WOKE and proud of it....

[Peter Kropotkin]

You are spouting nonsense. There is no need for shrill hyperbole, the truth is bad enough. He doesn't get to just announce any old shit is "offical action" and you cannot point to any place in that ruling which says he can. Acts are official acts of the office holder only if they are carried out within the scope of the office. This means that they have to be in some way related to the official powers of the president. Donld J Trump has never taken an official J shit any more than Peter F-ing Kropotkin has.

The power to impeach a president is reserved to Congress under your own constitution. It is not within the scope of presidential power to annul a constitutional power granted to another branch of the government. The talk of unlimited powers is just dumb.

K: you don't get it... the constitution is now dead.... it has
no bearing of any kind on the president...... the entire point of
the constitution is checks and balances on each branch of government....
there are no more checks on the president... for example,
one might say, he can be prosecuted... but in fact, there
is no office that can legally prosecute him now......
who can legally prosect him? no one.....
he controls the federal justice department...
so, no one there will prosecute him and any state
or local agency lacks standing to prosecute a federal officer.....
So, who exactly can prosecute the president? No one...

we no longer have a constitution in America... that is the new reality...


Kropotkin

It's been DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for decades already.

K: which in fact, is not true.... it was, at best, an unofficial policy that
has never been tested or challenged... that has been part of the problem is
that the DOJ hasn't gone either way with it.... it is true or it isn't...
no one knows... it comes back to, as it always does, to Nixon...
could Nixon be officially charged with crimes by the DOJ....
it was never decided.... and thus, a real problem....

that the DOJ wasn't involved in the Clinton scandal...
it went to the independent consul's office, not the DOJ proper...
more on this later...

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

More on this later...

We’ll be standing by.

[FlashDangerpants]

K: you don't get it... the constitution is now dead.... it has
no bearing of any kind on the president...... the entire point of
the constitution is checks and balances on each branch of government....
there are no more checks on the president... for example,
one might say, he can be prosecuted... but in fact, there
is no office that can legally prosecute him now......
who can legally prosect him? no one.....
he controls the federal justice department...
so, no one there will prosecute him and any state
or local agency lacks standing to prosecute a federal officer.....
So, who exactly can prosecute the president? No one...

we no longer have a constitution in America... that is the new reality...


Kropotkin

It's been DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for decades already.

K: which in fact, is not true.... it was, at best, an unofficial policy that

It's entirely true, and entirely official.
Here is a link to the document via your own government web site that explains it.
https://www.justice.gov/file/146241-0/dl?inline

has never been tested or challenged... that has been part of the problem is
that the DOJ hasn't gone either way with it.... it is true or it isn't...

It has been the policy since 1973, so it wasn't put together yesterday by the Supreme Court, which was the actual point.

But if you suddenly change the rules in order to prosecute an individual you run the risk, for obvious reasons, of violating the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment of your American constitution, or else count as selective prosecution under the equal protection clause.

no one knows... it comes back to, as it always does, to Nixon...
could Nixon be officially charged with crimes by the DOJ....
it was never decided.... and thus, a real problem....

It goes back a lot further than that. Your constitution puts the executive branch in charge of prosecutions and then makes the president a constituency of one at the head of that pyramid. He's always had the right to sack that Attorney General and to get rid of whoever is crossing his purposes at the DOJ. Nixon and Trump just happen to be the only two presidents who I am aware of that pushed this far enough to provoke mass resignations - or threats of same - to bring the plan down.

The crazy shit we're discussing here couldn't happen in any other developed nation. The mere hint that any British politican has threatened to take a civil servant off the board for political purposes ends careers. None of them ever tried to off the Attorney General though.

that the DOJ wasn't involved in the Clinton scandal...
it went to the independent consul's office, not the DOJ proper...
more on this later...

There's no need for more on it. Your country has established a special counsel procedure because the alternative has always been to risk president interfering, or else to risk the appearance of the same. But you are missing the point. This shit has been there fore decades, it wasn't introduced by the Supreme Court yesterday.

FFS, you obviously think you are an especially gifted philosopher, so try and at least follow the argument you hopeless oaf.

[Gary Childress]

As for your supposition of Trump-support, you need to take your head out of the "American" frame, Gary. I've noticed that Americans think everybody is either a Democrat or a Republican. And they think that's true, even of people who are from other countries. Everybody has to choose one of those two teams, they think: but that's totally absurd. It's not clear that even an American needs to pick one of the two parties; how much less is it evident that non-Americans do -- of that they even could, even if they wanted to?

OK. Then I'll put it in terms you seem to understand. Democrats are generally supported by evil "lefties" and Republicans are generally supported by the virtuous righties. Maybe that will fit your frame of reference better?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Attention Fellow Forum Assholes

This analysis of recent Supreme Court decisions may be of interest.

[If nothing else it demonstrates that a Lefty-Liberal is capable of sound reasoning. I am as amazed as you are.]

[Immanuel Can]

As for your supposition of Trump-support, you need to take your head out of the "American" frame, Gary. I've noticed that Americans think everybody is either a Democrat or a Republican. And they think that's true, even of people who are from other countries. Everybody has to choose one of those two teams, they think: but that's totally absurd. It's not clear that even an American needs to pick one of the two parties; how much less is it evident that non-Americans do -- of that they even could, even if they wanted to?

OK. Then I'll put it in terms you seem to understand. Democrats are generally supported by evil "lefties" and Republicans are generally supported by the virtuous righties. Maybe that will fit your frame of reference better?

Don't be silly.

You remind me of an old joke.

It's back in the days of the Irish "Troubles." A gang of IRA thugs is patroling the streets after curfew, and they find a man still out. So they stick their guns in his ribs, and the leader says, "Are ye a Catholic, or are ye a Protty?" (A "Protty" was their term for "Protestant")

The terrified man squeaks, "I'm neither; I'm an Atheist."

And the leader says, "Aye: but are ye a Catholic Atheist, or a Protestant Atheist?"

Some people can't see the world except in the political terms they happen to know. And if you can't imagine that people don't have to be one or the other, then you're just boosting the rumour of the stereotypical "Ugly American," who doesn't ever travel, and has no idea that most people don't live in America, don't share his way of looking at the world, and aren't interested in his pidgeon-holes.

[Harbal]

Attention Fellow Forum Assholes

analysis of recent Supreme Court decisions may be of interest.

Nope.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Addendum

All except Harbal

[Alexis Jacobi]

FFS, you obviously think you are an especially gifted philosopher …

Kropotkin, though I rarely agree with his assertion and conclusions, is definitely engaged with philosophizing. He does what people should do: engage with the issues and problems on their terms. I do not think he has made the claim you assign to him.

[FlashDangerpants]

FFS, you obviously think you are an especially gifted philosopher …

Kropotkin, though I rarely agree with his assertion and conclusions, is definitely engaged with philosophizing. He does what people should do: engage with the issues and problems on their terms. I do not think he has made the claim you assign to him.

I seldom bother reading him, partly because of the decapentasyllabic metre he writes in for no reason at all, but mostly because he's the kind of idiot who would do that. Nonetheless, even I have seen him make grandiose claims so he must make them quite often. Here's an example, perhaps humble by your standards, but not by those of the sane....

... my own admitted
possibility is to become the greatest philosopher ever...
will I succeed? that will be decided long after I am dead...

[Alexis Jacobi]

If I understand correctly PN has its purpose as that of extending philosophy and philosophizing to a wider public. In that sense he is engaging with it.

(I stand corrected as to his immortal aspirations …)

[Peter Kropotkin]

Peter Kropotkin:
... my own admitted
possibility is to become the greatest philosopher ever...
will I succeed? that will be decided long after I am dead...

K: I shall be brief due to an ongoing illness... I said that I
want to become the greatest philosopher ever... and I do...
to become... not that I am, but to become.... you see,
unlike many around here, I have a goal, a destination....

I want to be a great philosopher.... again, will I succeed?
that is to be decided... but not by me...
I shall be long dead before it is decided, and most likely a major
no, but I shall attempt to be great.... who else around here wants
to be great? a very, very few... and most around here are mediocre,
at best...and they don't seem to want to be/get any better at
philosophy....

think about it... I want to be a better/greater philosopher than Kant
or Nietzsche... I am reaching for the stars.... and like I said, I will most likely
fail... and I am good with that....I rather fail reaching for the stars then succeed
reaching for average... Hold that against me if you wish, I don't care....
I shall, to the day I die, attempt to improve in reaching my goal.....

Kropotkin

[Gary Childress]

As for your supposition of Trump-support, you need to take your head out of the "American" frame, Gary. I've noticed that Americans think everybody is either a Democrat or a Republican. And they think that's true, even of people who are from other countries. Everybody has to choose one of those two teams, they think: but that's totally absurd. It's not clear that even an American needs to pick one of the two parties; how much less is it evident that non-Americans do -- of that they even could, even if they wanted to?

OK. Then I'll put it in terms you seem to understand. Democrats are generally supported by evil "lefties" and Republicans are generally supported by the virtuous righties. Maybe that will fit your frame of reference better?

Don't be silly.

You remind me of an old joke.

It's back in the days of the Irish "Troubles." A gang of IRA thugs is patroling the streets after curfew, and they find a man still out. So they stick their guns in his ribs, and the leader says, "Are ye a Catholic, or are ye a Protty?" (A "Protty" was their term for "Protestant")

The terrified man squeaks, "I'm neither; I'm an Atheist."

And the leader says, "Aye: but are ye a Catholic Atheist, or a Protestant Atheist?"

Some people can't see the world except in the political terms they happen to know. And if you can't imagine that people don't have to be one or the other, then you're just boosting the rumour of the stereotypical "Ugly American," who doesn't ever travel, and has no idea that most people don't live in America, don't share his way of looking at the world, and aren't interested in his pidgeon-holes.

Well, it's good to hear that you have gotten off your usual "lefty" tirade. Congrats.

[Immanuel Can]

OK. Then I'll put it in terms you seem to understand. Democrats are generally supported by evil "lefties" and Republicans are generally supported by the virtuous righties. Maybe that will fit your frame of reference better?

Don't be silly.

You remind me of an old joke.

It's back in the days of the Irish "Troubles." A gang of IRA thugs is patroling the streets after curfew, and they find a man still out. So they stick their guns in his ribs, and the leader says, "Are ye a Catholic, or are ye a Protty?" (A "Protty" was their term for "Protestant")

The terrified man squeaks, "I'm neither; I'm an Atheist."

And the leader says, "Aye: but are ye a Catholic Atheist, or a Protestant Atheist?"

Some people can't see the world except in the political terms they happen to know. And if you can't imagine that people don't have to be one or the other, then you're just boosting the rumour of the stereotypical "Ugly American," who doesn't ever travel, and has no idea that most people don't live in America, don't share his way of looking at the world, and aren't interested in his pidgeon-holes.

Well, it's good to hear that you have gotten off your usual "lefty" tirade. Congrats.

Oh, no...just because I'm not a Republican doesn't mean I like Lefties. I still know that Socialism is the ideology of killers and a disaster for economics, as it has proved to be in every single place in the world it's been tried. And I do wish Americans well, so I'm not keen to see them swallowed up by ideologues of that stripe, wherever they come from.

[FlashDangerpants]

I want to be a great philosopher.... again, will I succeed?
that is to be decided... but not by me...
I shall be long dead before it is decided

It can be decided much quicker than that. Walter Mitty types like you never bother to learn the basics of philosophy, so no, you will never even become passable, let alone great. You are all wind and no whistle, you don't know how to construct an argument, and you have nothing to say using one even if you did.

.... who else around here wants
to be great? a very, very few...

A short list of people on this little site who either think they are already the greatest philosopher of all time, or else who think their own theory is so novel and important that a status along those lines is understood to be implied....
Roydop (official greatest ever).
Age (Offical greatest ever).
Advocate (Offical greatest ever).
Vagina Aquarium (implied top 10 of all time - but if you ask him nicely he will give you FRESCO to work out his exact position)

All of those people are useless idiots just like you. Delusions that you are close to just stepping up to be the world's greatest philosopher are quite a bad sign in general. Becoming decent at your hobby without fooling yourself would be no bad thing.