“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’ve given up on this crowd. You didn’t say do nothing.

    This crowd only understands their echo chamber. Unless you are 100% in agreement with them then you must 100% be against them.

    In another post I challenged them to give one specific thing Biden can/should do to fix this. They couldn’t even come up with one item.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      I got one. Present a new bill that says supreme court judges are not for life with no chance to remove them.

      Every 4 years on election years, but months before the presidential election, (so maybe spring/summer) they allow the general public to vote on their performance. If they get less than 65% approval rating, they’re out. They’ll be replaced by the new president, technically next year (since the election happens in November, but the inauguration is in January).

      So if a court judge is less than 65% popular with the public, they’re gone.

      And yes, I see the problem of “but the nation is so divided right now that neither side could get that approval rating, and all 12 judges would just be replaced every 4 years…”

      Which is partially by design. We need a system that fundamentally breaks all systems that keep corrupt people in power, and actively discourages the media, and politicians from taking this “us vs them” mentality.

      A republican SHOULD be presenting their set of ideas that benefit ALL Americans.

      A democrat SHOULD be presenting a different set of opposing ideas that benefit ALL Americans.

      And the public should vote on what will benefit them most. There should be no such thing as career democrats, or career republicans. It should be a free flowing liquid set of ideas that get catagorized as democrat this time, but based on the people in the election, maybe next time you’re catagorized as more republican than the other guy. So, this election you’re republican instead.

      Because everybody is so concerned about “The other side”, that everybody forgets one key thing. It may be two sides, but they’re two sides to the same coin. That coin is America. Right now, and for the past 8 years, that coin has been just falling to the ground.

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        thank you for presenting at least a decent idea. the ideas of shoot trump is just stupid. yeah biden can’t be prosecuted for it but the person who shoots trump can be. it’s still against the law and would basically guarantee a civil war in this country.

        while the bill is a good idea. would it actually pass? i mean think about it. right now the republicans own the court and will own it until the current batch dies. why would they vote for the bill? but on the face of it . it’s a good idea.

    • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      In another post I challenged them to give one specific thing Biden can/should do to fix this. They couldn’t even come up with one item.

      Nice to run into you again, still posting this tired line huh? And you’re lying, because not only did I provide specifics, so did multiple other people (there’s more than just these, I’ve seen a ton). It seems that you might be caught in some sort of personal echo chamber.

      Is there a reason you stop responding to people once they provide specifics?

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I kept checking and no one would give specifics. I gave up on the conversation. But I’ll go look

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      Unless you are 100% in agreement with them then you must 100% be against them.

      I know what you mean. It’s pretty freaking sad. This isn’t facebook, where there’s an 80% chance I have horrid views if you think I might have them. Yet they behave like it’s facebook.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Or maybe your views are just wildly unpopular, that’s a possibility too.

          • Lightor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yah, I mean you’d hate to have any introspection, easier to insult everyone else.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Right because if a few idiots say some dumb shit it’s my issue. I love how online idiots think they know everything about a person from one interaction

              Even if all of Lemmy hated my opinion in this thread that wouldn’t make them right

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                And you calling them idiots doesn’t make it so either. It’s just easier to call everyone dumb than genuinely consider their opinion.

                Everyone hating your opinion doesn’t make them automatically right, but it also doesn’t make them automatically wrong. Either way, only an idiot has everyone tell them they’re wrong and never considers that they just might be.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I’m assuming that since I also had a comment that was heavily upvoted yesterday, you think I should suck my own dick for being extra correct?

                  No? Only should take it to heart if I’m downvoted by people advocating murder eh? Funny how that works.

                  • Lightor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Nope, that’s not at all what I said. See that’s your issue, you want to get mad and hyper defensive about everything instead of just having some introspection when people are telling you you’re wrong. I basically said “if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, that’s a good indicator that you should at least reevaluate your position” and you had to take that and get defensive. If this is how you handle someone else’s views then ya, I get why you’re down voted.

                    You’re building a straw man and then trying to use that straw man to back your point. I clearly stated that other people’s opinion does not make you right or wrong. This is a great example of your problem. You’re not even trying to understand the point I’m making, you’re just getting upset because someone suggested the idea that you might, just maybe, be wrong. So you make super hyperbolic statements and misrepresent what I said.