@Envy:

His "opinion" is explicitly anti-religious freedom.

Plus, we're talking about "fringe loonies" that have held positions of power in the US and easily could again. "Fringe loonies" have a lot of power in the US right now.

You're really going to have to elaborate on this claim, because I always see right wingers claiming to be true defenders of the constitution. This isn't even a straw-man, they literally say it. All of the time.

I feel we're talking about different things here. I'm talking about the Constitution itself, the ideas in it and what the founders who wrote it intended. How that's being implemented or not, or what left or right wingers say is not really my concern right now. I'm not even talking about how faithfully America lives up to the vision of the founders, which I think what Nilitch is talking about.

@Nilitch:

I'll try to answer this, and will miserably fail.

This statement is very prescient. We have completely different viewpoints on this, and I'll just leave it at that. I'm not interested in a debate.

@wolfwood:

True, it is always hard to say how much me being me plays into how i perceive things. And as i noted earlier on i acknowledge that as a Swede i'm probably the weird one by global norms. But my interest isn't with the constitution itself or if it is the greatest document known to man. What i marvel at is the worship, which to my eyes is wild. Like reading your first posts gave me that feeling i get when a hare krishna tries to offer salvation to me at the bus stop. And it's about a set of guide lines for how a nation should function, that to my Swedish eyes, is interesting

I don't know if I'll characterise my feelings about the Constitution as "worship", more like admiration. It is just as set of laws and guidelines, after all, as you point out. What I think is fascinating and admirable are the ideals that it represents, and how those ideals of equality of man, protection of dissent, right to protect yourself against tyranny, right of the people over the state as a symbol, all of these ideals are timeless and a very solid foundation to base a nation on. No salvation being sold here. Just a pretty awesome set of principles and standards to hold your government accountable to.

@wolfwood:

That sort of glowing write up that stops just short of describing it as divine scripture is a good example of the sort of thing that fascinates me. Describing any historical document as perfect really drives home the this is more than letters of the law this is sacred feeling you get when Americans talk about the founding fathers

I don't know man. If I was being less charitable, I'd view your comment as coming from someone living in a comfortable mostly homogenous society that really has never struggled with existential questions. And that's a fine viewpoint to have. But it smacks of "I can't imagine being outside my bubble, so don't know why people who have different perspectives think the way they do".

If you know the history of the document, the enlightenment and revolutionary ideals it is a culmination of, and its overall place in history, you'd probably have a better appreciation of the US Constitution being more than a set of laws. Take the fact that almost every written democratic constitution in the world is very directly inspired by the US Constitution.

@Nilitch:

It's really interesting how the chosen people view themselves. After all, everyone's fReE to write their own history :ninja:

I'm not chosen lol. My entire comment was prefaced with the fact that I'm an immigrant. I did not grow up indoctrinated in "America greatest!" jingoism. I chose to uproot my life and come to this country, a choice millions others make each year, and one of the core reasons was because of the ideals that it stood for.

@Nilitch:

Not sure it's a great thing.

How do you suggest we judge a system of ideas? I'm a pretty simple person and if they sounded good in the 18th century and they sound good now, they seem pretty timeless and great to me.

@Nilitch:

"God bless America"
-Every US presidents

Sure, they can say that. But they can't force any citizen to say that. And they can't nakedly make policy with that view. It will be challenged in court, and be struck down. Atheists in this country have objected to saying the "one nation under God" line in the pledge of allegiance, and their rights have been recognised and protected.

@Nilitch:

damn, might as well skip philosophy class and study the Constitution.

What even is this? Are just being flippant for its own sake or do you have a point here? Don't want to be drawn into a pissing match with a child.

@Nilitch:

Why are Americans always comparing their country to a continent (/Europe) though ? Instead of a country. Is it because of the word "Union" ? But like, it's far from being the same stuff.

Reading comprehension, buddy.
1. I didn't compare the US to all of Europe as a united entity. "Europe" in my comment was a placeholder for individual countries in that continent.
2. For other cases, comparing the US to Europe is the fairest comparison to make, since that is what makes the area and population (both in numbers and in diversity) scales comparable.

@Nilitch:

Also, there are many different kinds of separations from church and State as there are secular countries I guess. Not every country has to be the same.

Sure. But the American constitution is pretty unambiguous about its separation. It's not a position that has evolved over time and is a "practically for all intents and purposes" bit. For reference, Europe was having multiple Catholic vs Protestant vs Orthodox vs the Caliphate wars around the time the constitution was written. Catholics were very much pariah in the UK as were Protestants in France. And for an example much closer to now, the European legal system still has room for wackiness that is burqa bans. Those would never fly in the US.

@Envy:

A nation supposedly dedicated to protecting its original values. Yet despite the clearly intended separation of church and state, Christianity is constantly encroaching on our government and taking away rights and allowing for anti-science policies.

There's nuance here. Lawmakers can use their sense of morality, which is often guided by their religion, to make laws. However, they cannot make laws on religious grounds alone. This will be challenged in court and thrown out.

@Envy:

And then there's this.

Am I crazy or is the entire article about how he's being criticised for that opinion? Fringe loonies exist everywhere, and this has nothing to do with the Constitution itself or what the founders intended.

@Envy:

And the people who do all of that are the ones claiming that they are the "true" defenders of the constitution.

Cool straw man fallacy you have there.

@wolfwood:

I'm always fascinated with the near religious worship of the founding fathers and their ideas.

I feel I have some handle on this as an immigrant to this country.

America as an experiment is such a unique blend of values that have stood the test of time. It is really a philosophical idea: all people created equal, true freedoms against tyranny, separation of church and state. One of the hallmarks to me personally is how it talks very carefully about where the power of government against the people is constrained, instead of simply enumerating the powers of he government, as such a document would do. All these ideas in one place at one time. Add to that Washington's voluntary relinquishment of power, Madison's views on limits of federal power and Hamilton's views on banking. It is the culmination of the entire European age of enlightenment in one perfect document.

The country has gone to war multiple times to protect these ideals, even against itself. And continues to endure. There are lots of things wrong in how the country is working, the class gap is a huge deal, the race stuff less so. But the ideals behind the country are sound and some of the greatest ideas to ever base a country on. And that's why people continue to flock here, despite all the flaws.

Try reading the first few bits of the American constitution. It simply truly a great document.

Europe doesn't compare at all. Most of your continent hasn't even properly separated church from state. And there's the weird thing you have where one family of humans are somehow superior to all others.

All I’m saying is that this was a slam dunk self-defense case, nothing more. The judge did not act in a biased fashion, and the prosecutor was desperately trying to make extra-judicial arguments in an attempt to taint the character of the defendant.

People acting shocked that he was released are either misinformed or uninformed or deluded.

@Robby:

NO ONE is denying that he murdered people, and that he had no reason to be there, or that he brought an assault weapon to a peaceful protest. But still, not guilty?

Cases are tried on the basis of law. The law is pretty cut and dried on what self defense constitutes and that Rittenhouse's actions fall under that ambit. A bunch of criminal attorneys were streaming live commentary of the trial on YouTube. I found that really insightful, please take a look at that as opposed to whatever echo chamber you consume your news from.

@Robby:

In a case where the judge refused to allow evidence that the public has seen, and had a clear bias. Where he would allow the white boy's mother to cry in court, but removed the jury when the black mothers got emotional. Where he refused to allow photos of the murderer celebrating after the killings. Where he allowed the murderer to stage an emotional breakdown with no tears.

All of the evidence the judge refused to allow was inadmissible in this trial. This is consistent with case law. Also, all people who died or wounded were white, so which affected black mothers did he hide from the jury? Similar, the photos of the "murderer" "celebrating" were removed because they were inadmissible to establish premeditated intent, which is the bar to clear for murder. Remember the prosecution was trying him for murder and not manslaughter. Lastly, what do you expect the judge do if someone already on the stand break down before the line of questioning is complete? Forcibly remove them from the stand?

@Bugs:

I've seen a poll that stated that while Biden is ahead of likely voters by mail, Trump actually is ahead for those who plan to vote in-person.

Got a link to this poll?

@starlalilymoon:

Can you explain what you mean by nightmare?

For any Republican to win, they need to dominate the white vote. In the two elections the Republicans lost this century, McCain led Obama by 12 points and Romney led Obama by 20 points among white people.

A 50-50 split in the white vote spells disaster for the President.

@Monkey:

If your reasoning is she is harsh on Israel, then coddling Israel is one of the main things about the modern Democratic party that needs to go.
It's one of the most ridiculous out of step things about the party.

It's not that she's been harsh on Israel (more of that please!). She's active used and retweeted anti-semitic tropes and dogwhistles and that is a little more problematic.

Plus, I think their beef is also about Omar funnelling millions of campaign dollars directly to her husband(who used to be her side-piece)'s lobbying firm.

@Robby:

The housing crash Great Recession was a 6.5 drop in GDP. The Great Depression in 1929 was a 15% drop in GDP. We're now in a 33% drop. That's insane and unprecedented in history and by all rights should absolutely wreck Trump.

Literally ANYONE with even a smidge of competency could have prevented it from being this bad. But no, the populace had to elect the bankrupt casinos guy.

Couple of notes here:

1. The 33% is an annualised number (as are the others, TBF). The actual GDP loss is closer to 10%.
2. Other economies that have reported their Q2 numbers so far have shrunk by similar or worse amounts, including countries who've handled the crisis much better than the US. Germany, for example, shrank ~12%.

That said, the Q2 numbers are just a reflection of the economic impact of the first wave of infections, which hit almost everywhere with similar intensity. What would be more interesting would be the Q3 GDP numbers, which should account for the horrific American response and the second infection wave here post Memorial Day.

Also, methinks the whole election delay shenanigans are to suck airwaves oxygen out of this story. As I've said before, the president has been touting his economic numbers pre-Covid as the one big reason for his re-election. His supporters have been using the economy to excuse his atrocious behaviour. Losing this talking point would be a death-knell to his re-election hopes.

Also, Wall Street barely shrug at these numbers, which was ~interesting~.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Demon:

this also appears to be the overwhelming majority opinion on the left.

Have you considered getting your political opinions from a different source? I can assure you that this is FAR from a majority opinion on the left.

Meanwhile on the right, there is a significant group of never-Trumpers who are now running millions in attack ads against the President (and the Republican elected officials who have enabled his actions; Susan Collins, for example).

Things are not as doom and gloom as you think. Please take some time for yourself. Maybe disconnect completely from the political news cycle for a while?

@Kaiolino:

The Constitution also prevents him from arresting people off the street in unmarked vans with unmarked troops.

It does not. Thank the PATRIOT Act and other BS that gives the Government carte blanche to take any action in it's duty to uphold law and order. The Constitution does give the detainees a right to due process.

@Kaiolino:

Or to take bribes from foreign countries while still running his personal businesses.

Sure it does, but that doesn't mean he's actually taking bribes. There is a really good reason that violation of the emoluments clause was not one of the articles of impeachment.

@Kaiolino:

Or to simply refuse to follow a vetoproof majority vote to extend Russian sanctions.

He did impose the sanctions mandated by Congress, after they reminded him of his Constitutional duty and the fact that it contains corrective measures in case he fails to do so.

@Kaiolino:

It’s true that he simply can’t delay the election because only the police (and probably the FBI) wouldn’t support such a coup and half the states would hold elections anyway.

But to argue “he can’t do it because the Constitution says so!” is dumb as fuck. The Constitution is a worthless piece of paper that relies on universal support to be enforced.

It's a good thing that "the Constitution says so!" is not the only thing I said. But I guess reading comprehension falls to the wayside when we're shouting "Orange Man Bad!"

@Kaiolino:

And also just floating this idea is bad enough as it is, because in 3 weeks, the entire GOP will preemptively dismiss the election results and encourage people to stay home.

And that will mean fuckall. Just as them saying Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Commie meant fuckall.

@Demon:

We also have a first amendment right that guarantees us a right to assemble and protest but that hasn't stopped him from sending federal agents to kidnap and black bag people who are doing just that and then making a requirement of their release that they have to agree to not do the thing the First Amendment clearly says can never be taken away from them.

He controls the federal agents who can stop you from exercising your First Amendment right to free speech and assembly. He does not control the people who run elections. And if he wants to send troops to all election centres in the country to stop the election officials from doing their work, good luck to him.

This is needless fear mongering. Stop.