American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

[American Salvation]

No, it's a discussion about who qualifies as a woman, so it goes in the trans thread.

Maybe make a report in moderation if you feel that it's a threadjack.

No, i won't do that.

[Antipatros]

Maybe make a report in moderation if you feel that it's a threadjack.

No, i won't do that.

Welp, I guess you're SOL.

[Kowani]

Trump met privately with Stop the Steal rally organizers Robert Peede, Max Miller, and Katrina Pierson in the White House on January 4th

[Diahon]

after careful thought, i'm forced to agree with relden

discussing the impact of this -- and let me make clear i shouldn't be impressed, but i am -- clever subversion of roe v wade is fair game here, terminologies aren't

that, and i feel i should have a reckoning with my real feelings about the alphabet soup, so i'll take it to the appropriate thread

[American Legionaries]

Put this stuff in the trans discussion thread.

I don't want to hear about it here.

Too bad. It's a general point about SCOTUS' incoming precedents regarding the destruction of the right to privacy, so a tangential discussion can go here.

Ooh we're destroying the right to privacy wholesale now?

[Necroghastia]

e]
A lot of people i know are very amoral people, whereas i am of good moral character.

Says the guy who has confessed to driving without a license, among other things, on the internet

Other things including not wearing a seatbelt, getting into high speed chases with the cops yet fist pumping whenever the cops get one over on someone he doesn't like, thinking queer kids should not be told there's nothing wrong with them, and actively prolonging a pandemic by encouraging people to not get the vaccine and flaunt all countermeasures because he thinks he's an ubermensch that can't get sick at all.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Anyone who participated in any way is guilty of inciting an insurrection.

I'd say the same about the BLM/Antifa rioters.

Whilst they did spend most of the time looting stores, burning police cars and burning down restaurants, they also attacked some federal buildings too. That could probably fall under the term "insurrection".

Both must be punished as the law allows.

[American Salvation]

Other things including not wearing a seatbelt

That is mostly because my daily car doesn't have them.

getting into high speed chases with the cops

I have never encouraged this.

yet fist pumping whenever the cops get one over on someone he doesn't like

Yes, of course, why would i not celebrate this? Besides, the people i don't like are criminals.

and actively prolonging a pandemic by encouraging people to not get the vaccine

I don't think there's any point. I have the vaccine myself, sadly, but i still believe there isn't a point in it.

and flaunt all countermeasures because he thinks he's an ubermensch

I am an ubermensch. I do whatever i want. That's what beast mode is. That's my whole thing.

that can't get sick at all.

I have never ever been sick, but in this case, my argument is that covid will affect me mildly, as it does with most people of my age.

[Shrillland]

Too bad. It's a general point about SCOTUS' incoming precedents regarding the destruction of the right to privacy, so a tangential discussion can go here.

Ooh we're destroying the right to privacy wholesale now?

Potentially. The whole basis of Roe is that the 4th Amendment guarantees such a right, that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is, by definition, a right to privacy. To eliminate that precedent is to destroy the entire concept of a right to privacy since it was only the second case to guarantee such a right. Nearly all cases involving privacy since then have used Roe as a foundation. To remove that foundation puts the entire concept of privacy rights in jeopardy unless they adhere strictly to the idea of unreasonable search or seizure.

[Rusozak]

Ooh we're destroying the right to privacy wholesale now?

Potentially. The whole basis of Roe is that the 4th Amendment guarantees such a right, that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is, by definition, a right to privacy. To eliminate that precedent is to destroy the entire concept of a right to privacy since it was only the second case to guarantee such a right. Nearly all cases involving privacy since then have used Roe as a foundation. To remove that foundation puts the entire concept of privacy rights in jeopardy unless they adhere strictly to the idea of unreasonable search or seizure.

So to overturn Roe v Wade would potentially put the entire 4th amendment in jeopardy?

[Shrillland]

Potentially. The whole basis of Roe is that the 4th Amendment guarantees such a right, that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is, by definition, a right to privacy. To eliminate that precedent is to destroy the entire concept of a right to privacy since it was only the second case to guarantee such a right. Nearly all cases involving privacy since then have used Roe as a foundation. To remove that foundation puts the entire concept of privacy rights in jeopardy unless they adhere strictly to the idea of unreasonable search or seizure.

So to overturn Roe v Wade would potentially put the entire 4th amendment in jeopardy?

Not exactly. Just the implied right to privacy, which doesn't actually exist if you follow the strict constructionalist point of view on the constitution.

[Diahon]

Potentially. The whole basis of Roe is that the 4th Amendment guarantees such a right, that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is, by definition, a right to privacy. To eliminate that precedent is to destroy the entire concept of a right to privacy since it was only the second case to guarantee such a right. Nearly all cases involving privacy since then have used Roe as a foundation. To remove that foundation puts the entire concept of privacy rights in jeopardy unless they adhere strictly to the idea of unreasonable search or seizure.

So to overturn Roe v Wade would potentially put the entire 4th amendment in jeopardy?

EDIT: so i stand corrected

[American Legionaries]

Potentially. The whole basis of Roe is that the 4th Amendment guarantees such a right, that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is, by definition, a right to privacy. To eliminate that precedent is to destroy the entire concept of a right to privacy since it was only the second case to guarantee such a right. Nearly all cases involving privacy since then have used Roe as a foundation. To remove that foundation puts the entire concept of privacy rights in jeopardy unless they adhere strictly to the idea of unreasonable search or seizure.

So to overturn Roe v Wade would potentially put the entire 4th amendment in jeopardy?

No, it would basically just retract a right to privacy to only cover the explicitely mentioned "unreasonable search and seizure" by police.

[American Legionaries]

So to overturn Roe v Wade would potentially put the entire 4th amendment in jeopardy?

yes

damn, that summation's blunt

Unfortunately it wouldn't.

[Diahon]

yes

damn, that summation's blunt

Unfortunately it wouldn't.

you got something against the fourth amendment, now?

[Necroghastia]

Other things including not wearing a seatbelt

That is mostly because my daily car doesn't have them.

the hell kind of car doesn't have seatbelts lmao
pretty sure that thing wouldn't be street legal

getting into high speed chases with the cops

I have never encouraged this.

You sure glorify your Mad Max LARPs, though.

yet fist pumping whenever the cops get one over on someone he doesn't like

Yes, of course, why would i not celebrate this?

Uh... hypocrisy?

Besides, the people i don't like are criminals.

Everyone you don't like is a criminal? Everyone?

and actively prolonging a pandemic by encouraging people to not get the vaccine

I don't think there's any point. I have the vaccine myself, sadly, but i still believe there isn't a point in it.

So, it keeps you from getting deathly ill and lessens the likelihood of it being passed on to the immunocompromised, but there's no point?
Just take the L and admit you hate your fellow man already

and flaunt all countermeasures because he thinks he's an ubermensch

I am an ubermensch. I do whatever i want. That's what beast mode is. That's my whole thing.

lol
anyone who has to say they're a beast or an ubermensch aint it kiddo

that can't get sick at all.

I have never ever been sick, but in this case, my argument is that covid will affect me mildly, as it does with most people of my age.

Source?
also i notice you had no """"witty"""" comeback to the one about accepting queer kids lmao

[American Legionaries]

Unfortunately it wouldn't.

you got something against the fourth amendment, now?

Well, yes, in a way.

[Diahon]

you got something against the fourth amendment, now?

Well, yes, in a way.

explain

[The Black Forrest]

That is mostly because my daily car doesn't have them.

the hell kind of car doesn't have seatbelts lmao
pretty sure that thing wouldn't be street legal

Seatbelt laws vary by state.

Classic cars can not have one and they can get a pass for that with following specific rules.

[Necroghastia]

the hell kind of car doesn't have seatbelts lmao
pretty sure that thing wouldn't be street legal

Seatbelt laws vary by state.

Classic cars can not have one and they can get a pass for that with following specific rules.

Well, the more you know. As far back as I can remember I've seen "Click it or ticket, Alabama" PSAs.
EDIT: Though that doesn't even apply, apparently.

[American Salvation]

the hell kind of car doesn't have seatbelts lmao
pretty sure that thing wouldn't be street legal

Correct.

You sure glorify your Mad Max LARPs, though.

No, and it's hardly larping when that's actually what you're doing.

Uh... hypocrisy?

I'm a hypocrite, i've already admitted this.

Everyone you don't like is a criminal? Everyone?

Yes, largely.

Just take the L and admit you hate your fellow man already

I will not admit something that isn't true.

anyone who has to say they're a beast or an ubermensch aint it kiddo

I am it.

I have never ever been sick, but in this case, my argument is that covid will affect me mildly, as it does with most people of my age.

No, my argument is that covid will perhaps effect me mildly or not at all, going off of the numbers.

Source?

My source is the numbers.

also i notice you had no """"witty"""" comeback to the one about accepting queer kids lmao

I couldn't be witty about it. I stand by what i say, but there's no way to be witty about it.

[American Legionaries]

Well, yes, in a way.

explain

I have something against the continued operation of the government as a whole, and police harassment would, I think, accelerate it's collapse.

[American Salvation]

Classic cars can not have one and they can get a pass for that with following specific rules.

The car without seatbelts is not a classic car and was manufactured since 2015.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Classic cars can not have one and they can get a pass for that with following specific rules.

The car without seatbelts is not a classic car and was manufactured since 2015.

2015 and no seatbelts? Unless this is a bus there is something wrong with the car.

[American Salvation]

The car without seatbelts is not a classic car and was manufactured since 2015.

2015 and no seatbelts? Unless this is a bus there is something wrong with the car.

They were removed.