2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I don't think that's what federal society judges do, and removing the Chevron doctrine nonsense is a drastical reduction in executive (agency) actual power for example.
which cases do you have in mind that expansively increased the scope of presidential powers?
btw I want Harris to win if the Senate gets republican, even if I love right-wing judges, not sure where you got that I favour Trump.
i actually favor a divided government
I'm not talking about the Chevron doctrine.
I'm talking about things like unitary executive theory, which very much was a Federalist Society thing, whether you want to believe it or not.
Growth of presidential powers
The power of the presidency has grown since the 1970s due to key events and to Congress or the Courts not being willing or able to rein in presidential power.[76] With strong incentives to grow their own power, presidents of both parties became natural advocates for the theory[22] and rarely gave up powers exercised by their predecessors.[37] Republican presidents, including Trump, did not follow through on promises to use unitary executive power to shrink government, instead opting to use the administration to advance their policies.[22]
The theory originated in conservative legal circles, most notably in the Federalist Society.[22] The Reagan administration took the advice in the Mandate for Leadership published by the Heritage Foundation to hire 5000 enthusiastic supporters of the Reagan-Bush campaign to fill the 5000 new political appointee positions created by the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act.[77] The administration also made use the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1980, to short-circuit any regulations the administration did not agree with.[77] The Reagan era is cited as a major catalyst in growing presidential power,[37][38] with significant growth post-9/11 as conservatives have most readily embraced the idea of a unitary executive.[36][78]
Dick Cheney and the George W. Bush administration supported the theory.[79] For example, Bush once wrote in a signing statement that he would, "construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."[80] Critics acknowledge that part of the president's duty is to "interpret what is, and is not constitutional, at least when overseeing the actions of executive agencies"; at the same time, they accused Bush of overstepping that duty by his perceived willingness to overrule U.S. courts.[81] During his confirmation hearing to become an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court, Samuel Alito seemed to endorse a weaker version of the unitary executive theory.[82] Barack Obama campaigned against the theory but embraced some aspects of it after the 2010 midterm elections.[83]
Donald Trump exerted the greatest control over the executive during his presidency than any other modern president, often citing Article II of the Constitution. In 2019, he said, "I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."[84][37][4][56] Bill Barr notably supported the theory before his confirmation as attorney general in a 2018 memo criticizing the Russia probe.[85][86] Project 2025 proposes using the theory as justification to give Trump or the next Republican president maximum control over the executive branch.[87] The Trump 2024 campaign platform includes an expansion of executive power grounded in this theory.[88] The 2024 Supreme Court ruling Trump v. United States could make the president even more powerful, with some interpreting it as an endorsement of the unitary executive theory.[89][90]
RFK Jr. says a Trump White House would immediately push to remove fluoride from water
If you thought conspiracy theories were bad for awkward Thanksgiving dinners with the extended family, wait until you see what effect they have on public health policy.
not here to stan for rfk (a narcissist loon like the man he's cozied up to) but stopping fluoridation of water is not a fringe conspiracy issue. widely acknowledged by establishment researchers (NIH, harvard) that ingestion carries several risks with no benefits. there are ways (like toothpaste) to get topical application of fluoride preventing cavities other than low-key poisoning people
The unitary executive theory doesn't give the executive more powers in the sense we usually mean the word.
it doesn't allow the executive to do stuff TO THE PEOPLE it shouldn't be allowed to do (!!!).
POTUS having more power the way I mean it would mean POTUS being allowed to use state violence against you to achieve stuff that he currently, constitutionally, can't achieve.
UET is exclusively about what the president can do with executive power branches. if he can remove anyone at will, of "independent" counsel or whatever can exist within executive agencies and to what extent and so on.
it is a topic completely unrelated to actual executive powers which is an expression meant to determine the limits the executive branch of power has in using state violence toward citizens, in stuff the executive can do to the people!
the president can be allowed to fire any federal employee at will, or none, or anything in between, and that would keep executive powers identical (!!!!).
that it's solely the president at the end, or his cronies, nominees or even worse some "permanent bureaucracy" that can wage state violence toward the people doesn't regard executive powers. it's about who can wield that power technically, in detail.
you can disagree with UET on constitutional grounds, you can disagree with it on pragmatic, consequentialist grounds, but you can't claim it increases executive powers even in it's most expansive form nor can Wikipedia.
when I comment on the risks of RFK having executive powers I common on actual powers, ie maybe the idea should be that literally no matter who wins elections, the president (or his nominees, or "independent branches of the executive" or anyone else) shouldn't be allowed to decide anything about what you are allowed to consume, sell and so on.
IE, full non-delegation doctrine, which is a REMOVAL of ACTUAL executive power and something toward which the federal society has been working for decades.
I know you know what it means but to clarify: powers the constitution gives to congress must stay in congress full stop. Congress cannot empower anyone else to decide which substances are legal, or how much you can pollute and so on, ever.
every single line of any regulation, anything that in any way or form limits the freedom of the people, has to pass congress to be legal.
you guys on the left love it when the executive can pursue regulations you like when you win elections, MAYBE with a crazy charlatan in charge of regulation with no legal recourse you MIGHT understand that was a disastrous mistake.
Lol. Luciom, was that you? Trump didn't call anyone garbage. And if he did, they weren't American citizens. And if they were, it was a tiny sliver of them. And if it wasn't... well they're Marxists anyway, right!
trump was stupid to call Harris supporters bad words, I didn't know he did when I wrote to you, I actually asked for proof he had in the past.
But the main narrative is the democrats are different and better so they have to be hold under a different standard, it was their choice to campaign on moral character, they have to show a better moral character.
That trump has a horrible moral character is well known.
trump was stupid to call Harris supporters bad words, I didn't know he did when I wrote to you, I actually asked for proof he had in the past.
But the main narrative is the democrats are different and better so they have to be hold under a different standard, it was their choice to campaign on moral character, they have to show a better moral character.
That trump has a horrible moral character is well known.
Democrats can be "better" and yet still call MAGAs bad words. Crazy, huh?
not here to stan for rfk (a narcissist loon like the man he's cozied up to) but stopping fluoridation of water is not a fringe conspiracy issue. widely acknowledged by establishment researchers (NIH, harvard) that ingestion carries several risks with no benefits. there are ways (like toothpaste) to get topical application of fluoride preventing cavities other than low-key poisoning people
we have no fluoridation of water in the EU with the exception of Ireland (no idea why), and it has never been a controversial topic as far as I can remember.
RFK is dangerous for other stuff but people trying to die on fluoride hill are truly misinformed
him being jewish isn't a non-starter. him being a proud zionist who has said crazy **** about this, comparing genocide protesters to the kkk, etc is the problem
anyway who cares, he sucks and is irrelevant
the guy literally wrote an op-ed saying the Palestinians were too violent to make peace with and predicted they would assassinate Arafat. ironically enough a few months later the Israelis assassinated Rabin. (and later Arafat for good measure)
but that probably didnt even matter to their decision. the sex pest stuff and covering up for his buddy who stabbed the gf like 25 times would have been way more problematic.
also, he leaked a bunch of stuff about him being the VP choice in the weeks before in a lame and transparent attempt to force the Kamala campaign's hand so that proly pissed them off the most.
trump was stupid to call Harris supporters bad words, I didn't know he did when I wrote to you, I actually asked for proof he had in the past.
But the main narrative is the democrats are different and better so they have to be hold under a different standard, it was their choice to campaign on moral character, they have to show a better moral character.
That trump has a horrible moral character is well known.
Don’t be shy !
Here Let me help you …….trump called them G.A.R.B.A.G.E lol..
But that isn’t the real problem , the problem is you trying countless time to prove trump ain’t worst then democrats .
Disregarding ,denying trump will always have less character, ethics or w.e else to almost anyone else in the world .
Trump is garbage !
interesting that you don't even touch trans issues.
Anyway on the economy we moved from "balanced budgets" (B. Clinton bragging about reaching one after decades) to both parties loving deficits.
that's a radical leftist shift objectively.
tariffs are leftism 101, especially when motivated by "protection of workers".
there was a timid attempt to move right on economics (tea party) but trumpism destroyed it. Musk and associates spend a word or two toward that at times but chances they will get anythin
Many trillions deficits came from tax cuts .
So how you know which to choose as a priority to condemn it leftish ?
Tax cut is right
Creating deficit is left
So because all republicans created bigger deficit and debt , regardless why, they always all were leftish ?
And Clinton was the only true right wing president because he balance it ?
But I though democrats were Marxist/communist ?
Something not working here …
Ps: why decriminalizing cannabis is radical left wing ?
Isn’t like reducing intervention of government of what people can and cannot do in their private life ?
Isn’t less « regulation » ?
Isn’t it giving more « freedom » to people ?
Nixon was a republican that got pardoned by a republican.
trump was called by democrats Hitler and a threat to the nation and democracy and prosecuted at the state and at the federal level by democrats for other stuff (in some cases very flimsy stuff )so if they had ANYTHING to cling on from the Mueller report they 100% would have used it without any doubt, and it's kinda insane you even trying to claim otherwise.
Yup and seems one of the reason ford couldn’t win the next election .
Regardless, historians believe the controversy was one of the major reasons Ford lost the 1976 presidential election, an observation with which Ford agreed.[78] In an editorial at the time, The New York Times stated that the Nixon pardon was a "profoundly unwise, divisive and unjust act" that in a stroke had destroyed the new president's "credibility as a man of judgment, candor and competence".[37] On October 17, 1974, Ford testified before Congress on the pardon. He was the first sitting president since Abraham Lincoln to testify before the House of Representatives.[79][80]
In the months following the pardon, Ford often declined to mention President Nixon by name, referring to him in public as "my predecessor" or "the former president." When Ford was pressed on the matter on a 1974 trip to California, White House correspondent Fred Barnes recalled that he replied "I just can't bring myself to do it."[81]
After Ford left the White House in January 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. United States, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt.
That’s what happened when you gave a majority of Republican caring about ethics .
They a were not maga and the funny thing about maga today ?
Making America great again ?
How ?
By eradicating everything the current maga act and stands for ? lol …
Ps: FWIW I’m not sure trump would accepted a pardon from
Biden , , it would means he would agree to be declared guilty .
Lol this was considered the sane republican which deserved donations not too long ago, to counter the threat of Trump
/
Haley said while she doesn’t agree with Trump all the time, she agrees with him most of the time and never agrees with Vice President Kamala Harris
and Garland completely disagreed with Mueller, otherwise since Trump wasn't a sitting president anymore, he could have prosecuted him using whatever Mueller had found.
What evidence do you have that Garland disagreed with Mueller? DA's and AG's have many reasons when deciding to prosecute or not prosecute individuals.
“I mean, can you imagine a wife not telling her husband who she’s voting for?” Trump said. “Even if you have a horrible, if you had a bad relationship, you’re going to tell your husband.”
Fox News host Jesse Watters said on the air last week that if his wife did the same as the women in the ad, it would violate “the sanctity of our marriage.”
“If I found out Emma was going into the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair,” Watters said, a remark that prompted many online to call him out for his marital affair, which he admitted to in 2018.
Conservative podcast host Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, called the ad “nauseating” as he criticized the wife for lying to “her sweet husband who probably works his tail off to make sure that she can go and have a nice life and provides for the family.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., joined the criticism Thursday, telling Fox News that Democrats are telling wives to lie to their husbands: “What kind of a totally amoral, corrupt, sick system have the Democrats developed?”
Cope harder, y’all
Hysterical that Trump and Gingrich are waxing philosophical about relationship morality. Trump cheated on every one of his wives, including with a playboy bunny while Melania was pregnant and of course later with a porn star. Gingrich visited his wife in the hospital while she was being treated for cancer, him armed with a yellow pad to discuss the details of a divorce.
I’m still deeply skeptical of the iowa polling but if it does turn out to be accurate or close to it ‘you are my property and obligated to vote accordingly’ is a pretty good god damn reason
Wife told me she sent in her ballot. All i said was ‘cool’
I’m still deeply skeptical of the iowa polling but if it does turn out to be accurate or close to it ‘you are my property and obligated to vote accordingly’ is a pretty good god damn reason
Wife told me she sent in her ballot. All i said was ‘cool’
right but thats bc you knew she was voting for Harris. if she told you that she was voting for Trump or Stein then what?
I’m still deeply skeptical of the iowa polling but if it does turn out to be accurate or close to it ‘you are my property and obligated to vote accordingly’ is a pretty good god damn reason
Wife told me she sent in her ballot. All i said was ‘cool’
Spoiler
cuck
Spoiler
😀
2 days away. This is my analysis of the last 3 weeks and 538.com and Nate Silver (NS) current status. My analysis only includes the latest Likely Voter (LV) poll for all pollsters. I also count a Multi-Candidate (MC) poll over a HeadsUp (HU) poll by any pollster on the same date. Because of the extremely right leaning polls by Rebublican paid pollsters I do a correction to the left for all states but GA. For some reason in GA the Red pollsters are actually slightly to the left of everyone else...
So here we go for 2024 in the swing states:
AZ: I have Kamala trailing by 1.9% (3.1% Un) 538 is at -2.5% and NS is at -2.6% (with only 0.8% Un). 5 of 22 polls are by Rep paid pollsters all with Trump winning except SoCal at 1% Kamala. Basically no change for me since 10/21.
GA: I have Kamala trailing by 1.7% (3% Un), 538 is at -1.4% and NS is at -1.3%. 5 of 21 polls are by Rep paid pollsters all with Trump winning. Kamala has gained close to 1% since 10/21 so momentum has shifted.
MI: I have Kamala up by 1.9% (3.8% Un), 538 is at 0.8% and NS is at 1.1%. I would have been at 1.7% without adjustments. 4 of 27 polls are by Rep paid pollsters (two ties and two at -2%). There was a Kamala shift after 10/21 but recently its back down to where it was before.
NC: I have Kamala trailing by 1% (2.8% Un), 538 is at -1.2% and NS is at -1.1%. I would have been at -1.3% without adjustments. 5 of 20 polls are by Rep paid pollsters (all with Trump ahead). Only NYT and CNN have Kamala ahead. Kamala has lost some ground since 10/21.
NV: I have Kamala trailing by 0.1% (4.1% Un), 538 is at -0.5% and NS is at -0.4%. I would have been at -0.4% without adjustments. 5 of 17 polls are by Rep paid pollsters (2 ties and the others have Trump winning one by 6%). Other pollsters: 7 have Kamala leading and 3 have Trump leading with 2 ties. Its about the same as before with a couple of pollsters thinking Trump will win big (I doubt they are right)
PA: I have Kamala up by 0.3% (3.1% Un), 538 has Trump up by 0.2% and NS has Trump up by 0.4%. I would have been at Trump ahead by 0.2% without adjustments. 7 of 29 polls are by Rep paid pollsters ( Trump up in 5, with 1 tie and 1 with Kamala up by 2%). Other pollsters: 2 have Trump up by 1%, 4 ties, and the rest are between 1% and 3% Kamala leads. Kamala has dropped about 0.5% since 10/21 but has gone up a little the last few days. Looks to me like it will be very very close. But this still looks similar to 2020 so I'm thinking Kamala will win by ~1%.
WI: I have Kamala up by 1.4% (3.3% Un), 538 is at 0.7% and NS is at 0.8%. I would have been at 1% without adjustments. 6 of 24 polls are by Rep paid pollsters (1 tie, 3 Trump up by 1%, 1 Kamala by 1%) Other pollsters: 1 has Trump up by ~0.25%, 5 ties, and 12 have Kamala up between 1% and 6%. I have Kamala gaining about 0.5% since 10/21 so she has momentum. Also, this looks a lot like PA in 2020. So I'm thinking Kamala by 1% or so.
This is what I am seeing:
1) No way to know what is going to happen yet. Kamala is currently trailing in electoral college votes re 538 and NS by the state of PA. For me she is still slightly ahead.
2) If Kamala loses PA she will have to win NC and NV. And MI and WI...
3) My gut says Kamala will lose AZ and GA. Not sure though. Both states may have people who will shift by election day. AZ because of the recent Puerto Rico comments, and GA for Obama and Lebron James reasons.
4) Trump is looking really bad in public. Saying super nasty things and at times looking like he is not all there. His people will come out to vote anyway. But undecideds leaning right may just stay home as a result.
5) In all likelihood we will not know the outcome of the election on election night. Some states like WI won't have all tallies counted. Maybe until the weekend if it is super close.
6) NC is still out there. There has been a lot of early voting in what must be cities. Hurricane had caused a lot of rural damage so unclear if those people will even vote.
7) What I am hearing is that women favor Kamala by almost 20% and men favor Trump by like 16%. Up until now women seem to be voting early at a higher rate than men...
I’m still deeply skeptical of the iowa polling but if it does turn out to be accurate or close to it ‘you are my property and obligated to vote accordingly’ is a pretty good god damn reason
Wife told me she sent in her ballot. All i said was ‘cool’
Here is Selzer's track record in Iowa. This graphic was from an MSNBC segment today, which had Selzer on to discuss the poll.
