US 2024 Presidential Election

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Seanchaidh]

Your own condemnations and "punches" about others' voting preferences are far more severe and well before anything censorious I said about you.

The main difference is that tippy2k2 is criticizing people for who they are voting for, not someone they are not voting for.

 

[Kwak]

As for Gaza, the only thing one can do is taking part in protests, maybe also BDS. Talk about it, turn public opinion.

Gee, I wonder what Trump the aspiring dictator fascist thinks about protesters rights?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Gee, I wonder what Trump the aspiring dictator fascist thinks about protesters rights?

Oh oh, I know this one!

Former defense secretary Mark Esper: President Trump suggested shooting protesters, missile strikes in Mexico

In his new memoir, "A Sacred Oath," Esper writes that he had to press President Trump to send aid to Ukraine, and also walked the president back from ideas such as shooting protesters and missile strikes in Mexico.

www.cbsnews.com

Norah O'Donnell: What specifically was he suggesting that the U.S. military should do to these protesters?

Mark Esper: He says, "Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something." And he's suggesting that that's what we should do, that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.

Norah O'Donnell: The commander in chief was suggesting that the U.S. military shoot protesters? American protesters.

Mark Esper: Yes, in the streets--

Norah O'Donnell: American protesters.

Mark Esper: --of our nation's capital. That's right. Shocking.

Norah O'Donnell: We have seen in other countries a government use their military to shoot protesters.

Mark Esper: Right.

Norah O'Donnell: What kinda governments are those?

Mark Esper: Oh, those are banana republics, right? Or-- authoritarian regimes. We all remember Tiananmen Square, right, in China

 

[Avnger]

The main difference is that tippy2k2 is criticizing people for who they are voting for, not someone they are not voting for.

This is a distinction without a difference in the US electoral system regardless of whether you (or I) wish it were different

 

[Silvanus]

The main difference is that tippy2k2 is criticizing people for who they are voting for, not someone they are not voting for.

What a meaningless distinction.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Harris keeps losing points on her lead, from +3.3% two months ago to +2.4% a week ago to +1.8% as of today.

Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tippy2k2]

I guess we need a basic math lesson in the 2024 Presidential Thread



You can tell when I vote for Jill Stein, it was a vote for Jill Stein and not Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. The easiest way to see this is that her name is Jill Stein, which you may note is not spelled "Kamala Harris" or "Donald Trump". And once again, if Harris wants my vote, she is 100% free to EARN my vote. This is on her. If she loses the election, this is on HER for failing to convince people, not on The People for not voting for her.

Also, does no one else pay attention to how the cops treat protestors under the current regime (specifically college protests against Israel)? You guys are so petrified about a hypothetical Donald Trump treating protestors badly that you just blow off and ignore Democrats CURRENTLY treating protestors badly...

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Also, does no one else pay attention to how the cops treat protestors under the current regime (specifically college protests against Israel)? You guys are so petrified about a hypothetical Donald Trump treating protestors badly that you just blow off and ignore Democrats CURRENTLY treating protestors badly...

The president doesn't control police departments. They do however control the military and the national guard.

Trump can't tell police departments to shoot protesters, but he can tell the military to do it. And before anyone says "that won't happen" please remember how the national guard shot unarmed protesters at Kent State in 1970, and remember that Trump has already said he intends to use the national guard to attack protesters, and in his previous administration wanted to know why the national guard couldn't just shoot protesters in the legs.

 

[Silvanus]

I guess we need a basic math lesson in the 2024 Presidential Thread

View attachment 12074

We can look at it as a mathematic problem, but that analogy doesn't work if we do: It would work only if Red's victory condition was a static, set amount of water, and all votes were equally likely to split between the three.

For it to work mathematically, we need to first account for the fact a vote not only increases one bucket's total, but also raises a malleable victory condition, and it fulfils this function only if it is for one of the leading two buckets.

We need to then accommodate likelihood. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the likelihood of you voting for the Red bucket is lower than it is for the Blue bucket, and the Blue bucket has a lower likelihood than the Green bucket.

If the vote drops into Green, Red's total as an absolute does not rise. But as we outlined earlier, the absolute is meaningless here. The range of possible victory conditions for both Red and Blue shifts. And owing to likelihood, they don't shift in the same direction; Blue's range has shifted up, Red's has shifted down.

Which means that speaking strictly as a proportion of the range/average of potential winning conditions, Red's total has risen.

This isn't intended as a criticism any more, I don't want to rehash the argument in terms of principle. It is the candidate's damn job to convince people to vote for them. I'm just trying to lay out why the simple 1+1 approach doesn't work for stuff like elections, and there's a lot more at play, even mathematically.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

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

So what would stop the Supreme Court from reversing slavery?

Yes. Slavery is slavery.

No, it's not. Hardly anyone would consider prisoners doing work as slavery.

Oh good lord. Let me recap here: Your argument was that the law not clearly covering an issue (the gist of which you characterize as "you don't know until you ask") was functionally the same as "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". Once again, that is clearly the complete opposite of the circumstance you are comparing it to. In the first scenario, there is explicitly no rule on the books and the Judge/DM is making a judgement call based on their own understanding of what the law/rules should be. It's explicitly a novel circumstance that explicitly and by definition has no direct precedent in the books to reference. In the second scenario, you presume that the law/rule is explicitly in the books - that it not only has precedent, but is explicitly covered by a rule that you can directly cite - and the Judge/DM simply did not consider it and that resolving it is as simple as showing them the applicable rule/precedent and them conceding the point specifically because the rule is in the plain text of the books.

Not only are those situations not comparable, they're antithetical to each other.



And the part you once again failed to read is that the whether or not the court declares something to conflict with the Constitution can very well be down to spin and the personal politics of the Court. See again how the court did a 180 on whether or not anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection clause.

As to your inane "then why didn't they deem the 13th amendment unconstitutional" rhetorical: In theory, they could have tried, if they had the will to try and force the issue, but it's a principle that has yet to be employed stateside. It's also worth remembering that the Taney court - which ruled on the Dred Scott case in 1857 - only lasted until 1864, before the Civil War ended. From 1864-1873, it was the Chase court. By the time the war ended (1865), the composition had changed significantly. Taney, Curtis, Campbell, Daniel, McLean and Catron were dead, resigned, or retired. That's 6 of the Court's then-10 justices right there, and in 1866 Congress reduced the court's size from 10 to 7. So functionally it was an almost completely new court composition.

Never mind that the whole late unpleasantness of the Civil War - which the aforementioned Dred Scott case was pretty well recognized as a spark in a powderkeg for - meant that there the court had very little will to pick that fight again even had its new composition been as favorably disposed towards slavery as the Taney majority that preceded it (which it decidedly was not).



Ok, let me start by saying that you keep on trying to invoke appeal to authority fallacies, but also consistently fail to understand the substance, scope, and context of what you cite, usually - as in the case here - invoking what are contextually minor quibbles or concerns that you then ignorantly exaggerate both the severity and scope of in order to mistakenly claim that they in fact support a completely unrelated point.

Setting aside that what you're referring to isn't even at the level of obiter dicta, RBG wasn't arguing that the case or its arguments were wrong, and certainly wasn't making your argument that it should have been rejected because it meant "any medical procedure/treatment is protected". Quite the opposite in fact. She was arguing that its end result didn't go far enough, but had given reproductive rights activists enough of a victory to make them grow complacent and not further crystalize the issue by framing it as an equal protection issue in subsequent rulings to reinforce it. That the smart realpolitik solution would have been to limit the scope of Roe to Texas's Penal Code specifically, and then use the precedence established by that ruling as a basis for subsequent rulings and then - after years of using similar cases to establish precedence - characterize abortion as constitutionally protected under Equal Protection grounds.

In this respect it's not unlike the argument that Brown v. Board of Education was a mistake because it integrated schools immediately at all levels rather than gradually (ie, have integration start with that generation at the Kindergarten level, with those students being the pilot program, and school integration progressing as the pilot program rose in grade level, resulting in colleges not being fully integrated until about 17 years after Brown) under the belief that doing so would ease racial tensions and that failing to do so ended up exacerbating them. It doesn't argue that Brown was wrong or poorly argued, but that it should have had a different scope and consequences for realpolitik reasons. What you're referring to from RBG was much the same with regards to Roe.

What I'm saying is that you are yet again citing something that you never actually familiarized yourself with and egregiously misrepresenting it as consequence. What you're doing is no different than a creationist saying that "even Darwin admitted that the eye couldn't have evolved", and quoting a line from Origin of the Species that they have meticulously stripped of the context that establishes it as a rhetorical lead-in rather than the concession they misrepresent it as. And much like that creationist, you've consistently shown that you have not read the source material, cannot be bothered to do so even after having been called out on your inaccuracies, and have no interest in doing so much less take the time to actually understand it. You just want to use it as a rhetorical tool to claim validation for your preconceptions.

So let me be direct here: Stop trying to bluff your way through conversations. It's clear as day that you haven't done your homework and your continued doubling down after being called out on it purely out of stubborn pride just makes it even more obvious.



They did argue that. It just wasn't part of the quote mined snippet fed to you by the ideologues who wanted to convince you that the case was necessarily ridiculous.

"For that reason, just as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union. Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers' compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6 9; Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 8 29. Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law. See Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ ___ (slip op., at 15 16). The States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order.

There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation's society. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning."

Once again: you clearly have not done your homework.



And yet again you prove to be such a reflexive contrarian that you end up losing track of your own argument and provide evidence of exactly the thing that you are arguing against. To wit: You have just acknowledged that declawing a cat was not previously considered animal abuse and therefore not covered by animal abuse laws, exactly the circumstance that I brought that up to exemplify. You have just clearly shown that you understand this, but you're so invested in contesting the point as a matter of principle that you just conjured up the idea that we were speaking in hypotheticals that are entirely divorced from reality (rather than me using an example - as I have been doing repeatedly throughout this entire conversation - to explain a concept to you), purely to pretend that the facts under discussion don't have any bearing on that same discussion. Frankly, it's both transparent and juvenile.

And how does a legal precedent exist in the first place?

The fact that the Supreme Court can, in theory, act like a fail-safe against some ridiculous constitutional amendment passed by the legislature is somehow makes my point invalid?

RBG said it was based on the wrong argument which is all I quoted and said. I didn't say she agrees with my whole take on Roe. On basic logic, how is right to privacy a legit argument for abortion? The argument doesn't make any logical or legal sense. I am pro-abortion but I'm not just gonna agree with something that doesn't make sense if it aligns with my stance.

I never said they didn't argue that, I said most of the arguments were baseless because they were. And I said the Supreme Court won't overturn Obergefell because it has far too much constitutional backing.

I was talking about the hypothetical of cat declawing and animal abuse. You can substitute out cat declawing for something else that would be some newly argued type of animal abuse. My point is in many things like animal abuse, you give criteria for what is animal abuse and then argue that XYZ does indeed meet the criteria because you can't list everything type of abuse in the law. Same thing with child abuse as well.

Euthanasia should never be banned. Heavily regulated yes. Banned absolutely not

I don't know why you need to ban things that aren't your busines

That was not my stance on euthanasia, it was the fact that is illegal in some states and you could then simply use Roe as an argument that euthanasia is a right to privacy issue. That's the issue with having Roe as a precedent. That argument can be extrapolated to literally any medical procedure and I'm sure there's things you agree should be banned.

 

[BrawlMan]

Harris keeps losing points on her lead, from +3.3% two months ago to +2.4% a week ago to +1.8% as of today.

View attachment 12072

Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Honestly. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia that much. But I find that funny considering everybody wanted Biden to step down. I was against it in the first place (not because I didn't believe in Harris) and called bullshit on it. I still supported Harris, because the public and other Democrats gave me no other choice. Trump has clearly been losing it for years and yet. Nobody's telling him to step down due to his age nor mental capacity.

Bitches like him will never do the right thing.

2024 election updates: Trump won't denounce violence against FEMA workers

Most polls show Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump neck-and-neck in key states with just about two weeks to go.

abcnews.go.com

Election 2024 live updates: Trump, Harris trade barbs on swing state tour; latest polls

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are hitting the battleground states that could determine the race for the White House.

www.usatoday.com

Trump Vs. Harris 2024 Polls: Harris Leads By 1 Point In Two Latest Surveys

Most polls indicate a tight race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

www.forbes.com

 

[Silvanus]

So what would stop the Supreme Court from reversing slavery?

Well, I'll answer that question with a question: Britain has no written constitution, what do you think stops legislators reversing slavery?

 

[Seanchaidh]

What a meaningless distinction.

You think the difference between:

1)Criticizing third party supporters for Trump's policies/demeanor/crimes
vs.
2)Criticizing Harris supporters for Harris's policies

is a meaningless distinction?

 

[Seanchaidh]

No, it's not. Hardly anyone would consider prisoners doing work as slavery.

"Prisoners doing work" is a perfectly acceptable summary of what slavery is.

 

[Silvanus]

You think the difference between:

1)Criticizing third party supporters for Trump's policies/demeanor/crimes
vs.
2)Criticizing Harris supporters for Harris's policies

is a meaningless distinction?

There's a distinction in the substance of the candidates, and the impact of the votes there-- the actual details.

But criticism of someone using their vote in one way automatically involves criticism that the person didn't use their vote in the other way(s). "You shouldn't vote for Harris" is functionally identical to "you should vote for Stein, Trump, some other third party candidate, or not vote at all". Those 'shouldn'ts' necessarily involve 'shoulds' and vice versa in a directly competitive contest.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Which means that speaking strictly as a proportion of the range/average of potential winning conditions, Red's total has risen.

And so has blue's in that regard.

There's a distinction in the substance of the candidates, and the impact of the votes there-- the actual details.

And in the fact that supporting Harris is supporting Harris while supporting e.g. Stein is not supporting Trump.

But criticism of someone using their vote in one way automatically involves criticism that the person didn't use their vote in the other way(s). "You shouldn't vote for Harris" is functionally identical to "you should vote for Stein, Trump, some other third party candidate, or not vote at all". Those 'shouldn'ts' necessarily involve 'shoulds' and vice versa in a directly competitive contest.

And so..?

 

[Satinavian]

And in the fact that supporting Harris is supporting Harris while supporting e.g. Stein is not supporting Trump.

If it makes Trump more likely to win, it is indirectly supporting Trump. Not as much supporting Trump as directly voting for Trump would be, but still very far from opposing Trump.

It is basically saying "I am not really against all the Republican/Trump policies, they are tolerable".

Of course that really is only true for people more left aligned. For right wingers, refusing to vote or going third candidate instead of Trump would likewise indirectly support Harris.

 

[Silvanus]

And so has blue's in that regard.

Uhrm, no lol-- it's mathematically impossible for Red's and Blue's proportions to both rise from the act of voting Green. If one rises, the other lowers proportionately.

It's possible for neither to rise. That situation would come about only if the voter's likelihood of voting Red or Blue was exactly identical.

And in the fact that supporting Harris is supporting Harris while supporting e.g. Stein is not supporting Trump.

In terms of personal principle, yes. Mathematically, not necessarily, depending on other factors.

And so..?

....and so criticising someone for who they're voting for is not meaningfully distinct from criticising someone for who they're not voting for, because both acts necessarily involve the other and derive their impact solely from the other. They're both ways of describing the same act.

 

[Trunkage]

That was not my stance on euthanasia, it was the fact that is illegal in some states and you could then simply use Roe as an argument that euthanasia is a right to privacy issue. That's the issue with having Roe as a precedent. That argument can be extrapolated to literally any medical procedure and I'm sure there's things you agree should be banned.

I wasn't just talking about legality

I was talking about it BEING A PRIVATE THING BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DOCTOR

If that's not clear enough for you. I can just write the same sentence a hundred times to make it clearer

The ONLY thing the government should be allowed to do is set up regulations. And then they can fuck off

Just like abortions. And EVERY SINGLE OTHER MEDICAL EVENT IN AMERICA.

The ONLY medical procedure that isn't covered by privacy is abortion. It needs to be restored