|
Post by Haighus on Jul 3, 2024 9:52:40 GMT -5
It does cover all presidents, but as I've seen pointed out elsewhere, it is only going to be abusable by presidents who surround themselves with yes men and women who are willing to carry out immoral actions if the president orders them. Most presidents have held to standards and conventions and are limited by this and those they have appointed.
Trump has demonstrated he is not, which is why the timing is so worrying.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 435
|
Post by skyth on Jul 3, 2024 9:59:01 GMT -5
And there's the lie about 'lawfare'. Big surprise Whinely lies again...
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Jul 3, 2024 10:59:20 GMT -5
I think there is a division between foreign and domestic. You could argue that a President has far more leeway on foreign matters (like drone strikes), but that on the domestic front they are not entitled to breaking the law in their position.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 981
Member is Online
|
Post by herzlos on Jul 3, 2024 11:20:12 GMT -5
I think they should be allowed to break the law where it's necessary for the state and justified in advance to something like the SC or a board of military leaders.
There should be no retrospective immunity.
So ordering a drone strike would be OK (if justified), accounting fraud wouldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Jul 3, 2024 12:19:15 GMT -5
And there's the lie about 'lawfare'. Big surprise Whinely lies again... Big surprise you're still the dumbshit I know you to be.
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Jul 3, 2024 13:54:05 GMT -5
And there's the lie about 'lawfare'. Big surprise Whinely lies again... I was going to say, people started responding to him like they'd forgotten who he was. Glad to see it didn't take long for him to unmask, like he did just above. Hopefully people remember to ignore him just like they ignore the dummy account that popped back up a few days ago, he's not here to discuss
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 3, 2024 17:07:11 GMT -5
And there's the lie about 'lawfare'. Big surprise Whinely lies again... Big surprise you're still the dumbshit I know you to be.
There's the partisan moron I remember, I knew it wouldn't take you long to resort to lying and insults once you get boxed into a corner again. Maybe instead of bleating about "lawfare" you should ask yourself the difficult questions about why you support a confessed pedophile with a criminal record a mile long.
|
|
nfe
OT Cowboy
Posts: 204
|
Post by nfe on Jul 3, 2024 17:44:26 GMT -5
To present another candidate, Biden has to stand down right? Can Democrats select a different nominee if the sitting president wants to run?
Don't know if a new candidate would strengthen their chances at this stage but they're going to lose so you'd think it might as well be worth a punt.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 981
Member is Online
|
Post by herzlos on Jul 3, 2024 18:05:01 GMT -5
I think the party can vote for another candidate even if Biden is running, but he's got such a majority it's not worth it.
I'm seeing some rumours that Biden is considering standing down, which would be good. You deserve a younger president and he deserves to enjoy a retirement.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 3, 2024 18:59:24 GMT -5
To present another candidate, Biden has to stand down right?
Technically Biden isn't even the official nominee yet because the convention has not happened, he's just running unchallenged. And primary elections are not binding, the party is free to use whatever process they like for selecting their candidate. It would just be a PR disaster if they ignored a clear primary result in favor of an alternative candidate without an extremely good reason (major scandal, etc) for doing so and would likely cost them the election. But if the party wished to do so they could replace Biden with someone else regardless of Biden's desire to run again. They won't, but they theoretically could. Yes. "The current president is always the nominee" is merely tradition and strategy, there is no binding requirement. It is unlikely to happen because a sitting president has the incumbent advantage from a strategic point of view and in most cases the advantage of running an incumbent without an ugly primary fight is greater than any potential benefit from replacing them.
Biden is still strongly favored to win.
|
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 812
|
Post by mdgv2 on Jul 4, 2024 2:08:14 GMT -5
What are the polls looking like over there?
I was under the impression it was depressingly close?
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 4, 2024 4:24:33 GMT -5
What are the polls looking like over there? I was under the impression it was depressingly close? Polls are misleading for two reasons:
1) There's a significant problem with sample bias because younger generations don't have landlines, don't respond to calls from unknown numbers, and are probably going to hang up instantly even if you somehow get through to them. And because younger generations skew left it means the polls are drawing from a data set that is more conservative than the general population. We saw this in 2022 with the midterms, polls were consistently showing a larger republican victory and then on election day they just barely managed to get the house by sheer gerrymandering effectiveness. So it's very likely that if polling data is showing Trump and Biden evenly matched the actual opinion among voters is 5-10% in favor of Biden.
2) It's still early in the election cycle. The most intense campaigning hasn't started yet and the post-debate drop for Biden is likely to turn around as Trump continues to accumulate bad news and Biden continues to quietly run the country without incident. There's always a lot of variability in polling this early and things won't start to settle down for another couple of months.
So yeah, it is depressing that Biden isn't winning 90-10 and on track for a 50 state landslide but the best interpretation of what we're seeing is that Biden is still favored to win. And it makes sense, Biden already beat Trump and nothing has really changed since 2020. Biden is still not a perfect candidate, Trump is still a horrifyingly bad candidate held up by his rabid cultist followers. It's not like anyone who has been paying attention at all for the past eight years is likely to go from supporting Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024. But there does seem to be a steady trend of people bailing on Trump and the demographic shift is against him.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 4, 2024 5:50:14 GMT -5
And there's the lie about 'lawfare'. Big surprise Whinely lies again... Big surprise you're still the dumbshit I know you to be.
Out of curiosity, have you started reading your own sources yet or do you still link things that unabashedly make fun of you as support for claims you make? Asking because it's the second dumbest thing I've ever seen someone try to get away with on a forum.
|
|
nfe
OT Cowboy
Posts: 204
|
Post by nfe on Jul 4, 2024 17:21:23 GMT -5
What are the polls looking like over there? I was under the impression it was depressingly close? Polls are misleading for two reasons:
1) There's a significant problem with sample bias because younger generations don't have landlines, don't respond to calls from unknown numbers, and are probably going to hang up instantly even if you somehow get through to them. And because younger generations skew left it means the polls are drawing from a data set that is more conservative than the general population. It is important to note that professional polling does account for sample bias: this reads like they just phone 1/1000 people and then scale it up without any consideration of the demographics they reach.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 4, 2024 17:36:19 GMT -5
It is important to note that professional polling does account for sample bias: this reads like they just phone 1/1000 people and then scale it up without any consideration of the demographics they reach. It attempts to account for sample bias. As we saw with the 2022 election that attempt at correction is getting less and less effective.
|
|