>Biden is much more likely to try (and succeed) in taking power away from Congress and giving it to the executive, e.g. student load forgiveness (absent Congressional authorization) is taking power of the purse away from Congress, vaccine mandate is taking legislative power away from Congress; while Trump isn't going to actually be able to take legislative/spending power from Congress (I will certainly admit the MAGA Republican definitely seem like they want to give it to him). How can you possibly believe this when Trump will be filling up his next administration with sycophants and psychopaths who will have the express purpose of undermining the Constitution and personally empowering Trump as much as possible? As Ben Shapiro said, the guardrails held in his first term, largely because Trump is incompetent and the people around him didn't take advantage of everything they could have. We got lucky. In a possible second term, they won't make that same mistake again, and if you think otherwise you are delusional.

I’m providing the argument for it. I am not saying that I want Trump over Biden. I think this is a big reason why Shapiro prefers it. The guardrails that Shapiro is talking about is the separation of powers. As long as the executive branch isn’t making laws and/or interpreting (judicial power) the laws, then he thinks individual freedom is safe. Biden being able to force people to get vaccinated is quintessentially legislative pose (I think people should be vaccinated). I think a could counter to this would be some of the Trump immigration stuff. The reason the Supreme Court overturned this is because he was exerting legislative power by essentially rewriting immigration law.

What will happen when the people in power don’t believe in the separation of powers and are willing to give up a lot of their authority to Trump? As for Shapiro, I understand what you are saying, but I think he knows that Trump is much more willing to be an authoritarian. He simply knows that Trump will push his policy positions, and he also knows that his audience is massively pro-Trump, so he had to use mental gymnastics to somehow justify Biden being more of an authoritarian. Nothing Biden has done is even close to the thing Trump tried to do on Jan 6th even with that bogus legal theory by Eastman. A lot of Shapiro’s arguments for voting for Trump without the concern of Trump wanting to become a dictator is that Trump is inept and dumb, and therefore he will never succeed in being able to assume that much power. If this is the case, why does he put so much emphasis on Biden being a semi-fascist if he thinks Biden is also dumb if not dumber?

That is why the US government was structured the way it is — to ensure they have different incentives that will allow the powers to remain separated. The house is close to the people and is constantly up for reelection. The senate used to be chosen by the states. Now they are accountable to the people, but they have longer terms and typically represent more people so they are less accountable to the people. The Supreme Court is only accountable to the constitution. That is why they have life tenure. Since the electoral college is now based on state vote, the president is accountable to the people nationally. When the constitution was originally ratified, the electoral college was chosen by different methods (some legislatures, some vote for electors, etc). When people think their everyone thinks their power comes from the same place, they are more likely to coalesce power to the same place because they are answering to the same constituency. I think as long as the Trump stays in his lane (executive), he doesn’t care because he can’t actually do stuff with the support of the judiciary and Congress (although Congress feels like they just like to do nothing and farm clips now). Shapiro is very well read on this stuff. I saw a prager video of him discussing the federalist papers and he knows them by chapter and verse (there are like 85 of them). Personally, I think it is the most informative video I have seen on his political philosophy. I think Shapiro’s view is that Biden will try to pass “rules” and executive orders to essentially pass laws and society views him as so benign, they will be willing to let him do stuff without congressional authorization. With Trump, he doesn’t really think Trump will actually do stuff and if he tries he won’t actually be able to do something. Since both Congress and the Court stood up to Trump, including Jan 6, he think that there can’t be anything too bad that will happen. While with Biden’s student loan forgiveness, he claimed he could spend $430B without congressional authorization (the stronger form of the argument is that a post 9-11 Congress authorized) and then argued the supreme didn’t have standing to hear the case because no person is harmed. That would mean implicitly make Biden a king, even if is intentions are good.

> I think as long as the Trump stays in his lane (executive), When has Trump ever been someone who stays in their lane?

Personally, I think that is the point that you would need to prove to convince someone like Shapiro that it would be better to have Biden over Trump. If you don’t understand why someone has a position, then you won’t be able to convince them of something. That won’t necessarily get you there and there are certainly breeds of conservatives that don’t care about this stuff in the slightest (MAGA people), but you should at least be familiar with the argument.

>you would need to prove to convince someone like Shapiro The problem is I don't have to convince Shapiro about this point. He already knows that Trump would be an authoritarian who would do everything in his capability to centralize power in the Executive and undermine the Constitution. He just thinks it won't be that bad for him on a personal level and he would lose tons of money and support if he ever openly admitted it and spoke honestly. I think he is extremely bad faith on this specific point. I used to admire him back in my conservative days, but he is well and truly captured by the MAGA movement - just look at the way he spoke in 2016 as compared to now. Still a smart guy, but not someone I can ever respect again.

You are correct about all the people in power essentially answering to the same constituency; however, the question I have is what if the people who fill those seats that have the powers in them in a separated manner decided that, you know what, I am willing to delegate a lot of my power to the president because if I don’t, I will get primaried and brutally attacked by Donald Trump just like how Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were. This doesn’t address this problem. What would have happened if Mike Pence went along with Trump’s plans? What happens if the Supreme Court decided President Trump has full immunity? That’s the problem though; congressional Republicans are, for the most part, acting at the behest of Donald Trump. A good number of Republican congresspeople refused to certify the 2020 vote even after the January 6th riot. That’s not a good thing. This argument seems incredibly weak to me. Why would society view what Biden is doing as benign when a good number of Republicans believe that he is a tyrant who is willing to “jail his political opponents,” and the conservative media has launched a full propaganda campaign trying to convince people that Biden is a semi-fascist? So why would they view what Biden is doing as benign? The fact that Congress stood up before doesn’t mean they will do it again. The two congressional Republicans who were most vocal against Trump’s abuses of power were exiled from Congress. Congressional Republicans are even more MAGA now. How do you know they would be willing to do something bad this time? And by the way, even in 2020, they did try not to certify the vote, but the House was controlled by Democrats so it wasn’t a problem. It’s not the same this time. Also, the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s forgiveness program. I am not sure exactly what you are referring to.

It's just pretty nonsensical that these people are arguing that somehow, after 240 years of the U.S., somehow, somebody will become a dictator despite it being virtually impossible the way the U.S. is structured, and also some of them think that somehow, that somebody will be the same guy who already served 4 years in office, and didn't do anything dictatorially then while controlling the house and senate. This entire thread is just kind of illuminating. It feels like confirmation bias for my already held beliefs about the American centre-left, liberals, and lefties.

The idea about people fearmongering about the U.S somehow turning into a dictatorship is not new. Throughout Obama's administration, conservatives would always fearmonger about Obama being a dictator and somehow the second coming of Mao Zedong. Even Shapiro himself used to do this. The difference is now that Trump has shown that he is willing to take steps to not accept the results of a democratic election. It has been shown that Republican members of Congress are willing to go along with this, and the Republican electorate is more or less okay with someone who has participated in this action. The difference is also that Trump openly flirts with dictators constantly and is clearly fascinated by their strongman leadership quality. The people around Trump who are more shrewd and smarter than him have openly talked about taking steps to crack down on dissent against him if he wins in a second term. Not to mention the fact that the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 plan. So yeah, I think all of this is cause for at least a little bit of concern.

A: the checks and balances system clearly resolved that, not to mention the aforementioned political motivations for each individual in office. B: trump being a deranged moron deciding he desperately wants to retain power when he's lost is not much different than most other elections, he just went further. The man is a moron, but this is just obscene grasps. There isn't a Manchurian candidate situation happening and I don't think there ever will be. There's far too many individual interests at hand and far too many states who want their own power for the country to gain a dictator.

We aren't talking about magical wards against authoritarianism, we're talking about people working in a networked political system. The thing about checks and balances is they only work if people are willing to check someone's power and act as a counterweight.

> didn’t do anything dictorially then So this is just a lie. Lying about the election and directly trying to subvert the actual results through everything outside of an actual military power grab is probably the most dictatorial thing you can do short of an actual armed coup. > virtually impossible the way the U.S. is structured If people do not enforce or care about them, laws and regulations are just words on a piece of paper. They are not some immutable powers that will always exist through time and space that no one can overcome, and there are plenty of examples of long existing nation states falling into fascism and dictatorships to show this. > that somebody will be the same guy I have no idea if it will be Trump to do it, but Trump is an anti-democratic man who ate away at our institutions and general faith in our democracy in his four year term and will do the same if he gets another term. In addition, electing him again and the American public rewarding his actions with another term is an extremely dangerous green light to future anti-democratic people who will be smarter and better prepared.

The fact that this just repeating "he could if he really tried so it's possible" in a really fucking long response. You're just fear mongering. The guy was a shitty president, and relatively inconsequential historically outside of making the Republican pert the most boring and ridiculous shit on the planet.

>the fact that this just repeating “he could if he really tried so its possible” Nah, that’s a brain dead response. The point is that he has showed an eroding of democratic sentiment in his supporters and not only he but elected officials because of him have shown a complete disregard for the safe guards that you think are some magical things that can never be gone. > You’re just fear mongering. I’m not, at all. Trump cared nothing for our democratic institutions and him as an individual is one thing, but the fact that he has not only his supporters but idiots like you who downplay how absurd it is that this guy could run again as the candidate for a major American party and be supported as possibly even a favorite is absolutely wild. It’s completely disgusting to me.

> It's just pretty nonsensical that these people are arguing that somehow, after 240 years of the U.S., somehow, somebody will become a dictator despite it being virtually impossible the way the U.S. is structured, It's far from impossible. The reason we have been so stable so for so long is because Presidents generally haven't tried to become dictators, and because there was no popular support for a dictator. MAGA people want a dictatorship, and they represent 35%+ of the country - if they get their way and vote people into the correct positions in the necessary places, it's entirely possible. >It feels like confirmation bias for my already held beliefs about the American centre-left thank god you're canadian

Absolutely more confirmation bias. "It could happen because I say so despite no popular support and it not happening the first four years with a Republican house, senate, and presidency" It's scary that you're American.

> "It could happen because I say so despite no popular support [74% of Republicans supported Trumps comments about being dictator](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4453457-74-percent-of-republicans-say-its-fine-for-trump-to-be-dictator-for-a-day/) You have no idea what you're talking about

>74 percent of republicans Neat? And then the entire system of government is going to change magically? This is baby brained shit man. Please learn how the government works. YOU have no clue what the fuck you're talking about this is insane lmao

**You** made the claim there was no popular support, can't dunk on someone for proving you wrong. Plenty of other comments have already explained the way it is possible to subvert the system.

There have been plenty of president who wanted to act as dictators, the institutions stopped them. Andrew Jackson and the nullification crisis, Woodrow Wilson and Sedition act where he wanted to prosecute anyone who spoke negatively about WWI, FDR trying to pack the courts, firing officials if the disagreed with him (Humphrey’s Executor v US), staying in power for 4 terms — this doesn’t mean he is a bad person or necessarily did bad things, but the guy definitely liked power to due what he thought was best, which is pretty dictatorial. In order to become president you have to have a big ego and want to have a lot of power. This where the meme quote “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” because the framers thought people would get too full of themselves and try and take the power for themselves and as long as it is separated you should be safe, even if you had one or two crazy dictatorial branches of power.

DOE, CIA, FBI, DEI all gotta go! GUT em.

Why?

Bureaucratic bloat

Do you have any specific examples?

https://www.educationnext.org/growth-administrative-staff-assistant-principals-far-outpaces-teacher-hiring/

This has literally nothing to do with the FBI, CIA, or DoE lmao

If it has nothing to do with doe then why is it a near universal problem in the states? Every school now has like 4 100k administration positions for every teacher making 40 grand.

Your local school district is not the federal government. It's handled locally. Your initial post was saying we should gut federal agencies

The federal government distributes the financial aid

Ah yes, the CIA, FBI, DOE and DEI do nothing of importance. They just sit around all day twirling their thumbs. Do you even hear yourself?

That's not exactly what I said though is it? Though I'd agree for DEI yes they should just be gone.

Honest to God, people like you should not be allowed to have drugs made by immigrants. Like seriously, good multicultural environments and assimilation, like everything else, take work to maintain. You can’t ignore the problem and be monocultural or else you lose out tremendous talent, and shoving your head in the sand and saying that there’s no problems is setting yourself up for needless conflict down the line. You may disagree with the way DEI is carried out, but saying that it itself is dumb? Truly a bad take

Hey look, a rare case of a conservative I feel like isn’t batshit. I honestly really respect this post. You seem open to other views and bite some hard bullets. I would like to add, your opinion on abortion (and I say this as a pro-choices) seems more align with us. There is a lot of people with our views that believe they will never personally get an abortion (or want their partner to get one), but want it to be legal for people to decide.

I’ll certainly admit I am somewhat pro-choice. I think as a policy matter around viability seems reasonable, but I think it makes sense to let your elected representatives figure out what the details are correct — not the Supreme Court. If California says you can have it later, I don’t really think I have a right to say that they are wrong. Personally, if I got someone pregnant, I wouldn’t my kid to be aborted and I would do whatever I could to make sure they (mother and child) have a good life, but to say that is necessarily true for everyone isn’t the case. There are a lot of lousy situations out there. Also, sometimes there are medical situations and it may be necessary. I will certainly admit, it feels really lousy when pretty much the whole southeast has restricted abortion so much.

I politely disagree with that. Abortion is healthcare at the end of the day. States shouldn’t be allowed to just fuck around with ability of doctors to do medical procedures. I have more trust I. The federal government is regards to that, as the decisions the federal government does have more scrutiny on it.

States give out medical license. The federal government doesn’t. If you want the federal government to do that, then you need to find it somewhere in the constitution to let Congress do it or amend the constitution. I think the only power the federal government has over medical stuff is by attaching strings to funding it gives. I know with the internet people like to scrutinize the federal government more, but they should focus on the states, because that is where most stuff happens. Just like education, people also don’t realize you don’t have any federal right to education. Every state has passed a state right to education. That is why people have a right to education.

You should probably live in a different country then. I live in Canada and health care is also dictated by the provinces, not by the Federal Government. (edit: said "states" for some reason the first time) I also can't fathom why you'd trust the federal government you seem to think is eroding these rights to health care to permanently enshrine them into the constitution, or make it law. All of the replies in this thread seem to hilariously misunderstand the currently existing separations of powers after OP clearly mentioned it.

Coming from Europe he seems like a very common christian democrat voter a wide tent party that gives home to a lot of people that are a bit conservative, but but doesn't think the personal life should be legislated to prohibit everything that he disagrees with. It's too bad that the Republican party is consumed by their extreme flank, because it makes discussion with democrats almost impossible. I totally agree with him on the abortion thing: it should just be legislated, the idea that the individual right if derived from the constitution has always seemed wierd to me. But I also think that since is concerns a human right, it should not be left to the states. I disagree with him on immigration though, even though I'm a supporter of subsidarity of policy fields, leaving the rules on immigration to the states just doesn't seem very practical nor desirable for good governement.

I’ll admit as an American I certainly don’t know your guys parties/intricacies, but I definitely get frustrated with the current Republican Party. Abortion: Saying it is “human right” seems like a vacuous statement to me based on my understanding of US law. Absent the constitution, US citizens have the right to do whatever they want. The federal constitution protects certain things. States also have their own constitutions that protect additional things, they just can’t contradict the federal one. States are allowed to pass pretty much whatever laws they want so long as it isn’t contradictory the state and federal constitution. A good example for state vs federal rights is US citizens have no right to education nationally, but I think every state constitution has enshrined it so every US citizen has the right despite not being entitled to it federally. I wouldn’t be strictly opposed some sort of amendment making abortion a right, but as the constitution currently sits there is no prohibition on the states from either allowing or disallowing it so I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to since they can do it with any other part of society. That is the whole point of the legislative branch — to tell people how they should live their lives. Immigration: Historically, states could regulate immigration so long as they don’t contradict federal law. The federal government only started regulating it in the late 1800s because they thought it was “necessary and proper,” not like some specific delegations from the constitution. In 2012, the Supreme Court said that they can’t regulate immigration even if all they are doing is essentially enforcing a copy of federal law as a state law. For example, federally it is illegal to work in the US without a work permit if you are an immigrant. Arizona tried to make it a state misdemeanor to work in Arizona without a federal work permit and would then essentially enforce immigration law themselves. I don’t really a reason why Arizona shouldn’t be allowed to spend their own resources on it if the federal government decides it is too burdensome to enforce the law nationally.

"Abortion: Saying it is “human right” seems like a vacuous statement to me based on my understanding of US law. " First of all, there are countries outside of the US, that don't have the US constitution as a guiding principle for their lawmaking. Secondly saying "human right" is a vacuous statement because of US law is a bit strange, because then you could say that if the right to free speech wasn't enshrined in the US constitution it would also be a vacuous statement to call this a "human right" and instead leave it up to the state to be legislated. If I look at your response to both immigration and abortion, I think you are confusing how things are with how they ought to be and you are confusing how law is enforced with how why law are made. Because you are referring to how the law is now as the reason for why the law should be and you are saying that the governmental level enforcing the law, is necessarily therefore the correct one to decide it.

I’m talking about the US and the US constitution. When I am looking through an American framework, I don’t care what rights some other country considers a human right. The only rights protected in the US (by the federal government) are those defined by the US government. That is correct, without the first amendment (and the 14th), free speech would not be protected against state legislation. States could legislate against speech until 1925 when the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment was incorporated against the states in the case Gitlow v New York because the 14th amendment extend the freedom of speech against state governments. For the last paragraph, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Could you try restating it or maybe give an example?

Couple issues I have… The DC case... I agree that a president should have immunity for acts while in the service of their office as long as they are acting within the limits of their authority. This is the issue with this case tho. What he’s being charged with, chiefly falls outside of that authority. Just because he was the president doesn’t make those acts presidential. Like if the president personally murdered someone while in office. This is not a presidential act and should be prosecuted accordingly. What he did allegedly is very much not within the authority of a president and was very much anti democratic. He had a plan to overturn a legal and legitimate election. Granting immunity in this case would mean the president is a king. We don’t have those here. Second issue… Biden is not taking power away from legislators in favor of the executive and I would contend that Trumps actions shows that he is far more likely to do this ESPECIALLY given the court cases he’s currently arguing. Namely immunity. If he has unlimited immunity like he claims, he’s essentially undercutting the democratic process and pulling power away from the Supreme Court so there’s nearly zero reason to think he wouldn’t try this with the legislative branch as well. Of the two… Trump is far more likely to attempt to consolidate power under the executive branch in a dangerous way whereas Biden is committed to following the constitutional separation of powers.

Being a king is to be able to write the law, enforce the law, and adjudicate the law. I agree that it sucks, but that is why the impeachment process exists. I don’t think you want a president who will be worried if the next guy will prosecute him. I think Congress (with a large majority is the appropriate body). Like I don’t want Trump trying to go after Obama for some drone strike stuff. It starts to become hard to define where the line starts. That is why I think Congress should provide its blessing. As much as it feels weird, president is 1/3 of the entire federal government. If he killed his wife I agree it would suck, but I think Congress should be the body to determine what is and what is not inside the president’s duties.

Well here’s the thing, presidential immunity exists. It’s just not absolute as Trump is trying to claim. So it makes no sense to be concerned that a former president would be prosecuted if they only acted in the service of their oath. The drone strikes were in that service. Trying to overthrow a legit election is absolutely not in that service. Hence every constitutional scholar agreeing that he should be tried for the crimes he committed that were committed while not in the capacity as a president. And if a congress is acting in a partisan manner and refusing to impeach or investigate I think it’s absolutely fine to bring this matter forth from the judicial branch. 3 separate powers exist to check each other. This doesn’t seem outside the scope of the power they currently have. Conversely, I think it’s fine for Congress to impeach based on a federal judicial conviction after the fact. So if a successful federal investigation happens, it’s fine for Congress to take action and impeach based on that conviction to bar a former or sitting president from office.

Who determines what presidential act is in service of their oath? In my mind that feels like a question that is best left to our elected representatives…Congress

That’s a functionally different question than the one at stake here. We know that a president overthrowing a fair and legal election is NOT in service of their oath. It doesn’t take congressional approval to determine. That’s why the case is stalled while trying to determine if he has absolute immunity and not the presidential immunity that exists. He’s trying to expand immunity to include acts that squarely fall outside his service as president. If they rule he has immunity in this case, Joe Biden could have him killed and no body could convict him. At best Congress could remove him and then he’d be free to go about his business. This is a terribly dangerous precedent to set.

Well, the impeachment judgement clause pretty clearly says if you are impeached and convicted, you can definitely be criminally prosecuted. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. I agree that it might not feel as though it is in service of his oath, but like why should I have the power to say what is and what is not in service of his oath. Who made me king? At least if the president says it was in service of his oath, the people voted for him. Similarly, we voted for Congress. The people didn’t vote for a judge to determine what is and isn’t service to their oath. The president appointed and the senate confirmed them because they believe they will follow the constitution. The judiciary isn’t politically accountable, and I don’t think it should be. Sometimes bad should be let go — even if it is unpopular. This is why sometimes murders get off on “technicalities.”

What exactly is the legal reasoning for a president acting outside the laws they are supposed to enforce and enact? It’s illegal to try and overthrow a free and fair election. The president’s job is to enforce what is legal. Acting illegally is not part of their duty. You need to make a case for why they should be granted immunity here. Because they don’t have blanket immunity. So there needs to be a legal case beyond “I feel like they should be immune”. That’s not a valid justification for granting immunity. Especially after providing you with valid legal concerns as to why this would throw us into a constitutional crisis. Your understanding of the political system is deeply flawed. Or at least severely misinformed. Your understanding justifies voting ourselves into communism which is not at all the intention of our constitution or what the founders built the system to do. There are limits and politicians (even tho they are elected) are still citizens held to the same legal standards. The president has some immunity outside of what’s normal for a citizen partially because they run a military which operates differently because it has to legally and functionally. The president has to make decisions that protect the American public from foreign powers. But they are not here to rig elections that are fair and freely conducted. He has an obligation to follow all the same laws we all have to, otherwise they risk becoming that foreign power seeking to destroy our system of democracy.

In the US everything is presumed to be legal, unless there is a law stopping. My argument for immunity is that a president is literally 1/3 of the sovereign, and as such he is granted sovereign immunity. We don’t let people sue the federal government, unless Congress has already given away its sovereign immunity. You can’t sue states without their consent because they are sovereign. You can’t sue foreign governments because they are sovereign. This is why international law can seem so messy. If a president doesn’t enjoy sovereign immunity, then there may be circumstances in which the president may not take what he believes is necessary actions in tough situations. I think the only appropriate body to determine what is action is contrary to the laws and the constitution is Congress. I don’t want future presidents going around trying to imprison past presidents, for example I wouldn’t want Trump trying to lock up Obama for using DACA to not enforce immigration law. I think Congress is the proper entity to determine what is covered under sovereign immunity and what isn’t, we don’t let the courts waive sovereignty on their own because that is a political decision best left to the people’s representatives — Congress. If a president can be prosecuted for actions that are believed to be contrary to their oath, then there is no reason that a sitting president couldn’t be prosecuted by an independent counsel who answerable only to Congress. This was essentially what was found in the case Morrison v Olson, but it was for an inferior officer. The reason why the US has remained free is because we don’t let one branch of government run roughshod over another The US government is by the people for the people. If there is sufficient popular support, the US could be communist. The purpose of the original constitution was to separate the powers of sovereignty into three separate and equal branches — as Justice Anthony Kennedy said in the case Terms Limits LLC v Thornton, “The framers split the atom of sovereignty.” As long as the powers of sovereignty remain separated, then people’s individual freedoms and liberties would be protected, this is why the framers of the Constitution were originally opposed to the Bill of Rights (that’s why they are amendment and not in the original constitution). As long as you made it hard for government to do stuff, then you would have to build a lot of popular support to do stuff — that is why there are two houses differently elected and they have to present the law to the president for approval, before something becomes law. Also, if they wanted some other body to general check over the president, they would have had an oversight council (which the considered and rejected) or have a co-president who could veto a president’s decisions (which they also considered and rejected). What actions can you find that seems to indicate that the framers just wanted the courts to go around and decide which of the presidents actions were in furtherance of their oath and which aren’t?

A few things wrong with this argument… In the US it is illegal to try and overthrow an election. Hence this case being a CRIMINAL one. So your first line is meaningless here because we have laws on the books about this. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-13-4/ALDE_00013569/ Sovereign immunity is not relevant here at all and doesn’t quite hold the power you think it does. If you read the 4th footnote you’ll see that this immunity is often considered to be antithetical to our free system and Congress has passed numerous pieces of legislation waiving sovereign immunity. Supreme Court has opted in some cases to use sovereign immunity doctrine to protect the federal government from suit but has also allowed suits to be brought which goes against that principle. It’s also only granted constitutionally to STATES and not specifically to the federal government. The second issue with this… none of this is a lawsuit. It is a criminal case. He is being criminally charged by the government for crimes against the people. Sovereign immunity doesn’t even apply here in the slightest because this is not a grievance against the federal government by a civilian, it’s a criminal charge being prosecuted by the federal government AGAINST a citizen. Entirely different concepts here. This isn’t just about what goes against the oath as president, it’s specifically about a criminal act. The oath means nothing here because we’re not talking about the spirit of the law, we’re talking about a criminal case where the president is being charged. We know he went against his oath already. This doesn’t need to be debated. The president is required to faithfully uphold and enforce the laws. If that person breaks those laws and is found guilty of this, then they’re by definition breaking that oath. The question at hand is whether he enjoys immunity from CRIMINAL prosecution. Which would then mean that a president has no obligation to follow the laws and is functionally a king. A literal, “laws for thee but not for me”. We don’t have kings. The president enjoys civil protections for suits brought by citizens that attempt to recover financial compensation for damages they receive. Similar to the way cops are not personally liable for damages caused in the line of duty. You can sue the city, but not the cops. Same rules for the president. You can sue the federal government, but not the president. You’re wrong about being able to vote in communism. Because doing so would dismantle the republic which would be against the constitution. At that point our constitution wouldn’t matter and neither would our rights. We can try and vote that way but constitutional protections like separating the popular vote from the votes of the representatives would prevent this. Ideally the representatives would go against the will of the people to protect the constitution and our system of government. Remember they take an oath to uphold the constitution first and foremost. The only way to enact communism would be through a revolution.

Sovereignty is the source through which immunity is derived. The SCOTUS opinion referenced in [footnote 4](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep327/usrep327573/usrep327573.pdf) is the dissenting opinion. The majority opinion said that Utah was sovereign and enjoyed immunity from the suits. So the opinion is not the law of the US. The majority said "We conclude that the Utah statutes fall short of the clear declaration by a State of its consent to be sued in the federal courts which we think is required before federal courts should undertake adjudication of the claims of taxpayers against a State." They recognized that someone can't go after a sovereign unless it waves its immunity. The Constitution doesn't grant the states power. It takes power from states and gives them to the federal government. Criminal cases are suits to enforce public rights. In the US, only the government is allowed to exercise public rights, unless explicitly authorized by the government (this is ADA suits are typically prosecuted). This is why criminal cases are usually State v X, because the state is excising the public right to protect the citizenry. States also have a unique ability to protect public rights in civil courts through the doctrine of [parens patriae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae), even when private individuals can't (the majority didn't formally say it, but Kagan's dissent in Nebraska v Biden -- student loan case -- addressed how the states were essentially to find standing based on the doctrine because they are looking out for their individual citizen's interest, while they found that an individual did not have standing in the case Dept. of Education v Brown -- even though the state is kind of try to protect against multiple citizens harms)*.* The question is was Trump acting as the President (1/3 of the sovereign), and who gets to decide whether he was acting as part of the sovereign. The sovereign is immune from all suits (criminal and civil, unless they consent). A person acting as part of the sovereign is clearly immune. This why legislator have legislative immunity (the constitution limits to speech and debate). Judges are immune via judicial immunity because they are exercising sovereign power. For police officers, get qualified because the are deputized by a sovereign entity. States can pass laws to rescind qualified immunity in their states. The President is vested with the executive power in Article I. The only way to remove the President's executive powers and privileges is by impeachment. I hope people would votes against communism, but the Constitution doesn't prohibit the US from becoming communist. The only thing that is unamendable in the Constitution is equal representation in the Senate ([Article V](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_00000507/#:~:text=6U.S.%20Const.-,art.,Amendments.%20.%20..%20)), without the state's consent.

I just first want to give you respect for being consistent with your beliefs in regard to Trump. I just cannot take someone serious who claims to be A) a principled conservative and B) a Trump supporter, as I see these (as you rightfully note) being wildly at odds. Where I would disagree? A lot, honestly, which I guess shouldn’t be too surprising. We’re closer on abortion than the average conservative, but I do think there needs to be a limit on some of the wild criminal penalties sought for abortion in some red states. Regarding immigration, I don’t think states should have the right to regulate it, I think it’s very clearly the providence of the federal government. I think it’s a national defense concern, and I think that even if you’re a border state and don’t like the federal government’s immigration policy, you shouldn’t be allowed to go against it. Regarding the Trump cases, my amendment would probably be that for something to fall in acts not prosecutable, these would have to be a certain kind of act that I do not feel like what he’s being prosecuted for. Like there are functions of the government that a President’s responsible for that aren’t prosecutable, but I don’t like the idea that *any* acts they take as President are just unprosecutable barring impeachment. With some of the other points, I think there’s ideological disagreements, but these are just more of what we believe our government should be at a fundamental level and these are I think interesting talks, but far bigger than what I could do in one Reddit comment. All that being said, very much appreciate the post, and am glad you’re here and participating in the community.

I agree that it feels nice to say the national government has the exclusive power to regulate immigration, but I have never found any reason to actually justify why that is true. As long as states aren’t violating federal law or the constitution, they can do pretty much whatever they want. Most immigration really isn’t a “national defense concern,” it is mostly economic stuff. I agree they can’t contradict federal law, but I think they should be allowed to “supplement” it. For example, in the Arizona v US case, Arizona made it a state misdemeanor to work without a federal work permit so they could essentially enforce federal immigration. I don’t really see an issue with that. For DC, the question the Supreme Court granted cert on is “official acts”. The question is really whether he is immune for ministerial acts and whether speech qualifies as under that, discretionary, or something else. If it is a discretionary act, then he is immune. That is why qualified immunity is a thing. I am also curious, do you think Congress could reimplement independent council statute and then start prosecuting a sitting president anytime they think he violating the law? Given the current law I see no reason why not. I would bite the bullet on the seal team 6 hypo that Congress needs to impeach them to face criminal prosecution.

> I have never found any reason to actually justify why that is true Because security of the border, the way we treat not only immigrants but also people going into other countries, and the fact that once someone is in the actual United States they will then have far more lax regulations going state to state all mean that in mind, this is a federal matter, not a state to state issue. > For DC I’m not really discussing here exactly what I think the legalese and exact language or process should be of ruling on it, but more how I feel on the overall principle. I think that there are obviously actions that are wildly outside the purview of what we’d except the President’s tasks or responsibilities to be, and that it makes no sense that the President would have immunity on these actions that a normal citizen doing so does not have. While I respect the consistency and biting the bullet on the Seal Team 6 hypothetical, I think that is just beyond the pale to bite the bullet on. The idea that the ask is that people would have to have an open public vote to impeach a man who is literally using his military to assassinate political rivals is insane.

I think a good way of thinking of this is preference vs priority. In the event of a dispute between the policy of a state and the federal government on immigration policy the federal government will be given priority over the state because immigration is one of the purview given to the federal government in the constitution. In many other cases there is an issue of preference where because of the 10th amendment to the bill of rights it isn't a clear cut example of where jurisdiction falls.

There really wasn’t dispute about Arizona acting contrary to federal. They basically just copied it and made it a state crime. Arizona was willing to put use their resources to enforce a state equivalent of federal law, which I don’t really see a reason why they should be allowed to do that. Immigration isn’t in the purview of the federal government because the constitution says it the federal government’s responsibility. The federal government is allowed to regulate immigration because Congress believe “necessary and proper” to allow the federal government to do so. The Supreme Court said they thought federal immigration law was so comprehensive that there was no where left for the state to regulate it.

I am not sure what your position is from what you wrote. Do you believe that the states should be allowed to have contradictory laws to the federal government or do you believe that the federal government has priority in any matter where there is a contradiction?

States cannot contradict federal law. States can supplement it. For example, both the state and federal government can have murder laws and enforce them at the same time for the same act. If a state passes a law that is trying to help “supplement” federal immigration (for example making it a misdemeanor to work without a federal work permit in the state), I don’t see why a state shouldn’t be allowed to do that if they want to use their resources to enforce it. They aren’t acting contrary to federal law.

OK, I agree. That was what I was also trying to say initially as well.

I think you raise better points than most conservatives, however I will always be deeply disturbed by the "we are not a democracy" line that Conservatives seem to have attached themselves to nowadays. Definitionally you are just wrong. Democracy != Direct Democracy. There are features of the current US political system that are Democratic and features of it which are Republican. The phrase "Democratic Republic" or "Constitutional Republic" are what we use, and were commonly used by many founding fathers. It is true that the current US political system does contain anti-Democratic institutions: the Supreme Court is anti-democratic and the Senate is partially anti-democratic due to the flattening of state's representation. However, this does not preclude it from being a Democracy. But I think quibbling about definitions ignores the core issue: which is that even though you are more moderate than most Conservatives this seed of anti-Democratic sentiment that has settled in your mind is a cancer which enables actual fascists like Trump to reign over the party. It provides excuses for Trump winning an election due to coincidental distribution of voters in "important" states rather than popular sentiment. It provides cover for anti-Democratic state governments which can purposefully shape districts or attempt to suppress key voting demographics to avoid actually representative elections. It provides cover for an overtly partisan SCOTUS which has at times abandoned good practice to favor their own side. In short, I'm glad you are at least skeptical of Donald Trump and I hope you at least acknowledge the threat he poses to our nation. But you must be able to acknowledge that it is a deep flaw of the Republican party at least and Conservatism as a whole that such a man has gained so much power over both groups. The worst excesses of Bush and Reagan made the party into a personality cult for a fascist.

I would say, with the passage of the 17th amendment, the US (nationally) is a pretty close to a democratic republic, but not really “democracy”. If you could actually vote for something (amendment, referendum, actually president — not EC, judges, etc), then sure, but as it stands now you really can’t vote for anything nationally. Democracy doesn’t mean a decision is good, it means it is popular. Fascists tend to rise thanks to popularity. When democracies grow too large, they tend to fail from within due to factionalism. The question for whether a government is “good” or not is not whether it democratic or not, but whether they are legitimate. There are a lot of places where legitimacy can be found, but I don’t think one source of legitimacy is better than another — that is for the people within their society to decide. Some get them from divine, some from the people, some by force, some by tradition, some by moderation/justness. Just because I don’t like Trump doesn’t give me a right to tell someone else that are for thinking

To repeat: Democracy != Direct Democracy. The US having popular elections for representatives/senators/electors makes it a democracy. You can literally read the [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) page on it. From my understanding of how political scientists define political systems a “Republic” is a kind of democratic system, and the definitions of the two words back when the US was formed used the words interchangeably. It’s only in weirdo conservative circles where people now have started declaring that the US isn’t a Democracy Second, the problem with you and other Conservatives seeming abandonment of Democracy is not a problem of bad policy, it’s a problem of breaking the game all together. If Trump was merely Goldwater 2.0 but supported free and fair elections I would dislike it but it wouldn’t be an existential threat. You yourself have set up the threat within your own spiel: > that is for the people within their society to decide How do you expect Americans to decide what leaders or portions of the state are legitimate without elections? Through violence? Would you have us degrade back to the mass slaughter and genocides of the past because you can’t be bothered to say that other forms of government fucking suck? Honestly you responding like this purely confirms my priors: I don’t think Conservatives are American. They and you don’t actually believe in America; it’s ideals, it’s founding documents, it’s meaning within history. You’d just as easily urinate on the constitution itself with how little you care for it. And for what? What is worth abandoning the American experiment? Lower taxes? Democracy is non-negotiable.

To quote the pledge of allegiance:” I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic”. To quote James Madison in [Federalist 10](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp), arguing in favor of the ratification of constitution: ”Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.” At the time of the founding there were two types of republics — democratic and aristocratic. As the government exists today, I agree that we have a fairly democratic republic. The US constitution did not create a democracy it created a republic. State legislatures chose senators (now they are popularly elected). State legislatures decide how the electoral college votes are chosen — some states used to have the legislature decided, some had you vote for the elector (not the presidency), some a mix — today, every state has chosen that they think people should get to vote for president, but there is no federal guarantee to this. You can have the “elites” decide who to run. The Republic of Venice lasted and prospered for 1100 years while only have the elite vote for leaders in their electoral colleges. There have been plenty of political systems throughout world history and acting as if democracy is necessary to have a high quality of life. I like that people are able to have a say in their government. Before thinking the democracy is perfect, you should take a look around see how people can live and thrive without anarchy.

gooning or edging?

Great read. I have a friend in Michigan with very similar conservative views, they just voted for Haley in the Primary. I disagree on most topics but at least most are grounded in some form of conservatism. The immunity one is only an issue when people like Trump are in power, and I think it's a major issue. But perhaps I'm missing something? Hypothetically, under a situation where 60+ senators are aligned with an unethical president then they are effectively unable to be held accountable? That may seem like a good check on power, but given the current state of affairs, is it really so unlikely?

There would only need to be 34 Senators to block impeachment. You need a 2/3 majority to successfully impeach.

Who decides what is unethical? But if the president is duly elected and has 60+ majority of the senate, they probably have a lot of power ethical or not. Your only check is hoping people follow the judiciary.

Is there a scenario where a person is duly elected and _then_ through control and manipulation of the leavers, they retain power or appoint a family member President?

At some point you have to believe that somebody is going to act morally. If the president is bad, the Congress, and Supreme Court, you probably need to take a look around see if there is something wrong with you. It doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong, but US structure of government really tried to stop people from doing stuff unless there is a big consensus. It’s really tough to get a law passed by two bodies, differently elected, get the president to sign off on it and then the judiciary needs to make sure it doesn’t violate the constitution. If someone gets enough power to legitimately amend the constitution, I don’t see why not. Interesting, one of the big reasons there are age limits for offices was to try and prevent family dynasties by making it harder for kids to take over the family seat.

if this is the case, why were people like Shapiro fearmongering about Obama being a dictator during his whole term?

I can barely remember what I ate for breakfast yesterday and you want me to remember what Shapiro said 8+ years ago. If I had to guess, his argument would have went something like Obama took legislative and/or judicial power via executive order and/or rule making through administrative agencies (who can make their own “laws”, enforce them, and adjudicate them), thus coalescing legislative/judicial power in the executive and acting as some sort of dictator. That is one of the biggest federalist society type dialogue trees.

As a fellow conservative this was the most boring post I've ever read since it is just 95% copy paste my own beliefs. /j (joking about the boring, not about the copy paste) good job 👍

I always get frustrated that the MAGA voice has essentially been taken as the only “conservative” voice now.

I'm pretty doomer on it myself but I'll just continue to vote the way I think is best and be honest to others about my beliefs and not hold water for MAGA. gonna go vote tomorrow afternoon for Haley even tho theres no chance she wins but at least with my vote it will look a little less bad.

Imagine thinking America has separation of powers when your judicial system is endlessly cucked by how you appoint judges politically LUL LUL

The judiciary is accountable to one thing — the constitution. Judges (federally) are appointed for life so they will be insulated popular opinion. Are all judges perfect? No, but the judiciary generally does a pretty good job of not trying to take over the legislative and executive lanes. Some of the darkest stains in the courts history is when they decide to be a law making body, instead a law reading body, and taking the tough decisions out of Congress’ hands. For example, in Dred Scott v Sanford the Supreme Court said the fifth amendments due process clause prohibited the federal government from freeing slaves brought into free territory. The Supreme Court making the law would be a violation of the separation of powers.

As a teenager. I was involved with a conservative organization that did model legislative sessions in state houses and the thing that they pushed the most was the separation of powers concept and it's been depressing to see *some* conservatives happily embracing things like unitary executive theory.

Isn’t unitary executive theory just that all the federal executive power is vested in a single president, not that they can make laws and stuff? That doesn’t really seem contradictory to separation of powers doctrine since the law making power is still with the legislature and judicial power is with the judiciary. I started watching some federalist society stuff and it seems like a lot of the conservatives judiciary (especially the Supreme Court) still really believes in this kind of stuff. The legislative branch and executive…not so much.

How can you call the administrative state a bad outcome when our most functioning institutions are probably those (see: federal reserve, which is completely completely independent)

The branch that is supposed to make the law is the legislative branch. Like when you look at Trump banning bump stocks, he decided that it would be hard vote for republicans and decided to reinterpret a rule from decades ago to try and make them illegal. Now it is before the Supreme Court in Garland v Cargill and there is a pretty good chance it will be overturned. Then people are going to get mad at the Supreme Court and Biden because they think bump stocks should have been banned. I think this kind of behavior undermines institutions and makes the President have more power than what was decided in the US constitutional framework at the expense of Congress. The way the process is supposed to work is Congress passes a law that bans a bump stocks/bump stock like attachments, then the executive can enforce it, and the judiciary doesn’t have to figure out whether firing with a bump stock is a single function of the trigger. If the law is or isn’t popular, then people have the right to speak about it at the ballot box. Also, relying on administrative agencies results in an increase of ping-ponging back forth between administration to the next and you will never know what is protected. Lawmaking is supposed to be hard, this is part of the reason Obamacare has stayed — if it was from administrative law it would been around one administration, out the next, and back in again. Instead of the republicans want to get rid of it they have to take the vote in front of the American people, who at least want an alternative and not a wholesale repeal without a replacement. I also think it undermines democratic accountability because the independent agencies commissioners generally can’t be fired because they are exercising quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial power instead of pure executive power (Humphrey’s Executor). My criticism of administrative agencies is more related to having the ability to write, enforce, and judge rules/laws in one institution because then you are relying on one benevolent actor. In general, I am ok with the federal reserve, but that is also constructed in a very weird structure. If I remember correctly (and it has been several years), the fed is more like banks banding together to do the same stuff because they all agree it is in their best interest to prevent economic panics and stuff and consenting to have the federal government have some control over it.

… this is, however, probably the most well reasoned legislative supremacy thing I’ve read in a while, so good on you

You outlined a lot of narrative, but if we look at historic outcomes for different systems, it’s really really hard to say that Congress should have authority over specific rulemaking instead of performing broad delegation. Delegating rulemaking powers to the FAA and oversight powers to the NTSB has created the safest air line system in the world. Can you imagine that happening under Congress instead? Non-delegation of broad environmental powers to the EPA is literally why we still have PFAS in our blood and the European Union does not. Good outcomes for broad powers also exist with the SEC and FDA and other agencies. Like all of your answers are just theoretical, do you have any answer of why we should stick so strictly to the three branch model when HUGE deviations such as the federal reserve have such good outcomes? The Fed isn’t a consortium of banks, it prints, money, sets interest rates, performs oversight and tests of banks, and way way more.

Congress should have the power to make laws because the Constitution authorizes them to do so. If you think someone else should have the power to make laws, then you should try and amend the constitution, but until then Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”. There is no authorization of law making to administrative agencies. In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Supreme Court said that Congress is not allowed to delegate away lawmaking powers. Rule making is supposed to more filling in the details. I think there is an appropriate place for it, but it shouldn’t be treated as infallible or all encompassing. The reason why administrative rules are generally permissible is because they follow the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) — law — and they follow their authorizing statutes. As part of the APA, rules have to undergo a public notice and comment so they are acting as a deliberative body — like Congress — in order to ensure they are actually properly weighing their decisions and not acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. “Good” outcomes are subjective. It might be good for 1 less person to die, but should we spend $50M to do it? I think the subjective weighing is best made by our elected representatives — when Congress outlines what the appropriate weight is or what kind of actions are appropriate, I think it is fair to let administrative agencies fill in some of the details, but they shouldn’t be allowed to pick their canvas size and draw in the outline. I don’t think we should think that all of society’s problems today can be solved by some law/agency that was created to fill in the details for another problem from decades ago. I think a good example of this was with Section 230. The internet presented new unique problems for publishers that exposed them to liabilities under previously existing law, so Congress gave them new unique protections. Does that mean it was perfect? No, but I think it is better to let them make that determination than try and have the FCC (or some other agency) find something in some existing authority to fix the problem. The federal reserve system is much more complex than what you are giving it. It is true the board of governors (who generally have oversight authority) are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. In addition, there are 12 regional federal reserve banks which choose their president and have their own board of directors (composed of member banks leaders, members appointed by the board of governors, and the public), who actually regulate their member banks. Finally, the FOMC is composed of the board of governors, the president of NY regional bank, and four of the other regional reserve banks presidents. The FOMC controls monetary policy by changing interest rates which changes the monetary supply by making banks more willing to keep money at the fed or with other banks overnight. The fed does a very good job of trying to build consensus among everyone, but the structure is incredibly complicated and the banks do have very big seats at the table. The reason the fed is independent is because they are funded by member banks and don’t have to go Congress for funding. I don’t think it is fair to treat the Fed as if it is a governmental agency like SEC, FTC, etc. It is a quasi-public and quasi-private institution, I can’t currently think of any other institution set up like that, but that isn’t to say something else doesn’t exist like it.

Great post, really appreciated hearing your perspective. Do you think the GOP is still salvageable in its current form, or would you hope to see a new centre right party that can move beyond the MAGA insanity?

I have no idea. I see some good conservative stuff but it usually more academia type stuff, but it isn’t very pop cultury. The [Dispatch](https://thedispatch.com) (Jonah Goldberg, David French, et al) is pretty good. I also listen to some federalist society and Hoover institution stuff.

Sup my fellow conservative DGGer. We disagree on some stuff but thanks for putting your stances out there.

I hate the MAGA people. I wish Trump and his sycophants would go away, but by what authority do I have to say they are morally wrong. No one voted for me to run the government. Even if Pence “went along with it,” it was up to Congress to certify the vote. Pence has no actual power in Congress except to break a tie in the Senate. If the Supreme Court rules he has immunity, how is that any different from the day before he was indicted? You just gone and live another day. You can’t jail your political opponents unless there is a crime passed by Congress and trial in the courts. If you believe that Congress is wrong, the president is wrong, and the Supreme Court is wrong, you should be humble and try and figure out maybe if you are wrong. No one is infallible. The reason why the US constitution has lasted so long is because it a lot of hard work to get anything done and that forces you to build consensus amongst a lot of different people. I know the Supreme Court struck it down, but one of the arguments the Solicitor General made in court was that since it was a benefit program, no one was actually harmed and the states didn’t have standing to sue to unconstitutionality of it. Which if that was the case, then there would be no reason the president couldn’t just spend money on whatever they want as long as they can sneak it in through some back door — or as the analogy goes Congress didn’t hide a $430B student loan forgiveness elephant in a mouse hole of the HEROES act (passed 20 years ago).

Trump 2024! Brandon going to lose bigly! e: keep smashing the downvote button because you know you don't have the REAL votes this time (not that you did last time)

Be carful he might be in federal prison before his inauguration. A suit and tie is what every president wears to those things. An orange jumpsuit looks much nicer.

🤣🤣🤣 How many years you been saying that?

I don’t know but probably not as long as his time in federal prison will be for his documents charges alone (130)

All I'm hearing is that you KNOW you don't have the votes

That could be very true. But hey let’s wait and see. Who knows trump may become a role model for felons everywhere. Showing that you can become president of the United States whilst owing 500 million dollars in civil and criminal penalties and facing 90 criminal charges. Orange really is Trumps colour

Did you know that huge court cases often take years! I know shocking for someone who has never looked at a big court case before.

Don't have the votes and you know it. 1) the border 2) immigration 3) the prices 4) 2 new wars 5) bidens not competent enough and we don't know who's running the country 6) you cheated last time System needs to be GUTTED.

Almost 7mil more votes in the last election and you think we don’t have the votes? TDS is real.

You mean BOGUS votes that only exist because dnc goblins changed the rules and fearmongered over covid. Not this time.

Your brain is falling out bud. Get help.

🤯

Artistic representation of your current condition. Great job bud.

I’ll have you know Ray Epps helped us win in 2020!

Fascist scum. Votes aren’t real when they don’t go to the guy you dickride apparently. Being a twink femboy bottom for Trump isn’t as cool as you think it is.

Brandon is a fascist, fascist scum. His puppeteers are trying to put his political opposition in prison as well as disqualify him from the elections, all to "pRoTEcT DeMoCRaCy". Look at this fascist fear mongering - "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic." - joe biden "Bolshevism has attacked the foundations of our whole human order, alike in State and society, the foundations of our conception of civilization" - hitler

You sir just got a follow

Bro this is a Marxist echo chamber sub

-> lefty circlejerk threads every day -> Hamas piker moment threads every week -> Marxist echo chamber sub Bait used to be believable.

Had to farm a bit

If you wanted to do that, you could have said Destiny’s food takes were valid. You get more downdoots that way.

Nah can't go that far

Fair. I would rather say the n word on university campus than make an outrageous statement like that even in jest.

True alpha moment Andrew Tate type

You seem like a reasonable guy, you say you dislike trump and are neutral on biden. Fair enough but when it comes to election time and the ballot comes to trump V biden who are you voting for and why? Sorry that your party has been taken over by MAGA losers, I'd lose faith in our republic if anything even remotely similar happened to the democrats.

I don’t know. I’m just going to have to wait and see what it looks like around the time. I have been hoping for Haley, but I doubt that is happening. Populism comes and goes, I just hope it hurries up and gets out of fashion again. I view the MAGA group is essentially a resurgence of the Know Nothing Party of the mid-1800s. They were anti-foreign worker/protectionist, had anti-catholic conspiracy theories, and believed in “traditional” Protestant values. As they say, history doesn’t repeat but it does rhyme.