Official Presidential Debate Thread - Live TYT coverage

[Seshmeister]

This is an area where I think several years of litigation will see such determinations challenged and these issues eventually coming back up to SCOTUS.

Only if you keep electing crooks.

[ZahZoo]

That was an interesting discussion among those attorneys/prosecutors. They raised some very valid points and intriguing questions on many aspects of the ruling.

A key thing in their discussion was you have the perception that the majority ruling was actually quite narrow and the dissenting opinion takes on a quite broad interpretation. When I read it... I felt the ruling was quite narrow and didn't expand immunity of the executive branch in the ways many are depicting it... for example using Seal Team 6 to assassinate a rival or US citizen. That scenario doesn't fly as the existing framework and constitutional powers of the Commander in Chief does not allow use of military force against citizens of the US. It
s utter bullshit to imply such an act would hold any amount of immunity if attempted.

As the podcast pointed out... the criteria for what is an official act is being left up to the lower courts and prosecutors to determine and those parameters are somewhat vague and complex when you apply them for example to the election interference charges. This is an area where I think several years of litigation will see such determinations challenged and these issues eventually coming back up to SCOTUS.

[Seshmeister]

Trump borrowed a ton of money to give corporations tax cuts. You have to pay the interest on that debt now and if he does it again it will put up inflation again.

The Democrats tried to bring in strict border controls but putting party over country the Republicans blocked that.

[Terry]

You and pretty much anyone else reading this would be a better option than Trump. I don't see how given his last term people think he will improve any of the issues you list. Last time he borrowed (or made US taxpayers borrow) a bunch of money and gave it to rich people how does that solve inflation? He didn't build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.

I tend to think - despite exclusively voting for the Democratic Party - I'm harder to the right of even the Republican Party on immigration as well as law and order.

The lack of a progressive tax policy isn't exclusive to the Republican Party: despite the GOP lessening the tax burden on the wealthy with more agility than the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party has in essence been in lockstep re: the rich get theirs first all along. Or, put another way, if the Democratic Party had for the past 50 years stood with the working class in word AND deed, said party would win every election in a landslide.

I can't disagree that on any given range of issues, I'm hard-pressed to imagine Trump specifically being any better than Biden, specifically because of Trump and who he is. About the only upside I can think of should Trump win this fall is...I dunno. I know he'd go for another tax cut that would end up benefitting the most those who need it the least.

I mean, I can no longer bring myself to vote for Biden even as an anti-Trump vote, because Biden is so lacking capacity...I have nobody to vote for, and anyone telling me that I HAVE to make a choice or I'm part of the problem, THAT assertion is so specious to me this time around given the choices. I can no longer honestly say I think Biden would be better for America because I'm not even sure I believe that anymore given what I've seen happening over the last four years. I can't even say the Democratic Party in general would be better for America anymore.

[Seshmeister]

If you read the actual ruling... SCOTUS did not grant any new or additional immunity to the President/Executive branch. They clarified what was already covered within the Constitution. In simple terms immunity is in place covering the Executive branch for acts of official duties/powers as defined within the US Constitution. Immunity is not covered for unofficial or personal acts not granted by the Constitution.

There's nothing medieval granted and the nonsense of using US military forces to assassinate anyone is not authorized nor subject to assumed immunity under US law/Constitution. That's just childish bullshit.

Agree with it or not this was a radical ruling. I think you need to check some more sources.

Two super experienced high profile prosecutors do a podcast on US law. I don't think they are partisan left or right they are just into law stuff.

[ZahZoo]

Are you fucking high? I mean I don't wanna over play the "you're old" thing, but you do remember Nixon right? You know when there are limits on power as a form of "checks and balances"? But I guess we want a fucking king now that can effectively assassinate political rivals as an "official act" under a bullshit, nebulous ruling by a court that loves authoritarianism.

Thank you for the childish bullshit... and confirming you're not acting stupid.... you're a bonofide dumbass...

[Nickdfresh]

[Nickdfresh]

If you read the actual ruling... SCOTUS did not grant any new or additional immunity to the President/Executive branch. They clarified what was already covered within the Constitution. In simple terms immunity is in place covering the Executive branch for acts of official duties/powers as defined within the US Constitution. Immunity is not covered for unofficial or personal acts not granted by the Constitution.

There's nothing medieval granted and the nonsense of using US military forces to assassinate anyone is not authorized nor subject to assumed immunity under US law/Constitution. That's just childish bullshit.

Are you fucking high? I mean I don't wanna over play the "you're old" thing, but you do remember Nixon right? You know when there are limits on power as a form of "checks and balances"? But I guess we want a fucking king now that can effectively assassinate political rivals as an "official act" under a bullshit, nebulous ruling by a court that loves authoritarianism.

[ZahZoo]

If you read the actual ruling... SCOTUS did not grant any new or additional immunity to the President/Executive branch. They clarified what was already covered within the Constitution. In simple terms immunity is in place covering the Executive branch for acts of official duties/powers as defined within the US Constitution. Immunity is not covered for unofficial or personal acts not granted by the Constitution.

There's nothing medieval granted and the nonsense of using US military forces to assassinate anyone is not authorized nor subject to assumed immunity under US law/Constitution. That's just childish bullshit.

[Seshmeister]

But why are we here though? You don't recognize any fault of deeply corrupt meddling and deeply political trumped up charges that should never have been brought in the first place? That is the real issue.

Its only those complaining now of heinous acts that they could/should perform given the new "power". It's not new. It just had to be spelt out in the light of the abuses that have taken place with the Democrat agenda to win at all costs.

Well that's the irony of the situation, the Supreme Court has now given Biden the power to do what he was being accused of doing but wasn't. These cases were not brought by Biden but are being blocked by judges appointed by Trump.

Read the Mar-A-Lago indictment.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf

A Trump appointed judge has sat on this for a year and allowed the defence to throw up spurious delays. The last delay was that they said the day before 'an expert who couldn't make it' but they didn't say who or why. Any other judge in any other case that would not happen.

[FORD]

[FORD]

[Romeo Delight]

Seems to me to be a very partisan judgement but he appointed 3/9 of the judges of course. The Mar A Largo case is an open goal of a case he's clearly guilty but it is being blatantly blocked by another judge he appointed. From the outside the US justice system is looking crooked.

This isn't To Kill a Mocking Bird or 12 Angry Men....

It is certainly crooked...only now being corrected.

[Romeo Delight]

Now that the court has given the President the powers of a medieval king it makes it all the more important you don't elect someone who will use them...

But why are we here though? You don't recognize any fault of deeply corrupt meddling and deeply political trumped up charges that should never have been brought in the first place? That is the real issue.

Its only those complaining now of heinous acts that they could/should perform given the new "power". It's not new. It just had to be spelt out in the light of the abuses that have taken place with the Democrat agenda to win at all costs.

[Romeo Delight]

Cheeto is telling one lie after another. Unfortunately Biden seems like he's barely conscious and not refuting the bullshit at all. And the CNN moderators are useless. Not counteracting the lies or even making Cheeto answer a fucking question.

But where does the moderating of "lies" begin and end?

Example - When the Pres lies/misrepresents how his son died previously, do the moderators embarass him? Excuse me Mr. Presedent, your son did not die that way. " I mean, isn't the debate over then and there? If you have the story so widely false in something so personal...

All in all I thought they did a decent job, all things considered especially given their deeeeep biases.