US 2024 Presidential Election

[tippy2k2]

You can't offer anyone shelter if you tear the buildings down

...



This is why nobody likes to talk to you here

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Nazi cultists being weird. Imagine thinking this is a sane and normal thing to do.
View attachment 12083

I’ve only seen the Latinos but maybe there’s been other instances like it.

 

[Chimpzy]

I’ve only seen the Latinos but maybe there’s been other instances like it.

 

[Hades]

So I have a question about Michigan. It has a fairly sizable Muslim minority. If they stay home on mass would this tilt the election to Trump?

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

So I have a question about Michigan. It has a fairly sizable Muslim minority. If they stay home on mass would this tilt the election to Trump?

Speaking of Detroit and Muslims -

 

[Silvanus]

So I have a question about Michigan. It has a fairly sizable Muslim minority. If they stay home on mass would this tilt the election to Trump?

There's no single 'tipping point' but it could very well decide the Michigan election.

Biden won Michigan in 2020 by ~154k. There are ~206k Muslim voters in Michigan. Biden held 65% of the Muslim vote, and Harris is on track to get about 14%. If those numbers were mirrored in Michigan specifically, she'd lose in the upper tens of thousands from Biden's 2020 total. But that alone couldn't cost her the state if all else was equal.

Michigan accounts for 15 out of 93 highly-competitive "battleground" electoral votes, 41 of which Biden would need.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And I've answered the question multiple times already. You wouldn't need to keep asking if you read the answer the first time.

In practice, although they could, it would be extremely unlikely to last very long (well, barring a significant cultural shift in the future). Not due to the constitution standing in their way.

You keep editing my quote and leaving out pertinent info.

"You've said that SCOTUS won't do such a thing because of perception but then the fact that the constitution essentially says "No Slavery" has nothing to do with perception. That makes no sense."

What you're failing to understand is that precedence doesn't always exist. Once again, that's literally what defines a landmark decision: The court's decision creates a new precedent.



The point you were trying to make was that the Court not overturning the 13th Amendment evidenced that they lacked the power. What I was invoked there was showing that the Supreme Court does indeed have the power, and that they didn't overturn the 13th Amendment due to a lack of desire to do so rather than a lack of ability. And as shown to you repeatedly, how they fall on an a given case often involves a considerable amount of subjective judgement and even spin. See once again the contradictory rulings on whether or not anti-miscegenation legislation was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.



And we call that "quote mining", aka a "contextomy": the removal of a quote from the context necessary to understand it, and then claiming that it holds a different meaning than it does within that context. Once again:

The actual argument was that the laws banning abortion as a matter of course without regard for circumstance violated the Due Process Clause. It concluded that while the State cannot override that right entirely, it has its own interest in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life represented by the fetus, with that interest overriding the woman's right to Due Process later in the pregnancy when abortion procedures (at least at the time of ruling) posed a much greater risk to her own health (ie, the increasing risk hit a point where it outweighed the benefit).

While privacy was an element of this, the case gets bastardized by ideologues as claiming that the case was wholly "based on a right to privacy" which they - and you - pretend was conjured out of the aether (when in fact Griswold v. Connecticut that first explicitly claimed that it was a constitutional right a few years earlier, the case law officially establishing it as precedent dates back to the 1920s for Federal Law and 1900s at the State level, and had been explicitly opined on in the Harvard Law Review in the 1890s), and further bastardize it by pretending that the case declared it to be some unalienable right, which the plain text of the case shows - in no uncertain terms - was not actually the case. Roe v. Wade was explicitly a compromise position.

Once again, you failing to understand the case because you have gotten its basic facts wrong is not the same thing as it not making sense. Perhaps it would make more sense to you if you actually took the time to read up on it rather than simply parroting editorials whose writers had an axe to grind.



No, what you do is alternate between saying that it's ridiculous to believe that Obergefell will be overturned, characterizing the arguments on which Obergefell is predicated as ridiculous ("Read the arguments for Roe and most of Obergefell and tell me those arguments aren't shit with a straight face"), and that it doesn't matter one way or another if Obergefell is overturned. Because at the end of the day you care more about going "nuh-uh!" whenever somebody tells you that you're wrong about something than you do about creating and maintaining an internally consistent position. And you're too proud to ever consider that the many, many people calling you out on your erroneous claims might just be right about you speaking in ignorance, especially considering that you consistently show that you're also too lazy to actually read up on the subjects you're opining on.



Again: We were not talking about a hypothetical. That's a fiction that you conjured up purely to pretend that the points explaining why your position didn't hold up to scrutiny didn't matter.

I invoked declawing cats as a contemporary example to illustrate how changing attitudes result in the laws changing to reflect those attitudes. Never mind that you're once again missing the forest for the trees. The point you're ignoring (seemingly deliberately at this point) is that this example reflects a fundamental priciple of the legal system.

Under our legal system, the law has an obligation to be clear and unambiguous. It is a binary. The only answers to whether or not something is protected are "yes" or "no". Not "maybe", not "in theory". If you cannot say - affirmatively and with certainty that the answer is "yes", then it is "no" until such time that the law and/or courts declare otherwise. Because to do otherwise would violate one the central tenets of our legal system: A law can bind only when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies to acquire knowledge of it in order to observe it. If the law is not clear on an issue, then it cannot bind because it allows for reasonable people to come to contradictory conclusions, creating good faith violations of the law even with proper knowledge. If there cannot be a reasonable expectation that you should know better, the law is not binding in that respect. Hence, once again, the Vagueness Doctrine.

If you successfully argue in court that something that has not historically been recognized as protected should be, that establishes a new precedent that is used from that point forward. This is why changes to legal definitions are a big deal, because that directly impacts what the law does and does not cover.

To repeat:

This is not a debatable point nor is it difficult to understand. Bluntly, your failure to understand as much is exactly that: your failure to understand. These are extremely basic and uncontested principles. In fact, they're premises that our legal system is built around. You're simply refusing to even try to understand them, and then confusing your willful lack of personal knowledge on the subject (and apparent lack of interest in learning about it) for its content being ambiguous. It's not ambiguous or "up in the air," you're just being obtuse.

Here, let me give you a little fable to try to get this through to you: There once was a man who never got any education to speak of, going into the job market as soon as he had the strength in order to support his family. He grew up to be very hard working, but obviously not the most knowledgeable sort. He eventually had a daughter, and was very determined that she'd get a proper schooling. His hard work paid off, and he was able to fund her education, and she ended up not only graduating high school but getting a scholarship to a decent college.

He was very proud of her, and had a bad habit of trying to get her to show off her 'fancy learning' in front of his friends. So one day, he was talking his friends on the porch and his daughter - home for the weekend - came by. True to form, he shouted, "Hey hun! Speak some geometry to me!" Exasperated, she relented and responded "Alright! The area of a circle is equal to Pi R square."

At first he was speechless. Then he was furious. He shouted back: "What are they teaching you in that cockamamie school? 'Pie are square'? That's ridiculous! Any idiot knows that pies aren't square! They're round!"

What I want you to understand is that that this entire conversation is centered on the functional equivalent of you insisting that "pi r squared" must be wrong because "pies are round". You're making ridiculous objections to basic principles, rooted in nothing but your own preconception and misconceptions about a subject that those same objections make clear that you have no knowledge of. The arguments you're making aren't clever, they're painfully stupid. And the fact that you can't even see that is a testament both to how far out of your depth you are and how determined you are not to learn. You keep demanding that people prove things to you, but you ignore everything cited to you, and even your own sources once it's pointed out that they don't support your conclusions. It's not about knowledge for you, just your ego.

And you know what? I'm done wasting my time on you. It is not worth my time to keep on trying to educate you, including re-checking sources, thinking up applicable examples and analogies to facilitate that education, finding applicable case law, quoting definitions, and both invoking and explaining relevant concepts if all you're ever going to do is go "nuh-uh! That doesn't make sense to me! Therefore it must be wrong!" before turning to "well that doesn't count because I'm not actually talking about reality!" when it finally does make sense to you. Rather than learning from your mistakes you simply dig your heels in and stonewall to the point of literally and explicitly declaring that reality doesn't have any bearing on an argument about how your presumptions don't match reality. And when you show that you're willing to dig your heels in that far out of sheer stubborn pride, that makes it clear that any attempt at discussion with you is an exercise in futility.

So good day to you.

I know precedent doesn't always exist, that's the point I'm making. When it comes into existence it's because of legal arguments that use current laws to come up with the decision. Hence, it is "discovered".

RBG literally said Roe was based on right to privacy... Again, are you claiming she is wrong?

I literally don't even know what you're talking about. I said Obergefell won't be overturned because it has constitutional protections (unlike Roe) because they did eventually argue properly in the Obergefell. I only said much of the argument in the case were pointless. I've probably read more the oral arguments (the straight transcript) than anyone here, but I'm the ignorant one, sure thing!

A perfect example is the Miller Test for whether something is obscene. You can't list literally everything that would be considered obscene. So something we don't know is obscene (legally) can be "discovered" to be obscene by legaling arguing it and applying the Miller Test.

 

[Asita]

I literally don't even know what you're talking about.

As I said, I'm done wasting my time on your pretensions, so I'm just going to leave you with this: That line right there perfectly encapsulates the issue. You not only don't know what I'm talking about, but you generally don't know anyone is talking about, including - as you're repeatedly shown over this and many other topics - the very sources you cite, which you consistently show that you never bothered to fully read, even as you claim otherwise. You clearly presume that everyone else must be as lazy as you and therefore that saying "uh yeah, I totally read them!" is enough to convince them that you must know what you're talking about, even as the people you're talking to are liberally quoting the same and additional sources - and often at length and explaining the surrounding context in detail - to show that both those sources and the broader data don't actually say what you claim.

You don't listen. You don't read. And you don't know what anyone is talking about. But you still deign to pretend that you know more about the subject than even people in the fields that you're condescending about when they tell you that you are speaking bonafide nonsense and that your preconceptions don't match reality. You are not an expert with any authority on these subjects, nor are you even well-read on them. You're a layman with a below-average understanding of them. So nobody gives a damn whether you think it makes sense because it's very obvious how little you know about the topic, and consequentially your uneducated guesses hold no weight.

 

[tippy2k2]

What a chicken shit non-answer

I've been told repeatedly that we have to vote for her because she'll protect the LGBT community but this sure as hell doesn't sound like someone who is willing to go to bat in any way, shape, or form for the T part of that at the very least...

Like I stated, if Democrats would get more power throwing LGBT under the bus, they'll do it in a heartbeat

 

[tstorm823]

...

This is why nobody likes to talk to you here

Because I won't let it be easy for you.

Have you considered the possibility that you're just basing your political identity on opposition to Republicans? You are certainly willing to break with Democrats, but only when they agree with Republicans. It's one thing to see the world in black and white, another entirely to see the world as black and all sorts of other shades that don't really matter that much as long as you maintain that one party is the bad guys.

 

[tippy2k2]

Because I won't let it be easy for you.

Have you considered the possibility that you're just basing your political identity on opposition to Republicans? You are certainly willing to break with Democrats, but only when they agree with Republicans. It's one thing to see the world in black and white, another entirely to see the world as black and all sorts of other shades that don't really matter that much as long as you maintain that one party is the bad guys.

...

What in the flying fuck makes you think that I think that just The Republicans are bad? I've spent most of this stupid ass thread shitting on Democrats and somehow I'm seeing the world in just black and white where The Republicans are the only bad guys?

Both parties are absolute shit who would betray their closest loved one if it got them just a little bit more power. Fuck'em all.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What in the flying fuck makes you think that I think that just The Republicans are bad?

Limited playbook, I guess.

 

[tstorm823]

...

What in the flying fuck makes you think that I think that just The Republicans are bad? I've spent most of this stupid ass thread shitting on Democrats and somehow I'm seeing the world in just black and white where The Republicans are the only bad guys?

That is the opposite of what I said. You're not seeing the world in black and white, you're not seeing shades of gray either. You identify one group as bad, and then judge others as good or bad relative to that. You can see Democrats as bad (unlike some others here) but only when they agree with Republicans...

Don't define yourself by who you hate.

 

[tippy2k2]

That is the opposite of what I said. You're not seeing the world in black and white, you're not seeing shades of gray either. You identify one group as bad, and then judge others as good or bad relative to that. You can see Democrats as bad (unlike some others here) but only when they agree with Republicans...

Don't define yourself by who you hate.

I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say so I'm just going to nod my head and smile

 

[tstorm823]

I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say so I'm just going to nod my head and smile

Eh, fair enough.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Seanchaidh]

Let's try another situation-- not as a direct analogy but as a separate thought experiment.

Say we're aware that someone is bleeding out in a remote location, and we estimate their chances of survival are approximately 50/50. We also know there are two other people nearby the victim who haven't spotted him yet: a regular average guy with a basic medical kit, and a homicidal maniac.

We then find out, separately, how each of these bystanders act. We find out the maniac fails to spot him and leaves? My relief increases! I'd estimate his chances have increased. We find out the regular guy fails to spot him and leaves? My despair increases! I'd estimate his chances have decreased.

Very different recalculations in response to the exact same act being observed from two different people. Because of their inclinations, we've inferred likelihoods about how they otherwise may have acted.

Mm, yes, we should all hope the next murder is committed by a serial killer, that would be so much better than if it were a first-timer.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

What a chicken shit non-answer

I've been told repeatedly that we have to vote for her because she'll protect the LGBT community but this sure as hell doesn't sound like someone who is willing to go to bat in any way, shape, or form for the T part of that at the very least...

Like I stated, if Democrats would get more power throwing LGBT under the bus, they'll do it in a heartbeat

Hm, so I guess she's advocating for it to be left to the states? Like Texas and Florida?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Analysis: How Arizona Republicans' Voter Purge Scheme Backfire -

In recent years, Arizona Republicans have implemented proof-of-citizenship requirements for registered voters, claiming it was necessary to prevent

buzzzingo.com

Fucking lol.

 

[Silvanus]

You keep editing my quote and leaving out pertinent info.

"You've said that SCOTUS won't do such a thing because of perception but then the fact that the constitution essentially says "No Slavery" has nothing to do with perception. That makes no sense."

This has already been addressed. Perception (as in, the perception of impartiality) is one of numerous factors. The constitution is one small facet of what influences that perception of the SCOTUS.