Trump 2nd term prediction thread

Nope. You have free speech, and kinda an absolute one for libertarian republicans. Which means the government can't arrest you or seize your property for your speech. That's it.

It's a negative freedom (like all constitutional freedoms are), it's about what the government can't do to you because of your speech.

You want *subsidizes*, it can come with strings attached, nothing to do with constitutional freedoms.

There is no constitutional right to have your speech subsidized

Nope, it's opposite of what you're claiming. Which isn't all that unusual in conservative circles.

I understand you just simply despise me but can you elaborate about how, according to you, free speech (and other constitutional rights) aren't negative rights? ie a list of what the government can't do to you, with no provision of being guaranteed any active benefit?

I'm not sure where you're getting the despising from but like many topics you discuss your view is clouded by your own ideology and that prevents you from seeing things clearly.

What things i am not seeing clearly about constitutional rights being strictly only negative rights (in the american constitution)?

I had to laugh at Elon talking to the press talking about how "we" are going to do this or that. Who the hell is we? Does he think he's the first lady?

It's actually more plausible than Melania, now that I think about it.

Him and the power of the federal government.

I see we are at the homophobic innuendo stage of "moral superiority" on the left

How does "him" come into it? The Florida Panthers and I won the Stanley Cup last season I guess.

How does the biggest donor of a presidential campaign, owner of a social media company which was used as a platform for the campaign, who is personally advising the president-elect about filling the admin slots, and who was on one or more calls with foreign leaders togheter with the president, come into it?

it's a mystery

I don’t think the 4, 5, 6th amendments or voting rights amendments/acts are considered negative rights by most scholars.

4th is as negative as it comes: government cannot do X against you

5th is as negative as it comes: government cannot prosecute you unless y z k

6th is as negative as it comes: government can only have you under trial under some conditions (has to be speedy et c)

positive right is : government has provide you with something, could be healthcare, housing, welfare if poor, education (see many european constitutions)

and lol at voting rights being positive, they are *expliciitly framed* as THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT FROM YOU, again a negative right, something gvmnt can't do to you.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Free speech is "by virtue of existing you can say the **** you want with few exception , and the constitution exists to forbid the gvmnt from punishing you for that"

Why does it matter?

There were thousands of special operations Marines and other agencies in task forces at voting centers all over the country arresting people in states like TX and PA which will all become public hopefully sooner rather than later.

Remember when the swing states said "We won't know the results of the election for a few days" but all of a sudden they caved and it was over on election night? What do you think happened and why would they make those announcements if they didn't have any tricks up their sleeves?

And BTW, even though the DS stole the election last time in 2020, a lot of headway was still made in the past 4 years to take down these corrupt satanic crooked communists. Klaus Schwab stepped down recently as head of the WEF. Did he just wake up one day and say "I don't wanna do this job anymore"? No, that's not how power hungry people think.

I have a picture of a cat on a bbq grill being cooked by a tall black dude taken by someone in OH, but I'm seriously trying my hardest not to post it, I don't think people wanna see it. It wasn't a lie.

He's referring to the team he's on. It's not hard to realize that but hopefully in the near futer you'll finally realize these people are fighting for us, not for them.

because it makes linking federal money to requests to compel or avoid speech, not a violation of the 1a

Court has to balance Congressional spending with First Amendment rights
These cases fall under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions (also known as the doctrine of conditional spending). In each of these cases the Court had to balance the government’s interest in ensuring that funds were spent according to the will of Congress with any First Amendment rights that individuals implementing aid programs and aid recipients might have. The absence of an affirmative right for individuals to receive government aid has been central to this doctrine and these cases.

Are you calling me a liar?

Haha, he thinks he's going to get a piece. He might be right.

For some it will be about hope but mainly I think it's about wanting to crush your perceived enemies.

America is completely ****ed for the foreseeable future.

No. People who say crazy things usually don't realize what they're doing.

Which "perceived enemies" do you think 45% of latinos (that appears to be Trump voting share among them) want to crush?

And you are speaking from a country that has "slightly bigger problems" than they do (same works for me of course)

I realize what I'm doing, and "crazy things" is very subjective.

Have you hurd about this one yet?

I think you are lying that people were arrested in TX and PA by any military.