US 2024 Presidential Election

[BrawlMan]

Harris bests Trump in debate but there’s no guarantee it will shape the election | CNN Politics

Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris in a virtual coin toss before their presidential debate – but that’s about all he won.

amp.cnn.com

GOP pollster Frank Luntz: Debate will cost Trump the election

Republican pollster Frank Luntz predicted former President Trump’s performance in the Tuesday night debate will ultimately cost him the election in November. In a Wednesday interview on “Pier…

thehill.com

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/11/nx-s1-5107673/undecided-voter-debate-harris-trump

NPR article talk:
"This is tough my ass". I'm happy for the guy making his own decisions and voting for Harris, but it's not a tough choice. Especially when your previous president tried and failed to overthrow the government. Lewellen acknowledged thid as well, but I'm sick of these undecided voters with the "ME!ME!ME!ME!" attitude. You all already know what's going on, so you either care or you don't.

"She didn’t earn my vote,” Lewellen says. “She just was basically anointed because she was the vice president, second in charge.”

People still voted for her to be Vice President. So it counts regardless of what you think. That's how the system works when the first person in line is no longer fit to lead or dies.

Everything else Lewellen is talking about is more understandable and has his point. Yet why did you vote for Trump in the first place before 2020? I'm asking this because he is a black voter. I know he'gonot the only one to do this, but I find it. I miss this guy thought Trump had his best interest at heart. He had set many racist and successful things before even getting elected the first time. Why start now being hurt at what he's saying? Nothing changed and Trump has been doing the same shit for years.

 

[tippy2k2]

Trump saw it on TV!

 

[Bedinsis]

The best way to get Trump to answer a question is to ask him an unrelated one.

On the downside the question he'll answer will be of his choosing.

 

[Silvanus]

I didn't say Obergefell can't be overturned, I said if it was, it would basically be pointless. Respect for Marriage Act.

RFMA doesn't fulfil the same role. It ensures states must recognise the validity of such marriages; states could still ban their provision if not for Obergefell.

It obvious these other more important things aren't being focused on as they are never focused on...

OK. The level to which they're focused on has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage. And even if it did, it's the conservatives and Republicans using their energy on this.

So black people have to worry about slavery happening again? Is that what you're saying?

If you'd like to know what I'm saying, I encourage you to read what I wrote.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

How is say online discussion up to the justices' interpretation and not the 1st amendment?

The language of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Technically the first amendment only expressly applies to laws created by congress. The supreme court interpreted the first amendment to also apply to interference by state governments. The supreme court could decide to reinterpret the meaning of the first amendment and to enforce it strictly as written so that it only applies to congress, thus allowing state governments to limit free speech (as long as their state constitution didn't specifically prohibit them from doing so). Then state governments would be able to make laws about online discussions if they so choose.

Just an example of how your ability to have online discussions could be curtailed by actions of the supreme court even though it is currently protected by the first amendment.

Now I don't think the supreme court would actually do this, but technically they have the power to do so as the first amendment only applies to state governments based on a supreme court interpretation in the first place. This would invalidate a ton of precedent based on the supreme court's previous interpretation, but given that they did the same thing with regards to overturning Roe V Wade and turning over power to regulate abortions to state governments despite decades of prior precedent it could technically happen.

 

[BrawlMan]

As Ohio town hit with bomb threats, Trump keeps posting lies about migrants eating pets

Donald Trump falsely said migrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio. Now the city hall area is being shut down due to bomb threats.

www.usatoday.com

Officials in Springfield, Ohio have closed City Hall after a bomb threat was issued "to multiple agencies and media outlets."

It comes just two days after Trump spread dangerous, anti-immigrant conspiracies about Springfield at the presidential debate. Those conspiracies are not true.

 

[Trunkage]

OMG, I don't mean there's no reason for gay people to want to have lived together and all that. I said there's no reason why they would've cared for being married in the sense there's an official paper saying they're married (as what benefits would they get directly from that say 200 years ago? Whereas now you have some rather good benefits from that).

OMG, I just provided a reason why they NEEDED that official piece of paper, especially back then. That's why I told you to look up Botton Marriages It gives you a lot of rights that unmarried people do not get. For example, you couldn't visit your partner at the hospital without that paper. They did movies on this back in the old days

 

[Schadrach]

It ensures states must recognise the validity of such marriages

Which arguably they have always been required to because of full faith and credit. Nice to have it explicitly codified though.

Technically the first amendment only expressly applies to laws created by congress. The supreme court interpreted the first amendment to also apply to interference by state governments. The supreme court could decide to reinterpret the meaning of the first amendment and to enforce it strictly as written so that it only applies to congress, thus allowing state governments to limit free speech (as long as their state constitution didn't specifically prohibit them from doing so). Then state governments would be able to make laws about online discussions if they so choose.

14th Amendment section 1 covers that doesn't it?

 

[BrawlMan]

OMG, I just provided a reason why they NEEDED that official piece of paper, especially back then. That's why I told you to look up Botton Marriages It gives you a lot of rights that unmarried people do not get. For example, you couldn't visit your partner at the hospital without that paper. They did movies on this back in the old days

Goes to show how little he actually knows. That said I learned something new today.

 

[Trunkage]

14th Amendment section 1 covers that doesn't it?

The Supreme Court seems to view the Constitution as a guide, not an actual law. Particularly when it benefits them

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

14th Amendment section 1 covers that doesn't it?

Sort of, but only because of a supreme court interpretation.

The 14th amendment states:

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The primary author of the first section of the 14th amendment, John A Bingham originally intended the amendment to nationalize the bill of rights and make it binding upon the states, however the supreme court didn't agree. The 14th amendment went into effect in 1868 but for many years the supreme court actually ruled that the amendment didn't extend the bill of rights to the states and that it was still only binding on the federal government, and only reversed this interpretation in 1925.

So again, since ruling that the bill of rights extends to the states was a supreme court reinterpretation, the supreme court could reinterpret the law once again and state that following the bill of right strictly means that it only applies to the federal government.

Again, I don't think that this would actually happen, but it theoretically could, because the supreme court is able to change and override past interpretations that the court itself made, and the current supreme court has several justices who claim to be "constitutional originalists" (when it suits them) and believe that the correct interpretation of the constitution would be whatever the original interpretation was, which in this case would be that the bill of rights only covers the federal government.

 

[Piscian]

Trump says no more debates against Kamala Harris

The former president claims that polls show he "clearly won" the debate against Harris earlier this week.

www.bbc.com

Trump says no more debates.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Trump says no more debates against Kamala Harris

The former president claims that polls show he "clearly won" the debate against Harris earlier this week.

www.bbc.com

Trump says no more debates.

I was sure that he was going to demand another debate, but only if it happened on Fox News with Tucker Carlson moderating.

 

[Bedinsis]

OMG, I don't mean there's no reason for gay people to want to have lived together and all that. I said there's no reason why they would've cared for being married in the sense there's an official paper saying they're married (as what benefits would they get directly from that say 200 years ago? Whereas now you have some rather good benefits from that).

Inheritance rights. The laws were much focused on spouses.

Wives in community-property states automatically inherited one-half of community property—namely, that property acquired during the marriage and which neither spouse had received as part of an inheritance or gift. However, in four of the community-property states, California, Idaho, Nevada, and New Mexico, if the wife died first, all community property went to her husband, whereas if he died first, she could only claim half, and he could bequeath his half to whomever he pleased.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Well, we're two days after the debate now, and instead of literally any substantive policy issue relevant to this election, the only thing the country and media seem able to talk about is whether Haitians eat cats. You know, if anyone clings to the idea the debate was a strategic victory for Harris.

I mean, bully to her for a thoroughly mediocre performance (i.e. the best of her life) but that part of it hardly occupied more than a single news cycle. Once again Trump's gotten all the earned media as his performance is the only thing being discussed, as if none of us learned our lesson from 2016 and are hellbent for leather to repeat the same mistake of turning the election into reality TV when one of the candidates is a reality TV star. This is coyotes and Pocahontas all over again.

Polls still show Democratic voters more energized than Republican voters by more than ten points, so that still works in Harris' favor so long as her campaign can maintain their limited-exposure media wall. As long as Robby Mook stays at least a ZIP code away from any of her campaign offices, she should still be fine as her campaign seems to remember "battleground states" exist and may play a role determining the election outcome.

 

[BrawlMan]

Megyn Kelly had meltdown over Swift endorsing Harris. I forgot this dumb biatch even existed.

​

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

When you're such a conspiracy-brainwashed racist shitlord that even Marjorie Taylor Greene is telling you to reel it in:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-laura-loomer-rhetoric-maga/index.html

 

[BrawlMan]

When you're such a conspiracy-brainwashed racist shitlord that even Marjorie Taylor Greene is telling you to reel it in:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-laura-loomer-rhetoric-maga/index.html

Now Talylor wants to put her foot down. She can still fuck off.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

When you're such a conspiracy-brainwashed racist shitlord that even Marjorie Taylor Greene is telling you to reel it in:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-laura-loomer-rhetoric-maga/index.html

Every time I see Laura Loomer's face I always think it's an AI generated image or a Halloween mask for a second before it registers that she's a real person.

I guess that's what 5 botched plastic surgeries in a row does to a 30 year old.

 

[Agema]

Trump says no more debates.

He got his arse kicked, and he knows it's not going to go better second time around.

Every time I see Laura Loomer's face I always think it's an AI generated image or a Halloween mask for a second before it registers that she's a real person.

I guess that's what 5 botched plastic surgeries in a row does to a 30 year old.

I think the bigger tragedy is that they weren't botched: that's what some people want to do to themselves.