Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Platystemon posted:

Folks, Iím starting to think that ďwe canít indict a sitting presidentĒ was bad policy.

It's a political position, so the remedy has to be political. Congress can remove the president, voters can reshape Congress halfway through the first term, and eventually voters get to vote again on the President. There's good reason for preventing a possible coup by law enforcement.

The underlying problem is that neither presidential nor congressional elections are truly small d democratic in the US.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

bulletsponge13 posted:

I recently read Kill Anything That Moves, a book draws largely from US Govt sources, and Jesus loving Christ, we were loving monsters. I get that war dehumanizes a man; I understand that it's ingrained to remove a bit of the enemy's humanity in your head; but holy god drat Christ.

Racism definitely factors into it. American forces on the European western front in WW2 were downright gentlemanly compared to the barbarity of their counterparts in the Pacific and their successors in Vietnam.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

bulletsponge13 posted:

Are you being willfully dense, or just provoking?

Because I'm still voting for evil, you dipshit. Because it isn't affecting change. It's stopping the bleeding, not fixing poo poo. It's endorsing the current system, and rewarding a group of loving assholes who don't give a gently caress about the average person.

Do you really not get why I wouldn't want an old man suffering through dementia with sexual assault allegations in office? Just because he isn't orange doesn't mean he's good. It just means he's less bad. And voting for evil will always beget more evil.

Is this your first election or something?

You're voting in a first past the post, winner take all system. The least bad viable candidate is the best you're going to do, there's no need to take it personally. Vote for and campaign for your preferred candidate in the primaries, and then vote for the clearly less terrible party in the general election with a clear conscience.

E: And in the meantime advocate for a ranked voting system that provides for proportional representation.

AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Nov 6, 2020

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1324846580147642369

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

https://twitter.com/FSPhiladelphia/status/1325102014964109312
https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/1325108410841489411

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

Is it possible Biden beats Trump by the exact margin Hillary lost by

306 electoral votes for Biden, what Trump repeatedly called a "historic landslide" (it's not), is looking like the most likely outcome at this point.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Defenestrategy posted:

I hope so, but does Biden et AL have the stones to basically set the precedent that if you lose an election or your party loses the presidency the next persons ag is gonna hunt you down

If there are crimes committed, good. Is there an american president from the last half century who shouldn't be in prison? Carter and Obama might have avoided committing US felonies, but the ICC would be warranted in taking a crack at them. The rest of the should be rotting in US prisons.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Sad to say I doubt it's possible to be POTUS in these stupid days without committing an ICC-worthy crime somehow even if it's only by omission. Trump OTOH has committed a Sears catalog worth of crimes according to the US of A's own laws. Don't compare the two, it helps nothing.

Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, and Nixon all committed plenty of verifiable US crimes. Trump's setting the bar to a new standard but that shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the past.

ManMythLegend posted:

I would much rather not establish the extremely dangerous precedent of new regimes imprisoning the previous regime.

The right play is for the SDNY to cooperate with New York State on criminal prosecutions at the state level.

It's the best of both worlds.

The federal government is capable of non-political prosecutions.

AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Nov 8, 2020

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Hyrax Attack! posted:

What did Carter do that would get the ICC after him?

Supporting the mujahedeen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I won't argue it was the wrong thing to do with the information available at the time, but there's no question the US was coloring outside the lines to put weapons into the hands of non-state actors who resulted in plenty of civilian deaths.

Not to mention all the day to day illegal nonsense the CIA was pulling off in that era.

AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Nov 8, 2020

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Godholio posted:

Well, the AMA donates more than most Americans to campaigns, soo...

Land doesn't vote, but capital sure does

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

orange juche posted:

There should be term limits so that congress doesn't have to worry about preserving their 30 years on the government dole.

Staffers and lobbyists would be even more in charge than they are today.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

orange juche posted:

System is hosed, but it can't be changed so why bother, I guess?

There are lots of things that should be changed, but imo term limits for legislators is not as clear of a positive reform as it is presented sometimes.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

stealie72 posted:

Despite a political science degree 20 years ago, it took me until fairly recently to realize that the founding fathers were idiots who basically wrote "ida know...talk it out?" on parchment as a form of government.

The most generous interpretation of the system the founding fathers set up is that they included a mechanism to keep it updated.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

What does the president do exactly that requires snap decision making? Contrary to TV dramas, almost everything coming from the White House is a strategic policy change or an escalation on something that canít be figured out at lower level leadership in an executive agency. If Biden goes to sleep at 8 and makes a decision with his team the next day, nothing is going to change. And Trump making an invariably terrible decision in the moment because he was awake tweeting when someone asked him isnít somehow better.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Pine Cone Jones posted:

I would like to hope that Harris could be viable on her own, especially if she was coached by the younger folks to dunk on trump at all times.

I'm not sure how someone comes back with younger folks after enthusiastically enforcing drug crimes this century. Harris is a dead end, there are politicians who haven't put thousands of people in prison over pot.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

facialimpediment posted:

She got the memo, at the very least.

Maybe people want to vote for someone who genuinely supports policy positions instead of "getting the memo"? On some level she had to understand the lives she was ruining as a prosecutor, saying the right words a few years later doesn't undo that harm or convince people she didn't believe in her actions from that time.

This is the democratic party being short sighted in general. Replacing Biden at this point makes no sense, but especially so because there's no one to take his place. The party stutters more than Biden when asked about the 2028 candidate.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Handsome Ralph posted:

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Editorial Board is pretty much where I'm at at this point
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/trump-verbal-miscues-presidential-debate-20240706.html

TLDR: Yes, it's entirely fair to wonder out loud if Biden's age is an issue for another four years let alone the rest of the campaign. But a lot of the pundits currently yelling about it are, ignoring at best, or giving him a pass at worst, Trump and how unhinged he was at the debate, and on the campaign trail.

If you talk to anyone pushing back on Biden's debate performance, challenge them to read the transcript. If they support Trump after that (or let's be honest, even before) they are not someone to take seriously.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

PookBear posted:

what does trump have to do with wanting the dem candidate to not have their brain leaking out of their ears? No poo poo trump sucks but being slightly better than him shouldn't be the only bar a dem candidate has to be better than. Good lord.

US presidential elections are first past the post, and the appropriate vote is for the least bad viable candidate. Biden is clearly less bad than Trump to any thinking person who is not an open bigot.

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

PookBear posted:

I just said I would like a better candidate. Tell me why I should vote for biden without referencing any republicans or saying "but trump!".

That's not how US presidential elections work. You should vote for Biden because there are two viable choices, he's obviously the best of the two, and sitting out functionally supports Trump unless you were going to vote for Trump.

The time to work for better candidates was the primaries, and those are over.

e: Working towards proportional representation and/or ranked choice voting is also cool. But that won't happen before November!

AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 7, 2024

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006

Asking as someone who doesn't know much at all about cameras, what's the functional difference between a still camera taking photos continuously and taking still frames out of the video cameras that were probably pointed at the event - do still cameras use a resolution that would take too much storage to just record as video?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply