Biden's "absolute immunity" speech: Satisfied or not?

[ecstatic]

It was a good speech but I didn't like the way President Biden immediately ruled out using the powers himself. I think in this atmosphere we have to remain flexible and use every tool we have to navigate what's happening. The rightwing is grabbing power in a grotesque way and because it's being done through the courts there seems to be a lack of will to do anything about it.

110 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	I was satisfied by the speech
	80 (73%)
	I was NOT satisfied by the speech
	27 (25%)
	No opinion
	3 (3%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[msongs]

1. bit of a campaign speech tho nt

[ecstatic]

5. That too. I think he should have taken questions

Today was really important and a lot of Americans still may not know how things have changed.

[asm128]

7. Disagree

Did you hear the asinine questions they were throwing his way? They don't deserve his time.

[brooklynite]

13. So the President should ignore the press for the next four months?

[edisdead]

20. Yes.

They don’t do him any good. They lie and enable a guy trying to destroy our country… And get this they do it because they want access. Deny them access ubtil they start acting like a reasonable fucking entity.

[Zeitghost]

47. How many successful national campaigns have you ran media relations for?

The President has a solid team of advisors behind him. I think I'll trust their judgement on media interactions.

[DemocraticPatriot]

46. Maybe YOU should...

[Trueblue1968]

50. He shoupd have taken questions. Be stronger!!!

[Cha]

8. And?

[wnylib]

26. Warranted under the circumstances because

defeating Trump's one man control of the US government now depends on defeating him at the polls.

[bigtree]

35. he would have been neglectful not mentioning one of the greatest threats to our democracy

...not his fault the felon is running against him.

[Celerity]

2. these types of polls are unfortunately too often used as 'gotcha' games

[ecstatic]

10. true. I guess my issue is

I'm trying to manage this feeling I've had all day since finding out. I feel physically ill over this. Severely anxious and sad.

I don't feel reassured but maybe I missed something. If everyone else felt it was enough maybe that can help me to calm down.

[Celerity]

11. I will make a statement I have not made before. If Trump wins and has the House and Senate, the Union of

the States will likely not survive in its present form. Even if he lacks control of both chambers (most likely scenario for that is we re-take the House and lose the Senate in 2024) it still may be eventually on the cards, especially if SCOTUS continues to decimate the rule of law and the vitally-needed oversight of many facets of life by the guardrails and rules of the administrative state.

Also, if Trump loses in 2024, the threat of all that is only kicked down the road, it is not sorted nor removed AT ALL.

I have seen people proclaim that a Trump loss will mean a quick return to a 'normal' Rethug Party over the next 4 to 8 (or so) years.

Delusional thinking that is, IMHO. The genie is out of the bottle.

[shrike3]

14. I agree. I've thought secession might be the best option, even though it opens up a world of problems.

[Celerity]

17. The country has been set upon a course wherein an out-of-control, corrupted, non-accountable (in actual real-world

political reality), tenured-for-life SCOTUS is, with more than a remote chance, likely to be the match that lights the powder keg of the destruction of the rule of law, which may well lead to the dissolution of the Union of the States.

A declaration of universal foetal personhood (and thus the nationalised outlawing of almost all abortions) by the corrupted SCOTUS, to give but one example, would quite possibly do the trick. Multiple Blue States will very likely refuse to submit, and thus go into a posture of open defiance of the SCOTUS.

If the POTUS (far more likely if it is a Republican, but also it could be a Democratic one as well) decides to use the full force (up to and possibly including kinetic force) at their disposal to bring the defiant States to heel, their may well be kinetic violence and also open secessionist movements springing to life within those Blue States.

If the POTUS does nothing, or very little, and the Blue State defiance continues unabated, then some or many of the Red States may well start to ignore and defy previous rulings that THEY detest. The same options and their resultant outcomes may well likely occur, with similar chaos, violence, and secessionist movements entering into the broad theatre of possibilities.

We are entering into the most dangerous of waters, and the supply of national life preservers is becoming more and more depleted as the years flow by. In fact, the Republican Party is actively and wilfully destroying that supply with all deliberate speed.

[shrike3]

21. Bleak scenario. But probably accurate. It may come about we have no other option.

[ecstatic]

29. That is scary. I hope my blue state takes me back

if that happens. This is too much.

[wnylib]

32. We are now travelling toward an inescapable head on collision

between the political factions in the US.

The lines are drawn and there is no turning back now on either side.

I believe that supporters of democracy will win in the end. Even if Trump gets into the WH after this year's election, his attempts at autocratic rule will arouse strong resistance that will break out into full scale fighting when he tries to attack the resistance. We will win that fight, but at a great cost in life and infrastructure.

If Biden wins this year's election, the MAGAs will immediately call for all out war and insurrection. They will lose, but will cause great loss of innocent life and infrastructure destruction.

The collision is going to happen. I see no way to avoid it. It would be to our advantage for Biden/Harris to win the election and be in charge of response to the insurrectionist violent reaction, although they would be the first targets of the violence with help from foreign agents in the US.

If Trump pulls off a "win," his supporters might wait until he is sworn in to begin the purges and violence, but there will be localized expressions of it before that. Swift, strong responses will be necessary, even if they mean defiance of court injunctions and rulings.

[erodriguez]

54. There's no longer Rule of Law..There is only Presidential Law.

[orangecrush]

3. What he said

Does not preclude any and all steps that may be taken at a later time.

100% satisfied.

[tritsofme]

4. There is a contingent of folks who were not going not be happy unless he announced summary executions.

[larwdem]

6. If he don't

use this for good TSF will use it for evil. Guaranteed

[brewens]

9. I hope our side has some plans to act aggressively to thwart republican voter suppression and any ballot fraud

fake elector schemes. If it's like Bush V Gore and they just lay down and say they stole it fair and square and we just have to meekly let them have it, I'm done. It won't matter much anyway but that will be it for me.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Biden and Harris

Are made of tougher stuff than Gore and Lieberman.

[wnylib]

38. That will not happen. We will not accept another

Bush v Gore type of decision again. Gore backed down in order to preserve the rule of law, even while he said that he strongly opposed the ruling.

But MAGAs and the MAGA court have destroyed the rule of law. So if they ruled against a legitimate Biden win this time, or refused a timely act on a Trump suppression of votes or other illegality in the election, we would have to defy them in order to preserve democracy and be prepared for the ensuing violence.

[Ms. Toad]

15. I don't want anyone to act like a dictator.

Using a means (acting like a dictator) inconsistent with the goal (a strong democracy) makes us no better than the Republicans. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Democracy is not on the menu, strong or otherwise.

It is fascism or desperately but timidly trying to maintain one party rule to do as their donors and power brokers please effectively forever until the fascist can yank out enough Jinga pieces to make the whole game collapse whether they are elected or not as we have been observing.

[Ms. Toad]

24. A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

I will not vote for anyone who exercises dictatorial powers, regardless of their party affiliation.

[ecstatic]

30. I want Biden to protect us by any means possible.

I don't want to be dealing with trump as president (for life) this time next year.

[Ms. Toad]

34. No one can protect us from a dictator by becoming one. n/t

[uponit7771]

39. THIS !!! People don't understand if we give up freedom for security we get neither

[wnylib]

42. We will lose both freedom and security if Trump gets into the WH again.

Many will lose their lives.

During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and saved the nation and democracy.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Vote or not, one cannot play keep away forever

and at the point the game is up point you get the worst case scenario.

If they are not stopped then they will take control and no vote will dislodge them.

The "fever" is not going to break.

The necessary is good as it gets and failure to do what is absolutely necessary is the definition of dereliction of duty.

If it comes to a choice of a blemish on my soul or accepting some hypocrisy over handing my child and all of our children and grandchildren to the Turd Reich then door number one all day and all night.

Why? Because sometimes the lesser of two evils is actually the hand dealt and we don't get to spin it as noble and keep.what is left of our shades.

The only solace is necessity. Too bad if you it keeps you up.

[Ms. Toad]

33. It it not a blemish on your soul -

Becoming everything we despise fundamentally destroys who we are.

[TheKentuckian]

41. I'll take my chances riding with still here.

Better salvage and redemption opportunities than just plain destroyed.

Besides, I may not have ever committed to everything under your definition of everything anyway.

[wnylib]

40. Agree. But if it becomes an emergency protection of democracy,

the president does have emergency powers beyond the usual presidential powers.

If a dictatorial character like Trump managed to manipulate his way into the WH and set up his dictatorship, would you support a rebellion against him? I would.

If Trump did not legitimately win the election, but claimed again that he did, like in 2020, and the SC ruled in his favor, would you support Biden if he defied the SC ruling as corrupt and refused to acknowledge it? I would.

[Ms. Toad]

43. If the case winds its way to the Supreme Court -

and the court determines that he won, then he won. That is not like 2020 - in which Trump mounted countless challenges, including some which reached the Supreme Court, and he lost virtually every single one.

So, if Biden wrongfully decided to stay in office, after he lost legal challenges related to the election, I wouldn't accept that action any more than I would have had Trump done so.

[wnylib]

49. Sorry to hear that. I am thinking of how

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil war, without constitutional or court authority. He saved the nation and democracy. .

[Ms. Toad]

56. Apples and walnuts.

Refusing to accept the results of an election after legal challenges are exhausted is very different from suspending one means of challenging unlawful imprisonment, in the midst of a civil war - when the suspension of that single tool for challenging unlawful imprisonment was arguably authorized by the constitution.

[wnylib]

58. Where is it authorized in the constitution?

Should the German people, their legislators, and judges, have defied the new law that abolished the presidency in Germany and made the chancellor above the law as the absolute power in Germany?
Or were they correct in abiding by the new law?

Were resistance fighters during WWII criminals who should have accepted the law of the occulying forces?

Should American abolitionists have abided by the slave laws, or were they right to defy them and help slaves escape to freedom?

Should Civil Rights activists have abided by segregationist laws, or were they right in defying them?

There are times - rare and extreme times - when defying laws is the right thing to do. I abhor lawlessness so I do not take it lightly to say that sometimes defiance is necessary. I do not believe that people should routinely choose what laws to obey and what ones to ignore. If someone chooses to defy a law, they know that there are consequences to deal with.

By the time that election day arrives in November, we will be one milimeter away from civil war and the end of democracy in the US because there will be violence from MAGAs no matter who wins. We will have to make some very difficult decisions about what we do and how we do it.

I cannot condone accepting the rule of a racist dictatorship that will allow the dehumanization of people based on ethnicity, race, politics, or gender identity.
I cannot condone executions of political opponents or imprisonment, starvation, denial of health care, and the impoverishment of "the other." Action to prevent it or to overthrow it if it takes hold is warranted, IMO.

[Ms. Toad]

59. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution,

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, which permits a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

There is a difference between conscientious objection to a law by individuals, carried out with the willingness to accept the punishment for violation of the law, and one person declaring himself dictator and above the law. The latter destroys democracy, even if it is done with the best of intentions.

[Polybius]

16. I liked the speech, but I wanted him to answer questions at the end

This could have proved that the debate was just a fluke.

[wnylib]

44. No. The questions would have focused on the debate

and would have undercut the importance of the speech content.

Biden was correct not to take questions.

[edisdead]

19. Say why.

I would love to hear from ALL of the people (we can see the names) as to why it didn’t satisfy you.

Some of you won’t say shit because you don’t actually ppst here.

[Polybius]

23. Personally, I would have liked to see more options in the poll

I liked the speech, but I wanted to see him take questions. Therefor, was I satisfied? Not entirely, so I had to answer "Not satisfied."

[ecstatic]

25. Maybe it should have been a grade scale of A through F

I ended up choosing Other because it was a good speech, it just didn't help as far as reassuring us that things would be ok. He basically said, I'm not going to do anything and it's up to the voters. "Up to the voters" scares the crap out of me because I interact with some seriously dumb people every day.They have no idea what's at stake and their eyes glaze over when I try to explain. smh.

[wnylib]

45. It's good that the speech did not reassure you.

It should not have reassured anyone. It did what was needed. It raised the alarm of what we are up against. We cannot count on the courts any more. It is up to us to make a stand.

[TheKentuckian]

36. The performance was fine if that is the point of the question.

I don't get what I'm supposed to be satisfied with as far as the content though.

The entire situation is unsustainable with the deck ever stacking against us and power is almost always use it or lose it to someone who will use it.

I got a 0% reduction in the feeling of being screwed and a 0% increase of any hope or even an intent of stopping the screwings so satisfaction wasn't something that readily sprang to mind.

No new information. No plan of action. No goals.

A reminder to vote? I hadn't forgotten not that it technically is likely to matter anyway but just in case it somehow does I'm in.

What was the value added for you?

[wnylib]

48. The value is that the speech laid it out in the open

that we cannot count on the courts any more and it is up to us to make a stand with our votes. Implied, IMO, but not said, was that since preserving democracy is up to us as citizens, our stand must go beyond the vote if it comes to that - and it will. Biden did not offer any false assurances that all will go smoothly. He called upon the American people to see what is happening and to recognize that courts will not save us this time around like they did in 2020.

[dweller]

22. Is there a transcript

of the speech ?



✌🏻

[emulatorloo]

28. Maybe. It is only 5 mins long though.

President Biden delivers remarks on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling — 7/1/2024

[Plectranthus]

27. he needs to mention the importance of avoiding project 2025

he needs to call a duck a duck, he needs to spell it out by name - project 2025- .
project 2025 is trump's (putin's) nazi party

[PortTack]

37. JRB has always held his cards close...not giving away anything. That what makes him such a great politician

And…the best president ever!

[wnylib]

51. Agree. I think that he was informing the people of

what we are up against while also playing the options cards closely to his chest.

[BlueWavePsych]

57. His options now include new powers.

eom

[JohnSJ]

52. He was fine, but we have to start calling trump and the thugs out in no uncertain terms, similar to the

SOTU speech.

That is the only way we are going to change the poll numbers.

[JohnSJ]

53. He was fine, but we have to start calling trump and the thugs out in no uncertain terms, similar to the

SOTU speech.

That is the only way we are going to change the poll numbers.

If President Biden isn't up to that, then he need to step aside.

That being said, President Biden has said he has no intention of stepping down, and his rallies in North Carolina and Virginia give every indication that the gloves are off.

It is really the only way.

[Kaleva]

55. Voted No Opinion as I didn't watch it