Biden Will Win by a Landslide say Numerous Psychics

don't care. our constitution prevents what you want. those who took an oath to defend the constitution will oppose such a leftist authoritarian scheme

 

That's why the constitution doesn't work. If it did, this nation wouldn't have all the problems it does.

You mean like King Trump who wants to terminate the constitution? LOL

 

most of the problems we have are caused by Democrats ignoring our constitution

 

If that were true, how would electing Trump, who wants to terminate the constitution, be the answer? lol

 

RE: JCS

I'm not sure how to reply to someone without any quotes so I am just saying "RE: JCS" in this message. The quote was larger than the allowed message size.

If Biden was in office rather than Trump in the first term, the Chevron decision being overturned would have never happened, so it ended up being Trump's most substantial effect to date (indirectly). You're concern as I'm hearing it is that judges don't have adequate expertise to determine certain kinds of issues including pollution. But there are actually very specific resolutions that are designed to be the solution to your concerns, which is specific courts that deal with specific issues. Family courts deal with family issues and so on. Certainly pollution can be a high-complexity issues, and I don't object to courts of pollution being formed. So you are essentially advocating for specialized bodies of government, but seem to reject specialized judiciary branch in favor of agencies who are more directly part of the legislature. But that in turn seems to be based on the fact you look at the people in the court as pollution indifferent, a very people-centric way to look at the government. Another issue about "expert agencies" is they seem to be worse at expertise than expert witnesses in court. I'd much trust an expert witness about pollution in a courtroom than I would a statement issued by the environmental agency claiming to be expertise. I would disagree that we should have legislative expert bodies that legislate expert areas, which would under your idea be agencies but under the legislature rather than executive branch. The primary reason I disagree is that I believe the law should be understandable. I don't want to be in a state of mind where I don't know if I'm breaking the law or not. If the law is so complex I don't know if I'm breaking it, that makes breaking the law into a matter of punishing people for not knowing their special Simon Says dance. Furthermore, if you want big business not to be king, then you have to be kind to small business. Having a million pages of law they have to follow means small businesses are not allowed. Perhaps you think all business should be big business with a team of lawyers constantly checking for legal compliance. You have said how bad capitalism is, but the more capital you need to start a business, the more capitalism you end up with, and each additional law you create from an administrative agency adds to the capital needed to start a business because a lawyer has to review it and instruct management about how to handle it.

Congress can step in and they could put in every single regulation that was under an administrative agency into law, and the only reason that won't happen at all is because for-profit corporations literally write the laws, and they won't be writing in those regulations. So that goes into people voting for corrupt candidates whose focus is on political gamesmanship, not political philosophy, and not political science. That is a problem with the voter base though. I advocate for Cooperative Republics, a direct democracy in which everyone decides who represents them, which may be them self. Voting is de-emphasized while active and direct participation is emphasized. This of course makes separation of branches more difficult, but courts in no way overtly reject by this system and separation of branches is something that actually is re-invented as deleveraging of monopolies.

I've noted your definitions and issues regarding capitalism, but would rather focus the conversation now to the Chevron decision and respond on that later. Overall my preference is that ALL countries follow all of their own laws as written, especially their foundational law, and bureaucracies that creates laws was not legal. Ignoring foundational law is chaos, and that is a bad thing.

 

That's right. Judges don't have the scientific expertise to make a determination on a scientific issue - particularly one that impacts a community's health.

We don't need a "pollution" court. If an agency's scientists determine that a genuine health and/or environmental risk, concern, or threat exists due to a polluting corporation/entity, then it should be swiftly dealt with. Courts take too long (particularly with corporate delay tactics), it costs the plaintiffs too much, and there's no guarantee that such a risk will be removed. As soon as a concern is reported (by anyone), the agency should jump on top of it.

Why have a middle man (the courts) when we can go directly to the scientists when necessary?

You also need to understand that the main cause of this conflict (corporations/private interests) needs to be removed so that there is no conflict in the first place. Corporations are an unnecessary feature in any society, but if they continue to exist they should be kept on a very short leash by regulatory agencies (or else be shut down).

If an agency is going to conduct a thorough investigation, then naturally they would interview all relevant witnesses (expert or not) as well - which would be part of any good scientific investigation.

Understand that often corporate influence on politicians is the cause of reduced agency funding. The agency, lacking the funds it needs to operate thoroughly, efficiently, and expansively, then appears as though it's "doing a bad job." Corporations then use this as an excuse to expand privatization - claiming that private companies can do a better job than the govt. This is a long-used tactic by corporations.

There are many rules/laws in everyday life that the average person may be unaware of. However, when it comes to polluting/contaminating the environment, the law should be clear: Absolutely NO contaminants should be allowed by any person or business. Industrial & chemical contaminants should be disposed of at designated centers where they can be safely processed.

Note: The very existence of corporations (which I view as concentrated wealth or as "economic black holes") is unnecessary and has been the source of stress, conflict, corruption, and political turmoil throughout the history of this nation.

You should understand that BIG business is the greatest enemy of small businesses. BIG business has the funds, resources, and influence to shape policy making and thereby out-compete small businesses. So when govt is not kind to small businesses, you can thank BIG business for that.

Capitalism is bad because it cannot exist without socialism (mass labor & taxpayer money). Capitalism thus acts as a parasitic element that feeds on socialism in the social group. When a capitalist system emerges in a new nation, it siphons & concentrates wealth generated by labor. Eventually, that nation's govt will be required to expand its social welfare programs to prevent the nation from collapsing from the burden of this runaway capitalism & concentration of wealth.

Very good. I've always advocated a direct democracy. Mass elections & frequent voting in a republic is too open to manipulation & corruption, and ripe with uncertainty. The beauty of a direct democracy are many, but one main advantage is that there won't be the need for frequent voting. People will naturally come to a consensus as to what's best for all and stick with that (ie, there's no need to fix what's not broken). A direct democracy thus won't have the volatility & instability common in a republic. And with socio-economic stability in place, the people would naturally become self-governing - which would negate the need for "laws". Common sense, reason, logic, and a sense of unity & mutual benefit would rule.

Separation of branches/power wouldn't be necessary in a direct democracy. Power would remain in the hands of the people.

By the way, the so-called "separation of powers" never worked in the US anyway because private financial interests overrided public/domestic need.

All active laws should remain under scrutiny by any progressively minded country. If following the law to the letter fails to protect life, liberty, health, and the environment, then it needs to be removed & replaced.

The US Declaration of Independence declared "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", yet the subsequent ratification of the constitution failed to deliver on that.

 

Judges do not make determinations on scientific issues. They make determinations solely on legal issues.

This is not an insignificant distinction.

 

socialism is parasitic. it forces productive people to fund the existence of others-others who do nothing to contribute to the welfare of those who are productive. It also creates a parasitic government.

 

I know that.

That's where the problem lies. Laws often contradict good science, logic, and reason - while the "interpretation" of the law is often colored by private financial interests.

 

You keep repeating this corporate talking point, which I've addressed repeatedly. But you don't seem to understand.

 

you keep repeating the class warfare talking point which I have addressed constantly. But you don't seem to understand. I despise socialism. I despise income redistribution. and most of all I despise democrats buying the votes of teat sucklers with the wealth of those who earned it

 

It seems you despise what you don't understand. No wonder you despise it.

 

I agree Biden will definitely defeat President Trump come Election Day.

 

I'm not seeing anything highly staged here to be honest. I would assume they'd have the food pre-ordered and ready to go so that the president wouldn't have to wait for it (due to a busy schedule & for security reasons). And I can see that they'd have the cashier/server briefed on what to expect. The news man gloated about the lack of supporters/people in the store, but wouldn't that be for security reasons? Remember, Biden is THE current president - Trump is NOT. I'd assume security would be stronger for a sitting president, especially now after the attempt on Trump.

Also, the news man mentioned Trump's visit to Chick-fil-A, lauding his "generosity", but failed (naturally) to mention that it was also staged.

Trump Gets Caught STAGING A SCAM in Atlanta with black MAGA operative at Chick-fil-A


Here's more Trump staged events and other clips showing Trump's desperate attempts to ramp up his dwindling support - stuff your MAGA news outlets won't show you.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...say-numerous-psychics.619959/#post-1074888198

 

Biden surviving COVID will be just like Trump surviving an assassination attempts



Psychics might have missed.

 

Maskless, claims he's on his way to isolate for COVID

 

Bribed Joe claims he has COVID



He doesn't look like the psychics are right.

 

Psychic's Aside, Not sure Bribed Joe's gonna win.

Democrat Leaders Make Tough Decision To Place Biden On Hospice Following COVID Diagnosis.



'Five minutes after news broke that President Biden has been diagnosed with COVID, Democrat party leaders were forced to make the difficult decision to place Biden on hospice care.'

"We just want Joe to be comfortable with the short time he has left," explained Senator Chuck Schumer. "We spent a long, hard thirty seconds deliberating over what to do, and we all agreed this is for the best."

'President Biden reportedly resisted the idea of being placed on hospice, but Democrat leaders assured the doctors that he was demented and didn't know what he was saying. "It's what the real Joe would have wanted. Hahaha!" said Kamala Harris. "Poor guy, saying 'I'm not ready to die!'. Haha! He's lost his mind. At last, he can be at peace."'

'At publishing time, Hillary Clinton was reportedly spotted asking the hospice caretakers if they needed any help moving things along.'

 

Oh yes. This is the story on babylonbee that's next to the one titled "Oh No! Piece Of Ear Shot Off Trump Begins To Grow Into Second Trump" and "Secret Service Beefs Up Trump’s Security With Squad Of Blind Midgets".

Thanks, babylonbee for the comic relief!

 

Why no mention of Trump being an adjudicated rapist, accused of sexual assault by over 25 women (including a 13 year old), frequently walking in on the girls' dressing room at Miss Teen pageant, groping women by their genitalia without their consent, and being the most listed name on the Epstein logs?

 

Pathetic.

 

That’s my point JCS!!
I never said anything was staged, the guy in the video did.
I simply said that I agree with you that biden will in FACT most definitely defeat President Trump come Election Day.
I just wanted to present yet more evidence that U.S. tin foil haters, you know MAGAs (Make America Great Again) were pretty obviously correct that biden, the guy you voted for and still defend, even as his own party and donors turn their backs on him, clearly has Dimentia.

 

Well it seems it comes down to a difference of confidence. You are more confident (or less unconfident) in government agencies to both legislate and judge pollution issues... I'd be more confident in legislative diplomats not entirely unlike today's legislative branch to determine pollution legislation while a court or expert court arbitrates issues stemming from the creation of those rules which determine pollution damages. I suppose there are real world outcomes of both scenarios so we could look at the differences on a case by case basis as we see the real world effects of the end of the Chevron decision.

 

They are always happy to lighten the mood, that way.

 

I need to hear more about this idea that the piece of Trump's ear that was shot off, is growing into a new Trump.