US 2024 Presidential Election

[BrawlMan]

Jesus christ you're sick beyond redemption.
You're really going to "bOtH sIdES!" these fucking evil lies as if they're equivalent things? FUCK YOU!

All he does is goal post; it's not shocking.

 

[Agema]

Harris says Ron DeSantis refused her calls, because he's "selfish" and prioritizing "political gamesmanship" over helping people. Ron DeSantis says he talked to Biden, and is grateful that everything needed is being approved, and he will not hesitate to reach out should more be needed.

You can fairly argue that Harris possibly doesn't have any particular role in disaster response, and so there was no pressing need for DeSantis to speak to her, and both of them knew that. But Harris needs to "show willing" and reach out, because she'd be open to criticism if she didn't. DeSantis can then take the call or not; either can be publicly justified without a problem.

The politic response for not answering might be something like "The governor was busy in planning for the hurricane and unfortunately unable to take the call, but he thanks Vice-President Harris for her concern." Instead a DeSantis aide said that DeSantis didn't want to take the call because Harris calling "seemed political". That aide thus threw a political punch... and so now there is a fight.

The only interesting thing is whether DeSantis wanted to throw that punch, or the aide took it upon themselves to be an arsehole.

 

[Silvanus]

(Most of what you think is true about America is lies and slander)

Every time you've tried to demonstrate that something I think is true about America is false, you've not made a splendid case, let's put it like that. You've told me before that I'm being misled about something Trump said when I listened to his own unedited speech. So I don't believe you.

But we can investigate the specific claims again if you like. Here's the video of the Trump speech in which he's quoted as saying;

"Kamala spent all her FEMA money, billions of dollars, on housing for illegal migrants, many of whom should not be in our country. [...] They stole the FEMA money, just like they stole it from a bank, so they could give it to their illegal immigrants that they want to have vote for them this season."

Here's the video of the Trump speech in which he's quoted as saying;

"They’re offering them $750, to people whose homes have been washed away. And yet we send tens of billions of dollars to foreign countries that most people have never heard of. They’re offering them $750. They’ve been destroyed, these people have been destroyed. [...] Think of it: We give foreign countries hundreds of billions of dollars and we’re handing North Carolina $750"

So, when I said these things were lies, you said that what I thought was a lie instead. Can you tell me what I've got wrong about it, exactly?

Are you going to argue he never said those things? Or are you going to argue what Trump said was true?

 

[Schadrach]

This is a bit facile, to be perfectly honest; like arguing that school is comparable to slavery because we compel kids to attend. A rational sense of perspective should be enough to know the difference.

Right, but the text of the amendment bars "involuntary servitude", not only "chattel slavery" but also many peonage schemes and the like. The exception is cut out for punishment for a crime because you cannot have a prison system without "involuntary servitude" because without it you're essentially just asking them nicely. To make a point, military conscription was challenged in the courts under the 13th amendment (a case which was lost) as "involuntary servitude" because "involuntary servitude" is a wider umbrella than "chattel slavery".

Oh fun, a bunch of wealthy super right wing christian nationalists trying to fuck everything up.

Inside Ziklag, the Secret Organization of Wealthy Christians Trying to Sway the Election and Change the Country

The little-known charity is backed by famous conservative donors, including the families behind Hobby Lobby and Uline. It’s spending millions to make a big political push for this election — but it may be violating the law.

www.propublica.org

That article kinda buried the key points behind "ooh, look, rich right wingers do political activism." Like, most of what it says isn't illegal or even particularly unusual except for trying to organize pastors to drive voting for Republicans (which technically could cost their churches tax-exempt status if the IRS would enforce it) until it mentions that they're registered as a 501(c)(3), which like churches aren't allowed to promote political campaigns if they want to keep their tax-exempt status.

Anyway, abolish cops.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Edited by CBS -



So basically media edits her to sound better, and Trump to sound worse.



Imagine the outrage if her opponent said that and laughed about it.


More -


FFS, how did she even get this far in politics?

And big media is pushing this flip-flopper who can barely form a functional sentence without a teleprompter to be the next leader of the free world? Look, a first black female president could be a wonderful thing, but not like this. It’s a disgrace.


Anyways, another media coverup -

Chairman Green on Media Blackout of Border Patrol Agent’s Shocking Testimony: “A Disservice to the American People” – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

Chairman Green on Secretary Mayorkas’ Claims About FEMA Funds: Biden-Harris Administration’s Priorities “Are Completely Backwards” – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

Gee, it’s a wonder how anyone could be getting fed up with this. The people we should be hearing from are being suppressed. What a mess.

 

[Silvanus]

Right, but the text of the amendment bars "involuntary servitude", not only "chattel slavery" but also many peonage schemes and the like. The exception is cut out for punishment for a crime because you cannot have a prison system without "involuntary servitude" because without it you're essentially just asking them nicely. To make a point, military conscription was challenged in the courts under the 13th amendment (a case which was lost) as "involuntary servitude" because "involuntary servitude" is a wider umbrella than "chattel slavery".

I understand the difference, and it doesn't affect my point: to equivocate incarceration with forced penal labour is to minimise the latter.

 

[Piscian]

The disconcerting Trump stock news continues this week with the stock jumping nearly 30% since it hit the basement of $12, over a period of literally 5 days.




I'm mixed on it. I know what you're thinking "stocks are dumb and mean nothing". I want to think that too at this point. However, we know when and why. The stock jump came immediately after Elon Musks Super jump at Trumps rally, on the following day of market trading (trading is closed on the weekend).

It may surprise people (I did not say "educated", but I wanted to) to learn that not everyone is in-the-know that Elon Musk is a Nepo baby moron who essentially tricked America into making him extremely rich via the EV tax credits that caused Tesla to soar to the moon. A lot of people think its just ingenuity.

Like this glorious Andrew Ryan prodigy got rich by just "making super cars and rockets!"

No. Our taxes paid Americans to buy Teslas. We "incentivized" Tesla purchases with about $5-10 Billion. Gosh what a windfall.

Anyway, rant aside, what I'm getting at is that Elon Musk is still an engaging figure. He sells tickets. How high this "Elon Musk likes Trump" windfall will persist?



Since the goal of this thread to push links at each other. I found one thats really compelling. I promise its not "Kamala secretly sells cocain to children" or "Trump shit his pants again."

I recently started listening to "the focus group with Sarah Longwell". The podcast itself is left, but the data and interviews is not. Sarah Longwell is a strategist for the DNC and essentially what they do is polling and interviews with a diverse group of voters. This includes people who voted for Trump, Biden and are undecided or thinking of going back to Trump, or people who are purely undecided, etc. This group is way larger than people think. It's really interesting listening to these people talk about why they vote the way they do.

I know a lot of people are just like "HUMH WELL THEYRE JUST DUMB", but I really think it's important to "understand" peoples perspectives even if you don't agree. The DNC is taking this shit pretty seriously after the Hilary campaign. Whether you agree or not you still need 270 electoral votes to win.

Anyway heres the link

 

[Silvanus]

The disconcerting Trump stock news continues this week with the stock jumping nearly 30% since it hit the basement of $12, over a period of literally 5 days.
View attachment 12003

View attachment 12004

I'm mixed on it. I know what you're thinking "stocks are dumb and mean nothing".

Hmm. It doesn't mean they're dumb and mean nothing. But day-to-day fluctuations don't necessarily flow from meaningful changes in the overall trend. Sometimes they can flow from that.... and sometimes they don't.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You despise Trump (in this moment) for spreading the idea that the Biden Administration is fumbling the hurricane response, suggesting they're unhelpful or even corruptly redirecting funds away from the efforts.

No, I despise Trump for provably lying about the Biden Administration fumbling the hurricane response. Like I said, there's both Republican and Democratic politicians in the affected areas who have confirmed that everything Trump is saying is a lie and that the disaster relief efforts have given them everything they have asked for.

And then you post claims about the Trump Administration being unhelpful or even corruptly redirecting funds away from disaster relief efforts, published by Democratic Party aligned organizations citing anonymous sources.

The source isn't even anonymous, it's Mark Harvey, who was on the National Security Council and worked as a special assistant to Trump.

And if your problem is with my articles being written by "left leaning" journalists, here's an article saying the same thing from the Orange County Register (right leaning)

Trump OK’d California wildfire aid in 2018 only after reviewing OC voter data, former official says

The former official, who now supports Vice President Kamala Harris, says Trump changed his mind about aid when he saw the numbers.

www.ocregister.com

No democratic party alignment, no anonymous sources, just proof that Trump is a vindictive and petty man and didn't want to provide disaster relief to states that didn't vote for him.

If you'd like to be a reasonable person for a moment, I want you to consider this: no politician (not even Trump) stands to gain by mishandling a hurricane on purpose.

Then why are Republicans voting against disaster relief funding and going on vacation instead of working to provide more aid to the affected states? There's a limit to how incompetent you can be before it can only be viewed as malicious.

How Republicans who voted against FEMA funding reacted to Hurricane Helene

A hundred Republicans voted against a stopgap bill to replenish FEMA's disaster relief fund a day before Helene hit the Southeast.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Of course it does. In fact, it perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about: it shows the constitution was adjusted and rewritten to fit changing political perceptions. The contents of the constitution didn't stop them doing what they wanted.



No idea what you think the relevance of this is, and I suspect you don't have much of a clue either.

So the constitution would or would not stop SCOTUS in reversing slavery?

I think the part you're missing here is that neither the supreme court nor the DM have any obligation to listen to or entertain your argument. It doesn't matter how good you think your argument might be, they can still reject it outright regardless of the potential merits.

That's literally built into the system, they can just not listen to you.

That isn't just a SCOTUS example, SCOTUS isn't the only court that hears an appeal or argument, they are the last court to hear it.

Apart from the 13th, which limited the scope of legal slavery (and is generally credited, falsely, with abolishing it), slavery is not addressed in amendments but rather the original text of the constitution itself.

You mean the exception for criminal punishment?

Edited by CBS -



So basically media edits her to sound better, and Trump to sound worse.



Imagine the outrage if her opponent said that and laughed about it.


More -


FFS, how did she even get this far in politics?

And big media is pushing this flip-flopper who can barely form a functional sentence without a teleprompter to be the next leader of the free world? Look, a first black female president could be a wonderful thing, but not like this. It’s a disgrace.


Anyways, another media coverup -

Chairman Green on Media Blackout of Border Patrol Agent’s Shocking Testimony: “A Disservice to the American People” – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

Chairman Green on Secretary Mayorkas’ Claims About FEMA Funds: Biden-Harris Administration’s Priorities “Are Completely Backwards” – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

Gee, it’s a wonder how anyone could be getting fed up with this. The people we should be hearing from are being suppressed. What a mess.

I don't get why people somehow like Harris, I literally have friends that changed their Facebook profile pics to Harris. She's so similar to Trump in what she actually says, which is mainly nothing and completely bereft value (the important points and policy issues/discussions), it's just that how she talks isn't as harsh/rough/divisive as when Trump speaks. I immediately think of Billy Madison and the "Everyone is this room is now dumber for having listened to it" moment when listening to Harris speak. She's not much different than Biden when he speaks but at least Biden has the excuse of being old vs just being dumb.

 

[Silvanus]

So the constitution would or would not stop SCOTUS in reversing slavery?

It would not, as I've been abundantly clear on already.

 

[Piscian]

Stern interview is up. I find Stern kinda insufferable because of his "wackiness". Hes like annoying uncle
who tries too hard to be funny at Thanksgiving.

That said he seems to be taking this seriously and giving her space to get comfortable rather than do the staged monologues.

 

[tstorm823]

Instead a DeSantis aide said that DeSantis didn't want to take the call because Harris calling "seemed political". That aide thus threw a political punch... and so now there is a fight.

The only interesting thing is whether DeSantis wanted to throw that punch, or the aide took it upon themselves to be an arsehole.

That punch might not even really exist. An unnamed source told NBC news that "we didn't answer", and it "seemed political". The fact that the "seemed political" had to be cropped out of whatever sentence it came from should be indication enough to you that it's being presented in a misleading way. We have no real idea who the person who "threw the punch" is nor what they said.

The source isn't even anonymous, it's Mark Harvey, who was on the National Security Council and worked as a special assistant to Trump.

Did you forget you posted multiple things, and the one about Puerto Rico came through the Washington Post from "a person with direct knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity".

No democratic party alignment, no anonymous sources, just proof that Trump is a vindictive and petty man and didn't want to provide disaster relief to states that didn't vote for him.

That's not proof. A person who has endorsed his opponent providing a hearsay description of events isn't proof.

Then why are Republicans voting against disaster relief funding and going on vacation instead of working to provide more aid to the affected states? There's a limit to how incompetent you can be before it can only be viewed as malicious.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/07/nx-s1-5144159/fema-funding-migrants-disaster-relief-fund

"The White House, in a release on Monday afternoon, said FEMA "has sufficient funding to both support the response to Hurricane Milton and continue to support the response to Hurricane Helene -– including funding to support first responders and provide immediate assistance to disaster survivors."

"Lawmakers could return to Washington to try to pass more aid but they are waiting for the White House to send an updated funding request. President Biden wrote a letter to Congress last week that said FEMA “has the resources needed for the immediate emergency response phase.”

I hope you understand that there are people out there who hear that FEMA only has $750 for people because they spent the money on migrants and they believe it uncritically... and you are just as easily manipulated as they are.

So, when I said these things were lies, you said that what I thought was a lie instead.

Who said instead? Truth is not a zero sum game. People disputing Trump lies does not make their claims true.

 

[Silvanus]

Who said instead? Truth is not a zero sum game. People disputing Trump lies does not make their claims true.

Well, the post of mine to which you were responding was only talking about Trump's lying/smearing about the hurricane response. I made no other claims there.

So, uhrm, if you weren't talking about that and were just talking about other things I've said elsewhere-- then what exactly is the point being made here...? "Yes, Trump lied and smeared, but you also think some unrelated things I dispute so there"?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Did you forget you posted multiple things, and the one about Puerto Rico came through the Washington Post from "a person with direct knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity".

Then are you disputing everything that I posted, or just certain specific things?

If you want evidence but you aren't clear on what you want evidence about don't be pissy when the evidence isn't what you expected.

If you're going to dispute what I posted go ahead and dispute it with sources and not just "your sources are liberal so they're wrong."

That's not proof. A person who has endorsed his opponent providing a hearsay description of events isn't proof.

I'm definitely going to listen to the account of a Republican who worked for Trump and found Trump to be crazy enough to endorse his opponent. Just like HALF of Trump's cabinet.

There are plenty of Republicans who are reasonable people who have a different idea of how the government should be run in comparison to Democrats, and there are also the batshit crazy ones. The reasonable ones are the ones who won't endorse Trump because they worked with him and have seen how incompetent he is.

Has there been any other president in history who have more than half of their administration not endorse their reelection?

 

[Piscian]

Jeez Kamala and Stern really knocked it out of the park. Im being completely transparent when I say I've never managed to sit through an entire presidential debate or interview. Its usually really dull back forth "statement" trading. I actually enjoyed this.

Stern managed to lull her into just talking about day to day shit, which he's good at, and not let her just reel everything into monologues.

I might suggest skipping the first 15 minutes or so, but once she gets comfortable it was pretty good. I thought it was kinda funny at the end he brings up that she saw U2 at the las vegas sphere and she basically says "do not go while high"...like wait did Kamala just admit she went to las vegas and got fucked up?!

 

[tstorm823]

Well, the post of mine to which you were responding was only talking about Trump's lying/smearing about the hurricane response. I made no other claims there.

So, uhrm, if you weren't talking about that and were just talking about other things I've said elsewhere-- then what exactly is the point being made here...? "Yes, Trump lied and smeared, but you also think some unrelated things I dispute so there"?

Because you were transitively suggesting most of what you say is not legitimate criticism.

Then are you disputing everything that I posted, or just certain specific things?

If you want evidence but you aren't clear on what you want evidence about don't be pissy when the evidence isn't what you expected.

Your standard of evidence is the minimum you accept, not the maximum you've seen.

I'm definitely going to listen to the account of a Republican who worked for Trump and found Trump to be crazy enough to endorse his opponent. Just like HALF of Trump's cabinet.

Not every bureaucrat who worked for Trump is a Republican. Mark Harvey was a decades long government employee with the DHS.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Because you were transitively suggesting most of what you say is not legitimate criticism.

Your standard of evidence is the minimum you accept, not the maximum you've seen.

Not every bureaucrat who worked for Trump is a Republican. Mark Harvey was a decades long government employee with the DHS.

I see you're choosing to ignore the fact that half of Trump's cabinet refuses to endorse him.

 

[tstorm823]

I see you're choosing to ignore the fact that half of Trump's cabinet refuses to endorse him.

I see you're choosing to ignore all evidence that you are misinformed about anything.

 

[Worgen]