2020 Election MEGAthread

[Jibartik]

Hmm if that's true, can you explain why the Right that wants to overturn Roe v Wade (for the evangelical vote) -- while the Democrats and their appointed judges are the ones that protect these libertarian values: "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration"

Edit: The argument I have as to why it's good is: any persons opinion that the right or the left is nazi or marxist or (legislate/don't legislate, good/evil) should be mute, we should not let either of those "sides" have complete/majority control of the SCOTUS... Therefore if one side packs the court with judges that are in line with their ideology so the voters are happy, we need to make sure the other side that is trying to protect other voter's ideologies have an equal voice, (as this is a representational democracy).

[Patriam1066]

I’d bet $88 trump would get his ass kicked in a fist fight with Biden

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I’d bet $88 trump would get his ass kicked in a fist fight with Biden

I'll raise you to $1488. My guy has 3" height advantage, way longer reach, an extra eighty pounds and is four years younger. Watch him seize power, establish breathing room, then push Biden as far east as he can with his armored gloves.

[FatherSioux]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hmm if that's true, can you explain why the Right that wants to overturn Roe v Wade (for the evangelical vote) -- while the Democrats and their appointed judges are the ones that protect these libertarian values: "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration"

Edit: The argument I have as to why it's good is: any persons opinion that the right or the left is nazi or marxist or (legislate/don't legislate, good/evil) should be mute, we should not let either of those "sides" have complete/majority control of the SCOTUS... Therefore if one side packs the court with judges that are in line with their ideology so the voters are happy, we need to make sure the other side that is trying to protect other voter's ideologies have an equal voice, (as this is a representational democracy).

They don’t want to overturn Roe. This is a false narrative. Primarily due to stare decisis.. As it stands today only one justice would overturn Roe vs Wade. This is the Lefts worst nightmare, Clarence Thomas. Even if it was over turned though it would then become
a states right, which is how this should be handled. Which is a great segue, the Left routinely oversteps via the court by not letting states make
These decisions. Gay marriage and likely soon legalization of weed. You can argue merits on either side but these should be states rights.

[Pretzelle]

Originally Posted by FatherSioux [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They don’t want to overturn Roe. This is a false narrative. Primarily due to stare decisis.. As it stands today only one justice would overturn Roe vs Wade. This is the Lefts worst nightmare, Clarence Thomas. Even if it was over turned though it would then become
a states right, which is how this should be handled. Which is a great segue, the Left routinely oversteps via the court by not letting states make
These decisions. Gay marriage and likely soon legalization of weed. You can argue merits on either side but these should be states rights.

Why should individual states control constitutional freedoms?

[FatherSioux]

Originally Posted by Pretzelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why should individual states control constitutional freedoms?

Need to use more words friend. What freedoms do you speak of?

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hmm if that's true, can you explain why the Right that wants to overturn Roe v Wade (for the evangelical vote) -- while the Democrats and their appointed judges are the ones that protect these libertarian values: "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration"

I'm going to turn this around on you. The Republicans are trying to appoint judges that respect the sanctity of human life and also very importantly follow the intent and the words of the Constitution, whereas the Democrats like to appoint judges that allow people to murder other human beings in the name of 'privacy' and they do this not because they are idealistic but because they are venal.

Here's a intellectual exercise for you. You really want to kill your neighbor. Really really. So one day you pop him in the head and the police come and you're like sorry, this is a private matter and the government shouldn't get into it.

But the police are like no, this is a murder scene. And you're like listen; this guy was affecting our quality of life. He kept playing loud music for nine months. And then on the tenth month he turned it up louder, so we couldn't sleep at all. When we confronted him, he said he was going to keep doing it for the next eighteen years, maybe twenty. How can we enjoy our lives? How can we make all that money we planned, how can we buy stuff and go on vacations with all this? Thank you for staying out of this private matter, we have given this our conscientious consideration and decided it was all good.

You have just aborted your loathsome neighbor for convenience.

Keep in mind that the vast vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience. So the career doesn't go off track. So daddy doesn't get mad. So you can still party.

This is why I and other Republicans object to Roe v. Wade. Not because it legalized abortion. No one in their right mind understands abortion can be completely banned. It's because it legalized abortion for convenience as a matter of privacy and said yes this is Constitutional and proper. We disagree. If you want to have your abortions you need to come up with a better reason than it's my business.

Roe v. Wade is an abomination as jurisprudence because it invents new "rights" from whole cloth. Literally the only mention of "privacy" in the Constitution is the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Think long and hard, take all the time you need, and try to come up how that one sentence allows you to kill the baby in your womb.

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

protect these libertarian values: [

I would also caution against using the word "libertarian" to mean free as in "freedom" and positing it as something desirable. I would suggest it means something closer to "selfish" and "irresponsible".

Some theorists, such as Hayek (1960), argue that it can be permissible for people to be forced to pay for basic police services. But this argument seems problematic within libertarian theory. If people do not agree to their legitimate possessions being used for these purposes, it would be unjust to force them to pay for these services, even if they clearly benefit a benefit as a result. After all, libertarians generally deny that merely receiving a benefit suffices to justify enforceable requirements to pay

I think people should think hard about supporting a philosophy which posits that forcing people to pay for police protection is unjustifiable coercion.

I gotta tell you, I wouldn't want to live next door to a libertarian.

Would you?

[FatherSioux]

BlackBellamy gets it.

[Toad1]

Originally Posted by Woke Locc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There Will Be No Trump Coup

By Ross Douthat
Opinion Columnist

What is this pussy going to do when trump wins shit himself?

10$ he got his tater tots stolen every monday in elementary school, id squish his burger too