2024 US Presidential Election Thread

  • Thread starter ryzno
  • 2,162 comments
  • 107,179 views
I vaguely remember discussions about this Schedule F thing years ago. I don't doubt if it is literally out of the Soviet/Russian playbooks. Also, the FBI and CIA have kept tabs on various extremists throughout American history - and acted on them - for much less than this. I imagine the job is incredibly complex these days with how openly and often people can speak digitally but luckily most of them seem to make themselves easy to find. I see very little difference between these Project 2025 people and communist or Black Panther movements in our past. Perhaps the folks making these plans aren't blatantly violent but their goals are arguably more plausible and subversive.
 
Last edited:
I see very little difference between these Project 2025 people and communist or Black Panther movements in our past. Perhaps the folks making these plans aren't blatantly violent but their goals are arguably more plausible and subversive.
Functionally maybe not, but the things that the Black Panthers were against really existed and were really doing damage to them and the country as a whole. They faced significant and obvious injustice. They used violent action because it was clear that nothing else was working, during a time when being black still meant that you were very clearly a second class citizen. It was an understandable response to the issues they faced when trying to get the country to actually abide by it's own rules and treat them fairly as they deserved. It may not have been the best or most appropriate thing, but one can understand how a reasonable and rational person could make the decisions they did.

Project 2025 is a bunch of people who are essentially attempting to undermine government processes and structure because they're not Christian enough, not authoritarian enough, not capitalist enough, or all three. Some of their concerns are legitimate, but most of them are fictions that are either against their religion or are stopping them from seizing power or making money as easily as they might like. The reality is that addressing the problems the country faces would require the opposite of all those, and so Project 2025 has created this fictional antagonism that justifies their attempts to turn the country some sort of totalitarian religious state by any means necessary.

Motives matter. Alice shot an attacker that was threatening the lives of Alice and her family. Bob shot Sandy because Sandy is gay, supports abortion, and is involved in environmental activism.

Murder is bad in general, but we can recognise that Alice and Bob are not the same even though they did the same thing. The Black Panthers were at least attempting to protect their people while bringing about a society where such violent activism (and the division into "us" and "them") would not need to exist. Project 2025 pretends that's what they're doing in order to attack the people and systems they have decided are their enemies and seize even more power.
 
Motives matter. Alice shot an attacker that was threatening the lives of Alice and her family. Bob shot Sandy because Sandy is gay, supports abortion, and is involved in environmental activism.
👍 crushed it!
 
Functionally maybe not, but the things that the Black Panthers were against really existed and were really doing damage to them and the country as a whole. They faced significant and obvious injustice. They used violent action because it was clear that nothing else was working, during a time when being black still meant that you were very clearly a second class citizen. It was an understandable response to the issues they faced when trying to get the country to actually abide by it's own rules and treat them fairly as they deserved. It may not have been the best or most appropriate thing, but one can understand how a reasonable and rational person could make the decisions they did.

Project 2025 is a bunch of people who are essentially attempting to undermine government processes and structure because they're not Christian enough, not authoritarian enough, not capitalist enough, or all three. Some of their concerns are legitimate, but most of them are fictions that are either against their religion or are stopping them from seizing power or making money as easily as they might like. The reality is that addressing the problems the country faces would require the opposite of all those, and so Project 2025 has created this fictional antagonism that justifies their attempts to turn the country some sort of totalitarian religious state by any means necessary.

Motives matter. Alice shot an attacker that was threatening the lives of Alice and her family. Bob shot Sandy because Sandy is gay, supports abortion, and is involved in environmental activism.

Murder is bad in general, but we can recognise that Alice and Bob are not the same even though they did the same thing. The Black Panthers were at least attempting to protect their people while bringing about a society where such violent activism (and the division into "us" and "them") would not need to exist. Project 2025 pretends that's what they're doing in order to attack the people and systems they have decided are their enemies and seize even more power.
Excellent explanation.

I suppose it was a sign of the times - is it also a sign of our times? - that the CIA et al were so eager to act against groups who had rational reasons for their actions, but there don't seem to be any rumblings of action against these modern groups who are almost completely irrational, lost in some alternate reality. Fortunately the gears of justice are (mostly) turning but besides that these genuinely insane people seem to be living their lives without a worry like most of us. I can't imagine what it would've been like to watch people like MLK speak on TV, or be there in person, and basically everybody in the country knew the man had a target on his back and he was being tracked by agents 24/7. But guys like Giuliani are happy as a lark to sweat on TV without a fear in the world.

Maybe our agencies aren't as crooked as they once were. The Cold War must've been a wild time to be able to justify the things they did.
 
Ah. The normal ones are saying normal things.
Stephen Richer, the Arizona Republican who was booed by a crowd for saying he didn’t think the 2020 election was stolen, uncovered a more disturbing response to his statement.

On his personal Twitter/X account, Richer — who is the Maricopa County Recorder — posted a video featuring a woman he identified as Shelby Busch. He further described her as “second-in-command for the Maricopa County Republican Committee” and a former “advisor” to failed Arizona governor candidate Kari Lake — who is now running for U.S. Senate.

In the video, Busch talks about “unity” and what she would do if Richer came near her:
But let’s pretend that this gentleman over here was running for county recorder. And he’s a good Christian man that believes what we believe. We can work with that, right? That’s that’s unity. That’s saying, hey, we’re going to shake hands and we’re going to agree that we’re going to run a good Christian foundation campaign, and we’re going to treat each other well, and we’re going to get through this together.

Right? That’s unity. But if Stephen Richer walked in this room, I would lynch him. I don’t unify with people who don’t believe in the principles we believe in and the American cause that founded this country. And so I want to make that clear when we talk about what it means to unify.
Richer wrote on Twitter/X: “Interesting choice of words. Not, ‘I’d kick his butt,’ or ‘I’d kill him.’ But ‘lynch.’ Why does that word roll off her tongue given its historical context? She says this after talking about good Christian values.”


So I should say that I don't actually think chonk here is a legitimate physical threat to anyone not holding a supermarket rotisserie chicken, but I do think it's important to highlight this extremist rhetoric and the crowd's approval of it.
 
Christianity
That is quite the broad spectrum of people and believes under the same name, isnt it?

On a sidenote:

Law says: put 10 commandments in each classroom
Contra says: we want to be free to decide if and when our children are being taught about religion / the basis of the the law is fictional or a conspiracy / this is not the 10 commandments as we know them
 
Last edited:
On a sidenote:

Law says: put 10 commandments in each classroom
Contra says: we want to be free to decide if and when our children are being taught about religion / the basis of the the law is fictional or a conspiracy / this is not the 10 commandments as we know them
I very much hope and want that this law will be wiped from the face of the Earth. No matter where I look at it from, it's against the very Constitution, something the right wingers are so fond of. Obviously, they only know about the first, second and fifth amendments, and the they only care about the first one if they think that hinders them. As someone who lives according to the 1A part that guarantees the freedom of not practicing any religion, I would be extremely disturbed if the commandments would be displayed in my children's school. To be honest, I don't like the fact that all the various office holders put their hands on the Bible when they are sworn in and use wording like "so help me God" either. Public servants should never do anything like that, religion and state should be completely separated. They serve the public, they should swear their loyalty to the flag and the Constitution, not some sort of god they chose to believe in.
 
I don't like the fact that all the various office holders put their hands on the Bible when they are sworn in
I totally agree, this doesnt make sense from a point of view where the state actually allows freedom of religion.
How can I be sworn in if I am not following any Christian religious path but instead either being of no faith or a completly different one? The bible is only worth its paper and ink, I could as well put by hand on a telephone book, or a Harry Potter.
 
I totally agree, this doesnt make sense from a point of view where the state actually allows freedom of religion.
How can I be sworn in if I am not following any Christian religious path but instead either being of no faith or a completly different one? The bible is only worth its paper and ink, I could as well put by hand on a telephone book, or a Harry Potter.
When I was doing jury service they gave you the choice of holy books or to swear on some kind of non-religious moral code.
 
Don't you have to be some sort of christian if you want to be President? i may have heard something like that. But i can't recall the exact wording.
 
Ah. The normal ones are saying normal things.



So I should say that I don't actually think chonk here is a legitimate physical threat to anyone not holding a supermarket rotisserie chicken, but I do think it's important to highlight this extremist rhetoric and the crowd's approval of it.


GQ4icN5asAApQ2V
I don't think this is the appropriate response. I'm on board with the condemnation, but it's not apparent from context that the remarks were directed at Richer as someone who is Jewish. Yes, the corpulent connie cuss cited Christian belief in pandering to the rabble, but that doesn't mean that Richer's being Jewish--or even not Christian--was a relevant factor. From context, the rat citing its belief was intended to signal virtue and righteousness in cause.
 
Last edited:
p78
Don't you have to be some sort of christian if you want to be President? i may have heard something like that. But i can't recall the exact wording.
Not at all. At least not officially.

Now, practically speaking, it's another story. You might get away with not mentioning it at all, but if you came out as an atheist, you'd never stand a chance of getting elected in the US.

Unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
If anyone has a spare hour free and would like to see some forceful, on-point debate moderation by Kyle Clark they could do worse than to watch this Colorado GOP debate. Just saying.

 
If anyone has a spare hour free and would like to see some forceful, on-point debate moderation by Kyle Clark they could do worse than to watch this Colorado GOP debate. Just saying.


I caught some clips of this last night.

I got a nice laugh when he asked one of the candidates to expand on his comment that, "Boebert dresses like a prostitute" as she's standing there.
 
I caught some clips of this last night.

I got a nice laugh when he asked one of the candidates to expand on his comment that, "Boebert dresses like a prostitute" as she's standing there.
I doubt this was on C-SPAN.
 
Joe should have been prepared to deal with the Volcano of Lies™. It's inexplicable that the Democrats pretended that this was going to be a normal debate. The one strategy they needed was a way to deal with Trump's lies and deflections. Policy and achievements mean nothing. I fear we are screwed.
 
That was bad. All Biden had to do was anything but sound like a sick old man trying to talk as fast as possible b/c Trump's entire retort to every thing was, "That guy bad, I'm the greatest at whatever I'm talking about, & blame the migrants for every single thing."

And the thing is that I'm still going to have to vote for Biden b/c Trump has already revealed how terrible he's going to be.
 
That was bad. All Biden had to do was anything but sound like a sick old man trying to talk as fast as possible b/c Trump's entire retort to every thing was, "That guy bad, I'm the greatest at whatever I'm talking about, & blame the migrants for every single thing."

And the thing is that I'm still going to have to vote for Biden b/c Trump has already revealed how terrible he's going to be.
I didn't watch, but based on your reaction I predict a new wave of trump trolls in the opinions section.
 
I didn't watch, but based on your reaction I predict a new wave of trump trolls in the opinions section.
It's been quiet for a while. The lack of sincere discourse won't be any different & they'll run away after a week. But, Trump & the usual Republicans will be using tonight for talking points for the next few months.


The concern now is how they're going to address this. Some say they're sticking with him, others are reporting the Dems need to convince him to drop out & get another candidate in asap. A name thrown around is Gretchen Whitmer (I'll throw that to @Joey D if that's a good choice).

Edit* According to some outlets, Hispanic & Black focus groups are preferring Biden after tonight. The Hispanic support wouldn't surprise me since Trump literally kept blaming migrants in topics that had no relation to immigration. The Black focus groups are likely pissed at Trump saying the migrants were coming for "black jobs". The NAACP has definitely made a tweet wanting to know what a "black job" is. If there's enough focus on Trump's remarks tonight, he probably won't come out looking that great to the general public, either.
 
Last edited:
I thought Biden ultimately did fine. Sure, his cold, and stutter, certainly didn't help him, but he responded well to nearly every Trump attack and made him look like the maniac that he is. All of the Jan 6 stuff he hit on was very strong. Also, he straight up called Trump a molester to his face, which was fiery. It’s tough to counter when everything Trump says is either an outright lie or too incoherent to even debunk.
 
Last edited:
I thought Biden ultimately did fine. Sure, his cold, and stutter, certainly didn't help him, but he responded well to nearly every Trump attack and made him look like the maniac that he is. All of the Jan 6 stuff he hit on was very strong. Also, he straight up called Trump a molester to his face, which was fiery. It’s tough to counter when everything Trump says is either an outright lie or too incoherent to even debunk.
He had a few pretty bad moments but I think CNN overreacted ultimately. It'll probably calm down over the next few days. Bottom line is Trump is still living in an alternate reality no matter how well he speaks.
 
The Democrats really need to do something. Biden lost his fire and looked and acted like a feeble old man with memory issues again. Trump is clearly delusional and probably borderline manic. We really need not have to have men with cognitive issues trying to run the country. Biden's cognitive impairment is probably less detrimental though, but still not ideal.
A name thrown around is Gretchen Whitmer (I'll throw that to @Joey D if that's a good choice).
I'm not a Democrat and I disagree with some of the stuff she's done, but overall I think she's been a net positive for the state. She's attracted new automotive businesses, spent money on education, and worked to protect the Great Lakes. She fumbled the COVID restrictions, though, and not because she shut down businesses, but rather skirted her own restrictions and traveled when she told the rest of the state not to. It was a bad look, but not really all that detrimental. She also didn't handle our auto insurance reform very well (although that band-aid needed to be ripped off) and was iffy on the budget negotiations. But I think getting new businesses, spending on education, and water protection overshadow that. She's also pushed for green energy, although has OK'ed some stupid stuff like in road charging for EVs that will be costly to maintain on out already terrible roads.

Would she be the perfect president? No, I don't think so, but would I vote for her? Probably. I think she would certainly be better than Biden or Harris.
 
Back