US 2024 Presidential Election

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,764
9,396
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
I think everyone is aware at this point that "tie" usually means "I prefer the Republican but I don't want to say it".
This delusion of yours that everyone secretly agrees with you on everything but just won't admit it for reasons has gone from cute to sad.

Ross Douthat is a clown. And I'd like to know how Vance's response to whether or not Trump won the 2020 election was "dominant".

"Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?"

He's focused on the future and immediately goes to the past. How vice-presidential.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,086
964
118
Country
USA
That should be the end of the story. Why isn’t it?
Because that story isn't reality.
It's from their "live updates". During most major political events, the New York Times has a panel of opinion writers do effectively live blogging. I can only speculate why they are dated 9/25 in the url, but it's probably just dummy pages set up in advance to make publishing live go smoother. All of their live analysis posts about the debate have that same date, including articles that are much more specific about the events of the debate.

Questioning the validity is more than just an accusation of pre-planned spin, it's suggesting a conspiracy that they knew what both candidates would say a week in advance, in effect claiming the whole debate is scripted.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,086
964
118
Country
USA
This delusion of yours that everyone secretly agrees with you on everything but just won't admit it for reasons has gone from cute to sad.
Most baseball fans share largely the same opinions, but fans of rival teams are never going to admit they have anything in common.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,859
856
118
Country
United States
And of course, these morons do it when the election is still somewhat close. If Harris were to in theory lose this election because of this; project 2025 would mean Trump would crush this union likely with modern Pinkertons and no one other than the far left would be on their side.

Also if you get paid too much automation happens. In Taco Bell and many other restaurants in Columbus Ohio a city fucking 10 years in the past(I live here), people are already ordering from kiosks. China's ports need fewer workers, and this port will too if they ask for too much which is likely their actual target(automation demands).
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,549
823
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
And there's the catch, directly in your own words. It can make laws on anything that "doesn't break something in the constitution."

What powers does the constitution give congress and who decides whether something is constitutional?

I've already provided you a link to the specific powers given to congress. I suggest you actually read those powers.

Congress (or rather parts of congress, often but not always based on party lines) often proposes laws that are outside of its constitutional scope based on the idea that those laws are necessary for the execution of government powers, or because they think they can make those laws very loosely fit into one of congress's powers. A lot of the time these laws are basically political theater where the writers know the law won't pass congress, and if it does then it still won't pass the supreme court when challenged.

That doesn't mean that congress has unlimited powers to make whatever laws on any topic it wants. If the current congress was to make a law legalizing abortion in all states it would be political theater because the current supreme court would not accept it as more than half the justices are anti-abortion. All the supreme court would have to do is say that congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to regulate abortions.

I suggest you read the following:


It shows 3 ways that congress could make a case for why they are able to regulate abortion, but based on your response to the arguments in Roe V Wade I think you would find these similarly lacking. Congress doesn't have any specific authority to regulate abortions based on the powers given to it by the constitution so they really need to twist and spin things to make their case.

The fact of the matter is, the constitution was written to give states a lot more broad powers to create laws than congress, and I believe that the current supreme court would prevent any federal measure that would make abortion legal nationwide.

Now in theory that should also mean that congress probably wouldn't be able to make abortions illegal nation-wide either, but given that congress has a lot of power over commerce they could make it illegal for the drugs necessary for abortions to be bought in states where abortion is legal, thus making abortions much more difficult. I also believe that the current supreme court would be much more likely to accept flimsy anti-abortion constitutional arguments than flimsy pro-abortion ones.
I think you are right about that as looking over things, I don't think it would fall under any of the vague powers Congress has. Several journalists have said Congress can codify Roe, which is why I thought they could. I feel arguing marriage would fall under them is very very likely.

For reasons that have already been explained in this very thread.
And one of them being the constitution....
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,618
814
118
Country
Sweden
Also if you get paid too much automation happens. In Taco Bell and many other restaurants in Columbus Ohio a city fucking 10 years in the past(I live here), people are already ordering from kiosks.
Good. A job that can be performed by a machine without a loss in quality absolutely should be performed by a machine. Why should a human toil away at a work that is simple enough that an automaton could do it?
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,210
1,655
118
Country
The Netherlands
Good. A job that can be performed by a machine without a loss in quality absolutely should be performed by a machine. Why should a human toil away at a work that is simple enough that an automaton could do it?
Because eventually the ones not getting the job might starve to death? Right now the workers replaced by machines don’t get anything in this arrangement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,052
3,781
118
And of course, these morons do it when the election is still somewhat close. If Harris were to in theory lose this election because of this; project 2025 would mean Trump would crush this union likely with modern Pinkertons and no one other than the far left would be on their side.
While that is true, if they don't strike when there are consequences to ignoring them, they will get ignored.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,891
6,235
118
Country
United Kingdom
And one of them being the constitution....
No, not really. One of them relates to the constitution in part, but is primarily about perception. The constitution itself isn't preventing them ruling any way they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,178
6,433
118
Good. A job that can be performed by a machine without a loss in quality absolutely should be performed by a machine. Why should a human toil away at a work that is simple enough that an automaton could do it?
Where does that stop, though? I work in education, and it's already being argued that a lot of our work could be done by AI.

Am I being liberated from drudgery, or am I being cast out of my decently-salaried job into subsistence on benefits? I sort of agree, that replacement by automation is maybe kind of fine... as long as there is plenty of room for all humans to continue having satisfying, dignified existence. And to be clear, I don't think ending up as neo-feudalised, peasant butlers and servants of the rich is satisfying and dignified.

I have very low confidence that the Bezoses, Zuckerbergs and Musks of the world are envisaging some sort of Star Trek future of plenty and opportunity (outside the marketing materials to sucker us, naturally). I fear they would be pretty much fine sailing round in megayachts and rocketing off to Mars whilst 90% of the population were hunting rats and scavenging grass just to survive the day.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,477
2,966
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I have very low confidence that the Bezoses, Zuckerbergs and Musks of the world are envisaging some sort of Star Trek future of plenty and opportunity (outside the marketing materials to sucker us, naturally). I fear they would be pretty much fine sailing round in megayachts and rocketing off to Mars whilst 90% of the population were hunting rats and scavenging grass just to survive the day.
Selling us Star Trek while planning for Elysium.
 
Jun 11, 2023
2,770
2,020
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
There’s an elephant in the room (no pun) size point there though. How the hell are we able to take care of illegals, who often don’t have even an American level education (which isn’t saying much as it is) when we can’t even take care of our own law abiding citizens?


Though it’s not happening in 99.999% of people’s back yards, it is a problem that will spread to more of them if continuously left unaddressed. Some have already felt it in the worst way, which is bad enough.




Not to let U.S. citizens off the hook though-



Anyone trafficking this shit should be deported regardless of citizenship.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,618
814
118
Country
Sweden
Because eventually the ones not getting the job might starve to death? Right now the workers replaced by machines don’t get anything in this arrangement.
Surely that is an argument for an expanded safety net, not to force humanity to spend more time working?
Where does that stop, though?
Somewhere. Some tasks machines won't ever be able to do.
I work in education, and it's already being argued that a lot of our work could be done by AI.
Like what? Lecture planning, test grading, one-on-one instruction, administrative tasks? The parts that cannot be automated could be given additional emphasis. If the work even can be delineated into automatable and not in a way that make sense to use AI. Historically, new technology doesn't remove jobs, it creates new, as we adapt to the reality of the new technology being available to us.
Am I being liberated from drudgery, or am I being cast out of my decently-salaried job into subsistence on benefits? I sort of agree, that replacement by automation is maybe kind of fine... as long as there is plenty of room for all humans to continue having satisfying, dignified existence. And to be clear, I don't think ending up as neo-feudalised, peasant butlers and servants of the rich is satisfying and dignified.

I have very low confidence that the Bezoses, Zuckerbergs and Musks of the world are envisaging some sort of Star Trek future of plenty and opportunity (outside the marketing materials to sucker us, naturally). I fear they would be pretty much fine sailing round in megayachts and rocketing off to Mars whilst 90% of the population were hunting rats and scavenging grass just to survive the day.
No real objections here.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,859
856
118
Country
United States
Surely that is an argument for an expanded safety net, not to force humanity to spend more time working?

Somewhere. Some tasks machines won't ever be able to do.

Like what? Lecture planning, test grading, one-on-one instruction, administrative tasks? The parts that cannot be automated could be given additional emphasis. If the work even can be delineated into automatable and not in a way that make sense to use AI. Historically, new technology doesn't remove jobs, it creates new, as we adapt to the reality of the new technology being available to us.

No real objections here.
Then you revolt. What you don't do is complain about a job that pays at a minimum of 80K to 200K and wants 120K to 300K AND no port modernization/automation.

Edit: That's not going to get most Americans on your side. Most Americans make less than $41,000. The median full-time salary is 59K, and many Americans don't make that.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,859
856
118
Country
United States
Because eventually the ones not getting the job might starve to death? Right now the workers replaced by machines don’t get anything in this arrangement.
Blame that on politicians, not the business owners who will always act in their firm's best interest, The maker of Ozempic in the US is an amoral CEO from Scandinavia, despite him fully knowing about universal healthcare.

And stop voting for Republicans and conservative Democrats in that order.