Huh - if she’s the mo-cap actor for the main character, I’m really hoping the game gives you the option to perch somewhere, like a bisexual little gargoyle. It’d be a real shame if you couldn’t.

This really is quite pathetic when you think about it. The primary duty of a political party is to get their candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Fuckery in Nevada aside, the Green Party has only managed to get Stein on the ballot in 38 states. Like, it’d be one thing if they managed to get her on the ballot in all 49 other states and just got screwed in NV, but they completely failed to do their job in 11 other states besides Nevada. And when it comes down to it, the problem in NV is that they filed incorrect paperwork. Any organization that was on the ball would be triple checking everything to make sure that their primary job (get the candidate on the ballot) was done right.

Shit like this is why I can never take the Green party seriously. How do you expect to win the presidency if the residents from a quarter of the states in the Union don’t even have an option to vote for you? And if the party can’t even get their primary job done correctly, how can they even expect to attract good candidates?

It could also be interpreted as a criticism of Libertarianism. The first two pigs didn’t go by any building codes, and instead decided that they wanted to build their shelters out of inferior materials with substandard protections against high winds. The third pig made sure that his dwelling met hurricane standards, and was saved. The story doesn’t go into the reasons why pigs #1 and #2 chose inferior building materials, so it could be interpreted in a number of different ways. It doesn’t HAVE to be about economics. It could just be that pigs #1 and #2 were big fans of Ayn Rand and reaped the whirlwind as a result.

It’s really not about him losing votes, though. Despite the fact that there are a truly mind-boggling number of idiot cultists out there who are for some reason devoted to this moron, there are not enough of them to win an election. Both candidates need to appeal to the vast pool of undecided or apathetic voters in order to win. In 2020, the Democrats won because that pool of people were highly motivated to oust Trump after living through 4 years of his presidency, but people have very short memories and even shorter attention spans, and so the Dems can’t really count on the same thing happening again in 2024.

When Trump was running against Biden at the beginning of this race, things were looking grim for the Democrats, because that group of morons who can’t be bothered to pay the slightest bit of attention to what’s happening in their government (apathetic & undecided voters) decided that they couldn’t really tell the difference between two senile, doddering old men, so Trump’s rambling incoherence wasn’t that big of a problem. Now that he’s facing someone more than 2 decades younger than him who still has the complete use of her mental faculties, it’s imperative for him to do SOMETHING to make himself not look like a shoeless old man in a hospital gown wandering between lanes of traffic after escaping from his rest home. This debate didn’t do that.

It’s amazing to me that anybody on his team was shocked he did so poorly. It just indicates to me that they’re absolutely shit at their jobs. Being a good advisor requires you to be able to recognize the difference between reality and fantasy, and anybody who thought Trump would do well in this debate after spending any amount of time actually listening to him has failed this most basic of tests.

I’m surprised that he did so well in the debate, actually. I mean, he still got absolutely bodied, but no microphones picked up the sound of him shitting himself this time, so he’s already showing an improvement over his debate performance with Biden.

Edit: it just occurred to me that Trump randomly shitting himself could be the reason his team were so gung ho for muted mics: it means that there’s 50% less chance he’ll drop a deuce while near a hot mic. If so, that’s a great strategy on their part.

I suppose the title isn’t exactly misleading, but it certainly left me with the impression that he had another sundowning moment where he gets off on a tangent and then a tangent to that tangent, and never gets back to the original point.

This wasn’t that. He was talking shit, obviously, but his drivel contained cogent points. It’s probably the most coherent I’ve seen him be in the last year or two. While he was speaking (and making one coherent point), he was interrupted by a mosquito, and then took a moment to mention how much he hates mosquitoes. Then, and this is the important bit, he went back to his original point. Everybody does this. Usually, it’s nothing more than just waving your hand around in front of your face and saying: “fucking mosquitoes!”, but it’s the same general principle nonetheless.

Contrast this with his whole shark / boat / battery scenario. Or his long, rambling diatribe about how powerful “nuclear” is. This is nothing.

50 bucks says that the instant that Arlington staffer’s info gets made public, s/he’ll be inundated with death threats from Cult 45ers.

Huh. Guess I’ve got some vision loss.

By the way, on packing the Supreme Court … you may know this already. It’s unconstitutional.

The only things the constitution has to say on the matter of the supreme court are: there has to be one, the supreme court judges should be paid, and the president can appoint supreme court justices with the advice and consent of the senate. It is completely silent on matters of how many supreme court justices there should be, or how long their terms should be.

For all his many, many faults, Mitch McConnell is not a profoundly stupid man, so I’m sure he knows this. Since he very likely knows this already, he probably has a reason for lying to the public on the matter. If the president does appoint several more justices, it’s not like the Republicans can sue: no lower court would take the case, and the supreme court would already be packed with people who will actually be faithful to the constitution. So legal threats are a complete non-starter. That just leaves non-legal threats, which is what I think this is. I think Glitch is previewing the Republican strategy in the case of Harris getting more justices hired, which is they’ll stoke up the fear and hatred of their idiotic, mouth breathing supporters. It’s a thinly-veiled threat of treason.

I mean, every piece of copaganda is like: “look, see? We’re just your friendly, neighborhood guys! We like playing basketball with black kids! Isn’t that cool??”

I don’t know that they specifically had a campaign that said: “we’re not a gang”, but that’s kind of the subtext of all of the PR they do.

For a group that wants to distance itself from gangs, it sure doesn’t help their case when they jump in new recruits.

I would 100% watch a YouTube let’s play about this game.

Presidents say shit all the time, though. Just saying that there is a major problem is newsworthy, but it’s all worth a hill of beans if it doesn’t lead to lasting changes. I believe that he was right in that an amendment will be the securest way to enumerate the boundaries of executive authority, as it will be much harder for the Supreme Court to fuck that up, but there is an extremely high bar to pass to get an amendment through. If he decides to go the legislation route instead, any new laws that are passed by Congress are potentially subject to being overturned by the courts.

As for the optics of Republicans opposing supreme court reform or curtailing of executive authority… meh. We all watched nearly every single Republican in the House vote to not impeach Donald Trump on two separate occasions, for incredibly stupid reasons, and most of those people won re-election. Relying on the public to make good decisions when faced with bald-faced congressional corruption is a losing proposition.

I mean, no argument from me. The fact that the Supreme Court basically just ruled that the President can operate independently from the law, like a fucking king, would have every single one of those guys spinning in their graves fast enough to power a city. It’s just the latest milestone in a decades-long quest by the Heritage Foundation to convert America’s government into a Christian theocracy.

I only disagree with the term “murder” when it’s applied to Obama’s authorization of the strike that killed Anwar Al Awlaqi.

Yeah, that’s fair enough. “Murder” is a charged term. I prefer it because it emphasizes that it is an unlawful killing of a person, and I take issue with the denial of due process. I think it’s doubly applicable when it concerns the US killing of his 16-year-old son.

I would feel way more comfortable if the term “public danger” could only be applied to specific individuals rather than broad descriptions(like the one you referenced from Trump).

Yup. Shit like this is exactly why I’m so cagey any time new precedents are set, because things that could be justified in certain hands can be tyranny in others. I feel like a deep familiarity with the law and US history naturally leads to a certain paranoia, and for good reason.

Sorry, I posted something else, but upon reviewing it, I felt that I had to make some major revisions, so I just opted to delete the post and make a new one instead.

“Due process” isn’t really defined in the constitution, but it is mentioned in both the 5th and 14th amendments. Here’s the text of the fifth:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Because it’s not explicitly defined, the Supreme Court has had to interpret what “due process” actually means. Here’s a breakdown of how it interprets procedural due process (process for civil and criminal cases):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_due_process

Of note is this bit:

At minimum, a person is due only notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker.

This is a very low bar, especially when facing capital punishment. But in the case of Al-Alwaqi, even this low bar was denied to him.

I really like your metaphor about the bank robbers - it’s a very good comparison on the basis of similarity of imminent public danger. The thing is, though, police actually have certain rules about when they can use deadly force, and though they very, very often get away with it even in situations where no deadly force is warranted, they are still occasionally indicted for it. Like Derek Chauvin, for example. One of the guiding lines for when use of deadly force is allowed is when there is an imminent danger either to the officer or to the public. But even this is subjected to review. Granted, it’s not great review. But there’s still something. There is no process for reviewing governmental use of deadly force on US citizens with drone strikes. In fact, since most military operations of this type are classified, we actually have no idea how many US citizens have been killed in this way.

deleted by creator

I think you misunderstand me: I’m not questioning his involvement in al-Qaeda. But the fact remains that he was a US Citizen. Being a citizen typically entitles people to certain perks, like due process in a court of law. This was denied to him, which is why the ACLU took up the case. The state has the power to execute someone, but up until this precedent was set, it was only able to legally do so after they had been convicted in a court of law. Intelligence agencies do not fall under that umbrella.

The country he was seeking refuge in had even ordered him to be captured dead or alive.

This is entirely irrelevant to US law. If, say, I was in Bolivia, and the Bolivian government had an active dead or alive warrant on some US expat, it would still be a capital crime for me to kill that man on Bolivia’s behalf.

He was alleged to be the leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula. But, of course, he was a US citizen, and the drone strike happened in Yemen, a country we were not at war with. So it raised a significant number of ethical and procedural questions. Also, we killed his 16-year-old son (who was also a US citizen) with a drone strike several days later, also in Yemen.

but I don’t think your example is comparable.

Well, that’s the thing. Precedent is a tricky mistress. Sure, Obama had what he considered very good reasons for crossing that line, but it set a precedent that any subsequent president could follow. It’s like how George Washington set the precedent for presidential pardons by pardoning two men who were sentenced to be executed for protesting a tax on whiskey, and then a couple hundred years later, Trump was just straight up selling pardons to people for two million bucks a pop.

The point is, what seems reasonable when justified by a good president could easily be turned into something horrible by a bad president. The precedent set by Obama is probably not going to be as narrow as: “the US president is free to order the killing by drone strike of any US citizen who US intelligence agencies believe is a high ranking member in a terrorist organization (or a member of their family), as long as they are currently located in a middle eastern country”, just like the precedent set by Washington wasn’t: “The US president is free to pardon anybody who is accused of protesting a tax on whiskey”.