The problem was mostly Kamala not taking a stance on any issues and somehow fumbling the Muslim vote in several states

Vance is gonna run next, you know that, right?

He’s still better than Trump though

we still shoulda had John america

Frfr 🙏

John America would have cooked as president tbh.

Yes

I also agree with this. Both trump and Kamala were shit candidates. I’d argue their vice presidents were better but Walz had his own state vote against him I think. Not usually a good sign.

I agree with you, he’s got a few screws loose, but this will give democrats enough time to find a better candidate instead of having to rely on a not so great one because they had a shit ton of donation money from the previous president. Kamala was just not ready to run for or be the president, hopefully they’ll have a much better candidate next cycle.

Idk, I think Vance is good, but Kamala shouldn't EVER be the pres

Vance is decent enough. He’ll probably be a little better, but he did vote against abortion at the federal because he claims he saw it as a states issue. I guess right now it kind of is but my ass would argue commerce clause just because of how much money hospitals could make off that.

It is a state's issue.
and uh... what is the commerce clause ?

In a general sense, the Commerce Clause allows congress to regulate anything that could pose issues to interstate trade. While some stuff shouldn’t apply, they have won a lot of Supreme Court cases involving new laws or defending laws because of it, and I think this issue would f**k with their taxes enough to whip the commerce clause out and say “erm.. actually, this does mess with trade” but it’s a bit of a stretch. There are some cases they have won ONLY because of this clause, even if it’s stretched a little or they really shouldn’t have won. There’s only a few times where a case has lost because of the Commerce Clause.

I highly recommend at least looking it up yourself incase I’m not remembering it correctly but if you take AP US government they should go over this.

explain like I'm retarded

Buddy, if I do that, then you won’t understand how it is used in court. The commerce clause is available online to read. I’ll still try to do my best though.

The Commerce Clause allows congress to regulate anything that could pose issues to interstate trade generally. However, it isn’t always used this way in the court.

oh ok

One of the few times they lost to this, someone argued that they shouldn’t have been arrested for bringing a gun onto a high school as a student (dude should have lost). The US government said “you can’t do this because it’s dangerous to other students entering the work force and will effect interstate trade” using the Commerce Clause as their flagship argument because it hasn’t really lost them a case before this. The Supreme Court ruled against the US government (which is rare) because they said that that argument was a stretch and there’s no way to know if there would be significant damage to interstate trade.

that reason is dumb

I think this case was US Gov v Lopez

Basically what the Supreme Court told the US gov.

Definitely take AP US government or read it yourself and look at some of the court cases, it’s actually pretty interesting how it was used in law over time.

what if I don't take it and just kms

/j

Lmao, I said in the comment: read it yourself (it’s available online along with the rest of the us constitution) and look at some important court cases where it was used and you’ll see what I mean.

By loss I mean the US government lost the case against the plaintiff.

YESSS thank you for the good news

my comment below

who is that..
OH HIM? Uhh well lets focus on the good news now ;-;

Nah, Vance is gonna be good. :3

oh really :3 thanks for the reassurance