US 2024 Presidential Election

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,133
965
118
Country
USA
The Republicans lost the popular vote in two out of the three last times they got their candidate elected as president. Assuming polls remain roughly static, if Trump ends up winning in 2024 it will be three out of four. It's not exactly a place to be coming from to think you can lecture others on democracy.
I never said Republicans are prioritizing democracy, just that Democrats are only pretending to. Democracy is only a means to an end, it's really not that high a priority for anyone. Which is exactly why the Democratic Party sidestepping their own primary isn't a big deal. I'd say it's genuinely a good thing. Biden is either dying or most people are just convinced he is, and not having to fear the president dying of age in office is worth setting aside part of the established democratic process. Republicans can win without a majority for the same sort of reason, the system was designed such that every place in the country would have their interests represented, not just the most populated places in charge of everything forever. The most direct idea of democracy was set aside in favor of other priorities, and that's fine.

Your retort is exactly the problem, you're lecturing me on democracy because I am a Republican, but the moment a less democratic process benefits the Democrats, you suddenly recognize that it isn't that important.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,273
12,208
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male



 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,926
801
118
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,200
6,475
118
Your retort is exactly the problem, you're lecturing me on democracy because I am a Republican, but the moment a less democratic process benefits the Democrats, you suddenly recognize that it isn't that important.
No, you don't get where I'm coming from here. I don't think how a party selects its preferred candidate for an election is meaningfully democracy at all. We should not confuse democracy as a system of government for the state with democratic principles as a generic decision-making process.

You should bear in mind that I come from a country where the selection of political representatives for election, and frequently the way parties select their leader and thus potentially the national leader, is often less "democratic" than the average US primary. It is similar in many Western countries. And yet a significant number of these countries have democracies that are in many respects substantially healthier than the USA's.

Although when you argue people were worried about Biden in the sense he might die or have to step down, in the US system the presidency is handed to the VP. This kicks a large hole in the argument that no-one voted for Harris. They voted for her to be his replacement, and that's exactly what's happened.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,122
1,251
118
Country
United States
Surprising.

I thought they had realized that his public outings nowadays cost more votes than gain and where happy with him being away golfing.
The public outings do cost him votes. For the exact same reasons, they also keep his base engaged. This may be a rare election where Republicans benefit more overall from increased turnout than Democrats (when it's normally the opposite).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,200
6,475
118
I'm pretty sure it's just that Trump is offering him a cabinet position and Harris didn't. He asked them both so he clearly didn't care who he endorses as long as he gets something out of it. It's fucking slimy.
Just as a final comment from me about Monsieur Wormbrain, I would like to note this hilarity:

Kennedy said his actions followed conversations with Trump over the past few weeks. He cast their alliance as “a unity party,” an arrangement that would “allow us to disagree publicly and privately and seriously.”
"Unity party"? I've news for you, Kennedy, this is a takeover and you have sold out. The party is Trump's, the presidency is Trump's: you have no rights, no say and no influence. Trump has no need to honour any agreement, and could kick you to the kerb whenever he liked with no repercussions. You are now little more than a beggar and hanger-on, who's future in the administration will depend on your ability to grovel and flatter: we've already seen how long anyone lasts who disagrees with Trump.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,122
1,251
118
Country
United States
Kinda funny how Barack Obama mentioned freedom pertaining to stuff like who you can marry but was against gay marriage in 2008...
Call me crazy, but I greatly prefer someone who didn't fully back the right policies (he did, at least, support civil unions at the time) but changed their mind over anyone who actively works against those policies (or at least doesn't care if their associates do so).

Do note that, unfortunately, the majority of the nation also didn't support gay marriage at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#2008
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,571
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Call me crazy, but I greatly prefer someone who didn't fully back the right policies (he did, at least, support civil unions at the time) but changed their mind over anyone who actively works against those policies (or at least doesn't care if their associates do so).

Do note that, unfortunately, the majority of the nation also didn't support gay marriage at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#2008
The democrats referring to themselves as the party for freedom is pretty hilarious, especially what they did a few short years ago, I keep receipts.

And gay marriage was so fucking simple. You have people that are missing out on certain benefits, that's unfair. So you either give them those same benefits or just don't give anyone those benefits (the government doesn't even recognize marriage). Lastly, it's not like by denying gays the ability to marry is forcing them to not live the life you don't like essentially, they will still be living together as a family just like anyone else so it's kinda pointless to even have made it a big deal. If Obama or anyone would've just gave a speech that put gay marriage that simply and logically, I think most people would be for gay marriage.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,565
3,088
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
The democrats referring to themselves as the party for freedom is pretty hilarious, especially what they did a few short years ago, I keep receipts.

And gay marriage was so fucking simple. You have people that are missing out on certain benefits, that's unfair. So you either give them those same benefits or just don't give anyone those benefits (the government doesn't even recognize marriage). Lastly, it's not like by denying gays the ability to marry is forcing them to not live the life you don't like essentially, they will still be living together as a family just like anyone else so it's kinda pointless to even have made it a big deal. If Obama or anyone would've just gave a speech that put gay marriage that simply and logically, I think most people would be for gay marriage.
Republicans are still against gay marriage and are currently actively working to overturn it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,571
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Republicans are still against gay marriage and are currently actively working to overturn it.
No they aren't and there's already a law for it. Stop with the fear mongering, this is exactly why the national discussion about things stays on these rather small and pointless issues vs the much bigger/macro issues that keep getting put in the corner. They don't want the public concerned about the macro issues.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,565
3,088
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
No they aren't and there's already a law for it. Stop with the fear mongering, this is exactly why the national discussion about things stays on these rather small and pointless issues vs the much bigger/macro issues that keep getting put in the corner. They don't want the public concerned about the macro issues.
I've already posted this before, but there's a challenge to Obergefell happening right now.


And the law that you sited doesn't really protect what you think it does.


Here, you may be hitting a bump. Didn’t Congress fix this? They’d like to think so. But there are enormous shortcomings in the 2022 Respect For Marriage Act that ordered states to respect marriage licenses, adoption orders, and divorce decrees issued in other states. It also gave a buffer to earlier rulings that allowed interracial couples to wed.

But it did not codify Obergefell. Instead, it scrapped the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which would have snapped back into effect if the Court were to spike Obergefell. The law has so many loopholes that even the conservative Mormon church endorsed it, as its leaders understood that it might someday empower states like Utah, which roughly 133,000 LGBT residents call home, to tell gay couples to go elsewhere to get a marriage license.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,571
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I've already posted this before, but there's a challenge to Obergefell happening right now.


And the law that you sited doesn't really protect what you think it does.




1) I meant to say that it's not gonna get overturned.
2) If say the republicans (or anyone) wasn't pushing to change/reverse gay marriage, then it can't be fear mongered and it's just 100% completely made up. The republicans are the heal, democrats are the face; you gotta have both or else it doesn't work.
3) The law protects gay marriage, it's not too hard to go to a different state. Yes, annoying and inconvenient, but very very very doable for anyone.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,565
3,088
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
1) I meant to say that it's not gonna get overturned.
The same justices that overturned Roe are the ones that want to overturn Obergefell, and their written opinions in the case overturning Roe are specifically being used with regards to Obergefell. Saying "it's not going to happen" is just plugging your ears with your fingers and going "la la la can't hear you!"

2) If say the republicans (or anyone) wasn't pushing to change/reverse gay marriage, then it can't be fear mongered and it's just 100% completely made up. The republicans are the heal, democrats are the face; you gotta have both or else it doesn't work.
It's not paranoia if there are actually people out to get you, and they have stated that they are out to get you, and they're also some of the most powerful people in the country.

3) The law protects gay marriage, it's not too hard to go to a different state. Yes, annoying and inconvenient, but very very very doable for anyone.
What stops the supreme court from saying that law is unconstitutional and ignoring it in favor of state's rights?
 
Last edited:

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,273
12,208
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male

Do it, ya little biatch.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,916
864
118
Country
United States
The S&P500 is entirely held up by Nvidia right now. Nvidia is 1/3 of the S&P500's total return this year.

The moment the AI bubble bursts (and it will, because investors are dumb and don't understand the limitations of AI) the S&P 500 is going to collapse like it did with the dot com bubble.
No that's the large-cap tech sector, not just Nvidia, but they do rely on the 80% market share of Nvidia graphics cards used for AI, and somewhat for gaming. Also, if one company collapses in the S&P 500, another takes its place. Robert Half used to be in the S&P 500, but it's not now. But no one knows for sure whether AI will collapse, they just know that OpenAI, like most beginning startups, is operating at a loss as Amazon did and that AI is taking lots of VC capital.

The reason for that is that it's too hard and complex to set up supply chains and factories and get FDA approval for new medical devices, for example. Software is stupid and easy to make money off of due to low operating costs in the long run.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,571
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
The same justices that overturned Roe are the ones that want to overturn Obergefell, and their written opinions in the case overturning Roe are specifically being used with regards to Obergefell. Saying "it's not going to happen" is just plugging your ears with your fingers and going "la la la can't hear you!"



It's not paranoia if there are actually people out to get you, and they have stated that they are out to get you, and they're also some of the most powerful people in the country.



What stops the supreme court from saying that law in unconstitutional and ignoring it in favor of state's rights?
You mean justice (singular). Sexual orientation is pretty protected in the constitution.

It's all to get you fighting about shit they actually don't care about. Focus on important things first even if you are worried about gay marriage. Wouldn't better wealth equality, healthcare, lower housing costs, etc. help gay people more than being able to get married?

That's a nonsensical argument, you can say that about any law then. I guess you better worry about murder being a decided by the states then...
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,200
6,475
118
The same justices that overturned Roe are the ones that want to overturn Obergefell, and their written opinions in the case overturning Roe are specifically being used with regards to Obergefell. Saying "it's not going to happen" is just plugging your ears with your fingers and going "la la la can't hear you!"
What we have seen of the court is that not all of the 6-3 supermajority are in lockstep. Whilst the most extreme (As far as I can see Alito and Thomas) are willing to take a sledgehammer to established US precedents, I am not convinced all of the others always will be. I certainly think there's a chance that undoing some of these rulings may go further than a couple of the conservative justices want to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,565
3,088
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
You mean justice (singular). Sexual orientation is pretty protected in the constitution.
Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have all explicitly been against Obergefell and Kavanaugh would likely vote against it as well.

When questioned by then-Senator Kamala Harris about whether he agreed with the Obergefell's decision, the conservative judge refused to answer the question—an evasiveness that many activists found concerning.

But since joining the court, Kavanaugh has voted on LGBTQ issues on multiple occasions.

In 2020, when the court voted to expand Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to protect the rights of LGBTQ employees, Kavanaugh wrote a dissent saying that discrimination based on sexual orientation and on sex were two different things and that Congress should be voting on any changes to the relevant law, not judges.


So significantly more than one justice.

It's all to get you fighting about shit they actually don't care about. Focus on important things first even if you are worried about gay marriage. Wouldn't better wealth equality, healthcare, lower housing costs, etc. help gay people more than being able to get married?
Sure, except Republicans are explicitly against most of those things as well. Wealth equality? Public healthcare options? Those are for dirty socialists. Remember, Republicans are actively trying to prevent the government from capping medication costs.


That's a nonsensical argument, you can say that about any law then. I guess you better worry about murder being a decided by the states then...
If supreme court justices started talking about reexamining whether having a federal statute on murder was constitutional I would find that to be pretty concerning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak and BrawlMan