2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[Danoff]

Except that Obama didn't change the actual picture. Or, I guess, he changed the picture, but not the reality. For all the stupid HOPE and CHANGE posters, did anything change in any meaningful way? I respectfully submit it did not. That being said, going back to pre-2016 status quo would be a marked improvement over where we are now.

It changed a few things. Prior to Obama getting elected I heard a lot of "a black man will never be president". I don't hear that anymore. It's also not as much a stumbling block for black people to be in high profile roles, in part because people can more easily imagine black people being good leaders. I'd argue that Obama has paved the way for Harris to an extent.

It terms of other impacts, I'm not sure how much it has changed. Racists are apparently going to racist.

The optics are only bad to non-Republicans. For Republicans, they represent the ideal world: 1950s suburban America, chock full of hetero, married WASP couples with 2.5 kids, well-indoctrinated with preapproved Christian faith and appropriate gender identities / roles.

Is being staunchly pro-life a necessary condition of being a republican? A friend of mine just yesterday told me that he considers himself a republican, but was planning to vote for Biden and is now planning to vote for Kamala and is pro-choice. A question I could have put to him is what it means to be a republican and whether he really is one.

Anyway my comment was more that it makes republicans look bad to swing voters.

 

[UKMikey]

It changed a few things. Prior to Obama getting elected I heard a lot of "a black man will never be president". I don't hear that anymore. It's also not as much a stumbling block for black people to be in high profile roles, in part because people can more easily imagine black people being good leaders. I'd argue that Obama has paved the way for Harris to an extent.

DEI? Thanks Obama! (j/k)

 

[Duke]

- My main issue with the MAGA agenda, is in regards to abortion. I think moving it to the states is a small step in the right direction, but it seems like more can, and should be done. Both the center left, and center right have reasonable points - where I do think a common middle ground can be found. But alas, the convictions of the far left and far right combined with the personal motivations of individual politicians, will make said middle ground (whatever that looks like) beyond the horizon for a long time.

So... you're actually equating the "far left" conviction that a woman should have the right to choose her pregnancy options with the far right conviction that anything that happens to a pregnancy after the moment of conception is premeditated murder?

If you're going to make that implication, then the equivalent "far left" conviction would be that all pregnant women should be forced to terminate all pregnancies. The "far right" conviction is that all pregnant women should be forced to carry all pregnancies to term.

Remember, if a woman has the right to choose, she has the right to choose NOT to abort.

But from what I do know, it definitely seems to be more fringe, and not at all mainstream amongst the Republican constituents, or the elected officials

I agree that it is probably on the fringe for the mainstream Republican voter... but it is not at all on the fringe of the elected Republican officials. It's right in the fairway of what the Republican legislators have been diligently laying the groundwork for over the last 20? 30? years. And all those mainstream Republican voters, who just think they are saving the economy from the Democrats or protecting the border or whatever, keep voting those Republicans into office. They don't see that their particular topic is just the tip of the Christian nationalist iceberg.

 

[Danoff]

So... you're actually equating the "far left" conviction that a woman should have the right to choose her pregnancy options with the far right conviction that anything that happens to a pregnancy after the moment of conception is premeditated murder?

If you're going to make that implication, then the equivalent "far left" conviction would be that all pregnant women should be forced to terminate all pregnancies. The "far right conviction is that all pregnant women should be forced to carry all pregnancies to term.

Remember, if a woman has the right to choose, she has the right to choose NOT to abort.

Great point. Excellent point. Totally fair point. Also I think the chances of this point landing with the people it needs to land with is roughly zero.

 

[UKMikey]

Great point. Excellent point. Totally fair point. Also I think the chances of this point landing with the people it needs to land with is roughly zero.

Get the **** out of here with your constant pursuit of moral superiority!!1!!














Shades of gray, man.

/s

 

[TexRex]

Ah.

Trump calls for jail sentence for desecrating flag: ‘Stupid people’ will say it’s unconstitutional - The Hill

 

[Duke]

It changed a few things. Prior to Obama getting elected I heard a lot of "a black man will never be president". I don't hear that anymore. It's also not as much a stumbling block for black people to be in high profile roles, in part because people can more easily imagine black people being good leaders. I'd argue that Obama has paved the way for Harris to an extent.

Fair enough. I admit that as a generic white guy, I breathed an inward sigh of relief that our first black president was intelligent and reasonable rather than someone like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

I'm already beyond tired of hearing about DEI.

Is being staunchly pro-life a necessary condition of being a republican?

It seems to be a necessary condition of being a Republican candidate, anyway.

 

[McLaren]

Ah.

Trump calls for jail sentence for desecrating flag: ‘Stupid people’ will say it’s unconstitutional - The Hill

Well, that's the 1st and 2nd Amendments I've seen him now threaten.



Taking bets on the next one, ya'll. Winner gets a Premium subscription.

 

[TB]

Well, that's the 1st and 2nd Amendments I've seen him now threaten.



Taking bets on the next one, ya'll. Winner gets a Premium subscription.

Put me down for a repeal of the 22nd.

 

[Yard_Sale]

Fair enough. I admit that as a generic white guy, I breathed an inward sigh of relief that our first black president was intelligent and reasonable rather than someone like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

I'm already beyond tired of hearing about DEI.

It seems to be a necessary condition of being a Republican candidate, anyway.

I'm sure my homie @TexRex will be more than happy to dig up some of my past posts from a while back where I say pretty much the same thing, albeit in probably a little more detail. I mean, he's stalked my posts before, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to provide the forum with his services.

At any rate, if my stance or lack thereof offends people, I'm sorry. That's on you, not me.



Now all ya'll have a good and safe rest of your day. Gonna go down to the water and try out my new rod and reel, then dive into this new GT7 update more 😎

 

[HenrySwanson]

At any rate, if my stance or lack thereof offends people, I'm sorry. That's on you, not me.

Not sure this is true....

 

[Famine]

I'm sure my homie @TexRex will be more than happy to dig up some of my past posts from a while back where I say pretty much the same thing, albeit in probably a little more detail. I mean, he's stalked my posts before, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to provide the forum with his services.

At any rate, if my stance or lack thereof offends people, I'm sorry. That's on you, not me.



Now all ya'll have a good and safe rest of your day. Gonna go down to the water and try out my new rod and reel, then dive into this new GT7 update more 😎

Once again a response totally absent of any form of engagement or rebuttal, with the good old classic fallback of painting offence on behalf of others on top of it.

As I said, it's not possible to have a rational conversation with you people.

 

[Yard_Sale]

Once again a response totally absent of any form of engagement or rebuttal, with the good old classic fallback of painting offence on behalf of others on top of it.

As I said, it's not possible to have a rational conversation with you people.

That’s under the assumption that I even want to rebut anything that’s been said about me, or that I take issue with anyone else’s stance.

There’s more to my responses, as I’ve discussed some of the details in other threads.

And I wasn’t trying offend Tex. I was stating fact. I actually think it’s quite impossible to offend my pal Rex

 

[Tornado]

When someone cares so little that they go out of their way to try to derail multiple threads repeatedly to make sure everyone has no confusion about how little they care.

 

[Famine]

That’s under the assumption that

No, it isn't. It's literally pointing out that you are repeatedly posting without any attempt to engage - exactly as I said several posts ago and, as I've said often, proving that it is indeed impossible to have a rational conversation with anyone who believes bodily autonomy is not a right.


Are women people? It's a yes or no answer, as any equivocation is a "no". There's no grey area.

 

[Yard_Sale]

No, it isn't. It's literally pointing out that you are repeatedly posting without any attempt to engage - exactly as I said several posts ago and, as I've said often, proving that it is indeed impossible to have a rational conversation with anyone who believes bodily autonomy is not a right.


Are women people? It's a yes or no answer, as any equivocation is a "no". There's no grey area.

Ugh…


As I’ve said before, I am generally pro-choice, but I have some apprehensions about certain things.

Your set of personal morals and my set of morals have led us to different conclusions.

I really don’t know how to be any more specific than that.


And yes, apparently there is a bit of a “gray” area when defining what a woman is, these days

 

[Danoff]

Ugh…


As I’ve said before, I am generally pro-choice, but I have some apprehensions about certain things.

Your set of personal morals and my set of morals have led us to different conclusions.

I really don’t know how to be any more specific than that.

Your defense mechanism of refusing to be clear with your position (to hide what you're insecure about), is really hurting you on this one.

And yes, apparently there is a bit of a “gray” area when defining what a woman is, these days

Not the question that was asked.

 

[Yard_Sale]

Your defense mechanism of refusing to be clear with your position (to hide what you're insecure about), is really hurting you on this one.

Not the question that was asked.

I’m not the least bit insecure with me admitting I don’t actually have a clear position in terms of abortion, and most likely will never. I’m ok with that

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I’m not the least bit insecure with me admitting I don’t actually have a clear position in terms of abortion, and most likely will never. I’m ok with that

And presumably you would be ok if other people had differing positions too? Like, the choice of a different position was available.

 

[Danoff]

I’m not the least bit insecure with me admitting I don’t actually have a clear position in terms of abortion, and most likely will never. I’m ok with that

You're intentionally not addressing the point I made.

A direct question was asked, and it was not your position in terms of abortion. You refusing to answer that question directly is a big pattern of being intentionally vague. Refusing to answer whether women are people is hiding the ball, because you're worried about what happens if you don't.

Edit:

For the record, I'm an optimist. I think you'd answer it "yes" but for the fear that it will force you into a tight spot on abortion.

 

[Famine]

I really don’t know how to be any more specific than that.

Of course you do, you're just choosing to be evasive.

And yes, apparently there is a bit of a “gray” area when defining what a woman is, these days

Cool story; not what I clearly asked and you've clearly evaded (since you choose your words carefully and on purpose) twice now.

The question, for a third time, is "Are women people?". It's a yes or no, as any equivocation means no.

It's hardly a tricky one unless you know you don't want to give an indefensible answer.

 

[Joey D]

I mean, it's fine to have whatever opinion on abortion, but really, the only correct take is that the government shouldn't be involved with it. I disagree with abortions in many cases, but that's my personal belief. I don't want the government to outlaw it because, at the end of the day, it's a medical procedure and it's something that should be between the patient and their doctor. Outlawing abortion would be no different than outlawing a resection or "-ectomies."

 

[Yard_Sale]

Of course you do, you're just choosing to be evasive.

Cool story; not what I clearly asked and you've clearly evaded (since you choose your words carefully and on purpose) twice now.

The question, for a third time, is "Are women people?". It's a yes or no, as any equivocation means no.

It's hardly a tricky one unless you know you don't want to give an indefensible answer.

Of course there people.


But I don’t think like you do in terms of abortion. Stop trying

 

[HenrySwanson]

Of course there people.


But I don’t think like you do in terms of abortion. Stop trying

But your attitude:

A) doesn't save lives

B) deprives people of their recognised rights

 

[Yard_Sale]

But your attitude:

A) doesn't save lives

B) deprives people of their recognised rights

I believe the unborn are humans and are entitled to rights too. That’s seriously my stance

Yet, I’m generally still pro-choice

 

[TexRex]

I believe the unborn are humans and are entitled to rights too.

No individual has a natural claim to any part of another's body without consent. This is why child rape is bad.

...

Wait...is child rape bad?

 

[Danoff]

Of course there people.

Hey, it's a start! Always nice to find common ground.

But I don’t think like you do in terms of abortion. Stop trying

How do you even know?

 

[TexRex]

KAMALA HITLER AMIRITE

 

[Danoff]

KAMALA HITLER AMIRITE

 

[Blitz24]

KAMALA HITLER AMIRITE

So extreme! Next she will probably force colored people to be on Fox News!