Arnold Schwarzenegger has endorsed Kamala Harris for president

[jhc005]

I love how celebrities think their opinion matters. They don’t live in the real world. I’m not changing my vote because a celebrity speaks out.

 

[BD Bodybuilder]

Um, he thinks Kamala is attractive and thinks he can get some ass for a vote.

I doubt you truly believe that any more than I do.

 

[tommyguns2]

Context:

So in the "proper context" American civil liberties don't exist. Good to know. Can you point to me that "exception clause" in the Constitution where my civil liberties are subject to the whims of those who know better?

That way of thinking has no limiting principle. Do your actions affect others? Of course. So, if you eating too much red meat causes you increased risk of heart disease, can we limit what you're allowed to eat, so that health care costs, collectively reflected in our insurance rates, go down? Can we outlaw video games because they make kids fat lazy bastards? Where is the limiting principle? There is none.

And Trump is the dictator? Seems like we're in bizarro world where the "Karens" of society will tell us what to do. For our own good, of course.

 

[BD Bodybuilder]

So in the "proper context" American civil liberties don't exist. Good to know. Can you point to me that "exception clause" in the Constitution where my civil liberties are subject to the whims of those who know better?

That way of thinking has no limiting principle. Do your actions affect others? Of course. So, if you eating too much red meat causes you increased risk of heart disease, can we limit what you're allowed to eat, so that health care costs, collectively reflected in our insurance rates, go down? Can we outlaw video games because they make kids fat lazy bastards? Where is the limiting principle? There is none.

And Trump is the dictator? Seems like we're in bizarro world where the "Karens" of society will tell us what to do. For our own good, of course.

Understanding when and how the government can restrict/limit your civil liberties/rights requires looking at more than just the Constitution. Here is an AI summary:

In the US, civil liberties can be restricted in situations where the government deems it necessary to protect national security, public safety, or to prevent imminent lawless action, typically through legal mechanisms that balance individual rights with the need for societal order, such as during a declared state of emergency or when speech incites violence; however, these restrictions must be narrowly tailored and subject to judicial review to avoid excessive infringement on fundamental freedoms.

Key points about restrictions on civil liberties:

National Security Concerns:
In times of war or significant threats to national security, the government may temporarily limit certain civil liberties, like freedom of movement or communication, to prevent potential harm.

Public Safety Threats:
If a person's actions are considered an immediate threat to public safety, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, certain freedoms like free speech can be restricted.

"Clear and Present Danger" Test:
The Supreme Court often uses this legal standard to determine if speech can be restricted, meaning the speech must pose a real and immediate threat to cause substantial harm.

Due Process:
Even when restricting civil liberties, the government must follow established legal procedures, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard.

Examples of situations where civil liberties might be restricted:

Military Zones:
Restrictions on free speech and assembly within military bases to maintain discipline and order.

Prison Environment:
Limited freedom of movement and communication within prisons due to security concerns.

Emergency Declarations:
During natural disasters or terrorist attacks, temporary restrictions on movement or public gatherings may be imposed.

Hate Speech Laws:
Certain forms of speech that incite violence or hatred towards specific groups may be restricted.

Important Considerations:

Judicial Review:
Any restrictions on civil liberties can be challenged in court, where judges determine if the government's actions were justified and proportionate.

Burden of Proof:
The government bears the burden of demonstrating a compelling reason to limit civil liberties.

Balancing Act:
The Supreme Court constantly balances individual rights against societal needs when interpreting the Constitution.

 

[1bigun11]

I'm a Republican, but I don't like Donald Trump. I don't identify with MAGA Republicans, and I don't identify with his cult-like following. I believe he lost the last election, and the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was a watershed moment in history. It was an egregious incident. And Trump encouraged it.

I think it is relatively easy to make a compelling case that Trump is unfit for the presidency. I'm repulsed by his character flaws and largely self-imposed legal troubles. I'll always be disappointed that Republican primary voters chose him again to represent millions of conservatives.

But there is so much at stake in this election: foreign policy, the economy and border security. Trump has shown he is capable of dealing with these issues. Kamala Harris has not.

This is not the time to stay the course for four more years. There is too much at stake.

I will be holding my nose. And voting for Trump.

 

[tommyguns2]

Understanding when and how the government can restrict/limit your civil liberties/rights requires looking at more than just the Constitution. Here is an AI summary:

In the US, civil liberties can be restricted in situations where the government deems it necessary to protect national security, public safety, or to prevent imminent lawless action, typically through legal mechanisms that balance individual rights with the need for societal order, such as during a declared state of emergency or when speech incites violence; however, these restrictions must be narrowly tailored and subject to judicial review to avoid excessive infringement on fundamental freedoms.

Key points about restrictions on civil liberties:

National Security Concerns:
In times of war or significant threats to national security, the government may temporarily limit certain civil liberties, like freedom of movement or communication, to prevent potential harm.

Public Safety Threats:
If a person's actions are considered an immediate threat to public safety, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, certain freedoms like free speech can be restricted.

"Clear and Present Danger" Test:
The Supreme Court often uses this legal standard to determine if speech can be restricted, meaning the speech must pose a real and immediate threat to cause substantial harm.

Due Process:
Even when restricting civil liberties, the government must follow established legal procedures, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard.

Examples of situations where civil liberties might be restricted:

Military Zones:
Restrictions on free speech and assembly within military bases to maintain discipline and order.

Prison Environment:
Limited freedom of movement and communication within prisons due to security concerns.

Emergency Declarations:
During natural disasters or terrorist attacks, temporary restrictions on movement or public gatherings may be imposed.

Hate Speech Laws:
Certain forms of speech that incite violence or hatred towards specific groups may be restricted.

Important Considerations:

Judicial Review:
Any restrictions on civil liberties can be challenged in court, where judges determine if the government's actions were justified and proportionate.

Burden of Proof:
The government bears the burden of demonstrating a compelling reason to limit civil liberties.

Balancing Act:
The Supreme Court constantly balances individual rights against societal needs when interpreting the Constitution.

What you've listed above is scary. Here's why:

In times of war or significant threats to national security
For the last 8 years I've heard that Trump is a threat to national security. If Trump wins the election can we suspend the Constitution? If not, why not?

If a person's actions are considered an immediate threat to public safety
If someone didn't get vaccinated or won't wear a mask, are they an immediate threat to public safety? I was told they were. Can we put those people into camps like Australia did, and how we did with the Japanese during WWII?

Your Free speech standards conflict:
(1) The Supreme Court often uses this legal standard to determine if speech can be restricted, meaning the speech must pose a real and immediate threat to cause substantial harm.
(2) Hate Speech Laws:
Certain forms of speech that incite violence or hatred towards specific groups may be restricted.
Hate speech can NOT be curtailed under Brandenburg v. Ohio, the key Supreme Court free speech case. Me saying, for example, that Mexicans, when coming over in the millions per year, are not assimilating and will cause future problems, has been characterized as hate speech. Can you round up people who say that?
What about when Biden says we need to "put Trump in the bullseye." Should he have been prosecuted?

Once you give the gov't power to revoke Constitutional protections for emergency reasons, you'll be amazed how future situations satisfy those emergency conditions. Slippery slope is not sufficient to describe how dangerous that is.

 

[BD Bodybuilder]

I'm a Republican, but I don't like Donald Trump. I don't identify with MAGA Republicans, and I don't identify with his cult-like following. I believe he lost the last election, and the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was a watershed moment in history. It was an egregious incident. And Trump encouraged it.

I think it is relatively easy to make a compelling case that Trump is unfit for the presidency. I'm repulsed by his character flaws and largely self-imposed legal troubles. I'll always be disappointed that Republican primary voters chose him again to represent millions of conservatives.

But there is so much at stake in this election: foreign policy, the economy and border security. Trump has shown he is capable of dealing with these issues. Kamala Harris has not.

This is not the time to stay the course for four more years. There is too much at stake.

I will be holding my nose. And voting for Trump.

Trump has not shown he is capable of successfully dealing with any of those issues. See my previous post thereon.

 

[BD Bodybuilder]

What you've listed above is scary. Here's why:

In times of war or significant threats to national security
For the last 8 years I've heard that Trump is a threat to national security. If Trump wins the election can we suspend the Constitution? If not, why not?

If a person's actions are considered an immediate threat to public safety
If someone didn't get vaccinated or won't wear a mask, are they an immediate threat to public safety? I was told they were. Can we put those people into camps like Australia did, and how we did with the Japanese during WWII?

Your Free speech standards conflict:
(1) The Supreme Court often uses this legal standard to determine if speech can be restricted, meaning the speech must pose a real and immediate threat to cause substantial harm.
(2) Hate Speech Laws:
Certain forms of speech that incite violence or hatred towards specific groups may be restricted.
Hate speech can NOT be curtailed under Brandenburg v. Ohio, the key Supreme Court free speech case. Me saying, for example, that Mexicans, when coming over in the millions per year, are not assimilating and will cause future problems, has been characterized as hate speech. Can you round up people who say that?
What about when Biden says we need to "put Trump in the bullseye." Should he have been prosecuted?

Once you give the gov't power to revoke Constitutional protections for emergency reasons, you'll be amazed how future situations satisfy those emergency conditions. Slippery slope is not sufficient to describe how dangerous that is.

I gave you a summary of the way things are in the real world. I have nothing to add, and nothing to defend.

 

[tommyguns2]

I gave you a summary of the way things are in the real world. I have nothing to add, and nothing to defend.

It's indefensible. It's totalitarianism.

Arnold is fine with it, because he's got this stupid idea that only the "correct" people will be making those decisions. We presently have Harris and Trump as our Presidential candidates. I don't want either of them to have that kind of power.

And I vote against it. The Constitution is an incredible thing, and we should be slow to toss it aside for alleged exigent circumstances.

 

[BD Bodybuilder]

It's indefensible. It's totalitarianism.

Arnold is fine with it, because he's got this stupid idea that only the "correct" people will be making those decisions. We presently have Harris and Trump as our Presidential candidates. I don't want either of them to have that kind of power.

And I vote against it. The Constitution is an incredible thing, and we should be slow to toss it aside for alleged exigent circumstances.

The only presidential candidate who has ever proposed doing away with the Consitution is: Donald Trump.

 

[fasttwitch]

The most interesting takeaway is that people who love a celebrity suddenly hate the celebrity when they have a contrary perspective.

In America we are no longer allowed to have different perspectives. If you disagree with my opinions you must be the antichrist. Fall in line. The cult demands it.

Blue cult / Red cult.

 

[fasttwitch]

The most interesting takeaway is that people who love a celebrity suddenly hate the celebrity when they have a contrary perspective.

In America we are no longer allowed to have different perspectives. If you disagree with my opinions you must be the antichrist. Fall in line. The cult demands it.

Blue cult / Red cult.

I guess there is no going back. Us older guys will at least have memories of America when people were allowed to disagree.

I remember being a youngster in 1980. I was 9. My grandfather put his Reagan sign out. My grandfather's close friend we called Uncle Mike put out his Carter sign. I asked grandpa about this. He told me they were best friends, but they disagreed. The day after election day Uncle Mike came over, shook my grandfather's hand and they both went fishing. Later that day they came back and cooked up the grouper they caught. Had a few beers. Good times. Two Americans with different perspectives who each thought the other one was a decent man.

Now days the other guy is a POS. He is a worthless commie or nazi. He is the enemy within or a creep.

The common identity is lost. It is lost because of the two party system becoming monetized. The two parties are corporations that sell access to power. There are thousands of businesses from pollsters, consultants, lobbyists, advisers, huge party apparatuses that make a nice living on spending the billions of donations from Americans. The only way to get people to donate is to motivate them. Nothing motivates like fear and hate. So each party has a vested interest in pushing the existential end of the world scenario every 4 years.

Ever notice that every 4 years is the MOST important election ever?

This is what Americans want though. The result will be dissolution of the Unites States. That is fine with me I guess. I'm leaving the US at some point. But I would bet my entire investment savings that everyone who thinks this is want they want will sorely regret the outcome.