US 2024 Presidential Election

[Silvanus]

You could've made a well-reasoned, well thought-out argument 24 years ago and judges may have agreed; judges don't just dismiss something and ignore the arguments (I don't know why you think so lowly of judges).

Oh, for goodness sake. You're not grasping the very most basic aspect of this.

OK, so what, they may have agreed. It's highly unlikely given the makeup of the court, but it's possible, fine.

They also may not. And if they didn't? Well, then, the Constitution wouldn't convey any protection, would it? Just like it didn't for over 200 years.

You seem to think the document itself somehow protects and enforces its contents, according to some objective interpretation that rests outside human reading. But no, it doesn't. If something isn't agreed by those judges to be protected, then it is not protected by operational law. It doesn't matter a single little bit how solid you think your interpretation is. They might not agree.

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

^ this is a table of all the times a SCOTUS ruling has been overturned by a subsequent SCOTUS ruling. And in the interim between those rulings, you know what the operational law was? It was whatever the first ruling said. The first ruling that was later deemed wrong. No "objective" interpretation mattered a bit during those intervening years or decades.

Are you beginning to grasp, now, how the interpretation of the Constitution in operational law is dependent on a bunch of fallible humans who may not think the same way as you?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Oh, for goodness sake. You're not grasping the very most basic aspect of this.

OK, so what, they may have agreed. It's highly unlikely given the makeup of the court, but it's possible, fine.

They also may not. And if they didn't? Well, then, the Constitution wouldn't convey any protection, would it? Just like it didn't for over 200 years.

You seem to think the document itself somehow protects and enforces its contents, according to some objective interpretation that rests outside human reading. But no, it doesn't. If something isn't agreed by those judges to be protected, then it is not protected by operational law. It doesn't matter a single little bit how solid you think your interpretation is. They might not agree.

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

^ this is a table of all the times a SCOTUS ruling has been overturned by a subsequent SCOTUS ruling. And in the interim between those rulings, you know what the operational law was? It was whatever the first ruling said. The first ruling that was later deemed wrong. No "objective" interpretation mattered a bit during those intervening years or decades.

Are you beginning to grasp, now, how the interpretation of the Constitution in operational law is dependent on a bunch of fallible humans who may not think the same way as you?

Again, just like DnD there are objective things in the constitution along with things open for interpretation; obviously DnD is far more objective in nature than the constitution. And regardless of the makeup of the court, a good argument can sway justices that lean the other way.

Do you not realize how bad a lot the arguments are in Obergefell v. Hodges? Here's an excerpt of the opening argument:

The intimate and committed relationships of same-sex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society. If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2014/14-556q1_l5gm.pdf

Regardless of my leaning as far as gay marriage goes, if I was one of the justices, I'd be like "so f-ing what?" Basically, what does a piece of paper have to do with being a foundation of a family or dignity? Any justice that is already 100% in favor of gay marriage isn't going to vote gay marriage is protected with that argument. You need to argue how married people have actual objective advantages and benefits and how gay people are not privy to those things.

And new arguments were heard in all those overturns, were they not?

 

[Silvanus]

Again, just like DnD there are objective things in the constitution along with things open for interpretation; obviously DnD is far more objective in nature than the constitution.

What you think is "objective" was not considered to be the case by the authors of the constitution, or by the country for 200 years after, or by most SCOTUS justices a mere 25 years ago.

It. Doesn't. Matter. What. You. Think. If. They. Disagree. And four of them did. All it would take is one more.

Regardless of my leaning as far as gay marriage goes, if I was one of the justices, I'd be like "so f-ing what?" Basically, what does a piece of paper have to do with being a foundation of a family or dignity?

It's an extremely good thing that you're not one of the justices, if this is your standard of reasoning.

 

[gorfias]

Again, just like DnD there are objective things in the constitution along with things open for interpretation; obviously DnD is far more objective in nature than the constitution. And regardless of the makeup of the court, a good argument can sway justices that lean the other way.

Do you not realize how bad a lot the arguments are in Obergefell v. Hodges? Here's an excerpt of the opening argument:

The intimate and committed relationships of same-sex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society. If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2014/14-556q1_l5gm.pdf

Regardless of my leaning as far as gay marriage goes, if I was one of the justices, I'd be like "so f-ing what?" Basically, what does a piece of paper have to do with being a foundation of a family or dignity? Any justice that is already 100% in favor of gay marriage isn't going to vote gay marriage is protected with that argument. You need to argue how married people have actual objective advantages and benefits and how gay people are not privy to those things.

And new arguments were heard in all those overturns, were they not?

I would have gone with a full faith and credit argument. You get gay married in Hawaii and move to Wyoming? Wyoming has to honor the marriage certificate (public record). Biden signed the Defense of Marriage Act to block such marriages for this reason but I think the USSC would have struck DOMA down. Congress just can't pass an act stating the constitution must bend to their interpretation.

ITMT: This Kamala interview thing is crazy. Not live, chosen network and interviewer that can edit after the fact for presenting her in the best light AND she gets to have Walz by her side? She wanted to be able to bring notes?

 

[Silvanus]

ITMT: This Kamala interview thing is crazy. Not live, chosen network and interviewer that can edit after the fact for presenting her in the best light AND she gets to have Walz by her side? She wanted to be able to bring notes?

Why is any of that notable? Trump has been giving interviews to whomever he wants, on his terms, for ages.

 

[gorfias]

Why is any of that notable? Trump has been giving interviews to whomever he wants, on his terms, for ages.

He's also been incredibly transparent. Followed by a POTUS that was less transparent than anyone in my memory.

Did you see him at that black journalist gig? He took the slings. I feel like I have a good handle on what he wants to do if elected.

Kamala says she wants to finish the border wall? Who is she? She appears to be so very well shielded that I honestly don't know. Personally, I think if elected, she will do the job a VP is supposed to do: carry on the duties of POTUS as the POTUS him/herself would do. She will govern much like Biden did. The voters have to decide if that is a good or bad thing.

 

[Silvanus]

He's also been incredibly transparent. Followed by a POTUS that was less transparent than anyone in my memory.

Did you see him at that black journalist gig? He took the slings. I feel like I have a good handle on what he wants to do if elected.

Kamala says she wants to finish the border wall? Who is she? She appears to be so very well shielded that I honestly don't know. Personally, I think if elected, she will do the job a VP is supposed to do: carry on the duties of POTUS as the POTUS him/herself would do. She will govern much like Biden did. The voters have to decide if that is a good or bad thing.

Absolutely none of this addresses what I said.

 

[BrawlMan]

He's also been incredibly transparent.

​

 

[Bedinsis]

Why is any of that notable? Trump has been giving interviews to whomever he wants, on his terms, for ages.

Do you really think Trump is a good barometer for good behaviour?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

What you think is "objective" was not considered to be the case by the authors of the constitution, or by the country for 200 years after, or by most SCOTUS justices a mere 25 years ago.

It. Doesn't. Matter. What. You. Think. If. They. Disagree. And four of them did. All it would take is one more.



It's an extremely good thing that you're not one of the justices, if this is your standard of reasoning.

I said generally some things are objective and others are not, and not specifically gay marriage because we aren't just talking about that. A different argument will possibly result in a different decision. The stronger argument you have, the more likely the judges will rule in your favor.

4 of them didn't disagree that gay marriage is constitutionally protected, they disagreed that the argument in Obergefell didn't make it so gay marriage was protected. A different argument could sway the 4 judges.

That's how legal decisions are made in the end. I was on a criminal trial that lasted a week and only 5 minutes of the case presented to us was relevant to our decision. The excerpt of the oral arguments I have isn't relevant for many reasons. Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn never married, are you gonna say their family is lacking dignity or a proper foundation because of that? Those are firstly abstract concepts to begin with and everyone has a different understanding of what those entail, hence it's pointless to argue that. Whereas being able to file taxes together (get breaks) and/or share health insurance are objective non-abstract things non-married couples would be missing out on.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The stronger argument you have, the more likely the judges will rule in your favor.

ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[gorfias]

Absolutely none of this addresses what I said.

You asked, "why is any of this notable". Because she appears to be terrified to actually answer questions unscripted. What we do actually hear does not appear to have anything to do with how she intends to govern. She'll even have her support human with her for what will likely be a very softball CNN interview. This is all notable as, this doesn't sound like someone that is competent to be POTUS.


It's ridiculous to write Trump hasn't taken on all comers. He even agreed to Biden's rules with a debate conducted by his haters at CNN. Now Kamala is trying to change the rules. Not POTUS material. * A joke from the Bee



The actual debates, if they happen, may prove me very wrong. We'll see.

ITMT: Trump would ask these 10 questions. Reviewing.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-campaign-gives-cnn-10-must-ask-questions-for-kamala-interview

 

[Satinavian]

She'll even have her support human with her for what will likely be a very softball CNN interview. This is all notable as, this doesn't sound like someone that is competent to be POTUS.

Wait, you are complaining about an interview that hasn't even happened yet ?

 

[Silvanus]

I said generally some things are objective and others are not, and not specifically gay marriage because we aren't just talking about that. A different argument will possibly result in a different decision. The stronger argument you have, the more likely the judges will rule in your favor.

4 of them didn't disagree that gay marriage is constitutionally protected, they disagreed that the argument in Obergefell didn't make it so gay marriage was protected. A different argument could sway the 4 judges.

That's how legal decisions are made in the end. I was on a criminal trial that lasted a week and only 5 minutes of the case presented to us was relevant to our decision. The excerpt of the oral arguments I have isn't relevant for many reasons. Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn never married, are you gonna say their family is lacking dignity or a proper foundation because of that? Those are firstly abstract concepts to begin with and everyone has a different understanding of what those entail, hence it's pointless to argue that. Whereas being able to file taxes together (get breaks) and/or share health insurance are objective non-abstract things non-married couples would be missing out on.

None of this is relevant to the question we're discussing. I know how the decisions are made. I know the arguments matter-- though you neglect that judges can introduce arguments and concepts entirely of their own when ruling. It's all obvious reiteration.

The point: if the judges rule one way, that's the law. So you cannot say the Constitution provides protection for something if they don't agree. Doesn't matter if you think it's "objective" or clear or whatever.

So when you say a certain right is protected Constitutionally? It is now. It wasn't for over 200 years, by the same Constitution. And it could easily not be again, in future, depending on what a group of 9 political appointees think.

 

[Silvanus]

It's ridiculous to write Trump hasn't taken on all comers.

Fucking LOL.

The idea that Trump has been treated harshly and dealt with the blows is a fucking farce. He's treated with the softest kid gloves. Can you even imagine if Harris or any other candidate had gone to run an illegal campaign photoshoot at Arlington Cemetary, thrown a thumbs-up and a grin over a soldier's grave, with her staff manhandling a military staff member out of the way? That would be it, over, candidacy essentially sunk, absolute screaming condemnation from the media and Republicans and Democrats alike.

Trump does it? Ah well, that's rude, but par for the course. Republicans don't care, supporters don't care. Media tut and tsk but will forget in a week when he does something else.

He picks and chooses his interviews at the most fawning outlets. And when he has to do one with an outlet that isn't so hot on him, then he whines and gripes about how meeeaaaan they were to him, or just straight insults them. He's a whining fucking baby, unable and unwilling to take criticism, treated with kid gloves, and lashing out with childish, moronic insults whenever he's questioned or things don't go his way.

 

[Agema]

You asked, "why is any of this notable". Because she appears to be terrified to actually answer questions unscripted. What we do actually hear does not appear to have anything to do with how she intends to govern.

Have a think: when did you last start a new job? How long did it take you to get up to speed? Now sure, you probably did something relatively similar in a job before that, so you have all sorts of competencies that carry across. But you probably also spent plenty of time learning how to do things: talking to people, reading documents, etc. You don't know the precise company policy and strategy in all sorts of circumstances. You don't know how several internal IT systems work, where to find the regulations handbook, who does what in HR or Ops and how they do things, etc. Developing all this knowledge takes time.

So think about that context, and consider that Kamala Harris has been a presidential candidate for just ~5-6 weeks.

Damn right she's not subjecting herself to a high-stakes media interrogation until she has to, and nor would anyone else with an ounce of sense or competence in her situation.

As noted by someone else above, this is also not a level playing field. Trump is plainly often incoherent, dishonest or digresses with complaints, boasts and insults. If Republicans do not expect clear, honest and useful answers from their own candidate, it is hypocrisy for them to demand it from their opposition.

 

[tstorm823]

Wait, you are complaining about an interview that hasn't even happened yet ?

You mean an interview that hasn't been broadcast yet.

 

[gorfias]

Have a think: when did you last start a new job? How long did it take you to get up to speed? Now sure, you probably did something relatively similar in a job before that, so you have all sorts of competencies that carry across. But you probably also spent plenty of time learning how to do things: talking to people, reading documents, etc. You don't know the precise company policy and strategy in all sorts of circumstances. You don't know how several internal IT systems work, where to find the regulations handbook, who does what in HR or Ops and how they do things, etc. Developing all this knowledge takes time.

So think about that context, and consider that Kamala Harris has been a presidential candidate for just ~5-6 weeks.

Damn right she's not subjecting herself to a high-stakes media interrogation until she has to, and nor would anyone else with an ounce of sense or competence in her situation.

As noted by someone else above, this is also not a level playing field. Trump is plainly often incoherent, dishonest or digresses with complaints, boasts and insults. If Republicans do not expect clear, honest and useful answers from their own candidate, it is hypocrisy for them to demand it from their opposition.

But no one should vote for someone you are describing. She's only been running for 5-6 weeks! Yikes!!!
What is the purpose of voting if you are presented with a candidate that won't take on a proper interview so that you do not know who they really are and what they really will do in office?

ITMT: Trump goes right into enemy territory and lays it out. Example was the town hall with CNN leftist activist disguised as a journalist Kaitlan Collins. He tells us he would end the Ukraine idiocy in 24 hours.

 

[tippy2k2]

 

[BrawlMan]

And when he has to do one with an outlet that isn't so hot on him, then he whines and gripes about how meeeaaaan they were to him, or just straight insults them. He's a whining fucking baby, unable and unwilling to take criticism, treated with kid gloves, and lashing out with childish, moronic insults whenever he's questioned or things don't go his way.

The male will cry with like a biatch, even when tough and informed questions or "unprepared" questions are thrown at him as we've seen.

No shit there in cahoots with Trump.

The Supreme Court Just Signaled What It Will Do If the Election Is Close

The legal warfare over the 2024 election is well underway.

slate.com

Two-thirds of Americans say Trump unprepared to accept the election outcome: POLL

Most Americans say they and Vice President Kamala Harris alike are prepared to accept the election outcome as legitimate, a new ABC News/Ispos poll found.

www.google.com

GOP spreading voting lies again.

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/30/nx-s1-5091032/noncitizens-voting-election-gop-texas-tennessee-alabama

Trump Threatens to Jail Mark Zuckerberg for Life

Donald Trump threatened to jail Mark Zuckerberg over false election conspiracies in an upcoming book titled “Saving America.”

www.rollingstone.com

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?