US 2024 Presidential Election

[tippy2k2]

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/27/nx-s1-5091154/trump-arlington-cemetery

Ooooooh, this sounds like it could get spicy!

People were wondering how in the world Arlington would allow Trump to do his Arlington photoshoot and this may very well explain it. (Allegedly) Trump and his posse were told they couldn't and they pushed past the Arlington official. Basically they did the photoshoot without authorization and physically went through someone to do it.



Trump and Co stated they'll release video proving they did no such thing but said video does not currently exist to the public.

 

[Agema]

The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and for whatever reason an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of Trump's team..

(my emphasis)

What is it about Trump and associates that they always have to be so pettily disrespectful and derogatory?

 

[davidmc1158]

(my emphasis)

What is it about Trump and associates that they always have to be so pettily disrespectful and derogatory?

Trump and his cronies are the living embodiments of projection. Every time they have accused someone else of criminal activity, lying or similar, it has turned out they they, themselves were actually doing those things. With his "lapses" and the reports from psychologists making it very clear that Trump may be suffering from mental deterioration, I personally think it's just another category of projection for them.

 

[Gordon_4]

(my emphasis)

What is it about Trump and associates that they always have to be so pettily disrespectful and derogatory?

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I accept I may be, but the only people who staff Arlington are members of the four branches of the US Armed Forces. So, allowing that to be true, it means the individual in question was a service member and probably in uniform.

When a uniformed officer on military property - which given its managed by the Department of the Army I'm inclined to believe it is - interposes themselves between you and a destination, it is generally because you're trying to go somewhere you shouldn't be going or do something you shouldn't be doing. And Arlington has very strict rules about filming on its grounds and if you do, it is at their discretion.

Either one hand was not talking to the other, or someone did a no-no in the hallowed resting place of the nation's fallen.

 

[Silvanus]

Either one hand was not talking to the other, or someone did a no-no in the hallowed resting place of the nation's fallen.

Disrespecting and insulting an actual serviceman in the pursuit of a performative show of respect for fallen servicemen might be the most Trump thing I've ever heard of.

Well, other than the well-done steak with ketchup.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If the law doesn't actually stop anyone from banning it, then you cannot say it's "protected". If you or I can make a perfectly rationally solid argument for something to be protected by the Constitution, but the Courts haven't said so and states/orgs can ban all they want, then where's the protection? I literally could not exercise the right.



Riiiight, but in that analogy, if someone just discovered it before, they could have done it with the same tools. A better analogy would be the developers introducing a patch, mechanically changing what people could do.

Let's say there was an item, the description of which said it provided a 20% buff to all classes. Except.... it didn't actually work on Rangers. Then 250 years later, the devs patch it so the item now properly functions with all classes. And you try to convince me that the item always worked on all professions, because it's right there in the description!

Again, you can make a federal law that all states have to abide by. Or you can make another argument/challenge. Chicago had a ban on handguns that was ruled unconstitutional, you can say that handguns weren't protected then but at the same time, once it got challenged it was ruled as being protected.

Both analogies are true.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, you can make a federal law that all states have to abide by. Or you can make another argument/challenge.

....which requires either legislators to actually make that law, or a judge to uphold that challenge. How about before they do? Or what if they don't? Well then that theoretical protection isn't actually protecting anyone, is it? It's just an interpretation in a reader's head.

Both analogies are true.

They're mutually contradictory. In yours, anyone could have just discovered it and used it. In mine, they couldn't, until the powers that be changed the function of the game and allowed them to. Hence why mine is more appropriate.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

....which requires either legislators to actually make that law, or a judge to uphold that challenge. How about before they do? Or what if they don't? Well then that theoretical protection isn't actually protecting anyone, is it? It's just an interpretation in a reader's head.



They're mutually contradictory. In yours, anyone could have just discovered it and used it. In mine, they couldn't, until the powers that be changed the function of the game and allowed them to. Hence why mine is more appropriate.

You guys act like it's so horrible the Supreme Court leans right currently when you can just make a law to do most of this stuff. The Supreme Court is not nearly as powerful you all make them out to be. You don't know if you would need a judge or not because you don't know how the current judge(s) would rule if you presented a specific argument nor would you know if it was another judge either.

Both of them happen is my point. There are times when protections are discovered and there are times when people/culture just change and the same people reading a sentence today will interpret it differently than people who read it 200 years ago. You don't really know for sure which is the case in legal decisions (as XYZ argument was never made before) so you don't know if it was the A or B reason. Same thing with games, sometimes players discover something always in the game (even years later) and sometimes devs do change/patch something in the game as well. In the game example, you know for sure usually, though devs can do changes not telling anyone either.

 

[Silvanus]

You guys act like it's so horrible the Supreme Court leans right [...]

Dude, I really don't care about rehashing that old argument. Left vs. Right is not something I even brought up here, and it's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

If the Constitution isn't actually recognised by the law as protecting something, then its not protecting it. So for 220+ years, gay marriage was not protected by the Constitution.

Both of them happen is my point. There are times when protections are discovered and there are times when people/culture just change and the same people reading a sentence today will interpret it differently than people who read it 200 years ago. You don't really know for sure which is the case in legal decisions (as XYZ argument was never made before) so you don't know if it was the A or B reason.

OK. So if your analogy is appropriate, then a gay person 200 years ago would have been able to marry their lover, and the Constitution would've stopped states banning it, then? Because your analogy just requires some guy to figure it out, and not for the actual law to change.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Dude, I really don't care about rehashing that old argument. Left vs. Right is not something I even brought up here, and it's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

If the Constitution isn't actually recognised by the law as protecting something, then its not protecting it. So for 220+ years, gay marriage was not protected by the Constitution.



OK. So if your analogy is appropriate, then a gay person 200 years ago would have been able to marry their lover, and the Constitution would've stopped states banning it, then? Because your analogy just requires some guy to figure it out, and not for the actual law to change.

You probably can't go back that far and have to wait until the 14th amendment at least. It's no different in say DnD and a DM saying you can't do XYZ. One of the players has to find where in the rulebook it says you can do XYZ (which might be from referencing multiple things) and then challenge the DM. In the DnD example, was XYZ always protected or not until it was challenged? You can say it is both depending on how you're defining actively protected.

 

[Piscian]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/28/djt-trump-media-stock-falls-below-20-per-share-for-first-time.html

The months long Trump Media stock slide continued Wednesday, as shares of the company majority-owned by former President Donald Trump fell below $20 for the first time since the Truth Social maker went public in March of this year.

As of 12:45 p.m. ET, the stock price of DJT has dropped more than 75% from its intraday high on March 26, the day the company debuted on the Nasdaq stock exchange.

Let me know when you guys want stock tips since its confirmed I'm clairvoyant. That said at closing it was straddling $20. So its in Hospice, not quite dead yet.

 

[Silvanus]

You probably can't go back that far and have to wait until the 14th amendment at least. It's no different in say DnD and a DM saying you can't do XYZ. One of the players has to find where in the rulebook it says you can do XYZ (which might be from referencing multiple things) and then challenge the DM. In the DnD example, was XYZ always protected or not until it was challenged? You can say it is both depending on how you're defining actively protected.

Riiiight, and in this case the DM's interpretation of the rulebook is law. So it doesn't matter if you interpret it differently. They can say no, and you have to play by their rules.

 

[BrawlMan]

Oh look: the biatch-in-a-boxstand is about throw another biatch-in-a-boxstand under the bus and shift the blame.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/trump-zuckerberg-election-book-00176639

Texas announces over 1M ineligible voters removed from voting rolls since last presidential election

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced this week that over 1 million individuals have been removed from state voting rolls since 2021.

www.foxnews.com

Arizona Voters Air Fraud Concerns At Fortified Election Center

A dozen Republican women filed past wrought-iron fences and barbed wire to tour a sun-drenched building in Maricopa County, Arizona -- not a prison, but an election site.

www.barrons.com

Kamala Harris' election would defy history. Just 1 sitting VP has been elected president since 1836

Since 1836, only one sitting vice president, George H.W. Bush in 1988, has been elected to the White House.

apnews.com

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[Kwak]

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Riiiight, and in this case the DM's interpretation of the rulebook is law. So it doesn't matter if you interpret it differently. They can say no, and you have to play by their rules.

You're misunderstanding the situation, a player is bringing new knowledge to the DM and the rules do state the DM is wrong. You act like judges have a predetermined ruling before any arguments/evidence are presented.

 

[BrawlMan]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/08/29/lila-rose-abortion-trump-interview-00176619

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/28/politics/trump-indictment-jack-smith-election-analysis

Exclusive: Kamala Harris surges ahead of Donald Trump in latest poll taken after DNC

Big shifts by Hispanic and Black voters, young people and lower-income Americans give the new Democratic nominee momentum.

www.usatoday.com

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/harris-trump-polls-sun-belt-00176687

 

[Silvanus]

You're misunderstanding the situation, a player is bringing new knowledge to the DM and the rules do state the DM is wrong.

The rules state the DM is wrong according to your interpretation. If the DM disagrees, or just doesn't hear the case? Well, then it doesn't matter how solid or well-reasoned your interpretation is.

24 years ago, a challenge on the grounds of same-sex marriage would've failed. They'd have said no, and their word is operational law. Your insistence that it's constitutionally protected would've been worth exactly nothing in the eyes of the law. Similarly, your interpretation was also worth nothing for over 200 years, during which a gay person factually could not get married.

 

[Piscian]

Trump Videos at Arlington Stir More Fallout After Gravesite Visit

The family of a Green Beret buried there expressed concern about videos and photos taken by his grave. And a cemetery employee declined to press charges after an altercation with the Trump team, fearing retribution.

www.nytimes.com

I don't want to be a dick and plagiarize the whole article but essentially what happened was two things.

The family of the Soldiar Trump laid the wreath on had anecdotally given Trump permission to do the photo op.

Kabul Airport Attack Review Reaffirms Initial Findings, Identifies Attacker

A supplemental review of the original investigation into the 2021 suicide bombing attack that killed 13 U.S. service members and roughly 170 Afghan civilians has reaffirmed the military's findings of

www.defense.gov

I haven't read the whole thing, but it was apparently a suicide bombing that the military fucked up their response in Afghanistan and "something something Biden fault" or whatever. Hence the tiresomely self-involved reason for the visit. Like come on man do you ever do anything just to "be nice"?

Two problems sorta came up.

1. the Photo Op includes the Head stone of a solider who died from PTSD, his family expressly did not want him in the news and is frustrated that Trump was there.

2. Apparently photo-ops in that section of the Arlington cemetery are expressly forbidden and illegal, according to officials. It never occurred to me, but this is a private part of the cemetery meant to respect soldiers privacy. That might actually be true of cemeteries in general cause it's kind of a dick move without permission, but especially at Arlington.

Officials tried to stop him, but he's a former president so in the moment hes a difficult man to physically dissuade. Its not like you can kick him out with out calling the feds and at that point its over. I haven't seen the video but there was confirmed to be a scuffle.


Unfortunately, this whole "disrespecting soldiers" argument is really just performative. Soldiers who think Trumps a coward draft dodger who doesn't know anything about sacrifice will find this appalling. Soldiers like Shawn Ryan, who interviewed Trump this week, have a more squishy idea of what constitutes patriotism and service.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The rules state the DM is wrong according to your interpretation. If the DM disagrees, or just doesn't hear the case? Well, then it doesn't matter how solid or well-reasoned your interpretation is.

24 years ago, a challenge on the grounds of same-sex marriage would've failed. They'd have said no, and their word is operational law. Your insistence that it's constitutionally protected would've been worth exactly nothing in the eyes of the law. Similarly, your interpretation was also worth nothing for over 200 years, during which a gay person factually could not get married.

In my example, the player found the specific rules or set of rules where they are objectively right. There is also many things open to interpretation in DnD as well. Hence, why I said both analogies can be true a few posts ago. You could've made a well-reasoned, well thought-out argument 24 years ago and judges may have agreed; judges don't just dismiss something and ignore the arguments (I don't know why you think so lowly of judges). Also, we don't know because it didn't happen. And, again, the legislature could've made a law 24 years ago if they didn't want to depend on the judges.