"Average American president attempts 0.004 coups per year" factoid actually just a statistical error. Average American president attempts 0 coups per year. Traitors Donal, who dyes face orange & attempts over 0.25 coups each year, is an outlier adn should not have been counted.
elbucho
joined 1 year ago
Shit like this is why red flag laws were invented.
This person's basically complaining about Deadpool breaking the 4th wall, not taking the Marvel franchises seriously, and having a cavalier attitude towards storytelling. Has he never heard of Deadpool before? That's, like, the core of his personality. This movie was the most Deadpool that a Deadpool movie could be. I mean, I get it if you don't much care for Deadpool, but if that's the case, why go to see a Deadpool movie in the first place? This entire article just makes it sound like this guy loves the smell of his own farts.
I mean, every piece of copaganda is like: "look, see? We're just your friendly, neighborhood guys! We like playing basketball with black kids! Isn't that cool??"
I don't know that they specifically had a campaign that said: "we're not a gang", but that's kind of the subtext of all of the PR they do.
For a group that wants to distance itself from gangs, it sure doesn't help their case when they jump in new recruits.
I would 100% watch a YouTube let's play about this game.
Presidents say shit all the time, though. Just saying that there is a major problem is newsworthy, but it's all worth a hill of beans if it doesn't lead to lasting changes. I believe that he was right in that an amendment will be the securest way to enumerate the boundaries of executive authority, as it will be much harder for the Supreme Court to fuck that up, but there is an extremely high bar to pass to get an amendment through. If he decides to go the legislation route instead, any new laws that are passed by Congress are potentially subject to being overturned by the courts.
As for the optics of Republicans opposing supreme court reform or curtailing of executive authority... meh. We all watched nearly every single Republican in the House vote to not impeach Donald Trump on two separate occasions, for incredibly stupid reasons, and most of those people won re-election. Relying on the public to make good decisions when faced with bald-faced congressional corruption is a losing proposition.
I mean, no argument from me. The fact that the Supreme Court basically just ruled that the President can operate independently from the law, like a fucking king, would have every single one of those guys spinning in their graves fast enough to power a city. It's just the latest milestone in a decades-long quest by the Heritage Foundation to convert America's government into a Christian theocracy.
I only disagree with the term “murder” when it’s applied to Obama’s authorization of the strike that killed Anwar Al Awlaqi.
Yeah, that's fair enough. "Murder" is a charged term. I prefer it because it emphasizes that it is an unlawful killing of a person, and I take issue with the denial of due process. I think it's doubly applicable when it concerns the US killing of his 16-year-old son.
I would feel way more comfortable if the term “public danger” could only be applied to specific individuals rather than broad descriptions(like the one you referenced from Trump).
Yup. Shit like this is exactly why I'm so cagey any time new precedents are set, because things that could be justified in certain hands can be tyranny in others. I feel like a deep familiarity with the law and US history naturally leads to a certain paranoia, and for good reason.
Sorry, I posted something else, but upon reviewing it, I felt that I had to make some major revisions, so I just opted to delete the post and make a new one instead.
"Due process" isn't really defined in the constitution, but it is mentioned in both the 5th and 14th amendments. Here's the text of the fifth:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Because it's not explicitly defined, the Supreme Court has had to interpret what "due process" actually means. Here's a breakdown of how it interprets procedural due process (process for civil and criminal cases):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_due_process
Of note is this bit:
At minimum, a person is due only notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker.
This is a very low bar, especially when facing capital punishment. But in the case of Al-Alwaqi, even this low bar was denied to him.
I really like your metaphor about the bank robbers - it's a very good comparison on the basis of similarity of imminent public danger. The thing is, though, police actually have certain rules about when they can use deadly force, and though they very, very often get away with it even in situations where no deadly force is warranted, they are still occasionally indicted for it. Like Derek Chauvin, for example. One of the guiding lines for when use of deadly force is allowed is when there is an imminent danger either to the officer or to the public. But even this is subjected to review. Granted, it's not great review. But there's still something. There is no process for reviewing governmental use of deadly force on US citizens with drone strikes. In fact, since most military operations of this type are classified, we actually have no idea how many US citizens have been killed in this way.
The US is not a member of the ICC. Their arrest warrant on Putin has fuck all to do with the US. And besides, under no circumstances would the US desire the arrest of Putin. We won't even allow Zelensky to use US-provided munitions to target Russian airfields; you think we'd risk nuclear retaliation by arresting their president??
I get that you didn't put much thought into this post, but god damn. That space between your ears isn't just free real estate.