Biden - Approval

[XenoMorph]

(10-12-2022, 04:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Wasn't there a ban o semiautomatics  in place until 2004? [I just realize it's in the article] I ask for that could mean that such a law being unconstitutional might be a temporary assessment instead of one set in stone. This is what I'd say, the SC is not so much a guardian for the constituton these days as it is a political branch of government, as political as the other two really. Five liberal judges might very well have a different take an such a law.

Sure I'd also say the constitution is not to be treated like Christians treat the Bible. It is open to interpretation, to a certain bending, and in the end also for being amended. In that sense alone, I think it's fine to demand laws that might not be in line with the constitution in its current form and its current interpretation by a conservative SC. Constitutions and/or interpretations can legitimately change, if the public support is there and the ballot box shows as much for example.

Democrates have been attacking the Consitution and our Rights for years its like a war with them.  After the last general election and all the things that happened to cover it up..

Do people Believe the Ballot Boxes anymore?

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 04:24 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Democrates have been attacking the Consitution and our Rights for years its like a war with them.  After the last general election and all the things that happened to cover it up..

Do people Believe the Ballot Boxes anymore?

Well, yeah, most people do. You apparently don't, but that's not on democrats, that's on Trump and it's on you for wanting it to be that way. Which can be the only reason for you asking this question in this manner, since no court, no observer and no state official, liberal or conservative, found a single piece of actual evidence for systematic voter fraud.

[Rotobeast]

(10-12-2022, 02:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll probably pop in from time to time.

Sup, Homie ?


Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

[Dill]

(10-12-2022, 04:24 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Democrates have been attacking the Consitution and our Rights for years its like a war with them.  After the last general election and all the things that happened to cover it up..

Do people Believe the Ballot Boxes anymore?

??? That's a pretty wild accusation, on behalf of the party that supports a coup attempt

and against the party which sponsored the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act which broke the back of segregation. 

Hannity and Tucker have a different view of history and government, though. In their view temporary mask mandates and 
similar efforts to curb a deadly pandemic are violations of the Constitution, a "power grab," along with background checks for
gun purchases. Is that what you mean by a "war on the Constitution"? 

What happened after the last general election? 

First thing that comes to my mind is that Trump sent a mob to storm capitol hill "peacefully" while his cohorts
presented Pence with a fake list of electors from  7 states, in hopes of overturning a fair election. 

The fight since then has been whether to investigate the perpetrators of that coup attempt, or to dismiss the riot
as a few ANTIFA trying to make Trump look bad. The mob investiture of the Capital had nothing to do with the
guy who called that mob to the Capitol to insure Pence "did the right thing" and accept the fake lists--invalidating 
the ballot boxes. 

The "cover up" will begin if Republicans win back the House and shut down the investigation. 

[Arturo Bandini]

(10-12-2022, 04:24 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Democrates have been attacking the Consitution and our Rights for years its like a war with them.  After the last general election and all the things that happened to cover it up..

Do people Believe the Ballot Boxes anymore?

Like how ? Did they decide to control your body or something like that ?

What right did you lose ? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-12-2022, 03:54 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Glad to see you back. I had noticed an absence recently, this place wasn't as active without you. Hope all is well. 

Thanks, brother.

(10-12-2022, 04:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Wasn't there a ban o semiautomatics  in place until 2004? [I just realize it's in the article] I ask for that could mean that such a law being unconstitutional might be a temporary assessment instead of one set in stone. This is what I'd say, the SC is not so much a guardian for the constituton these days as it is a political branch of government, as political as the other two really. Five liberal judges might very well have a different take an such a law.

Completely correct, and you're almost certainly correct about a more liberal court deciding differently.  Of course, the same argument could be made about the Roe v. Wade decision, or pretty much any SCOTUS decision.  What makes this different, completely, is that the court just ruled on this issue this exact calendar year.  The composition of the court has not changed.  Yes, there is a new member, but it's a liberal member replacing a liberal member.  There is literally zero chance the current court makes a different finding. 

Going further, and outside of the Bruen decision, was the much earlier Heller decision, which was decided in 2008.  This specifically forbid the banning of firearms, or arms (e.g. magazines, ammunition, accessories) "in common use".  As defined by the less than knowledgeable on firearms Dems (in general) there are well over 20 million "assault weapons" owned by private citizens in the US.  This clearly meets the "in common use" standard set forth almost fifteen years ago.  This doesn't even require the application of the much more strict interpretation of Bruen.  But using just Bruen as the standard, which should be the case as it is now law, an "assault weapons" ban is clearly unconstitutional.  The POTUS publicly advocating for the passage of an unconstitutional law is clear grounds for impeachment.  It is literally no different than saying he wants to pass a law that forbids women from voting.  It's a clear violation of his oath of office.

Quote:Sure I'd also say the constitution is not to be treated like Christians treat the Bible. It is open to interpretation, to a certain bending, and in the end also for being amended. In that sense alone, I think it's fine to demand laws that might not be in line with the constitution in its current form and its current interpretation by a conservative SC. Constitutions and/or interpretations can legitimately change, if the public support is there and the ballot box shows as much for example.

On this you are incorrect.  Public support is absolutely not grounds for unconstitutional laws.  Remember, this is a sword that cuts both ways.  A more liberal person may see this as just defiance to a SCOTUS ruling they disagree with.  Now picture that same person decrying a proposed law under a second (god forbid) Trump administration.  Consistency is the key here, not what works for you (not you specifically) today but you'll disagree with when it's used against you tomorrow.  Either SCOTUS decisions are to be adhered to or they are not, it's not a buffet where you get to take what you like and leave the rest, all the while another person does the exact same thing but with completely different items on their plate.  You are certainly correct that things change with time, e.g. Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, but we're talking about the passage of several years, if not decades.  Certainly not the passage of a few months.

This does lead us to another interesting topic, which is the "threat to our democracy" that the Dems like to consistently bang the drum to.  In fact we hear it frequently here as well.  Is not open defiance to a SCOTUS formed completely under the law an direct assault on our democracy?  Is not constantly labeling said court as "illegitimate" a direct assault on our democracy?  Again, we need to be consistent.  Either directly opposing our system is a direct danger to that system or it is not.

Lastly, goddamn you, just when I thought I was out, you dragged me back in! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-12-2022, 04:52 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Sup, Homie ?


Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

Good to "see" you.  Hope all is well.

[*Nately120*]

(10-12-2022, 04:24 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Do people Believe the Ballot Boxes anymore?

Voter turnout was decently high in 2016 and 2018 and 2020 despite the face of a major political party declaring that each election was rigged before it happened.  Even people who think it's rigged still vote and still accept the result as long as their candidate won.

It's like football fans who hate how wimpy the game has become, yet still love seeing a sack on their QB turn into a 15 yard gain because the passer was "roughed."

I live in rural PA and I know people who KNOW the polls are lying and Oz and Mastriano are going to win in a landslide.  If one or both of them lose I assure you I will hear how rigged it was.  If they both win it's going to be "Of course they won, Trump won this state by a landslide in 2020." If neither win it's going to be "This has to be rigged, how could they lose in a state where Trump won in a landslide?"

Oh and I also know a woman who denies the 2020 election and she and her husband both say machine elections are rigged.  She ran for some local tax collection position and lost and when I told her to say the election was rigged she declined.  That could have been interesting. 

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The POTUS publicly advocating for the passage of an unconstitutional law is clear grounds for impeachment.  It is literally no different than saying he wants to pass a law that forbids women from voting.  It's a clear violation of his oath of office.

Well, I would see a huge ethical difference. As for legally and if that's grounds for impeachment, I don't know. A president saying he wants to do things seems a bit thin for that in any circumstance. It's not a high crime and not a misdemeanor to advocate for things, imho.

It's impossible for me to get into the specifics you mentioned though. For lack of knowledge. I pull the foreigner card here.

(10-12-2022, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this you are incorrect.  Public support is absolutely not grounds for unconstitutional laws.

I think it is. I agree though, probably not on the basis of months, but in general and over time. But of course to be precise I'm not advocating passing laws in defiance of the constitution, but to amend the constitution. Or, in case of the 2A, maybe the legal interpretation.
But I don't know exactly how that process would go down, and I'd agree it was not what Biden had in mind probably. I know your constitution was amended several times, and possibly as a result of great public demand, advocates of change being voted into office and so on. Ideally it's a ballot box issue. But if enough folks that are for amending the 2A (or any other constitutional change) are elected, then I'd say it's legitimate to think about a change that apparently is widely supported. Not that this is the reality right now, sure.

But I don't want to defend Biden on that one, I can not and don't know if he'd deserve it here. This is just a very theoretical thought, and I should have known better as to talk to you about 2A issues. You have deep specific knowledge about it, I don't. All I can reply really is "But what about Boettcher vs. The state of Arizona?" and see how long it would take you to realize I made that up. Since this thread becomes a reunion of sorts, maybe Bels will show up and get into it more.

(10-12-2022, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This does lead us to another interesting topic, which is the "threat to our democracy" that the Dems like to consistently bang the drum to.  In fact we hear it frequently here as well.  Is not open defiance to a SCOTUS formed completely under the law an direct assault on our democracy?  Is not constantly labeling said court as "illegitimate" a direct assault on our democracy?  Again, we need to be consistent.  Either directly opposing our system is a direct danger to that system or it is not.

I think that is a bit constructed as a comparison. The threat to democracy Democrats mention is Trump leading violent insurrections, trying to overturn election results or to put people in place who will not defy such a request. The threat you mention is proposing a law that SCOTUS will struck down anyways. That is not so much a threat to democracy as it's the system avoiding that like it's supposed to; a point often made when it came to Trump's wild proposals and ideas.

(10-12-2022, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lastly, goddamn you, just when I thought I was out, you dragged me back in! 

Well,maybe me weaseling out of this reply makes you reconsider :) Else, what's the harm in engaging a bit. I myself was more frequently out of here for several weeks lately.

[Rotobeast]

(10-12-2022, 05:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Good to "see" you.  Hope all is well.

Not bad.
Wife just had radiation treatment for her thyroid cancer that went stage 3, but we're cautiously optimistic.
Switched from Libertarian to Republican, as the Libertarian Party is no longer recognized in the state of Ohio and my network has expanded with many R's in Ohio leadership. I'll convey my principles from within the machine...lol

Hope you've been well.

On topic, Biden has been..... mushy, but I expected worse and even tip my hat on occasion.

Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

[SunsetBengal]

(10-12-2022, 07:11 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Not bad.
Wife just had radiation treatment for her thyroid cancer that went stage 3, but we're cautiously optimistic.
Switched from Libertarian to Republican, as the Libertarian Party is no longer recognized in the state of Ohio and my network has expanded with many R's in Ohio leadership. I'll convey my principles from within the machine...lol

Hope you've been well.

On topic, Biden has been..... mushy, but I expected worse and even tip my hat on occasion.

Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

I've been back in Ohio for a little over a year.  Too bad you weren't in my district, I would have voted for you.

[*Nately120*]

(10-12-2022, 07:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I've been back in Ohio for a little over a year.  Too bad you weren't in my district, I would have voted for you.

Im in PA but I illegally voted for him 1000 times.  Excuses, excuse. 

[Rotobeast]

(10-12-2022, 07:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I've been back in Ohio for a little over a year.  Too bad you weren't in my district, I would have voted for you.

(10-12-2022, 08:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Im in PA but I illegally voted for him 1000 times.  Excuses, excuse. 

Thank you both.
That means more than you'll ever know.

Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

[StoneTheCrow]

(10-12-2022, 12:11 PM)Dill Wrote: A dark sign for the Democratic Party's prospects mean

a dark sign for the prospect of democracy in the U.S.

Good God are you liberals ever melodramatic. It’s gotta be exhausting.

Proceed with your 14 paragraph dissertation in response if you must.

[ATOTR]

(10-13-2022, 12:06 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Good God are you liberals ever melodramatic. It’s gotta be exhausting.

Proceed with your 14 paragraph dissertation in response if you must.

These same defenders of democracy also think it’s unconstitutional and oppressive to make a voter show valid identification to cast a vote. Lol

[BigPapaKain]

(10-13-2022, 12:10 AM)ATOTR Wrote: These same defenders of democracy also think it’s unconstitutional and oppressive to make a voter show valid identification to cast a vote. Lol

Actually most don't think it is. It's the hoops one would have to jump through to get said valid ID that many find blatantly oppressive. If you register to vote and they send you a voter ID, than yeah its fine. If you have to drive 6 counties over to go to the one place that allows it and wait 8-10 months for processing, then that's a bit on the 'undemocratic side'. And since the GoP has show time and time again that they like to make it difficult to vote in places that don't almost exclusively for the GoP, guess which scenario they push for (though I may have exaggerates the processing time to make our government seem more efficient than it actually is).

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2022, 07:23 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Actually most don't think it is. It's the hoops one would have to jump through to get said valid ID that many find blatantly oppressive. If you register to vote and they send you a voter ID, than yeah its fine. If you have to drive 6 counties over to go to the one place that allows it and wait 8-10 months for processing, then that's a bit on the 'undemocratic side'. And since the GoP has show time and time again that they like to make it difficult to vote in places that don't almost exclusively for the GoP, guess which scenario they push for (though I may have exaggerates the processing time to make our government seem more efficient than it actually is).

Misrepresenting the positions of the Democrats and those to the left of them is the bread and butter of right wingers. They have no idea what our actual positions are because they blindly follow their propagandists. It's why for threads like these started by the obviously ignorant I just ignore them. No point in playing chess with a pigeon.

[ATOTR]

(10-13-2022, 07:23 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Actually most don't think it is. It's the hoops one would have to jump through to get said valid ID that many find blatantly oppressive. If you register to vote and they send you a voter ID, than yeah its fine. If you have to drive 6 counties over to go to the one place that allows it and wait 8-10 months for processing, then that's a bit on the 'undemocratic side'. And since the GoP has show time and time again that they like to make it difficult to vote in places that don't almost exclusively for the GoP, guess which scenario they push for (though I may have exaggerates the processing time to make our government seem more efficient than it actually is).

Show me where anyone has to travel 6 counties and wait 10 months to get an Id to vote?

They try to make it difficult to vote in rural areas? To hurt the gop?

You’re making things up.

[ATOTR]

(10-13-2022, 08:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Misrepresenting the positions of the Democrats and those to the left of them is the bread and butter of right wingers. They have no idea what our actual positions are because they blindly follow their propagandists. It's why for threads like these started by the obviously ignorant I just ignore them. No point in playing chess with a pigeon.

Threads that link bidens current approval rating are ignorant and propaganda.

Hahhahahahaha

This is amazing stuff.

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2022, 08:45 AM)ATOTR Wrote: Threads that link bidens current approval rating are ignorant and propaganda.

Hahhahahahaha

This is amazing stuff.

Man, you really just did a great job of doing exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for confirming my assumptions.