US 2024 Presidential Election

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
Second, why would "globalists" try to help China catch up ? Where is the profit here ?
China having lots of money means Chinese people buying lots of stuff. That's opportunities for people who can sell in, or export to, China. So if for instance China has an economy of $15 trillion and imports 10% of that value, it's $1.5 trillion. If the Chinese economy then doubles in size, that's (notionallly) $3 trillion that can be sold to China. A similar principle could be considered for the EU: Eastern European nations have seen vast increases in GDP/capita, so they buy more Mercedes-Benzes and LVMH etc. Elon Musk, for instance, has been busy sucking up to China. He wants Tesla factories to make cars for East Asia, and he also wants to get into the Chinese market.

China's energy policy, as I understand it, is disjointed. Centrally, I think it's interested in green. However, individual provincial governments, which have considerable latitude, aren't exactly on the same page. The provincial governments are just building coal plants because they can. They irony is that despite the fact that China is building more coal plants, it's projected to use less coal: those plants will be working at only part-capacity, even not at all much of the time. This is waste: but China's economy grows so all looks good, money rolls in, and they piss a load of it straight down the drain just because there's no great pressure on them to be efficient. (Then they type up enthusiastic notes to central leadership bragging about increasing potential energy generation 76% in the last 5 years.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,928
801
118
China having lots of money means Chinese people buying lots of stuff. That's opportunities for people who can sell in, or export to, China. So if for instance China has an economy of $15 trillion and imports 10% of that value, it's $1.5 trillion. If the Chinese economy then doubles in size, that's (notionallly) $3 trillion that can be sold to China. A similar principle could be considered for the EU: Eastern European nations have seen vast increases in GDP/capita, so they buy more Mercedes-Benzes and LVMH etc. Elon Musk, for instance, has been busy sucking up to China. He wants Tesla factories to make cars for East Asia, and he also wants to get into the Chinese market.
Yes, but China is quite protectionist. It is one of the countries whose growing market is particularly difficult to use for multinationals. Growth is always good for profit but growth elsewhere is even more profitable for them. So actively trying to sabotage Western growth just so that China can catch up does not make any sense at all.

Furthermore, many companies have made huge profits by outsourcing production to China. That kind of business is already failing because China can't really provide labor that cheap. This option would vanish completely were China to catch up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
Furthermore, many companies have made huge profits by outsourcing production to China. That kind of business is already failing because China can't really provide labor that cheap. This option would vanish completely were China to catch up.
There's a lot of life left in China to be the world's manufactury. Sure, some of it will have to drop and move somewhere even cheaper, but there will be forms of industry China is still going to be very useful for (just as the West can still manufacture, despite much higher labour costs). China has relatively good infrastructure, friendly laws and stability such that even if the labour costs more per hour than other developing countries, the overall cost of production may be lower or more reliable (which approximates to the same).

So actively trying to sabotage Western growth just so that China can catch up does not make any sense at all.
Agreed, that makes no sense.

Or at least, "sabotage" doesn't make sense. However, an incidental decrease in Western growth because of development elsewhere in the world is plausible. As investment flows overseas where greater profits and growth may be available, there is less investment and less pressure to drive increased productivity in the West.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,370
1,958
118
Country
USA
Gotta admit to being a bit black pilled on this election. Lot of people saying that Trump needs to win Pennsylvania to win the election. Is that possible in a state than can take weeks to finally tell the nation they are done counting votes? That in those weeks, there is plenty of time and opportunity to steal an election? I think I just need to sit back, ensure that I vote, and see what happens.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,306
12,216
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male

Vice President Kamala Harris outspent former President Donald J. Trump by 20 to 1 on Facebook and Instagram in the week surrounding their debate, capitalizing on the moment to plaster battleground states with ads and to hunt for new donors nationwide. The lopsided spending — $12.2 million to $611,228 on Meta's platforms, according to company records — was hardly an outlier. Ever since Ms. Harris entered the race, her campaign has overwhelmed the Trump operation with an avalanche of digital advertising, outspending his by tens of millions of dollars and setting off alarm among some Republicans.

Four years ago Mr. Trump, then holding the White House, drastically outspent Democrats early in the election cycle in hopes of gaining an advantage. Now Mr. Trump, facing a cash shortfall, is making a very different bet that emphasizes the unique appeal of his online brand, the durability of a donor list built over nearly a decade and his belief in the power of television.

The difference was especially stark on screens across the most contested battlegrounds in the week surrounding the debate. In Pennsylvania, Ms. Harris spent $1.3 million on Meta's platforms, compared with $22,465 by Mr. Trump. In Michigan, she laid out $1.5 million, while he spent only $34,790.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,928
801
118
Gotta admit to being a bit black pilled on this election. Lot of people saying that Trump needs to win Pennsylvania to win the election. Is that possible in a state than can take weeks to finally tell the nation they are done counting votes? That in those weeks, there is plenty of time and opportunity to steal an election? I think I just need to sit back, ensure that I vote, and see what happens.
I wouldn't be too worried. Your current president won't start spouting "stop the count" if Pennsylvania is late and it looks as if Trump were gaining there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
Gotta admit to being a bit black pilled on this election. Lot of people saying that Trump needs to win Pennsylvania to win the election. Is that possible in a state than can take weeks to finally tell the nation they are done counting votes? That in those weeks, there is plenty of time and opportunity to steal an election? I think I just need to sit back, ensure that I vote, and see what happens.
Trump doesn't need PA technically, but he'll need five of the other seven "toss-up" states without it. The argument might be that of the seven, the Democrats are strongest in MI, WI and PA, which squeaks them over the line. If PA is the one that the Democrats are weakest in, it's the most likely decider.

I find it fascinating that Republicans are so bothered about unspecified plans to steal the election when Republican activist groups have pretty much openly stated an intent to infiltrate the election counting process. No matter the rhetoric about "defending" election integrity, those sorts of activists are biased, whether intentionally or not, and they will undermine integrity more than they will ever improve it.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,248
1,697
118
Country
The Netherlands
Gotta admit to being a bit black pilled on this election. Lot of people saying that Trump needs to win Pennsylvania to win the election. Is that possible in a state than can take weeks to finally tell the nation they are done counting votes? That in those weeks, there is plenty of time and opportunity to steal an election? I think I just need to sit back, ensure that I vote, and see what happens.
If democratic “fraud” was a hoax used to try and justify a coup last time then why would it be any more credible THIS time?

I’d worry more about blatant Trump partisans infiltrating election boards to try and cause harm.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,370
1,958
118
Country
USA
Trump doesn't need PA technically, but he'll need five of the other seven "toss-up" states without it. The argument might be that of the seven, the Democrats are strongest in MI, WI and PA, which squeaks them over the line. If PA is the one that the Democrats are weakest in, it's the most likely decider.

I find it fascinating that Republicans are so bothered about unspecified plans to steal the election when Republican activist groups have pretty much openly stated an intent to infiltrate the election counting process. No matter the rhetoric about "defending" election integrity, those sorts of activists are biased, whether intentionally or not, and they will undermine integrity more than they will ever improve it.
While this is a "joke" I fear there is a lot of truth to it.


I have to keep telling myself things aren't supposed to work out. Hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men that bring hard times. I think we're at the tail end of the good time. Given the horrors I think possible, likely and coming? Relatively, these will be remembered as the good times.

Just gotta keep on trying to ensure me and mine are OK as best I can.
 

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,951
2,081
118
Country
United States


As previously noted Trump had several lawsuits trying to prevent large shareholders from selling stock. He lost those suits. So as of this morning trading is completely open. Share's slipped below $14 in pretrading.

1726840065599.png

It's likely over the next week the slips will come faster and drop it under $10 unless Trump can come up with some good news. It's again unlikely as his ties to embattled NC candidate Mark Robinson have started to surface in the media.


I don't however think it unlikely that Harris has more spotlight weapons planned for the next 60 days. There's also a looming government shutdown thats being roundly blamed on republicans as 14 members of their own caucus voted against the continuing resolution spending bill.

I would suggest if you need government facilities over the next couple months to get them now, passports and such.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak and BrawlMan

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
While this is a "joke" I fear there is a lot of truth to it.
Whether election counters lean more D or R doesn't really matter. What matters is that they count the votes impartially. And besides, you don't actually need parity between parties because even a small minority is enough to "keep an eye on" the majority. (Never mind there are observers, etc. anyway too.) I suspect most to all vote counters do it out of a sense of civic duty, or even just the pride of doing a job properly, and are very capable of putting their political beliefs aside.

Which is why I think there's a huge problem when highly partisan people muscle their way into the process with an active, and perhaps zealous, belief that there is cheating going on against their party. The most likely result of this is that they will have prejudiced decisions and interpretations which are more likely to spread disruption and inaccuracy. Plus, what they might do to perceptions. 2020 already showed to us that many people will splatter their uninformed and frankly wrong claims of misconduct all over social media, and the effect on trust in the election process will be corrosive. No matter how wrong they are, and how countless subsequent investigations and reviews find everything was above board, the sense of cheating will persist in many people's minds. These activists won't be saving democracy, they'll be condemning it.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,306
12,216
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
These activists won't be saving democracy, they'll be condemning it.
Sucks to be miserable shitheads like them. Somebody should give them a good Van Damme style roundhouse kick to the face. Maybe that might knock some sense in their pea sized 🧠 for once.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny Novgorod

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,918
864
118
Country
United States


It's astounding how bad both of these people are. And both want to rejoin the executive branch IF Trump wins.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,587
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Such an argument necessarily assumes that a DM that is simply ignorant of the plain text of the rules. It would be analogous to them saying "murder isn't illegal" and then being shown 18 USC 1111, which defines murder as illegal.

If you wanted to make an actually appropriate analogy, it would instead be something like telling WoTC that an ability score should apply to circumstances that don't apply on paper. E.g. (for the sake of argument), arguing that despite the rulebook being silent on the matter, your fly skill should be usable as a swim modifier on the grounds that logically there's enough overlap in the mechanics of flight that your PC should be able to quickly suss out a crude swim-style or enhance their existing one. In this case, the rule isn't in the books (which is to say that the legal precedent affirming your case does not exist and it has not historically been understood to apply in this sense), but you're making the argument that it should be the case, which is a different question entirely.

An example of this would be Loving v. Virginia, which argued - as other cases before it did - that anti-miscegenation laws were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Historically (such as in the case of Pace v. Alabama), anti-miscegenation laws had been ruled as constitutional on the grounds that the punishment was equally applied to both the black and white participants, thus "equally burdened" whites and non-whites, and therefore did not violate that same Equal Protection Clause. In Loving v. Virginia, the court called that same argument and ruling horseshit and that the anti-miscegenation laws and rulings supporting them had no discernible purpose other than invidious racial discrimination intended to maintain White Supremacy.

This was not some secret they discovered years later. It's in the plain text of the ALSC's opinion that the state had a compelling interest in forbidding such unions because they might result in - and I quote - "the amalgamation of the two races, producing a mongrel population and a degraded civilization". It really did wear its racism on its sleeve. And it wasn't that Loving's attorneys simply made a better argument and Pace's attorneys were simply deficient. The different conclusions reflected a fundamental shift in attitude regarding race and interracial marriage over the decades between Pace and Loving. The judges who ruled on Pace saw no issue with anti-miscegenation laws and therefore looked at equal protection in terms of whether or not whites or non-whites suffered unequal punishment for marrying the other. As the participants suffered the same punishment, they concluded that it was not a discriminatory law and therefore constitutional.

The judges who ruled on Loving did not agree with anti-miscegenation laws, and therefore looked at equal protection in terms of whether or not the marriage itself was treated differently because of the couple's races than other marriages (and before you start, that's the same argument that Pace's attorneys made), and ruled that the underlying logic was not only inexorable from racism, but in fact had no purpose beyond enforcing that racism, and consequentially that it was unconstitutional. It was not that the judges in Loving were presented with significantly different arguments or circumstances than in Pace, it is was that they explicitly rejected the logic that Pace's ruling was built upon. And I quote: "However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated 'Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court.' "

You can argue that the Loving ruling should have always been the case, but that's fundamentally a moral/ethical argument, not a historical one. The simple truth is that as a matter of law, interracial marriage was not protected until Loving, and the courts before then affirmed as much. That's precisely what makes Loving a landmark decision. It changed the interpretation of existing law and established a new precedent, invalidating the anti-miscegenation laws of the previous precedent.

Tangentially, this is what makes your invocations of the RFMA as if it made Obergefell irrelevant so vexing. The entire point of overturning such cases is to be a vehicle through which to either affirm or repeal related legislation. That's the point. To bring a case before the Supreme Court is to challenge the legality of the applicable (and related) laws. See, for instance, Lawrence v. Texas in which the Defense asked for a higher fine so that they'd be allowed appeal the case to the USSC in order to raise a Constitutional Challenge to anti-sodomy laws.

This is not something that you can bullshit your way out of. You're simply wrong. The law is not some static truth handed down from on high that needs only be correctly interpreted and then is set in stone. It's an ever-changing system that attempts to reflect the ideals and perspectives of the people who codify it, and as such is constantly adjusted and refined by the societies that live with them. It is filled with contradictions, oversights, and loopholes, and its conclusions involve at least some degree of subjectivity. This in turn means that they're also subject to interpretation, reinterpretation, and even brazen spin-doctoring by different judges with different values (See for instance, the Dred Scott case).

We are not "discovering" things that the law covers. What we're doing is deciding what the law should or should not cover (e.g., the judges in Pace decided that the law should not protect interracial marriage, whereas the judges in Loving decided that it should and justified their respective rulings accordingly). And it's the height of pretentious arrogance to act as if the only reason that landmark decisions didn't get established decades earlier is because nobody was smart enough to make a good argument for them. And make no mistake, that is exactly what you're doing when you claim that these things had always been "in theory protected" and that the same judges would rule differently in the same case if simply presented with a better argument, as if they were computer programs answering mathematical formulas rather than humans interpreting social contracts through the lens of their personal values and beliefs about what those social contracts should do.

Your characterization spits in the face of every civil rights movement and landmark decision in history and that of everyone who fought to change their status quo and made change happen; condescending that the only reason that it ever got to that point in the first place is because they and their predecessors must not have made a competent argument for their position. It's victim blaming in its most archetypal sense: insisting that the only reason something bad happened to someone was because they weren't good enough enough to stop it, and if they'd just made a better case for themselves it never would have happened.



Wrong. It's closer to the opposite. The law defaults to not protecting something unless it is explicitly declared otherwise. E.g., your cat's not protected from being declawed because there's no law saying that you can't declaw your cat. The maxim you're bastardizing is "everything that is not forbidden is allowed", which means that an action can be taken if there is not a law against it, which is very different from the action being protected under law. In the context of protection, the application is perhaps most easily understood in the form of protected classes. Those are characteristics that cannot legally be used as the basis of discrimination. E.g., it became illegal to discriminate on the basis of race because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It became illegal to use the fact that someone was over the age of 40 as a criteria for discrimination in 1967. It became illegal to discriminate based on disability status in 1973. And it became illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in 2020. Before those respective years, these were not protected classes. You could legally discriminate on the basis of orientation before 2020, and on the basis of race before 1964.

This is what "everything that is not forbidden is allowed" means. It means that the law will not protect you from something committed against you unless specific provisions were made to forbid that something. That is to say: it is powerless to prosecute something that has not officially been declared a crime.

When we say that the law protects something, we mean the opposite: that what it protects against is explicitly illegal. The law protects against slavery, meaning that enslaving and keeping someone as a slave is illegal. The law protects against murder, meaning that murdering someone is illegal. The law protects against theft, which means that stealing from somebody is illegal. Etc. It does not protect against things that it does not acknowledge. To put it another way: Infidelity not being a crime is very different from infidelity being protected under law, hence why it can be used as a disqualifier in prenuptial contracts.
The DM doesn't come close to knowing everything. If you ask say "how far can I jump?", you might have to cross-reference like 3 to 5 different things; I know this because my one character, I have to look this up like every time because I have several feats that affect jumping. If I ask the DM, he's just going to probably know the standard jumping rules and just say what those are. And then if you say you can jump across this thing (that's rather far), he'll ask "how?" and if you can't really explain it, then he's not gonna let you do that. It's not on the DM to know every single rule during a game or take time to thoroughly look up something every time something comes up. And jumping is a rather basic thing, there's so many other more complicated things. My analogy is apt. Again, it's like you all don't read what I say. I have said protections are discovered and sometimes society changes and people that read the same text read it differently than they did 100 years ago. Both happen so get that victim blaming bullshit out of my face.

And how would overturning Obergefell cause RFMA to be deemed unconstitutional?

Read the arguments for Roe and most of Obergefell and tell me those arguments aren't shit with a straight face.

---

And if you argue that declawing a cat is animal abuse and the court says that is animal abuse? You can't make a law like say animal abuse and detail every single thing that would be animal abuse. As I said in what you quoted "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." It could be interpreted either way, I don't know how this is some big argument.

The specificity directly affects whether something is likely to be considered protected. That's how the constitution works-- and its how the judiciary works, too, because their entire job is to make calls when things are arguable/ambiguous. You cannot discuss this seriously if you refuse to recognise that.
Again, that is not what your argument is... And, I'm the one that gets accused of goal posting...
No: my claim from the start has been that the Constitution doesn't prevent them from ruling how they want.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,640
830
118
Country
Sweden
Reading the last dozen posts or so, I get a distinct sense of déja vu to around this same time in 2020.
Well that's the last time there was a US presidential election. Go figure. Are you saying the arguments and positions are similar or something else?
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,828
9,261
118
Well that's the last time there was a US presidential election. Go figure. Are you saying the arguments and positions are similar or something else?
You could say that, yes. Though it would be more accurate to say they haven't so much returned as never stopped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan