US 2024 Presidential Election

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,083
6,326
118
Same reason he probably wouldn't do it in a second term - he's a narcissist. He can't handle being disliked by the right (or "right") people or worse being ignored outright. Cutting medicare and social security would damage the font of love and attention he gets from his cult (too many of which benefit from those things and would feel it too quickly to blame on the next POTUS), so it's probably off the table.
With respect to the ACA, I think there's another factor in play: just how much he hates Obama. One of the areas I think Trump was unusually active was attempting to destroy as many of Obama's accomplishments as possible. His hate, rage and desire for vengeance are sufficient motivators to overcome his desire to be liked, because that sort of vindictiveness is also part of his narcissism.

Most likely the ACA is safe because of Congress. Although long unpopular, its public image has steadily improved such that is now something like 60% favoured. Also bearing in mind a disproportionate amount of its unpopularity is concentrated in red states that opted out, which makes scrapping it even more risky for the Republicans where they are more vulnerable. The electoral impacts of canning abortion will be fresh in many Republican legislators' minds, and whilst Trump might not be up for re-election after his term, many of them will be.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,520
820
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
The constitution stated that all men are equal. But that didn't happen, particularly for the first 200 years

Are you pretending that minorities just didn't ask to stop things like slavery?
I have further questions

Throughout the US there were laws against homosexuality. Why would you ask for a homosexual marriage when what you are doing is illegal? Shouldn't you be asking for homosexuality to be legal first? Do you think asking for gay marriage wouldn't end up with you in jail?

When do you think homosexuality became legal?

After homosexuality did become legal, do you think gay marriage was not asked for?

Did you know that anal sex is still banned in 12 states? Not homosexuality, even anal sex between heteros. And the Supreme Court just stops them from enforcing it?
We aren't just talking about say gay marriage or slavery, you can't just say the constitution GENERALLY doesn't protect things if you don't ask to see if they are protected.

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?
Huh? Wouldn't the DoMA be in line with Full Faith Credit. Wouldn't a marriage in State_X be a judicial proceeding and wouldn't then State_Y have to respect that proceeding/marriage? Isn't DoMA just inline with that? Congress can basically tell SCOTUS they don't apply just by making a law for most things. If Congress made a law that said women can't vote, it would be against the constitutional and deemed unconstitutional. What in the constitution states you can't a federal law concerning marriage?

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.


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.
But you said they could literally do whatever. You just literally used my argument. The SCOTUS isn't going to reverse gay marriage or racial marriage or whatever hell thing you guys are so worried about that will get reversed. Just like all the shit you guys are worried about in Project 2025 isn't going to happen.

That's what I've been asking for the whole time. You can't just claim something isn't allowed/protected when you don't ask. According to the Wiki, they at least did try to use the 14th amendment. I'd agree with most people (I believe) and I would say society as a whole was not OK with changing what marriage was at that point in time. I don't feel like looking up exactly how it was argued but logically it's pretty easy to list the benefits of married people and argue it's unfair that others don't have the same benefits. I have no problem with outlawing gay marriage as long as marriage is merely just a piece of paper conveying no objective benefits but that's not the case.

Can't stand Vaush. A sophist, a pervert and a moron.
He is a pretty horrible, I've only seen one video with him in it and he was horrible both with attitude and logically.


Apparently Trump's campaign is stopping in a lot of current and former "sundown towns" (towns where black people are not welcome after dark). It could be a coincidence that Trump is touring these small towns that happen to be hugely majority white and discriminatory. I've heard the theory that these are just the towns that are willing to give him free venues as a lot of major cities won't rent venues to him anymore because he keeps skipping out on paying them. Either way, it's not a good look.

Definitely don't think this is actually helping him grow his base, but I guess this is where he gets the crowd sizes he so desperately craves.
It's pretty hard to not go to sundown towns if you going to small towns in general. In Illinois, a northern state obviously, there's tons of former sundown towns all over the place and if you were to have a rally in some random town outside of Chicago, it was probably a sundown town. This is story, why?
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
28,560
11,930
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male



 

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,898
2,004
118
Country
United States
The DJT stock has continued it's plunge into the abyss Tuesday.

1725380205463.png

A few things have happened.

1. A couple big shareholders are starting sale this week of 18 million shares of DJT stock. Trump sued them in florida stating it would do irreparable harm to DJT media, but a judge found that it could not be proven and is allowing the sale to go through.
2. Trump released sale of 38 million shares. I don't think these are his shares. I'm not stock savy enough to explain how it works.
3. DJT Media released their quarter numbers to share holders this week. A one commenter said "The chinese place across from my house made more money this quarter".




Essentially the bottom has dropped out in faith for the future of DJT media and large shareholders are fleeing. There's a hot debate going among small investors on whether or not DJT Media is and has always been a temporary scheme to funnel money into "Trump and Friends" pockets. You look at Devin Nunez, the CFO for DJT media, has a $1 million salary just for the DJT media stock, and has already sold $500k worth of shares and he's just a drop in the bucket. Anybody who isn't restricted from selling stock has already starting selling of and taking their "cut".
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,795
6,152
118
Country
United Kingdom
But you said they could literally do whatever. You just literally used my argument. The SCOTUS isn't going to reverse gay marriage or racial marriage or whatever hell thing you guys are so worried about that will get reversed.
? I said they wouldn't do X, so therefore they definitely also wouldn't do Y? No, that's moon logic.

That's what I've been asking for the whole time. You can't just claim something isn't allowed/protected when you don't ask. According to the Wiki, they at least did try to use the 14th amendment. I'd agree with most people (I believe) and I would say society as a whole was not OK with changing what marriage was at that point in time. I don't feel like looking up exactly how it was argued but logically it's pretty easy to list the benefits of married people and argue it's unfair that others don't have the same benefits. I have no problem with outlawing gay marriage as long as marriage is merely just a piece of paper conveying no objective benefits but that's not the case.
OK, so aside from the strange moan that i didn't do your research for you earlier , I can take this as an acknowledgement that the Constitution actually didn't protect same-sex marriage at this time, and that whether or not it does is up to some judges? Because you seem to just be conceding that, but doing so in a strangely aggressive way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,520
820
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
? I said they wouldn't do X, so therefore they definitely also wouldn't do Y? No, that's moon logic.



OK, so aside from the strange moan that i didn't do your research for you earlier , I can take this as an acknowledgement that the Constitution actually didn't protect same-sex marriage at this time, and that whether or not it does is up to some judges? Because you seem to just be conceding that, but doing so in a strangely aggressive way.
Worrying about something happening that has a very very very low chance of happening is rather ridiculous regardless of what it is. I don't worry about such things happening, why should any of you?

I said from the start both things are true in a general sense as gay marriage isn't the only thing that the constitution is protecting/not protecting.
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,795
6,152
118
Country
United Kingdom
Worrying about something happening that has a very very very low chance of happening is rather ridiculous regardless of what it is. I don't worry about such things happening, why should any of you?
Obviously you and I have very different judgements on that chance. I recognise that numerous present Supreme Court justices have already voted against same-sex marriage being Constitutionally protected, and at least one is still writing (in opinions on other unrelated cases) that Obergefell can be challenged and overturned.

I said from the start both things are true in a general sense as gay marriage isn't the only thing that the constitution is protecting/not protecting.
You've evidently forgotten your own position again. You argued that it was "objectively" protected by the Constitution and had always been, and that just nobody had asked before Obergefell. You effectively argued that it wasn't up to the decisions of the SCOTUS judges. It was one of the most blatantly foolish things I've ever seen argued here, and that's saying a lot.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,953
2,982
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
We aren't just talking about say gay marriage or slavery, you can't just say the constitution GENERALLY doesn't protect things if you don't ask to see if they are protected.
That not what happened

The Founding Father's appealed to equality, meritocracy and democracy etc, to get the average citizen to support them

But the Founding Father's never intended the average person to actually have many rights.

The Constitution wasn't written for us.

The parallels between what the Founding Father's did and what Lenin in this regard did is uncanny.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,324
1,950
118
Country
USA
You understand she hasn't been president for the last 3.5 years
The job of a VP is to be able to take over and advance the objectives of the POTUS on day one if necessary.

His policy is hers until she can differentiate herself, which, I doubt will happen.

1725410166247.png
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
28,560
11,930
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male

EDIT: I remember mom telling last night about her seeing news clips of younger voters weren't going to vote originally (they weren't doing Green Party either), because of it just being two old men white men and them being sick of either one. Most of them decided to vote only, because of Biden stepping down. Then most of the younger voters decided to vote for Harris. I am glad they're voting, but they're previous reason for lack of voting is stupid and dangerous. Do you people really want the same thing that happened last time by lacking of voting or thinking "my vote doesn't matter because of X reason"? It's how we got Trump as president in the first place. I am not going through shit like COVID again, if and when I can help it. I suggest you all do the same. Especially with Project 2025 being a thing, and the GOP getting rid of abortion rights. Stop thinking about "ME, ME, ME!" and start thinking about those around you or those that are effected by these hurtful policies. That includes yourself too. You won't be immune to bad policies in place or those you care about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,685
9,299
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
I mean, this is just emblematic of what's happening across most of America right now

'Biden has destroyed the economy!'

*checks economic data* The economy doing better than ever
"Crime is going up everywhere!"

(checks crime data) Crime has been decreasing for years on end.

Of course, you have to understand that to these people, "crime" is "people who don't look like me are moving into my neighborhood".
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,520
820
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Obviously you and I have very different judgements on that chance. I recognise that numerous present Supreme Court justices have already voted against same-sex marriage being Constitutionally protected, and at least one is still writing (in opinions on other unrelated cases) that Obergefell can be challenged and overturned.



You've evidently forgotten your own position again. You argued that it was "objectively" protected by the Constitution and had always been, and that just nobody had asked before Obergefell. You effectively argued that it wasn't up to the decisions of the SCOTUS judges. It was one of the most blatantly foolish things I've ever seen argued here, and that's saying a lot.
Again, it's not gonna happen...

I never said that. I literally said you don't know if you don't ask. Again, I literally just quoted myself saying that it can be A reason or B reason.
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.
That not what happened

The Founding Father's appealed to equality, meritocracy and democracy etc, to get the average citizen to support them

But the Founding Father's never intended the average person to actually have many rights.

The Constitution wasn't written for us.

The parallels between what the Founding Father's did and what Lenin in this regard did is uncanny.
And the parallels between Russia right after communism ended and the US right after the financial crisis (in 2008) is uncanny too.

This comment underpins most of your nonsense, but not in the Zen way you think it does.
It's not supposed to be some "zen" way. I just don't worry about things in general let alone things that have like 0 chance of happening. There's a whole bunch of much bigger things that have much much much greater effects to worry about. If you worry about such minor things, then when something major comes around it'll break you. Don't make molehills into mountains. Also, if we keep focusing on these little things instead up the higher level things, we're all fucked and you guys keep choosing on focusing on shit that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,795
6,152
118
Country
United Kingdom
Again, it's not gonna happen...
Says you. And yet you also thought the only reason it wasn't allowed before was... "No-one asked". Your understanding of this has been laughable.

I never said that. I literally said you don't know if you don't ask. Again, I literally just quoted myself saying that it can be A reason or B reason.
You quoted yourself talking about a hypothetical concerning a video game.

D'you really want me to go back and list all the examples of you repeatedly arguing that it was definitely, rock-solidly protected by the Constitution itself? That the judges can't just rule either way, because such things are just objective in the Constitution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,520
820
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Says you. And yet you also thought the only reason it wasn't allowed before was... "No-one asked". Your understanding of this has been laughable.



You quoted yourself talking about a hypothetical concerning a video game.

D'you really want me to go back and list all the examples of you repeatedly arguing that it was definitely, rock-solidly protected by the Constitution itself? That the judges can't just rule either way, because such things are just objective in the Constitution?
I was asking you to prove it had been challenged before, I didn't really care. As I've said it could be A or B, I don't really care which one it is/was.

I was never talking about gay marriage specifically, I was talking generally about anything that can potentially be protected by the constitution. Hence, when you brought up gay marriage, I asked was it challenged before? My point was you can't say the constitution didn't protect it until it's at least been challenged and then denied.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,795
6,152
118
Country
United Kingdom
I was never talking about gay marriage specifically [...]
This entire conversation started out on same sex marriage.

You said "sexual orientation is pretty protected in the Constitution". That was the first thing you said to which I responded. You were specifically disputing the idea that the SCOTUS could rule against same sex marriage, because of the Constitution.

To that, I responded that for 226 years, the Constitution was in effect but same sex marriage was illegal. Showing how the Constitutional protection that you think is there has been easily overridden before.

And your response was "you have to challenge it..."

The meaning of this is crystal clear. You were arguing that it was protected by the Constitution, but that the reason it hadn't been legal was that you just have to challenge it first.

The fact that it was challenged before, and the SCOTUS of the time denied it, destroys that argument completely. It shows indisputably that the protection you think comes from the Constitution itself, has been overridden by judges.

In essence: what you're saying definitely won't happen has already factually happened before, and the Constitution didn't stop it.
 
Jun 11, 2023
2,656
1,924
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
You don’t say (no pun) -



Gotta love social media stirring the pot, and yes I’m sure it’s not a completely one-sided occurrence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan