2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
SCOTUS gave the president the same immunity the other branches of government have, as per the constitution (you can't arrest a member of Congress for what he voted for even if he voted for atrocious things).
Roe vs Wade was an invention of rapists of the constitution that made up a right that never existed as proven by states which had anti abortion laws for more than a century (which abundantly proves it isn't unconstitutional to have such laws). It had to be repealed and defending roe v Wade is
But maybe they didn’t include full immunity to presidents specifically to agree on your second point which u keep bringing up all the time for other issues ?
So SCOTUS must be wrong for according immunity to presidents since it wasn’t specify in the constitution ?
And has a libertarian , shouldn’t you be disgust for a president to be full immune , increasing dramatically the power of government to do w.e he wants through the president .
I thought republicans libertarian love to complain about the lack of accountability of governments and yet praise the SCOTUS decision about immunity ?
And you're not? How do you demonstrate your "disobedience", you daring dissident, you? Posting on the internet about how the West is a shithole while enjoying every comfort it has to offer? Quite the fearless freedom fighter, risking life and limb to express your dissatisfaction with the status quo there, Victor.
The point wasn't that his show is satire, my point is that comedians making political commentary is pretty in line with how comedy has always historically been used. Maybe the big difference is that some comedians like to escape the responsibility that they have as comedians and media figures by saying stuff like "well I'm just a stupid comedian, what do I know?" while having millions of people watching them. I'm thinking people like Joe Rogan or Jimmy Dore. Once you enter into the commentary sp
Thoughtful reply with some good points and I wanted to get back.
So I'd say, nobody knows what is going on in the minds of various politicians, D or R. How many are cynical and corrupt, deluded, doing their best, totally clueless? We don't really know. Dan Carlin got to meet a few big politicians after he got famous enough and his take away was that he was terrified by how many were just completely empty suits. I can see that. A lot of Tracy Flick types, if you ever saw the movie Election.
However, I would submit that we do know that any politician who supported the Iraq war is either a de facto psychopath or negligent/incompetent almost beyond belief. At the time, most of the case for the war could be debunked by consulting alta vista, and though the GP might not have know this, certainly a senator should. I'm sure most are now aware that left over mustard gas from WW1 poses no threat, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Islamic terrorists, there's no such thing as a dirty bomb, etc. and I'll leave it there. Something like a million dead, and something like $3 trillion gone.
But anyway, how policy is made is something of a black box. Our votes go in. Tens of billions of special interest money goes in. Other things go in. We don't know what is going on in senator X's mind when he votes, but we see what comes out.
On HC. I know socialized HC isn't perfect. I recently read something saying Canadian HC outcomes really aren't much better than US. IDK. Even in that article, they had to concede that we pay 2x what they do for outcomes that are, at best, even.
You can do a google image search on hc cost per capita and find a million of these. There is no legitimate reason for this. It's extortion.
There are so many areas like this. Americans are not guaranteed vacations, sick days or family leave. Most other countries have these things and most voters want them. People like Hillary say this is "wanting a pony." Everyone under 40 gets info online and has friends around the world knows that they are commonplace and that we could easily have them. In fact we could have that, and literally buy everyone a pony for the Iraq pricetag.
If the idea that is that reform is impossible, or Republicans prevent it somehow, I would point to something like our total 180 on gambling. For generations, IMO the US really had it right on gambling. You had the right to do it, but it was very inconvenient. You had to go to Vegas, AC, some sleazy CA cardroom, or play bingo at church, etc.
Most other countries had more liberal gambling laws, but now that you can gamble on your phone many are trying to limit the destruction that causes. We've decided to do the opposite.
I'm also gonna assume that most on this forum know that gambling benefits a handful of advantage players, the corporations that own the casino and is damaging to about everyone else it affects. Divorce, suicide, domestic violence, embezzlement, empty retirement, college and emergency funds, people who could have owned homes living in apartments, etc. down to people just having less money. Sorry kids, no vacation this year.
There is a libertarian philosophical argument that people have the right to indulge in destructive vices, even if their actions also harm others. But many Rs are ostensibly religious conservatives who wish to uphold public morality and promote stable families. Some Rs are strong libertarians, but not that many. Dems can be somewhat libertarian on social issues, but mostly ostensibly believe in consumer protection, incl protection from himself. Neither party is especially interested in legalizing cocaine or prostitution. They insist on an unpopular drug war. So it's not like they've all become libertarian in general.
Why has this 180 on gambling swept most of the country, from Mississippi to NY? Something once almost universally recognized as a dangerous vice, is now openly promoted all over the place. Perhaps because, like the Iraq war, it means a large transfer of wealth from the GP to Wall Street, which funds both parties and takes care of most politicians.
Why would a major policy shift that is, by most accounts, objectively terrible for society sweep through, where policy changes that are, insofar as is possible, objectively good for society (family leave, vacations, cheaper and universal HC) be forever doomed? It's especially weird given the ostensibly ideological positions of the people making these policies. Family values Republicans and labor friendly Dems should both be for family leave, and both say that they are, yet nothing happens. Consumer protection Dems and Family values Reps should both be opposed to 24/7 instant access to gambling on your phone and heavy advertising for it, yet it easily sweeps the country and fraudulent touts have regular spots on Sports Center.
You have it wrong on gambling, it's about taxing an activity that will happen anyway and which is far harder to enforce against with internet.
Once they realized gambling would be widespread and the state monopolies on lotteries and the like with their fat tax take were under pressure they legalized it, which is sorta what happened in several European countries with far more statist/leftist governments as well including Italy.
Gambling is a tax on stupidity yes, but a lot of the revenue goes directly to politicians to spend as taxes.
As for family leave, vacation days and so on, every state can pass laws on that and a few did. Why do you want the federal government to be involved in that?
I don’t want to click ‘view post’ on Lolciom more than I have to but I’m curious what any reasonable human being would consider McConnell blocking literally every possible judicial appointment with the explicit goal of waiting for a Republican president and senate majority to rubber stamp it all if not packing the court
As with all things, I’m sure mousalololololni’s ridiculous bad faith nonsense is bad faith nonsense but still
Packing is when you increase the seats available so you can put your people in the new seats because you govern in that moment.
On overtime pay, Trump slips up by accidentally telling the truth
Donald Trump admitted that he concocted a private-sector scheme
to avoid paying his own employees overtime compensation.
So much for his "pro-worker" pitch.
And you're not? How do you demonstrate your "disobedience", you daring dissident, you? Posting on the internet about how the West is a shithole while enjoying every comfort it has to offer? Quite the fearless freedom fighter, risking life and limb to express your dissatisfaction with the status quo there, Victor.
posting is praxis
Thoughtful reply with some good points and I wanted to get back.
On HC. I know socialized HC isn't perfect. I recently read something saying Canadian HC outcomes really aren't much better than US. IDK. Even in that article, they had to concede that we pay 2x what they do for outcomes that are, at best, even.
CDN Healthcare sucks. I moved to a new province and on a waiting list of 3-4 years for a family doctor. If you need elective surgery like a knee or hip the waiting time is 2-3 years in a good province. Many provinces are sending patients to the USA . Cancer here can be a death sentence waiting to see a oncologist . If you have money you fly to the US for care .
Fentanyl is one of the reasons are health care is in trouble as well as the money we spend to keep seniors alive .
Universal Healthcare can work but not with societies as unhealthy as the USA and Canada
CDN Healthcare sucks. I moved to a new province and on a waiting list of 3-4 years for a family doctor. If you need elective surgery like a knee or hip the waiting time is 2-3 years in a good province. Many provinces are sending patients to the USA . Cancer here can be a death sentence waiting to see a oncologist . If you have money you fly to the US for care .
Fentanyl is one of the reasons are health care is in trouble as well as the money we spend to keep seniors alive .
Universal Healthcare ca
Waiting times are insane in Italy as well, because we are healthier but older so the same happens at the end. You need to prioritize life & death situations which you deal with but chronic problem management becomes bad and if you have an occasional non life threatening problem you either go private (which doesn't cost too much tbh for normal stuff) or you simply give up hope when they tell you they will see you in 5months for your skin or pain problem.
Cancer you get followed, it's the run of the mill problems that won't get you to face a taxpayer paid physician before they either go away or become life threatening.
No matter the original intentions, given budget constraints those healthcare system morph into "emergency care insurance + free meds for chronic problems" which isn't nothing but isn't "good healthcare" either.
What's your opinion on the recent floods in NC, will they affect elections and if so in which direction?
As for family leave, vacation days and so on, every state can pass laws on that and a few did. Why do you want the federal government to be involved in that?
Red states and rural areas are already massively propped up by federal dollars. They're effectively children that live under the roofs of cities and CA. They take our money so we have a say in how they live. If they don't like it, become financially self supporting then they can come back with an argument on how they should be able to decide for themselves.
Red states and rural areas are already massively propped up by federal dollars. They're effectively children that live under the roofs of cities and CA. They take our money so we have a say in how they live. If they don't like it, become financially self supporting then they can come back with an argument on how they should be able to decide for themselves.
Very good reason to abolish those federal programs yes, what are you waiting for? or do you want to first check who in the red states are the beneficiaries?
also pls check the map with funding per resident which isn't quite what you guys like to claim
CDN Healthcare sucks. I moved to a new province and on a waiting list of 3-4 years for a family doctor. If you need elective surgery like a knee or hip the waiting time is 2-3 years in a good province. Many provinces are sending patients to the USA . Cancer here can be a death sentence waiting to see a oncologist . If you have money you fly to the US for care .
Fentanyl is one of the reasons are health care is in trouble as well as the money we spend to keep seniors alive .
Universal Healthcare ca
Sad to hear for you.
me its all good.
yeah its not perfect and we wait a bit but i ill take Canada over USA every single time on healthcare and education.
Very good reason to abolish those federal programs yes, what are you waiting for? or do you want to first check who in the red states are the beneficiaries?
Red states will not vote to abolish the federal aid they are dependent on, so I would like to see employers in red states carry their weight rather than expecting me to do it. That's more feasible in terms of laws that can reasonably be passed. Federal funding per capita is not the relevant stat. it's federal tax dollars recieved per capita minus spending. By those metrics rurals are the worst by far.
Red states will not vote to abolish the federal aid they are dependent on, so I would like to see employers in red states carry their weight rather than expecting me to do it. That's more feasible in terms of laws that can reasonably be passed.
You know the vast majority of the federal help is medicaid/chip and you know the ethnical distribution of recipients in very red states so why do you keep claiming it's "red states" that are "dependent" on that help, and not specific subdemographics living in red states but overwhelmingly voting democrat or not voting?
You know the vast majority of the federal help is medicaid/chip and you know the ethnical distribution of recipients in very red states so why do you keep claiming it's "red states" that are "dependent" on that help, and not specific subdemographics living in red states but overwhelmingly voting democrat or not voting?
No. West Virginia is super white and hyper dependent on my money because of their conservative culture. If they would opt out of federal aid, fine by me, but it would create a refugee situation productive america does not want to deal with
You know the vast majority of the federal help is medicaid/chip and you know the ethnical distribution of recipients in very red states so why do you keep claiming it's "red states" that are "dependent" on that help, and not specific subdemographics living in red states but overwhelmingly voting democrat or not voting?
No we don't know. Please share the "ethnical" distribution of recipients in these states.
No we don't know. Please share the "ethnical" distribution of recipients in these states.
Why the inverted commas? This is Missouri with 67 % of blacks on medicaid vs 34% of whites
Stats are similar for every red state
No. West Virginia is super white and hyper dependent on my money because of their conservative culture. If they would opt out of federal aid, fine by me, but it would create a refugee situation productive america does not want to deal with
Who told you that WV is "hyper dependent" on your money? they get 4600 per person, which is only very slightly over the american avg, while paying less into the system than other americans having lower incomes.
They might be taking something like 1500 per year per person from the rest of the USA, not only from democrat taxpayers though- Is $100 per month per person "hyper dependency"? maybe without that, they would move to where they can be more productive (and no lol that wouldn't be being a "refugee") and/or change their state to the better.
You even got a senator out of that deal for a long while though so i don't think you got ripped off at all, rather the opposite.
Yes, I think we've all heard the apologia for why welfare dependency is actually fine as long as they're whites.
