All you need to know about Democrats

[crazed_hoosier2]

Do they care about my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights?

I always found Justice Stevens’ dissent in DC vs. Heller to be disturbing. He essentially opined that the right to keep and bear arms was predicated upon formal service in a state-sanctioned militia.

I understand why people think that - given the way the 2A is written. But there really is no such condition in the text, let alone the various contemporary laws regarding private gun ownership that informed the construction of the 2A.

I think many people misunderstand (a) the concept of prefatory and operative clauses, (b) what the framers considered a “militia”, and (c) what the term “well regulated” meant at that time.

Breyer’s dissent was more defensible. But all the dissenting justices joined both of them.

However, it should be pointed out that two of the dissenting justices in Heller (including Stevens himself) were appointed by Republican presidents.

 

[Mark Milton]

I always found Justice Stevens’ dissent in DC vs. Heller to be disturbing. He essentially opined that the right to keep and bear arms was predicated upon formal service in a state-sanctioned militia.

I understand why people think that - given the way the 2A is written. But there really is no such condition in the text, let alone the various contemporary laws regarding private gun ownership that informed the construction of the 2A.

I think many people misunderstand (a) the concept of prefatory and operative clauses, (b) what the framers considered a “militia”, and (c) what the term “well regulated” meant at that time.

Breyer’s dissent was more defensible. But all the dissenting justices joined both of them.

However, it should be pointed out that two of the dissenting justices in Heller (including Stevens himself) were appointed by Republican presidents.

Stevens line of thought was Warren Burger's, namely, that the need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State, with everything else simply latching on to "well regulated militia".

I don't do second amendment stuff. It is as settled as settled can be.

 

[TDHoosier]

No. Not saying they shouldn’t fund K12 education.

I’m saying that each of us should be able to choose where to apply those funds - rather than having to use them where they tell us.

Medicare benefits can be used at the provider of our choice, rather than providers of their choice. Why wouldn’t we extend the same kind of open options to parents seeking education for their kids?

Point is: that’s an individual liberty I think we should all enjoy…and most Democrats do not.

I would have pulled my "education funds" and send both my daughters to private school in a minute. I did the next best thing I looked at the scores of the schools in our district as well as the demographics and decided to move both girls to a public school that better exemplified what we were looking for and drove them to school for years. I'm extremely grateful Indiana allows parents this luxury.

For the record I would love to see property taxes decrease once there are no school age kids in the home or on the property. I know this is not possible as the few cover the many, but it is a nice thought.

 

[twenty02]

My recollection is that it was briefly possible - but only for municipal employees. That’s why people talk about the Galveston plan. That town was one of a handful that took advantage of it while it was possible. Basically, I think the law allowed cities and towns to do this, so long as they put together something to replace its function with identical contribution rates.

If the average person knew how much money they forego because of Social Security as-we-know-it, they’d be stunned. But most people just don’t have a great grasp of anything involving the time value of money.

I've done some analysis in the past on IRR of the the SS program. Since by it's nature, it's an insurance program, not an investment program.... There is no simple comparison to provide such a number.

But broadly, lower income workers (typically) have a much higher IRR than higher income workers.

You must also do some risk adjustment calculations. The stock market is not a valid risk adjusted comparison to what amounts to money in govt bonds. There have been long periods where the stock market has underperformed bonds. Particularly when you look at stock markets outside the US (Japan most glaring example)

Another major issue is you cannot realistically give people control over these investments... We know this looking at average 401k returns the average investor woefully underperforms the overall market. Due to inopportune buying/selling, poor fund selection, recency bias and performance chasing the typical investor only captures about half the market return rate over the long term.

Also something like 1/3rd of SS dollars paid out isn't for retirement benefits, whatsoever...but rather disability and survivor benefits. So one must account for the cost of a disability insurance product along with a life insurance product.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I've done some analysis in the past on IRR of the the SS program. Since by it's nature, it's an insurance program, not an investment program.... There is no simple comparison to provide such a number.

But broadly, lower income workers (typically) have a much higher IRR than higher income workers.

You must also do some risk adjustment calculations. The stock market is not a valid risk adjusted comparison to what amounts to money in govt bonds.

Another major issue is you cannot realistically give people control over these investments... We know this looking at average 401k returns the average investor woefully underperforms the overall market. Due to inopportune buying/selling, poor fund selection, recency bias and performance chasing the typical investor only captures about half the market return rate over the long term.

Also something like 1/3rd of SS dollars paid out isn't for retirement benefits, whatsoever...but rather disability and survivor benefits. So one must account for the cost of a disability insurance product along with a life insurance product.

None of these things, to me, is a compelling argument against going in that direction. They’d all be pretty easily dealt with.

Singapore’s funds are put into a special part of their SWF, for instance. I think Chile uses annuities. And there are target date funds, etc.

There’s also no good reason that the DI component couldn’t still be segmented out as a compulsory part, whether privately or publicly underwritten.

Anyway, the system we have now is not only unsustainable, it’s also indefensible.

 

[mcmurtry66]

None of these things, to me, is a compelling argument against going in that direction. They’d all be pretty easily dealt with.

Singapore’s funds are put into a special part of their SWF, for instance. I think Chile uses annuities. And there are target date funds, etc.

There’s also no good reason that the DI component couldn’t still be segmented out as a compulsory part, whether privately or publicly underwritten.

Anyway, the system we have now is not only unsustainable, it’s also indefensible.

If it makes you feel any better mr tort lawyer hater attnys fees are capped at like $7k

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Stevens line of thought was Warren Burger's, namely, that the need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State, with everything else simply latching on to "well regulated militia".

I don't do second amendment stuff. It is as settled as settled can be.

Yeah, I know that Burger shared the sentiment.

But it’s unfounded. The prefatory clause wasn’t written as a predicate - despite the fact that predicates were scattered throughout the rest of the Constitution.

The general idea was that the framers wanted a populace that not only owned guns but were proficient at using them. The sentiment was actually more clearly spelled out in several state constitutions that predated, and informed, the drafting of the 2A.

It reads different when you realize that “well regulated” in those days meant that something was in proper working condition, ready to go, etc.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yeah, I know that Burger shared the sentiment.

But it’s unfounded. The prefatory clause wasn’t written as a predicate - despite the fact that predicates were scattered throughout the rest of the Constitution.

The general idea was that the framers wanted a populace that not only owned guns but were proficient at using them. The sentiment was actually more clearly spelled out in several state constitutions that predated, and informed, the drafting of the 2A.

It reads different when you realize that “well regulated” in those days meant that something was in proper working condition, ready to go, etc.

Yep re well regulated. Fit

 

[twenty02]

None of these things, to me, is a compelling argument against going in that direction. They’d all be pretty easily dealt with.

Singapore’s funds are put into a special part of their SWF, for instance. I think Chile uses annuities. And there are target date funds, etc.

There’s also no good reason that the DI component couldn’t still be segmented out as a compulsory part, whether privately or publicly underwritten.

Anyway, the system we have now is not only unsustainable, it’s also indefensible.

I agree ideologically, but realistically and politically it's a dead dog. Neither party is interested in touching it.

 

[Mark Milton]

Yeah, I know that Burger shared the sentiment.

But it’s unfounded. The prefatory clause wasn’t written as a predicate - despite the fact that predicates were scattered throughout the rest of the Constitution.

The general idea was that the framers wanted a populace that not only owned guns but were proficient at using them. The sentiment was actually more clearly spelled out in several state constitutions that predated, and informed, the drafting of the 2A.

It reads different when you realize that “well regulated” in those days meant that something was in proper working condition, ready to go, etc.

There's a lot of really smart people on both sides of this argument. The drafters of the Constitution, in particular, the 2nd amendment seemed to understand that people hunted with guns and used guns for self defense. English common law stuff. This is the one provision in the Constitution that is by far about as poorly written as you can find. I think that gives people gas. I'm not a gun guy, but arguing that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect people from owning guns, etc, is a trip on the ship of fools. It is settled law and ain't going to change.

 

[stollcpa]

I got a lot more. I can sum it up in three words.

We are screwed. ​

Yes, the country is screwed. It’s not going to make much difference for me you but our kids and grandkids are screwed. Four years of this woke and communist crap will screw the Country for years.

 

[dbmhoosier]

They're sick. That's what you need to know.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

They're sick. That's what you need to know.

View embedded media

And stupid.

 

[stollcpa]

Opting out was possible a long time ago, created a lot of millionaires too. Google has
been scrubbed of reports of successful opt outs by regular folks.

Besides religious exemptions for ministers and Amish, who can elect out of social security?

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Some of them, anyway.

I'd like the right to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and tend to my own needs in retirement and/or disability, without any expectation from government. I've never gotten the impression they were all that interested in extending me that right.

I like the right to use the state's allotment of taxpayer money (much of which, after all, came from me) for my child's education at the school of my choice, instead of theirs. Once again, most Democrats don't see that as a right I should have.

I think it would be great if we had a viable political party that actually was all about putting more power in the hands of individuals and less power in the hands of the state. Alas, both of the major parties tend to be pretty selective and piecemeal on that.

The mantra is abort baby abort....That's the only right you really need.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Why say democrats when it is Planned Parenthood, and it is a mobile clinic that is the West Loop neighborhood, which not where the convention is at.

There is no one associated with PP who is not a Demoncrat.

 

[Mark Milton]

There is no one associated with PP who is not a Demoncrat.

You've done your due diligence have you and conducted all your "Demoncrat" interviews?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Democrats don't give a damn about individual rights. Do they care about my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights? Did they care about my health care rights such as refusing a poisonous "vaccine" I never asked for? My body my choice, right? Do they care about Trump's due process rights?

Dems are simply a bunch of power hungry frauds.

You weren’t forced to get Trump’s COVID vaccine, though you should have gotten it. Trump got due process.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

You weren’t forced to get Trump’s COVID vaccine, though you should have gotten it. Trump got due process.

If my employer requires vaccination to retain employment is that not force? Coercion at the very least?

I think you’re kidding yourself if you believe companies would have put such measures in place without guidance and scaremongering from the Federal government.

“Our patience is wearing thin” with the unvaccinated as POTUS Biden said.

 

[Spartans9312]

If my employer requires vaccination to retain employment is that not force? Coercion at the very least?

I think you’re kidding yourself if you believe companies would have put such measures in place without guidance and scaremongering from the Federal government.

“Our patience is wearing thin” with the unvaccinated as POTUS Biden said.

This is spot on

 

[SqueakyClean]

If my employer requires vaccination to retain employment is that not force? Coercion at the very least?

I think you’re kidding yourself if you believe companies would have put such measures in place without guidance and scaremongering from the Federal government.

“Our patience is wearing thin” with the unvaccinated as POTUS Biden said.

Most companies can decide however they want with regards to whether it retains you as an employee or not (as long as it doesn't break the protected discriminations ie. gender, race, religion, etc.). If you choose not to shower for three weeks and reek of leeks and onions, they can fire you. Making sure that you are not going to be a potential health hazard to fellow employees can be just as important to them as clients gagging at the smell and canceling contracts.

They are not "forcing" you to take it. You can choose to find employment elsewhere.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Most companies can decide however they want with regards to whether it retains you as an employee or not (as long as it doesn't break the protected discriminations ie. gender, race, religion, etc.). If you choose not to shower for three weeks and reek of leeks and onions, they can fire you. Making sure that you are not going to be a potential health hazard to fellow employees can be just as important to them as clients gagging at the smell and canceling contracts.

They are not "forcing" you to take it. You can choose to find employment elsewhere.

So silly. It’s not about protecting fellow employees from a health hazard. If that were the case there would be exemptions for those who had already contracted Covid, remote employees, etc.

It’s about Corporate acquiescence to an overbearing Federal authority.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

If my employer requires vaccination to retain employment is that not force? Coercion at the very least?

I think you’re kidding yourself if you believe companies would have put such measures in place without guidance and scaremongering from the Federal government.

“Our patience is wearing thin” with the unvaccinated as POTUS Biden said.

Well, no. We didn't require it, so I do not believe the government is requiring private companies to vaccinate their employees. I think taking the vaccination is a good thing for people in general, but I wasn't for a mandate for private citizens. I do think that the vaccination was good for the military because it increased military readiness. We haven't had a ship out of commission for COVID among the crew since the vaccination was available. We did have a couple of ships out of commission for COVID among the crew before that. We should have also recognized natural immunity for those that already had COVID too. We do now, but not early.

I give Trump some credit for his part in expediting the development of the vaccination.

 

[SqueakyClean]

So silly. It’s not about protecting fellow employees from a health hazard. If that were the case there would be exemptions for those who had already contracted Covid, remote employees, etc.

It’s about Corporate acquiescence to an overbearing Federal authority.

How do you know that some companies didn't allow for those exemptions? I am sure there are some that went with the nuclear "no exceptions" policy. Some might have been more reasonable about it.
Again, companies can set whatever policy that they see fit. You can choose to either follow it or go work for their competitor (or heck, go form your own company that directly competes against them, that's the American way!).

As for the last line, did Governments punish any businesses in a way if they did not institute a Covid vaccination mandate? Unless the company had government contracts, was there a way that they were forcing companies to acquiesce to vaccine requirements? Did they force them to have a higher corporate tax rate? Did they send in the military to shut them down? Nope. They did have Executive Order 14042, which allowed them to cancel contracts if companies didn't follow vaccine mandates, but that EO has been rescinded for over a while now.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

How do you know that some companies didn't allow for those exemptions? I am sure there are some that went with the nuclear "no exceptions" policy. Some might have been more reasonable about it.
Again, companies can set whatever policy that they see fit. You can choose to either follow it or go work for their competitor (or heck, go form your own company that directly competes against them, that's the American way!).

As for the last line, did Governments punish any businesses in a way if they did not institute a Covid vaccination mandate? Unless the company had government contracts, was there a way that they were forcing companies to acquiesce to vaccine requirements? Did they force them to have a higher corporate tax rate? Did they send in the military to shut them down? Nope. They did have Executive Order 14042, which allowed them to cancel contracts if companies didn't follow vaccine mandates, but that EO has been rescinded for over a while now.

So disingenuous. This administration tried to force through an OSHA policy requiring vaccination for 100 million+ Americans. They quite clearly were trying to force companies to vaccinate their employees by using either soft or hard power. To act as if they were respectful or indifferent as to private business covid policy is just plain false. Most large businesses saw the writing on the wall and acquiesed.

 

[IU_Hickory]

At a time when birth rates have shrunk to unsustainable levels in the U.S., the Democrats offer free vasectomies and free medicated abortions at their convention. Abortion is the number 2or3 issue for Democrats as if the economy, the border, energy, and war are side shows.

Dumb

 

[IU_Hickory]

Care to cite a source for that statement?
We are still positive of births vs. deaths in this country and have never dropped into the red in the past few years. We came a little close during the height of Covid, but the birthrate / deathrate is moving in the right direction.

Don't let facts get in the way of their politically motivated ignorance

 

[IU_Hickory]

My question is did the main stream media fact check this convention?

Fact checkers don't have near as much work as they do when lying Don is on the podium.

But yes, I did see a fact check article on it

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

It's been under 2 for almost 40 years now. It's also been trending back up. It hit a low in 2007 (1.81) and has been slowly increasing since then (1.94 in 2023).

When 8% of all births are to illegal immigrants (and growing) you can’t exactly tout those numbers. Especially if a Trump admin gets in and ends birth right citizenship as they should.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Yes, the country is screwed. It’s not going to make much difference for me you but our kids and grandkids are screwed. Four years of this woke and communist crap will screw the Country for years.

Move. Maybe your pal putin will take you in

 

[Spartans9312]

Move. Maybe your pal putin will take you in

Permaban

 

[SqueakyClean]

When 8% of all births are to illegal immigrants (and growing) you can’t exactly tout those numbers. Especially if a Trump admin gets in and ends birth right citizenship as they should.

I will put $10,000 bet down right now that the Trump admin (if he were to win) wont be able to end birth right citizenship. It is the 14th amendment. You would need 2/3rds of both houses to do that.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

I will put $10,000 bet down right now that the Trump admin (if he were to win) wont be able to end birth right citizenship. It is the 14th amendment. You would need 2/3rds of both houses to do that.

The good news is, we now have a SCOTUS that just may disagree with that interpretation of the 14th.

The question of immigration status wrt to the 14th wasn’t decided until thirty years after the amendment was passed. It’s completely fair to assume that children of illegal immigrants were not accounted for in the original intent of the 14th.

Pass an EO. Let the courts decide.

 

[Harry Hondo]

At a time when birth rates have shrunk to unsustainable levels in the U.S., the Democrats offer free vasectomies and free medicated abortions at their convention. Abortion is the number 2or3 issue for Democrats as if the economy, the border, energy, and war are side shows.

You obviously don’t realize these free services are not for people like you who live in ivory towers.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

You obviously don’t realize these free services are not for people like you who live in ivory towers.

Yes! It’s only the poors we don’t want to procreate. Clean them from the gene pool!

 

[SqueakyClean]

The question of immigration status wrt to the 14th wasn’t decided until thirty years after the amendment was passed. It’s completely fair to assume that children of illegal immigrants were not accounted for in the original intent of the 14th.

Even 30 years after the amendment was passed was still 125 years ago.

"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." That's a pretty ironclad statement.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Even 30 years after the amendment was passed was still 125 years ago.

"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." That's a pretty ironclad statement.

Yes but when it’s written in the context of trying to ensure that former slaves and their children are made citizens there’s good reason to believe the intent was not to allow for children of illegal immigrants.

 

[UncleMark]

"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." That's a pretty ironclad statement.

Yes but when it’s written in the context of trying to ensure that former slaves and their children are made citizens there’s good reason to believe the intent was not to allow for children of illegal immigrants.

Doesn't matter. The text is plain. There are no exceptions stated or implied. Gorsuch would have none of it, for one. Alito and Thomas would no doubt go for it, but that would be it.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Doesn't matter. The text is plain. There are no exceptions stated or implied. Gorsuch would have none of it, for one. Alito and Thomas would no doubt go for it, but that would be it.

All I want is it raised before the court. I believe what we are debating is textualism vs originalism. As a self professed originalist, Gorsuch may surprise you.

 

[SqueakyClean]

Yes but when it’s written in the context of trying to ensure that former slaves and their children are made citizens there’s good reason to believe the intent was not to allow for children of illegal immigrants.

A) You are still trying to throw out 125+ years of precedent. This isn't Roe where the ruling was made off of a unique interpretation. This is a fundamental statute of American history.
B) Even if you somehow pulled it off where Trump signs an EO, it goes before the court, and they rule for it, it would be political suicide. Republicans would lose the presidency for the next 30 years because both Texas and Florida would go Democrat. There is no path to 270 when those two states are blue.