Helluva speech by President Biden

You didn’t say that dude. You claimed I called you or someone evil (and not candidate for evil) Didn’t do so. Your accusations were not truthful. Knowingly so.

 

Right and I think you are a likely candidate for being a moron. Don't worry, I didn't call you a moron.

 

No, I don’t still support trump. In fact I never supported him.

 

just ones who supported a man that incited an insurrection and violated national security rules putting the country and the intel assets at risk and then threatened violence for being investigated for the security violation

 

I made the decision to stay registered as a pub so I could vote against MAGA candidates in the primary. Leaving the party to the MAGA's just gives them more sway over the party and the primaries. imo, every democrat should switch to the republican party and primary out every single MAGA candidate at every level of gubmnt

 

Geez - I started a thread in the Pub on whiskey four years ago. It has reviews of elite bourbons, ryes, scotches. Several posters who have traveled around the globe obtaining some of the world's greatest spirits. Insider knowledge on the best whiskeys for every price level. I think it got twenty-five pages.

Biden gives a speech and triggers 33 pages in less than a week. God luv ya 'Too Hot.

 

i've voted pub all my life up until Trump. Sorry if you can't deal with that truth

 

run Kasich or Romney or Hogan and I'll vote pub again, but I will never support a MAGA candidate. Hell, I even voted for DeSantis before I realized who he is

 

So all Trump supporters are "a threat to democracy?" You can just say that, it's what you mean.

I'm glad we're finally getting somewhere... it only took 33 pages, but we made it. Now we know who Biden was talking about.

Just don't give me this "unity" crap. He united people who hate Trump Republicans, which encompasses a group of over 70 million people if we're going by votes. Good luck with this guys. For hating Trumpian candidates so much, you seem to know exactly how to ask for more of them.

 

It was very Hitleresque and Satanistic don't you think? I mean attacking half the country like Hitler attacked and killed millions of Jews, then you throw in the Satanic church blood red background.

 

Dark Brandon doesn't even know what day it is let alone the diaper wearing dementia patient Brandon. You really want Marxism don't ya. It's not going to work. Marxism has never worked anywhere in history.

 

It's Trump and his sycophants who are the Fascists. And the best way to confront Fascists is head on. As the article says, when dealing with Fascists, "The best defense is a good offense."

 

Two questions, what is Dark Brandon doing that is Marxism? Where has Marxism ever been implemented in history?

 

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I’ll try to do it Justice in my reply.

Clearly the constitution and Supreme Court are the places we go to find unalienable rights, but it seems equally clear that this is not such a straightforward exercise. You said the court doesn’t always “get it right”, which is a two-fold admission: 1) the court is fallible, and 2) there is some other standard out there through we can identify such mistakes. What could this standard be? What measure is there for really getting it “right”?

As for gay marriage, it sounds to me like forcing a church to view it as “morally equivalent” would be an infringement on their free speech, so I would agree. I find the issue fascinating because from personal and idiosyncratic perspective, I see no harm. If two girls down the street are married or in a less formal lifelong bond, I don’t see how it matters to me or anyone else. This is quite unlike regulations on speech, religion, or guns, which certainly result in victims.

To your final point on “liberty”, I think it goes back to my first point on finding an objective standard by which to judge the constitution. I personally believe this to be outside the bounds of possibility. If one likes, or doesn’t like, Breyer’s judgements, this must say as much about the observer as it does Breyer. Earlier I showed this by invoking the harm principle, which we might associate with John Stuart Mill, but why should anyone privilege Mill’s viewpoint here? Defense of marriage is usually described in terms of sanctity, not harm, so these other observers are using a different framework. And frankly, I can offer no great defense of my seemingly natural tendency to prioritize harm over sanctity.

Given my pluralism regarding these foundational precepts, you can probably see why I won’t even go near abortion. I can’t even figure out how to apply the harm principle to that issue, let alone fully incorporate all the other foundational morals that people might apply. Our current system to make these calls clearly has flaws, but it’s as good of a system as I can imagine, so I’ll let it do the heavy lifting.

 

Valid concerns, in my opinion. I don’t really see the left as hating Christian values exactly (e.g. they clearly value helping the underprivileged), but certainly there are some areas of conflict. Going back to marriage, I love being married to my wife, so if the church impeded that, I would feel harm. I think the state is right to protect individuals from such harm.

I think you might be seeing a potential problem of religious individuals being forced to accept same sex marriage in ways that conflict with their faith. I see harm there too, so I agree this other direction should be protected too.