They keep bragging about many Republicans they had on stage. Great, I guess the Democrats are just the Republicans from 10-20 years ago if those speakers find the current Democratic party palatable. I’m sure that will rally people to vote blue like they did in 2008. Was it caving on immigration, peace, and crime what made Obama so popular?
Not true. Trump prominently mentioned his son Barron and his proficiency with “the cyber”, eight years ago.
Why have you forsaken me?
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.
The President’s authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.
/s ?
The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.
A President’s use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.
This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.
The Federalist Society identified 40 years ago what they considered to be the problem, liberal activist judges.
They have spent the last four decades working their way into the judicial system and nomination process to achieve the current Supreme Court balance for their ultimate objective, conservative activist judges.
Well yes because America had been pushing North Korea away.
The classic American imperialists refuse to accept that by sanctioning a country into oblivion they will now just join China and Russia’s side.
Most Americans don’t even know why North Korea is so hostile. We bombed them into oblivion during the Korean war.
What the fuck is this revisionist history?
North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, after the South refused Northern rule. The UN stepped in (90% American forces) pushing the North Koreans nearly to China’s borders, at which point China entered the war, and resulting in the 38th parallel armistice border we have today.
North Korea wasn’t pushed into China’s welcoming arms due to American anti-nuclear proliferation sanctions of the last twenty years, and “being bombed into oblivion” is often the result of picking on countries with bigger allies than you, just ask Germany and Japan.
China has propped up the Kim dictatorship dynasty for the last 70 years, feeding their starving masses while the Kims focus the country’s resources on military spending, including nuclear development to substantiate their annual saber rattling. Allowing China to maintain a buffer state, that’s kept the West at bay since 1951.
50 US Marines, of which he is their Commander in Chief.
North Korea has been an American rival since 1950. Imagine if any other President had done this.
But you don’t even have to, just look at the response to Obama bowing to the emperor of Japan, an ally.
Probably easier to stick with “at the very least, freed them”.
Pearl Harbor was the rallying cry that brought America together (mostly) to fight the Axis powers. Prior to that, isolationist (and Anti-Semitic) groups such as the America First Committee were growing in popularity. To say America was fighting for the Jews in WW2 may be technically correct based on who was responsible for the Holocaust, but it was more the byproduct of who America’s enemies were at the time, rather than being a primary motivator. Coming in as the savior to a population being persecuted is rarely the real reason wars are fought.
I don’t know, trickle down always sounded like piss play to me. Not much better, worse? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
For the group railing against Sharia law the loudest, they sure do love to legislate religious beliefs. I guess the real problem was Sharia just wasn’t going far enough.
Heard this one before. How long before we hear about his extramarital affairs and the abortion he paid for. It’s always projection with these assholes.
EDIT: My bad, this guy just paid for his future wife’s abortion. Rules for thee and not for me. Slightly different hypocrisy for this guy.
The same flag outside the current house speaker’s office?
Speaker Johnson’s close ties to Christian right — both mainstream and fringe
Flags associated with acts of treason have been normalized now. Good luck pursuing that investigation for more than just show.
No one is going be prominent enough to compare to Bernie, especially at the twilight of his political career, and be a natural successor.
It’s like saying where’s the next Obama, when Obama himself was no name, first term, junior Senate candidate from Illinois when he gave the 2004 DNC keynote speech, only four years before becoming president.
What I’m trying to say is, unless you’re already neck deep in Vermont politics, we probably won’t hear the name of the next prominent progressive out of the state until that seat opens up.
I always thought it was a tbsp of maple syrup a day to take care of a canadian problem
All research and successful drug policy
Shows that treatment should be increased
And law enforcement decreased
While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences
“We’re gonna have a little bit of a dialogue of what racist things that Charlie Kirk said.”
“I don’t know anything about that,”
Not much of a dialogue lol
I am not surprised by this. Given his track record of surrounding himself with Yes-men, this will more than likely be a bad thing. With the possible silver lining of all that campaign money being wasted on legal defense fees, might just be enough to hurt his reelection chances.
But my honest question is, does this not normally happen when a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee?
I got a hail of down votes just two weeks ago for saying Democrats are appealing to the Republicans 10-20 years ago, and now here we are.
Couldn’t the campaign be about championing progressive change on popular issues rather than capitulating to Republican narratives on immigration and crime, and being “honored” by the endorsement of war criminals?
And who is writing shit like “most lethal fighting force” into her convention acceptance speech, while Trump is out there on the road saying no more wars. I don’t believe him, but plenty of moms and dads of soldiers will.