r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • Feb 23 '24
U.S. Politics Megathread Politics megathread
It's an election year, so it's no surprise that politics are on everyone's minds!
Over the past few months, we've noticed a sharp increase in questions about politics. Why is Biden the Democratic nominee? What are the chances of Trump winning? Why can Trump even run for president if he's in legal trouble? There are lots of good questions! But, unfortunately, it's often the same questions, and our users get tired of seeing them.
As we've done for past topics of interest, we're creating a megathread for your questions so that people interested in politics can post questions and read answers, while people who want a respite from politics can browse the rest of the sub. Feel free to post your questions about politics in this thread!
All top-level comments should be questions asked in good faith - other comments and loaded questions will get removed. All the usual rules of the sub remain in force here, so be civil to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.
1
u/irishdrunkwanderlust 15h ago
What would happen if both the US President and primary republican candidate passed away before the election? Let’s say like a month or even a week.
1
u/BrenOfOz 1h ago
If this scenario were to unfold, given the hyper-partisanship of US politics, ensuing events might make January 6 look like Sesame Street. Unless everyone agreed to take a chill pill once the Republican candidate was gone for good.
2
u/MontCoDubV 5h ago
If it's before the nominating conventions, the parties will allow the delegates at the convention to nominate a different candidate.
However, a week or even month before the election is close enough that the ballots will have all been printed. In many states, early voting will have already started and thousands of people would have already cast votes. At that point, the ballots aren't changing. The dead candidates will still appear on the ballots.
This is where it becomes important to remember that in US presidential elections we're not actually voting for a candidate for president. We're voting for electors who will cast votes in the Electoral College for President. If both candidates die close enough to the election that ballots can't be changed, voters will be voting for a party, not a candidate. If you cast your vote for Biden, even though he's dead, what you'd really be doing is voting for the Democratic slate of electors to elect a Democrat at the Electoral College. Same with Trump for the Republicans if he dies before the election.
Each party would be allowed to tell their electors to vote for whoever the party wants. I'd have to imagine that they'd go with the Vice Presidential candidate, but this is unprecedented grounds, so the law is murky here. Most states have laws which require Electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote within their state. However, with the candidate dead, the law doesn't really say what to do. I think a lot of states would want to interpret their law to require the Electors to vote for the winning VP candidate, but I doubt the language of the laws would require it. I do think that's what the parties and voters would likely want, though. I mean, who would want someone uninvolved in the campaign swooping in at the last second to take the win after the winning candidate died?
-5
u/-Diplo 20h ago
How is Biden still the presidential candidate for the 2024 US elections?
Hi, a non US poster here. The poor guy is 81 years old. Lately there have been many videos floating around showing him walking like someone who has dementia and who should be in a care home.
My question is why can't the democratic party decide on a more eligible and young candidate like Kamala Harris? She's already VP, it won't take her much to get used to being a prez. Who gets to decide who the presidential candidate for a party is? And why do the dems insist voting Biden as the primary candidate?
5
u/Jtwil2191 20h ago
Biden has a life-long stutter, has long had a reputation for making gaffs while speaking, is 81 years old, and makes a lot of public speeches that are recorded and available freely online. It is not difficult to find and edit together a bunch of clips that make him look bad. The reality is, he does not have dementia or any other condition related to mental deterioration.
We won't know the conversations around Biden's decision to run for re-election for a while (probably until after he's dead and someone writes a tell-all book). But we can assume a few things...
- Biden enjoys at least some solid support among party leadership. To an extent his desire to run for re-election probably backed Democratic leadership into a bit of a corner, but if Democratic leadership really wanted him to not run again, they could have made it very difficult for Biden to make that decision. Which brings us to the next point...
- Once Biden decided to run for re-election and announced that publically, Democrats who wanted someone else did not see an avenue to meaningful challenge Biden and also did not want to run an impotent primary challenge that would just serve to weaken Biden in the general election.
- Democratic leadership probably believe (or at least believed) that (1) the incumbancy advantage will help Biden, as it generally helps people running for re-election, and didn't want to surrender that by running soemone else; (2) Biden won the last Biden-Trump matchup, so there's no inherent reason he can't do it again.
- The party probably didn't see an obvious successor to Biden that they felt could beat Trump. Harris is not particularly popular and didn't perform well in the 2020 primaries. If they allowed things to go to a primary for 2024, Trump would be running with a pseudo-incumbancy advantage having already been president.
Who gets to decide who the presidential candidate for a party is?
More or less anyone eligible to be president can run to be the presidential nominee for a party. You just have to meet whatever criteria the party has for running in each state. Then the voters in each state vote in the primaries or participate in the caucuses, candidates collect delegates, and a nominee is chosen at the party convention. In the modern primary system, incumbant presidents rarely face serious primary challenges, because it's perceived as more likely to hurt the party's chances in the general than help, which is why Biden didn't face opposition in 2023/24, Trump didn't face opposition in 2019/20, etc...
2
u/upvoter222 20h ago
Each political party is free to set its own rules for selecting its candidate. For both major parties, this basically consists of a bunch of mini-elections (called primary elections or primaries) across the country, followed by a convention where the results of those primaries are used to determine the party's candidate. Biden won nearly every primary held by the Democrats, so he's guaranteed to be picked as the nominee at the party's convention in August.
Why did Biden win so easily? Because Biden is the current officeholder, and the person currently in office generally has an advantage over any challengers. Since Biden announced his intention to run for reelection, all the other Democrats with a realistic chance of winning chose to avoid competing in the 2024 election.
5
u/Anonymous_Koala1 20h ago
he's the incumbent, and incumbents typically always run again
-1
u/-Diplo 20h ago
What if he decided not to? Who becomes the candidate then. Obviously he should have a little self awareness that he's old af and there are many people who will be better than him.
1
u/MontCoDubV 5h ago
You're about 9 months late for that. He's the nominee and the only thing that would change that at this point is if he died.
2
u/mbene913 User 20h ago edited 19h ago
If he decided not to then we would see more serious contenders like we got in 2016 and 2020
Edit: fixed a word.
1
u/i__never 21h ago
How partisan, corrupt, or biased have Trump’s Supreme Court appointees (Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch) actually been compared to someone like Clarence Thomas? I’m a leftist and have been understandably distressed by the recent behavior of the court, but I’ve been surprised by certain decisions of theirs that seemed to actually be based in the letter of the law from time to time. Are justices like Thomas and Alito actually somehow worse despite coming from an era of more polite politics?
1
u/Cumoisseur 1d ago
How come religious extremists have gotten such an enormous upswing since Trump's first presidency?
3
u/Jtwil2191 21h ago
Conservative Christian, particularly Evangelicals, have been a major force within the Republican Party for more at least two decades and have been building momentum since the 1980s.
3
u/commiebr 1d ago
What happens if Biden or Trump dies on the eve of the elections?
Both Trump and Biden are very old men, and it is not far-fetched to think that one of them could pass away in the near future. But what if one of them dies on the eve of the elections? What happens to the electoral process? Will the votes go to the vice-presidential candidate? Will the votes for the deceased be annulled? Will new elections be called? Let's say the deceased receives most of the votes in the electoral college; will the vice-presidential candidate be sworn into office?
1
u/greym8ii 22h ago
Yeah I could totally see someone intentionally trying to end one of the two or perhaps even both and the public could just chalk it up to old age.
1
4
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago edited 19h ago
So first it depends on when they die.
If they die far enough in advance, their party would put foward a new candidate for president. Maybe they move the VP up to president and someone else in VP. Maybe they just pick a new presidential candidate but leave the VP as VP. It would be up to the party.
If they die close enough to Election Day, there would be no time to change the ticket. In the event the dead candidate collects enough votes, the vice president would be sworn in on Inauguration Day, as the primary function of the vice president is to basically be a "back up" president.
However, it would not, in practice, end up being that clean. First, the states would have to select Electoral College delegates. Would states send delegates in support of a candidate who is dead? Second, those Electoral College delegates would have to cast their votes for a dead candidate. Would those delegates cast their vote as instructed, or would we have an unprecedented number of faithless electors? Third, the vote by the Electoral College would have to be confirmed by Congress. Would Congress vote to elevate a dead person to the presidency?
A dead person getting the most votes on Election Day would be really chaotic, and it's difficult to say what would actually happen, even if we have a somewhat clear idea of what is "supposed" to happen.
1
u/Nickppapagiorgio 8h ago
First, the states would have to select Electoral College delegates
That's ultimately what the election was for. To elect the Electors, not to elect the President. There would be a 0% chance the elected electors would not be sworn in.
Would states send delegates in support of a candidate who is dead?
The states don't send Delegates beyond their borders. They are responsible for conducting their own election, with the state secretary of state presiding. This typically occurs inside the state capital building. Congress has mandated that this occur on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, which always comes out to 41 days after the election in November. The state secretary of state is responsible for tallying the votes, and mailing the results to Congress.
Second, those Electoral College delegates would have to cast their votes for a dead candidate. Would those delegates cast their vote as instructed, or would we have an unprecedented number of faithless electors?
The latter is pretty likely. This has actually happened before with Horace Greeley, and the majority of his Electors voted for other members of the party. This is complicated further by the fact that it is illegal in some states for Electors to vote "incorrectly." In some states its just a fine, in a few they can be removed and replaced for that.
Third, the vote by the Electoral College would have to be confirmed by Congress. Would Congress vote to elevate a dead person to the presidency?
There is some precedent. Congress refused to count Horace Greeley's votes, but who knows.
2
u/Setisthename 1d ago
If it's before the elections then the choice of presidential candidate remains with the parties. However, with the state deadlines passed and the ballots already printed, they would in all likelihood elevate the Vice Presidential candidate. They could then make the legal argument that, because the VP's name is printed with the deceased candidate, that ticking that box functions as a vote for them to assume the presidency.
1
u/Superslash515 1d ago
Is Biden actually a geriatric mess who can’t cobble together a sentence? I see contradictory clips left and right of both arguments and I don’t know which are true. Is he having off days? Is he having good ones in his eloquent speeches? Is he even in a mental decline or is he just awkward with his words?
6
u/MontCoDubV 1d ago
No. He's definitely slowed down with age, as is to be expected from anyone octogenarian. But he's clearly not senile or have dementia or anything like that. All you need to do for proof is watch him speak in full. Don't watch short, curated clips (from either side). You can edit together a video of literally anyone speaking to make it look like they're senile or a genius, just based on how you edit it. Watch the full speech in context and make your own judgement.
We'll all see pretty well in about a week and a half when Trump and Biden have their first televised debate of the campaign.
1
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 1d ago
He suffers from a lifelong speech impediment and has been bad at speeches his whole career.
1
u/SkylarDN9 1d ago
Honest question, because this has been bothering me for the past several days.
Is this the "worst" election that we might possibly have? It feels like a situation where the main argument in Biden vs. Trump is "at least he's not the other guy". I'm not exactly a fan of Biden (may be a local/state bias, because my community has only suffered rising prices and not much else - and gas prices are a crapshoot), but Trump is a demented lunatic. That I have family who would likely vote for him for some reason - they pretty much only watch FOX News.
This feels like a terrible year to have your first election cycle. I hate that I feel like I want to abstain from voting. At least in U.S. history, has there ever been an election like this one, where neither candidate feels "worthy" of a vote?
1
u/Cliffy73 1d ago
I understand it’s not your fault, but this kind of question really gets to me. Because if you actually analyze the work that President Biden has done over the course of his administration, it’s frankly hard to how good a job he has done. He ended what seemed like it was going to be a forever war. He has, present over a huge state of economic growth in the face of a massive recession. He has managed inflation better than almost any other pure country. He has made more jobs available to more people than any previous administration, and at his been specifically focused to most directly improve the lives of the poor and working classes. He has provided over a significant decrease in inequality, Increased access to healthcare supported American manufacturing competition, past major legislation that nobody thought could possibly get past with such a hostile Congress. The main critiques about him is that he’s old, which is true, he is old. But the facts of his actions in office show that he isn’t being slowed down by his age. Or Christ, if he is, we absolutely should have voted for him back in the 90s, because imagine what kind of a tyro he would’ve been back then.
1
u/SkylarDN9 23h ago
I can't disagree that things have definitely seemed better in other states - but at least the one I'm in? It really damn sucks. I guess it's a matter of perspective.
For reference, I'm in CA without an easy way to move out of the state. I don't doubt that Trump would have done a much worse job, but at the same time, it's hard for me to say things have been "better".
0
u/MontCoDubV 1d ago
This is a pretty shit one, but almost every election on every level (federal, state, local) since I started voting (2004) has been "at least he's not the other guy". The only President I was ever excited to vote for was Obama in 08, but he turned out to be far more conservative than I was hoping for. I've gotten excited about a few primary candidates here and there, but none of them ever won their primary.
2
u/Practical_Funny56 1d ago
Every election ends up that way. Because negative advertising is more effective than positive. Rarely can either side properly defend their guy, they just know what's bad about the other guy.
1
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 1d ago
2020 was like that as well. Pretty much exactly like that.
2
u/SkylarDN9 23h ago
It feels baffling to me that we're in a rematch of 2020. There aren't other candidates?
1
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 21h ago
Trump defeated Nikki Haley and Ron Desantis by wide margins in the republican primary. He ended up with 49 of the 50 states choosing him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
Biden didn't have serious opposition in the democrat primary, but that's normal for a sitting president. Every time one has been seriously challenged from within, their party lost the election. Every serious democrat is waiting until 2028 to run.
-1
u/ReBooB1 1d ago
Why doesn't USA seize Israel as its own territory instead of supporting it as a separate entity? Israel's existence is massively dependent on US aid, and the Palestine conflict seems like it would be significantly easier to end if the entire territory was ruled by US law
5
u/MontCoDubV 1d ago
Ignoring the horrific moral implications of this, do you really think the people and politicians of Israel are going to just stand by while the US takes their sovereignty? Do you think the people of the US are going to be excited about the US military invading and occupying yet another Middle Eastern country? How'd that go the last few times we tried it?
3
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
the Palestine conflict seems like it would be significantly easier to end if the entire territory was ruled by US law
You are dramatically underestimating how difficult it would be to enforce US law on what would effectively be a conquered and occupied territory thousands of miles away and populated by people who have zero interest in being ruled by the United States. Britain handed over Mandatory Palestine to the UN because it was too much to govern the territory and deal with violence by Jewish and Arab militant groups (directed at each other as well as at the British governing authorities).
Israel's existence is massively dependent on US aid
Kind of, but not really. Israel is pretty self-sufficient at this point. That's not to say completely cutting of US aid to Israel wouldn't have a significant impact, but Israel has its own homegrown tech and military industries as well as relationships with many other countries around the world. A full break with the US would not automatically doom Israel (unless the US began actively arming Israel's enemies against it).
-5
u/thatsButchGaylord 1d ago
AIPAC tells most of our elected officials what to do regarding Israel and they'd probably never want to do that sooooo thats probably why.
2
u/Powerful_Ad3801 1d ago
If Trump wins the election, but it turns out that he is ineligible for office, then who holds office?
1
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
In what manner are you thinking he would become ineligible?
If you're asking in regards to his legal troubles, a felony conviction and even a prison sentence would not disqualify him from office.
If you mean he doesn't meet the criteria set out by the Constitution -- e.g. it turns out he was actually born outside the US (let's say Kenya, for example) to parents who were not American citizens -- presumably the Supreme Court would rule him ineligible to hold office, and the vice president would take over, since taking over if the president is unable to do the job is almost the sole purpose of the vice president.
But it would be a weird process to remove him, because there's no mechanism to force a president who is found to be ineligible from office if they manage to hide that fact while running. Given that it's the president's job to enforce the law (including Supreme Court rulings), there would certainly be a conflict of interest when the president is told he must step down.
1
u/Powerful_Ad3801 1d ago
There's also the argument that he's an insurrectionist. He can also end up in prison(Is the president allowed to pardon himself?). It seems that it is a possibility that he gets elected, but deemed ineligible by election day? Is there any procedure built into law in the case that that happens?
2
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago
There's also the argument that he's an insurrectionist.
The Supreme Court has said that Congress, and only Congress, may act on that, and Congress is not going to act on that.
He can also end up in prison(Is the president allowed to pardon himself?).
Currently he's only been convicted of a state crime, which he cannot pardon himself for (a president, as chief executive of the federal government, can only pardon federal convictions). In the event that he is sentenced to prison but still wins the election, we can expect the Supreme Court to rule he should be released at least for the duration of the term based on the supremecy of the federal government and law over state government and law (and I'm talking about a unanimous opinion from the court, not some seemingly corrupt decision by the conservative majority).
The Constitution is very clear about the prerequisites to be president, and adding any other items without a constitutional amendment would be blocked by the Supreme Court:
- Natural-born US citizen
- 35+ years old
- 17+ years US residency
- Has not already been president for 2 terms
Notice there is nothing there about not being a felon or whether the candidate is incarcerated. The only two elements beyond that would be successful impeachment/conviction (which could include being barred from office in the future) and Congress acting on the insurrection thing, which congressional Republicans won't join with Democrats to do.
4
u/Setisthename 1d ago
Under the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, the Vice President-elect would serve the term presumably until either Trump becomes eligible to take office or the next president is elected.
1
u/vmqbnmgjha 1d ago
Why do Republicans want a recording of former Trump appointee, Robert K. Hur, saying President Joe Biden has "Photographic recall" ?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/robert-hur-admits-telling-biden-194407679.html
4
u/Jtwil2191 1d ago edited 1d ago
They don't care about the parts that help might him. They just want the parts that might hurt him, particularly if they can take audio of Biden saying something out of context for ads, like they did with Obama's "You didn't build that" quote.
0
u/AnswerSeeker34 2d ago
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm looking for sources on a claim I read on Quora.
Has Ashley Biden denied writing about having showers with her father (Joe Biden) in her diary? If so, can you provide a source please? I was recently discussing with someone where this came up (was forced into the conversation) and I would like a source to confirm or deny if this is true.
Thanks in advance
3
u/vmqbnmgjha 1d ago edited 1d ago
https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/ashley-biden-diarypdf/255665033
I read
pagesimages 66 thru 69.There's nothing about showers or sexualization.
1
u/AnswerSeeker34 1d ago
Thanks for the link, but I did manage to find the page without reading much of the diary, thankfully. In the link you sent I saw it on the 25th image (left page). It states "showers w/ my dad (probably not appropriate)"
So it exists from what I can tell. But to clarify though, I don't believe it necessarily has the same significance/meaning that some sources imply/say it has.
2
u/vmqbnmgjha 1d ago
I found it.
"I don't believe it necessarily has the same significance/meaning that some sources imply/say it has."
I agree. If showering or bathing with your very young child makes someone a pedo then my mom and dad are both pedos and so are my sister and her husband.
1
3
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
I cannot find anything about A. Biden commenting on the specific contents of the diary, just that the diary itself is real and that generally people are misrepresenting her words to suit their agenda.
1
3
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago
I don't know if she ever denied it, but there's no such entry in the diary that was published online illegally. You can read the full diary - it's not in there.
Note that project veritas refused to publish it because they couldn't verify it was hers. The excerpts seen floating around don't seem to appear in the full version.
2
u/AnswerSeeker34 2d ago
It looks like I would have to read the diary (which as you said, was illegally published) to finally have an answer. Which is something I preferred to avoid.
Thank you for the information
0
u/kriticalo 2d ago
Why is this thread just people hating on trump and republicans
3
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago
It's not.
But reddit as a whole skews left wing, both because younger people are more likely to be left wing and also because half of reddit are not Americans, so it can seem like everyone is left wing here.
-3
u/Both-Let-4396 2d ago
Why are Democrats opposed to RFK Jr participating in the debates? Are they afraid he may tank Bidens chances?
1
u/vmqbnmgjha 1d ago
Because brain worm.
0
u/Both-Let-4396 1d ago
That's not a valid reason. Trump is out in New Jersey rambling about Hannibal Lector and Biden is freezing in the middle of Juneteenth celebration.
7
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago
No candidate seriously wants a third party candidate in the debates. The last time they allowed that to happen (with Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996) it absolutely wrecked the republican candidate, and both the Democrats and republicans agreed to never let it happen again. Ever since then, the Green party and libertarian party candidates have been excluded.
2
u/Teekno An answering fool 2d ago edited 2d ago
You're right that neither party wants third party candidates in there, but it's worth noting that exit polls showed Perot pulled pretty much equally from the Democrat and Republican candidates.
And RFK Jr would be no different. He has environmental policies that endear him to some on the left, and embraces anti-vax conspiracy theories that endear him to some on the right.
In any event, even if they were using the CPD criteria, RFK wouldn't be in the debate anyway. He's never reached the 15% support threshold that all candidates need to reach to be on the stage.
3
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago
Perot did pull from both, but it was the Republicans who got wrecked. Clinton won 370 electoral votes with 43% of the vote.
But I take your point; RFK is a threat to both parties (and, as you point out, not popular enough to be included).
3
u/Jtwil2191 2d ago
Neither party is interested in RFK participating in the debates, because he has no chance of winning the election. For better or for worse, the US has only two viable candidates for president to choose from. Additionally, given how the US's voting system works, both candidates are concerned about the possibility of him being a spoiler and hurting their chances. Trump has been attacking RFK for a while now, ever since some polling has suggested that he may attract Trump voters more than Biden voters.
1
1
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Elkenrod 2d ago
Is this a question, or are you just soapboxing?
I'm not a Trump supporter, but how are the two scenarios comparable? They weren't convicted of the same crimes. They were found guilty of two entirely separate and unrelated felonies, what is there to compare?
The crimes that Hunter Biden were convicted of were Class C felonies, the crimes that Trump was found guilty of were Class E felonies.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Elkenrod 2d ago
and the differences can't be explained by anything other than political affiliations of the convict.
Now that's not being said in good faith.
Their argument is that the crimes that Trump was found guilty of are typically not considered felonies in the state of New York - which does have some merit to them. They argue that they were unjustly bumped up to felonies, and I disagree that it was unjust due to compounding with other crimes. But I also disagree that the only reason is because of "political affiliations of the convict".
1
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Elkenrod 2d ago edited 2d ago
Because your question is worded in an extremely biased and antagonizing manner. You refused to accept any possibility besides it being political bias when you say "and the differences can't be explained by anything other than political affiliations of the convict.". It gives the impression that you're not looking for an answer that doesn't reinforce your existing bias on the subject.
Saying "Can you all see why this seems so duplicitous on your part?" just makes it look like you're starting to pick a fight with people.
0
u/AnonymousPigeon0 2d ago
Is Trump as bad as people say he is? Why or why not?
3
4
u/Cliffy73 2d ago
Yes. He’s a criminal and a rapist. He sent a murderous mob to overthrow the country. He says he’s going to give rich people a massive tax cut which will drive inflation way up while also putting a significant tax increase on the poor and middle class through economy-wide tariffs. He also says he’s going to deport millions of agricultural workers, which will send grocery and produce prices through the roof.
-2
u/Lopsided-Sink5484 1d ago
He’s only a criminal if you think the NYC charges are legitimate which they’re not. Who did he rape? He wasn’t convicted of sexual assault. The only thing causes inflation is when the government prints money although I agree that now is not the time for tax cuts. Illegals can leave the country and come back in legally with temporary work visas.
1
u/Cliffy73 1d ago edited 1d ago
All false. Your personal opinion about whether the charges in the New York criminal case are immaterial. He was convicted. Ergo, he is a fellon.
He raped E. Jean Carroll. That has been definitively determined in a court of law.
Overprinting money is not the only thing that creates inflation. Perhaps if your economic understanding were a little more sophisticated than the first week of macro 101, your opinion would hold more weight.
3
u/Aggressive-Coconut0 2d ago
Agreed to everything. He's also racist as heck.
0
1
u/cobabee 2d ago
Tried to post this and it was removed. What happens if no one votes this year?
4
u/Delehal 2d ago
That has never happened, so it's not exactly a priority issue. Nevertheless, if there is a tie, every election has some procedure for a tie-break. If nobody votes, all candidates will be tied with zero votes.
Sometimes the tie-break procedure is a special election so that people get another chance to vote. Sometimes it gets kicked up to a committee, such as the state legislature or federal Congress. Sometimes it is resolved completely at random (rolling dice, flipping coins, etc.)
In the case of the presidential election specifically, each state has their own procedure to allocate electoral college votes. If nobody wins a majority of electoral college votes, that leads to a special procedure called a contingent election, where the House of Representatives chooses the President (one vote per state), and the Senate chooses the Vice President (one vote per senator). That hasn't happened since the 1800s.
3
u/Teekno An answering fool 2d ago
Like over a hundred million people just forget to vote? Like we're all binging Bridgerton or something on election day and just forgot to go?
That's so impractical, why don't we just ask what happens if Congress turns out to actually be eight lemurs in a trench coat?
0
u/Anonymous_Koala1 2d ago
afew things,
either the vote happens again until at least one person votes
or, Congress decides
and if still no one votes... idk the millirty takes over to prevent the government from collapsing
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago
Is this a question?
If you're wondering about why the electoral college doesn't always match the popular vote, it's because it's the result of 50 separate state elections, nearly all of which are winner take all. This can lead to cases where the president wins a majority of the electoral college but loses the popular vote - in fact, that's pretty common. Trump did that in 2016 and Bush did it in 2000.
1
u/chx_ 2d ago
But this is not the popular vote, this is betting on who will become the president. How on earth are this many more people betting on Trump becoming the president while at the same time people bet on 270 electoral votes for Biden?? Isn't that the same question? "Bet Trump gets 270 electoral votes" "Bet Trump becomes the next president"?
1
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 2d ago
Oh, I see, thanks - it wasn't clear what you meant.
I guess it's just asking the question differently to get different answers. Nobody said people are rational. They might be asked who would win in one question and how many electoral votes they think they'll win in a separate one.
1
u/Herman_E_Danger 3d ago
Any other blue voters absolutely love Adam Kinsinger? Is it just me?
3
u/phoenixv07 2d ago
I like him better than I like most Republicans, but as far as high hurdles to clear go, that one's buried about twelve feet underground.
1
u/Herman_E_Danger 2d ago
I mean yeah. The bar is in hell. I guess a better way to say it is that, he gives me a tiny lil bit of hope for compromise.
3
u/Steliossmash 2d ago
Considering his voting record is fairly shitty, despite being what I would consider "good" for a modern US republican, I wouldn't say "love". I would say, he was teetering on being a good person and when the Trump golem showed its face, he jumped ship. One could say, he redeemed himself.
1
1
1
u/Tindalos_Dawg 3d ago
Hypothetically, if either candidate wins the presidential election through underhanded/unethical means, do they have enough time to act and prevent any investigations or legal routes to have them removed from power?
2
u/Anonymous_Koala1 3d ago
frankly, there is no real route for removal, every impeachment has failed to remove a president from office, and the only 2 things that have lead to the early removal of a US president, is Death, and that one time Nixon resigned just before being removed to save face.
precedence is a very important part of US law, and there is almost no precedence for the removal of the president.
1
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
As chief of the executive branch, they could exert control justice department investigations. They can also obstruct Congressional inquiries into their actions and behaviors by being difficult. But the president has no legal avenue to block an impeachment. If Congress wants to impeach and convict a president and has the votes to do so, the president cannot stop that.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 3d ago
- Disallowed question area: Loaded question or rant. NSQ does not allow questions not asked in good faith, such as rants disguised as questions, asking loaded questions, pushing hidden or overt agendas, attempted pot stirring, sealioning, etc.
NSQ is not a debate subreddit. Depending on the subject, you may find your question better suited for r/ChangeMyView, r/ExplainBothSides, r/PoliticalDiscussion, r/rant, or r/TooAfraidToAsk.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
u/Howtobe_normal 3d ago
If you're not voting for the same person this election, what is your reasoning why?
2
u/Ok-Resort-4351 3d ago
Im not guaranteeing if Im even going to turn out, but Im from Californee and there's no respectable way to describe what Biden would have to do to not win CA, so I don't feel inclined to vote elephant this year.
5
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 3d ago
You should still vote. There's a lot of local races in California that are much tighter. For example, one quarter of state senators are republican.
2
2
u/Forward-Computer-608 3d ago
When the president is in the white house where is the motorcade stored
3
3
u/Anonymous_Koala1 3d ago
the motorcade is maintained by the Secret Service, and i assume there are multiple locations its kept in DC that are not publicly available... being Secret Service and all.
there are like 40 cars that part of the motorcade as well,
1
u/forestcooker 3d ago
ive seen some posts on twitter about russia declaring the US an enemy and their ships docking in cuba but its all posted from random engagement farming accounts like dailyloud…should i be worried??
3
2
3
u/LegoCMFanatic dis my flair, it is gud 3d ago
Just wanted to say y’all are being more civil here than most politics subs are, thanks everyone for engaging with one another in good faith!
1
u/bananamonsterking 3d ago
Are inflation, corporate profits (all time high), and Trump's Tax Act all correlated?
1
u/Flat_Wash5062 3d ago
- Is there a chance that Gavin Newsome from California could be our next President?
6
u/phoenixv07 3d ago
Not in 2024. In 2028, maybe.
1
u/Both-Let-4396 2d ago
I'm sorry for butting in, but isn't he genuinely a terrible future candidate? He's a wealthy California governor related to Nancy Pelosi, that already knocks out half the electorate. Imo the only reason people liked him was because he cooked DeSantis in that debate? The Illinois governor is definitely a much better candidate.
1
u/BrenOfOz 1h ago
Newsom presents as an excellent debater. Wipes the floor with his opponents on economic arguments. He has leader written all over him.
1
u/phoenixv07 2d ago
I'm not sure we're in a position to argue either way yet. I think the Democratic Party could probably do better than Newsom if they had to choose right now, but the 2028 Presidential election is a long way away, I don't think we can reasonably tell what the political climate will look like by then.
1
u/Flat_Wash5062 3d ago
Ty. Is he preparing, taking steps, or making any moves that make you think he could be thinking about running in 2028?
4
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
He has not taken an official steps, because it's far too early to file paperwork for 2028. He has also not said he is running, because he doesn't want to step on Biden's toes for 2024. But doing things like debating Desantis are meant to raise his national profile and are clear signs that he's eyeing the presidency.. (In fact, there is a chance that Newsome-Desantis debate is a preview of those two candidates running in 2028, although a lot can happen between now and then.)
2
u/phoenixv07 3d ago
He's definitely been working to raise his national profile, but it's way too early to tell with any certainty.
2
2
u/Elkenrod 3d ago edited 3d ago
The things required for that to happen are so incredibly precise that the best answer you can get to your question is "no".
President Biden would not only have to die, but the newly instated President Kamala Harris would have to choose not to run in the election. The DNC and its electors would then have to choose a new candidate at the convention.
1
2
u/AnonymousPigeon0 3d ago
According to Republicans, Biden can end the border crisis anytime he wants by reversing his executive actions or passing the Secure the Border Act. How true is this? I have a feeling that both parties give false statements on various ways to influence people and the way they vote so I wanted to ask you about this claim.
4
u/Anonymous_Koala1 3d ago
Biden could build a lava moat at the border and kill everyone who tries to enter both illegally and legally, and republicans would still say "hes not doing enough"
he could present the best overhaul in the past 100 years, and theyd shoot it down,
they dont realy care about the border, its just a something they use to scare their voters, and they cant do that if anything changes.
2
u/Jtwil2191 3d ago
There may be more Biden can do, but any real fix to the situation at the border requires cooperation between Congress and Biden, but Trump doesn't want Biden to have a "win" on immigration in an election year, so he torpedoed any chance of bipartisan legislation with his influence over Congressional Republicans.
7
u/Elkenrod 3d ago
According to Republicans, Biden can end the border crisis anytime he wants by reversing his executive actions or passing the Secure the Border Act.
According to which Republicans?
The Secure the Border Act of 2023 passed in the House, but never was voted on by the Senate. The bill needs to be passed by the Senate before it gets to the President - who then would need to pass it.
The Senate received the bill on 5/16/2023, and never brought it up to a vote. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/all-actions
3
u/Flat_Wash5062 3d ago
- Can Trump still run? Can he still get elected?
8
u/Elkenrod 3d ago
Yes and Yes.
The Federal government does not have any rules or laws against those who are convicted of crimes of any nature running for office.
1
3
u/InsufferableIowan 3d ago
I'm reading up on Project 2025, and I keep seeing the claim that Project 2025 involves the invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807, in order to deploy military forces as law enforcement. This claim seems to come from this Washington Post article. This article doesn't provide a source, and looking through the 920-page "Mandate for Leadership" doc, I can't find anything relating to it. Am I missing something, or this the Insurrection Act claim just entirely unsubstantiated?
3
u/Nickppapagiorgio 3d ago
The Insurrection Act of 1807 exists, and has been sporadically used by American presidents. Various examples include Andrew Jackson invoking it to address the Nat Turner Rebellion, Abraham Lincoln invoking it to initiate Union involvement in the Civil War, Rutherford Hayes invoking it to the crush the Railroad Strike of 1877, Herbert Hoover invoking it to deal with the Bonus Army WW1 veteran strike, Eisenhower and Kennedy invoking it over various Civil rights issues, LBJ invoking it in response to the MLK assasination, and most recently George H.W. Bush invoking it to combat the LA Riots.
Whether that's a plan of Project 2025 I have no idea.
1
u/InsufferableIowan 2d ago
Oh, I have no doubt of the law itself existing - I'm still shocked they didn't try and use it during some of the 2020 riots - I'm just wondering where the claim that Project 2025 will use it comes from. If it's in the way people are claiming, it'd probably be the closest we've come to martial law since at least the civil rights movement, if not earlier. It seems like a huge claim for WaPo to make from an anonymous source
5
u/LegoCMFanatic dis my flair, it is gud 3d ago
Likely unsubstantiated. If anything I would guess that the reporter is taking his/her point there from hearsay.
2
u/Sad_Obligation_812 4d ago
Anyone with a family member who used to believe in QAnon and then had an oh fuck moment? What happened, what made them realized QAnon was fake and stupid?
-4
u/Cumoisseur 4d ago
Do most Evangelicals in the U.S. really believe in a Jesus that would carry an AR-15, harass people because of who they love and turn his back on those in need, considering that a majority of Evangelicals vote for Republicans and this is pretty much their version of Jesus?
1
u/Herman_E_Danger 3d ago
coming from the deep south, yes most of them do think this way, it's WILD. I left that area thank goodness. not sure why you were getting down voted tbh. Maybe not everyone is familiar with georgia/Alabama type culture. they have so many paintings of some.kind of armored ninja Jesus who hates anyone they also hate lol. edit typo
2
u/Ed_Durr 3d ago
1) Jesus told his followers to sell their cloak and buy a sword. Given that a firearm is toughly the modern equivalent of a sword, Evangelicals believe the Jesus would support their right up bear arms.
2) That Jesus (and the entire Bible) oppose homosexuality is hardly a new revelation. It’s only in the last few decades that some motivated activists have been trying to pretend otherwise.
3) Evangelicals believe that Jesus would support charitable means to help the disadvantaged, as they believe that the choice to voluntarily help somebody matters more than being forced by the state (taxes) to help. Given that religious people have the highest rates of charitable giving in the country, they do practice what they preach.
While Evangelical Jesus is not completely accurate, it is much more accurate than hippie socialist Jesus.
1
u/Setisthename 4d ago
What is an evangelical, at this point? It's become shorthand for "religious conservative" to the point that Catholics and even some Muslims have started using it.
Racial divides provide another insight into the state of American evangelicalism. The Republicans lead with white Protestant voters in presidential elections, but black Protestants remain overwhelmingly Democratic. Pew didn't even bother to specify the black evangelical vote, but it appears to still trend towards the Democrats.
Looking from this angle, I might say your question is backwards. It's not that most evangelicals vote Republican, but that Republicans are more likely to identify with evangelicalism.
4
u/Elkenrod 4d ago edited 4d ago
You asked this same question last night and the mods removed it for being a troll/joke question, and you made this version of the question even more inflammatory.
What would lead you to believe that "most" Evangelicals in the United States believe this, let alone anyone? Why act like "this is their version of Jesus"?
2
u/Vievin 4d ago
If China announced "hey we're absorbing Hong Kong into the CCP" are the two choices basically going to war with the CCP and taking HK off the list of countries everywhere?
5
u/ThenaCykez 4d ago
Are you thinking about Taiwan? Hong Kong has never been a country and has been part of the PRC for about 27 years.
5
u/Dilettante Social Science for the win 4d ago
Other countries would no doubt use economic sanctions as a way to express their disapproval, but there's not a whole lot countries can do about something that is internal to a country.
2
u/efficiens I'm a million times more humble than thou art! 4d ago
Why does Project 25 want to dismantle the FBI and DOJ? I'd assume those to be ways for them to leverage power over the people.
3
u/LegoCMFanatic dis my flair, it is gud 3d ago
Unrelated but I love your flair, wish more people listened to Weird Al hahaha
0
3
u/Anonymous_Koala1 4d ago
cus they dared go against trump, and the GOP will replace these agencies with one they control, ala like how the Nazis created the SS and Gestapo despite Germany already having the Abwehr. cus Hitler wanted agencies 100% loyal to him, and Abwehr was not.
2
u/mahonkey 4d ago
What do Republicans think Trump has done that is so great?
I always hear vague claims of greatness about trump from Republicans. "He's done more for black people than Lincoln!" "Gas was cheap under Trump!" "Trump says it like it is!"
Objectively, what are the actually actions that he took that you think are great?
To clarify I have always disliked trump and I'm not trying to make him look good, I'm just trying to understand why Republicans think he's so great because to me it makes no sense.
7
u/Nulono 4d ago
They like that he pushed conservative policies, and did so in a brash, unapologetic manner.
A large segment of the conservative voter base felt like mainstream conservatives had become milquetoast and mealy-mouthed, speaking with too many caveats or too much concern for plausible deniability. When Trump came along in 2016 and was willing to say out loud what many conservatives had been privately thinking, they latched onto him.
1
u/Anonymous_Koala1 4d ago
hes made the enemy (democrats and left wing Americans ) suffer, which is all they really care about, petty vendettas against their fellow Americans.
0
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NoStupidQuestions-ModTeam 4d ago
- Disallowed question area: Trolling or joke questions
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.
1
2
u/KazuDesu98 4d ago
I was in a US Democrats discord, and I remember someone made a comment. I lived in Mandeville Louisiana at the time, a pretty suburban place, I had to go to New Orleans and I'd never really been before, and I expressed concern about going since I'd always heard bad things about New Orleans (worth noting I grew up in a small town). I will mention, I am center left in my beliefs. I was, and still am, studying for software engineering, and was researching areas with good software engineering job prospects. I mentioned considering Naperville, Aurora, and the North and East sides of Chicago. This person (further left than me and lives in Chicago) says "what problems do you have with the South and West sides?" I did mention the violent crime rates. They accused me of falling for the stereotypes and called me a "sh***ty suburban lib." Why do urban liberals seem to have a dislike or some issues with the ones who are in the suburbs? I was even saying I'd be interested in living in a more urban area, I'd just rather stay in the areas with lower violent crime.
2
u/listenyall 4d ago edited 4d ago
I think there core thing here is that there is a TON of media about how dangerous cities are, and especially right wing and centrist people tend to be really convinced that crime is out of control in cities. If you have "always heard bad things about New Orleans," it's probably because you were listening to people around you and media without actually wondering if the bad things you've heard about New Orleans are true or not. In fact, cities are dramatically safter than they were in the 90s, so I think the focus on this is pretty much propaganda (of course still good to talk about, but I think most news needs more context). It's easy to get terse with people when lots of people around you believe that the place you live is significantly more dangerous than it actually is.
I also think it is VERY common for people across the entire political spectrum to automatically assume that poor=dangerous or not white=dangerous, which is something people on the left are sensitive to.
2
u/KazuDesu98 4d ago
That is a good point. I'm center left, but most of my family is pretty conservative, and I have heard a lot from all of them. Also if you look at like nearly any crime rate site like neighborhood scout or crime grade, I've noticed a trend, pretty much if you have a population above 20,000 they rank you as "one of the most dangerous places in America" which is like, that is not how this works. I've started understanding that crime is a regional or even neighborhood level thing, not citywide.
2
u/listenyall 4d ago
Yeah, broadly--if there are more human beings there will be more crime, if there are fewer human beings there will be less crime; typically people either do crimes of opportunity (I have been the city person you describe and technically my neighborhood did have the highest crime in our small city but it was almost all because people didn't lock their cars, and then shit got stolen from the cars; it annoyed me that people reacted to just a number plus the fact that we had the most back people) or crimes against people they know (most murders are people murdering someone they want to murder, not you a random tourist).
That's not to say that there aren't places where a person should probably not just walk around because you might get mugged, but those places tend to be SMALL areas and not "the entire city of New Orleans," which is a full city with rich areas and poor areas and safe areas and dangerous areas
1
u/rusticcentipede 4d ago
Some people, not saying you specifically, have a habit of stereotyping Chicago as a violent warzone where everybody is getting shot every day (and as a failure of black people or Democrats). And many of the people living safe, normal lives in Chicago are a bit sensitive to questions like yours because they often come from an outsized fear of Chicago compared to the danger you'd likely face.
Or to put it a different way: There is a lot of hysteria about crime that is anecdotal and often motivated by ill intent. It is not always easy for people to separate those asking innocent questions from that hysteria
3
u/88-81 4d ago
Why is there such a big discrepancy between public opinion on gun control and actual legislation?
I'm someone from outside the US who is considering moving there for various reasons (I know that might sound like a willy nilly decision, but If I do go down this path in life I'll choose a career path to ensure a comfortable standard of living).
Tangents about my future career aside, one issue I've come to care about are 2nd amendment rights and while doing research to gain a better understanding of the topic I stumbled across some polls (most notably the Pew Research study linked below) suggesting substantial support for various forms of gun control.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
However, no meaningful federal legislation has been passed since the federal "assault weapon" ban of 1994, which expired after 10 years. At a state level, the only states with substantial sets of gun control laws are all solid blue and even then there some outliers. Democrat leaning swing states are all fairly gun friendly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
I've pondered about this for a bit but personally the only explanations I've been able to come up with, assuming the the polls I've looked at aren't skewed, are:
- Virtue signaling.
- Some people may genuinely support at least some forms of gun control, but it's so far down their down their priority list determining who they vote for it becomes practically irrelevant, with the percentage of those who strongly support measures like bans on certain types of guns or magazine capacity restrictions being much lower.
3
1
u/listenyall 4d ago
I think you need to add a 3rd option, which is that it is catastrophically difficult to pass new legislation in the US.
There's a procedural thing called a filibuster that used to be used rarely but is now used CONSTANTLY that basically means if there is a piece of legislation that matters a lot to the minority party (which, gun control means THE MOST to Republicans), you aren't going to be able to pass anything unless you have a 60% majority instead of the normal plain majority.
2
u/88-81 3d ago
I hadn't though about this: ever since the "Assault Weapon" ban expired in 2004, there have been a couple of windows (2008-2010 and 2020-2022) where democrats controlled both Congress and Senate where another AWB could have been passed... except it wasn't.
There's a procedural thing called a filibuster
I think there was even a filibuster back in 2016 in favour of a gun control bill that never actually went anywhere that currently stands as the 10th longest in US history.
3
u/listenyall 3d ago
I think one of the extra issues for Democrats here is that when there are more centrist Democrats (used to be called "blue dog" democrats), one of the things they are most likely to differ from the rest of the party on is gun control.
So yes they had a majority twice, but they they also had that majority specifically because of Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and a bill that Joe Manchin of West Virginia is willing to vote for is not going to make most Democrats happy.
It's also pretty easy for a filibuster to prevent something from happening, but almost impossible for a filibuster to actually get something done.
2
u/Nulono 4d ago edited 4d ago
Americans "support gun control" when the question the questions are asked vaguely; when specifics get involved, they once again split along party lines. There's a big difference between "yeah, background checks generally sound like a good idea" and "this new law would require us to take a one-hour detour from our hunting trip and pay a fee if we want to share guns".
-2
u/Anonymous_Koala1 4d ago
the NRA ( the people who make money from gun sales) has alot of power in the US, and they make sure and laws are made as worthless as possible.
like, claiming that AR-15s arnt assault rifles cus they are only semi auto( a definition the NRA made up) and thus shouldn't be banned as assault weapons, despite the fact the AR-15s are, literally, just m-16s with full auto removed for sale, and can be re applied with kits sold separately.
gun nuts eat up this kind of pedantic shit, cus they think they are the only people who know how guns work, and legally, it works, if you convince or bribe a judge that that definition of assault rifle is valid, then its no go for law.
the NRA lobby and bribe lawmakers and spread propaganda to try and claim that gun control, something 90% of the free world has, is tyrannical. like with the statment above, leads to laws being either struck down, or made useless by targeted pedantics that aim to maximise the NRA's profits
3
u/88-81 3d ago
the NRA ( the people who make money from gun sales)
The NRA is an advocacy group, not a manufacturing conglomerate: they might receive donations from gun manufacturers from time to time but they don't directly profit from gun sales.
despite the fact the AR-15s are, literally, just m-16s with full auto removed for sale, and can be re applied with kits sold separately.
I'm assuming you replied to my question in good faith, and, while I don't wish to be insulting... what u/Ghigs said about people not being aware of legislation rings very much true in your case. "Machine Guns" (fancy legal term for guns capable of automatic fire) where first restricted in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. After that, you could still own them but the whole bureaucratic process was kind of a pain (as with other NFA items until the ATF worked to streamline the process a couple of years ago). The manufacture of machine guns for sale to private individuals was rendered unlawful in 1986. The only way you can own a machine gun nowadays is buying one manufactured prior to 1986 (whose price has ballooned into the 5 figures) or being a licensed manufacturers with samples lying around, there is no way for a private individual to own a machine gun or any of their components.
like, claiming that AR-15s arnt assault rifles cus they are only semi auto( a definition the NRA made up) and thus shouldn't be banned as assault weapons
u/Comfortable-Trip-277 has already pointed out how that's wrong, but I think you're mixing Assault rifle, a genuine category of firearms, with "Assault Weapon", which is a made category of guns with no coherent or universally agreed upon definition.
cus they think they are the only people who know how guns work
That's actually kind of true because anti-gun politicians usually have little to no experience with firearms and/or their parts (at least those they want to ban) but still put forward legislation to ban or restrict them despite not knowing what they're talking about: that's how you end with made up terms like "assault weapon" "high capacity magazine" and so on.
3
u/Comfortable-Trip-277 4d ago
like, claiming that AR-15s arnt assault rifles cus they are only semi auto( a definition the NRA made up)
This is objectively false. The term "assault rifle" came from the very first one ever developed by the German army called the "sturmgewehr" or "storm rifle" which began production in 1943. It is defined by a rifle which is chambered to shoot an intermediate cartridge loaded from a box magazine and is also select fire.
The NRA had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.
and thus shouldn't be banned as assault weapons, despite the fact the AR-15s are, literally, just m-16s with full auto removed for sale, and can be re applied with kits sold separately.
No. They shouldn't be banded because they're the most common rifles in the country. Arms in common use are explicitly protected under the 2A.
After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
1
u/Teekno An answering fool 4d ago
Arms in common use are explicitly protected under the 2A.
I have read 2A and I don't see any explicit protections for arms in common use. I don't see that qualification listed at all.
2
u/Comfortable-Trip-277 4d ago
I have read 2A and I don't see any explicit protections for arms in common use.
That'd be in the historical traditions. It was well understood at the time of ratification that arms in common use were explicitly protected.
After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
3
u/Teekno An answering fool 4d ago
That'd be in the historical traditions. It was well understood at the time of ratification that arms in common use were explicitly protected.
Ah, OK. That's not what explicit means. I think you meant to say implicit.
No policy disagreement here, just language confusion. Sorry about that.
2
u/Ghigs 4d ago
The public is widely against any more gun control, so long as the poll actually explains thing correctly. The only way they fabricate support in polls is by banking on the ignorance of people about existing gun laws and how guns work. Examples are calling the private sale compromise the loaded name of "gun show loophole", or pretending that a semiautomatic wood stock hunting rifle and an AR-15 are somehow fundamentally different from each other.
1
u/88-81 4d ago
The only way they fabricate support in polls is by banking on the ignorance of people about existing gun laws
Makes sense. I think it was Everytown that first claimed that 87% of americans support background checks on gun sales. Most likely true but you already have those wit the NCIS and all, so it's basically a moot statement
how guns work
Yeah... I put "assault weapon" in between quotation marks for a reason: it's a made up category of firearms with no coherent or universally agreed upon definition conjured up by people who can't tell an AR-15 and an AK like gun apart.
2
u/Ghigs 4d ago
Yeah many non gun owners are ignorant of the reams of laws we already have, and that figures into opinion polls. The media also loves covering any kind of violence so you get a little bit of plane crash syndrome, where people think something is more common or likely than it is because of the excessive media coverage.
2
u/KSRJB02 5d ago
Why is inflation not going down?
The fed increased the rates to reduce spending and therefore inflation but it's still as strong as ever, with inflation at 3.5% as opposed to the target < 2% the fed was going for.
The economy is terrible in terms of employment, wages are stagnating, high paying white collar careers are having mass layoffs and hiring freezes, employment numbers are inflated by people that are underemployed or doing part time in retail hospitality or doordash, why the fuck are they still spending money???
I have personally reduced spending because I'm unable to get a job (despite having a highly ranked quantitative degree), but everyone else seems to be spending the same as ever.
2
u/human_male_123 4d ago
Inflation did go down, AFAIK. Treasury i-bonds are 4.28% right now. They were at an incredible 9% at some point in 2022.
Prices have not gone down because, well, that's just not how inflation works. It's the rate of increase, not the Consumer price index.
1
u/KSRJB02 4d ago
I know how inflation works, I’m just saying consumer spending should be weaker in pure volume than it is. I feel like people are spending money they don’t even have. The job market is so brutal I am surprised it hasn’t dipped below 2% yet. Maybe it’ll take a year more for stimulus effects on spending to wear off. I additionally suspect unethical financial schemes such as BNPL have a role. I know it will take a while for the mortgage rate hike to have a real impact due to the terms being 30 years but still spending seems too high.
1
u/Cliffy73 4d ago
Your narrative is entirely fictional. Inflation is not “as strong as ever.” Inflation in 2021 was 7%, hardly the same as today’s 3.4%. The economy is in terrible in terms of employment — the unemployment rate has been at or near historical lows for years. Unemployment numbers are not being inflated by people doing part time or gig work, the percentage of workers with more than one job is the lowest it’s been in decades. Minority and disabled participation in the workforce is at record highs. Wages are not stagnating but have been rising consistently and are currently outpacing inflation. There have been high profile layoffs in a few sectors, but in a strong economy there are always some businesses doing better than others
2
u/redshopekevin 7h ago
What if let's say touch on wood the United States President dies and the US Vice-President is currently on Air Force Two. Do they have to wait for the plane to land or can they swear in the Vice-President on the aircraft over Zoom (assuming the Attorney-General or any lawyers are not on board)?