2020 Election MEGAthread

[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.

[Woke Locc]

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

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.

The womb is generally regarded as a private area, as settled in Birds v. Bees

[Jibartik]

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

It’s an obvious move to pack the courts with legislate from the bench liberal judges. The Right does not legislate from the bench the same way the left does. The left sees the SCOTUS, as another branch to legislate from. The right sees it as a way to protect the tenants of the constitution.

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

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' [the constitutional right to privacy]

Like this post 100% contradicts your post FS, but you said, that BB "gets it"

This is why I dont get it.

Again, im pro life, just pro constitution as well, and in this instance the democrats are the ones protecting it. The conversation isnt about your moral stance on abortion, its about if you think the scotus should legislate or not.

This proves that you need democrats and republicans to fight for the constitution, it proves that we need a balanced number of judges, not a court packed with one ideology that thinks it's protecting the sanctity of life.

If one political party, packs the court with their ideology, we need balance, we need the other side. Otherwise, legislating is exactly what you're trying to do.

[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?

[Donkey Hotay]

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

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.

Replace police with say, the BBC license fee and that position takes on a favorable aspect.
I'm not advocating libertarianism--my simplistic gut take is that it requires a higher IQ parity than humanity demonstrates and is therefore political philosophic wankery. I prefer my governing systems to pay at least lip service to protecting the stupid from the amoral.

[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]

BlackBellamy gets it.