US 2024 Presidential Election

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,133
965
118
Country
USA
You should bear in mind that I come from a country where the selection of political representatives for election, and frequently the way parties select their leader and thus potentially the national leader, is often less "democratic" than the average US primary. It is similar in many Western countries. And yet a significant number of these countries have democracies that are in many respects substantially healthier than the USA's.
Yes.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,571
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have all explicitly been against Obergefell and Kavanaugh would likely vote against it as well.





So significantly more than one justice.



Sure, except Republicans are explicitly against most of those things as well. Wealth equality? Public healthcare options? Those are for dirty socialists. Remember, Republicans are actively trying to prevent the government from capping medication costs.




If supreme court justices started talking about reexamining whether having a federal statute on murder was constitutional I would find that to be pretty concerning.
So...? It looks like only 3 justices would vote to overturn possibly. Plus, the marriage law that passed would still let gay people get married, they'd have to travel to a state then that allows it. Why are you so worried about it?

But Trump initiated an insulin cost reduction that Biden then froze...

Again, that's why I said it's nonsense. Only laws that are actually against the constitution could be ruled unconstitutional. As long as the law doesn't go against the constitution, you can make it a federal law. If that wasn't the case, then the entire federal legislative body would be pointless. You're worrying about something that literally makes no sense.

Strange then, that for 226 years, the Constitution was in operation and yet gay marriage was not legal.
You have to challenge it... I'm sure there's more things that will be deemed as protected by the constitution in the future as well.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,273
12,208
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,010
6,327
118
Country
United Kingdom
You have to challenge it...
And what do you think the effect of such a challenge would've been (for example) 150 years ago?

I'm sure there's more things that will be deemed as protected by the constitution in the future as well.
So right now, they're not constitutionally protected, are they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,200
6,475
118
Strange then, that for 226 years, the Constitution was in operation and yet gay marriage was not legal.
This vaguely reminds me of the time I read someone make an argument that the Constitution had been written with foresight by the Founding Fathers to outlaw slavery, it just took three generations before anyone noticed and tried to do anything about it.

To this day, I remain deeply unconvinced by that argument.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,571
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
And what do you think the effect of such a challenge would've been (for example) 150 years ago?



So right now, they're not constitutionally protected, are they?
Would there have been much of a point to it 150 years ago? Did married couples get that much benefits back then?

They are in theory protected. My company for example breaks federal labor law, I challenged it and got paid all my money.

This vaguely reminds me of the time I read someone make an argument that the Constitution had been written with foresight by the Founding Fathers to outlaw slavery, it just took three generations before anyone noticed and tried to do anything about it.

To this day, I remain deeply unconvinced by that argument.
There is literally a slavery amendment added to the constitution so the constitution to that point didn't outlaw slavery or at least no one thought it would or else they would've just challenged that vs making an amendment (and amending the constitution is a lot harder than challenging it so...).
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,010
6,327
118
Country
United Kingdom
Would there have been much of a point to it 150 years ago? Did married couples get that much benefits back then?
Answer the question.

They are in theory protected.
In what theory? Do you mean they're protected in an interpretation of the Constitution that you hold, but which is not legally in operation?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,571
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Answer the question.



In what theory? Do you mean they're protected in an interpretation of the Constitution that you hold, but which is not legally in operation?
I don't know, I'd need a time machine.

There's many things that are discovered to be constitutional or unconstitutional.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,010
6,327
118
Country
United Kingdom
I don't know, I'd need a time machine.
You do know. I think you know as well as I do that such a challenge would've never been successful 150 years ago. Under the same constitution.

In fact, Obergefell probably would have been unsuccessful even 6 years prior. Because if a single judge had voted the other way, it would've failed. So if it was launched in 2010, and Stevens was there instead of Kagan, it would likely have failed. And you'd then be here arguing that gay marriage is obviously unconstitutional.

There's many things that are discovered to be constitutional or unconstitutional.
When you say "discovered", that's an interesting choice of word. Because they're not "discovering" anything, are they? They haven't found anything new, buried under rubble. The exact same words are still on the same legally-operational document as before.

What you mean is that they're choosing to interpret those words in a different way. Justified in legalese, but ultimately dictated by the political situation in the country and the personal dispositions of the judges.
 
Last edited:

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,273
12,208
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male

Tell us something we don't know.

Somebody is in trouble.

 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,571
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You do know. I think you know as well as I do that such a challenge would've never been successful 150 years ago. Under the same constitution.

In fact, Obergefell probably would have been unsuccessful even 6 years prior. Because if a single judge had voted the other way, it would've failed. So if it was launched in 2010, and Stevens was there instead of Kagan, it would likely have failed. And you'd then be here arguing that gay marriage is obviously unconstitutional.



When you say "discovered", that's an interesting choice of word. Because they're not "discovering" anything, are they? They haven't found anything new, buried under rubble. The exact same words are still on the same legally-operational document as before.

What you mean is that they're choosing to interpret those words in a different way. Justified in legalise, but ultimately dictated by the political situation in the country and the personal dispositions of the judges.
It's based on arguments as well. Just because something goes to the Supreme Court and they rule that it's not constitutionally protected, doesn't mean that is indeed the case. It means the argument was weak/invalid. Just because they overturned Roe doesn't mean that abortion as a right isn't protected by the constitution, it means the argument from Roe does not prove it to be constitutionally protected. You can make another argument. Or, you know, just make a law. And yes, the way people look at and interpret things changes over time as well.

Look at it like a game for example. People discover a new technique or strategy in a game all the time, and a lot of times the developers didn't even intend it. It's something that was always in the game but people discovered it.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,010
6,327
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's based on arguments as well. Just because something goes to the Supreme Court and they rule that it's not constitutionally protected, doesn't mean that is indeed the case. It means the argument was weak/invalid. Just because they overturned Roe doesn't mean that abortion as a right isn't protected by the constitution, it means the argument from Roe does not prove it to be constitutionally protected. You can make another argument. Or, you know, just make a law. And yes, the way people look at and interpret things changes over time as well.
If the law doesn't actually stop anyone from banning it, then you cannot say it's "protected". If you or I can make a perfectly rationally solid argument for something to be protected by the Constitution, but the Courts haven't said so and states/orgs can ban all they want, then where's the protection? I literally could not exercise the right.

Look at it like a game for example. People discover a new technique or strategy in a game all the time, and a lot of times the developers didn't even intend it. It's something that was always in the game but people discovered it.
Riiiight, but in that analogy, if someone just discovered it before, they could have done it with the same tools. A better analogy would be the developers introducing a patch, mechanically changing what people could do.

Let's say there was an item, the description of which said it provided a 20% buff to all classes. Except.... it didn't actually work on Rangers. Then 250 years later, the devs patch it so the item now properly functions with all classes. And you try to convince me that the item always worked on all professions, because it's right there in the description!
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,916
864
118
Country
United States
If you're trying to use this to make Trump look good...

View attachment 11766

you've failed miserably
Who cares what he eats, he doesn't hate Asians as is commonly preached by the Dems. Also, where's Asians for Kamala, Asian Men for Kamala, That's what I thought.


Common DNC-2024 L.

I love not living in a swing state where the top of the ticket does matter. Still, I am voting for Harris, and leaving the Senate vote blank.
 

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,950
2,081
118
Country
United States
You can expect it to be all over the news tomorrow or possibly Thursday. Trump Media is about to drop under $20.

Screenshot_20240827-202728.png


Trump will be able to start selling what stock he owns in sept, I believe stocks just released for his early investors.

I think I mentioned this before but the reason this relevant to the election is that speculation on the stock value based on likely hood of Trump becoming president. The above article talks about it, but essentially wall street is betting against a Trump presidency.

Trump just released 3 million more shares for exchange.

Expect Trump to put out a statement to his supporters essentially telling them to buy stock to show loyalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan