Voter concerns vs. media concerns...quite revealing

[Didba 5,256]

7 minutes ago, AU80cruiser said:

He voted for him the second time around however but that was only due to his view of bringing our troops home. Libertarians are as much conservative as they are traditional liberal. They hold some values of both while having their own unique view points. 

Now you know there have been "experts" providing testimony in court that were given certificates for studying a subject for just a few hours right? Surely you have read or heard countless exzmples of that right? If not then you havent been exposed to enough real world crap that goes down in americas court rooms.

Libertarians are not liberal as much as they are conservative. I have seen very few libertarians that support higher taxes on corporations in return for greater social programs for everyone. That is a base liberal platform. 

As for your second paragraph, I'll concede the court room example is not the best but those experts with three hour degrees? I have seen them.  They get impeached on cross-examination almost immediately. Still your point is fair. Bad example on my part.

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

3 minutes ago, Didba said:

Libertarians are not liberal as much as they are conservative. I have seen very few libertarians that support higher taxes on corporations in return for greater social programs for everyone. That is a base liberal platform. 

As for your second paragraph, I'll concede the court room example is not the best but those experts with three hour degrees? I have seen them.  They get impeached on cross-examination almost immediately. Still your point is fair. Bad example on my part.

However libertarians are more liberal on abortion rather than conservative. 

[Didba 5,256]

20 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I disagree. Libertarians are NOT a subdivision of conservatism. In fact libertarians are in a lot of ways a part of progressivism and conservatism. In my opinion.

Modern Libertarians vote republican so often and so few support liberal/progressive platforms that I just cannot agree with this.

 Now traditionally, and I mean, in a very traditional sense, true traditional libertarians can be progressive, however, I do not believe the majority of people who claim to be libertarians in this modern day especially young people are anything but conservative.

So, I will agree with you that I was wrong, traditional libertarian-ism is not a subdivision of conservatism, you make a good point, however, many today that claim to be libertarians are very conservative and just use it as label.

Thanks for this, it helped me clarify my thoughts.

[Didba 5,256]

Just now, AU80cruiser said:

However libertarians are more liberal on abortion rather than conservative. 

See my below response to autigeremt, I was erroneous a bit in my characterization. I needed to clarify.

[autigeremt 6,643]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

Libertarians are not liberal as much as they are conservative. I have seen very few libertarians that support higher taxes on corporations in return for greater social programs for everyone. That is a base liberal platform. 

As for your second paragraph, I'll concede the court room example is not the best but those experts with three hour degrees? I have seen them.  They get impeached on cross-examination almost immediately. Still your point is fair. Bad example on my part.

The taxation issue is countered by the liberal positions on gay marriage, legalization of Mary Jane and true free markets (among others).

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

Just now, Didba said:

Modern Libertarians vote republican so often and so few support liberal/progressive platforms that I just cannot agree with this.

 Now traditionally, and I mean, in a very traditional sense, true traditional libertarians can be progressive, however, I do not believe the majority of people who claim to be libertarians in this modern day especially young people are anything but conservative.

So, I will agree with you that I was wrong, traditional libertarian-ism is not a subdivision of conservatism, you make a good point, however, many today that claim to be libertarians are very conservative and just use it as label.

Thanks for this, it helped me clarify my thoughts.

I can personally agree with your concession even though this wasn't directed at me. Libertarians can share conservative values like you stated.

[autigeremt 6,643]

3 minutes ago, Didba said:

Modern Libertarians vote republican so often and so few support liberal/progressive platforms that I just cannot agree with this.

 Now traditionally, and I mean, in a very traditional sense, true traditional libertarians can be progressive, however, I do not believe the majority of people who claim to be libertarians in this modern day especially young people are anything but conservative.

So, I will agree with you that I was wrong, traditional libertarian-ism is not a subdivision of conservatism, you make a good point, however, many today that claim to be libertarians are very conservative and just use it as label.

Thanks for this, it helped me clarify my thoughts.

I tend to be more traditional though in a state like Alabama it’s difficult to vote for anything but one or the other. 

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, AU80cruiser said:

Voting rights? You got to be kidding me. Dont tell me you're one of those leftists that believe black people are wandering around helpless with no way of figuring out how to use the internet or get a drivers license or some form of ID.

This a video from a jewish guy asking students a few simple questions.

 

Any legislation that burdens a person's right to vote is subject to strict scrutiny and is gonna have a pretty hard time being constitutional under the due process clause unless it furthers a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. 

It's not that minorities can't get IDs, its that forcing anyone, no matter the race to get IDs to vote violates the above standard.

[Didba 5,256]

3 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I tend to be more traditional though in a state like Alabama it’s difficult to vote for anything but one or the other. 

In a two party system, it is difficult. period.

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, AU80cruiser said:

I can personally agree with your concession even though this wasn't directed at me. Libertarians can share conservative values like you stated.

Clarification, not concession but yes traditional conservatives share beliefs on both sides. Many young people label themselves as libertarians and don't share views on both sides.

Regardless, the two party system sucks, if we had a multiparty system we wouldn't even have to deal with this.

[Didba 5,256]

I think both of you will enjoy this, Zappa was, IMO, a classic "progressive" libertarian from a long gone age of a different time in the US.

@autigeremt  @AU80cruiser

Edited July 5, 2022 by Didba

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

29 minutes ago, Didba said:

Any legislation that burdens a person's right to vote is subject to strict scrutiny and is gonna have a pretty hard time being constitutional under the due process clause unless it furthers a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. 

It's not that minorities can't get IDs, its that forcing anyone, no matter the race to get IDs to vote violates the above standard.

If that's the case then why do we need background checks to buy firearms as it's a constitutional right. Just as that is deemed necessary voter ID is necessary to help ensure we have a secure election. Now that is a threat to our "democracy"

Edited July 5, 2022 by AU80cruiser

[Didba 5,256]

7 minutes ago, AU80cruiser said:

If that's the case then why do we need background checks to buy firearms and IDs to buy alcohol and cigarettes?

Those are not fundamental rights under the due process clause. 

This link will answer your question better:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

10 minutes ago, Didba said:

Those are not fundamental rights under the due process clause. 

This link will answer your question better:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

I thought more about what I said but you already responded.

Edited July 5, 2022 by AU80cruiser

[Didba 5,256]

25 minutes ago, AU80cruiser said:

If that's the case then why do we need background checks to buy firearms as it's a constitutional right. Just as that is deemed necessary voter ID is necessary to help ensure we have a secure election. Now that is a threat to our "democracy"

I am not even sure what your edit is trying to say. Did you read the link?  Fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and all other constitutional rights are subject to rational basis which is why you can place restrictions buying guns but not the right to vote.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test

some further reading for you if your are interested.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Didba

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

2 minutes ago, Didba said:

I am not even sure what your edit is trying to say. Did you read the link?  Fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and all other constitutional rights are subject to rational basis which is why you can place restrictions buying guns but not the right to vote.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test

some further reading for you if your are interested.

I did read it after my edit however it listed examples of some fundamental rights but not all. Are you sure the right to bear arms isn't a fundamental right....seems it would be.

 

My edit is comparing our constitutional right to bear arms and constituional right to vote however I was trying to show that just like there are restrictions on the right to bear arms there are also restrictions on our right to vote.

[Didba 5,256]

16 minutes ago, AU80cruiser said:

I did read it after my edit however it listed examples of some fundamental rights but not all. Are you sure the right to bear arms isn't a fundamental right....seems it would be.

 

My edit is comparing our constitutional right to bear arms and constitutional right to vote however I was trying to show that just like there are restrictions on the right to bear arms there are also restrictions on our right to vote.

I am 100% positive, and no worries this is complex constituional law so I will try to explain as best I can.

There are two categories of constitutional rights. Non-fundamental constitutional rights and fundamental constitutional rights.  That link posted the only fundamental rights that are recognized by the supreme court.

The right to bear arms is not a non-fundamental constitutional right as such it is subject to rational basis and can be restricted easier because of that.

The right to vote is a fundamental right and is subject to strict scrutiny and as such it is very hard to restrict that right. It takes a restriction that is narrowly tailored to a to compelling government interest. This is a very high bar to meet.  So there are very few restrictions that can be placed on voting rights that meet the compelling interest, also known as strict scrutiny, standard.

This is straight from SCOTUS.

This article is broader and may be more helpful to you:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

Edited July 5, 2022 by Didba

[homersapien 11,388]

8 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

Now you're talking about that constituional thing again. You know the one you didnt recognize earlier when I said constitutional republic? All men are created free and equal which is why the constitution is upheld by the supreme court. When the Jim Crow south was desegregated it was constitutional as well as it should have been. However there is nothing in the constitution about a womans right to kill a baby. Its up to the states individually to decide when that clump of cells is a baby. 

 

Exactly.  That constitutional republic (federal government) overruled the various states who were exercising their power to deny black people equality of citizenship.

I think you are confused. But thanks anyway for affirming my point about "states rights".

 

And here is what the constitution says about when life (as a citizen) begins:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

It goes on to bestow the right of a woman to control her own body.

And now, many states are removing that right of privacy and autonomy from women - who are the appropriate ones to make such decisions, all for the sake of a religious belief (which is ironically enough, in itself unconstitutional).

 

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,388]

7 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

Ornato is the person she got the story from and he is the one accused of saying something then denying it later. Ornato is not the person(s) I was referring to that is willing to testify under oath. Bobby Engel and the presidents driver are the ones willing to testify.

 

 

Good. 

Presumably they will testify that Trump insisted he accompany the mob, presumably to lead it. 

(Which is the only thing that actually matters.)

Edited July 5, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,388]

7 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

Also I remember before Jan 6th that trump and I think it was Barr warned Nancy Pelosi to take more precautions and bring more security to the capital. Nancy and the mayor of DC denied those requests. So if Trump was planning something why would he ask for more security? Also I read an article where Hutchinson said Trump knew ppl had weapons at his rally but told them to drop the "mags" and let them come in. They assumed he meant magnetometer but you do realize mag is also short for magazine which is what a round (bullet) is housed in, separate from the weapon. In other words if you take out the magazine the gun becomes a metal stick. Either way guns are not allowed in DC. It is illegal. So how many gun or any other weapons charges have you seen involving Jan 6th? Hmmmmmmm that should make you wonder. 

Nice diversion.  It's Nancy's fault! 

You're a hoot.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

5 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

I did read it after my edit however it listed examples of some fundamental rights but not all. Are you sure the right to bear arms isn't a fundamental right....seems it would be.

 

My edit is comparing our constitutional right to bear arms and constituional right to vote however I was trying to show that just like there are restrictions on the right to bear arms there are also restrictions on our right to vote.

The issue is not restrictions per se' - after all, you have to register to the voting lists before you can vote, which by definition is a restriction.

The issue is undue restrictions, which might include anything not really needed or necessary. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by homersapien

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Exactly.  That constitutional republic (federal government) overruled the various states who were exercising their power to deny black people equality of citizenship.

I think you are confused. But thanks anyway for affirming my point about "states rights".

 

And here is what the constitution says about when life (as a citizen) begins:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

It goes on to bestow the right of a woman to control her own body.

And now, many states are removing that right of privacy and autonomy from women - who are the appropriate ones to make such decisions, all for the sake of a religious belief (which is ironically enough, in itself unconstitutional).

 

 

You are choosing not to listen. I said the federal government must step in if the state denies a constituional right. Abortion is not a constituional right. Since the word "born" is so important to you I guess abortion should exist all the way up until the day a woman delivers because they have no rights as a citizen. 

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

You are choosing not to listen. I said the federal government must step in if the state denies a constituional right. Abortion is not a constituional right. Since the word "born" is so important to you I guess abortion should exist all the way up until the day a woman delivers because they have no rights as a citizen. 

Well most people say 21 weeks and abortion was considered one of those fundamental rights that is afforded greater protection unlike the right to bear arms which is a non-fundamental right. However, not anymore after Dobbs.

[Didba 5,256]

9 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

I did read it after my edit however it listed examples of some fundamental rights but not all. Are you sure the right to bear arms isn't a fundamental right....seems it would be.

 

My edit is comparing our constitutional right to bear arms and constituional right to vote however I was trying to show that just like there are restrictions on the right to bear arms there are also restrictions on our right to vote.

Just wanted to clarify that the reason you can have more restrictions on gun rights as opposed to voting rights is a restriction on gun rights must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose to be constituional. This is a low bar to meet for the government and it is the yest applied to all fundamental rights.

For the right to vote, as a fundamental right, the restriction by states/feds must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state/governmental interest. Much harder to prove, as if either prong fails the restriction is unconstitutional. So you could have a compelling interest but if the law is too broadly drafted it fails scrutiny or if it's narrowly drafted but the interest is only important not compelling then it also fails scrutiny.

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

10 minutes ago, Didba said:

Well most people say 21 weeks and abortion was considered one of those fundamental rights that is afforded greater protection unlike the right to bear arms which is a non-fundamental right. However, not anymore after Dobbs.

I think we're talking past each other because you're looking at it from the females point of view but I'm looking at it from the unborn babies point of view. 21 weeks is too far for me. I feel like as soon as the baby can sense pain it should not be aborted. The nervous system starts developing at 6 weeks and some studies say at 12 weeks the baby can feel pain. IMO it shouldn't happen past that time however I would lean towards the morning after pill as the last time I could morally try to end a pregnancy. Their are too many contraceptives out there for ppl to use and if I didnt do my due diligence then that is on me. Exceptions should be made for the mother up until viability assuming it is the case the mother is in danger of not surviving carrying the baby any further. If the baby is viable but the mother is in danger then the baby should be delivered immediately and let nature along with the use of modern medicine take its course.