SCOTUS appointed a president in 2000. They're fucking us again.

[Cyrano]

Against all precedence, and acting beyond all power of the Court, they reached a decision in 2000 that, in effect, appointed George W. Bush to the presidency. That was a Court with a Republican majority.

Now, the Republicans have a super majority of the Court, and they've taken a case they should never have touched. They've taken the case of whether or not a president, or ex president, has complete immunity from whatever crimes he may commit.

You already know that their going to say no to this. But their aim is delay. They took the case to make sure that Trump will not face trial until it's too late. (Too late is two months before an election. It's a tradition of the DOJ to not bring a prosecution against a presidential candidate after that time.)

So we have a Supreme court, the majority of which wants to see Trump in the White House.

And we have tens of millions of morons willing to vote away their own democracy and freedoms and hand them over to a madman who envies Putin, Kim Jong Un, and every other dictator in the world.

How did we end up here? And more importantly, how do we defeat this insanity?

[FarPoint]

1. Correct....

We have to deal with this regardless..... We must get out the vote...every vote counts....win the Trifecta...House, Senate and Presidency in November....

then, we can prosecute tRump and the congressional minions who worked with tRump....Add 3 more seats to the Supreme Court....

In otherwords.... we could fix this.

[Cyrano]

2. So our only answer is to get out the vote?

There are four or five swing states controlled by Republicans, and they're not playing by the "rules." In short, they are states that can be stolen. Which means that, everywhere else, we're going to need the biggest Democratic turnout in history. And even then, there's no guarantee that the trifecta can't be stolen from us.

We are the majority in America. We are sane. And we are the underdogs because of the dishonesty of our opponents (enemys?). We really need a plan B.

[Think. Again.]

4. Thank you for stating it all so clearly...

...yes, the way I see it, we need an outstanding win for all 3, AND we need to be prepared to fight back and win against whatever they will try AFTER the election.

Because we know, from direct experience, that they WILL try ANYTHING.

[MadameButterfly]

5. Agreed. What would be plan B?

[Irish_Dem]

7. GOTV can no longer be the only game plan.

The GOP will tamper with the voting and electoral process in red states.

Putin will bombard us with more brutal propaganda and set up Biden again and again.

Yes what is the plan? Can we give up democracy so easily?

[Cyrano]

9. Many Dems I know are making sure their

passports are up to date. That sure isn't a Plan B.

From everything I've read, today's America is analogous to Germany in the 1930's. WWII may have been prevented if the democracies of the world, ourselves, included, had acted sooner.

But we Dems evidently have some sort of implanted disadvantage that we call "Playing by the rules." (It took Peal Harbor to shake us our of this delusion, back when. Wonder what it will take this time around?)

[Irish_Dem]

10. Maybe the loss of our democracy.

Fascist, white male christian minority rule.

All the things people took for granted, taken away.

The American people are going to face a big learning curve at some point.

A very difficult learning experience.

[Cyrano]

11. You "get it," Irish Dem. The problem is,

if we lose it all, how do we take it back?

Better to have this "domestic war" before they gain total control. The problem is we don't have a charismatic "leader" who will take us there.

We once had a JFK, an MLK, and an RFK to "take us there."

It's something we are badly in need of today.

[Irish_Dem]

13. There are a number of problems:

Last edited Sat Mar 2, 2024, 05:07 PM - Edit history (2)

1. The problem is many do not realize we are in a domestic war.

2. The PutinGOP wages war against us, as does China and the rest of the autocratic bloc.
They wish to shift the global world order to their favor. And become 21st century superpowers.

3. Most of the GOP aligns with the autocratic bloc because they want what fascists have,
total permanent power and access to all national financial assets.

4. US oligarchs appear to have aligned with the autocratic bloc as well.
They want cheap labor, no taxes and no regulation.

5. Dictator and oligarch rule go hand in hand.

6. This fascist and oligarch rule is now deeply embedded across our government at the highest levels.

7. I do not think a single Dem charismatic leader is the answer.

8. Please note that JFK, RFK, MLK were all assassinated by those in power.

9. I think we do need strong leadership but one person cannot do it alone.

10. But first it entails leadership finally facing reality. The geopolitics tectonic plates
are shifting beneath our feet as we speak.

11. It may indeed take a Pearl Harbor type event to wake up the American people.

12. The loss of our democracy and freedom.

13. At the end of the day it is going to fall on We The People to fight for our democracy.

14. And fight hard.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. You are mistaken.

. It's a tradition of the DOJ to not bring a prosecution against a presidential candidate after that time.)

It’s not just a tradition, it’s a policy.

However, that policy is regarding investigations and indictments.

Once a defendant has been indicted, the process is under the control of the courts, and DOJ has no say. The only power they have is to drop all charges.

Do you think that is going to happen?

It is entirely possible that one or more of Trump’s trials could begin by fall, perhaps even sooner depending on when SCOTUS rules. In any case, their ruling is expected by the end of this year’s term in June.

[Cyrano]

8. Okay. But in reality, do you think he'l be on trial before the election?

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Yes.

Bragg’s trial starts next month, and even with delays for the SCOTUS ruling, it’s entirely possible that Chutkan’s J6 trial could begin by fall.

[MadameButterfly]

6. Do you think undecided voters care if Trump is convicted

in the Stormy Daniels case? I'm thinking having sex and hiding it won't rate high in their opinion. Nor will it change anyone's opinion, whereas there really are low-information voters who won't know if Trump tried a coup unless convicted. But it seems Stormy might be the only conviciton we get before the election.

[Igel]

14. Here's what was said:

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1231974416/supreme-court-trump-immunity

The justices said, in an unsigned order, that their review would be limited to a single question: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

Take note: If this is always a bad thing, then Biden not only could but should be brought up on charges for what he ordered as President once out of office.. He personally approved some deaths that could be called "murder." Why hasn't this happened in the past? With Nixon? Bush I? Bush II? Obama? Because the DOJ granted that there were times when ordering strikes with deadly force were "official acts" and therefore ... Not to be prosecuted. But does murder have a statute of limitations?

Trump says "total immunity" but the legal filings have never reflected this. He's a bullshitter. But now we may know he's a bullshitter and his words bear about the same relationship to veridicality as Putin's, but when we want it to be so his words drip absolute and total accuracy. (Hint: He's a bullshitter. I think he's rather extreme, but that's because most extreme bullshitter's (different link) don't raise that high in the cesspool.)

Now, will SCOTUS limit their review to this? Well, it'll be fairly obvious from their published decision if they did or didn't.

The rest is stress to the adrenal glands and an increase in blood cortisol levels.

[Brother Buzz]

16. Were YOU Safetykitten?

[TwilightZone]

17. Blaming the Obama administration for the financial crash is nonsense.

If "Safetykitten" was making unfounded assertions like that, then it's not really surprising that they were banned. Perhaps they were unaware of when the crisis and recovery happened.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/economy

Nearly all of us understood that Trump was an existential threat. We tried to convince Salon/Jill Stein/progressive holdouts and attention-seekers that the Supreme Court was going to be monumentally important, and the response was often that it didn't matter, because Hillary would be just as bad as Trump or worse. Looks pretty damn stupid now, though it was pretty damn stupid then, too.

So, if you're looking for someone to blame, you might want to start there instead of blaming the administration that turned around the worst financial crisis since the Depression.

[KS Toronado]

18. Welcome to DU!

Most people around here like to talk about the present and the future not the past, history tends to bring
up feelings some would like to forget.

[sheshe2]

19. Inaction!?!

WTF!

On February 17, 2009, Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $831 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession.[28] The act increased federal spending by $573 billion[29] for health care, infrastructure, education and social benefits, with the remainder used for tax relief[30] — including a $116 billion income tax cut that benefited 95% of working families.[31] Democrats overwhelmingly supported this measure, while only a few Senate Republicans supported the law.

The CBO estimated ARRA would positively impact GDP and employment, with primary impact between 2009 and 2011. It projected an increase in the GDP of between 1.4 and 3.8% by late 2009, 1.1 and 3.3% by late 2010, and 0.4 and 1.3% by late 2011, as well as a decrease of between zero and 0.2% beyond 2014.[32] The impact to employment would be an increase of 0.8 million to 2.3 million by last-2009, an increase of 1.2 million to 3.6 million by late 2010, an increase of 0.6 million to 1.9 million by late 2011, and declining increases in subsequent years as the U.S. labor market reaches nearly full employment, but never negative.[32] The CBO estimated that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, $399 billion in 2010, and $134 billion in 2011, or $787 billion over the 2009–2019 period.[33]

The Congressional Budget Office and a broad range of economists credit Obama's stimulus plan for economic growth.[34][35] The CBO's final analysis in February 2015 found that ARRA provided substantial improvement to GDP growth and employment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration#:~:text=On%20February%2017%2C%202009%2C%20Obama,from%20the%20deepening%20worldwide%20recession.

You and your 'friend' don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[Scrivener7]

20. You've been holding onto this for 8 years now, then?

You're chastising people because you were banned almost a decade ago?

Seems a little extreme. Also against the TOS.

Nice knowing you.