President Joe Biden

If I pay for tuition for a year without a vaccine mandate being present and then you tell me that if I don't get the vaccine I can say bye bye to that money, how can it be legal? how is that not forcing?

Uh? Federal troops were used many times, domestically, against civilians, to preserve the stability of US democracy.

Against unions and to quell race riots for example.

Later, to enforce desegregation

Now you're talking about school, not work?

Anyway, it can be legal if there's no law against it. I've never seen a law saying that schools cannot change their vaccination policies. I had to get vaccinated for several diseases when I was in school. When a new disease and vaccine comes around, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it is added to the list.

If you violate school rules and get thrown out, I guess you've also said bye bye to that money; it happens all the time.

Unless someone holds you down and puts a needle in your arm, they're not forcing you to get a vaccine.

Those didn't have anything to do with holding elections.

Do you really think the US military is likely to rise up against Trump if he tells them to do something unconstitutional? Is the average young soldier really expected to both be a constitutional scholar and have the nerve to go against what the commander in chief says?

Generic contract law doesn't allow to change the elements of a contract after you sign without the other party agreeing usually.

You are saying that if you book a cruise trip with certain rules in place and pay in advance, the cruise company can then mandate any behavior to you after that, and you are not entitled to a refund? I say this is not legal.

I really think the US militaries would refuse to execute unconstitutional orders yes, definitely.

Not "raise up against him", just refuse to do something that's clearly not allowed, or that a court said is not allowed.

I am thinking trump writes some EO about how to deal with immigrants on the border, a federal court stays the EO on constitutional ground, if Trump orders federal troops to defy the court they will not.

You are pointing mostly to instances in which the leaders of the U.S. government used the national guard (justifiably or not) to quell civil unrest or enforce the law.

That is far, far different that relying on the military to intervene as an independent actor to preserve a specific style of government.

For example, prior to 2016, the Turkish military acted independently on several occasions to preserve Ataturk's secular reforms. There is no similar history with the U.S. military.

You said that relying on militaries to be a stabilizing force is unsettling, you implied it was un-american basically, so i pointed to occasions were militaries were used , repeatedly, to stabilize the nation (legally, in most of those cases).

For Trump, you just need the militaries to REFUSE to execute blatant constitutional violations, or refuse to defy court orders. How would that be unsettling? and if you believe like i do the militaries would refuse, then exactly which unconstitutional changes to the style of government do you think Trump could enact?

Again i ask if possible to walk me through which bad case scenario you guys have in mind. Some specific non-democratic (under the constitutional definition, not the "i dislike this so it's not democratic" one) outcomes Trump could accomplish without using the militaries. Let's even assume he has a trifecta if that matters for the bad case scenario, and that congress votes anything Trump asks for, and that the filibuster goes away completly in the senate.

Which undemocratic outcome could happen?

Trump v Hawaii affirmed that a president can ban entrants on the basis of nationality, that his EO wasn't a muslim ban, and that congress (not the constitution) delegated that power to the president and he didn't exceed in the use of that power.

What i had in mind (we are thinking hypotheticals where Trump could try to dismantle democracy right? one of the most significant threats he poses according to many people in this forum) is more like he orders troops to shoot to kill all trespassers when they are on american soil.

I think that if he crafts an EO to that effect, and a court stays it, USA militaries would not shoot anyway.

It's easy enough to explain the bad case outcome that Trump was trying to engineer in January 2021.

Trump wanted Pence to refuse to certify the election results, reject the electoral slates of certain states, etc., thereby precipitating a crisis. Then he was hoping the SCOTUS would say, "this may be a political problem, but it isn't a justiciable constitutional issue." Then he was hoping that the military would say: "We don't get involved in politics. If a court says that someone other than Donald Trump is commander in chief, then we will take orders from that person. But until that time, we have to take orders from whoever is in the Oval Office."

I didn't think this scenario would play out because:

1) What Trump wanted Pence to do was completely crazy;
2) Even if Pence went in the tank, because of 1), I thought the SCOTUS would find a way to reach the merits, even if the basis for doing so was debatable; and
3) I had no concern that the military would be complicit in assisting Trump in defying a SCOTUS decision.

But the risk was greater than zero.

It is hard to predict exactly what will happen if Trump is elected again, but we can be relatively certain of a few things. First, he will do everything in his power to eliminate any vestige of independence in the Department of Justice. He has been quite open about this goal. (And I'll say this much for Trump. He doesn't hide his agenda. When he says that he will do something crazy and transgressive, you should take him seriously, because he usually tries to follow through.) Second, he will do everything in his power to normalize the idea that voter fraud in favor of Democrats is rampant. There won't be any evidence of widespread fraud, much less fraud that overwhelmingly assists Democrats, but in a post-factual world, that won't matter much outside of a courtroom. Third, he will do his best to install blind loyalists at the highest levels of the regulatory state and the military. That's more difficult to pull off with the military than with the regulatory state, but he will do his best.

So what would the coup de grâce be? That's hard to say. If Trump wanted to remain in power, I don't think he would have any compunction about suspending elections "until such time as they can be held fairly." I haven't explored all the ways that Trump might go about trying to suspend elections. He might not try if he thought it was truly hopeless. And if he tried, one way or the other, my gut tells me that he would be unsuccessful. But the risk is never zero. And it doesn't follow that American democracy would be strengthened if Trump tried to remain in office and failed.

Remember when we talked about the fact that the role of the VP in certifying election was ambigous, so congress correctly passed an act to clarify it was exclusively cerimonial?

that's an example of the country getting stronger thanks to Trump failed attempts of using legal loopholes to overturn voters' preference.

If instead of Pence we had someone else, and/or if the legal team attempting the loophole exploitation was better technically, and/or if state legislatures had been willing to overturn the results, Trump could be president (legally) now.

But not only he didn't manage, congress fixed one of the possible loopholes and some states fixed theirs.

A more skilled and/or better assisted future candidate for potus will have a far harder time trying anything of the sort.

The american system relies (relied?) on too many gentlemen agreements, unwritten norms and the like. That's not as resilient as it can be

If there are ten times as many thieves trying to break into your house as there were twenty years ago, is it correct to say that you are at less risk of a break-in because you have a security system now, whereas you didn't twenty years ago? That isn't obvious.

Also, states are not being fixed. One of the lessons that the MAGA crowd learned from Trump's failed attempt to steal the 2020 election was that there were too many people with a modicum of integrity working as state election officials. Trump's people have been working hard to fix that "problem."

LOL. Yeah, it is the right who openly supports the hiring and firing on the basis of race, sex and sexual orientation.

78% Dem and Dem leaning workers said companies should hire on the basis of race, sex and sexual orientation compared to just 30% of repubs and repub leaning workers.

50% of dems said working for a company that discriminates on the basis of race, sex & orientation is important to them compared to 13 repubs.

39% of dems said we should discriminate during the hiring process on the basis of sex compared to 12% repubs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/202...

To that point, nearly every dem politicians is for discrimination on the basis of sex, race and orientation and nearly every repub is against it.

Bahbah, say what you want about him, the man is a supporter of affirmative action.

I would support a refund in that case. But I wouldn't refund the money from previous cruises they took, even if the only reason they took those was because they had the goal of cruising every continent.

Well, I strongly disagree with you here, though it's speculative on both of our parts.

How would the average soldier even know what a federal court has ruled, or understand what a "stay" or an "EO" is? They're just going to do what their commander tells them to do, through the chain of command. And at the top of the chain is the President, followed by at least one person the president has appointed. Hopefully someone down the chain would take the risk of court-martial to do the right thing, but it's far from certain.

So the angry old man called a press conference to tell us he was insulted when they asked about his sons death and he didn’t answer

Well the truth comes out Joe brought it up .

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice...

he's struggling to find examples because i would almost guarantee the school, the work, and the cruise all have print in their "contracts" that they can impose safety measures in the result of unexpected circumstances like pandemics.. also those things ALREADY have existing vaccine requirements, covid wasn't the first vaccine in the history of the world.

is it the deep state that is responsible for the hunter witness being charged with lying about all the stuff the republicans were going on about?

sure please list all the pre-COVID vaccine requirements to use hotels and participate in cruises

I thought we were talking about schools. Most schools in the US require several vaccines for enrollment. When I was in school they were given right in the school building.

We were talking about people being forced to take vaccinations. You said only if you are taken by violence and forcibly injected it, that's force.

I say that any threat of violence including losing property is violence, and i mentioned people who paid for tuition for college when that mandate wasn't in place being expropriated of their money by the mandate. Then the cruise example which you agreed with.

Most schools in the US and in approx half of the EU countries mandate vaccinations to minors. None ever did in the EU for adults until covid (not sure for the US).

I am not aware of any adult vaccination mandate pre-covid for workers in the USA outside the healthcare sector either (not talking historically, talking in place in 2019), but some might have been in place. In Italy only thetanus vaccination was mandated and only in specific jobs, for adults.

Anyway the idea is that you are forced to do X if you are threatened of losing any personal freedom or property (including money you paid in advanced) if you don't do X.

So the claim that "no one was forced to vaccinate in the USA" (for covid) is simply blatantly false.

Who exactly lost money they paid in advance? Did this cruise ship thing actually even happen? If it did, was it a private company setting their own rules, like you agree they should be allowed to do?

There has been no need to require vaccines for most American adults because they all got them when they were in school.

And yes, still no one was forced to be vaccinated, which is easily shown by the fact that many people were not vaccinated, even when the rules said they had to. Many people were exempted for the total BS reason of 'freedom of religion' even though there are no major religions which don't allow vaccination and 99% of those just made up a new belief to endanger others.

Biden freezes has Mitch Moment

https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/other/bid...