President Joe Biden

+1

If you can't see the difference between what Trump did, and litigation around whether third parties have done the necessary to get on the ballot, I can't help you.

The former was sui generis. The latter has been around forever.

Do they? Because both democrats and republicans routinely do clearly unconstitutional things, just for the courts to stop them (bu they gain political points with their base).

From the left you can think of the horribly written "Muslim ban".

Maybe you forgot the obscene illegal OSHA vaccine mandate democrats tried, which courts spit upon.

Those are both deep violations of constitutional rights.

Except the democrats violate citizens rights which in my mind is objectively immensely worse

I like your way of writing more than I should probably.

You evidently look like an exceptionally intelligent person (no matter if I can disagree with you on this or that).

So I feel compelled more than usual to answer any take of yours, I hope you excuse me for that.

I don't believe western society is built upon frail pillars though. I think the core essence is extremely resilient, and the USA has the most resilient system in the west (yes I am biased).

I think more often than not, people describe events they don't like, trends they don't like, as violation of their idea of democracy. I think they are mostly wrong: they simply dislike the developments politically, but they lose no threat to actual democracy.

I understand very intelligent people consider Trump a threat to democracy. I don't but I am ready to listen to proper descriptions of what exactly, is being threatened.

But even if I buy the idea Trump actually is a threat, I think he is a toothless one because the american military isn't even close to agree with him about any constitutional violation

Untill he puts one of his pawns in that place like he did in the SC .
(giving 3 judges in 1 term was excessively bad )

I think both are disgusting and yet as a partisan your not

I think trump would try to stop all aid to ukraine for one thing
I think he'd be more supportive of Israel than biden in some ways (siding with Israel doing whatever it has to do), but not confident he'd help them financially

I agree with his border stance, or him basically getting other nato countries to pony up more

But i can't agree that Russia taking over the world isn't our problem

You think that ballot requirements are just stupid?

There is an enormous difference between making a plausible challenge to the constitutionality of a statute and what Trump did.

When Republicans challenged the constitutionality of the ACA or student loan forgiveness, I wasn't posting about what an outrage it was. That's because those challenges were plausible and not based on outright lies, regardless of whether I agreed with the arguments.

What's constitutionally plausible in student debt forfeiting? in federal wealth tax as proposed by several democrat primary contendants in 2020? Warren federal wealth tax proposal was as inconstitutional, and a direct threat to basic rule of law, as some nativist instistence on "ius soli is not the law of the land".

Yet she run without people claiming her very existence threatened the constitutional order and the essence of the republic (which it does).

Yes, they do, they just see things differently than you. Also, I'm talking about a lot more than just democracy and constitutional rights.

This conversation got going when Rococo replied to you saying "Maybe, just maybe, he thinks that there is more a stake than simply a basket of policies." You went from that straight to talk of the constitution, judges, and the military. He's continued down that line with you, so perhaps that's all he meant, but when I read that quote my mind goes to all sorts of important issues I have with him, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Some of the things he's normalized would have been pretty unthinkable for someone in his position 20 years ago, and probably less. Constantly pandering to racists (and yes, I know both parties have done so in the past), trashing allies while boosting "strong men" (still being done this week with NATO), sexual assaults, so much election fraud ridiculousness that it's now completely standard that we're going to get this in pretty much every election everywhere, and I think I'll leave it there but anyone who's paid any attention knows that list isn't exhaustive.

He's taken all the worst trends in politics and amplified them all. He's now at a point where I believe he can say literally anything, no matter how despicable, and it's fine with his supporters. You or others may not think any of that outweighs the benefits you see in his policies/actions, or having someone in power that will nominate the right people, but others certainly do. And that's why "if you are rightwing in your political preference, you would vote for a leftwing president who would nominate leftwing people in his admin, as judges for all federal courts and so on."

Ukraine wasn’t the USAs problem under Obama why should it be now they are not part of NATO . You think it would be more of a Europe problem .

Ukraine even with the 80 billion is not winning this war sadly

yes i read rococo reply as "some rightwing people might consider Trump such a threat for the nation, they would rather vote left" (which you know, is an actual artgument reasonable people put on the table, and i don't think it's absurd to discuss that).

What you think is "pandering with racism" i disagree with tbh. He didn't pander at all with domestic racism, he actually has a decent approval (for a republican) among asians, blacks and latinos. I would say he has an over average approval among them, for republicans.

Trump has bad results with women (but we have to untangle the abortion topic which was decided by SCOTUS, even if it was a Trump-determined SCOTUS). Worse than republicans on average i think.

The "he can say literally anything and nominate anyone" is true, but after the first "female four-star admiral in the Commissioned Corps" was an actual man nominated by Biden, everything goes on both sides tbh.

The worst trend by far among all of them is increasing the power of the state over the people , in general . Trump did some of that, but less than democrats do, so he is strictly better on the most important variable for a leader by a huge margin: he doesn't want to control people life, he doesn't give a ****, he just wants to play goflf and be praised all the times, and that makes him a better human being than everyone who does want to control normal people lives more than him.

I don't know why he thinks the courts and military would save us from Trump. A third of the Supreme Court was appointed by Trump, and at least two others seem to believe in letting the president do whatever he wants.

I assume a majority of the military are also Trump supporters, although I haven't researched that.

What part of the constitution do you think either of these violated? Nothing that I can find.

Or in student debt forgiveness or wealth tax?

Are you sure you're reading the US constitution? I don't see anything about any of those in there.

Surprisingly there is nothing in the 1787 Constitution regarding COVID vaccination employment mandates. Slight oversight by the founders there. But the Supreme Court, which is supposed to base its decisions on the Constitution, rejected the OSHA vaccine mandate.

Yeah, there is nothing in there about any vaccination policies, nor it there anything in there about employment mandates at all.

You are right that the Supreme Court is supposed to base its decisions on the Constitution, but that seems to very often not be what the actually do.

A few decades ago the liberal court pulled rights out of its ass (eg Roe v. Wade), and now the conservative one pulls rights out of its ass (like this one). The only difference is that today's court somehow claims it claims to be strictly constructionist, following the exact wording of the Constitution, but still makes up rights not mentioned there.

I assume you mean better than those who "get off" on that control. Those who want control because they think they know best may or may not be better depending on how incompetent the people are (as measured by the number of them that go on to regret many of their important decisions) and how competent the leader (who wants control for unselfish reasons) is. If we analogize to forty yea old parents and their ten year old children, I don't think we are too far off when we are speaking of typical Americans. Especially if the leader was someone similar to Harold Ford Jr.

Curious what the Constitution says to deny the right not to be vaccinated?

The same thing it says to deny the right to have an abortion - nothing.

But anyway, no one was forced to be vaccinated in this country (apart from children being forced to by their parents). Most conservatives seem to think the Constitution (or something anyway) gives businesses the right to hire and fire whoever they want, but somehow that doesn't apply to the unvaccinated.

conflation to the extreme

many conservatives definitely think businesses should be able to hire/fire whoever they want. probably some on the basis of race or sexual orientation, which is disdainful. still, i don't think this generally extends to public employment, for which you probably need some legal/constitutional basis to deny employment?

a vaccine mandate should pass through Congress, because the Constitution is silent on the issue. the whims of the executive and groupthink are not sufficient grounds to deny previously upstanding federal employees their continued livelihood. but that's just like my opinion man, which i've slowly learned is worthless.

The executive branch hires its own employees without the input of Congress, just like a business does, except for the high ranking positions which Congress does have to approve. The populace has elected the president, presumably because they think they will like his whims.

The OSHA vaccine mandate wasn't rejected for body autonomy rights or for employee rights, it was rejected because congress didn't delegate that power to the president.

Which is why the COVID vaccine mandate for health-care workers (CMS) wasn't stayed as apparently congress did delegate that power.

There is nothing in the federal constitution preventing congress to mandate Americans to take whatever drug forcibly they want to, or lose employment, even in the private sector, if it so chooses.

The court didn't make up any right when it stayed the OSHA vaccine mandate.

They simply read the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which allowed the creation of OSHA, as giving the executive power to regulate *occupational hazards* not generic risks. And COVID was everywhere not a risk linked to specific jobs, so it wasn't considered something congress had delegated to the executive to deal with, with that act.

You can disagree but it's about the interpretation of a statute not about inventing a constitutional right.

What I mean is that if the act of 1970 had specifically included vaccinations for commonly present pathogens, or other words conveying clearly the same message, then OSHA would have been allowed to mandate it.

Which again is why instead the mandate for health-care workers working in places that get federal money was allowed, because congress delegated such kind of power to the executive very explicitly