2024 ELECTION THREAD

tldr?

Can you clarify for us how you describe libertarian?
Do you consider maga/tea party true libertarian ?
If not how would you classify them ?

So we know what we actually talking about ?
I’m asking because your view on what Marxist and far left (and who’s representing them) are so out of common and mainstream definition I think it’s a legitimate question to ask how u perceive libertarianism .

Well 1 term president packing the Supreme Court with 3 judges seems a great example ?
Look at the $h!t show on abortion, president immunity , etc.

I didn't read a question toward that sorry.

I support everything that makes it harder for government to do anything, strictly, all the times.

Literally anything you can think of that makes it less likely government will be able to decide something is a moral good.

I would love unanimity for all decisions.

The filibuster is a step in the right direction so I like it.

But in general no significant decision should ever happen to change the status quo if there isn't an overwhelming public support toward change. The idea of an election allowing for significant change scares me deeply. Most things should be immutable unless the people change so much as to make it blatantly obvious almost everyone agrees with change in rules.

The ideal democracy is one in which whatever people vote your life changes almost nothing, all important things are completely unrelated to the voting outcome.

Unless, of course, you personally think that the specific change in question is a good one, in which case you'd want to see it enacted with as few impediments as possible. I mean, you said as much when you told us why you were in support of the Project 2025 proposal to replace thousands of civil servants with hardcore conservatives - you said that was good because it would help the republican executive get things done more easily.

No. I want a bodily autonomy amendment passed by normal rules I wouldn't be ok with SCOTUS inventing a right to body autonomy "in the penumbra" of the constitution just for leftists to reverse that when they have SCOTUS.

I am not an eversive enemy of the rule of law like your people are.

I want a reduction in taxation, I don't want SCOTUS to come up with some idea that taxes are unconstitutional.

Ofc removing a law should require simple majorities while introducing laws should require exceptional thresholds, and all laws should have mandatory sunset clauses, that's just to fix the asymmetry between approval and removal.

The total amount of rules existing shouldn't grow.

Removal of civil servants requires a simple law. Or the abolition of existing laws, there is no reason anyone taking money from the public, unless specified by the constitution, has any "job protections". That's simple contract law.

The default in employment is everyone can be fired at will (public or private) unless specific exceptions exist and they require a colossal amount of reasons to exist in the first place.

This is unresponsive to my statement. I was talking about your general principle, if you can call it that, that change should be as difficult as possible to implement. I was not talking about supreme court rulings specifically.

Changes that limit freedom should be as difficult as possible to implement yes, thanks for the clarifying statement.

Removal of rules very easy, as much as possible, introduction of all rules as hard as possible.

Rules: anything that limits freedom in any way or form

Their view is the opposite, that the conservative court has done things that are unconstitutional, and turned the court political. Giving near absolute immunity to the president for instance is one thing that they believe the Supreme Court did out of political expediency. Not having an enforceable code of conduct is another. Overturning Roe v Wade is another. In fact, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson all have issued dissenting opinions pointing to the change in the way court does things.

You talk about "rape" of the first and second amendment, but you don't even understand how the interpretations of these statutes have changed over time. It's as if you think the first amendment has always been seen as applying to every situation at all times, which is completely absurd. It only applied to the Federal government until after the passage of the 14th amendment, for one. There was seen as no such power limiting the scope of state and local governments. Secondly, even in cases concerning the first amendment, there have always been reasonable restrictions placed upon it. I'm not even really sure what you think the Democrats want to do with the First Amendment.

The second amendment, it was always considered not to be as extensive as it is interpreted nowadays. It wasn't until 2008 that the interpretation started to be more strict. I might actually agree with that, as it seems pretty clearly written into the law. But it was not this huge issue that you seem to think it was, and to be honest I just think in general Americans talk about guns way too much as a political issue. We're not going to completely eliminate gun death or massively restrict guns until we repeal the second amendment, I agree.

So it sounds like norms actually are important to you, only if you agree with them instrumentally. I don't see why Democrats can't have the same view on norms? Personally I think norms are way more important than people actually think they are. I was watching the debate between Kennedy and Nixon for the 1960 presidential election, and I was absolutely shocked at how different those debates are from modern debate. The policy discussion was much more substantive and the general decorum was fantastic.

I would say this was more of a "modern" type of norm, as for many years the disagreements could turn deadly even. But I do think that kind of respect for each other is something shockingly missing from American politics.

Just one example of a norm that I think has eroded over time that would be great to bring back. I do think Republicans were instrumental in getting rid of that norm when they started Fox News and conservative radio.

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 eversive.

The constitution doesn't prescribe an enforceable rule of conduct for SCOTUS so there is no constitutional argument about it and even presuming there is, is eversive.

If something isn't explicitly in the constitution don't even think there is anything about it. It's not hard.

Some words can be open to interpretation. But that's about it.

Everything else, until an amendment passes, you have to interpret as the day it was written or you are willingly abusing your powers.

The idea of a "living constitution"which the court reinvents is literal rape.

I know democrats subscribe to constitutional rapist ideas. That's why they are a threat to democracy as all leftists generally are.

The 2a Is symbolic. I might even not agree with it as written. But it is a symbol of what adhering to the constitution means. You disagree you amend it, as it happened many times. Until you do you bend your ****ing knee and accept it as the sovereign rule above everything and don't even dare to warp or manipulate to go above it because you want to achieve something which the plain text doesn't allow you to.

Re the 1a, I have to check if until the 14a it didn't apply to states. Doesn't sound true to me but I will check.

Regardless, today the 14a exists so you have to accept what you decide to call"misinformation" will always exist and you can't even attempt to censor it.

Even claiming you would like to censor it makes you a pariah of society, someone who should be barred from ever holding public office, an enemy of the constitution.

Democrats already pushed big tech to censor social media, it already happened. The government shouldn't even have any conversation at all about content which isn't illegal with any private actor, it's incredible to think that should happen in the first place.

Lol.

That made me click to see what he said and omg. That is one extremely disturbed mind.

He's "literally" raping the English language for a start.

I have responses to the other stuff you wrote, but this one is probably the easiest to debunk. What exactly do you think is meant by the tenth amendment? The founding fathers explicitly DISAGREED with this view, so much so they made an entire amendment to make it clear.

When did the Democrats pack the court?

So the stupidest human being to ever run for president is now advocating for the purge?

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

.

I know you probably think you have some kind of coherent point here, but to me this is completely incoherent and fails the basic test of noncontradiction. You can't hold the view that the Supreme Court reading an immunity into the constitution that is simply not explicitly stated is valid while saying that if something isn't explicitly in the constitution you shouldn't even think about it. Let's ignore for a second I don't agree with your last statement, by your own lights the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds.

But let's also point out the SCOTUS gave themselves a code of conduct in response to criticism of Justice Thomas's actions. They at least seem to think there is good reason to have a code of conduct, if only to shield the court from the optics of being above the law.

More to the point, we all know that the president should have some kind of immunity from criminal prosecution, and likely absolute immunity from civil prosecution. The difference is that belief that they have absolutely no oversight for official acts. I don't think you understand how expansively the court interpreted the President's immunity. From the dissenting opinion:

Basically they made it so that any official channel cannot be used as evidence in a prosecution. That makes it nearly impossible for the president's communications to actually be used against him to prove that something is not an official act.

If you truly hold this opinion, you would be disgusted by the ruling of the Supreme Court.

It's a really great way to not have to provide any argument when you just use inflammatory words and don't try to understand people's positions in good faith.

Constitutional originalism is a queer notion to me, since many aspects of the constitution have been amended, and as amended you have to interpret how to apply the amendments to what the written text already says. Furthermore, there are certain interpretations of powers, like the first amendment, which have changed starkly over time, oftentimes to expand them. At one point, there were lots of "obscenity" laws that were based off of "community standards" which is very nebulous. There were also laws relating to seditious and treasonous statements that have been controversial and haven't stood the test of time. And oftentimes when we talk about original intent, we are dealing with an issue of a current interpretation needing to be updated to cohere to the original interpretation, meaning that interpretation of the constitution OBJECTIVELY changes over time. Even this issue of reading in presidential immunity can in many ways be used as evidence of the "living constitution" theory.

Yes, the 2a is symbolic... that's exactly the point... you can't just read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and have a clear understanding of what that means in every case, and that's how it has been interpreted broadly.

lol so you don't even know one of the basic aspects of constitutional interpretation but I'm supposed to take your opinion seriously on the matter? You want to call things constitutional rape but don't even understand basic aspects of the constitution? Amazing.

You realize that there are laws about not misrepresenting the day of the election etc already on the books, right? You actually have no idea how anything works in America. Maybe stick to Italy and EU, that's what you seem to have knowledge about.

"Democrats" are not "the government".

Democrats can advocate for Big Tech to do certain things and it has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment whatsoever. "Democrats" are just individual people.

If there is a Democrat that wants to make a law to ban certain political speech using congress, that's obviously against the first amendment. But it's not clear that you even have a right to all manner of speech. There are plenty of laws that restrict speech. So let's be clear on the words we use and whether they actually apply to the constitution or we're talking about moral principles that can be adjudicated using elections.

Loving your work, checkraisedraw. Good stuff.

I take your point, but court packing traditionally refers to expanding the size of the court.

It is certainly correct that checkraisedraw has a much better handle on U.S. constitutional law than Luciom does.

On most topics, he is one of the more coherent posters in the forum.

Trying to get noticed by Emperor Sklansky and get in the IQ standings, obviously.