US 2024 Presidential Election

[tstorm823]

So, since you weren't called homosexuals, you can't be targets of laws

The nature of a social construct is that you can't be a category without a name. You likely imagine concepts of gender and sexuality existed even if they didn't have the same names, but the names are the only manner in which genders and sexualities exist. "Being homosexual (or heterosexual)" is an invention of modernity, a consequence of societies trying to scientifically break down the human condition and solve the perceived shortcomings. But not everything in the world can or ought to be carved into distinct categories, and for most of history they weren't. Sodomy was not who you are, even in the minds of those who would practice it. There was no innate true gayness for people to hide themselves from the law, it just wasn't a category of being, nor does it have to be.

 

[Trunkage]

The nature of a social construct is that you can't be a category without a name. You likely imagine concepts of gender and sexuality existed even if they didn't have the same names, but the names are the only manner in which genders and sexualities exist. "Being homosexual (or heterosexual)" is an invention of modernity, a consequence of societies trying to scientifically break down the human condition and solve the perceived shortcomings. But not everything in the world can or ought to be carved into distinct categories, and for most of weren't. Sodomy was not who you are, even in the minds of those who would practice it. There was no innate true gayness for people to hide themselves from the law, it just wasn't a category of being, nor does it have to be.

So the word homosexuality didn't exist before 1970 (ish) so therefore there was no homosexuals in existence before then

 

[gorfias]

Laws are only unconstitutional if they are specifically against something in the constitution. I don't think the DoMA is against anything in the constitution.

It was against full faith and credit. It was the congress telling the USSC that they were not to apply that when dealing with marriage licenses for gay people. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me. Allow it, and what else? The 19th shall not be construed to mean women are allowed to vote?

Do you remember back in 2016 how Trump insisted he would get a wall built between the USA and Mexico as the centrepiece of his vision? Maybe he's going to be just as effective as that at ending the Ukraine war.

I mean, Trump's got a more than a small history of overpromising and underdelivering, and that was true even before he got into politics.

At least, like in that 4 min. speech by Michael Moore, Trump is saying the right things. So right that now Kamala is saying she wants a wall.
Biden (and Kamala?) seem to really, really want the Ukraine idiocy to continue forever.
If Biden et. al. won't even say the right things, what are we to hope for?

What's the problem? It's another ~10 weeks to the election. 3.5 months is plenty of time to get that stuff done.

After all, election winners have less than 3 months to prep to be president.

Why is this happening? Kamala is accused of being an empty headed bubble head suit that will be a mouth piece for a kabal that hates the US and simply sees it as a base of operations. If she could do as Trump does, taking on all comers, I'd feel better about her.

Well, the debate approaches. We'll see what happens.

 

[Kwak]

Kamala is accused of being an empty headed bubble head suit that will be a mouth piece for a kabal that hates the US and simply sees it as a base of operations. If she could do as Trump does, taking on all comers, I'd feel better about her.

Taking on all comers? Yeah, taking the russians into the white house with no official records kept of the meeting.

Just, how the fuck can any sane person think Trump "takes on all comers"?

Oh yeah, right, you aren't sane.

So who is this cabal that hates america that kamala is a mouthpiece for? Is there a single piece of evidence to justify such blitheringly stupid rhetoric?
Oh that's right, she's just 'accused'. Any moron can accuse anyone of anything.
The qanon maga droolers tend to accuse those they see as their enemy of the things they themselves are doing or want to do.

 

[gorfias]

View attachment 11795
Taking on all comers? Yeah, taking the russians into the white house with no official records kept of the meeting.

Just, how the fuck can any sane person think Trump "takes on all comers"?

Oh yeah, right, you aren't sane.

So who is this cabal that hates america that kamala is a mouthpiece for? Is there a single piece of evidence to justify such blitheringly stupid rhetoric?
Oh that's right, she's just 'accused'. Any moron can accuse anyone of anything.
The qanon maga droolers tend to accuse those they see as their enemy of the things they themselves are doing or want to do.

Dude, she had her support mammal Walz with her for the puff piece we got.

ITMT Trump faced these kinds of lies with aplomb:
But the debate approaches. We'll see what happens.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This argument is example #981723 that Phoenixmgs has absolutely zero ability to understand reality beyond his own personal experiences. Since he's never been concerned about having his own rights, no one else should ever be either.

You could have copied their post count for the number, give your comment that extra something.

 

[Kwak]

Dude, she had her support mammal Walz with her for the puff piece we got.

ITMT Trump faced these kinds of lies with aplomb:
But the debate approaches. We'll see what happens.

She did an interview with her running mate therefore she hates america and will sell it out for some evil cabal?

Dude, your brain is cheese.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Dude, she had her support mammal Walz with her for the puff piece we got.

Why is it weird to have a joint interview with her and her VP pick?

It's pretty standard for a presidential nominee to have a joint interview with their VP pick when their VP gets announced. Trump had a joint interview with Vance on Fox after Vance was announced as his VP pick. Obama and Biden had a joint interview with 60 Minutes after Biden was selected as the VP nominee in 2008, and Biden and Harris had a joint interview in 2020 on 20/20 when Harris was announced as VP.

Republicans are making noise about literally nothing and pretending it's something unprecedented and extraordinary, when it's something that their own candidate did a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Drathnoxis]

So the word homosexuality didn't exist before 1970 (ish) so therefore there was no homosexuals in existence before then

The word "homosexual" definitely existed before 1970. Here's a PSA from 1961 that uses the term and Wikipedia states that the earliest known usage is from 1868.

 

[Trunkage]

The word "homosexual" definitely existed before 1970. Here's a PSA from 1961 that uses the term and Wikipedia states that the earliest known usage is from 1868.

I was basing 1970 as a guess for modern psychology. I don't if Tstorm would class Freud modem

But that's not the point

Tstorm is saying you can't call anyone homosexual before 1868 because that wasn't a concept humans had... and there shouldn't be a category for homosexuals

 

[tstorm823]

I was basing 1970 as a guess for modern psychology. I don't if Tstorm would class Freud modem

If you don't understand a term or phrase, I recommend google over guessing.

 

[gorfias]

Why is it weird to have a joint interview with her and her VP pick?

It's pretty standard for a presidential nominee to have a joint interview with their VP pick when their VP gets announced. Trump had a joint interview with Vance on Fox after Vance was announced as his VP pick. Obama and Biden had a joint interview with 60 Minutes after Biden was selected as the VP nominee in 2008, and Biden and Harris had a joint interview in 2020 on 20/20 when Harris was announced as VP.

Republicans are making noise about literally nothing and pretending it's something unprecedented and extraordinary, when it's something that their own candidate did a couple of weeks ago.

Uh, cuz after 5 weeks its the only interview she's given. Now MAGA is worried that when debate time finally comes, she'll be "unwell" and not be able to attend and just keep in hiding till after the election. We'll see.

She did an interview with her running mate therefore she hates america and will sell it out for some evil cabal?

Dude, your brain is cheese.

No no, it is that she is an empty skulled empty suit who should be held responsible for the last 3.5 years of misery and betrayal we have been through and gives a terrible interview. And yes, they've been selling us out to an evil cabal.

Trump and Vance need to stick to that (short of covid, to which Trump over-reacted things were fantastic when he governed, miserable under Biden). Don't get lured in by tangential issues (the lawfare, social media censorship, that they appear to have tried to murder him, etc.) . If they do that, they win.

 

[Agema]

Why is this happening? Kamala is accused of being an empty headed bubble head suit that will be a mouth piece for a kabal that hates the US and simply sees it as a base of operations. If she could do as Trump does, taking on all comers, I'd feel better about her.

Harris has taken over the Democratic candidacy in a huge wave of enthusiasm, flipped the polls, with what appears to be a popular and well-received VP pick (unlike JD Vance), whilst Trump is evidently flailing around trying to regain momentum and left with little except blathering that he's better-looking than Harris whilst his VP complains about "cat ladies".

As stands, it looks an awful lot like she's winning.

If she really is that bad and yet ahead, what does it say about the shortcomings of her opponent?

 

[Agema]

Now MAGA is worried that when debate time finally comes, she'll be "unwell" and not be able to attend and just keep in hiding till after the election.

MAGA doesn't care. No matter whether Trump crushes Harris, Harris crushes Trump, or somewhere inbetween, the only narrative that MAGA will come out with is that Trump crushed Harris. If the debate does not occur, even if it obviously Trump who publicly cancels at the last moment, it will be presented as Harris failing to prove she has what it takes.

That's the thing with that sort of partisan supporter: there's no fair judgement based on reason, it's blind, dogmatic fervour. There is nothing that can be said or done to sway them. If their opponent answers valid criticisms, they will just invent new criticisms. If they don't have any good reasons for those new criticisms, unanswerable or untruthful ones ("Communist" / "fascist" / "destroy the USA" / etc.) will do just fine.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Just, how the fuck can any sane person think Trump "takes on all comers"?

This is the mindset that calls Trump "tough" when all he does is whine about how unfair everything is. It's the mindset that claims "Trump will put America's enemies in their place" when he does nothing but praise and kowtow to them. It's the mindset that says "Trump has a plan to solve all America's problems" when all his plans will be revealed in two weeks.

It's mindless cult worship.

 

[gorfias]

MAGA doesn't care. No matter whether Trump crushes Harris, Harris crushes Trump, or somewhere inbetween, the only narrative that MAGA will come out with is that Trump crushed Harris. If the debate does not occur, even if it obviously Trump who publicly cancels at the last moment, it will be presented as Harris failing to prove she has what it takes.

That's the thing with that sort of partisan supporter: there's no fair judgement based on reason, it's blind, dogmatic fervour. There is nothing that can be said or done to sway them. If their opponent answers valid criticisms, they will just invent new criticisms. If they don't have any good reasons for those new criticisms, unanswerable or untruthful ones ("Communist" / "fascist" / "destroy the USA" / etc.) will do just fine.

Do you think the Biden/Trump debate impactful? You think there is no chance a Harris/Trump debate would be?

 

[Avnger]

Do you think the Biden/Trump debate impactful? You think there is no chance a Harris/Trump debate would be?

Thanks for bringing up a good example of Agema's point. MAGA saw the first debate but processed literally nothing about it except how Trump "crushed" Biden. Democrats, on the other hand, saw the failings of their own candidate, acknowledged them, and took the step of agitating to convince him to step down. MAGA would have never done what Democrats did, even if the debate performances had been completely reversed.

To repeat Agema: For MAGA, it doesn't matter if Harris crushes Trump or Trump crushes Harris in the upcoming debates; they will always and only see the latter regardless of the reality. Donald Trump literally cannot fail in their minds due to the cult of personality they've joined (see 2020 election denialism as examples 1 through 1000).

Democrats have shown they have the capacity to do otherwise.

 

[tstorm823]

Harris has taken over the Democratic candidacy in a huge wave of enthusiasm, flipped the polls, with what appears to be a popular and well-received VP pick...

Ok, but it's forced and fake. I am in Pennsylvania, possibly the purplest state at the moment, I am related to more Democrats than Republicans, and the enthusiasm level for Harris can be summed as "I'm glad I don't have to vote for Biden." The media keeps saying there's a wave of enthusiasm, but I've seen nothing locally here. And then they talk about how angry Republicans get when you call them weird, I haven't seen any of that. They are just trying to speak the reality they want into existence. Like, they made "joy" a pillar of the campaign, which I greatly appreciate, I think that is a good strategy and a good thing for people to embrace... But like just claiming to be joyous while your demonstration of fun is looking for a bag of Doritos in a Sheetz falls flat.

 

[Silvanus]

According to you, judge interpretation of the constitution conveys protection and the constitution itself has no power in essence. A judge in your world could say that saying the word "the" is forbidden and then the constitution doesn't protect that when we all know the constitution protects that.

Well, 5 of 9 judges can rule what they want or just refuse to hear something, but substantially yes. Though to maintain credibility, they obviously wouldn't rule on something so facile and unenforceable.

Gay people also didn't ask if they could marry either. If you can show me where gay people asked for the right to marry and got denied, that's at least something that can then be argued that the constitution didn't protect them.

OK. How about Baker v. Nelson? Gay marriage was banned in Minnesota. Baker tried to marry a man, and was denied. Baker filed suit. The Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the ban on gay marriage "does not offend the Constitution".

Baker appealed to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS dismissed the appeal, and made the ruling against Baker binding precedent.

 

[Agema]

Do you think the Biden/Trump debate impactful? You think there is no chance a Harris/Trump debate would be?

Sort of.

The Biden / Trump debate was impactful in the sense that it made the Democrats decide their candidate was unfit.

However, even though everyone knew that debate was a clear failure for the Democrats, it was not impactful in that it resulted in very little change to polling numbers. That's because current US politics are staggeringly sclerotic, with a huge proportion of dogmatic voters whose vote is decided long before the election so that even a bumbling performance wasn't going to move them. Secondly, that Biden's dotage was probably already "priced in" to his poll numbers, so of the tiny proportion of open-minded voters, he'd already lost those worried about his acuity before it started.

So if Trump really can convincingly trounce Harris, he might claw back some votes. But is he going to do so? Probably not. I think the MAGA faithful believe Trump is some kind of genius and Harris an idiot and assume he'll trounce her. But the problem is that they're biased - they overrate their candidate and underrate his opponent. Plus that they see this debate a key fulcrum around which their hopes rest. They HAVE to believe he'll crush her, because they can't see any other light on the horizon.