US 2024 Presidential Election

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,718
2,154
118

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.

1724808923501.png

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

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,237
6,508
118
Steven Cheung said:
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

davidmc1158

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
241
275
68
(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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,458
5,712
118
Australia
(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.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,151
6,407
118
Country
United Kingdom
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

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,667
831
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,151
6,407
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,667
831
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
....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

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,151
6,407
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,667
831
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,956
2,086
118
Country
United States
crystal-ball.gif

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,151
6,407
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,567
12,290
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Oh look: the biatch-in-a-boxstand is about throw another biatch-in-a-boxstand under the bus and shift the blame.



 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,667
831
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,151
6,407
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,956
2,086
118
Country
United States

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.


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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,667
831
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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.