US 2024 Presidential Election

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,694
1,285
118
Country
United States
...You said "sexual orientation is pretty protected in the Constitution". That was the first thing you said to which I responded...
You're not even going far enough in your argument on this one.

Obergefell employed strict scrutiny not because of LGBTQ suspect classification, but because marriage has been found by the court to be a fundamental civil right (Loving v. Virginia). Hence why the opinion spilled ink reestablishing that finding. Lawrence v. Texas was ruled on privacy, while quite specifically and intentionally not finding sexual orientation or gender identity as grounds for suspect classification (or consensual sex a fundamental civil right). The closest thing we have is the Second Circuit Court of Appeals identifying sexual orientation as grounds for quasi-suspect classification in Windsor, but SCOTUS discarded that reasoning in favor of the more straightforward equal protection and takings arguments.

That the Court navigated decades' worth of equal protection and due process cases involving LGBTQ rights claimants without ever granting suspect classification, is in and of itself is a fairly telling omission.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,520
820
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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.
I said that at the start because gay marriage is protected NOW and we were discussing if it could/would be overturned.

Because you have to challenge something to know whether or not it's protected. Then, you finally provided a case where it was challenged in the 70s IIRC, then I agreed with you because it looks like they did use the 14th amendment at least, though I'm not going go through the oral arguments and stuff to see the complete argument that was used and just assume they argued properly and you were right about that then. And then there's the quality of the argument part as well like how I mentioned the argument in Roe is piss poor and that's why it was overturned. Another argument could lead to abortion being protected for example. And that argument most likely has never been argued so you don't know how that would have played out 50/75/100/etc years ago either.

I've said this many posts ago as well and you never mentioned how you are defining protected as it can go either way depending on how you look at it.
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.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,483
1,791
118
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.
Tippy is for sale! Which candidate wants Tippy's dozens of followers to be preached to!?!?!

Like...only half of them give or take are porn bots!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,395
2,854
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I said that at the start because gay marriage is protected NOW and we were discussing if it could/would be overturned.

Because you have to challenge something to know whether or not it's protected. Then, you finally provided a case where it was challenged in the 70s IIRC, then I agreed with you because it looks like they did use the 14th amendment at least, though I'm not going go through the oral arguments and stuff to see the complete argument that was used and just assume they argued properly and you were right about that then. And then there's the quality of the argument part as well like how I mentioned the argument in Roe is piss poor and that's why it was overturned. Another argument could lead to abortion being protected for example. And that argument most likely has never been argued so you don't know how that would have played out 50/75/100/etc years ago either.

I've said this many posts ago as well and you never mentioned how you are defining protected as it can go either way depending on how you look at it.
Multiple people have pointed out that being gay used to come with a death sentence. You've never explained how exactly someone was supposed to argue in favor of gay marriage 200 years ago when doing so would have gotten them hanged for sodomy.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,520
820
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Multiple people have pointed out that being gay used to come with a death sentence. You've never explained how exactly someone was supposed to argue in favor of gay marriage 200 years ago when doing so would have gotten them hanged for sodomy.
I already said that you'd probably have needed the 14th amendment (1868) and you're exaggerating gay people being killed for being gay.

During the colonial era of American history, the various European nations which established colonies in the Americas brought their pre-existing laws against homosexuality (which included capital punishment) with them. The establishment of the United States after their victory in the Revolutionary War did not bring about any changes in the status of capital punishment as a sentence for being convicted of homosexual behavior. Beginning in the 19th century, the various state legislatures passed legislation which ended the status of capital punishment being used for those who were convicted of homosexual behavior. South Carolina was the last state, in 1873, to repeal the death penalty for homosexual behaviour from its statute books. The number of times the penalty was carried out is unknown. Records show there were at least two executions, and a number of more convictions with vague labels, such as "crimes against nature".
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,953
2,982
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
And the parallels between Russia right after communism ended and the US right after the financial crisis (in 2008) is uncanny too.
You're not wrong. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden have been taking the tax of hard-working average citizens and shovelling it to the elite

Edit: Just to be clear, the stupidest part about Lenin is that he read Marx, a noted anti-hierarchical philosopher and thought: 'Do you know what Communism needs? Hierarchy. The average worker is just too stupid.'
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,395
2,854
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I already said that you'd probably have needed the 14th amendment (1868) and you're exaggerating gay people being killed for being gay.

During the colonial era of American history, the various European nations which established colonies in the Americas brought their pre-existing laws against homosexuality (which included capital punishment) with them. The establishment of the United States after their victory in the Revolutionary War did not bring about any changes in the status of capital punishment as a sentence for being convicted of homosexual behavior. Beginning in the 19th century, the various state legislatures passed legislation which ended the status of capital punishment being used for those who were convicted of homosexual behavior. South Carolina was the last state, in 1873, to repeal the death penalty for homosexual behaviour from its statute books. The number of times the penalty was carried out is unknown. Records show there were at least two executions, and a number of more convictions with vague labels, such as "crimes against nature".
Your quote literally just proved my point. You could legally be killed for being gay in up until 1873 (and even after that, lynchings are a thing), and even after that being imprisoned for 20 years of hard labor isn't exactly a good deal. Also, you're the one who put the 200 year time-frame in place for this argument.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,953
2,982
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Your quote literally just proved my point. You could be killed for being gay in up until 1873, and even after that being imprisoned for 20 years of hard labor isn't exactly a good deal. Also, you're the one who put the 200 year time-frame in place for this argument.
I just want to this point because it's that important. The Constitution absolutely protects gay marriage.

That has never stopped some enterprising American elite from finding some way to get around the Constitution. In fact, this is celebrated. And it still happens in 2024
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,795
6,152
118
Country
United Kingdom
I said that at the start because gay marriage is protected NOW and we were discussing if it could/would be overturned.
You were specifically using this Constitutional protection as a reason the SCOTUS wouldn't overturn it. That only makes sense if you believe the protection is unarguable or unambiguous in the Constitution itself, and not dependent on changeable SCOTUS personal interpretation.

Because you have to challenge something to know whether or not it's protected.
...Which you brought up to dispute the idea that it wasn't protected before. Remember? You said this solely to dispute that it wasn't protected for 226 years.

Then, you finally provided a case where it was challenged in the 70s IIRC, then I agreed with you
Even then you bent over backwards to avoid conceding the point! You could've just said, "thank you, I agree it wasn't protected before Obergefell". But stubborn pride demands endlessly quibbling.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,694
1,285
118
Country
United States
I am calling it. Harris will win the election if this trend holds.
That's a...phenomenally bad reading of the tea leaves, I'll leave it at that.

First and foremost, remember Powell is a diehard Republican and has been since his Carlyle Group (yeah, that Carlyle Group)/Treasury undersecretary days. More than that, his tenure as Fed chair was initiated by Trump. He knows on what side his bread's buttered, his interest is in putting Republicans back in power because they're more profitable to him and his investment banker buddies than Democrats, and he's absolutely abusing his position as Fed chair to influence the election outcome.

Second, never lose sight on the fact post-Covid inflation has been largely artificial, and driven not by any excuse proffered by for-profit media but rather corporate greed, institutional investor insistence on quarterly profit growth, and to wage economic warfare against the working class in retaliation for the great resignation. Take Powell on his word when he's said consistently over the past three years the unemployment rate is the key performance indicator for when to cut rates, and the primary goal of interest rate hikes is to increase unemployment. He's saying what he means, the motive behind high interest rates is to shift the job market from the sellers' market it has been since Covid, back to a buyers' market (i.e. shift the balance of power from employee to employer).

With both of those things in mind, remember interest rate cuts accompany recession. The time to cut rates and hopefully achieve that "soft landing" was three months ago, when economic KPI's showed first evidence of a slowing economy. When the BLS published its jobs report revisions two weeks ago, right after the Yen-carry and OPEC unwind started, it was time to start considering emergency rate cuts to keep the bottom from falling out of the economy. Bear in mind when that was going on, the DJIA dropped 7% from its ATH in the span of two weeks before dead cat bouncing.

The currently-speculated three quarter-point cuts over the span of six months is going to be way too little, way too late. Market volatility is already trending strongly upwards, and the underlying causes of that volatility haven't changed (and won't).

We're still on track for a serious financial crisis -- 2008 level or worse -- in late September or October. Which is perfect time for blame to fall on Biden, and by extension, Harris and the Democrats. Yes, even though the groundwork for it was laid during the Trump years, and executed by Trump appointees -- never underestimate the stupidity, myopia, and short memory span of the American voter. Jerome Powell is in a position to wield more influence over the 2024 election's outcome than any man on Earth, he has every reason to do everything in his power to ensure Republicans win, and he's already wielded that influence by simply playing coy about rate cuts and allowing rampart market speculation for three economically-critical months.

And frankly, it will be the Biden admin's fault for not demanding Powell's head on a silver platter the nanosecond he started saying the quiet part out loud...in 2021, when this entire fucking fiasco started.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,685
9,299
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Trump is claiming that schools are forcing children to have gender-affirming surgery.


“Think of it, your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation.”
This has, of course, never actually happened. But Trump needs to keep his base angry, and making up stories of how those evil liberal schools will turn your little boy into a little girl is just more red meat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

BrawlMan

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

 

BrawlMan

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



Fuck off Putin.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Agema
Jun 11, 2023
2,656
1,924
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Could you link some article or something laying this out?
Eacaraxe is all-knowing; why would you need an article?


/sarcasm (I think?)


Jerome Powell is in a position to wield more influence over the 2024 election's outcome than any man on Earth, he has every reason to do everything in his power to ensure Republicans win, and he's already wielded that influence by simply playing coy about rate cuts and allowing rampart market speculation for three economically-critical months.

And frankly, it will be the Biden admin's fault for not demanding Powell's head on a silver platter the nanosecond he started saying the quiet part out loud...in 2021, when this entire fucking fiasco started.
Was he not in this position four years ago? Or is it mandatory for the pendulum of “powers” to keep swinging to and fro in this shitshow we call a democracy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,898
2,004
118
Country
United States
Screenshot_20240905-093251.png

Your daily "daaaamn" notification.

So I was reading, Trump can officially sell his slice on Sept 20th * if the stock remains above $12. If not its Sept 25th.

Not really sure what hes gonna do. The sell off frenzy has already started. The only real drawback is losing faith from his core supporters, but thats questionable as the ones with any iota of self-preservation have already sold the stock and laughed it off if a bit sweatily. His more cultish supporters considered it a donation and feel like martyrs to the cause going down with the ship.

I don't have the numbers in front of me but keep in mind Trump never put money into this. Hes losing nothing. Because of the initial 8 billion investment he will still walk away with $100 million even if it craters to a couple bucks before he sells.

On a side note, you know what I noticed? I could not find a single news story on FOX about this. Even forbes and WSJ are reporting on the freefall. Not a peep out of FOX that I can find on google. Fair and balanced aye?

Edit: Foxbusiness reported the first drop back in april, but nothing on the stock since. I had to dig through their article archive. I...can't find the search engine on FOX. Google archives wasn't returning anything for FOX. All the other major mainstream media and stock sites are all over it. It appears that just FOX is pretending nothing is wrong.
 
Last edited:

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,083
6,326
118
This needs to be taken with a big pinch of salt.

It is very likely that the polls, at a national level, are reasonable and that if nothing changes much, Harris will win the popular vote by a few percent. However, at a state level for the electoral college, according to polls it's pretty much 50:50 who wins.

It gets worse. Although polls have on aggregate estimated the national margin pretty well in previous elections, they've been substantially less reliable at state level, and in the key battleground states have tended to underweigh support for Trump. It is possible that they have corrected for this for 2024 and might be more accurate, but...

So sure, the Trump team might seem panicky because a comfortable lead has evaporated and this has been the dominant media narrative, but Trump's campaign is still very much a contender.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
28,560
11,930
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
This needs to be taken with a big pinch of salt.

It is very likely that the polls, at a national level, are reasonable and that if nothing changes much, Harris will win the popular vote by a few percent. However, at a state level for the electoral college, according to polls it's pretty much 50:50 who wins.

It gets worse. Although polls have on aggregate estimated the national margin pretty well in previous elections, they've been substantially less reliable at state level, and in the key battleground states have tended to underweigh support for Trump. It is possible that they have corrected for this for 2024 and might be more accurate, but...

So sure, the Trump team might seem panicky because a comfortable lead has evaporated and this has been the dominant media narrative, but Trump's campaign is still very much a contender.
I figured as much. It's why I find you most reliable @Agema. Especially when it comes to things like this.


On a side note, you know what I noticed? I could not find a single news story on FOX about this. Even forbes and WSJ are reporting on the freefall. Not a peep out of FOX that I can find on google. Fair and balanced aye?
Bitches sucking up and ignoring obvious problems with the biggest biatch in a boxstand in our nation's history. What else is new?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agema

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,083
6,326
118
I don't have the numbers in front of me but keep in mind Trump never put money into this. Hes losing nothing. Because of the initial 8 billion investment he will still walk away with $100 million even if it craters to a couple bucks before he sells.
It's so Trump: a brand exploitation scheme to gouge people for a quick buck with little interest in delivering the product/service.

As you note, it's probably overvalued by an order of magnitude or so. Even at that level, Trump can walk off with a lot of other people's money. However, one can argue that he has provided some value, in the sense that Truth Social would probably be worth absolutely nothing without him. It might be a loss-making platform with no long-term future, but nevertheless it exists and is worth something here and now. But a lot of people who pumped money into it must be either Trump zealots or kicking themselves. The latter will have been expecting a payday, not Trump to walk off with their investment capital.

Incidentally, it has I think about $300M in the bank. So it should be worth about $300M, plus a bit more for its chatroom. I suppose that $300M at least gives it options, if anyone with vision and skill were to take it places. It could make one or two AAA game titles with that kind of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan