The Politics Megathread

[kenx]

@Ceildric
That sounds like a fallacy. I think you meant "opposition".

@BroederTrapist
Reminds me of all those VRMMO novels, like Legendary Moonlight Sculptor ot Carn Online.
But I think this would be the real futuristic way to elect a new president.

 

[EOTFOFYL]

I differentiate things like whistle blowers from conspiracy theorists and mad men. You don't keep the State honest by terrorizing everyday people.

 

[Tamerlane]

@schlo

Yeah, I combined the IQ point and the low-information point not because I wanted to conflate the two, my bad. I wanted to illustrate that people generally just don't have time to he as informed on all the issues, and that not everyone is as intelligent to focus on all the issues.

As for the electoral college, I have been respecting it as a buffer more and more over the years. I used to be very against it, but now I think that I have some respect for it as an institution.

I'd say reform the electoral college so that it has multiple houses like Congress in which one house is based on popular vote and the other is closer to how it exists now but not winner-take-all. I'd keep faithless electors as a buffer in case of issues with corruption or if there's enough doubt about authenticity, but only in the house not based on the popular vote. The idea then is that both houses have to agree on who to vote for, and if they don't, the issue goes to a contingent election within the house of representatives where each state gets a single vote. The bicameral system works great for congress so a similar institution I'd imagine would work well for the Electoral College.

@EOTFOFYL

Normally I would agree that we'd be unlikely to have another civil war, but when you have 126 House Representatives across 40 states and 18 states calling the election into dispute and they keep getting stonewalled, and when you have people who want to hold government to account but see that several states are outright violating the constitution and are seemingly getting away with it, then I'd say that it's very possible things may go south very quickly if there isn't a means of recourse that could satisfy both parties. Which is what the biggest fear is.

 

[bigtiddyoneesan]

@EOTFOFYL
I think "conspiracy theory/theorist" is a term that's used too often nowadays in order to shut down and ridicule opposition (after all, that was the purpose of coining the term in the first place). That's not to say I'm not skeptical whenever something far-fetched is touted, but it can be helpful not to completely rule out possibilities predominantly from the "that's too out there, no way it's true" logic.

Not trying to dunk on anyone tho, just my two cents on the term.

 

[EOTFOFYL]

@Tamerlane

but see that several states are outright violating the constitution and are seemingly getting away with it

What exactly are you referring to?

The court order is pretty clear to me, and they literally have a say on what's constitutional or not.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

 

[Tamerlane]

@EOTFOFYL
The governor of Michigan is defying the Supreme Court's order that she's violating the first amendment with the lockdowns and the right to peacefully assemble.
The Mayor of New York is similarly arresting people who are operating businesses like bars during Quarantine, despite that also being a violation of the first amendment

Sorry, should have specified that I wasn't referring to the Texas case, though you could argue that the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case, only on grounding, which is a different issue entirely

 

[schlo]

@Tamerlane i think the governor should be locked up for defying the Supreme Court order. To me she is setting a bad precedence, if she is not dealt with will other governors be allowed to defy other orders? If so do they get to pick and choose? Can I pick and choose?

 

[Ceildric]

@EOTFOFYL

Whistleblowers have no power that the system does not allow them to have. If the system is so corrupt that it decides to not allow them power when it does not suit the system (as it has done in the case of the mass of whistleblowers coming forward to expose issues with the current election), then all you are supporting is theater.

It then falls to those willing to take up arms and demand the right thing be done, and not wait any longer for the corrupt to turn themselves in to themselves for trial.

 

[2SpiritCherokeePrincess]

The Supreme Court has 6 conservatives, 3 of whom were appointed by Trump. 👹 I guess some people will say they all love Biden for upholding the law.😜 By the way, Texas has a law saying that no one can sue the state of Texas--what hypocrisy to be suing other states.🤠

 

[blackyawgdom]

Fun Fact. However much you hate Nancy Pelosi, you should realize that she has the legal and constitutional ability to remove right now, 126? (I think there were 126 members of the House of Rep that signed onto the Texas lawsuit) from their elected positions. Article 3 of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Tamerlane]

@2SpiritCherokeePrincess

The court case was not determined on the merits of the case but because they court didn't believe that they had the authority to question how another state conducts its election. Whether or not the states violated the law was not what in question, as the court just decided whether or not they would take the case. It's inarguable that several states didn't pass laws through their state legislatures and so they essentially have just gone against the constitution of the United States of America. (Also just because SCOTUS didn't take the case doesn't mean that they necessarily made the right decision. SCOTUS has made errors before, and has had to reverse decisions.)

Also an appeal to hypocrisy does not mean Texas was wrong to try and point out the fundamental issue that several states have just unfairly changed their laws last minute without going through the proper channels, which is unfair to the states who have went through the proper channels.

Also if you want to look to people upholding the law, Biden definitely is not it. Look at the Hunter Biden story and you'll have enough evidence to say that man does not care about what the law says. He is the embodiment of political corruption.

@blackyawgdom Technically no, because they were in their legal right to put forth a lawsuit, and, additionally, they were suing on the grounds that the other party had violated the constitution, so they were not aiding or imbedding enemies of it. If she were to try and attempt to make this legal claim, not only would that definitely lead to mass civil unrest, but she would not have legal standing because the representatives in question can not in good faith be called insurrectionist.

Besides, if she did that, it would lay the groundwork for both McCarthyism 2.0 and outright rebellion given she would have ousted people entirely based on her own biases

 

[EOTFOFYL]

@Tamerlane

Freedom of peaceful assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their collective or shared ideas.

Operating a bar during a quarantine under the guise is the 1st amendment is an absolute joke.... And the Michigan case appears to be a lack of authority unrelated to the 1st amendment.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/10/03/919891538/michigan-supreme-court-rules-against-governors-emergency-powers
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/02/gov-whitmer-slams-supreme-court-ruling-warns-orders-could-continue/3597614001/
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-legislature-michigan-legislation-gretchen-whitmer-c79f38dc0cd73f4f2d175b2a30460131

Edit:

Also if you want to look to people upholding the law, Biden definitely is not it. Look at the Hunter Biden story and you'll have enough evidence to say that man does not care about what the law says. He is the embodiment of political corruption.

Hunter Biden != Joe Biden, unless he interferes with the investigation your worries are unfounded.

 

[Tamerlane]

@EOTFOFYL

The first amendment says exactly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The wikipedia article you took your quote from is talking more broadly in the sense which applies to many nations which define it more in political lines, which the constitution does not expressly mention, nor can I find any rulings within the supreme court that would allow a government to indefinitely close a business or prevent its operation. (Similar to how the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of curfews.) The closest I can find is that SCOTUS ruled against Governor Andrew Cuomo's rules on religious gatherings during COVID 19 because it was against the first amendment. (Here is that case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20A87)

When you're talking about people's livelihoods and the fact that small businesses can't afford to stay closed indefinitely like this, it essentially is the government overreaching. Just as the government technically can't force you to wear a mask (but businesses can), they can't force a business to temporarily close down for an indefinite amount of time if they are not doing anything that harms the public.

For instance: a quarantine is when you separate sick people from society as not to infect people in wider society. It's not quarantine when you lockdown everyone within society but a handful of essentially people, as that is outside of the abilities of the state to enforce.

Think of it like this: people have the right to put themselves into bad situations or potentially dangerous situations. It goes with the right to bodily autonomy that if someone wants to do something that may harm themselves, it technically cannot be outright illegal as people have the right to do with their own bodies what they see fit as it is their property. Therefore, I would classify that someone would have a right to operate their business in a Quarantine because they are taking a risk, just as the customers have the right to attend, even if they are putting themselves in risk.

What's more important, freedom or safety? The right to make a living or to prevent people from potentially catching a disease? Where is the line, and if you favor the latter, what occupation could you not argue exposes you to a disease?

 

[kenx]

Ah, definitions. The old enemy of society.
Sadly, people either ignore them or assume them to fit whatever they want, even if the law should only accept that which is strictly defined within its boundaries as the basis for its application. Though rulings can set precedents in case there's a loophole.

 

[Tamerlane]

@kenx

Most arguments are secretly arguments of definitions or semantics but people don't realize it.


Though I should note I have no issue with temporary voluntary lockdowns for a short period of time, it's the fact things are indefinite and have been going on for months that makes me feel as if we need to wrestle back our rights from the government and assert that they're overreaching. You have to assert your rights or they'll be eroded.

 

[EOTFOFYL]

What's more important, freedom or safety? The right to make a living or to prevent people from potentially catching a disease? Where is the line, and if you favor the latter, what occupation could you not argue exposes you to a disease?

We can literally have both, the solution is just clogged by politics, the problem made worse by shitty people. And for the record my State got hit fairly hard and we're trying to bring those numbers down.

 

[Tamerlane]

@EOTFOFYL

It may seem like a false dichotomy, but it's actual more of a balancing act. Too often freedom gets limited under the excuse that it makes people more safe or secure. The old saying goes that there's no place safer than a prison cell, but there is nowhere less free. Hence the struggle between ensuring people are the most free they can be without limiting the freedom of others.

Also, the fact so many people are losing their jobs because of both layoffs to ensure businesses keep running and the fact only major corporations are being subsidized means that a lot of people are going to poverty from these lockdowns. Essentially, it will only net the result of a greater division between the rich and poor and the big businesses that can afford to take the hit economically versus those that can't.


Also, I can attest to the fact Indiana got hit hard given people are warned not to travel here, especially because we already were in an AIDS epidemic because of all the drug users.

 

[EOTFOFYL]

In the context of a (the) pandemic.... not whatever you wrote. It's not about safety but rather slowing the spread, damage control if you would.

Might as well throw away anonymity and say my state is NY. The numbers don't lie, we don't need a sermon on freedom right now, we need compliance.... and also care package. All this resistance only extends the lockdown from the influx of new cases which helps nobody.

 

[blackyawgdom]

There are other places that have already returned to normal. Where only a couple to a couple hundred actually died. Because they had effective leadership, and a smart population that actually LISTENED to their experts. (Taiwan, New Zealand). Hell even some of the "Shit-hole countries" in that "shithole continent, why are we paying all this money to help them? What did they do for us?" (Africa) managed things better then THE GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD! SO GREAT

*edit*

Also, The First Amendment actually isnt carte blanch to do whatever you want wherever you want. If you seriously think that, Drive to Nevada, buy a karaoke machine and a 6 pack, then head to Area 51 and try to claim you have a 1A right to party with the aliens.
Nor does it mean you have a "right" to gather at a bar or eat at a Red Lobster or whatever.

 

[kenx]

@blackyawgdom
Isn't Area 51 private property? Doens't the US of A first amendment only apply to public venues and things you own?