attacking you because of your neurodivergence. There's no but here: you're lumping in a lot of different people in the "ableist" category that are behaving in ways counter to your reasoning.

That's a dangerous correlation to make. That's suggesting people who use mj have a specific personality which is not only unfounded, but grossly unfair.

That's not what he's parodying though. In the age of Trump, it's easy to see the sycophants as the danger to freedom, when it's actually those who cling to an ideal that are the true danger.

You know he’s a parody character, right?

You do that and you’re going to end up having R_ACG as your president.

Uh. Why?