Alright, then you strongly implied Biden doesn't speak out about that. There's been many people on abortion related threads who falsely say or imply that, and I don't know any other way someone could reasonably read your comment. It's still there to place an edit afterwards if you'd like to clarify what you meant exactly.
Ranvier
joined 2 years ago
I mean this very practically, if Biden actually began acting extra judicially like you said, he'd just shatter norms faster, make all the false things Republicans say about democrats wanting to destroy democracy true, and lead to a landslide election victory for republicans in the fall (unless Biden went truly authoritarian and stopped the fall elections too). And it'd be obvious what would happen from there. I'm sorry but you just can't fight fascism with fascism. It doesn't work. You just get more fascism.
I know you're a troll, but just in case someone well meaning stumbles across this, Biden has called for this so many times.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2024/
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-06-27/trump-biden-abortion-presidential-debate
This took about three minutes to find, all from 2024.
He is also literally speaking on it this very moment, as I type this, in a speech marking the anniversary of the civil rights movement.
I fundamentally disagree. I think if you invoke authoritarianism to supposedly prevent it, you've already lost. I don't think that's the case yet though. I still have hope. Our country has been much less democratic than this before and managed to improve, it can happen again.
Harris is endorsed by border mayors in swing-state Arizona as she faces GOP criticism on immigration
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/vice-presidential-pool-reports-april-14-2021
Here you go. Press pool for the meeting that started this whole thing. About as primary of a source as is possible. It's very clear she's being asked to help address root causes of immigration, specifically political unrest and economic instability in central America. She quickly corrects the interviewer when they ask if this is about the border. If anyone was the border czar (a term the admin itself did not use for anyone to the best of my knowledge), it would be the secretary of homeland security.
And of course, Trump convinced Republicans to kill their immigration wish list law because he was so upset that he wouldn't get credit for it.
Q: Madam Vice President, will you visit the Southern Border? Do you have a trip planned or will you plan a trip in the future if the situation with migration doesn't resolve itself?
A: So, as I mentioned to the experts, the President has asked Sec. Mayorkas to address what is going on at the border, and he has been working very hard and is showing some progress because of his hard work. I have been asked to lead the issue of addressing the root causes, similar to what the then-vice president did many years ago, but I will tell you that these are not issues that are going to be addressed overnight in terms of the root causes issue. A large part of our focus is diplomatic in terms of what we can do in a way that is about working with these countries.
So when Republicans are like, omg she was the border czar and didn't even visit the border. Uh no, she was helping with diplomacy and economic development in central America so was of course visiting those countries. The whole republican border czar thing is misinformation.
You seem confused on what an executive order is (or you're not confused and are just saying this in bad faith). It's not just the president randomly saying I order this to happen like some kind of dictator. It's the executive laying out his/her interpretation of specifics on how a law should be implemented, a law already passed by congress. So unless congress has passed a law already, saying congress gives the executive the power to increase the size of the court on a whim, or decide to impose term limits on a whim (and they most certainly have not), then the power still rests with congress. Setting up and regulating the courts is a job expressly delegated to congress in the constitution. An executive order is meaningless here. What law would it derive its authority from? A congressional law might not even be enough for all of this, that's why part of the plan talks about a constitutional amendment.
And "No words" ?! How on earth are we supposed to build a concensus to do something, if in your opinion no one is allowed to even talk about it or express their support until it's already happened? You make no sense. The sitting president endorsing supreme court reform is a huge step. And Harris is endorsing it too. Now we just need enough members of congress to get on board, and that's how it could happen. Not talking about it because it can't happen this second doesn't make it any more likely to happen. Comments like yours if anything make it less likely, and discourage support for the people trying to actually get it done.
I'm tired of all these nonsensical, "why doesn't Biden just become dictator right now" comments. We're voting against Trump because we don't want a dictator.
Washington had no biological children but had multiple step children:
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/family
Mamala is very adorable.
Also we're 100 days out. If Elon did this again within 90 days, and he sent the tweet from Texas or something. Would Minnesota or another state law be able to hold him accountable? Since of course the tweet would be seen across the country. I wonder what would happen. The senate is working on a federal law, but I doubt the house will be very cooperative before the election.
In Minnesota it is illegal up to 90 days before the election.
I don't know all the state laws, but there are more.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/artificial-intelligence-deepfakes-2024-election-states-rcna129525
Biden speech live: president says best way to save US democracy is ‘to pass torch to new generation’
Citation needed
No but seriously if you have more info I would be legitimately interested in it. But for starters what you say would be blatantly illegal under campaign finance law. Even as shoddy as it currently is. I attempted but couldn't find anything like you describe.
Also I saw half of one party not even show up for that appalling address. What party was that again?
Also if you're anywhere else too please.
🙄