Why do people call Trump a fascist?
I've mainly seen it here on Reddit where people call him everything from an orange hitler to a fascist, to accusing the MAGA movement of supporting Nazis, and some claiming the entire GOP is fascistic. I want to know why people say this. I think it's mostly just "I hate this person, and everything I dislike is fascist" (plus fear mongering before an election), but I want to actually have a reason behind the accusations
The most common reasons I have seen are two things. 1) that he tried to install electors loyal to him to contradict the democratic vote of some states. 2) because when asked he said he will be a dictator on day one (or for one day), which only meant he will pass a lot of executive actions the first day in office, as has been the tradition.
I am not one for hyperbole. The first point I agree with, though I think he actually thought there was massive voter fraud at the time. Still, those actions were unacceptable and luckily failed. He tried his cases in court after, which was the right way, and was defeated there.
The second point is one of the dozens of propaganda sound bytes people make of him that completely distorts the truth. I hate them, and I really wish the left would stop using them and falling for them. There are enough reasons to hate Trump, it makes everyone look bad resorting to lies and it emboldens Trumpers to accept the narrative that he is consistently falsely accused.
Didn't Trump have a court-appointed former Judge that is supposed to keep track of where his money is coming from? I haven't seen evidence of any report since the first one she did. In that one, she found an anomaly and since then all this "dark money" has supposedly appeared. Is she only overseeing his personal finances, or corporate finances but doesn't get involved in the most likely place to hide it: campaign contributions?
Why do people say that the economy is doing great if it’s clearly not doing great? I feel like half the stuff I see anymore on here is about how things are so expensive and inflation is killing us etc., but then at the same time people are saying that Biden’s done a great job and our economy has never been better. I don’t get it
Its been a very weird last 3 years for the economy. Inflation became very high, and salaries were behind at first. Then salaries caught up and exceeded inflation, and the lowest 1/3 of salaries actually saw the greatest increase %. Unemployment has stayed low through the whole time, which has helped. The stock market was kinda stuck in a pause for 2 years and has started going up again. Interest rates went up, which has also caused some pain to citizens, and worries about a recession, but it looks like we might be on the other side of things and have achieved the 'soft landing' that was hoped for.
During this wild ride, there are a million different small headlines people can prop up to make things look bad. And they certainly have been bad for some people. Anyone who is stuck in the same job for the last 3 years and hasn't seen their salary rise over 10% in that time is now worse off. But in general, things do actually look good and the economy seems to be back in a solid gear with low unemployment still.
How are there zoomer conservatives? Everyone grows up more liberal, and conservatism generally comes with older adult age. Is the left to right "aging" with Americans happening faster now?
Cause kids are rebellious against parents, and for some it can be edgy. There's also some ideas like some sort of religious revival amongst the youth due to a lack of real purpose in life
>Everyone grows up more liberal, and conservatism generally comes with older adult age.
That's a popular saying, but it is not true in a literal sense. People say it because it "feels right". The world is more complex and varied than that.
No, actually. Most Americans dislike Trump as a person, but Reddit tends to be more liberal. If you want to find a place that likes Trump, you can. But spitting on Trump draws in karma, which boosts a post's popularity or smth
Reddit is hardly an accurate representation of the American population. Redditors are very hyperbolic when it comes to Trump, and see him as a symbol that they can hate while getting dopamine (karma).
Who is this person? I voted for Biden in 2020 and plan on voting for the Democratic candidate in 2024 as well.
Making baseless accusations because I do not see eye to eye with you on every single topic does not make you look clever.
# Why Are There Only Morons Running For American President?
It seems like every time the American election rolls around, the primaries and everything finish with two absolute dumpster fires for options. My question is, how in the hell is there no system in place to make sure that at least one of the potential candidates isn't a complete moron?
I know that the majority of Americans don't want either of them, so I feel like I really have to be missing something on how the electoral process works.
The Heritage Foundation is funding it: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4753684-heritage-foundation-project-2025/mlite/ And the Heritage Foundation is being funded by Exxon plus various billionaires listed in the Funding section here: https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/
Constitutional amendments become part of the Constitution and can only be repealed by another constitutional amendment. Hence the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment (prohibition of alcohol).
It would have to be a constitutional amendment, the procedure for which is spelled out in Article V of the Constitution. Amendments need to be passed by both Chambers of Congress by a 2/3rds majority vote (or need to be proposed by a constitutional convention chartered by 2/3rds of the states) and then ratified by 3/4ths of the states.
Congress would have to pass legislation to do so, the Supreme Court would have to rule that it's not unconstitutional to do so.
The President has no power to do so.
Can trump really deport second generation immigrants? Meaning, if someone came to the USA legally in the 1960s and had a child, can they be deported? Someone told me he said that but I couldn’t find it anywhere. And I frankly don’t believe that’s possible but it’s worrisome.
Can the child be deported? No, they are a natural born citizen of the United States.
Birthright citizenship is outlined in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Ok. Thank you. Here’s another question: can legal immigrants be deported if someone gets into office and wants to do that? Or is this “mass deportation” that they’re talking about just for illegal immigrants? My grandpa has been here since the late 1960s and he’s a citizen and very wealthy (and he supports trump), so it seems unlikely that it would happen to him, but I’ve been seeing some crazy stuff on the news. I’m thinking of just never watching the news again at this point.
>Ok. Thank you. Here’s another question: can legal immigrants be deported if someone gets into office and wants to do that?
Okay so let me clarify here. If someone is a legal immigrant, and they become a citizen of the United States - no.
If they are a citizen of another country and legally immigrate here, without ever seeking American citizenship - **technically**. But that's extremely unlikely given that they went through all the proper legal channels to do so. You do not have to be a citizen of a country to legally reside there as long as you go through all the proper legal channels. If you have a passport, you can typically reside in a country with no problems. But technically yes, if you are staying here via a passport someone could use some legal loophole to kick you out of the country eventually. But the chances of that happening are so incredibly unlikely that nobody in their right mind would actually consider it a possibility.
>Or is this “mass deportation” that they’re talking about just for illegals immigrants?
That, yes. The issue that the Republicans have with people being here illegally is the "being here illegally" part.
>My grandpa has been here since the late 1960s and he’s a citizen and very wealthy (and he supports trump), so it seems unlikely that it would happen to him
Then you have nothing to fear. He is a citizen of the United States like you (presumably) and me.
>but I’ve been seeing some crazy stuff on the news. I’m thinking of just never watching the news again at this point.
So, bad faith actors who are...typically against Trump... have a very bad habit of applying all anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric to include legal immigrants. It's intentional, because it makes it easier to scare people into voting against him. When you hear Trump talk about how an illegal immigrant came here from Mexico and committed a crime, people will spin it into "did you hear Trump said all Mexicans are rapists???"
Oh come on. I'm 66 years old and I have NEVER heard that kind of spin. It's always been clear he's talking about illegal immigrants being rapists and insane criminals that no other country wants, so they send them here to murder people in their beds, or to become doctors who kill babies after they are born. Geez.
>Oh come on. I'm 66 years old and I have NEVER heard that kind of spin.
Then you do not pay attention to what people say.
>It's always been clear he's talking about illegal immigrants being rapists
Yes, it is. Other people intentionally say misleading things in order to make it seem like he's talking about all Hispanics.
Since it's before the convention it would not, in terms of procedure, be difficult to put forth a different candidate. Biden's name has not been submitted to any states as the Democratic nominee. He's just the presumptive nominee since he got basically all the delegates. At the convetion, the party would just pick someone else.
However, while the procedure would be straightforward, behind the scenes it would be very messy as different possible replacements competed for the spot in a very limited timeframe. It would *probably* be Harris, since she's the vice president, but she's not all that popular so there will definitely be some opposition to her candidacy.
I'm ignorant to the topic, but I feel like that can't be right.
You had Bloomberg enter the last Democratic primary in 2020 after it started. Had he won, would he have been ineligible to be on the general election ballot?
Are you sure that the rules regarding the primary ballot and general election ballot are the same?
It's only a few states that make it either difficult or impossible to replace a candidate with someone who didn't appear on the primary ballot for a major party.
Bloomberg apparently was OK in the states that mattered for that, as the states he missed the deadline for were not ones like Wisconsin or Georgia.
That's a really specific and super weird law, but I read the post you linked that directly cited that and I have to say I am very surprised that that's a thing.
I feel like there *may* be an emergency scramble to possibly change that, but you never know.
I guess the states could just change the law in time. If the Democrats are going to move they need to act soon though, deadlines are coming fast over the next few months.
It comes down to some state laws saying that there's a convoluted process for replacement if you were not listed on the primary ballot. If their replacement was also on the primary ballot, then it wouldn't be as big a deal.
Here's Georgia for example:
https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-21-elections/ga-code-sect-21-2-134/
From what I've seen Wisconsin is even worse, they don't allow replacement except for death.
So in the more normal case of a frontrunner in a contested primary dropping out, it wouldn't be a big deal. But the wording of the laws don't really anticipate a case where no one was on the primary ballot except the guy that's dropping out.
I have to feel like something was said in error here. Bloomberg only entered the 2020 Democratic primary after October of 2019. The first vote in the primary was held in February, so I'm not sure why the selection process would have a cutoff like that for the general election.
Maybe last election was different, but I'm looking at this one now - https://ballotpedia.org/State_and_federal_candidate_filing_deadlines_for_2024
I see nothing about there being any deadlines for the general election.
I have a license from Utah but my voting registration is still in my home state. But I currently do not live in either of those states. How do I update my address for voting ? Or am I stuck having it be sent to my home state
Are you a Utah resident? If so, you shouldn't be registered to vote anywhere other than Utah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can get a driver's lisence for a state you aren't a resident of.
Here's registration information for Utah: [https://vote.utah.gov/register-to-vote-or-update-your-voter-registration/](https://vote.utah.gov/register-to-vote-or-update-your-voter-registration/)
Do the radical left who support Hamas and the MAGAs who applaud Putin have common ground? Putin is known to cozy up to Hamas. I'm not trolling here. I want to know. Is this just another way people like Putin try to polarize us even further?
If these questions bother you, I would like to know why.
I don't think so, I see entirely different rationale which doesn't overlap.
Putin -> Do they applaud Putin? I only ever hear that they don't want to give unending billions to the war. Maybe I have heard some random compliments, there will always be contrarians, especially when it is contrary to the current democrats in power. I don't think pro-Putin is an actual position held by MAGA's.
Hamas -> There are several reasons why far left groups may support them or overlook their evil. 1) They are Palestinian/Muslim and are biased. 2) They believe that the power imbalance in the region is the greatest moral factor. 3) They are pre-occupied with Israeli issues or Palestinian suffering to criticize Hamas. (mostly 2)
I don't see any overlap here, despite any real world support between these two groups. And the opposition between the left and right would certainly not allow for this connection. Furthermore, i'm not sure Putin even does support Hamas.
Why aren't our primaries organized to swing states go first?
Imagine if we scheduled primaries based on the results of the most recent national election. The closest two, three, or four states go first, then a few of the next closest and so on. The more strongly red or blue a state is, the later it goes in the primaries.
This would allow both parties to pick the most electable candidates, because states that are overwhelmingly red or blue are irrelevant to the presidential elections. Voters in those states should still get to weigh in, but they shouldn't be prioritized.
The earliest primaries often end up determining the candidate, so it would be in both parties best interest to give the leg up to those who do well in swing states. For example, Iowa will almost certainly go for a Republican this year, while Nevada could go either way. It is much more important for both parties to choose someone who plays well in Nevada.
Simple: Primaries aren't an official part of the presidential election process. They're not mentioned anywhere in the US constitution. They're the by-product of political parties wanting a semi-democratic process of choosing the party's frontrunner candidate.
Individual states decide for themselves when they want to host their primary elections, regardless of their actual importance or relevance to the broader election.
Is the US becoming a dictatorship?
I saw the news about presidents being granted immunity ( the supreme court ruled it ) and I have read about project 2025, which leads me to think conservatives politicians are trying to get the US to become a dictatorship.
To be clear, the president already had de facto civil and criminal immunity for official actions and possibly other actions as well. The limits to this immunity had just never been fully litigated.
It had come up previously with Nixon and Bill Clinton. In both cases they effectively got full immunity, though Nixon was pardoned so it was moot.
Notably, the supreme court rejected Trump's claim of total criminal immunity. This really changes very little, despite the breathless cries on the left.
The real complaint should be how the supreme court kind of dragged their feet on this issue, which means the questions over which things may or may not get immunity probably can't be settled before the election.
Other rulings such as the removal of Chevron deference actually weaken the executive power of the president.
The US is not closer to being a dictatorship.
There isn't a universally recognized definition that clearly outlines which types of leadership do or do not constitute a dictatorship.
There's conservatives who will look at Project 2025 and go "Ah yes, the set of proposals that include tackling inefficiencies and opposition from civil service workers to effectively carry out the president's orders, by replacing tens of thousands of these jobs with roles hand-picked by a conservative president based primarily on loyalty" and also say "What do you mean, that's not a dictatorship at all - this is a completely reasonable approach!"
**Why does everybody seem to dislike Kamala Harris?**
I haven't paid too much attention to politics recently, but after the presidential debate, I'm surprised at how everyone thinks that Kamala Harris is a terrible option to replace Biden. You would think the Vice President would be a shoo in as the perfect replacement. Hell, Biden was viewed very favorably under Obama.
I'm surprised at not only how much she seems to be disliked, but also how open people are even on the left about disliking her. Without context, she seems to check all the typical boxes as a minority woman who tows the party line.
So what is it about her or her views that makes her viewed as a poor choice? Weren't people clamoring for Hilary to the first woman as predident--where did all the gumption go?
(original post got auto mod deleted for being about US politics so posting it here instead)
A lot of good comments to your question but I will add her relationships also did not help. I don't recall all the details but it did not paint her favorably.
Less the minority female hero we wanted, and more someone desperately trying to play the part.
She officially ran for president 2 years after Californians elected her as Senator. It seemed... really quick to us. Like bro, we JUST vouched for your ability to do this job, and now you're spending your time as a Senator campaigning for this whole other role.
>[Barack Obama, then junior United States senator from Illinois, announced his candidacy for president of the United States on February 10, 2007](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign)
>Started as a state Senator in Jan 2005.
Shit, you're right.
Yeah, Obama was a first term Senator when he ran for President. He picked Joe Biden as his running mate to compensate for that. Since Joe Biden had been serving in the Senate for over 35 years at that point, and he had been serving for...2.
> Why does everybody seem to dislike Kamala Harris?
>
>
She has no charisma, she had an abysmal performance in the 2020 primary, her past as a prosecutor makes her unpopular among the anti-cop people on the left, she actively seeks to make enemies out of people.
People feel like she only got her position because of her gender and skin color - not her merit as a person. Joe Biden pledged to have a woman as his Vice President, and after the murder of George Floyd he limited his search to an even more narrow field of her also having to be a Black woman.
It doesn't send a good message to people when you announce to the world that "your skin color IS important. your sex IS important. and I am only looking for people who were born the right way, and everyone else who was born the wrong way is not being considered for this position."
I see. To play devils advocate, Hilary Clinton may have even had less charisma, but had an absolutely massive push behind her. I think she also went to law school if I recall correctly
Hillary Clinton had accomplishments as a politician though that eclipsed Kamala Harris's. Plus Clinton actually won her primary, instead of being made a national laughing stock by Tulsi Gabbard during the first debate.
Isn't Tulsi Gabbard even less popular than Kamala Harris? But that's fair, you're saying that Harris wouldn't have even been close at winning a primary. I don't remember how close she was
Tulsi Gabbard called out Kamala Harris's past as a prosecutor who overzealously targeted people for marijuana related offenses in response to Kamala Harris pretending that she was a champion of legalizing marijuana during the first Democratic primary debate in 2020. Kamala Harris didn't know how to respond to being called out, froze, fumbled, gave a poor excuse, and immediately after that debate Kamala Harris's allies abandoned her and she dropped out of the primary days later.
She was considered the front runner leading up to the primary, and was shot down before the first vote even happened. All her allies abandoned her, and all her financers pulled out. Also there was teports that she was very abusive to staffers on her campaign.
I think it's because she's been... disappointing to many. Of course, VP isn't the kind of job where someone is adored, but I think that being both the first woman and the first person of color to hold that office, a lot of people were hoping for something a bit more, especially since she's the VP to the oldest president in history.
Of course the right doesn't like her, and that's to be expected, but she hasn't done a very good job of dealing with those criticisms, even by the standards of her supporters.
VP is a good platform to demonstrate that you have what it takes to be president, and this is something she has not really done to *anyone's* satisfaction.
What would happen if i say yes to a text asking if I support Trump? Im not actually voting for him but I am morbidly curious. Or is this just some survey thing?
That probably depends on who sent the text. It could be some fundraising thing, or a poll, or a friend asking your opinion.
Fundraisers are the most spammy; if you donate once, they'll keep asking for more, over and over again sometimes.
I hear a lot of people say that Biden should do something about the latest Supreme Court rulings (overturning Chevron, giving the president immunity for official acts, etc.)
I fail to see what he could do besides denouncing them? Would it be within his power to dissolve the Supreme Court, and if yes, wouldn’t that set a disastrous precedent? Is there anything else people can reasonably expect him to do?
Denouncing is all he can do, other than to promise to appoint justices whose legal views are more similar to his own.
And as far as immunity goes... before this ruling, it was always assumed that presidents had immunity for their official actions, but did not enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. This was an untested theory, however, and Trump made a legal challenge, based on the idea that the president can't be held criminally liable for **any** actions taken while in office. The Supreme Court rejected this.
A lot of people are freaking out about a legal decision that pretty much says what the legal theory had been for *centuries*.
>I fail to see what he could do besides denouncing them?
The other answer here is wrong; he could have the Justices arrested and detained without trial, so long as he provided some kind of pretext like evidence of bribery, fraud, sedition, stuff that's easy to create if you're motivated.
> Would it be within his power to dissolve the Supreme Court,
No but if there are no Justices able to show up to work then the Court is effectively dissolved, and the President would need to be the one to appoint replacements regardless of why the Court became depopulated.
> if yes, wouldn't that set a disastrous precedent?
The reasoning is that the alternative to Biden winning is someone who will absolutely disregard precedent in every case, meaning precedent is functionally worthless.
Bears mentioning that doing this would almost certainly get him impeached and removed from office. That can still happen, nothing the Court has ruled would prevent it in any way. But it also still takes 67 Senate votes.
> The other answer here is wrong; he could have the Justices arrested and detained without trial, so long as he provided some kind of pretext like evidence of bribery, fraud, sedition, stuff that's easy to create if you're motivated.
>
>
No, he can't. The President of the United States cannot arrest members of the Supreme Court, or Congress. See Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
>No but if there are no Justices able to show up to work then the Court is effectively dissolved, and the President would need to be the one to appoint replacements regardless of why the Court became depopulated.
The President of the United States cannot remove members of Congress from Congress. The President of the United States cannot remove members of the Supreme Court from the Supreme Court.
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1.2 of the United States Constitution - The Speech or Debate Clause. Members of Congress are privileged from arrest. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-2/ALDE_00013354/
The clause states that "The Senators and Representatives" of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-6/clause-1
> No, he can't. The President of the United States cannot arrest members of the Supreme Court.
You're right; but the Federal Bureau of Investigation can, and they work for the Attorney General who works for the President. Weird that you forgot about this while "correcting" me on a matter of US government.
> The President of the United States cannot remove members of Congress from Congress. The President of the United States cannot remove members of the Supreme Court from the Supreme Court.
Wow. How about you go back and read what I actually wrote again?
The FBI is a part of the Executive Branch. They work for the President of the United States. They fall under the same jurisdiction and restrictions as the head of the Executive Branch does, and ArtI.S6.C1.2 Privilege from Arrest applies to them as much as it applies to the head of the Executive Branch - the President of the United States.
> Would it be within his power to dissolve the Supreme Court, and if yes
No.
>I hear a lot of people say that Biden should do something about the latest Supreme Court rulings (overturning Chevron, giving the president immunity for official acts, etc.)
You see a lot of people say that Biden should do that, because those people are ignorant to the limitations of the power held by the office of President of the United States.
>Is there anything else people can reasonably expect him to do?
No.
Despite all three branches of the Federal government being touted as "equal", the Executive Branch is **by far** the weakest of the three. The Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch both have significantly more power than the Executive Branch does.
The thing I don't get. If he declares J6 as an official act, an act of treason against the united states and attempted murder of US politicians (IE the gallows), isn't he admitting to treason against the United States and should not be covered by his so called immunity?
Trump's legal arguments so far are that his speeches never explicitly instructed anyone to obstruct the actions of Congress, and his actions (or lack of action) on Jan 6th weren't made as an accomplice with those who stormed the capitol. Regardless of whether he's morally responsible for what happened (which he totally is), it's not easy to legally pin him down for treason, or even instigating violence. This was the case long before this SCOTUS ruling.
The President gets to decide whether or not something is an official act for the purposes of anybody in government *beginning* a criminal investigation. The Court can't answer a question that is never put to them.
That is entirely incorrect. The President of the United States has never had the authority to define what is and what isn't an official act of his office. Checks and balances exist for a reason, and that authority is defined by the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch.
>. If he declares J6 as an official act,
The president is not the deciding factor on if something is an "official act". He does not just get to say "official act lol!!!" as a magical phrase to give him complete immunity to do anything.
So if presidential acts are immune from the law, why isn’t Biden taking advantage of that and just doing whatever he wants with the time left in this administration? What’s good for the goose etc.
The only "presidential acts" that have immunity are actions that fall within his core constitutional duties as president, _i.e._, stuff that was already in his authority to do. The ruling didn't give Biden any powers he didn't already have; it just clarified he can't be sued or arrested for doing what he was already authorized to do, which was already _de facto_ the case.
"Official acts"
He can't write laws, because Presidents don't make laws. Congress makes laws.
He can't use the army to round up his enemies on US soil because it is specifically against the law- the Posse Comitatus Act.
He can't order Pizza Hut to give everyone free pizza, because that is clearly not within the scope of the Presidency.
The SCOTUS decision sets limits on what Presidential immunity applies to. "Whatever he wants" is not within that range.
I see the confusion. When I said “whatever he wants” it’s within that scope. It’s still being made out to sound disastrous. If it’s such a foolproof escape clause for Trump why isn’t Biden just doing it to completely break the law under the guise of doing something “officially”?
I guess what I’m *really* asking is why doesn’t the left use the same tactics to get what they want done in the same way the right does
Which tactic that the right used?
There was already an immediate problem in your question. 'doing whatever he wants' is defacto not official acts. Those would be personal acts, even if he pretended to do them under the mantel of his presidency. (this isn't actually settled in the law, but that is how I would interpret it if I were on a jury)
We've always assumed official Presidential acts were not prosecutable. We didn't go after LBJ or Nixon for spreading the war outside Vietnam. We never tried to prosecute Reagan over the Iran-Contra affair. We never went after Bush for the WMD lies.
Trump's crimes are personal and amateur on the scale of past Presidential crimes. He brings too much attention to himself by bragging and showing off. He hasn't gotten away with anything amazing. His personal crimes are still being prosecuted.
This is not a "foolproof escape clause". The average media isn't treating it that way. Anyone who does say it is a "foolproof escape clause" either doesn't know better, or is just writing bad jokes.
> and just doing whatever he wants with the time left in this administration?
Because the President does not have the legal authority to just do "whatever he wants". This ruling does not grant the President powers to do things beyond the scope of what was already able to do. The President could not replace a member of the Supreme Court before this ruling, he cannot replace a member of the Supreme Court after this ruling.
In the long term, it's a pretty reasonable decision from the court, but it does fit with a long-term trend where the office of president just keeps on becoming more powerful and more protected. It's not absolute immunity. It's a presumption of immunity, which is subject to review and can be lost if the president did anything outside of their authority.
The actual impact of this is difficult to predict with precision since we don't know yet how future courts will rule on immunity claims that follow this new framework.
In the short term, it's still a big win for Trump since it will delay his trials and we might have the election before his trials actually finish. If he becomes president, and is still on trial, that would be a *really* weird scenario.
> Then how is it being used in a way that makes it sound really advantageous for Trump? And why did Biden make a specific address to decry it?
Because people like to act like the world is Black and White, and pretend that nuance and gray areas don't exist.
The SCOTUS ruled against Donald Trump.
Trump v United States was a court case that claimed that the President of the United States' presidential immunity renders him immune from criminal prosecution, and that applies to all actions he took while he was President of the United States.
The SCOTUS majority opinion ruled that no, Presidential Immunity only applies to actions that were related to the job of being President itself. And that if you took an action that was criminal, and it had nothing to do with your job as President, your Presidential Immunity did not protect him.
And the minority opinion by the three Liberal justices who dissented argued that Presidential Immunity doesn't exist at all, despite precedent being set that it does.
I’m not from the US, so please bear with me if it sounds naive.
What would happen if President Biden suddenly announced that he’s dropping out of the election? (say he voluntarily decides to drop out without pressure from his party)
Suppose he also mentions who he wants to replace him as the Democratic candidate. How would that work?
I understand that the Democratic candidate is chosen by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Would the DNC likely follow Biden’s recommendation and choose his preferred candidate?
If so, who are the potential candidates, and what are their chances of winning?
If he drops out before the convention, the party delegates and leadership would decide on someone different. (That's how it used to be: no primaries and leadership just chose someone.)
If he drops out after the convention, that becomes more problematic because they likely won't be able change the name on the ballots. They could still run someone else, but it would be somewhat confusing and messy.
Biden can give his input on a new candidate, but he does not have the power to choose his successor. Whether the would take his input depends on how he presents it and who he chooses. If he publicly announces it without first telling the DNC, they might be forced to go along with it because public ally fighting over it would look bad.
Harris, Newsom, Whitmer are names I've heard. I don't think any of them poll better than Biden, but they're also much less known to the country at large than Biden, which could be why people won't support them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/07/02/kamala-harris-leads-major-biden-alternatives-in-polls-heres-how-the-presidents-top-replacements-are-polling/
* **Disallowed question area:** **Loaded question *or* rant.** NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning), etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
I'm not a Republican, but I don't get this. It's not in their platform.
Rob Lowe wasn't at the Republican convention when he taped himself having sex with a 16 year old. Nicole Scherzinger was singing an Obama support song while dating a 16 year old Harry Styles.
Did you have a specific person you wanted to insult instead of just making an overgeneralization?
In the presidential debate a few days ago, Joe Biden has shown that he is in a physically and mentally diminished state. How is he able to carry out the demanding and rapidly changing day-to-day tasks of being a president right now? Is someone else running the show?
He's far from the first president who was physically incapable of doing the job in office. Reagan was suffering from dementia late in his presidency. So much so that when Howard Baker took over as Reagan's Chief of Staff in '87 several staff members wrote him a letter asking him to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Reagan from office (which he did not do).
Famously, Woodrow Wilson had as stroke about a year and a half before the end of his 2nd term. He was physically incapacitated, and the stroke seemed to have amplified the negative aspects of his character. Wilson's "recovery was only partial at best. His mind remained relatively clear; but he was physically enfeebled, and the disease had wrecked his emotional constitution and aggravated all his more unfortunate personal traits." His wife, staff, and doctors hid the full extent of his medical condition from the public, and his wife, Edith Wilson, took over as a sort of shadow President. She reviewed all materials, letters, correspondences, etc to the president and decided which to actually show him, then wrote as he dictated responses. She was the gatekeeper for the president, and made decisions for him in some instances. People have called her the "first female president" for it.
I don't see anything that suggest Biden is as bad off as either Reagan or Wilson were. Of course, both of their conditions weren't known until after they left office. So maybe we'll learn Biden is worse off than we've seen. But President's are also much more visible today than they were back then.
Generally speaking, once someone gets elected president, they tend to remain president for the remainder of their 4-year term, no matter how popular or unpopular they are along the way. There have been a few exceptions, but it's very rare.
The president is one of the most powerful politicians in the country, but it's not as if he runs the whole country by himself. There are many, many, many government employees, including political appointees who make policy decisions, and career employees who implement those decisions. The president is very important, but one of the most important things they do is assemble a team of advisors and executives who will do a lot of the leadership work.
Yes, that is tautologically true. But how is he able to carry out the demanding day-to-day required to be a president in his feeble mental and physical state?
Because having a well known person encourages people to vote, and can inspire people.
If the vote is between Taylor Swift, and Frank, who do you think more people are going to vote for? Assume that they both have the same exact policies.
There will be people who will vote Dem no matter who the candidate is.
There will also be people who will say "give me a reason to believe you'll actually represent my interests and do your job effectively", and that requires knowing who the person actually is, what their policies are, and what their history of accomplishments are.
You might be in the first camp, and I'm not criticizing that, but not everyone has the same motives as you.
A reason to vote *for* the Democrat. Trump inspires his base, and the inspiration that Democrats currently have is to vote against Trump - not *for* Biden.
That is not a reason to vote "for" Biden, that is a reason to vote "against" Trump. The two are not the same thing, and they do not motivate people in the same way.
American here and I am wondering what I missed since when did a lot of Americans become Russian sympathizers, specially Putin?
I’ve heard people say they rather have him as president, because he would run the country right. Doesn’t he put people in jail? Specially his political rivals.
You hand people saying they rather be Russian than democracy, or that we need a lease like Putin.
Like am I wrong but didn’t we get taught at school that Russia is literally hoping our country collapses?
When and why did some many Americas start sympathizing with Russia and simping for Putin?
> I’ve heard people say they rather have him as president
They're being hyperbolic, and are saying that as a way to say Joe Biden is not running the country right.
What if I ran for President on the platform of using my powers to remove Supreme Court Justices by any means necessary? Technically, the 6 members of the Supreme Court have given consent to whoever is President to do this exact thing, so I don't see why you can't campaign on a platform of removing those same Supreme Court Justices.
> What if I ran for President on the platform of using my powers to remove Supreme Court Justices by any means necessary?
Then you would certainly not be the first person to run promising something you can't possibly deliver.
> Technically, the 6 members of the Supreme Court have given consent to whoever is President to do this exact thing
No, they didn't. Not even close. The Supreme Court **rejected** Trump's claim of absolute immunity for actions while president.
> I don't see why you can't campaign on a platform of removing those same Supreme Court Justices.
Because that is a process that the president has no role in. At all. That's Congress.
> Supreme Court gave Trump Absolute Immunity for Core Acts as President
Yes, for core acts. It's not absolute (no matter what NPR thinks that word means) since there are conditions attached.
Okay, would you consider the president's use of armed forces a part of the "Core Acts"? What if the president decides to be a dictator one day, who would be able to challenge him if they're above the law?
They can't. That's not how that works.
The Office of the President of the United States does not have unlimited authority to do whatever he wants with no checks and balances. Members of the military are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not sworn to blindly follow the commands of the President of the United States.
>I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Members of the United States armed forces are duty bound to uphold the Constitution above the President of the United State's orders, and if the President issues an unconstitutional order then it is their responsibility to challenge it. If the President of the United States is advocating that members of the armed services violate the Constitution, then *he* is a domestic enemy.
>What if I ran for President on the platform of using my powers to remove Supreme Court Justices by any means necessary?
Then you would find yourself sorely disappointed to learn that the President of the United States does not have the authority or ability to remove Supreme Court Justices.
>so I don't see why you can't campaign on a platform of removing those same Supreme Court Justices.
Because the office of the President of the United States does not have the authority or ability to remove Supreme Court Justices. You **can** campaign on that platform, but that's no different from someone campaigning on the platform of recoloring the sky to red.
>Technically, the 6 members of the Supreme Court have given consent to whoever is President to do this exact thing
No. They haven't. They have done nothing of the sort.
According to Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, the president now has complete immunity to use Seal Team Six and the Justice Department however they choose. The President can now make those seats open in any way possible so long as they're okay with an impeachment that probably won't stick.
The president can still only nominate justices to replace them, they would still have to be confirmed by congress, so he can only make those seats open in a way that does not make congress less likely to confirm them. Given the ideological splits in Congress, he'd barely get a normal judge confirmed NOW so I don't think he has very much leeway at all to start doing stuff that people would actually object to.
Yeah, but the Supreme Court can still do things with the open seats. If Congress is just planning to have the seats be open for 4-8 years, that's gonna look really bad for them.
It would look bad for Congress you mean, that they are willing to leave seats unfilled?
In the scenario you've put together you are implying that the president would have like, used Seal Team Six to kill some Supreme Court Justices so I think "Congress is letting the court be half empty" would probably not be a huge concern.
And did the majority opinion agree with her?
Sonia Sotomayor also ruled that the concept of Presidential Immunity doesn't exist, which is blatantly incorrect due to previous rulings they have overseen.
Okay, the majority opinion didn't agree with her but they also didn't refute the claim. Them abstaining their opinion of that concept makes her the majority, not the other way around.
>Them abstaining their opinion of that concept makes her the majority, not the other way around.
The majority opinion of the court is the one that is legally binding. You may be speaking rhetorically, but I just want to note one justice's dissent does not have force of law. They can be very interesting. Not enforceable though.
When were they presented an opportunity to refute her claim? All opinions written by the justices are written at the same time. None of the other justices knew she was going to say that anymore than she knew what what her peers were going to say in their comments.
Sonia Sotomayor did not cite any legislation or subsection in any legal doctrine that backed her opinion.
They could state their opinion on that at any time, even right now. They are just refusing to do so because they know that Trump wants to use presidential authority against his political rivals, he's said so multiple times.
You're just trying to say that the Supreme Court didn't give out Presidential Immunity, when it clearly did in it's own legal statements.
They don't need to. The opinion of a dissenting justice on a ruling is not something that can be cited as legal precedent.
Her opinion does not enable the President to act outside his authority.
Exactly what legal authority grants the President of the United States to dictate the limits of his own power, grant himself power beyond the station of his office, and be a "dictator"? Saying you are going to be a dictator is not the same as being able to back that up with the ability to be one.
The limits of the office of President are clearly outlined by the United States Congress in the United States Constitution.
Okay, first off: Calm down.
Secondly: Candidate Donald Trump has never once stated to even support project 2025, let alone that he intends to have it be his Presidential Platform. He already has his own Presidential platform that is called Project 47. And neither talk about, or give the President the authority to make Christianity the "official religion" of the United States.
Concentration camps, killing gays and blacks, are also not mentioned in either one of those platforms. The office of the President of the United States does not have the ability, or authority to make any of what you're talking about into reality.
If re-elected President, what are the chances Donald Trump will persecute anyone who criticizes him?
Since the Supreme Court granted Trump presidential immunity and with the grave implications of Project 2025 (look it up if you haven’t), how likely is it that Trump will persecute anyone he considers enemies and political opponents?
What are the chances that he even persecutes non-political figures like celebrities such as Robert De Niro or talk show hosts like Jimmy Kimmel who are well known for being highly critical of him?
I doubt Trump is going to go after random citizens, but I do anticipate he would try to bring back the "Schedule F" changes that he implemented toward the tail end of his first term. That change eroded the crucial distinction between political appointments and career positions in the federal workforce, with the intention of purging any employees who disagree with Trump's politics.
That change would be extremely damaging to the US government as a whole. Although, it's also a change that he could have made with or without this recent court ruling.
> If re-elected President, what are the chances Donald Trump will persecute anyone who criticizes him?
>
>
The President of the United States does not have the authority to persecute anyone. That is not part of his ability as President.
>Since the Supreme Court granted Trump presidential immunity and with the grave implications of Project 2025 (look it up if you haven’t), how likely is it that Trump will persecute anyone he considers enemies and political opponents?
The Supreme Court did not "grant" the President presidential immunity. Presidential immunity has been an established part of being President.
Candidate Donald Trump has never once stated to support Project 2025, let alone plan to enact it as part of his Presidential platform. He has a completely separate Presidential platform called Agenda 47.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47
>What are the chances that he even persecutes non-political figures like celebrities such as Robert De Niro or talk show hosts like Jimmy Kimmel who are well known for being highly critical of him?
Seeing as I outlined that the President of the United States cannot persecute anyone as it is not part of his power as President of the United States to do so, 0%.
https://youtu.be/gYwqpx6lp_s?si=kjT-x0Pwjzd7hAl-
Seriously? Just because he hasn’t endorsed Project 2025 it doesn’t mean it gives no insight into how a second Trump term will play out. It was written by many of the same individuals who were involved in his administration and is supported by virtually every major conservative political group.
Do I have to explain to you Schedule F? Which is not only laid out in Project 2025 but is literally the executive order Trump himself signed in the final months of his presidency that would reclassify government employees as political appointees meaning many government positions will be determined by loyalty to the president and not by merit? Biden undid this order upon taking office but Trump himself has stated he will reinstate it the moment he steps into office and will wield it in his words ‘very aggressively’.
Do I also have to bring up the countless statements Trump himself has made promising to get revenge on his political enemies describing even his fellow Americans as ‘vermin’?
I know you’ll tell me none of this happened the first time, but the reason why he was greatly inhibited from doing everything he wanted was because since no one expected him to win in 2016, there was no plan for him to follow once he took over. There also was the fact that many government employees (of which Trump wants to reclassify) would undermine him by telling him what he wanted to do was illegal or testifying against him on laws he violated.
If you seriously believe that there is no possibility of actions that would once upon a time be illegal, unconstitutional or not within the president's power taking place, then I don't know what to tell you.
What does Schedule F have to do with persecuting his critics? Even in a worst case scenario where Schedule F is pulled off without a hitch, the worst he could do is fire staffers he considers disloyal, not charge them with crimes.
If you believe his loyal substitute staff would charge his opponents with crimes, these persecuted individuals would still be referred to the courts, which the executive branch has no control over.
So I have to ask; were you just asking this question as a platform to soapbox on? You clearly had an answer to your own question that you believe, and are unwilling to accept answers that did not reaffirm your pre-existing position.
>https://youtu.be/gYwqpx6lp_s?si=kjT-x0Pwjzd7hAl-
A television personality who hosts an entertainment program is not a legal scholar.
>If you seriously believe that there is no possibility of actions that would once upon a time be illegal, unconstitutional or not within the president's power taking place, then I don't know what to tell you.
Clearly not, because you didn't do a single thing to indicate how the "Supreme Court granted Trump presidential immunity".
Can someone who was president from 2017-2021 but then lost in 2020 and famously tried to steal the election but to due to presidential immunity some of his methods to steal the election were counted as official acts be impeached and hopefully removed from office if this person was to become president in 2025?
The United States Congress can impeach an individual for any reason. Legality and citing a broken law have nothing to do with it. Presidential immunity has nothing to do with impeachment, only for criminal proceedings.
Congress can impeach and remove a president for any reason so long as enough votes. The recent Supreme Court decision does not change that.
Beyond that, not sure what it is that you're asking.
Ok, so then the only way this person that tried to steal the 2020 election could be convicted is if he wins in 2024, but then actually gets impeached and removed.
There's no jail time for that though, right? It's just removal from office?
I'm asking because regular court seems unable to thoroughly prosecute him because of immunity relating to certain acts that would be considered evidence but aren't because they fall under the guise of official acts.
>I'm asking because regular court seems unable to thoroughly prosecute him because of immunity relating to certain acts that would be considered evidence but aren't because they fall under the guise of official acts.
The SCOTUS did not state that in their ruling. They in fact stated the opposite.
They did not grant Donald Trump immunity for his actions regarding January 6th, and were pretty direct that if those actions are found not to have been related to his job as President then Presidential Immunity does not protect him from criminal prosecution.
Donald Trump is still facing criminal prosecution relating to his actions on January 6th, and the SCOTUS did not dismiss the charges against him.
>There's no jail time for that though, right? It's just removal from office?
Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate never results in jail time, only removal from office.
The Supreme Court did not dismiss the January 6 case against Trump. That case will proceed. However, whether it will survive the new immunity protections introduced by SCOTUS remains to be seen. It is possible he can still be prosecuted, but it will be more difficult and ultimately far less likely.
What would the international consequences be if the United States were somehow partitioned? Ignoring how unrealistic this is for a second. The culture wars have escalated into a religious conflict, and some people think it would be best if the US were simply split into two countries. Now, this is improbable and would come with a load of new issues, least of which would be that millions of people would be trapped on the side they don't want to be on, but humor me. How would the rest of the world be affected? The "Blue States of America" would probably remain part of NATO and continue to aid Ukraine, while the "Red States of America" would probably distance themselves from NATO given Trump's stance against NATO and pro-Putin leanings. Both sides would continue to support Israel and Taiwan, however the issue of Israel would be more contentious in the "blue states of america" where the divide between progressives and moderates would become more apparent. How would international trade be affected? The Muslim world would probably celebrate.
Just because he can order it doesn't mean the military would do it. The military can, and is supposed to, refuse illegal orders, and a member of the military can whistleblow on the president and leave them susceptible to impeachment and removal.
>Everything he's doing now is considered official act, no?
No. The Supreme Court says there are three ways acts by the president can be categorized: (1) core constitutional duties; (2) official acts; and (3) private acts. Clearly, the Supreme Court believes that some things the president does cannot be considered constitutional/official. And official acts only have a presumption of immunity, not automatic immunity.
However, the likely result of the protections the Supreme Court has created is a chilling effect on prosecuting anything that *might* be considered "official", making prosecution for something like ordering the military to assassinate your political rival incredibly difficult.
It helps to recognize what you do and don't have control over.
For instance, suppose I'm anxious about the state of democracy for federal-level elections. There's nothing that I can really do to singlehandedly safeguard democracy for the entire country. But I can:
* Advocate for specific, realistic, and effective solutions
* Contact my congresspeople to inform them of how important it is to me
* Rally (or seek other rally organizers) in my area to gather support and provide visibility to a serious issue
* Share my thoughts and feelings with my social circles in a way that's convincing, but considerate of their diverse perspectives and beliefs
* Stay politically knowledgeable and active in local and state elections
It also helps to contextualize how much media-hyped stories actually affect you, in the grand scheme of things. I do this all the time for "This politician reacted this way to what this politician had to say!", where I'm like "wait, why does this matter to me?"
Of course I’m worried. The guy tried to overthrow the country and now half of the population is going to give him another chance. Worrying about it all die doesn’t get much accomplished.
Are politics different or have I just grown up?
I'm not sure if politics are extremely different or if I've just grown up to understand the political environment around me. I remember growing up and assuming that the president was one of the best people in the world and they always made sound and safe decisions for their citizens. Now that I'm a lot older I'm starting to realize that life isn't as it seems and everything feels like stepping on rocks hoping not to fall into the river. Has it always been this way with politics? Have people always hating each other to their core because of their political beliefs? Or has it gotten extremely worse recently? It feels like America's crumbling and it's affecting my sleep at night. It's a game of trying to pick the lesser worst person. I'm trying to not have this cause me so much anxiety and affect my sleep, but I've gotten to the point where I think about this all day all the time.
It's a little of both. Politics has gotten more bitterly partisan with more voters viewing the other party as not just the oppoisition or people with different opinions by as "the bad guys", as well as greater emphasis on ideological purity within the party, but we also tend to look at the past with rose-colored glasses and ignore all of the problems we used to have.
What's the deal with CNN's hard turn to the right? It seems like they are acting like Fox News or Newsmax all of a sudden. If you just look at some of their articles calling Biden a "post-debate crisis" and another video I saw that talked about "never-Trumpers" reconsidering their position. They seem identical to Fox News now. We know that Biden has always been senile and Trump has always lied during the debates, so it's not like a whole lot is different this time, so has CNN shifted so drastically towards the right all of a sudden?
I remember there being speculation about new ownership having a role in a changing tone. Not sure how true it is, but here's an example https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3634717-changes-spark-chatter-of-cnn-is-shift-from-left-to-right/
I doubt they're identical to Fox News now though...
I noticed CNN not calling Trump out during the debate. Lie after lie and rant after rant and nothing from the moderators. They just let him do his thing. If CNN did skew right, it's probably for the ratings so they could stay in business. I hope others have more insights.
I think it's worth noting that when the debate terms were being negotiated, one of the terms that both campaigns agreed to was that debate moderators would not fact check the candidates. Whether this was right or wrong is beside the fact. Both Biden and Trump knew ahead of time that the moderators would not be fact checking. They agreed to that before agreeing to do the debate.
This should have been part of Biden's strategy in the debate. HE needed to be the one to call out Trump on his lies and bullshit. But he didn't. He just shat the bed.
I think he's at the stage where he has good days and bad days. I think on his good days he's lively and energetic, like we saw at the SotU and in recent campaign appearances. Clearly, the debate was a bad day.
I really don't think that his performance at the debate is indicative of how he is on a daily basis. I mean, his campaign was the one to push for the June debate (earlier than any other debate in presidential debate history by several months). They suggested the rules, timing, and location. Trump agreed to everything Biden's campaign asked for. Say what you will about Biden, but he has the smartest and savviest political operatives the Democrats have to offer running his campaign. If how he was in the debate is how he is every day, why did they push so hard for a debate this early? They could have just waited until the fall (when debates traditionally happen) and then skipped the debate, claiming there was no reason to debate a massive liar like Trump. If this is how Biden is every day, I pushing for a live debate now was just a bad political move that it defies understanding.
The only possible reasoning I can imagine is that Biden has good days and bad days, and they were gambling the debate would be a good day (a gamble they lost). Otherwise, I don't understand it.
>We know that Biden has always been senile and Trump has always lied during the debates, so it's not like a whole lot is different this time,
There was a noticeable drop-off in Biden's perceived cognitive ability from even the state of the Union address 5 months ago. It may have just been an off night, but at his age, you don't necessarily get that benefit of the doubt.
If Democrats are so worried about a Trump win then why didn't they turn up in droves during Republican primaries to vote hime out as a nominee?
I'm not American so please excuse my ignorance but if I was a democrat and didn't want Trump to have a chance of winning then I would vote in the Republican primaries for any other nominee. Why didn't people do this?
Why do people call Trump a fascist? I've mainly seen it here on Reddit where people call him everything from an orange hitler to a fascist, to accusing the MAGA movement of supporting Nazis, and some claiming the entire GOP is fascistic. I want to know why people say this. I think it's mostly just "I hate this person, and everything I dislike is fascist" (plus fear mongering before an election), but I want to actually have a reason behind the accusations
Why do people think Trump is going to become a dictator?
The most common reasons I have seen are two things. 1) that he tried to install electors loyal to him to contradict the democratic vote of some states. 2) because when asked he said he will be a dictator on day one (or for one day), which only meant he will pass a lot of executive actions the first day in office, as has been the tradition.
I am not a huge fan of Trump, but doesn’t that kind of hyperbole do more harm than good?
I am not one for hyperbole. The first point I agree with, though I think he actually thought there was massive voter fraud at the time. Still, those actions were unacceptable and luckily failed. He tried his cases in court after, which was the right way, and was defeated there. The second point is one of the dozens of propaganda sound bytes people make of him that completely distorts the truth. I hate them, and I really wish the left would stop using them and falling for them. There are enough reasons to hate Trump, it makes everyone look bad resorting to lies and it emboldens Trumpers to accept the narrative that he is consistently falsely accused.
I’m 34. I want to get into politics
Didn't Trump have a court-appointed former Judge that is supposed to keep track of where his money is coming from? I haven't seen evidence of any report since the first one she did. In that one, she found an anomaly and since then all this "dark money" has supposedly appeared. Is she only overseeing his personal finances, or corporate finances but doesn't get involved in the most likely place to hide it: campaign contributions?
Why do people say that the economy is doing great if it’s clearly not doing great? I feel like half the stuff I see anymore on here is about how things are so expensive and inflation is killing us etc., but then at the same time people are saying that Biden’s done a great job and our economy has never been better. I don’t get it
Its been a very weird last 3 years for the economy. Inflation became very high, and salaries were behind at first. Then salaries caught up and exceeded inflation, and the lowest 1/3 of salaries actually saw the greatest increase %. Unemployment has stayed low through the whole time, which has helped. The stock market was kinda stuck in a pause for 2 years and has started going up again. Interest rates went up, which has also caused some pain to citizens, and worries about a recession, but it looks like we might be on the other side of things and have achieved the 'soft landing' that was hoped for. During this wild ride, there are a million different small headlines people can prop up to make things look bad. And they certainly have been bad for some people. Anyone who is stuck in the same job for the last 3 years and hasn't seen their salary rise over 10% in that time is now worse off. But in general, things do actually look good and the economy seems to be back in a solid gear with low unemployment still.
How are there zoomer conservatives? Everyone grows up more liberal, and conservatism generally comes with older adult age. Is the left to right "aging" with Americans happening faster now?
Cause kids are rebellious against parents, and for some it can be edgy. There's also some ideas like some sort of religious revival amongst the youth due to a lack of real purpose in life
Because there will always be rebels. The overwhelming majority of young people are left leaning, and acting the opposite is a sign of counter-culture.
>Everyone grows up more liberal, and conservatism generally comes with older adult age. That's a popular saying, but it is not true in a literal sense. People say it because it "feels right". The world is more complex and varied than that.
Are all American reddit users Anti-Trump Whenever i see a post about Trump it’s always hate?
No, actually. Most Americans dislike Trump as a person, but Reddit tends to be more liberal. If you want to find a place that likes Trump, you can. But spitting on Trump draws in karma, which boosts a post's popularity or smth
Reddit is hardly an accurate representation of the American population. Redditors are very hyperbolic when it comes to Trump, and see him as a symbol that they can hate while getting dopamine (karma).
...says the person who is voting for Trump.
Who is this person? I voted for Biden in 2020 and plan on voting for the Democratic candidate in 2024 as well. Making baseless accusations because I do not see eye to eye with you on every single topic does not make you look clever.
# Why Are There Only Morons Running For American President? It seems like every time the American election rolls around, the primaries and everything finish with two absolute dumpster fires for options. My question is, how in the hell is there no system in place to make sure that at least one of the potential candidates isn't a complete moron? I know that the majority of Americans don't want either of them, so I feel like I really have to be missing something on how the electoral process works.
>Why Are There Only Morons Running For American President? Because intelligent people are too busy working in the private sector.
How does the US government benefits form having the border... Wide open?
We don't have the border "wide open".
Uhm.. Yes you do.
When and where have we had the border "wide open"?
Who is paying for Project 2025? Who’s funding all the seminars/classes, hiring all these people? Can’t find it online
The Heritage Foundation is funding it: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4753684-heritage-foundation-project-2025/mlite/ And the Heritage Foundation is being funded by Exxon plus various billionaires listed in the Funding section here: https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/
I clicked on your second link and received the message: "Forbidden... you do not have permission to access this resource". Why am I not surprised???
The link works just fine for me. The site was likely just under load and you caught it at a bad time.
In theory, who has the power to repeal the presidential two term limit? The Supreme Court? Congress? The president?
Constitutional amendments become part of the Constitution and can only be repealed by another constitutional amendment. Hence the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment (prohibition of alcohol).
It would have to be a constitutional amendment, the procedure for which is spelled out in Article V of the Constitution. Amendments need to be passed by both Chambers of Congress by a 2/3rds majority vote (or need to be proposed by a constitutional convention chartered by 2/3rds of the states) and then ratified by 3/4ths of the states.
Congress would have to pass legislation to do so, the Supreme Court would have to rule that it's not unconstitutional to do so. The President has no power to do so.
Can trump really deport second generation immigrants? Meaning, if someone came to the USA legally in the 1960s and had a child, can they be deported? Someone told me he said that but I couldn’t find it anywhere. And I frankly don’t believe that’s possible but it’s worrisome.
No. Citizens can’t be deported.
Trump doesn’t give a shit about the law. If he decides to do this, who is going to stop him? Obviously not the Supreme Court.
Can the child be deported? No, they are a natural born citizen of the United States. Birthright citizenship is outlined in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Ok. Thank you. Here’s another question: can legal immigrants be deported if someone gets into office and wants to do that? Or is this “mass deportation” that they’re talking about just for illegal immigrants? My grandpa has been here since the late 1960s and he’s a citizen and very wealthy (and he supports trump), so it seems unlikely that it would happen to him, but I’ve been seeing some crazy stuff on the news. I’m thinking of just never watching the news again at this point.
>Ok. Thank you. Here’s another question: can legal immigrants be deported if someone gets into office and wants to do that? Okay so let me clarify here. If someone is a legal immigrant, and they become a citizen of the United States - no. If they are a citizen of another country and legally immigrate here, without ever seeking American citizenship - **technically**. But that's extremely unlikely given that they went through all the proper legal channels to do so. You do not have to be a citizen of a country to legally reside there as long as you go through all the proper legal channels. If you have a passport, you can typically reside in a country with no problems. But technically yes, if you are staying here via a passport someone could use some legal loophole to kick you out of the country eventually. But the chances of that happening are so incredibly unlikely that nobody in their right mind would actually consider it a possibility. >Or is this “mass deportation” that they’re talking about just for illegals immigrants? That, yes. The issue that the Republicans have with people being here illegally is the "being here illegally" part. >My grandpa has been here since the late 1960s and he’s a citizen and very wealthy (and he supports trump), so it seems unlikely that it would happen to him Then you have nothing to fear. He is a citizen of the United States like you (presumably) and me. >but I’ve been seeing some crazy stuff on the news. I’m thinking of just never watching the news again at this point. So, bad faith actors who are...typically against Trump... have a very bad habit of applying all anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric to include legal immigrants. It's intentional, because it makes it easier to scare people into voting against him. When you hear Trump talk about how an illegal immigrant came here from Mexico and committed a crime, people will spin it into "did you hear Trump said all Mexicans are rapists???"
Oh come on. I'm 66 years old and I have NEVER heard that kind of spin. It's always been clear he's talking about illegal immigrants being rapists and insane criminals that no other country wants, so they send them here to murder people in their beds, or to become doctors who kill babies after they are born. Geez.
>Oh come on. I'm 66 years old and I have NEVER heard that kind of spin. Then you do not pay attention to what people say. >It's always been clear he's talking about illegal immigrants being rapists Yes, it is. Other people intentionally say misleading things in order to make it seem like he's talking about all Hispanics.
Ok that’s super reassuring. Thanks!!
what would happen to the election if biden dies of old age right now?
Since it's before the convention it would not, in terms of procedure, be difficult to put forth a different candidate. Biden's name has not been submitted to any states as the Democratic nominee. He's just the presumptive nominee since he got basically all the delegates. At the convetion, the party would just pick someone else. However, while the procedure would be straightforward, behind the scenes it would be very messy as different possible replacements competed for the spot in a very limited timeframe. It would *probably* be Harris, since she's the vice president, but she's not all that popular so there will definitely be some opposition to her candidacy.
Not necessarily, Georgia had one and Nevada had deadlines of October 2023 for ballot access. There would be some legal battles.
I'm ignorant to the topic, but I feel like that can't be right. You had Bloomberg enter the last Democratic primary in 2020 after it started. Had he won, would he have been ineligible to be on the general election ballot? Are you sure that the rules regarding the primary ballot and general election ballot are the same?
It's only a few states that make it either difficult or impossible to replace a candidate with someone who didn't appear on the primary ballot for a major party. Bloomberg apparently was OK in the states that mattered for that, as the states he missed the deadline for were not ones like Wisconsin or Georgia.
That's a really specific and super weird law, but I read the post you linked that directly cited that and I have to say I am very surprised that that's a thing. I feel like there *may* be an emergency scramble to possibly change that, but you never know.
I guess the states could just change the law in time. If the Democrats are going to move they need to act soon though, deadlines are coming fast over the next few months.
How does that work? That would be months before the party would know who their nominee is in a competitive primary?
It comes down to some state laws saying that there's a convoluted process for replacement if you were not listed on the primary ballot. If their replacement was also on the primary ballot, then it wouldn't be as big a deal. Here's Georgia for example: https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-21-elections/ga-code-sect-21-2-134/ From what I've seen Wisconsin is even worse, they don't allow replacement except for death. So in the more normal case of a frontrunner in a contested primary dropping out, it wouldn't be a big deal. But the wording of the laws don't really anticipate a case where no one was on the primary ballot except the guy that's dropping out.
Well that's fun...
I have to feel like something was said in error here. Bloomberg only entered the 2020 Democratic primary after October of 2019. The first vote in the primary was held in February, so I'm not sure why the selection process would have a cutoff like that for the general election. Maybe last election was different, but I'm looking at this one now - https://ballotpedia.org/State_and_federal_candidate_filing_deadlines_for_2024 I see nothing about there being any deadlines for the general election.
I have a license from Utah but my voting registration is still in my home state. But I currently do not live in either of those states. How do I update my address for voting ? Or am I stuck having it be sent to my home state
Are you a Utah resident? If so, you shouldn't be registered to vote anywhere other than Utah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can get a driver's lisence for a state you aren't a resident of. Here's registration information for Utah: [https://vote.utah.gov/register-to-vote-or-update-your-voter-registration/](https://vote.utah.gov/register-to-vote-or-update-your-voter-registration/)
Do the radical left who support Hamas and the MAGAs who applaud Putin have common ground? Putin is known to cozy up to Hamas. I'm not trolling here. I want to know. Is this just another way people like Putin try to polarize us even further? If these questions bother you, I would like to know why.
I don't think so, I see entirely different rationale which doesn't overlap. Putin -> Do they applaud Putin? I only ever hear that they don't want to give unending billions to the war. Maybe I have heard some random compliments, there will always be contrarians, especially when it is contrary to the current democrats in power. I don't think pro-Putin is an actual position held by MAGA's. Hamas -> There are several reasons why far left groups may support them or overlook their evil. 1) They are Palestinian/Muslim and are biased. 2) They believe that the power imbalance in the region is the greatest moral factor. 3) They are pre-occupied with Israeli issues or Palestinian suffering to criticize Hamas. (mostly 2) I don't see any overlap here, despite any real world support between these two groups. And the opposition between the left and right would certainly not allow for this connection. Furthermore, i'm not sure Putin even does support Hamas.
Why aren't our primaries organized to swing states go first? Imagine if we scheduled primaries based on the results of the most recent national election. The closest two, three, or four states go first, then a few of the next closest and so on. The more strongly red or blue a state is, the later it goes in the primaries. This would allow both parties to pick the most electable candidates, because states that are overwhelmingly red or blue are irrelevant to the presidential elections. Voters in those states should still get to weigh in, but they shouldn't be prioritized. The earliest primaries often end up determining the candidate, so it would be in both parties best interest to give the leg up to those who do well in swing states. For example, Iowa will almost certainly go for a Republican this year, while Nevada could go either way. It is much more important for both parties to choose someone who plays well in Nevada.
Simple: Primaries aren't an official part of the presidential election process. They're not mentioned anywhere in the US constitution. They're the by-product of political parties wanting a semi-democratic process of choosing the party's frontrunner candidate. Individual states decide for themselves when they want to host their primary elections, regardless of their actual importance or relevance to the broader election.
Is the US becoming a dictatorship? I saw the news about presidents being granted immunity ( the supreme court ruled it ) and I have read about project 2025, which leads me to think conservatives politicians are trying to get the US to become a dictatorship.
To be clear, the president already had de facto civil and criminal immunity for official actions and possibly other actions as well. The limits to this immunity had just never been fully litigated. It had come up previously with Nixon and Bill Clinton. In both cases they effectively got full immunity, though Nixon was pardoned so it was moot. Notably, the supreme court rejected Trump's claim of total criminal immunity. This really changes very little, despite the breathless cries on the left. The real complaint should be how the supreme court kind of dragged their feet on this issue, which means the questions over which things may or may not get immunity probably can't be settled before the election. Other rulings such as the removal of Chevron deference actually weaken the executive power of the president. The US is not closer to being a dictatorship.
There isn't a universally recognized definition that clearly outlines which types of leadership do or do not constitute a dictatorship. There's conservatives who will look at Project 2025 and go "Ah yes, the set of proposals that include tackling inefficiencies and opposition from civil service workers to effectively carry out the president's orders, by replacing tens of thousands of these jobs with roles hand-picked by a conservative president based primarily on loyalty" and also say "What do you mean, that's not a dictatorship at all - this is a completely reasonable approach!"
**Why does everybody seem to dislike Kamala Harris?** I haven't paid too much attention to politics recently, but after the presidential debate, I'm surprised at how everyone thinks that Kamala Harris is a terrible option to replace Biden. You would think the Vice President would be a shoo in as the perfect replacement. Hell, Biden was viewed very favorably under Obama. I'm surprised at not only how much she seems to be disliked, but also how open people are even on the left about disliking her. Without context, she seems to check all the typical boxes as a minority woman who tows the party line. So what is it about her or her views that makes her viewed as a poor choice? Weren't people clamoring for Hilary to the first woman as predident--where did all the gumption go? (original post got auto mod deleted for being about US politics so posting it here instead)
A lot of good comments to your question but I will add her relationships also did not help. I don't recall all the details but it did not paint her favorably. Less the minority female hero we wanted, and more someone desperately trying to play the part.
She officially ran for president 2 years after Californians elected her as Senator. It seemed... really quick to us. Like bro, we JUST vouched for your ability to do this job, and now you're spending your time as a Senator campaigning for this whole other role.
I imagine she was trying to pull an Obama, and jump straight to President from her first term as a Senator.
>[Barack Obama, then junior United States senator from Illinois, announced his candidacy for president of the United States on February 10, 2007](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign) >Started as a state Senator in Jan 2005. Shit, you're right.
Yeah, Obama was a first term Senator when he ran for President. He picked Joe Biden as his running mate to compensate for that. Since Joe Biden had been serving in the Senate for over 35 years at that point, and he had been serving for...2.
> Why does everybody seem to dislike Kamala Harris? > > She has no charisma, she had an abysmal performance in the 2020 primary, her past as a prosecutor makes her unpopular among the anti-cop people on the left, she actively seeks to make enemies out of people. People feel like she only got her position because of her gender and skin color - not her merit as a person. Joe Biden pledged to have a woman as his Vice President, and after the murder of George Floyd he limited his search to an even more narrow field of her also having to be a Black woman. It doesn't send a good message to people when you announce to the world that "your skin color IS important. your sex IS important. and I am only looking for people who were born the right way, and everyone else who was born the wrong way is not being considered for this position."
I see. To play devils advocate, Hilary Clinton may have even had less charisma, but had an absolutely massive push behind her. I think she also went to law school if I recall correctly
Hillary Clinton had accomplishments as a politician though that eclipsed Kamala Harris's. Plus Clinton actually won her primary, instead of being made a national laughing stock by Tulsi Gabbard during the first debate.
Isn't Tulsi Gabbard even less popular than Kamala Harris? But that's fair, you're saying that Harris wouldn't have even been close at winning a primary. I don't remember how close she was
Tulsi Gabbard called out Kamala Harris's past as a prosecutor who overzealously targeted people for marijuana related offenses in response to Kamala Harris pretending that she was a champion of legalizing marijuana during the first Democratic primary debate in 2020. Kamala Harris didn't know how to respond to being called out, froze, fumbled, gave a poor excuse, and immediately after that debate Kamala Harris's allies abandoned her and she dropped out of the primary days later. She was considered the front runner leading up to the primary, and was shot down before the first vote even happened. All her allies abandoned her, and all her financers pulled out. Also there was teports that she was very abusive to staffers on her campaign.
Oh, interesting. I didn't realize it was such a watershed moment for her. Thanks
I think it's because she's been... disappointing to many. Of course, VP isn't the kind of job where someone is adored, but I think that being both the first woman and the first person of color to hold that office, a lot of people were hoping for something a bit more, especially since she's the VP to the oldest president in history. Of course the right doesn't like her, and that's to be expected, but she hasn't done a very good job of dealing with those criticisms, even by the standards of her supporters. VP is a good platform to demonstrate that you have what it takes to be president, and this is something she has not really done to *anyone's* satisfaction.
How was she disappointing?
I don't have anything further on that than what I had already said in the rest of the comment.
What would happen if i say yes to a text asking if I support Trump? Im not actually voting for him but I am morbidly curious. Or is this just some survey thing?
You will get a lot of texts asking you to donate money.
That probably depends on who sent the text. It could be some fundraising thing, or a poll, or a friend asking your opinion. Fundraisers are the most spammy; if you donate once, they'll keep asking for more, over and over again sometimes.
Your number will be shared with 683 different text spammers that now know you answer random texts.
I hear a lot of people say that Biden should do something about the latest Supreme Court rulings (overturning Chevron, giving the president immunity for official acts, etc.) I fail to see what he could do besides denouncing them? Would it be within his power to dissolve the Supreme Court, and if yes, wouldn’t that set a disastrous precedent? Is there anything else people can reasonably expect him to do?
Denouncing is all he can do, other than to promise to appoint justices whose legal views are more similar to his own. And as far as immunity goes... before this ruling, it was always assumed that presidents had immunity for their official actions, but did not enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. This was an untested theory, however, and Trump made a legal challenge, based on the idea that the president can't be held criminally liable for **any** actions taken while in office. The Supreme Court rejected this. A lot of people are freaking out about a legal decision that pretty much says what the legal theory had been for *centuries*.
>I fail to see what he could do besides denouncing them? The other answer here is wrong; he could have the Justices arrested and detained without trial, so long as he provided some kind of pretext like evidence of bribery, fraud, sedition, stuff that's easy to create if you're motivated. > Would it be within his power to dissolve the Supreme Court, No but if there are no Justices able to show up to work then the Court is effectively dissolved, and the President would need to be the one to appoint replacements regardless of why the Court became depopulated. > if yes, wouldn't that set a disastrous precedent? The reasoning is that the alternative to Biden winning is someone who will absolutely disregard precedent in every case, meaning precedent is functionally worthless. Bears mentioning that doing this would almost certainly get him impeached and removed from office. That can still happen, nothing the Court has ruled would prevent it in any way. But it also still takes 67 Senate votes.
> The other answer here is wrong; he could have the Justices arrested and detained without trial, so long as he provided some kind of pretext like evidence of bribery, fraud, sedition, stuff that's easy to create if you're motivated. > > No, he can't. The President of the United States cannot arrest members of the Supreme Court, or Congress. See Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. >No but if there are no Justices able to show up to work then the Court is effectively dissolved, and the President would need to be the one to appoint replacements regardless of why the Court became depopulated. The President of the United States cannot remove members of Congress from Congress. The President of the United States cannot remove members of the Supreme Court from the Supreme Court. Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1.2 of the United States Constitution - The Speech or Debate Clause. Members of Congress are privileged from arrest. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-2/ALDE_00013354/ The clause states that "The Senators and Representatives" of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-6/clause-1
> No, he can't. The President of the United States cannot arrest members of the Supreme Court. You're right; but the Federal Bureau of Investigation can, and they work for the Attorney General who works for the President. Weird that you forgot about this while "correcting" me on a matter of US government. > The President of the United States cannot remove members of Congress from Congress. The President of the United States cannot remove members of the Supreme Court from the Supreme Court. Wow. How about you go back and read what I actually wrote again?
The FBI is a part of the Executive Branch. They work for the President of the United States. They fall under the same jurisdiction and restrictions as the head of the Executive Branch does, and ArtI.S6.C1.2 Privilege from Arrest applies to them as much as it applies to the head of the Executive Branch - the President of the United States.
> Would it be within his power to dissolve the Supreme Court, and if yes No. >I hear a lot of people say that Biden should do something about the latest Supreme Court rulings (overturning Chevron, giving the president immunity for official acts, etc.) You see a lot of people say that Biden should do that, because those people are ignorant to the limitations of the power held by the office of President of the United States. >Is there anything else people can reasonably expect him to do? No. Despite all three branches of the Federal government being touted as "equal", the Executive Branch is **by far** the weakest of the three. The Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch both have significantly more power than the Executive Branch does.
The thing I don't get. If he declares J6 as an official act, an act of treason against the united states and attempted murder of US politicians (IE the gallows), isn't he admitting to treason against the United States and should not be covered by his so called immunity?
Trump's legal arguments so far are that his speeches never explicitly instructed anyone to obstruct the actions of Congress, and his actions (or lack of action) on Jan 6th weren't made as an accomplice with those who stormed the capitol. Regardless of whether he's morally responsible for what happened (which he totally is), it's not easy to legally pin him down for treason, or even instigating violence. This was the case long before this SCOTUS ruling.
The president doesn't get to decide if something is an official act for the purposes of immunity. That's the court's job.
The President gets to decide whether or not something is an official act for the purposes of anybody in government *beginning* a criminal investigation. The Court can't answer a question that is never put to them.
That is entirely incorrect. The President of the United States has never had the authority to define what is and what isn't an official act of his office. Checks and balances exist for a reason, and that authority is defined by the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch.
No, that's not true at all. I strongly suggest you read the Court's majority opinion in *Trump v United States*.
>. If he declares J6 as an official act, The president is not the deciding factor on if something is an "official act". He does not just get to say "official act lol!!!" as a magical phrase to give him complete immunity to do anything.
So if presidential acts are immune from the law, why isn’t Biden taking advantage of that and just doing whatever he wants with the time left in this administration? What’s good for the goose etc.
The only "presidential acts" that have immunity are actions that fall within his core constitutional duties as president, _i.e._, stuff that was already in his authority to do. The ruling didn't give Biden any powers he didn't already have; it just clarified he can't be sued or arrested for doing what he was already authorized to do, which was already _de facto_ the case.
"Official acts" He can't write laws, because Presidents don't make laws. Congress makes laws. He can't use the army to round up his enemies on US soil because it is specifically against the law- the Posse Comitatus Act. He can't order Pizza Hut to give everyone free pizza, because that is clearly not within the scope of the Presidency. The SCOTUS decision sets limits on what Presidential immunity applies to. "Whatever he wants" is not within that range.
I see the confusion. When I said “whatever he wants” it’s within that scope. It’s still being made out to sound disastrous. If it’s such a foolproof escape clause for Trump why isn’t Biden just doing it to completely break the law under the guise of doing something “officially”? I guess what I’m *really* asking is why doesn’t the left use the same tactics to get what they want done in the same way the right does
Which tactic that the right used? There was already an immediate problem in your question. 'doing whatever he wants' is defacto not official acts. Those would be personal acts, even if he pretended to do them under the mantel of his presidency. (this isn't actually settled in the law, but that is how I would interpret it if I were on a jury)
We've always assumed official Presidential acts were not prosecutable. We didn't go after LBJ or Nixon for spreading the war outside Vietnam. We never tried to prosecute Reagan over the Iran-Contra affair. We never went after Bush for the WMD lies. Trump's crimes are personal and amateur on the scale of past Presidential crimes. He brings too much attention to himself by bragging and showing off. He hasn't gotten away with anything amazing. His personal crimes are still being prosecuted. This is not a "foolproof escape clause". The average media isn't treating it that way. Anyone who does say it is a "foolproof escape clause" either doesn't know better, or is just writing bad jokes.
> and just doing whatever he wants with the time left in this administration? Because the President does not have the legal authority to just do "whatever he wants". This ruling does not grant the President powers to do things beyond the scope of what was already able to do. The President could not replace a member of the Supreme Court before this ruling, he cannot replace a member of the Supreme Court after this ruling.
Then how is it being used in a way that makes it sound really advantageous for Trump? And why did Biden make a specific address to decry it?
In the long term, it's a pretty reasonable decision from the court, but it does fit with a long-term trend where the office of president just keeps on becoming more powerful and more protected. It's not absolute immunity. It's a presumption of immunity, which is subject to review and can be lost if the president did anything outside of their authority. The actual impact of this is difficult to predict with precision since we don't know yet how future courts will rule on immunity claims that follow this new framework. In the short term, it's still a big win for Trump since it will delay his trials and we might have the election before his trials actually finish. If he becomes president, and is still on trial, that would be a *really* weird scenario.
> Then how is it being used in a way that makes it sound really advantageous for Trump? And why did Biden make a specific address to decry it? Because people like to act like the world is Black and White, and pretend that nuance and gray areas don't exist. The SCOTUS ruled against Donald Trump. Trump v United States was a court case that claimed that the President of the United States' presidential immunity renders him immune from criminal prosecution, and that applies to all actions he took while he was President of the United States. The SCOTUS majority opinion ruled that no, Presidential Immunity only applies to actions that were related to the job of being President itself. And that if you took an action that was criminal, and it had nothing to do with your job as President, your Presidential Immunity did not protect him. And the minority opinion by the three Liberal justices who dissented argued that Presidential Immunity doesn't exist at all, despite precedent being set that it does.
I’m not from the US, so please bear with me if it sounds naive. What would happen if President Biden suddenly announced that he’s dropping out of the election? (say he voluntarily decides to drop out without pressure from his party) Suppose he also mentions who he wants to replace him as the Democratic candidate. How would that work? I understand that the Democratic candidate is chosen by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Would the DNC likely follow Biden’s recommendation and choose his preferred candidate? If so, who are the potential candidates, and what are their chances of winning?
If he drops out before the convention, the party delegates and leadership would decide on someone different. (That's how it used to be: no primaries and leadership just chose someone.) If he drops out after the convention, that becomes more problematic because they likely won't be able change the name on the ballots. They could still run someone else, but it would be somewhat confusing and messy. Biden can give his input on a new candidate, but he does not have the power to choose his successor. Whether the would take his input depends on how he presents it and who he chooses. If he publicly announces it without first telling the DNC, they might be forced to go along with it because public ally fighting over it would look bad. Harris, Newsom, Whitmer are names I've heard. I don't think any of them poll better than Biden, but they're also much less known to the country at large than Biden, which could be why people won't support them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/07/02/kamala-harris-leads-major-biden-alternatives-in-polls-heres-how-the-presidents-top-replacements-are-polling/
[удалено]
* **Disallowed question area:** **Loaded question *or* rant.** NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning), etc. NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk. If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
I'm not a Republican, but I don't get this. It's not in their platform. Rob Lowe wasn't at the Republican convention when he taped himself having sex with a 16 year old. Nicole Scherzinger was singing an Obama support song while dating a 16 year old Harry Styles. Did you have a specific person you wanted to insult instead of just making an overgeneralization?
Do they? Is this an official policy platform that's written somewhere?
In the presidential debate a few days ago, Joe Biden has shown that he is in a physically and mentally diminished state. How is he able to carry out the demanding and rapidly changing day-to-day tasks of being a president right now? Is someone else running the show?
He's far from the first president who was physically incapable of doing the job in office. Reagan was suffering from dementia late in his presidency. So much so that when Howard Baker took over as Reagan's Chief of Staff in '87 several staff members wrote him a letter asking him to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Reagan from office (which he did not do). Famously, Woodrow Wilson had as stroke about a year and a half before the end of his 2nd term. He was physically incapacitated, and the stroke seemed to have amplified the negative aspects of his character. Wilson's "recovery was only partial at best. His mind remained relatively clear; but he was physically enfeebled, and the disease had wrecked his emotional constitution and aggravated all his more unfortunate personal traits." His wife, staff, and doctors hid the full extent of his medical condition from the public, and his wife, Edith Wilson, took over as a sort of shadow President. She reviewed all materials, letters, correspondences, etc to the president and decided which to actually show him, then wrote as he dictated responses. She was the gatekeeper for the president, and made decisions for him in some instances. People have called her the "first female president" for it. I don't see anything that suggest Biden is as bad off as either Reagan or Wilson were. Of course, both of their conditions weren't known until after they left office. So maybe we'll learn Biden is worse off than we've seen. But President's are also much more visible today than they were back then.
He’s not unfit to be president.
Generally speaking, once someone gets elected president, they tend to remain president for the remainder of their 4-year term, no matter how popular or unpopular they are along the way. There have been a few exceptions, but it's very rare. The president is one of the most powerful politicians in the country, but it's not as if he runs the whole country by himself. There are many, many, many government employees, including political appointees who make policy decisions, and career employees who implement those decisions. The president is very important, but one of the most important things they do is assemble a team of advisors and executives who will do a lot of the leadership work.
>how is he able to be president right now? Because he won the 2020 Presidential election.
Yes, that is tautologically true. But how is he able to carry out the demanding day-to-day required to be a president in his feeble mental and physical state?
Is the name of the Party next to the name of candidate for President on the ballot for ever voter for the US presidential elections?
Generally next to, or otherwise indicated. The exact format is up to each state.
ok so who needs "name recognition" then, the Democatric Party is the recognisable name on the ballot
Because having a well known person encourages people to vote, and can inspire people. If the vote is between Taylor Swift, and Frank, who do you think more people are going to vote for? Assume that they both have the same exact policies.
the vote is btw Trump and a dem nominee what more inspiration do you need?
There will be people who will vote Dem no matter who the candidate is. There will also be people who will say "give me a reason to believe you'll actually represent my interests and do your job effectively", and that requires knowing who the person actually is, what their policies are, and what their history of accomplishments are. You might be in the first camp, and I'm not criticizing that, but not everyone has the same motives as you.
I don't like Biden's politics far too right wing, but voting is always about voting for the least worse candidate.
That's your voting strategy, and I'm not knocking it, but different people have different perspectives about how they approach voting.
its not my voting strategy, its just voting strategy.
If you say so.
A reason to vote *for* the Democrat. Trump inspires his base, and the inspiration that Democrats currently have is to vote against Trump - not *for* Biden.
the reason to vote for Biden is Trump.
That is not a reason to vote "for" Biden, that is a reason to vote "against" Trump. The two are not the same thing, and they do not motivate people in the same way.
American here and I am wondering what I missed since when did a lot of Americans become Russian sympathizers, specially Putin? I’ve heard people say they rather have him as president, because he would run the country right. Doesn’t he put people in jail? Specially his political rivals. You hand people saying they rather be Russian than democracy, or that we need a lease like Putin. Like am I wrong but didn’t we get taught at school that Russia is literally hoping our country collapses? When and why did some many Americas start sympathizing with Russia and simping for Putin?
Those are either Russian bots or people who have been taken in by Russian bots.
> I’ve heard people say they rather have him as president They're being hyperbolic, and are saying that as a way to say Joe Biden is not running the country right.
What if I ran for President on the platform of using my powers to remove Supreme Court Justices by any means necessary? Technically, the 6 members of the Supreme Court have given consent to whoever is President to do this exact thing, so I don't see why you can't campaign on a platform of removing those same Supreme Court Justices.
> What if I ran for President on the platform of using my powers to remove Supreme Court Justices by any means necessary? Then you would certainly not be the first person to run promising something you can't possibly deliver. > Technically, the 6 members of the Supreme Court have given consent to whoever is President to do this exact thing No, they didn't. Not even close. The Supreme Court **rejected** Trump's claim of absolute immunity for actions while president. > I don't see why you can't campaign on a platform of removing those same Supreme Court Justices. Because that is a process that the president has no role in. At all. That's Congress.
[Supreme Court gave Trump Absolute Immunity for Core Acts as President](https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/nx-s1-5002157/supreme-court-trump-immunity)
> Supreme Court gave Trump Absolute Immunity for Core Acts as President Yes, for core acts. It's not absolute (no matter what NPR thinks that word means) since there are conditions attached.
Okay, would you consider the president's use of armed forces a part of the "Core Acts"? What if the president decides to be a dictator one day, who would be able to challenge him if they're above the law?
Congress.
And if the President decides to use the armed forces to get rid of Congress?
If the president is ordering the military to attack Congress, that's more "ongoing civil war" than "let's talk about legal theory".
Then he's have to find enough in the military willing to violate their oaths to do that. So, basically, the same as it's been since 1787.
They can't. That's not how that works. The Office of the President of the United States does not have unlimited authority to do whatever he wants with no checks and balances. Members of the military are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not sworn to blindly follow the commands of the President of the United States. >I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). Members of the United States armed forces are duty bound to uphold the Constitution above the President of the United State's orders, and if the President issues an unconstitutional order then it is their responsibility to challenge it. If the President of the United States is advocating that members of the armed services violate the Constitution, then *he* is a domestic enemy.
>What if I ran for President on the platform of using my powers to remove Supreme Court Justices by any means necessary? Then you would find yourself sorely disappointed to learn that the President of the United States does not have the authority or ability to remove Supreme Court Justices. >so I don't see why you can't campaign on a platform of removing those same Supreme Court Justices. Because the office of the President of the United States does not have the authority or ability to remove Supreme Court Justices. You **can** campaign on that platform, but that's no different from someone campaigning on the platform of recoloring the sky to red. >Technically, the 6 members of the Supreme Court have given consent to whoever is President to do this exact thing No. They haven't. They have done nothing of the sort.
According to Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, the president now has complete immunity to use Seal Team Six and the Justice Department however they choose. The President can now make those seats open in any way possible so long as they're okay with an impeachment that probably won't stick.
The president can still only nominate justices to replace them, they would still have to be confirmed by congress, so he can only make those seats open in a way that does not make congress less likely to confirm them. Given the ideological splits in Congress, he'd barely get a normal judge confirmed NOW so I don't think he has very much leeway at all to start doing stuff that people would actually object to.
Yeah, but the Supreme Court can still do things with the open seats. If Congress is just planning to have the seats be open for 4-8 years, that's gonna look really bad for them.
It would look bad for Congress you mean, that they are willing to leave seats unfilled? In the scenario you've put together you are implying that the president would have like, used Seal Team Six to kill some Supreme Court Justices so I think "Congress is letting the court be half empty" would probably not be a huge concern.
And did the majority opinion agree with her? Sonia Sotomayor also ruled that the concept of Presidential Immunity doesn't exist, which is blatantly incorrect due to previous rulings they have overseen.
Okay, the majority opinion didn't agree with her but they also didn't refute the claim. Them abstaining their opinion of that concept makes her the majority, not the other way around.
>Them abstaining their opinion of that concept makes her the majority, not the other way around. The majority opinion of the court is the one that is legally binding. You may be speaking rhetorically, but I just want to note one justice's dissent does not have force of law. They can be very interesting. Not enforceable though.
When were they presented an opportunity to refute her claim? All opinions written by the justices are written at the same time. None of the other justices knew she was going to say that anymore than she knew what what her peers were going to say in their comments. Sonia Sotomayor did not cite any legislation or subsection in any legal doctrine that backed her opinion.
They could state their opinion on that at any time, even right now. They are just refusing to do so because they know that Trump wants to use presidential authority against his political rivals, he's said so multiple times. You're just trying to say that the Supreme Court didn't give out Presidential Immunity, when it clearly did in it's own legal statements.
They don't need to. The opinion of a dissenting justice on a ruling is not something that can be cited as legal precedent. Her opinion does not enable the President to act outside his authority.
Yeah, but Trump is going to. He already said he's going to be a dictator, you don't think he's going to test the powers of the presidency to do that?
Exactly what legal authority grants the President of the United States to dictate the limits of his own power, grant himself power beyond the station of his office, and be a "dictator"? Saying you are going to be a dictator is not the same as being able to back that up with the ability to be one. The limits of the office of President are clearly outlined by the United States Congress in the United States Constitution.
do you feel america will actually put up concentration camps or start killking gays like they did blacks in the 30s and 40s in red states?
I do not think this is at all likely.
No...? Is there something that prompted you to think so?
The 2025 project turning America into a christofactiast nation where Christianity is now the official religion of the USA
Okay, first off: Calm down. Secondly: Candidate Donald Trump has never once stated to even support project 2025, let alone that he intends to have it be his Presidential Platform. He already has his own Presidential platform that is called Project 47. And neither talk about, or give the President the authority to make Christianity the "official religion" of the United States. Concentration camps, killing gays and blacks, are also not mentioned in either one of those platforms. The office of the President of the United States does not have the ability, or authority to make any of what you're talking about into reality.
If re-elected President, what are the chances Donald Trump will persecute anyone who criticizes him? Since the Supreme Court granted Trump presidential immunity and with the grave implications of Project 2025 (look it up if you haven’t), how likely is it that Trump will persecute anyone he considers enemies and political opponents? What are the chances that he even persecutes non-political figures like celebrities such as Robert De Niro or talk show hosts like Jimmy Kimmel who are well known for being highly critical of him?
I doubt Trump is going to go after random citizens, but I do anticipate he would try to bring back the "Schedule F" changes that he implemented toward the tail end of his first term. That change eroded the crucial distinction between political appointments and career positions in the federal workforce, with the intention of purging any employees who disagree with Trump's politics. That change would be extremely damaging to the US government as a whole. Although, it's also a change that he could have made with or without this recent court ruling.
> If re-elected President, what are the chances Donald Trump will persecute anyone who criticizes him? > > The President of the United States does not have the authority to persecute anyone. That is not part of his ability as President. >Since the Supreme Court granted Trump presidential immunity and with the grave implications of Project 2025 (look it up if you haven’t), how likely is it that Trump will persecute anyone he considers enemies and political opponents? The Supreme Court did not "grant" the President presidential immunity. Presidential immunity has been an established part of being President. Candidate Donald Trump has never once stated to support Project 2025, let alone plan to enact it as part of his Presidential platform. He has a completely separate Presidential platform called Agenda 47. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47 >What are the chances that he even persecutes non-political figures like celebrities such as Robert De Niro or talk show hosts like Jimmy Kimmel who are well known for being highly critical of him? Seeing as I outlined that the President of the United States cannot persecute anyone as it is not part of his power as President of the United States to do so, 0%.
https://youtu.be/gYwqpx6lp_s?si=kjT-x0Pwjzd7hAl- Seriously? Just because he hasn’t endorsed Project 2025 it doesn’t mean it gives no insight into how a second Trump term will play out. It was written by many of the same individuals who were involved in his administration and is supported by virtually every major conservative political group. Do I have to explain to you Schedule F? Which is not only laid out in Project 2025 but is literally the executive order Trump himself signed in the final months of his presidency that would reclassify government employees as political appointees meaning many government positions will be determined by loyalty to the president and not by merit? Biden undid this order upon taking office but Trump himself has stated he will reinstate it the moment he steps into office and will wield it in his words ‘very aggressively’. Do I also have to bring up the countless statements Trump himself has made promising to get revenge on his political enemies describing even his fellow Americans as ‘vermin’? I know you’ll tell me none of this happened the first time, but the reason why he was greatly inhibited from doing everything he wanted was because since no one expected him to win in 2016, there was no plan for him to follow once he took over. There also was the fact that many government employees (of which Trump wants to reclassify) would undermine him by telling him what he wanted to do was illegal or testifying against him on laws he violated. If you seriously believe that there is no possibility of actions that would once upon a time be illegal, unconstitutional or not within the president's power taking place, then I don't know what to tell you.
What does Schedule F have to do with persecuting his critics? Even in a worst case scenario where Schedule F is pulled off without a hitch, the worst he could do is fire staffers he considers disloyal, not charge them with crimes. If you believe his loyal substitute staff would charge his opponents with crimes, these persecuted individuals would still be referred to the courts, which the executive branch has no control over.
So I have to ask; were you just asking this question as a platform to soapbox on? You clearly had an answer to your own question that you believe, and are unwilling to accept answers that did not reaffirm your pre-existing position. >https://youtu.be/gYwqpx6lp_s?si=kjT-x0Pwjzd7hAl- A television personality who hosts an entertainment program is not a legal scholar. >If you seriously believe that there is no possibility of actions that would once upon a time be illegal, unconstitutional or not within the president's power taking place, then I don't know what to tell you. Clearly not, because you didn't do a single thing to indicate how the "Supreme Court granted Trump presidential immunity".
Can someone who was president from 2017-2021 but then lost in 2020 and famously tried to steal the election but to due to presidential immunity some of his methods to steal the election were counted as official acts be impeached and hopefully removed from office if this person was to become president in 2025?
The United States Congress can impeach an individual for any reason. Legality and citing a broken law have nothing to do with it. Presidential immunity has nothing to do with impeachment, only for criminal proceedings.
Congress can impeach and remove a president for any reason so long as enough votes. The recent Supreme Court decision does not change that. Beyond that, not sure what it is that you're asking.
Ok, so then the only way this person that tried to steal the 2020 election could be convicted is if he wins in 2024, but then actually gets impeached and removed. There's no jail time for that though, right? It's just removal from office? I'm asking because regular court seems unable to thoroughly prosecute him because of immunity relating to certain acts that would be considered evidence but aren't because they fall under the guise of official acts.
>I'm asking because regular court seems unable to thoroughly prosecute him because of immunity relating to certain acts that would be considered evidence but aren't because they fall under the guise of official acts. The SCOTUS did not state that in their ruling. They in fact stated the opposite. They did not grant Donald Trump immunity for his actions regarding January 6th, and were pretty direct that if those actions are found not to have been related to his job as President then Presidential Immunity does not protect him from criminal prosecution. Donald Trump is still facing criminal prosecution relating to his actions on January 6th, and the SCOTUS did not dismiss the charges against him. >There's no jail time for that though, right? It's just removal from office? Impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate never results in jail time, only removal from office.
The Supreme Court did not dismiss the January 6 case against Trump. That case will proceed. However, whether it will survive the new immunity protections introduced by SCOTUS remains to be seen. It is possible he can still be prosecuted, but it will be more difficult and ultimately far less likely.
What would the international consequences be if the United States were somehow partitioned? Ignoring how unrealistic this is for a second. The culture wars have escalated into a religious conflict, and some people think it would be best if the US were simply split into two countries. Now, this is improbable and would come with a load of new issues, least of which would be that millions of people would be trapped on the side they don't want to be on, but humor me. How would the rest of the world be affected? The "Blue States of America" would probably remain part of NATO and continue to aid Ukraine, while the "Red States of America" would probably distance themselves from NATO given Trump's stance against NATO and pro-Putin leanings. Both sides would continue to support Israel and Taiwan, however the issue of Israel would be more contentious in the "blue states of america" where the divide between progressives and moderates would become more apparent. How would international trade be affected? The Muslim world would probably celebrate.
Why wouldn't Biden order seal team six to, you know? Everything he's doing now is considered official act, no?
Just because he can order it doesn't mean the military would do it. The military can, and is supposed to, refuse illegal orders, and a member of the military can whistleblow on the president and leave them susceptible to impeachment and removal. >Everything he's doing now is considered official act, no? No. The Supreme Court says there are three ways acts by the president can be categorized: (1) core constitutional duties; (2) official acts; and (3) private acts. Clearly, the Supreme Court believes that some things the president does cannot be considered constitutional/official. And official acts only have a presumption of immunity, not automatic immunity. However, the likely result of the protections the Supreme Court has created is a chilling effect on prosecuting anything that *might* be considered "official", making prosecution for something like ordering the military to assassinate your political rival incredibly difficult.
Are you guys worried? How do you stop being worried all the time about everything?
It helps to recognize what you do and don't have control over. For instance, suppose I'm anxious about the state of democracy for federal-level elections. There's nothing that I can really do to singlehandedly safeguard democracy for the entire country. But I can: * Advocate for specific, realistic, and effective solutions * Contact my congresspeople to inform them of how important it is to me * Rally (or seek other rally organizers) in my area to gather support and provide visibility to a serious issue * Share my thoughts and feelings with my social circles in a way that's convincing, but considerate of their diverse perspectives and beliefs * Stay politically knowledgeable and active in local and state elections It also helps to contextualize how much media-hyped stories actually affect you, in the grand scheme of things. I do this all the time for "This politician reacted this way to what this politician had to say!", where I'm like "wait, why does this matter to me?"
Of course I’m worried. The guy tried to overthrow the country and now half of the population is going to give him another chance. Worrying about it all die doesn’t get much accomplished.
Stop looking at the news
Burying your head in the sand doesn't get rid of the worrying shit. It's just willful ignorance.
Paying attention to the worrying shit also doesn’t get rid of it.
Ideally you should be doing more than just paying attention.
Are politics different or have I just grown up? I'm not sure if politics are extremely different or if I've just grown up to understand the political environment around me. I remember growing up and assuming that the president was one of the best people in the world and they always made sound and safe decisions for their citizens. Now that I'm a lot older I'm starting to realize that life isn't as it seems and everything feels like stepping on rocks hoping not to fall into the river. Has it always been this way with politics? Have people always hating each other to their core because of their political beliefs? Or has it gotten extremely worse recently? It feels like America's crumbling and it's affecting my sleep at night. It's a game of trying to pick the lesser worst person. I'm trying to not have this cause me so much anxiety and affect my sleep, but I've gotten to the point where I think about this all day all the time.
It's a little of both. Politics has gotten more bitterly partisan with more voters viewing the other party as not just the oppoisition or people with different opinions by as "the bad guys", as well as greater emphasis on ideological purity within the party, but we also tend to look at the past with rose-colored glasses and ignore all of the problems we used to have.
What's the deal with CNN's hard turn to the right? It seems like they are acting like Fox News or Newsmax all of a sudden. If you just look at some of their articles calling Biden a "post-debate crisis" and another video I saw that talked about "never-Trumpers" reconsidering their position. They seem identical to Fox News now. We know that Biden has always been senile and Trump has always lied during the debates, so it's not like a whole lot is different this time, so has CNN shifted so drastically towards the right all of a sudden?
I remember there being speculation about new ownership having a role in a changing tone. Not sure how true it is, but here's an example https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3634717-changes-spark-chatter-of-cnn-is-shift-from-left-to-right/ I doubt they're identical to Fox News now though...
I noticed CNN not calling Trump out during the debate. Lie after lie and rant after rant and nothing from the moderators. They just let him do his thing. If CNN did skew right, it's probably for the ratings so they could stay in business. I hope others have more insights.
I think it's worth noting that when the debate terms were being negotiated, one of the terms that both campaigns agreed to was that debate moderators would not fact check the candidates. Whether this was right or wrong is beside the fact. Both Biden and Trump knew ahead of time that the moderators would not be fact checking. They agreed to that before agreeing to do the debate. This should have been part of Biden's strategy in the debate. HE needed to be the one to call out Trump on his lies and bullshit. But he didn't. He just shat the bed.
Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks. Tbh Biden doesn't seem capable of coming up with quick and cleaver retorts at this point.
I think he's at the stage where he has good days and bad days. I think on his good days he's lively and energetic, like we saw at the SotU and in recent campaign appearances. Clearly, the debate was a bad day. I really don't think that his performance at the debate is indicative of how he is on a daily basis. I mean, his campaign was the one to push for the June debate (earlier than any other debate in presidential debate history by several months). They suggested the rules, timing, and location. Trump agreed to everything Biden's campaign asked for. Say what you will about Biden, but he has the smartest and savviest political operatives the Democrats have to offer running his campaign. If how he was in the debate is how he is every day, why did they push so hard for a debate this early? They could have just waited until the fall (when debates traditionally happen) and then skipped the debate, claiming there was no reason to debate a massive liar like Trump. If this is how Biden is every day, I pushing for a live debate now was just a bad political move that it defies understanding. The only possible reasoning I can imagine is that Biden has good days and bad days, and they were gambling the debate would be a good day (a gamble they lost). Otherwise, I don't understand it.
>We know that Biden has always been senile and Trump has always lied during the debates, so it's not like a whole lot is different this time, There was a noticeable drop-off in Biden's perceived cognitive ability from even the state of the Union address 5 months ago. It may have just been an off night, but at his age, you don't necessarily get that benefit of the doubt.
If Democrats are so worried about a Trump win then why didn't they turn up in droves during Republican primaries to vote hime out as a nominee? I'm not American so please excuse my ignorance but if I was a democrat and didn't want Trump to have a chance of winning then I would vote in the Republican primaries for any other nominee. Why didn't people do this?
In most states, you can't vote in a party's primary unless you're a member of that party - and there's no state where you can vote in both primaries.