Prediction - US Presidential 2024

[Pargat Perrer]

That very well may be true, hence the statement that immunity has to be examined to see if it is applicable on a case-by-case basis before anything else. It is not an assured "get out of jail" card. It is simply respecting the law, which includes honoring Supreme Court precedent. The constitution clearly outlines the hierarchical structure of the court system, which implies respecting the decisions of the Supreme Court.
The remedy for a lawless president in the Constitution is impeachment, which is a political process, not a criminal one. Hence, criminal immunity is implied, and that is exactly how the Supreme Court viewed it.

THE REMEDY FOR LAWLESSNESS SHOULD NEVER BE A POLITICAL PROCESS.

Bob G. in this post 47 wrote about a "healthy democracy". While that is a concept open to a wide variety of interpretation, I believe the above statement is at the very top of the list of requirements.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Another example of 'autocratic imposition', with no regard to immediate harm done to those over whom it is imposed, and eventual harm to the whole society. What a weirdo platform Kamala is running on...

[Pargat Perrer]

Another example of 'autocratic imposition', with no regard to immediate harm done to those over whom it is imposed, and eventual harm to the whole society. What a weirdo platform Kamala is running on...

But Dilip, if under a Libertarian government a landlord were to raise rents more than justified by actual costs and inflation but out of pure greed, isn't the Libertarian government going to take that as violation of "natural law" and limit the increase? It seems to me the Libertarianism would have price controls as central to their enforcement of natural law. For you to argue against price controls is hypocritical.

[Dilip Panjwani]

But Dilip, if under a Libertarian government a landlord were to raise rents more than justified by actual costs and inflation but out of pure greed, isn't the Libertarian government going to take that as violation of "natural law" and limit the increase? It seems to me the Libertarianism would have price controls as central to their enforcement of natural law. For you to argue against price controls is hypocritical.

My dear PP, benefitting from or losing because of market forces, is part of fair competition, which, as you know, is a clause in the Natural Law.
(Market forces are as fair as the game of chess!)

[Bob Gillanders]

The remedy for a lawless president in the Constitution is impeachment, which is a political process, not a criminal one. Hence, criminal immunity is implied, and that is exactly how the Supreme Court viewed it.

I don’t agree. The core basic rule in a democracy is that no one is above the law. Not even the President. This was tested when Nixon declared in an interview “if the President does it, it is not against the law”, the country said no. He was forced to resign in disgrace.

For practical reasons, the concept of Presidential immunity evolved over time on a very limited basis, to allow the efficient functioning of the office. Recognizing the fact that from time to time, very difficult decisions are required, sometimes on very thin legal ice. But that Presidents are still accountable to the legal system after leaving office. This was acknowledged by House Leader Mitch McConnell when he failed to impeach Trump.

Trump and his lawyers have pushed this notion of complete immunity as a tactic to delay justice. They claimed it over and over and over again, ad nauseam until people started to believe it.

Complete Presidential Immunity is a total fiction.

[Dilip Panjwani]

I agree, Bob. Trump was found guilty by a jury that his lawyers had a hand in choosing. Don't know what that has to do with autocracy. Maybe Dilip has sipped from the conspiracy cup one too many times.

The poor jurors had no choice but to follow the stupid laws, which the autocratic democrats (including their pawn of a judge) used to pass even more stupid sentences...

[Dilip Panjwani]

I don’t agree. The core basic rule in a democracy is that no one is above the law. Not even the President. This was tested when Nixon declared in an interview “if the President does it, it is not against the law”, the country said no. He was forced to resign in disgrace.

For practical reasons, the concept of Presidential immunity evolved over time on a very limited basis, to allow the efficient functioning of the office. Recognizing the fact that from time to time, very difficult decisions are required, sometimes on very thin legal ice. But that Presidents are still accountable to the legal system after leaving office. This was acknowledged by House Leader Mitch McConnell when he failed to impeach Trump.

Trump and his lawyers have pushed this notion of complete immunity as a tactic to delay justice. They claimed it over and over and over again, ad nauseam until people started to believe it.

Complete Presidential Immunity is a total fiction.

But lawfare is even worse....

[Sid Belzberg]

I don’t agree. The core basic rule in a democracy is that no one is above the law. Not even the President. This was tested when Nixon declared in an interview “if the President does it, it is not against the law”, the country said no. He was forced to resign in disgrace.

For practical reasons, the concept of Presidential immunity evolved over time on a very limited basis, to allow the efficient functioning of the office. Recognizing the fact that from time to time, very difficult decisions are required, sometimes on very thin legal ice. But that Presidents are still accountable to the legal system after leaving office. This was acknowledged by House Leader Mitch McConnell when he failed to impeach Trump.

Trump and his lawyers have pushed this notion of complete immunity as a tactic to delay justice. They claimed it over and over and over again, ad nauseam until people started to believe it.

Complete Presidential Immunity is a total fiction.

You may have your opinions on this; however, even with Nixon, the remedy was impeachment; he was not criminally charged. He knew he would lose the impeachment proceedings and resigned voluntarily; no criminal charges ensued. Conspiring to break into the DNC was unconstitutional, and since it involved hiring others to do these crimes, it would fall under organized crime, and these days would mean RICO. So, there is no doubt that he was guilty of crimes.

As I said, the Supreme Court ruled for immunity but limited it to acts while in office. I can think of other things I would have held Trump accountable for, including fake Emergency Use Authorizations for "vaccines" (that were rushed and were, in fact, gene therapies that proved to be harmful) when safe, viable alternative treatments were available that worked and were suppressed. When alternative therapies are available, Emergency use authorization can't be granted.

Of course, these genuine crimes were not pursued as the Democrat regime is even more guilty of these types of crimes against humanity. Instead, they want to imprison Trump on trumped-up 'pun intended" charges of "falsifying business records" for reimbursing his lawyer for expenses in buying a porn star's silence of an alleged affair. It is unclear to legal scholars like Dr. Allan Dershowitz what exactly Trump was guilty of.
You may think it is amusing for a politician you dislike to go to prison or even see him shot in the face by what appears to be a state-sponsored assassination attempt. What will you do when the next politician gets into office and pursues the same treatment out of vindictiveness for your favored politician? It is deplorable to see a great nation reduced to a Venezuela-like banana republic.

[Pargat Perrer]

My dear PP, benefitting from or losing because of market forces, is part of fair competition, which, as you know, is a clause in the Natural Law.
(Market forces are as fair as the game of chess!)

But Dilip, you defined "fair competition" as using no means that harms others. Pure greed is a means that harms others.

If all the landlords in a city had a meeting and decided they would all raise rents 50 percent, is that still "market forces"?

Also, if in a housing emergency a non- Libertarian government imposes rent controls, how is that different from "market forces"? The controls are spurred by the state of the housing market, the harm being done to renters.

It is clear you are just anti-government. The landlords are creating their own form of rent controls, controlling the rents by agreement.

I remember some time ago either Peter or Bob A. asked you how Libertarianism would control rampant greed, and you responded that enforcement of natural law would control it. Now you are saying pure greed is fair competition.

And this is why I respond that Libertarianism is just like the wild west of American history, an era that had to end in order for economic progress to take place.

[Frank Dixon]

For the most part, Libertarianism is embraced by the wealthy.

Donald Trump declared his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels as a presidential campaign expense for 2016. That was his crime; had he not done that, he would have been OK legally.

The Democrats have narrowed the voters' intent gap significantly since VP Kamala Harris and running mate Governor Tim Walz emerged as the nominees. Harris stated recently, as quoted in the New York Times (Monday, Aug. 18), that she views the Dems as underdogs in the race. Her team has pulled closer in the seven main battleground states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada). If an Israel / Hamas ceasefire can be attained soon, that should help the Dems.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Greed only harms the greedy, not anyone else, in a Libertarian society. 'Collusion' to raise prices would never work in a Libertarian society, as there would be enough businesses, and ease/rapidity of starting new businesses, which would take advantage of the colluders' stupidity, to sell at a lower rate and thereby grab market share. Nevertheless, the buyer has the right to offer the lowest price he can negotiate (and in recessions, that sometimes does end up being lower than the cost sustained by the seller), and similarly the seller has the right to demand the highest price he can get... Market forces are the fair and sensible arbiters... What the government interference does is just create disequilibrium in the market, leading to suffering for all, as what happened in Argentina proves...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Donald Trump declared his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels as a presidential campaign expense for 2016. That was his crime; had he not done that, he would have been OK legally.

It is the opposite, I think, Frank!
However, if he would have declared it as campaign expense, the Democrats would have searched hard, and even found a law, in the millions of stupid laws which exist, to still try to put him in jail...

[Sid Belzberg]

For the most part, Libertarianism is embraced by the wealthy.

Donald Trump declared his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels as a presidential campaign expense for 2016. That was his crime; had he not done that, he would have been OK legally.

The Democrats have narrowed the voters' intent gap significantly since VP Kamala Harris and running mate Governor Tim Walz emerged as the nominees. Harris stated recently, as quoted in the New York Times (Monday, Aug. 18), that she views the Dems as underdogs in the race. Her team has pulled closer in the seven main battleground states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada). If an Israel / Hamas ceasefire can be attained soon, that should help the Dems.

Donald Trump declared his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels as a presidential campaign expense for 2016. That was his crime; had he not done that, he would have been OK legally.

You are talking about Federal election campaign violations that are not the purview of New York State courts. The best New York State could find legally was "falsification of business records" under New York State law, which legally is a very weak sauce and normally is a misdemeanor.

[Pargat Perrer]

Greed only harms the greedy, not anyone else, in a Libertarian society. 'Collusion' to raise prices would never work in a Libertarian society, as there would be enough businesses, and ease/rapidity of starting new businesses, which would take advantage of the colluders' stupidity, to sell at a lower rate and thereby grab market share. Nevertheless, the buyer has the right to offer the lowest price he can negotiate (and in recessions, that sometimes does end up being lower than the cost sustained by the seller), and similarly the seller has the right to demand the highest price he can get... Market forces are the fair and sensible arbiters... What the government interference does is just create disequilibrium in the market, leading to suffering for all, as what happened in Argentina proves...

So Libertarianism will allow greed to run rampant, and rely on "market forces" to smooth everything out. Human nature being what it is, the greedy will try again and again to grab more than they deserve, and you say new businesses will spring up overnight to counter that ... It sounds like constant economic chaos... in response to the latest pockets of greed, constantly arising, businesses will start, prices will lower, then there will be too many businesses and some will have to shut down. Then the greed appears again. The greedy are constantly among us and never stop trying. In the midst of this chaos, many lower class people suffer. I see why as Frank says this all appeals to the wealthy.

Meanwhile, lack of regulations will see many disasters such as chemical plant explosions, train derailments, mining accidents, apartments and bridges collapsing due to cheap building methods .. ....Truly this system will never see the light of day.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Libertarianism will lead to safer products, as no business would risk the heavy penalties associated with harm due to defective products...