• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Official Trump second term prediction thread

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Muse said:
OK, since this is a prediction thread I'll just say I think it pretty unlikely. I don't know what the SCOTUS did with regard to this that would make it possible. That's downright weird. Plus he would be 82 and probably experiencing accelerating decline.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they did make it possible. He could also just outright murder all his opponents that decided to run for office because they said thats ok too. What they have said is permissible or not permissible in his favor is so absolutely nuts that many people refuse to believe it's true.

Hopefully he will be gone to that great McDonalds in the sky by the time this is an issue.
 
Muse said:
OK, since this is a prediction thread I'll just say I think it pretty unlikely. I don't know what the SCOTUS did with regard to this that would make it possible. That's downright weird. Plus he would be 82 and probably experiencing accelerating decline.
Click to expand...
In short they ruled that the president is 100% immune from any and all criminal laws when conducting presidential duties. The logic is very simple - as Trump is the commander in chief giving orders to the military is unquestionably one of his presidential duties. In fact SCOTUS not only ruled the president was immune, it ruled that it was illegal for prosecutors to even QUESTION his motives for the act. If it's an order to the military it is immune no matter what that order is.

So it's simple - Congress says they want to impeach Trump and he has the Air Force drone strike the Capitol to kill them all. Immune.

And you're probably thinking to yourself 'he must be exaggerating, there's no way they would make a ruling that insane'. I agree, it's hard to believe, but it's also unquestionably what they did.

Trump v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Pens1566 said:
SCOTUS has decided that anything done in the course of his normal duties is immune. Period. CIC can order a drone strike on anyone that is deemed a threat to national security. Immune.

Would their be pushback/outrage? Sure. Would there be any real legal consequences for it? Nope.
Click to expand...
One important correction - it is not necessary for the president to determine someone is a threat to national security to drone strike them. The president can drone strike anyone he chooses at any time he chooses and we are not permitted to even ask why.
 
Pens1566 said:
SCOTUS has decided that anything done in the course of his normal duties is immune. Period. CIC can order a drone strike on anyone that is deemed a threat to national security. Immune.

Would their be pushback/outrage? Sure. Would there be any real legal consequences for it? Nope.
Click to expand...
Well, Biden can do this too then, right now. He can have Trump, Vance and Johnson killed or sent to Gitmo. Or he could resign and Kamala could do the same. Would she be sworn in Jan 20th?
 
1734366987475.jpeg

People that think words on paper can stop someone that wants to break the law, especially if the other enforcers don't care to uphold the law...
 
fskimospy said:
In short they ruled that the president is 100% immune from any and all criminal laws when conducting presidential duties. The logic is very simple - as Trump is the commander in chief giving orders to the military is unquestionably one of his presidential duties. In fact SCOTUS not only ruled the president was immune, it ruled that it was illegal for prosecutors to even QUESTION his motives for the act. If it's an order to the military it is immune no matter what that order is.

So it's simple - Congress says they want to impeach Trump and he has the Air Force drone strike the Capitol to kill them all. Immune.

And you're probably thinking to yourself 'he must be exaggerating, there's no way they would make a ruling that insane'. I agree, it's hard to believe, but it's also unquestionably what they did.

Trump v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Seems to me it might be a question of what's deemed part of his duties as POTUS. SCOTUS could find itself debating whether actions X, Y and Z fall within the purview of his duty spectrum. I would think the result would depend on the particulars. Just sayin'.
 
Muse said:
Seems to me it might be a question of what's deemed part of his duties as POTUS. SCOTUS could find itself debating whether actions X, Y and Z fall within the purview of his duty spectrum. I would think the result would depend on the particulars. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately no. Anything within his 'core constitutional authority' is immune no matter how many people he murders, if he uses those powers to overthrow the government, etc. Again, it does not matter what he is attempting to do with that authority, from murder, to rape, to overthrowing the government. If the president is using his core constitutional authority, which giving orders to the military unquestionably is, he is immune and in fact we are not even permitted to question his motives for using that authority.

I know how insane this sounds but this is what they ruled and they were not subtle about it.
 
Muse said:
Seems to me it might be a question of what's deemed part of his duties as POTUS. SCOTUS could find itself debating whether actions X, Y and Z fall within the purview of his duty spectrum. I would think the result would depend on the particulars. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

If he orders the military to do it, surely by definition it is part of his role as POTUS, and would be covered by the existing ruling? I think they implied that if he, personally, in his spare time outside of working-hours, were to stroll over to the Capitol and in person, on an amateur non-job-related-basis, machine-gun everyone inside, that would _not_ be covered by immunity. So that's alright then.
 
pmv said:
If he orders the military to do it, surely by definition it is part of his role as POTUS, and would be covered by the existing ruling? I think they implied that if he, personally, in his spare time outside of working-bours, were to stroll over to the Capitol and in person, on an amateur non-job-related-basis, machine-gun everyone inside, that would _not_ be covered by immunity. So that's alright then.
Click to expand...
That's correct. If Trump were to shoot someone on 5th avenue as he so famously claimed that would (presumably) be a non-official act he could be prosecuted for. If he orders SEAL Team Six to kill them though he is immune in that case.

The basic rule is that Trump can commit any crime he wants, he just has to order a member of the federal government to commit it on his behalf. (then when they do he pardons them and the circle is complete)
 
fskimospy said:
Unfortunately no. Anything within his 'core constitutional authority' is immune no matter how many people he murders, if he uses those powers to overthrow the government, etc. Again, it does not matter what he is attempting to do with that authority, from murder, to rape, to overthrowing the government. If the president is using his core constitutional authority, which giving orders to the military unquestionably is, he is immune and in fact we are not even permitted to question his motives for using that authority.

I know how insane this sounds but this is what they ruled and they were not subtle about it.
Click to expand...

Truly easily the worst decision since at least Korematsu which is quite the accomplishment.
 
K1052 said:
Truly easily the worst decision since at least Korematsu which is quite the accomplishment.
Click to expand...
I think it's very arguably the worst in American history.

Lots of shitty decisions and lots of injustices permitted by SCOTUS but at least with the others there was a path to correcting them. That does not make those prior decisions less awful but this decision attacks the fundamental pillars of the American system and makes us a legal dictatorship if not a de facto one (at least not yet). As far as I can tell the only limiting principles here are if the president decides not to commit crimes or civil disorder, which could get very ugly very fast.

It's also definitely possible (likely) that this ruling only applies to Republican presidents so if a Democrat actually tried to exercise this authority we would get one of those 'well we didn't mean it like THAT' rulings like we recently did with Bruen.
 
fskimospy said:
It's also definitely possible (likely) that this ruling only applies to Republican presidents so if a Democrat actually tried to exercise this authority we would get one of those 'well we didn't mean it like THAT' rulings like we recently did with Bruen.
Click to expand...

I think this is a distinct possibility but if a D president with truly nefarious intent did come to power the first thing he would do is liquidate SCOTUS so there would be no "oops not what we intended so you can't do that". The lack of foresight for even simple self preservation in the name of naked partisan gain is remarkable.
 
K1052 said:
I think this is a distinct possibility but if a D president with truly nefarious intent did come to power the first thing he would do is liquidate SCOTUS so there would be no "oops not what we intended so you can't do that". The lack of foresight for even simple self preservation in the name of naked partisan gain is remarkable.
Click to expand...
I think the entire purpose of this ruling was to get Trump off the hook and in many ways the particulars of what the president is or isn't immune for don't matter. It was to prevent further criminal convictions that might jeopardize Republican priorities.

If the president ever did begin using the powers SCOTUS says he has that's either a dictatorship or a civil war and in either case what is 'legal' doesn't mean much.
 
fskimospy said:
One important correction - it is not necessary for the president to determine someone is a threat to national security to drone strike them. The president can drone strike anyone he chooses at any time he chooses and we are not permitted to even ask why.
Click to expand...

Oh I know. I was just using it as an example predicate that is well within what would have been understood as accepted POTUS powers.
 
The only thing stopping Trump,is a collapsing economy when his insane tariffs and other policies destroy the economy. How he quells protests with the military and national guard will determine nation’s future. When he orders military into blue states that is when it will get real.
 
fskimospy said:
In short they ruled that the president is 100% immune from any and all criminal laws when conducting presidential duties. The logic is very simple - as Trump is the commander in chief giving orders to the military is unquestionably one of his presidential duties. In fact SCOTUS not only ruled the president was immune, it ruled that it was illegal for prosecutors to even QUESTION his motives for the act. If it's an order to the military it is immune no matter what that order is.

So it's simple - Congress says they want to impeach Trump and he has the Air Force drone strike the Capitol to kill them all. Immune.

And you're probably thinking to yourself 'he must be exaggerating, there's no way they would make a ruling that insane'. I agree, it's hard to believe, but it's also unquestionably what they did.

Trump v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Trump's own lawyer argued the assassination defense in court.
 
To everybody including corporate America who thinks he isn't serious about massive tariffs take a gander:

(gift link)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/16/...e_code=1.h04.oIch.xalRPX8i5mPF&smid=url-share

Trump’s team is warning businesses to take him at his word on tariffs, The Journal reports. That suggests that Trump, who has called tariffs “the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” isn’t merely using tariff warnings as an opening salvo in trade negotiations.
Click to expand...

WSJ had largely the same reporting that nobody is making any progress in discouraging him. It's not a negotiating tactic, it's something he is going to do. Same with mass deportation...it's gonna happen and nobody is likely to be spared.

Entering history's most avoidable recession on purpose is certainly a vibe.
 
K1052 said:
To everybody including corporate America who thinks he isn't serious about massive tariffs take a gander:

(gift link)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/16/...e_code=1.h04.oIch.xalRPX8i5mPF&smid=url-share



WSJ had largely the same reporting that nobody is making any progress in discouraging him. It's not a negotiating tactic, it's something he is going to do. Same with mass deportation...it's gonna happen and nobody is likely to be spared.

Entering history's most avoidable recession on purpose is certainly a vibe.
Click to expand...
Fuck around...about to find out. The great irony is that the rich will buy depresses stocks at fire sale prices and become even richer during an economic recovery.

I have spare cash (not ATOT millionaire baller cash) that I could certainly part with under those circumstances - assuming I don't get fucked as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top