US Navy murders Venezuelan citizens on the open seas

[TheCount]

Yes, but hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

Hydrogen is also the most abundant element in salmon.

 

[nikcers]

Run out of anything other than your personal pleasure at the deaths of people who had not committed a capital crime?

There is a crime. Crimes are defined as evil acts.

For a crime to exist there must be certain and there is certain- that the crime is committed in the act of evil.

The crime is harming our country the United States with the intent to kill our people which is an evil act.

Those who intend to deprive our country and our people of their right to life deserve "justice".

Self defense is "objectively good". When you kill in self defense it is justice.

If such a law ever exists that prohibits the president from defending the people of the United States then it is the job of the Supreme Court to strike down that law. (Marbury vs Madison)

 

[Occam's Banana]

Some people wanted to make Washington the King.

John Adams insisted that he become the country's first president.

Salmon is rich in omega-3 fatty acids.

Yes, but hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

Hydrogen is also the most abundant element in salmon.

Exactly! It was also the most abundant element in John Adams.

Probably George Washington, too.

 

[TheCount]

There is a crime. Crimes are defined as evil acts.

For a crime to exist there must be certain and there is certain- that the crime is committed in the act of evil.

The crime is harming our country the United States with the intent to kill our people which is an evil act.

Those who intend to deprive our country and our people of their right to life deserve "justice".

Self defense is "objectively good". When you kill in self defense it is justice.

Why haven't we implemented the death penalty for every crime if that would be just?

If such a law ever exists that prohibits the president from defending the people of the United States then it is the job of the Supreme Court to strike down that law. (Marbury vs Madison)

Weren't you just yapping about how the executive is supreme and the judicial branch has no say?

Why does the executive need the supreme court to strike down a law in your world?

What use would your world have for Marbury v Madison?

 

[TheCount]

It was also the most abundant element in John Adams.

It probably still is.

Hydrogen wrote the first constitution

 

[Occam's Banana]

Hydrogen wrote the first constitution

And yet, the first Constitution makes no mention of salmon or omega-3 fats.

If George Washington had been King, that omission might have been rectified.

But he wasn't King, so now we have to leave it up to the Supreme Court.

 

[TheCount]

And yet, the first Constitution makes no mention of salmon or omega-3 fats.

If George Washington had been King, that omission might have been rectified.

But he wasn't King, so now we have to leave it up to the Supreme Court.

Laws protect US citizens from fatty acids, but not on the battlefield.

 

[nikcers]

Why haven't we implemented the death penalty for every crime if that would be just?

Weren't you just yapping about how the executive is supreme and the judicial branch has no say?

Why does the executive need the supreme court to strike down a law in your world?

What use would your world have for Marbury v Madison?

As Justice Amy Coney Barret says the law isn't an "opinion poll".

The legal precedence set by the Supreme Court decides whether a law is constitutional.

We settle these arguments in the courts and change the laws through elections.

When we no longer live under the rule of law we have an autocracy.

My argument of the president's power is based on my own understanding and interpretation of the original intent and the historical and legal precedence.

Certainly we could change that and live under legislative rule and make the president a ceremonial role.

That just wouldn't be what I understand is the original intent of the presidency.

That would make the country more of a democracy than a republic.

John Adams argued that would be a recipe for disaster. He said there hasn't yet been a democracy that hasn't commited suicide.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Laws protect US citizens from fatty acids, but not on the battlefield.

That's why Ben Franklin wanted a "Battlefield Clause" in the first Constitution.

But John Adams refused, because he was afraid the Supreme Court would interpret the "field" in "battlefield" too narrowly, so that it would exclude battles on the "ocean" (and, therefore, also salmon and their omega-3 fats). So now we just have to let the President decide.

 

[acptulsa]

When we no longer live under the rule of law we have an autocracy.

My argument of the president's power is based on my own understanding and interpretation of the original intent and the historical and legal precedence.

In other words, you saw Hamilton and want autocracy.

Fuck you. Cannot have.

Case closed.

 

[nikcers]

In other words, you saw Hamilton and want autocracy.

Fuck you. Cannot have.

Case closed.

I never did see it. I have studied history though.

These debates have been happening for hundreds of years.

The blood of patriots and tyrants is many.

The autocracy people might get their way though certainly if people continue to obstruct the "republican" government we have and it kills itself.

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://x.com/NotGovernor/status/1963722706555478216

If they were cartel members (violent beasts) then I don't much care if someone explodes them. Do I trust the US Gov beasts to not do this to innocents though? Hell no. Do I want them restrained by "due process" magic spells? Well, I want them restrained in every way possible—so sure, I'll take what I can get.

 

[TheCount]

That's why Ben Franklin wanted a "Battlefield Clause" in the first Constitution.

But John Adams refused, because he was afraid the Supreme Court would interpret the "field" in "battlefield" too narrowly, so that it would exclude battles on the "ocean" (and, therefore, also salmon and their omega-3 fats). So now we just have to let the President decide.

The funniest(?) part of the battlefield theory is that, in this scenario, the entire world must be considered a battlefield to achieve the desired end state.

 

[acptulsa]

The autocracy people might get their way though certainly if people continue to obstruct the "republican" government we have and it kills itself.

Kills itself by refusing to heed vox populi?

 

[nikcers]

The funniest(?) part of the battlefield theory is that, in this scenario, the entire world must be considered a battlefield to achieve the desired end state.

Order out of chaos

 

[nikcers]

Kills itself by refusing to heed vox populi?

Through insane interpretations of reality.

You know like arguing that a surgeon is cutting someone when they are operating.

 

[TheCount]

As Justice Amy Coney Barret says the law isn't an "opinion poll".

The legal precedence set by the Supreme Court decides whether a law is constitutional.

We settle these arguments in the courts and change the laws through elections.

When we no longer live under the rule of law we have an autocracy.

My argument of the president's power is based on my own understanding and interpretation of the original intent and the historical and legal precedence.

Certainly we could change that and live under legislative rule and make the president a ceremonial role.

That just wouldn't be what I understand is the original intent of the presidency.

That would make the country more of a democracy than a republic.

John Adams argued that would be a recipe for disaster. He said there hasn't yet been a democracy that hasn't commited suicide.

The problem with spouting chatgpt gibberish to pretend that you have political thoughts is that the answers you give are mutually exclusive and inconsistent because there are no guiding principles involved.

Please do go ahead and name the historical and legal precedents that are the basis for your understanding of the original intent of the imperial presidency.

 

[TheCount]

Order out of chaos

Murdering everyone would make the world a lot more orderly.

 

[nikcers]

The problem with spouting chatgpt gibberish to pretend that you have political thoughts is that the answers you give are mutually exclusive and inconsistent because there are no guiding principles involved.

Please do go ahead and name the historical and legal precedents that are the basis for your understanding of the original intent of the imperial presidency.

Im not going to spend 20 hours writing a spreadsheet just so you can spout pure applesauce at me afterwards and call me a bot.

 

[TheCount]

Im not going to spend 20 hours writing a spreadsheet just so you can spout pure applesauce at me afterwards and call me a bot.

The only applesauce here is inside your skull.