US 2024 Presidential Election

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what the law was until 1868 (when the 14th amendment was written), and it still wasn't officially applied to the states even after that until 1925. For over 100 years after the bill of rights was written the bill of rights was not applied to the states. The supremacy clause has been in the constitution since 1788.

The bill of rights did not apply to the states based on the original interpretation of the constitution and this only changed based on a supreme court decision.

There's no "basic logic" necessary. This is historic fact. You don't need to reason your way out of recorded history.

Now Cherished, Bill of Rights Spent a Century in Obscurity

The Bill of Rights is among our nation’s most admired documents, guaranteeing broad personal liberties and inspiring some of the federal courts’ most famous and polarizing cases.

www.uscourts.gov

And then why has the Bill of Rights become so important? Because of the exact logic I stated. It's literally the same reason you can't have states interpreting parts of the constitution differently and removing candidates like say Trump from the ballot because then you'd have every blue state removing republican candidates and every red state removing democratic candidates.

And again, that isn't what we're discussing. We're not discussing whether recognition of out-of-state marriages is sufficient.

Stop trying to shift the topic.



"I don't care". I know you don't care.

Stop trying to shift the topic.



Except I didn't literally say that. You introduced that to try to shift the conversation off-topic, and I simply directed you back to the topic.

Stop. Trying. To. Shift. The. Topic.

I care about what overturning gay marriage would actually do in practical terms, which is in essence nothing other than slightly annoying and inconveniencing people. It wouldn't actually change anything important.

You saying "I don't give a shit" and me saying "I do give a shit" is shifting the topic?

I said that as a point to show that justices don't just do whatever the fuck they want, which is your claim. Do you think there is any chance that black people in America will be slaves again because SCOTUS justices reverse the 13th amendment? This is a yes/no answer.

 

[Agema]

Our disagreement on this is central to the only real chance Trump has to be re-elected (again). People remember what it was actually like when he was President. His policies actually seemed to help actual Americans. We were (short of Covid to which I though he over-reacted and still does) better off. It is the Biden/Harris regime that seems to spout empty platitudes to the point that "Build Back Better" has turned into "Fix it on day one".

What policies, and how precisely did they help actual Americans?

I think people remember roughly what it felt like at a particular time, and if it was good, the President at the time gets the credit in their minds... even if he hasn't necessarily done a damn thing to change anything either way. Excluding external factors (tail end of financial crash - Obama, Covid - Trump, inflation spike - Biden) outside their control, growth under Trump was similar to Biden and Obama. What did Trump actually do, specifically? Or did he just happen to be president for a few years of economic stability?

You could also take immigration. Border security in the USA has not become significantly more lax. The USA has more immigrants coming because things have gone wrong somewhere else in the world and made more people think they'd better off migrating. (And/or potentially that the infrastructure to facilitate them to doing so has improved.) So the USA might want to do something, fine. But "Build the wall" was one of Trump's centrepiece policies. He just failed to do it. He failed to do it despite his party controlling both houses of Congress for part of his presidency. Complaining about immigration now just doesn't change the fact that Republicans are championing a guy who promised to do something about it, should have had the political power to do it... and failed.

 

[Silvanus]

I care about what overturning gay marriage would actually do in practical terms, which is in essence nothing other than slightly annoying and inconveniencing people. It wouldn't actually change anything important.

You saying "I don't give a shit" and me saying "I do give a shit" is shifting the topic?

When you stopped trying to argue that it couldn't happen, and instead started arguing that it doesn't matter, that was an effort to shift the topic, yes.

I said that as a point to show that justices don't just do whatever the fuck they want, which is your claim.

No: my claim from the start has been that the Constitution doesn't prevent them from ruling how they want.

They have other considerations, such as the perception of impartiality and credibility, to consider. Those considerations mean they won't make completely batshit rulings like re-legalising slavery. But same-sex marriage? That's far less contentious-- and four of those very same justices already voted against.

 

[Agema]

Those considerations mean they won't make completely batshit rulings like re-legalising slavery.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

When you stopped trying to argue that it couldn't happen, and instead started arguing that it doesn't matter, that was an effort to shift the topic, yes.



No: my claim from the start has been that the Constitution doesn't prevent them from ruling how they want.

They have other considerations, such as the perception of impartiality and credibility, to consider. Those considerations mean they won't make completely batshit rulings like re-legalising slavery. But same-sex marriage? That's far less contentious-- and four of those very same justices already voted against.

I still stand by that it's not gonna happen. Just saying IF it did, it wouldn't matter so why waste energy bringing it up as some issue? Literally worse case scenario of this is people are slightly inconvenienced so why not focus on other things that will provide far more benefits to people?

It just seems like you are arguing just to argue or some semantics issue at this point. The law of the land saying XYZ (e.g. you can't have slaves) and the justices reversing XYZ is not a credibility consideration?

 

[FakeSympathy]

I have been in US for 20 years, and only became a US Citizen in 2019 and so far participated in just the Trump vs Biden election.

Because I barely paid attention to US social study/politics class in HS and college, I gotta ask; is there an option to say "I don't want either candidates?" or at least declare No choice?

I REALLY don't want either Trump or Harris in the office. I know there are usually third candidates who rarely gets mentioned, but they are so minor I do not see them until the election day

 

[BrawlMan]

REALLY don't want either Trump or Harris in the office. I know there are usually third candidates who rarely gets mentioned, but they are so minor I do not see them until the election day

Assuming the Green party is on your ballot or you want to go independent. It's either one of the other. All I gotta say is you don't want Trump and Vance. That much is clear and they'll take your rights away once they go to the next step in the totem pole. You also don't want the party that just tried to overthrow the government in 2021, and keep flooding in the crazy people in groomers.

Don't forget, that the only reason Trump gotten the office during the 2016 election was from the lack of people voting at all. All sudden, those people who thought their votes didn't matter. What is a vote right then and there in 2020.

 

[Silvanus]

I still stand by that it's not gonna happen.

OK, so back onto the topic, now that we've established that there actually isn't a law that would negate reversing Obergefell.

So on the question of whether it could happen. Your initial claim, that the Constitution itself precludes the Justices from overturning it, fell apart. What else have you offered except personal incredulity? Why should we believe you over the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who says it could be overturned?

It just seems like you are arguing just to argue or some semantics issue at this point. The law of the land saying XYZ (e.g. you can't have slaves) and the justices reversing XYZ is not a credibility consideration?

What does this even mean, "not a credibility consideration"? It would drastically damage the credibility and reputation of the SCOTUS if they ruled slavery legal. That's why they won't. The same is not true of overturning same-sex marriage.

 

[gorfias]

What policies, and how precisely did they help actual Americans?

I think people remember roughly what it felt like at a particular time, and if it was good, the President at the time gets the credit in their minds... even if he hasn't necessarily done a damn thing to change anything either way. Excluding external factors (tail end of financial crash - Obama, Covid - Trump, inflation spike - Biden) outside their control, growth under Trump was similar to Biden and Obama. What did Trump actually do, specifically? Or did he just happen to be president for a few years of economic stability?

You could also take immigration. Border security in the USA has not become significantly more lax. The USA has more immigrants coming because things have gone wrong somewhere else in the world and made more people think they'd better off migrating. (And/or potentially that the infrastructure to facilitate them to doing so has improved.) So the USA might want to do something, fine. But "Build the wall" was one of Trump's centrepiece policies. He just failed to do it. He failed to do it despite his party controlling both houses of Congress for part of his presidency. Complaining about immigration now just doesn't change the fact that Republicans are championing a guy who promised to do something about it, should have had the political power to do it... and failed.

Trump sure appears to have done things with regards to illegal immigration (and even reduced legal immigration) and fuel policies undone by Biden day one resulting in the following invasion. Trump topped off the strategic petroleum reserves. Biden drained them. Trump cut taxes spurring growth that benefited workers to the point that wages were up relative to inflation for the first time since I can remember. Biden just tells us we should be happy with what we've got as my own wages are down relative to inflation. And it is hard to know where we really stand on that. Under Trump, I'd spend $.89 on a dozen large eggs. Now they are close to $5.

And it's not just dollars and cents. Under Trump, we got USSC Justices that over-turned Roe (which I like politically but state was made up nonsense: legal hallucinations) while under Biden, we got a Justice that doesn't know what a woman is. And more.

On foreign policy, Trump put the US embassy in Jerusalem. He visited North Korea, from whom we have not heard the daily saber rattling happening before then. He negotiated a withdrawal in Afghanistan which Biden then unilaterally dismissed, pissing off our agreement partners and resulting in the following historical disaster.

That's for starters.

 

[Satinavian]

I REALLY don't want either Trump or Harris in the office. I know there are usually third candidates who rarely gets mentioned, but they are so minor I do not see them until the election day

IUt will depend on your state.

But the classics are
- vote a minor candidate
- write in a name
- make the ballot invalid by not choosing any of them or writing neither or something.

Most reports won't even bother to report votes that are not valid or Trump or Harris, so the effect over not voting is not big. But it is a way to protest.

However, the result will be Trump or Harris, so if you are doing that, you are giving up your choice of one over the other.

 

[Schadrach]

Noticing a pattern with these would be assassins?

That they can't make a shot my 70 year old mother with cataracts could probably land?

I highly doubt that. The Sahara dessert alone is nearly the size of the entire CONUS. Imagine if we can turn that into lush forest.
It'll be fine.

Propose a way to actually forest the Sahara and we'll talk. Otherwise...

Appears to be a hoax fucking how exactly?
Just a vague feeling you have?
You don't trust them hoity toity know it all's with their book learning and data records and physics knowledge?

It's something that moves too slowly and too gradually for a lot of people to wrap their heads around the degree of urgency being put on it. Especially when UN officials have been saying that we need drastic changes before the end of the decade or the results will be catastrophic, every decade since the 70s. That they were saying that for that long and we're not already in a post-apocalyptic hellscape makes some people file it as a hoax and then question what other goals such doomsaying might have. And that's where the conspiracy theories come in.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

I am, but only because there's an amendment that explicitly spells it out.

 

[BrawlMan]

That they can't make a shot my 70 year old mother with cataracts could probably land?

That too, but you already know what I implied beforehand.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

And then why has the Bill of Rights become so important? Because of the exact logic I stated. It's literally the same reason you can't have states interpreting parts of the constitution differently and removing candidates like say Trump from the ballot because then you'd have every blue state removing republican candidates and every red state removing democratic candidates.

It became important mostly because of changing societal attitudes regarding civil liberties through the work of the ACLU, the NAACP, and labor unions. All things that started in the early 1900s and impacted the supreme court's decision to apply the bill of rights to state governments in 1925.

Again, the bill of rights has applied to states for less time than it didn't. Since it was written there were 130 years where the bill of rights was only applied to the federal government, and less than 100 years were it was applied to both the federal and state governments, and it was applied to state governments purely due to supreme court decisions, not because of anything inherently in the constitution.

You made the claim that the constitution inherently protects gay rights. This was proven false based on historical court rulings. Then you made the claim that the constitution inherently protects free speech rights, this is also false based on historical court rulings.

Your freedom of speech has exactly as much legal protection as Roe V Wade did and that should be somewhat eye opening for you. Like I said, you can't logic your way out of history. You can point out as many logical loopholes and inconsistencies as you want, but 130 years of supreme court justices looked at those same writings and decided otherwise.

Also remember that half of the current supreme court see themselves as constitutional originalists, and think about how many rights the constitution did not originally grant.

 

[BrawlMan]

Harris leads Trump in Pennsylvania — and two bellwether PA counties — exclusive poll finds

Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump in Pennsylvania by 3 percentage points thanks to a major advantage with women voters, a USA TODAY poll found.

www.usatoday.com

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/09/17/politics/harris-trump-iowa-poll-wisconsin

Election 2024: Trump holds town hall in Michigan; Harris speaks with Black journalists in Philadelphia

The latest news and live updates on the 2024 election. Follow the Trump-Vance and Harris-Walz campaigns ahead of the presidential election in November.

www.google.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I have been in US for 20 years, and only became a US Citizen in 2019 and so far participated in just the Trump vs Biden election.

Because I barely paid attention to US social study/politics class in HS and college, I gotta ask; is there an option to say "I don't want either candidates?" or at least declare No choice?

I REALLY don't want either Trump or Harris in the office. I know there are usually third candidates who rarely gets mentioned, but they are so minor I do not see them until the election day

You can look at all the people on the ballot, I'm voting for Chase Oliver, he has the platform I most agree with. I don't care if he's not going to win, I vote for the person I think is the best. I literally don't care about popularity or name recognition and just look at the platform and what each candidate is for. If only everyone did that, we'd have better elected candidates.

The only thing with the presidential election and voting "strategy" is if you're actually in a swing state (a state that can go either way) and then voting for a 3rd party might lead to the worst candidate winning, then vote for the best of the worst essentially. To me, I don't see much of anything important changing if with Trump or Harris wins, status quo will remain the same. Part of the reason both sides run a campaign about "you can't let them win or else the sky will fall" is so you keep voting blue or red and continuing the status quo. It's just fear mongering.

OK, so back onto the topic, now that we've established that there actually isn't a law that would negate reversing Obergefell.

So on the question of whether it could happen. Your initial claim, that the Constitution itself precludes the Justices from overturning it, fell apart. What else have you offered except personal incredulity? Why should we believe you over the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who says it could be overturned?



What does this even mean, "not a credibility consideration"? It would drastically damage the credibility and reputation of the SCOTUS if they ruled slavery legal. That's why they won't. The same is not true of overturning same-sex marriage.

It does essentially/practically negate overturning Obergefell. Gay people will still be able to get married.

The fact that it's a written amendment in the constitution has nothing to do with credibility?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It became important mostly because of changing societal attitudes regarding civil liberties through the work of the ACLU, the NAACP, and labor unions. All things that started in the early 1900s and impacted the supreme court's decision to apply the bill of rights to state governments in 1925.

Again, the bill of rights has applied to states for less time than it didn't. Since it was written there were 130 years where the bill of rights was only applied to the federal government, and less than 100 years were it was applied to both the federal and state governments, and it was applied to state governments purely due to supreme court decisions, not because of anything inherently in the constitution.

You made the claim that the constitution inherently protects gay rights. This was proven false based on historical court rulings. Then you made the claim that the constitution inherently protects free speech rights, this is also false based on historical court rulings.

Your freedom of speech has exactly as much legal protection as Roe V Wade did and that should be somewhat eye opening for you. Like I said, you can't logic your way out of history. You can point out as many logical loopholes and inconsistencies as you want, but 130 years of supreme court justices looked at those same writings and decided otherwise.

Also remember that half of the current supreme court see themselves as constitutional originalists, and think about how many rights the constitution did not originally grant.

From Wikipedia:
The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence; in the words of Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution." The Court made no important decisions protecting free speech rights, for example, until 1931. Historian Richard Labunski attributes the Bill's long legal dormancy to three factors: first, it took time for a "culture of tolerance" to develop that would support the Bill's provisions with judicial and popular will; second, the Supreme Court spent much of the 19th century focused on issues relating to intergovernmental balances of power; and third, the Bill initially only applied to the federal government, a restriction affirmed by Barron v. Baltimore (1833). In the 20th century, however, most of the Bill's provisions were applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment—a process known as incorporation—beginning with the freedom of speech clause, in Gitlow v. New York (1925).

I'm aware the SCOTUS could literally overturn free speech if they want. There's a massive difference between free speech; a simple and basic law, and Roe v Wade that was legal nonsense. There's a reason why the Bill of Rights has to be applied to all states as long as the federal government or else it would literally be any state doing anything it wanted to do. You just can't have that. You'd have 50 different SCOTUS's then in essence. Even on the Trump ballot bullshit, the liberal judges said it was essentially bullshit as well. Regardless of what a judge leans they aren't gonna say a state can interpret a constitution law however they want.

 

[thebobmaster]

FAFO achieved.

Secret Service Probes Elon Musk’s Prez Biden and VP Harris Killing ‘Joke’

The tech billionaire deleted the X post and then lamented over why no one seemed to find it funny.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

From Wikipedia:
The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence; in the words of Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution." The Court made no important decisions protecting free speech rights, for example, until 1931. Historian Richard Labunski attributes the Bill's long legal dormancy to three factors: first, it took time for a "culture of tolerance" to develop that would support the Bill's provisions with judicial and popular will; second, the Supreme Court spent much of the 19th century focused on issues relating to intergovernmental balances of power; and third, the Bill initially only applied to the federal government, a restriction affirmed by Barron v. Baltimore (1833). In the 20th century, however, most of the Bill's provisions were applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment—a process known as incorporation—beginning with the freedom of speech clause, in Gitlow v. New York (1925).

Not sure why you decided to quote wikipedia at me when it literally says what I've already told you, and provided various articles for. What exactly are you trying to tell me with this and why do you think it upholds anything you've previously said?

I'm aware the SCOTUS could literally overturn free speech if they want.

That's not what you were claiming earlier. Earlier you were talking about how it's a right innately granted by the constitution and could never be touched by the supreme court.

There's a massive difference between free speech; a simple and basic law, and Roe v Wade that was legal nonsense. There's a reason why the Bill of Rights has to be applied to all states as long as the federal government or else it would literally be any state doing anything it wanted to do. You just can't have that. You'd have 50 different SCOTUS's then in essence. Even on the Trump ballot bullshit, the liberal judges said it was essentially bullshit as well. Regardless of what a judge leans they aren't gonna say a state can interpret a constitution law however they want.

What the supreme court did in Roe V Wade is return the ability to decide abortion issues to the states. If the supreme court chose to (which I don't think they would) they could do the same thing to a lot of other rights, under the pretext of constitutional originality, limited government, and states rights. Then you would have completely different rights depending on what state you are currently in, like what women are having to deal with now after the overturning of Roe V Wade, and what gay people have had to deal with for decades. You would have little democratic or republican kingdoms making whatever laws they want.

I understand that as a straight white man it's not something that you've ever had to think about or deal with, but I am trying to get you to understand that it's something that no one should have to deal with. The fact that you are so flippant about this is because it doesn't affect you personally, but the moment it will affect you it will be too late.

 

[FakeSympathy]

I am In Seattle, WA.

And given how insanely toxic the political opinions are here, and how much people seem to hate Republicans, I really am unsure if my vote will matter

 

[Silvanus]

It does essentially/practically negate overturning Obergefell. Gay people will still be able to get married.

RFMA simply factually doesn't do the same thing. It doesn't ensure that states cannot ban it, which is what Obergefell does. You can argue the different provisions in the RFMA are sufficient all you want, but that's not what we're discussing.

The fact that it's a written amendment in the constitution has nothing to do with credibility?

? I don't even understand what point you're trying to make here.

You tried to draw a parallel between same-sex marriage being overturned, and slavery being relegalised. I pointed out that very different factors are at play for those two issues. This waffle-sentence of yours doesn't address that.