• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2016 trump presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ryan01 said:
Increased background checks are unconstitutional. If someone is too dangerous to have a gun, either keep them off the streets or hang them.
Click to expand...

but not letting people get married, trying to outlaw the removal of unconsious undifferentiated cells from the body, not letting people take kratom or CBD...those things aren't "unconstitutional"

I don't understand the rights fascination with the constitution as some kind of untouchable truth, its some brainwashing shit by the tea party right there. The constitution was writtion over 300 years ago when card didn't exist and muskets were the only weapons. All progress in history comes from constatnly re-evaluating things and making changes accordingly. If we didn't do that we would still believe the world is flat, and the sun revolved around the earth, and that the world is 6000 years old (oh wait the latter is still believed by your party)

so everyone that is mentally ill deserves to be in a ward? either that or they all deserve guns.....just not letting them selectivly own machine guns because they are on 12 different antipsychotics isn't an option i guess
 
LucidSDreamr said:
I don't understand the rights fascination with the constitution as some kind of untouchable truth, its some brainwashing shit by the tea party right there.
Click to expand...

the constitution is the highest law in the land, which grants all laws under it their legitimacy. any laws which go outside the scope and bounds laid out in the constitution are unenforceable and void, as they, by definition, have no legitimacy and the government has no power or authority to enforce them. the problem here is, as you've hinted at, brainwashing by fascists and dominionists to interpret it to say things it clearly doesnt. the idea that the second amendment doesnt allow, nay require, training and certification and other things requires cherry picking and ignoring literally half of the amendment, namely the "well-regulated militia" clause. the limitations on the second amendment should be the same as they are for joining the militia (the National Guard, Army Reserves, or other State Militia organization). it is not and never was intended to be the no-responsibility no-requirements free-for-all these idiots seem to believe it is, that one can only think it is if they willfully ignore half of the amendment.
 
Good news, i didn't realize it before but the president can be forced out, neither by impeachment nor forced resignation, but by what is essentially a vote of no confidence. The mechanism for this is provided by the 25th amendment, section 4:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Click to expand...

After that it basically comes down to a 2/3rds vote of both houses to keep him from resuming power.
 
tathra said:
Good news, i didn't realize it before but the president can be forced out, neither by impeachment nor forced resignation, but by what is essentially a vote of no confidence. The mechanism for this is provided by the 25th amendment, section 4:

After that it basically comes down to a 2/3rds vote of both houses to keep him from resuming power.
Click to expand...

I suspect that if it's tried, it would go before SCOTUS.

I'm not that familiar with constitutional law, but I suspect "President is unable to discharge the powers and duties" is the key phrase.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
I suspect that if it's tried, it would go before SCOTUS.

I'm not that familiar with constitutional law, but I suspect "President is unable to discharge the powers and duties" is the key phrase.
Click to expand...

Incompetence is a method by which he is unable to perform his duties. Not to mention all his other mental problems, like sociopathy and narcissism. He's clearly incapable of performing the functions necessary as president.

reagan's perceived laziness and ineptitude from his onsetting alzheimers were being used to consider an invocation of the 25th, section 4, so there's precedent for this option being considered.
 
Last edited:
LucidSDreamr said:
but not letting people get married, trying to outlaw the removal of unconsious undifferentiated cells from the body, not letting people take kratom or CBD...those things aren't "unconstitutional"

I don't understand the rights fascination with the constitution as some kind of untouchable truth, its some brainwashing shit by the tea party right there. The constitution was writtion over 300 years ago when card didn't exist and muskets were the only weapons. All progress in history comes from constatnly re-evaluating things and making changes accordingly. If we didn't do that we would still believe the world is flat, and the sun revolved around the earth, and that the world is 6000 years old (oh wait the latter is still believed by your party)

so everyone that is mentally ill deserves to be in a ward? either that or they all deserve guns.....just not letting them selectivly own machine guns because they are on 12 different antipsychotics isn't an option i guess
Click to expand...
1. I am pro choice, and disagree with our current drug laws. Big pharma should be taken down a few notches. 2. There should be some way of flagging people who are mentally ill.

consumer said:
Lol.

Are you related to Pol Pot or Idi Amin?
Click to expand...
It costs billions of taxpayer dollars to house scumbags in prison. Do you enjoy being cashraped? Or maybe you think everyone is equal.
 
Ryan01 said:
It costs billions of taxpayer dollars to house scumbags in prison. Do you enjoy being cashraped? Or maybe you think everyone is equal.
Click to expand...

the death penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment, not to mention the fact that only the most authoritarian of regimes use executions. there is no bigger sign of authoritarianism than state-sanctioned executions. for the state to claim they have the authority to take a citizen's life they must claim that they literally own that person's life, that rather than having self-sovereignty citizens are literally property of the state.
 
tathra said:
the death penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment, not to mention the fact that only the most authoritarian of regimes use executions. there is no bigger sign of authoritarianism than state-sanctioned executions. for the state to claim they have the authority to take a citizen's life they must claim that they literally own that person's life, that rather than having self-sovereignty citizens are literally property of the state.
Click to expand...
The costs would be cut down significantly if they were executed immediately afterwards instead of years on death row and appeals. Who cares if it's authoritarianism, gangbangers, child molesters, etc should not be allowed to live imo.
 
Ryan01 said:
The costs would be cut down significantly if they were executed immediately afterwards instead of years on death row and appeals. Who cares if it's authoritarianism, gangbangers, child molesters, etc should not be allowed to live imo.
Click to expand...

We'd also get rid of that pesky problem of exonerating death row inmates years or even decades later.
 
Ryan01 said:
The costs would be cut down significantly if they were executed immediately afterwards instead of years on death row and appeals. Who cares if it's authoritarianism, gangbangers, child molesters, etc should not be allowed to live imo.
Click to expand...

so summary executions then? not even a pretense of law and order, just straight murder them? the number of exonerated people on death row is far too many. the presumption of innocence and blackstone's formulation are the very basis of a fair and impartial justice system. the only thing you're advocating for is, at best, vengeance, which has no place in a civil society.
 
tathra said:
so summary executions then? not even a pretense of law and order, just straight murder them? the number of exonerated people on death row is far too many. the presumption of innocence and blackstone's formulation are the very basis of a fair and impartial justice system. the only thing you're advocating for is, at best, vengeance, which has no place in a civil society.
Click to expand...
No, put them on trial like usual. If they receive a death sentence, have them hanged within 3 days. People who have been exonerated were imprisoned back when technology wasn't as good right? I think it should depend on the situation. I noticed a lot of those convictions happened without physical evidence. If a guys dna is found in/on a dead child, that seems pretty clear to me. If some obvious gang member kills an innocent, same thing.

on another note, we should reform our justice system and get rid of for profit prisons. We lock up more people than countries with 3 times our population.
 
Ryan01 said:
No, put them on trial like usual. If they receive a death sentence, have them hanged within 3 days. People who have been exonerated were imprisoned back when technology wasn't as good right?
Click to expand...

Here's how that's going to contribute to innocent people being executed:

<Cop> If you cooperate with us and tell us that the guy we think is guilty pulled the trigger, we'll let you plead to a lesser charge. Else we'll charge you with murder, you'll be tried and convicted and dead three days later.
<Suspect> What do you want to hear?
 
I'm really thankful to live in a country that banned capital punishment decades ago. The state should not have the power to execute citizens.
These are real people's lives we're talking about. Miscarriages of justice happen all too frequently. Police corruption is far too common to give the justice system the power to kill people convicted of certain criminal offences.
One only needs to look at the amount of problems with lethal injections in the past few years to see what a barbaric practice it is.
 
the really fucked up thing is that even in states where corporal punishment is banned and people dont get executed after conviction, barely anybody gives a shit when police summarily execute people. that shit is just as unacceptable and even worse than people being executed after conviction. its still an agent of the state, acting on behalf of the state, executing somebody, except these somebodies havent been convicted of a crime, and are therefore innocent by default. the job of the police is to apprehend suspects to bring them before the courts so their guilt or innocence can be determined, it is not to play judge, jury, and executioner. Judge Dredd was never intended to be an instruction manual for how to operate a police force. police should never be authorized to use deadly force; there are plenty of non-lethal means to be used, and de-escalation should always be their priority rather than fucking summary executions, which dont even get them a fucking slap on the wrist.
 
Droppersneck said:
Tbf we have a lot more freedoms than Australians. But yes for profit prisons are bad. Prisons should not be privately owned.

All I need is one role pin for the gas block/rod and my .233/NATO wylde alasdair build is complete!
Click to expand...
You may do but you sure lock a hell of a lot of people up for a long time. So something with the whole freedom thing isn't working.
 
^^ Droppers' view of freedom is pretty narrow: it's simply about how many guns he is allowed to have.

spacejunk said:
I'm really thankful to live in a country that banned capital punishment decades ago. The state should not have the power to execute citizens.
These are real people's lives we're talking about. Miscarriages of justice happen all too frequently. Police corruption is far too common to give the justice system the power to kill people convicted of certain criminal offences.
One only needs to look at the amount of problems with lethal injections in the past few years to see what a barbaric practice it is.
Click to expand...

Don't know about that, sj: I'd happily execute the guy who killed Jill Meagher and the guy that mowed down those people in Bourke St, and Martin Bryant, and any other fucker that has done something that savage with there being no doubt about guilt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top