We've become a failed nation-state in 150 days
By: Brian Karem (Salon)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Donald Trump made his personal transformation of the White House nearly complete Wednesday morning.
He already announced his intentions to add a ballroom — "the biggest and best ever" — to the East Wing and has begun paving over the lawn of Jackie Kennedy's iconic Rose Garden. ("It'll be like nothing anyone has ever seen before," he promised.) Now he's installed two giant flagpoles, one on the North Lawn and the other on the South Lawn.
The two flagpoles, he posted on Truth Social, are "tall, tapered, rust proof" and of the "highest quality." On Wednesday he said they were "beautiful poles" and "the best poles anywhere. . . in the world actually." A few reporters, members of Congress and even some White House staff made the obvious snarky comments about "over-compensating" and "wishful thinking." But the observation offered by a few who said that, with the oversized flags, Trump had turned the White House into a "used car lot" seems most accurate.
At this point, your honors, the prosecution humbly suggests we are a failed nation-state — not because of the erection of the flagpoles, but because of everything Trump, the courts, Congress and the press have done during the last 150 days of the new Trump regime.
At this point, your honors, the prosecution humbly suggests we are a failed nation-state — not because of the erection of the flagpoles, but because of everything Trump, the courts, Congress and the press have done during the last 150 days of the new Trump regime. (A reminder that we still have just over 1300 days left.)
Iran is the latest debacle. That nation-state has been a thorn in the side of the United States since 1953, when the CIA toppled a democracy to install the Shah. During the Obama era, it looked like things might finally take a turn for the better after the former president's negotiating team worked out a deal in 2015 that promised to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Trump canceled the deal during his first term, and since his inauguration in January, he has been trying to put nearly the exact same deal back into place. He says Iran "can't have a nuclear weapon. It's unacceptable."
Yeah. That's why Obama negotiated a deal that kept it from doing so.
With little incentive to restrain itself after Trump blew up the 2015 deal, Iran proceeded to enrich uranium. Israel got nervous and, over the weekend, despite the Trump administration's ongoing negotiations with Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched missiles at the Islamic Republic. That caused the whole world to get nervous. Trump blamed Iran and defended Israel's right to exist, bowing out of the G7 Summit in Canada on Tuesday so he could return to D.C. and ostensibly deal with the "growing crisis," that is mostly his fault.
Aboard Air Force One, he gaggled with reporters and would not confirm what he would do about Iran. Instead, he posted "Unconditional Surrender" on Truth Social, without any explanation of what that meant, leading some wags in Washington to hope he had just resigned.
But that wasn't the case, and he instead blasted Iran, saying he could kill that country's "Supreme Leader" anytime he wanted. "We are not going to take him out (kill!) at least not for now." He also claimed credit for Israel's prowess, posting that "we now have complete and total control" of the skies over Iran because of "American made, conceived, and manufactured 'stuff.'" But other than that wonderful bit of negotiation on social media, his early return to Washington led to little or no results by midweek. That led to speculation by press and staffers that he simply got bored at the G7 and used the Iranian crisis as an excuse to come home.
As the flagpoles went up on the White House campus on Wednesday, Trump said he had a hand on things and teased that America might join Israel in striking Iran. "You don't know that I'm going to even do it. I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do."
I think he said the quiet part out loud again. He has no idea what he's going to do. As he admired his flagpoles, he admitted that he wouldn't know what he would do until "a second before the deadline."
Whatever that means.
Trump again blamed Iran. "Why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine."
If you're living in Iran you might not think so - especially after Trump sabotaged the last deal the U.S. government put into place. But logic has little place in Trump's world.
All of this is evidence of why the U.S. is a failed nation-state. The chief executive officer is a convicted felon, 34 times over, and has been held liable in civil court for sexual abuse and defamation. He has issued executive orders that eliminate due process. He has ignored the Posse Comitatus Act and has considered invoking the Insurrection Act. He has deployed the military as police against American citizens. He is systematically purging from the federal government anyone perceived to be disloyal to him. He has hired clearly and provocatively unqualified people for some of the most important jobs in the administration. He has vowed recrimination against his "political enemies" and calls the press "the enemy of the people." He won't allow anyone to hold an opinion contrary to his own and lies so often that scores of fact-checkers owe their livelihood to researching his continuous, mind-bending deceptions. His foreign policy is a hot mess. He and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller screamed that "No Kings" protesters across the country were insurrectionists while he commuted the sentences of, or gave pardons to, 1500 people who engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6 because they supported him.
His administration has threatened, harassed and arrested Democratic lawmakers, including a U.S. senator, and a New York Comptroller.
Trump is a symptom of the problem and also a catalyst.
Trump is a symptom of the problem and also a catalyst. The most telling piece of recent evidence of our failed nation-state status occurred Saturday, when two Minnesota Democratic state lawmakers and their spouses were horrifically targeted and shot in their homes. Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, were victims of what U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson called "a political assassination" and "a chilling attack on our democracy."
The MAGA crowd showed no empathy for the victims. A little more than 24 hours after Hortman was assassinated, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee mocked the attack in a pair of social media posts. "This is what happens when Marxists don't get their way," Lee wrote on his personal X account. An hour later, in a post that showed a picture of the suspect, Lee wrote: "Nightmare on Waltz Street," referencing Tim Walz, Minnesota's Democratic governor.
Trump upped the ante. In the same gaggle on Air Force One where he rambled incoherently about Iran and Israel, Trump also insulted Walz. The governor is "slick" and "whacked out." "I'm not calling him," Trump said. A courtesy call would be a "waste of time."
These divisive and deplorable actions by Trump have created imitators in both parties. While Sen. Lee's comments were disgusting, so too were the recent actions in New York City by Mayor Eric Adams. He banned a New York Daily News reporter from his weekly news conferences after calling the reporter "disruptive" and "disrespectful" for shouting questions without being called on first. Trump tried the same thing with me in the White House. Spoiler alert: He lost three times in court trying to make that stick.
Further evidence of our failure includes the entire Democratic party which continues to eat its own. The Democrats are plagued by Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin, who couldn't manage a 26-year-old activist — David Hogg — nor apparently anyone else in the DNC. Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, and Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, recently declined offers to stay on as at-large members. Weingarten cited disagreements with Martin. Part of the Democratic party wants to hire consultants to find out what America wants, while another part wants to force its progressive agenda down the throats of a country that leans more centrist-right. How pathetic can the opposition be if it cannot defeat a party led by an autocrat allowing oligarchs to dismantle a democracy so the rich get richer and the poor will "die" anyway, according to Iowa GOP Sen. Joni Ernst.
Welcome back to chaos in a blender, the daily Donald Trump show that features endless madness, freaks, creeps, bumblers, tumblers, several royal curses and at least one trojan horse. And a really funny thing happened on the way to the forum; we don't know if there's a happy ending of course. But as Trump often tweets, "Stay tuned." He is bound to get his. He's now selling gold cellphones. Just imagine if Barack Obama or Joe Biden had done so.
And there you have it. One could mention how Congress has failed to provide checks and balances, but that once reputable branch of government is so ineffective as to be inconsequential in the telling of the tale. The judiciary is only marginally better, with even odds that anything positive done by a lower court will be reversed by Trump's Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Fourth Estate has failed spectacularly, with reporters fired, lawsuits settled and apologies made that should never have been made. Rare is it these days that Trump is even asked a decent question.
If the United States before, during or immediately after World War II, had been presented with the fact of any nation-state behaving the way the U.S. has in the last 150 days under Donald Trump, the president, supported by Congress, would have taken action.
Now, the eye rolling, interruptions and damning with faint praise the G7 leaders gave Donald Trump is about the only indication of how little this country is respected internationally.
But it was a federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan who nailed it when he blocked hundreds of cuts Trump had initiated for NIH grants. "I've never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I've sat on this bench now for 40 years. I've never seen government racial discrimination like this," said U.S. District Judge William Young of Massachusetts. "You are bearing down on people of color because of their color. The Constitution will not permit that…Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?"
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
228 visitors
America has been laid low from within.
Not at the new White House, with it's new garrison flags at each end, but instead of selling used cars,
( well maybe one red Tesla is for sale )
we are selling pardons and green cards to white people. /S
we are selling pardons and green cards to white people.
Proof?????
We've been selling green cards for decades. We're one of about 150 countries worldwide that does so.
According to some on the left, not to white people.
That absolutely must have started on Jan this year.
Which would be odd... because that would seem to contradict the whole "favoring the rich" complaint.
No, there is a program Eb=5 which grants a green card to people who promise to invest in the US.
It is to be replaced by the $5million "Gold Card"
What is the difference between a gold card and a green card?
Trump’s Gold Card Plan Has Benefits But Legal and Practical Obstacles | Cato at Liberty Blog
Yes. Minumum investment is $800k USD. If you have total net worth of $800k, you are in the top 2% worldwide. You obviously need much more than that to make an $800k investment.
If you're rich, you can buy a green card. Matches the programs in dozens of other countries.
First, it's probably not going to happen. If it does happen, it most certainly won't happen the way it's being described.
Even if it did happen that way, which it won't, dozens of other countries... from Austria to Uruguay.... already do this. It's not like Trump invented the idea.
So is Monaco a "failed nation state"? Switzerland? Costa Rica? Singapore? How about New Zealand?
Hey your favorite POTUS screwed the tribes again by reversing the Salmon saving program established by the courts settlement and Biden to end decades of litigation and restore the river and the salmon.
1st, do you believe here is zero correlation between the donations to the WH, Mar a lago & the Potus and the ridiculous pardons being issued?
Trump pardons drive a big, burgeoning business for lobbyists
Pardons for sale - Lawyers, Guns & Money
It's happening right in front of us and we can't do a thing about it. He has SCOTUS immunity.
Only if you consider the investment in some other entity "buying" a green card, which I think is a stretch.
Why the hell would you think that I think that, based on any of my comments here or anywhere else?
C'mon man!
It's certainly not much of a stretch. Your stated objection was "selling green cards to white people".
To what do you actually object about Trump's proposal, other than him?
That they will go to white people? Because most of them won't. Most of them will go to Arabs and Asians.
That they will go to rich people? Our current eb-5 visas only go to rich people. There are zero poor people in that line.
So what are you really bothered about?
We're in a seed talking about America as a "failed nation state". In a post of agreement with the seeder, you brought up "selling greed cards to white people" as though it justified that moronic view.
So no, ordinarily I wouldn't assume you to be that far off the deep end, but given the timing and context of your post....
So in your new twisted logic, posting on a seed indicates agreement with the seed or the seeder?
Agreed, it's a moronic view. One which I haven't typed one single word supporting.
For a fellow who is pretty precise in saying what he means, why twist the fuck out of what I typed?
Am I "the other team"? Is that it?
Quilty by your assumption that I might agree because I made snarky remarks about the WH?
At this point we are far from being failed, but we have some incompetent people at the controls that are trashing
eighty years of good will, protocol, alliances, healthcare, treaties that worked, a poor understanding of tariffs and
trade policy, flip flopping at a caliber hither to unseen in American politics. The First Amendment only applies to
speech that the WH approves of and they are using the DOJ and HHS to go after colleges, law firms and
individuals with whom the POTUS has an axe to grind, real or imagined. The Administration has torn up Constitutionally
authorized legal contracts of money already authorized for scientific research, the Arts, public radio, Voice of America, USAID and
dozens of agencies simply because this Administration would not have given them equal access under the Constitution.
At this moment, we are no longer that shining light, that Camelot, that moral giant trying to guide the world,
improve human health and prevent human starvation around the world. We have slipped far down that mountain and
indications are that the bus is headed still further downhill towards Iran, a really failed state.
No. Posting agreement with the seeder indicates agreement with the seeder.
That's your view, not mine.
OK, then we agree. Twice in one post. Guess we're not on opposing "teams" after all.
That's some wild idealism. And some considerable hubris.
Why would you think the rest of the world wants our guidance? Seems odd. I doubt we would want theirs.
Then I guess we are just wasting each others time.
Ciao!
White House Columnist Brian Karem tells Salon that President Donald Trump has reduced the U.S. to a ‘failed state’ in little over 100 days.
This goes beyond Trump paving over the lawn of Jackie Kennedy’s iconic Rose Garden and installing flagpoles big enough to spark whispers about “over-compensating” and “wishful thinking,” said Karem. This is about Trump failing so frequently on Iran that he finally confessed to reporters that he could not say if the U.S. was going to join Israel in bombing it.
“ You don’t know that I’m going to even do it. I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do ,” Trump said, and Karem agrees he probably “said the quiet part out loud again.”
READ MORE: Trump is following in the footsteps of the worst traitor in US history
“ He has no idea what he’s going to do,” Karem writes, before launching into the myriad other ways the U.S. has collapsed into failure.
“The chief executive officer is a convicted felon , 34 times over, and has been held liable in civil court for sexual abuse and defamation. He has issued executive orders that eliminate due process. He has ignored the Posse Comitatus Act and has considered invoking the Insurrection Act,” said Karem, a reporter since the 1980s. “He has deployed the military as police against American citizens. He is systematically purging from the federal government anyone perceived to be disloyal to him. He has hired clearly and provocatively unqualified people for some of the most important jobs in the administration.”
In addition to these things, Trump has “vowed recrimination against his ‘political enemies’ and calls the press ‘the enemy of the people.’ He won’t allow anyone to hold an opinion contrary to his own and lies so often that scores of fact-checkers owe their livelihood to researching his continuous, mind-bending deceptions,” Karem said. “… He and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller screamed that ‘No Kings’ protesters across the country were insurrectionists while he commuted the sentences of, or gave pardons to, 1500 people who engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6. because they supported him.”
READ MORE: CEO of sole American smartphone manufacturer has bad news for Trump's new phone company
And then came the most obvious sign of a failed state to Karem: The political assassination of two Minnesota Democratic state lawmakers and their spouses, with little empathy from Trump or his MAGA followers. Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee mocked the attack in social media posts. “This is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way,” Lee wrote.
Karem points out that Trump joined in when he “rambled incoherently about Iran and Israel” and insulted Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, before vowing not to call him because a courtesy call would be a “waste of time.”
Other signs of the nation’s failure include the “ the entire Democratic party, which continues to eat its own” even in the face of the nation’s destruction.
“Meanwhile, the Fourth Estate has failed spectacularly, with reporters fired, lawsuits settled and apologies made that should never have been made. Rare is it these days that Trump is even asked a decent question,” says Karem. “…The eye rolling, interruptions and damning with faint praise the G7 leaders gave … Trump is about the only indication of how little this country is respected internationally.”
READ MORE: 'The numbers are rotten': Columnist busts Trump boast on polls
Karem left the final word of his tirade to Reagan appointee U.S. District Judge William Young of Massachusetts, who shot down Trump’s recent attempt to kill hundreds of NIH grants.
“I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Judge Young said , speaking on the specific beneficiaries for the grants. “You are bearing down on people of color because of their color. The Constitution will not permit that … Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”
“Apparently not,” Karem Laments.
Read the full Salon report at this link .
Someone no one has ever heard of talking to a far left rag.
What sort of bias could happen here? s/
Speaking of sources, as some here today are, try this on........
The seeded article is from Salon, not Alternet or New Civil Rights Movement.
The seeded article is from Salon, not Alternet or New Civil Rights Movement.
As if that makes it better..
It's shit like this article that make it impossible to see the left as a viable alternative to Trump. They are crazier than he is.
Actually its much better. They are still almost as far to the left but do a better job factually.
and it's the facts that matter, don't you agree?
These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
Look again. I was referring to your source in comment #2 that you posted.
The right wingers here try to cause chaos as much as Trump does.
The seeded article lays out an impressive case.
then why didn't you say so in the first place?
Wouldn't you know it - definitely not a reliable source.
Impressive only for the Dems/Libs - not the rest of the population.
And your point?
Voters identifying as Democrats are at 49% compared to Republicans 48%
and there are still some liberal republicans and conservative Democrats, in fact only 54% of democrats claim to be liberal.
Anything Impressive to roughly 50% of the voters should be taken seriously.
And excuse us for not recognizing you as a spokesperson for the "rest of the population"
Alternet.org is less left biased and more highly rated for being factual than the other two examples being dissed.
The stupid shit people will believe. We are not a failed nation state.
FFS...
What part of that do you think is untrue ?
A lot of it. But it hardly matters. You're going either going to pretend it is or change the subject when it's proven false.
This is just your daily spin in a circle over Trump. It's simply more melodramatic today.
Which part?
We'll start with the idea that any of that is evidence we're a "failed nation state". That's just melodramatic lunacy.
You sound like those Tea Party morons that used to talk about how we were a socialist state when Obama was in office.
There are 10 specific judgements made about Trump in that paragraph. Which ones of them are baseless?
Which ones do you think make us a failed nation?
A nation which could elect Trump , twice, when it has always been clear he is utterly unit for office, is a nation with a lot of problems.
Any one of those ten items would have made previous presidential candidates unelectable. So why has Trump been elected? That is the failure.
We've always had a lot of problems. As does every nation on this planet.
We've always had presidents who push the law past its limits. Including Biden. Including Obama. And W. And Clinton. And, and, and and....
Yet here we stand. Covered in not failure. Creating one new millionaire every 22 hours. Struggling to deal with the vast line of people who want to live here.
Because the majority of Americans thought the other candidate was even worse. I'm not sure how there is still confusion on that.
Not even close to the level that Trump is at. You posted a ridiculous exaggeration of past presidents.
The question is how a majority of those who voted could consider Trump fit for office, much less better than Harris (who would have at least been a typical, presidential D POTUS).
The only possible way to defend Trump, although it is a total failure, is to claim he's just like previous presidents. That claim is totally bizarre.
Trump has a long series of attempts to operate above the law during just his first 150 days with the district courts (the major bulk of the lawsuits) ruling against him the supermajority of the time:
ChatGPT offers:
One would have to go back to Andrew Jackson to see such defiance and even then it was one major issue: Worcester v. Georgia where Jackson refused to enforce the SCotUS ruling and allowed Georgia to continue with its relocation of native Americans. Other issues were few and minor. Trump is setting major league records for the number of won challenges to his actions.
None of this is true.
Why do you think this is not true?:
You can see this right off the bat with a Google search too.
Read the case. Tell me what the Court ordered Jackson to do that he did not.
Also, Trump is not "defying the court" because he lost a case at the district level any more than Obama did when he lost more cases than any previous president before the Supreme Court.
You read the case. Jackson did not enforce the SCotUS decision.
Read what I wrote:
"Trump has a long series of attempts to operate above the law during just his first 150 days with the district courts (the major bulk of the lawsuits) ruling against him the supermajority of the time:"
Trump is trying to operate above the law. That is what I call defiance of the law. You are splitting hairs in an attempt (yet again) to defend the indefensible.
Trump will be recorded as the most lawless PotUS in our history.
He was not a party to the case. The Court did not direct him, nor the federal government, to enforce anything. You've been misled into believing things that have no basis in reality.
That is what I call defiance of the law.
That's not what the word means. Trump has complied with very court ruling, just like he did his first term. You seem to think litigating one's rights is defiance, which is absurd.
It was his duty to enforce the ruling. He refused to act.
I just told you that my meaning is that Trump is trying to operate above the law; he is engaging in attempts to defy the law. That is exactly what the word means. I did not state that Trump routinely defies direct orders from the SCotUS, I said he is defying the law.
You continue to try to walk a semantic tightrope to defend Trump. Why? The guy is a disgrace and is lawless. Since when does the GOP support this kind of behavior?
Don't you believe in the Constitution? The President cannot act on a whim enforce Court decisions without directive from the court would have been illegal.
He refused to act.
He was not directed to act by the Court and had no power to act without such direction. We are a nation of laws.
Read the case and understand what the Court did, and did not order.
he is engaging in attempts to defy the law
Engaging in the legal process, appealing bad rulings and following court orders is not an "attempt to defy the law"
So you claim. But we have another court ruling this morning in Trump's favor.
I don't know how to explain that any more clearly.
I don't need to defend Trump. He's the president.
In spite of your constant obsession over him and the staggeringly ridiculous statements it drives, he's going to do his thing.
And when all that's done, we'll still be here not failing as a nation.
It has been explained dozens of times by dozens of people. It seems only the left wing media is still blaming everything and everyone but themselves. Why do you think you continue to ignore the responses and continue to ask the same question again and again?
He is obligated to enforce the law as interpreted by the SCotUS. He intentionally did not act.
Citing laws and then acting in a manner that goes beyond the law (e.g. using laws that apply only during an invasion and just declaring an 'invasion') is an attempt to defy the law.
Bullshit. The 'explanation' has been that Trump supporters believe Trump would be better for the nation than Harris (or, really, any D PotUS). And equivalent superficial, obvious 'explanations'.
Go beyond the obvious and answer why anyone who is paying attention and able to think rationally would see Trump as fit to be PotUS and vote for him instead of someone fit but not aligned with their politics.
Seems to me that partisanship has no bounds. That no matter how utterly bad the candidate is, partisans (too many of them) will vote for the candidate of their party. Trump supporters have demonstrated the 'no matter what' in spades.
Bullshit on your bullshit. You can't tell me I haven't seen what has been said over and over the past year or so
There you go. So they have told you.
So the issue is not that they haven't told you it is that you reject their responses and their reasoning because it does not align with yours or what you consider rational thought or critical thinking.
While that is surely true for some, 70 million is too many to believe.
Oh well, that changes everything!
Are you ignoring the vast number of rulings against Trump?
I gave the data of this Litigation Tracker by Lawfare to ChatGPT. It summarized as:
Do you consider these general stats to be an indication that Trump is routinely trying to operate above the law or do you claim this is just partisan litigation adjudicated by partisan judges? That this is not an indication of Trump doing anything wrong, just mean political opponents abusing the legal system against him?
And, of course, you do not explain anything other than the obvious. Demonstrating my point.
Given the outrageous things Trump has done and tried to do (starting with his Big Lie) how is it that anyone who can think rationally about politics and the choice for PotUS could find Trump to be fit for the presidency?
Do you, for example, consider Trump to be fit for the presidency? If so, explain how you could come to such a conclusion.
I'm sure you've realized by now your original claim that Jackson defied the court is completely without merit. You've had plenty of time to read the case and realized the Court never ordered Jackson, or the US Government, to do anything. But rather than admit the obvious, you persist and instead change your claim to arguing Jackson is "obligated" to act outside the powers delegated to him by the Constitution, Congress or the Court in this case.
Once you understand what acutally happened here, you'll understand that Georgia was never found to be defiance of the Supreme Court. Without that finding from the Supreme Court, no one had the right to force Georgia to do anything. In fact, with Jackson's behind the scenes help, Georgia eventually complied with the ruling and he Court never issued a ruling finding Georgia had disobeyed it's ruling. Without that ruling (and as this was before the 14th Amendment maybe even with such an order) the President lacked any constitutional authority to intervene. You are claiming he had an "obligation" to act illegally, which is nonsense.
ing in a manner that goes beyond the law (e.g. using laws that apply only during an invasion and just declaring an 'invasion') is an attempt to defy the law.
It's ironic that you are now attacking Jackson for not going beyond the law at the same you are attacking Trump for supposedly going beyond the law.
What a comical argument.
You seem to like ChatGPT so here you go:
President Andrew Jackson did not defy the Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia, because:
The Supreme Court never issued a writ of mandamus or habeas corpus compelling Georgia to release Worcester.
Georgia quietly complied by releasing Worcester and the other missionaries in 1833, before any formal enforcement mechanism or contempt proceedings were pursued by the Court.
Because no order required executive enforcement, Jackson was never placed in the legal position of having to act.
🧠 Common Misconception:
The narrative that Jackson defied the Court often stems from that famous (but likely apocryphal) quote:
That phrase was never documented in Jackson’s writings, and even if he said something similar in private, no act of legal defiance followed. In fact, his nonintervention aligned with the resolution of the case once Georgia backed down.
Jackson did not enforce the SCotUS decision and as PotUS it was his responsibility to execute the law. There is no getting around it.
Since you quoted ChatGPT (or at least attempted to), here is ChatGPT's response:
To wit, Jackson is the most notable case of defying the judiciary. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus but this was a wartime act (civil war no less) where special circumstances apply.\
Back now to my point. One needs to go back to Jackson to see the kind of defiance of the law we see with Trump and even then the defiance was one major defiance (Worcester v. Georgia) and several minor actions. Trump has already set a major league record in his attempts to operate above the law and the judicial system (thus far) is affirming that his attempts are in fact unlawful.
Clearly you have no rebuttal. Are you trying to imply that the rulings against Trump do NOT dwarf those in his favor?
Oh look..... only two options..... what a surprise.
Ask specific, not vague questions:
did Jackson have a legal basis to intervene without an enforcement order:
ChatGPT said:
Excellent question — and one that gets to the heart of the limits of presidential authority in the separation of powers.
Short Answer:
No, President Jackson did not have a clear legal basis to intervene unilaterally in the Worcester v. Georgia case without a court enforcement order.
Legal Background:
Under Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause gives the president authority to enforce federal laws and carry out judicial decisions, but only when:
In Worcester:
What Jackson Could Not Do:
What Jackson Could Do:
Jackson could not lawfully intervene in Worcester v. Georgia without a court enforcement order. His hands were, at least legally speaking, tied unless the judiciary initiated enforcement — which it did not in this case.
To put this in perspective, you believe Jackson defied the Court by NOT unconstitutionally abusing executive power in the middle of the nullification crisis which was threatening to destroy the union. We know Jackson
and if he did so, he would have pushed Georgia into South Carolina' arms and possibly either ended the Union or started the Civil War 30 years early, on terms that would have been less favorable to the north. Insanity upon insanity.
I'm stating that it's silly to claim Trump complying with lower court rulings is evidence of anything other than Trump complying with lower Court rulings.
Ask probative questions, not questions designed to spin a tale (of your invention) that flat out contradicts history per most every source.
Jackson had the responsibility to execute the laws of the land and that included judicial decisions. He could legally NOT do so (never claimed otherwise) but by not enforcing the SCotUS decision he defied the law.
Then you have invented an argument for me that I did not make.
Lol. Sure. I tricked Chatgpt.
There's not a single respectable historian or constitutional scholar who claims Jackson defied the court in Worcester. All any literate person has to do is read the case to know Jackson did no such thing, and understanding the Constitution, the separation of powers and the laws governing the 19th century legal system reinforces how historically absurd the claim is. I
Y
He could legally NOT do so (never claimed otherwise) but by not enforcing the SCotUS decision he defied the law.
That sentence, in and of itself, shows how incoherent your position is. The only way he could defy the court was by refusing to follow its orders.
Great. Then we agree the number of times the administration has appeared in court is meaningless.
More fun with Chatgpt:
Weird, it was all true when Biden was in office.
I'm surprised you actually expected one.
Citation?
Sometimes the obvious is plenty.
Actually it demonstrates my point. A lot of people give you their reasons, if you don't like them you dismiss them with claims of partisanship and inability to think logically.
It is quite easy. Either they don't accept the opinions of others that say he is not fit or the issues they agree with do not raise to the level of being unfit. In other words everyone's idea of critical thinking is different as is everyone's idea of being unfit..
Yes. There are some things he is doing that I like and some that I don't like but none of that has anything to do with fitness of office. No one has proven to me he is unfit to be president, they just keep saying it like people should believe their analysis and think like them. Yet their analysis is just opinion, as is mine. Do you think if he was truly unfit (and not just opinions that he is unfit) the dems would let him remain as president?
I have faith you won't accept this answer and accuse me of always supporting Trump, being partisan, not thinking logically or you will grace me with your full list of grievances again.
No, you asked a leading question and then spun the answer.
Wrong. Jackson could (and did) defy the court by refusing to execute their ruling. It is a historical fact that he refused and you are attempting to buck the vast majority of historical analysis on this matter.
Your protests are thus ridiculous.
Back again to my point. One needs to go back to Jackson to see the kind of defiance of the law we see with Trump and even then the defiance was one major defiance (Worcester v. Georgia) and several minor actions. Trump has already set a major league record in his attempts to operate above the law and the judicial system (thus far) is affirming that his attempts are in fact unlawful.
c'mon. This is getting sad. Even you have stopped arguing that the Supreme Court ordered Jackson to do anything. So the only other question is what legal basis would Jackson have had to intervene without a court order directing him to. It's not leading, it's the actual question at issue.
I didn't spin the answer at all. It speaks for itself and shows you have no grounds for your repeated unsupported claims. You can continue to repeat your opinion all you want, but the fact that you can't provide any support for it demonstrates how futile this discussion is. No different than endlessly repeating the claim earth revolves around the sun while refusing to acknowledge all the evidence proving the claim completely wrong.
efy the court by refusing to execute their ruling
I give up. You are intent on making ridiculous claims no matter how many times I've demonstrated they are false. Simply read the Chat Gpt transcript I gave you and until you can actually make a substantive argument rebutting it (merely stating an opinion that its wrong is not an argument) there's no point in engaging further.
Your protests are thus ridiculous.
No. Ridiculous is you simply repeating a disproven argument you can't logically support or provide any evidence for other than some vague appeal to historical analysis you can't provide yourself nor cite.
How you fabricated agreement from me on that point based on what I wrote is comical.
I never, not once, argued that the SCotUS issued an order to Jackson.
This is pathetic.
If you are going to argue a point that flies in the face of historical analysis then you are bound to be frustrated in the end.
Jackson flat out ignored the SCotUS ruling and allowed Georgia to continue. He chose to not execute the law as ruled by the SCotUS. That is a fact. That is the fact I cited.
Back yet again to my point from which you continue to deflect.
One needs to go back to Jackson to see the kind of defiance of the law we see with Trump and even then the defiance was one major defiance (Worcester v. Georgia) and several minor actions. Trump has already set a major league record in his attempts to operate above the law and the judicial system (thus far) is affirming that his attempts are in fact unlawful.
Let's juxtapose this support for Trump's fitness to be PotUS with this single example (and we have many more examples like this):
In our lifetimes, I doubt anyone imagined this kind of unpresidential, childish, irresponsible rhetoric from a PotUS (especially a sitting PotUS). This is the face, voice, and hand of our nation. But, "no one has proven to me he is unfit".
Even if this were true does that mean he is unfit to be president or just that you don't consider him to be presidential? Some folks bar of what makes someone unfit to be president is much lower than others. Interesting that Chris Hayes is the example chosen. He is not too partisan and MSNBC is not too far left. S/
From Eisenhower through Biden, excluding Trump, it would be comical to have AI show these presidents saying what Trump has said as a candidate and in his official capacity as PotUS.
In terms of actions, can you imagine any of these presidents tossing out worldwide across-the-board tariffs? Starting unnecessary trade wars? Claiming that tariffs are paid by the foreign nations? Trolling and threatening Canada?
On and on we have weekly examples of Trump's unfitness for office in dramatic comparison to prior presidents, yet for you: " no one has proven to me he is unfit " .
Correct. All you have shown is you don't agree with pretty much anything he does and in your opinion that translates into being unfit. Pretty low bar.
Imagine the chaos that would come from a candidate saying one thing and the elected official saying the exact same thing. Our entire system is geared towards the candidates who lie better. damn..
You obviously did not read what I wrote and instead just made shit up.
Nowhere in my comment do I even hint that Trump is unfit because I disagree with him.
He is unfit on objective grounds (e.g. character, intent).
No point repeating since obviously you ignore what I write and just invent a strawman.
Trump is not fit to hold office, and you dont care. That about sums it up.
Biden was not fit, was obviously not doing the job, and you were ready to vote for him anyway.
That's an invalid assumption by you.
Was Harris fit?
We ultimately had the realistic choice of Harris or Trump. One is fit to serve —measured against prior presidents (except Trump)— and one is unfit.
Those who claim not to have voted for either one chose to allow an unfit person the means to wield the powers of the presidency.
Fitness for office should be the apex of the hierarchy of criteria to vote for someone.
It's certainly questionable.
I realize that's your opinion, but not everybody shares it.
And yet Biden won all the primaries.
Amazing. On what basis would you question Harris' fitness to serve as PotUS?
The fact that she is a D, female, non-caucasian, liberal, etc., clearly should not be part of the criteria.
Also, one would hope you would not try to include:
So what am I missing that would cause someone to reasonably deem Harris unfit to be PotUS compared to the norm of historical presidents.
Well, I say it is where the consideration should begin. The baseline for consideration, and Trump has never reached as high as that. But this is all, what did he say the other day? "Water over the damn." We all have to live with this Chief of the Lunatic squad for the next 3 1/2 years. If there are elections and if we still have a country, the demographics that I have been looking at suggest more of the same.
Testosterone poisoning is real.
Not at all. Merely objective.
On a number of things.
She repeatedly endorsed Biden as capable and in control when was obviously visibly incapable and clearly not making the decisions of the presidency. That certainly calls either her intelligence or integrity (or both) into question. For all the accusations about Trump's lies, we never seem to want to hold Harris accountable for hers, which were arguably more egregious.
And then we have her inability to create a convincing impression that she was going to be significantly more in control of matters than Joe was. We can also add her lack of any of her own thoughts on any major issue.
Democrats don't like to think about this, but that's not how the Constitution works. We elect a president to make decisions, not to be a figurehead marched out in front of a teleprompter to report decisions made by other people for whom nobody voted. So the idea that Harris was somehow pro lawfulness is quite a stretch.
For all your accusations about partisan voting, you ignore the fact that tens of millions of Democrats were willing to vote for a man who was obviously senile simply because that's what their party told them to do.
So for all the nonsensical melodrama of "failed nation state", let's remember we spent the last 18-24 months of the Biden presidency under the direction of somebody behind the scenes who earned zero votes. We survived that, we'll survive this.
I won't disagree with that.
So explain how Joe Biden won all the primaries.
Anyone who thinks Harris was not fit for office , but Trump is, is out of their fricking mind.
I question the judgment of anyone who tries to claim either was a good option.
Harris as VP not deeming Biden unfit makes her unfit? You have a low bar for unfitness. It would be quite a remarkable (and politically ruinous) move for a VP to call the sitting PotUS unfit. While it was dishonest to look aside (as did the rest of the D party), this is far from making Harris herself unfit to serve. In effect, it makes every D in contact with Biden unfit to serve.
A failure to convince the voters of her ability to lead and control matters (your hypothesis) would make her unfit? Again, this is an extremely low bar for unfitness that you are setting.
This is the best you have to offer for why Harris is unfit to be PotUS compared to the norm of US presidents (except Trump)?
Where do you see me ignoring this? You are yet again making shit up. Where have I ever suggested that partisanship (and blind partisanship) are exclusive to the Rs? Nothing worse than going personal with bullshit you have made up.
Bottom line, you deem Harris unfit to serve as PotUS because she did not convince enough people that she can lead and control matters as president (your hypothesis, your belief) and because she did not take the extraordinary move of basically destroying her political career by deeming Biden unfit.
An extremely weak argument.
Probably due to these two factors:
Given a choice between Harris or Trump, where one is going to be the next PotUS, who would you prefer to see as PotUS?
These two individuals are NOT identical ... not even close. So the idea that 'it does not matter' is preposterous.
Trump is demonstrably unfit. Harris meets the expectations historically applied to presidents (excluding Trump).
If fitness to serve is the most fundamental requirement for the presidency (or at least near the top), then Trump is not an option. The only option is Harris; regardless that she would pursue standard D policies.
He ran?
I really wouldn't know because that is a party function, and I most certainly belong to none of those.
The choices that eventually come my way of an abysmal candidate (Trump) versus a "not the candidate that I would have chosen but they will do in a pinch" was not even hard to decide in 2016, 2020 or 2024: Clinton was certainly capable, qualified, and competent; Biden was capable and fit enough to do the job; Harris was also competent, and what is more, they all conceived of America as a living organism. Donald Trump is not and never will be for anything that exists inside of my conception of a leader for the country. Trump does not, IMO, believe in the idea of America because to him it is all about money, power, and the ability denigrate at will any and every person. That is just who he is. His concept of America is that it is a tool to make him more wealthy and powerful. That difference in viewpoint leads us to the tremendous destruction that he has and is causing and that we have yet to feel because the effects will not become fully manifest for years.
As far as the basic premise of the article, ie.: That we have become a failed Nation-State in 150 days? Ehh, There are definitely some stress cracks forming about the Constitution and the whole implementation of the Unitary Executive idea. Larger than that, though, the whole idea of the United States of America as a Nation-State incorporates all of the people and the government working together. A nation is defined as a group of people who share similar values and recognize those values as being the reason for a certain cohesive relationship. A state is defined as an authority to govern over a definite area of land. We've always been a little cantankerous and friction has erupted into violence before, but I don't think that there has ever been a more consciously malicious division of people by a sitting President for the express purpose of gaining and maintaining power. That division for that purpose is the sign of the failing nation state.
I'm not sure how we're debating this well established fact. Did you miss the Democratic primaries?
Sounds like Japan. Or Korea. Or some other country where the ethos is based on the collective instead of the rights of the individual.
The whole idea of the United States of America as a Nation-State incorporates all of the people working individually and the government doing as little as necessary to keep us from trampling each others' rights.
Well when somebody fires on Fort Sumter, let us know. In the meantime, this is just Americans doing what we do..... arguing with each other while we build a better future.
Harris repeatedly endorsing a man she must have known was senile as fuck to be POTUS? Yeah, I think so. At the very least it was an attempt to circumvent the spirit of the Constitution. If that makes Trump unfit, it also makes her unfit.
No, you have an incredibly low bar for fitness. "Not Donald Trump" seems to be 99% of your criteria.
Any of those people could have run. They could have endorsed someone else. They could have expressed their concerns about the visible and obvious inability of Biden to continue.
So.... in your mind.... a person who is clearly taking instructions from some unelected third party is somehow fit to be POTUS? I think your Trump fever is talking for you. You would never in ten million years afford anybody else that latitude.
Where do you mention it? Citation? By all means, regale us with tales from your history of condemnation of Democrats voting for a man we all knew was senile.
So your justification is that it's all OK because her political career was more important than the best interests of the nation? And you imagine my argument to be weak....
It's both fascinating and telling that you don't see anything wrong with this.
There is zero chance anybody in regular contact with him didn't know he was afflicted with dementia long before the debate. It was obvious to anybody who watched him.
You are clutching at straws trying to defend the indefensible.
We're almost surely looking at a constitutional crisis either way. That's a bit like asking would you prefer bullshit or horseshit for dinner.
You've expressed your opinion on the matter. What you don't seem to accept is that it's just your opinion. The majority of the country disagreed with you. You also seem to refuse to accept any of Harris' very obvious flaws.
You keep trying to sell this bullshit, but nobody is buying.
It has never been "standard D policy" to change federal regulations and allow men to play women's sports. It has never been "standard D policy" to force working class people to pay off the student loans for affluent people with graduate degrees. It has never been "standard D policy" to stubbornly refuse to enforce immigration rules.
Most of all, it has never been "standard D policy" to have a president demonstrably incapable of making presidential decisions, but happy to take instructions from some other hidden unelected person or persons.
So this idea that Harris represented a return to normalcy is complete nonsense.
We are not. I forgot the /s tag on my tongue-in-cheek answer.
Oh, how I wish I could have, the Republican as well.
Yes, which is basically a restatement of what I said, minus the fact that, at some point, people have to come together, you know, the whole "Unite" thing. To say that we are all just trying to work individually ignores history. The United States occurred because people came together, not because people did what they wanted. They realized that a loose Confederation was not working and the CotUS was born of a hot, sweaty, compromise filled summer in Philadelphia.
First, nobody knows the clinical details of Biden's condition. We can see that his mental acuity was inconsistent (one day he is 'normal' but then in the debate he twilights), but I have yet to see a clinical diagnosis made at this time. So 'senile as fuck' seems like an emotional assessment.
Second, I think a VP would be extremely cautious before (in effect) invoking 25th §4. This provision has never been invoked in our history so there is no precedent and it is a very big deal. You criticize Harris for not taking it on her own to decide that it is time to essentially remove Biden from office as if this were a routine call. As if her publicly not supporting Biden would not put the 25th §4 question in the public domain. None of us know what was taking place behind the scenes, but we all should be able to recognize that in politics a party will necessarily maintain an 'all is well' attitude rather than suggest otherwise. To wit, this is a step function. When a PotUS (regardless of party) has the potential for being removed by the 25th §4, the discussions will be secretive and the invocation (if it comes) will be like flicking a toggle switch (all in); it will not be like incrementally adjusting a dimmer. To wit, we do not know what was taking place behind the scenes, but given the fact that Biden was heavily persuaded to drop out of the race (so late in the race) it is quite likely that 25th §4 was discussed (especially after the debate).
Wrong. Your assessment is extremely over-simplistic and emotional. How is it that you can read all that I have written on this topic, with all the details I have provided as to why Trump is unfit, and then pen such a simplistic and ridiculously wrong assessment of my reasoning?
The notion of being unfit is a high bar for me. I do not toss the word around loosely as you demonstrably are doing. Unfitness for the presidency typically refers to one's character and intentions. We should be asking if the candidate will hold the office as a solemn duty to do what they believe is best for the nation and if the candidate has the mental abilities to perform the job. Is the candidate smart enough to be PotUS and is the candidate mentally sound? If we look at the most recent PotUS' starting, say, with Eisenhower, we can state that each of them (including Nixon, excluding Trump) was fit to be elected PotUS. (Nixon arguably became unfit at the end of his first term but this was not discovered until after his election.) (Biden arguably ceased to be fit in the last months of his term.)
Trump stands out in stark contrast to these men. One can start by looking at how these men conducted themselves prior to even running for PotUS. In that regard, Trump is a major outlier (in a very bad way). Looking at them as a candidate and beyond, every other PotUS was presidential. They tried to be careful with their words. They did not engage in much extemporaneous rambling. None of them engaged in 5th grade, childish, vindictive, arrogant rhetoric. They surrounded themselves with (for the most part) serious, competent individuals and worked with them (rather than fire those who dare disagree). The other PotUS typically worked for the best interests of the nation rather than use the office as a store front to sell merchandise, as a reality show for self-aggrandization, as a means to vindictively attack opponents, as a means to operate above the law as some kind of monarch, etc., etc.
Trump is the only recent PotUS who I would consider to be unfit. That is very different from your absurd view that I deem Trump unfit merely because he is Trump.
Again, when an incumbent runs, a party typically does not support primary opposition. And in those cases where a (typically) single serious opponent emerges, they typically do not prevail in the primary. Healthy primaries typically occur for the party that is out of power.
Attempt to engage on the issue instead of always making things personal.
Seems like you have some kind of conspiracy theory worked up. Either that or you have just invented some nonsense and are trying to attribute it to me. Regardless, it is a pathetic tactic.
You need me to mention that millions of people voted for Biden based on purely partisan grounds? For all the times I have been critical of partisan thinking, do you just mentally insert "GOP only" in your interpretation and then believe that my comments are only about the GOP?
I am quite careful with my words, especially when speaking about blind partisanship. Blind partisanship is bad every time it is applied and that means it is bad regardless of party. Attempt to remember this.
Just keep twisting away. No, refer to my opening response.
That was not the question. You asked how he won the primary and I gave you my answer. I did not weigh in on whether I believed this was good. Instead of asking the question, you just assume an answer.
It was too late to have a primary. Biden dropped out waaaay too late in the process. Further, the campaign funds were for Biden-Harris. If Harris was not the nominee, the Ds would have a serious financing problem. In all, Harris was likely the only viable option for them.
But this is of course a terrible way to run a campaign. I would have preferred Biden to serve a single term and then pass on the torch. Many of us were quite disappointed when Biden chose to run for a second term. Biden essentially opened to door for Trump to sneak into another term. Had he not run, there is a very good chance that we would not be dealing with Trump as our face, voice, and hand and dealing with people constantly trying to defend him (while claiming to be neutral and objective).
Provide the clinical diagnosis. To my knowledge, no clinical diagnosis has been made (even now) and his physician did not note any neurological disorders or call for tests. Armchair claims of 'dementia', etc. have no credibility.
Also, 'zero chance' is stupid. A more accurate claim is that it is extremely unlikely that anyone in regular contact with Biden did not know that his mental acuity was borderline for serving another term as PotUS. I think that (especially after the debate) that statement would be accurate.
That language applies only if you have made a sound argument. In this case, it is laughable.
You actually think that electing Harris would result in a constitutional crisis? Are you going to just make a ridiculous claim like that and not even try to back it up?
The typical Trump supporter response of: 'just your opinion'. Yes, Jack, I am quite aware that when I opine that it is indeed my opinion.
Given this:
Where do you find that the majority of our nation sees no difference between the two candidate? It is funny that you would even think to make a claim that the majority of the nation does not see a difference between the two candidate without a specific research report that established this notion of equivalence with pointed questions.
Get serious.
Where do I write anything like that? Where have I stated that Harris has no flaws? Where do I state that she was the perfect candidate?
You continue to make shit up.
Who does not believe that in 2024 either Harris or Trump was going to be elected PotUS?
You put forth Biden policies. Harris did not run on the policies you listed. Second, every administration establishes its own policies. D PotUS will typically have policies that are consistent with the norm for the D party . Same with typical R PotUS. Should be obvious.
I stated that Harris would be a normal PotUS, albeit she would be liberal. She would have been a normal PotUS according to the norm established by our recent presidents. Trump, in contrast, is an extreme outlier. Do you recognize this?
Ah. Fair enough.
Agree 1000%. It was like watching a slow motion train wreck from one of the cars on the train.
Ok. I'll go with that.
We don't have a clinical diagnosis on Trump's weight, either, but we can all see what's happening there.
Why would there be only two options..... again?
Why not simply endorse a different candidate (or run herself) on the idea that Joe stepped in to serve when his country needed him but it's time for a younger leader with new ideas? Of course she would have actually needed some new ideas....
You claim that, but your posts give you away.
You are challenging my assertion while confirming my assertion. So again... "not Donald Trump" is 99% of your criteria.
There is a huge difference between not supporting primary opposition and taking legal action to eliminate it.
A person "fit" to be president would have intervened much earlier.
Everybody would have preferred that. So why did nobody step in? Are we really expected to accept that we're supposed to vote for a person too feeble to stand up to a senile octogenarian?
The only credibility in trouble here belongs to the people who make these kind of statements. You are dying on an indefensible hill.
You do not see the difference between a clinical diagnosis of cognition (we cannot see the brain, we cannot see the biochemical processes) and a visual assessment of weight?? As I noted, we can easily see that Biden's mental acuity has dulled with age. That part is obvious, but to go beyond that and claim "senile as fuck" is silly.
I did not state that there were no other options. More games from you.
You do not see the political ramifications of a sitting VP endorsing someone other than the sitting PotUS or, even worse, running against the sitting PotUS? Amazing, that you would think that something like that could work. This has never occurred in our history; not once, not even close. For reasons that should be obvious.
Just illustrates that when it comes to how I draw my conclusions, you obviously do not know what you are talking about.
Yes. And when an incumbent chooses to run for reelection, typically the party dissuades opposition. I do not support such action, and have already stated clearly that I would have preferred an open primary. In fact, I would have preferred Biden not even run for reelection. But that does not change the fact that when an incumbent chooses to run, their party typically supports that decision.
That claim is profoundly naive in political terms.
Good question. Partisanship. Partisanship nullifies critical thinking.
Writes the guy who presumes to diagnose dementia, senility, etc. from afar; sans any medical credentials.
Pathetic.
In the meantime, Biden is no longer PotUS. The real problem right now is Trump. Let's see you focus on what matters rather than constantly deflect to Biden and Harris.
I do. I think any time we have a president who isn't the one actually making decisions, we are in violation of the Constitution. I found Harris unconvincing as anything more than a figurehead parroting things she was told to say.
Did she run on changing those policies? On returning to a more traditional "D" platform? Or did she say she couldn't think of anything she would do differently?
Absolutely. Do you recognize that Harris would also have been?
Then WTF are you arguing about?
Of course. It would identify them as a person capable of leading the country.
When have we ever had a president where "we can easily see that his mental acuity has dulled with age"?
It "profoundly naive" to expect a person capable of leading the most powerful nation on earth to be willing to stand up to a senile octogenarian??? Riiiiiiight.
The most important question in all of this has got to be "who were they all afraid of"? It surely wasn't Joe.
From the guy who tries to argue things while admitting they are true.....
That is not my claim. More dishonest spin from you. I wrote this:
It is profoundly naive for someone to think that a sitting VP would cross a sitting PotUS in such a way. To think that is even a possibility is incredibly naive.
More invented nonsense from you. You have no argument.
Your laughably presumptuous diagnosis of Biden as "senile as fuck" when you did not examine him and have no medical credentials to make such a diagnosis. Further, nobody has made that diagnosis. Your 'diagnosis' is ridiculous.
What is NOT ridiculous is to note, as I did, that Biden's mental acuity seemed diminished from just a few years ago and that the debate performance was a very critical data point to support that opinion.
How would electing Harris be a constitutional crisis? The above 'answer' is a non-sequitur unless you think that Harris would not be operating as the executive in charge, if elected. And if that is your view, then make a supporting argument (if you can).
It is definitely included in your claim.
Right. It was totally different the last time we had a president with obviously diminished "mental acuity"...
Complete nonsense. If Harris were any kind of capable leader at all, Biden probably wouldn't have run at all. If she were capable of running the country, she would have been capable of organizing his graceful exit.
Well I'll let you try to squirm your way out of explaining the difference between "senile as fuck" and "easily seen dulled mental acuity".
As I have already said, Harris did very little to engender any confidence that she was anything more than a figurehead. Biden was very obviously only a figurehead, and the entire campaign appeared to be selling nothing more than a new face on that status quo.
Your sarcastic bullshit is no substitute for an argument. FDR was arguably too feeble to serve in his final term. Prior to that, Wilson was arguably proxied by the first lady. We have never, not once, not even close, had a sitting VP take any action or try to politically challenge the sitting PotUS. Your requirement is unrealistic.
Weak speculation at best. Your entirely irrational argument is predicated on the hypothesis (sans any evidence I have seen) that Biden chose to run again because he did not feel Harris was up for the job.
Logically, if that were the case, Biden could step aside and let the D party determine who the candidate will be. If they believed that Harris was not up for the job then that is what the primary process is all about. So, real simple, Biden chooses to not run for reelection (as he should have done) and the Ds engage in the normal primary process.
You think that requires squirming? I have already explained this to you (and of course you have no rebuttal). Here is another take, Trump has easily seen dulled mental acuity. Do you recognize that? If not, go back to 2016 and watch him during the debates. But no way would I be so presumptuous as to declare him currently senile (or "senile as fuck") since that is a clinical diagnosis and I have never examined him (tests) nor am I qualified to make such a call.
Even with this kind of nutty behavior, neither you nor I can make a clinical diagnosis:
We cannot make a clinical diagnosis, but you and I both can observe public figures, compare them to how they operated in the past and determine if it looks as though their mental acuity has dulled. This is not clinical diagnosis, it is opinion based on a past vs. present comparison of their performance on the job.
And you continue to put this forth as your argument for why electing Harris would be a constitutional crisis.
What, specifically, is the crisis? Seems to me you need to do some research to better appreciate what it means when we speak of 'constitutional crisis'.
[✘] If Harris had been capable, she would have eased Joe out while positioning herself as the emerging leader of the party. As a minority woman with VP experience, she would likely have been unchallenged as the fanatical left screamed "racism" and "misogyny" at any opposition.
It should be funny to watch.
You didn't disappoint. So your assertion here is that Trump hasn't always been off the rails? That from 2016-2020 he was some sort of "stable genius"? The man who brought us "covfefe" and told us to drink disinfectant for Covid? Right. Got it.
That's hilarious.
You don't think the POTUS being under the control of an unelected bureaucrat (or group thereof) represents a violation of the Constitution?
Or, like usual, you need to broaden the scope of your thought process.
Explain how you think Harris being elected as PotUS would mean that she was "under the control of an unelected bureaucrat"?
Well, she said she wouldn't change anything so....................
And on it may have gone.
Explain it again? OK.
Biden was clearly not making any of the decisions of the presidency.
Harris was extremely unconvincing that she intended to do anything differently. She appeared content to be a replacement figurehead, advocating for things she couldn't explain well. She had no new ideas, outlined no new vision, seemed utterly bereft of any of her own individual thoughts, struggled to handle even basic questions about the direction of the country and lacked the ability to defend policy convincingly.
Don't pretend like this is revelatory. The woman blew an 8 point lead despite a massively bigger budget.
A ridiculous conspiracy theory without any persuasive evidence.
If Obama was pulling Biden's strings then explain how he was unable to prevent Biden from running for reelection? Also, do you not remember that Obama was trying to gently encourage Biden to not run in 2020?:
A claim. Let's hear your sound argument based on persuasive facts that supports your claim
Then you can fault her for being unconvincing. Waiting for that constitutional crisis argument ...
Yes. Yet again, how would we have a constitutional crisis if she were elected PotUS?
Biden obviously wasn’t acting president except when necessary to pardon family and cronies. Believing he was is the conspiracy theory, spread by the people who claimed Biden was outworking 30 years olds when the only thing he ever did was build sand castles in between naps on the beach. The people who actually ran the government for four years were Obama admin Alumni
That they turned to Obama is much more plausible than vegetable Joe.
*eyeroll*
Why? We all know you're not going to accept any evidence from any source. You are trying to pretend that obvious things are not true.
Let me give you another one: at no point during his presidency did Joe Biden bench press 300 pounds. Now... we have nothing that you would ever consider "proof" of that, but we all know it to be true. Sadly, you have resigned yourself to the all too common angry extremist practice of pretending the blatantly obvious requires documentation, and then continually changing the minimum standard for it.
Still......
Interview with Mike Johnson
Interview with Jake Tapper
You've had it. You just don't have a counter argument.
There are all sorts of ideas that are plausible.
There is a big difference between speculating that Obama might have been 'running the show' and claiming that it is so.
This is why evidence and reason are critical.
While it is plausible that Biden administration officials sought direction from Obama, the notion that Obama was running the show is quite the extrapolation. It is, indeed, a conspiracy theory.
And is a 6 handicap........
Since you refuse to do any research to understand what is meant by the term 'constitutional crisis' and keep insisting that you have demonstrated how electing Harris would cause a constitutional crisis while not even remotely coming close, let's start with the basics:
Constitutional Crisis : (from Google AI with supporting links)
And there you have it. First sentence.
A POTUS taking instructions from somebody else definitely breaks the established rules, norms and procedures, all in one stroke. And it absolutely undermines the legitimacy of the office, and therefore the political order.
Good. Now that we have your stated meaning for 'constitutional crisis' we can move to the next step:
Make your argument that Harris, if elected, would be taking instructions from somebody else — that she would be, in essence, a puppet who is controlled by some hidden agent.
This will either be quite interesting or we will see some crazy bullshit.
Just Quit! Every President has advisors. While it is reasonable Harris would have sought out advice from former Presidents, there is no reason for us to believe she would be controlled by them. It is very dismissive and wrongheaded to even presume she would be...
I said nothing about former presidents. Please read carefully.
I've explained it repeatedly.
Exactly what I expected you to write.
Now that we have moved this out of fluffy ambiguity and you have to make an actual argument against a clear criterion, you resort to the 'I have already explained it' tactic.
Let's see this alleged argument (evidence and reason) that Harris would be nothing more than a puppet if elected PotUS. And let us know who is controlling this puppet in your fantasy.
Glad I didn't disappoint.
Well, I have already explained it. You just don't have a rebuttal, so you're continuing to pretend otherwise.
Probably whoever was controlling Biden.
And I predicted this too. I figured your next response was going to be the cliche "you just do not like the answer" or equivalent.
In reality you have offered no evidence or reasoning to support your claim that Harris, if elected PotUS, would be a puppet. Just a bunch of right-wing partisan rhetoric.
Quite the conspiracy theory. Very surprising that you would parrot such nonsense.
All the proof we need to know she would have been nothing more than an ascension from DEI VP to DEI P
Well I was stating the obvious, so it shouldn't have been difficult to see it coming.
It's not like you were ever going to accept anything anyone offered. There could be signed affidavits from Harris herself and you would be claiming they weren't notarized in the correct jurisdiction.
That a woman who has never shown any signs of doing anything beyond parroting a party line would continue to merely parrot the party line? Riiiight. Look, you go with whatever helps you maintain your Trump hatred. I never asked for your agreement.
That is quite a movement of the goalpost from the concept of: 'electing Harris would result in an almost certain constitutional crisis'.
And on the 'I did not say that' response that is pending, here is the context and what you wrote:
Now you change your claim to Harris being a partisan and following the party line. Yeah, I think Harris would most definitely act in a manner that mostly pleases the D party. Since when is it a constitutional crisis to have a PotUS whose policies largely align with their party? Since when is that even noteworthy?
Not at all. Nice try.
See, Jack, I would have not objected to a claim from you that Harris would govern as a liberal, or that she would have policies that largely align with those of her party. Indeed, I would have agreed since I have stated that very same expectation on this forum. In particular, when arguing that I am willing to deal with a liberal PotUS rather than elect Trump who is unfit in many different dimensions.
But I think you claiming that her election would almost surely result in a constitutional crisis is laughably absurd.
Neither of those would be a problem.
The problem is that on the campaign trail she appeared to be taking instructions from some other person or persons. Biden was obviously doing that, but given his condition that was arguably the best path.
Harris gave, IMO, no indication that she intended to deviate from this current situation where some unelected individual or group of individuals was setting policy and making decisions for the president to merely explain and defend. That's not what the Constitution says is supposed to happen.
Again, I never asked for or expected your agreement. You asked for my opinion and reasoning, so you got it.
Why do you think her campaign was any different from a normal presidential campaign in terms of people behind the scenes? Every presidential campaign has handlers who are trying to shape the message based on demographics with the singular intent of winning the election.
Seems to me it would be difficult for anyone to (armchair) see a difference between a carefully thought-out campaign and one where the candidate is 'blindly taking instructions'.
You are hypothesizing that an unelected body was setting policy and that Biden was a mere puppet. You then assume this hypothesis is true and speculate that Harris would be driven by this hypothetical 'unelected body' because she did not convince you that her policies would be different from Biden's. Even though they were and she repeatedly stated that every PotUS establishes their own policies, you somehow believe a very unlikely notion of some 'unelected body' serving as the puppet master for D PotUS'.
That, Jack, is some serious conspiracy theory. The more likely scenario is that Biden was indeed making decisions but was far more susceptible to coaching at the end of his term than when he was younger. And it is quite likely that Harris would have operated as a normal liberal D PotUS because that is who she is. No need for some mysterious, anonymous body of puppet masters for her to project a liberal agenda and to suggest policies that are consistent with the party of which she has been a lifelong member.
You think you have explained why electing Harris would be a constitutional crisis, but when the explanation is rooted in a rather wild conspiracy theory, that usually does not qualify as a good argument.
She was appointed by people behind the scenes. She won zero primary votes.
Every candidate has at least a couple of core beliefs they can define and policies to support those beliefs. Harris couldn't define beliefs and couldn't answer questions about policies. They obviously weren't her ideas.
You may as well be trying to argue it would be difficult for anyone to armchair see a difference between Trump and any other candidate.
There is substantial evidence to suggest that.
She made no effort to indicate she would do anything differently from Biden. She even said outright she couldn't think of anything she would do differently. That would be perfectly great if she had been the driving policy force behind the Biden presidency... a role perfectly within the Constitution, BTW. But she couldn't answer any questions on those polices... so you knew whoever was making policy decisions... it wasn't her either.
I did not ask for your endorsement. You're all tied up with your Trump thing, and this would undermine that. You have stubbornly denied Harris' blatantly obvious cluelessness and ineptitude for months. I'm not expecting you to change that now.
"Coaching". LOL. So that's what we're going to call it. I suppose it lends itself better to the necessary rationalizations.
That's just insulting to other Democrats who have held the office. Normal "liberal D" presidents have some clue about what they're doing and why.
The fact that the Ds did not have a primary (out of necessity) does not mean that she was 'appointed' by some group that would then control her as a puppet. That is just a conspiracy theory.
All you had to do was listen to her speeches and you would easily recognize her beliefs (more equal opportunity is one of her core beliefs) and policies (e.g. child tax credit, price gouging, help with first-time homebuyers, lower cost of prescription drugs, etc.).
It is ridiculous to compare the stark difference of Trump from other candidates to distinguishing between Harris' campaign as well-thought-out or controlled. The former is blatantly obvious and is shown as such on a weekly basis. The latter would require knowledge of the inner-workings of the campaign. Not speculation ... knowledge.
I have yet to see you provide any evidence that Biden or Harris was / would-be a puppet.
You were not listening. Further, she explicitly stated that her presidency would not be a continuation of Biden's and that every PotUS sets their own direction. You can not believe her, but you cannot credibly claim that she made no indication.
Just stick with debate and not make this personal again. My criticism of Trump is based on Trump's words and deeds. The fact that Trump is so bad and continues to act in ways that invite objective criticism is the reason I am so critical of Trump.
Yes. It is far more likely that Biden was coached (and more susceptible to same) at the end of his term than your belief that there is some mysterious D puppet master that controlled him and would control Harris.
It is sad that you have the opportunity to listen to Harris campaign and still put forth the nonsense that she did not have a clue about what she was doing and why.
It is one thing to disagree with a politician; it is very different to dream up a fantasy that does not comport with the evidence.
Of course. When Biden stepped down, there just didn't happen to be any other Democrats who wanted to be president. Maybe they were all scared of Trump. Sure. That must be it.
You have. You just refuse to accept it. You then make ridiculous assertions about things like "clinical diagnosis", as though the entire country couldn't see what was happening.
It is sad that your Trump issue causes you to put forth the nonsense that she had a clue about what she was doing or why.
This is so obvious. The Ds were scrambling to deal with Biden's last-minute withdrawal from the race. They did not have time to run a typical campaign much less have a primary. In addition, the funding was allocated to Biden-Harris so another candidate would further complicate an already complicated issue. Harris was the most expedient and cleanest viable candidate given the circumstances.
Cliche bullshit excuse.
You offer nothing other than sarcasm and feeble 'reasons'.
In all, your claim that Harris' election would have resulted in a constitutional crisis because she was controlled by some nameless, faceless group and would be nothing more than a puppet lacks even the most basic evidence to NOT view this as a misguided conspiracy theory.
And yet you still refuse to even entertain it.
As decided by whom? How do you not understand the significance of that question?
I think you are missing one very important line in the post from TiG.
At the end of June when Biden dropped out, the campaign coffers held approximately $95 million dollars. As her name was on the campaign at the time, she was the only candidate that could have been able to use that money, she didn't actually get it until she became the D nominee. Had anybody else become the nominee, they would not have been able to touch that money. FEC rules are very strict, which IMO need to be.
As decided by 99% of the delegates (4,567 delegates voted for her), Harris became their nominee.
The situation was historically unique and the Ds were obviously scrambling.
To use that as an indication that Harris was controlled and would have been a puppet is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
I'm not missing that at all. BTW, $95 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what they spent overall.
The question is still.... who made that call?
*eyeroll*
There were no other candidates. The decision was made well before the convention. But by whom?
Obviously a super secret shadow government.
Get serious, Jack, your conspiracy theory is not even remotely close to a likely possibility in this case.
The Ds were scrambling when Biden dropped out and Harris was the most logical choice as I described:
It takes little effort to understand how the D party could naturally coalesce around Harris given the practical inability to conduct a primary. Leaping to conspiracy theory is just silly. Extending the conspiracy theory to hold that Harris would be a mere puppet as PotUS is even worse.
And outside of all this, if there were some secret puppet master then why would this body allow Biden to even run for a second term? Clearly he was not the best choice. Answer: there is no pupper master. Biden errantly chose to run for reelection (who could not recognize this was a major mistake?) and the D party went along with the wishes of their leader and sitting PotUS. Not at all unusual in our history.
Oh very true. Spending $1.5 Billion and ending up in debt by $20 million is crazy, especially in the short amount of time for the campaign.
Does it really matter? The simple fact is that she was the only one who could touch the campaign money and she was the "choice" of the sitting President. Political parties usually bend over backwards to support the incumbent. Add in that Biden dropped out very late in the game. Harris had, as the VP, been part of the campaign and had some forward momentum at that point. Anybody else would have been starting new and would be greatly impacted by how late it was in the campaign cycle.
You say you're not missing it but it does seem like you're ignoring it. It seemed very obvious to me after that debate that she was going to be the nominee by a wide margin due to the existing campaign money and structure already built up as well as nobody else had even started. I think it's easy to look back at things and think a different person would have won, but there was nobody else who was even positioned to start.
To steal a line from another old Democrat; what difference, at this point, does it make.
Or a key member or members of his staff.
Sure. Right. A bunch of politicians have just been handed the ultimate golden opportunity to walz into the biggest prize any politician can ever dream of. And they all just magically lost interest. Every one of them. Nobody wanted to be president. Right. That's exactly how that went.
They key member(s) of staff wanted to stay in power and figured they could keep hiding Joe until after the election. Eventually he could resign on health reasons and they could keep running things with Harris as the mouthpiece.
The unusual part that was blatantly obvious but you refuse to acknowledge is that the sitting POTUS was obviously not competent to run again. Everybody could see that. If you didn't understand that by January 2024, you just weren't paying attention.
But rather than allow open primaries, they filed lawsuits to keep people off the ballots. That's not a decision of which Biden was capable.
I understand that even acknowledging this was possible throws a giant monkey wrench into your anti-Trump-blame-the-voters crusade. So I realize you're never even going to entertain any possibility other than "Kamala was a perfectly good candidate"... no matter how much blatantly obvious evidence there is to the contrary. IDGAF. Think what you want.
Not now, no.
I simply object to these semi-regular liberal attacks against voters who merely refused to choose their cat-vomit candidate.
I have almost no confidence Biden had anywhere near the ability to make that decision.
The incumbents are not usually senile.
Let's say I'm discounting it. It was about 7% of the total campaign dollars spent.
Let's not lose sight of what we are talking about:
You claim a secret group ostensibly controlling Biden would control Harris as a puppet if she were elected and that this would create a constitutional crisis.
Of course others wanted to be PotUS, but did you not notice that Biden had but two (weak) primary challengers? Why do you presume that all these candidates of whom you refer would leap so late in the process (no time to campaign) when they chose to NOT enter the actual D primary in 2023 (or sooner)?
Answer: Harris was the obvious choice because (repeating myself):
It takes little effort to understand how the D party could naturally coalesce around Harris given the practical inability to conduct a primary.
Sure, double down on a silly conspiracy theory. So the puppet masters (in your fantasy) were Biden's chief of staff, et. al.? Are these the people who you think chose Harris and would control Harris like a puppet if elected?
You are trying to change the subject from your ridiculous claim that Harris' election would have created a constitutional crisis because she would have been controlled by some secret shadow government and would have been nothing more than a puppet to Biden was not fit to run for reelection.
The Ds did have a few lawsuits (designed, no doubt, to shore up strength for Biden) but that does not change the fact that there were no viable primary challengers to Biden. Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson were not viable. RFK, Jr dropped out and ran as an I. The D party (for whatever bizarre reasons) seemed to believe that Biden was their only choice (early on). I held that as a big mistake when he announced and was disappointed that the D party did not have the means to dissuade Biden.
Now, that said, let me reiterate. You claim a secret group ostensibly controlling Biden would control Harris as a puppet if she were elected and that this would create a constitutional crisis. Beyond the absurdity of that conspiracy theory, I again note that the D party could not even stop Biden from running for reelection.
I don't think they were very secret at all.
Lawsuits will do that.
Repetition doesn't make it any more realistic. Well qualified? WTF? Have you forgotten her primary qualifications for VP was that she was a black female?
Alternatively....
It's far less silly than the bullshit bullet points you keep trying to sell. She was ridiculously awful as a presidential candidate both times she tried.
No, you made that up on your own. Along with your "well qualified" stupidity. The woman couldn't lead a group of Millennial white girls to a Taylor Swift concert. But she's from a middle class family.
Oh... so you DID notice that. Ah.
So let's examine that. We've got a POTUS that we have to hide from the public, who can't work full days, who obviously gets confused easily, who can barely finish a speech and can't find his way off stage afterwards... and we're soooo committed to this guy that we're going to SUE anybody that runs against him. And you are trying to sell the idea that this is somehow normal behavior. That's fucking insane.
So the question a normal person asks is... who is making that decision (it obviously isn't Biden) and why? There is a limited number of possible people and a limited number of possible reasons.
Lawsuits will do that.
So we agree it's fucking "bizarre". OK.
Are you listening to yourself? Didn't have the means??? To dissuade a man who couldn't finish a sentence? Riiiiight. And you think my idea is crazy....
If the qualifications of San Francisco DA, State Attorney General, United States Senator and Vice President of the United States are not good enough, whose are?
I am sure what you have imagined seems very real to you.
You think a few lawsuits stopped all the key primary challengers but when Biden dropped out you think the challengers to Harris were stopped by the puppet masters. And this strikes you as logical thinking?
So you are going heavy into that tired GOP partisan (and bigoted) bullshit. You see Harris as merely a black female and are blind to the fact that she was a US Senator, twice-elected AG for CA, DA for San Francisco, and a prosecuting attorney for San Franciso prior to that. But to you, her primary qualifications for VP was that she is a black female. Nice. Will you follow suit with others and call her a whore too since that is the other common GOPTRUMP partisan crap we have heard?
Strawman. Deflection.
Yes, we agree that it was very strange that the D party was demonstrably unable to dissuade Biden from running for reelection. But you believe that the D party was controlled by some D operatives who not only control Biden but also prevent others from preventing his reelection bid. And, yes, that is a ridiculous conspiracy theory lacking evidence and fundamentally flawed logically.
Obviously the D party could not dissuade Biden from running. Factually, he did run. He continued to run until after the debate when it was clear to the world that he would not be able to function properly in a second term.
Reminder, this is what we were discussing:
You claim a secret group ostensibly controlling Biden would control Harris as a puppet if she were elected and that this would create a constitutional crisis.
I don't think that conversation ends up where you want it to.
If we're simply comparing resumes, her opponent had 4 years experience in the job.
No, this particular point was about her qualifications to be PotUS. In particular the fact that she is both highly educated and experienced and is clearly qualified. That, in spite of your claim, her primary qualifications were NOT being a 'black' female.
This was NOT a comparison of who has better experience.
Likewise.
Somebody decided that the Ds were going with obviously senile Joe and made it very clear along the primary trail that if you challenged that, they were going to bleed your campaign to death with legal fees. There is no reason to think that changed when they chose Kamala.
I'm choosing not to stick my head in the ground and ignore the obvious, including Biden's own stated criteria.
Are you going to pretend that he didn't outright promise to choose a woman? He refused to consider a man for the post, yet you somehow don't think this was a "DEI hire"? Are you going to pretend that there were not white women who would have been able to deliver battle ground states like Michigan?
Are we going to pretend he didn't DEI appoint a SCOTUS Justice in the same fashion?
Just exactly how many obvious patterns of behavior do you expect everyone to ignore?
I'm sure you would like to think so.
"Unable". Riiiiiiight. How about the lawsuits? Are we gonna pretend Joe organized those? Who's imagining now?
"Could not". Riiiiight. Seems odd. They dissuaded everybody else effectively enough.
It was only clear after the debate. Riiiiight. Because it wasn't absurdly obvious before then at all. Nah. Not at all. Total shock....
OK, so let's start with "so terrible that she got run out of the race before the Iowa caucus".
She wasn't applying for an engineering job.
You already said that being the VP was one of her "qualifications". She got that job because she was a black female.
Well make up your mind. You're citing her experience as part of her qualifications.
If we are a failed nation why did all the illegal aliens come here? and why wouldn't they leave if we are so bad?
Well done!
Who here said we were a failed nation? Just because some journalist makes the claim doesn't make it so. It seems only the MAGAites think we're too broken to fix which is why they are actively trying to break our government. As for why undocumented immigrants want to come here it's because they want the general stability and opportunity that our government and laws give everyone including immigrants. Is it perfect? Fuck no, there's still a bunch of shit we need to fix like our immigration laws and the pathway to citizenship because increasing our legal immigrant populations benefit all Americans. But it's a hell of a lot better than where most of these immigrants are coming from which are gang or civil war-torn regions which is why they still come even when there is still a lot of resistance from xenophobic conservative dick holes.
OH!!! How unbelievably naive. Even back years ago the IAEA said that Iran did not allow them to inspect a certain amount of their nuclear development, and it was only a couple of weeks ago that the IAEA announced that Iran was IN FACT contravening the regulations and STILL not allowing the IAEA to inspect all of Iran's processing. So it is said there is NO PROOF that Iran is developing the bomb. OF COURSE THERE IS NO PROOF BECAUSE IRAN BLOCKS THE IAEA AND EVERYONE ELSE FROM INSPECTING WHAT THEY ARE DOING. AND, if you trust what Iran says, please take advantage of my offer to you to sell you for only $100,000 a 20% share of the tolls from the superhighway between Chengdu and Chongqing.
[✘]
[✘]
87 year old Jane Fonda uses the F word on Donald Trump
Jane Fonda heading back to US to 'raise a ruckus' after slamming Trump
You mean the Vietnam War traitor that gave the enemy aid and comfort?
The Jane Fonda that should have been put in prison for it?