2024 US Presidential Election Thread

  • Thread starter ryzno
  • 4,923 comments
  • 252,145 views

Have you voted yet?

  • Yes

  • No, but I will be

  • No and I'm not going to

  • I can't - I don't live in the US

  • Other - specify in thread


Results are only viewable after voting.
Guess Fox is on a roll today. They spent this morning trying to claim Fox & Friends said Kamala was attending "a college sorority" when it sounded like he was saying she was attending "a colored sorority".


My thing is, "a sorority, a college sorority" sounds kind of weird to say b/c yes, that's what a sorority is? A social organization on a college campus? However, phrasing it as, "a sorority, a colored sorority" b/c the sorority is in fact, a historically African-American sorority, well that makes more sense. But, that would make the host look like a racist ass & frankly, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt given these shows' history with saying false, unhinged things.

Let's go to a Kindergarten sorority. Much more appropriate!
 
Guess Fox is on a roll today. They spent this morning trying to claim Fox & Friends said Kamala was attending "a college sorority" when it sounded like he was saying she was attending "a colored sorority".


My thing is, "a sorority, a college sorority" sounds kind of weird to say b/c yes, that's what a sorority is? A social organization on a college campus? However, phrasing it as, "a sorority, a colored sorority" b/c the sorority is in fact, a historically African-American sorority, well that makes more sense. But, that would make the host look like a racist ass & frankly, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt given these shows' history with saying false, unhinged things.


I listened to the clip. It's basically impossible to tell. From the context I heard college. But there's a hidden "d" in colle(d)ge and he hits the "o" somewhere in between where you'd say college and colored.
 
Non-sequiter:

@Yard_Sale - Would you prefer it if the GOP went away from MAGA/Trumpism? No BS, I'm just curious.



Without wanting to spend the time getting into the weeds in an feeble attempt at trying to adequately explain my vastly unpopular views as it pertains to the audience...




Whenever I'm trying to wrap my head around multi-layered, complicated and dynamic subjects... the formula I've always used to figure out my own personal baseline perspective is; (FACE VALUE/2).


Having said that, I'm generally a fan of the MAGA agenda; minus the Trumpism. Although, the Trumpism part of the equation has proven to be a useful political tool. So there's that, I suppose.




- 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.


- Although Trump has seemingly soften his stance a bit, one of the original MAGA mantras was to bring previously exported jobs, back home - which is not only delusional and not practical, it's very misleading. In order to have goods (and increasingly services) at cheap prices domestically, we need to outsource the vast majority of the raw materials and small manufacturing to the 3rd world. Admittedly, I'm willing to turn a blind eye to what is basically legalized slavery in order for a new washing machine not to cost $2000, or a pickup truck not to cost 100k.


- Conversely, I think that the Democrats climate policy is equally misleading in terms of their estimates, mitigation methods, mitigation timelines, and its general effectiveness. The study of Climate, and the adjacent proposed that are peddled by first world countries is actually something I find extremely fascinating and have studied a lot over the past decade. But its not something I'm not very capable of discussing via a keyboard, as well as a subject that its extremely complicated at its core, with just as complicated off-shoots that spread out in all directions.


- Having said all of that, Politicians discussing actual pragmatic solutions in regards to various domestic and world problems, doesn't get headlines, eyeballs on the television screen, style points, inches gained or sometimes subtracted, and it definitely won't win you a popularity contest.










Zooplankton --> Anchovy --> Barracuda --> Shark --> Orca

...It's as true of food chain in the world's oceans, as it is in regards to society, and the manipulation of society through politics. Whether we like it or not, for the general population, the vast majority of us are plankton, with the fortunate somewhat wealthy citizens being Anchovies.


*** but an overarching theme to my general interpretation of modern politics; is that politicians are little more than post-reconstruction era carpetbaggers selling snake oil and pink slips to the Brooklyn Bridge.
 
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.
Wait wait wait, you think that moving the decision over a woman's reproductive rights away from her and towards state legislatures is a step in the right direction?

I mean, it's a step to the right, but come on. Bodily autonomy is right #1. If you don't recognise that for other people, there's no reason why other people should recognise it for you - and there's absolutely no rational discussion possible with you.
 
Wait wait wait, you think that moving the decision over a woman's reproductive rights away from her and towards state legislatures is a step in the right direction?

I mean, it's a step to the right, but come on. Bodily autonomy is right #1. If you don't recognise that for other people, there's no reason why other people should recognise it for you - and there's absolutely no rational discussion possible with you.


Refer to the second part of my second sentence you quoted.


- also the rest of that paragraph which you didn't quote
 
Refer to the second part of my second sentence you quoted.


- also the rest of that paragraph which you didn't quote
I read the whole thing. There's nothing anywhere in there to justify taking rights off women and handing decisions over their bodies to legislature.

You can't paint this as a far- or center-anything. Bodily autonomy is the fundamental basis for all other rights, and you think that taking it away from women is a step in the right direction?

It is simply not possible to have a rational conversation with anyone who thinks bodily autonomy is not a right.
 
I read the whole thing. There's nothing anywhere in there to justify taking rights off women and handing decisions over their bodies to legislature.

You can't paint this as a far- or center-anything. Bodily autonomy is the fundamental basis for all other rights, and you think that taking it away from women is a step in the right direction?

It is simply not possible to have a rational conversation with anyone who thinks bodily autonomy is not a right.

I think it's a very complicated subject. You ask most center left and center right people here in the United States, and you're going to get a similar general consensus of opinions on what's legislatively right and wrong, as well as what's morally right or wrong.


But as I've always said, I never try to impose my beliefs on other people wether its in person, or on this forum. Nor do I condemn others for their opinions, either. A member asked my opinion, I gave them my thoughts, as well as examples on how I interpret big ticket items. I chose those big-ticket items because they cast a large umbrella over the messaging of each respective campaign
 
Last edited:
Without wanting to spend the time getting into the weeds in an feeble attempt at trying to adequately explain my vastly unpopular views as it pertains to the audience...


Whenever I'm trying to wrap my head around multi-layered, complicated and dynamic subjects... the formula I've always used to figure out my own personal baseline perspective is; (FACE VALUE/2).


Having said that, I'm generally a fan of the MAGA agenda; minus the Trumpism. Although, the Trumpism part of the equation has proven to be a useful political tool. So there's that, I suppose.



- Although Trump has seemingly soften his stance a bit, one of the original MAGA mantras was to bring previously exported jobs, back home - which is not only delusional and not practical, it's very misleading. In order to have goods (and increasingly services) at cheap prices domestically, we need to outsource the vast majority of the raw materials and small manufacturing to the 3rd world. Admittedly, I'm willing to turn a blind eye to what is basically legalized slavery in order for a new washing machine not to cost $2000, or a pickup truck not to cost 100k.
Sorry not fully understanding this bit - are you saying you liked this or didn't like this?

I think we can take abortion out of this particular argument as it's boilerplate conservative - any GOP candidate would pursue the same policy as Trump at this point. What MAGA-specific policies are you in favor of and are they dependent on Trump?

I guess what I'm getting at is this - is Trump worth the risk of voting for knowing how much could go wrong (and based on the extreme rhetoric he and his followers have been using, that is quite a lot*), when on the other hand if he loses he'll likely be banished from politics for good (you can't lose twice in a row and stay relevant, not even DT) and perhaps the whole country could start to moderate a bit? If Trump loses, the GOP will be forced to become more relevant to more people and less extreme and probably more effective. This should have happened in 2016 and it's clear that the GOP was ready to make that pivot, but the Hillary glitch happened and we ended up with Trump. I mean if Trump is your guy then that's a different story.

*Heard an interview on the radio the other day where a fairly intelligent sounding Trump supporter gave his opinion that should Trump win the election every democratic politician should be tried for treason and executed. Every one. I mean...come on, is this seriously where we are as a country? You can say this guy is a quack, and he is, but Trump has developed a superhuman ability to attract quacks....
 
I think it's a very complicated subject.
It is not. It is extremely simple: bodily autonomy is the fundamental right from which all other rights derive. If you think other people's bodily autonomy is subject to the fiat of legislatures, so is yours.

Why is taking rights away from women a good thing?

It is simply not possible to have a rational conversation with anyone who thinks bodily autonomy is not a right.
 
Sorry not fully understanding this bit - are you saying you liked this or didn't like this?

I think we can take abortion out of this particular argument as it's boilerplate conservative - any GOP candidate would pursue the same policy as Trump at this point. What MAGA-specific policies are you in favor of and are they dependent on Trump?

I guess what I'm getting at is this - is Trump worth the risk of voting for knowing how much could go wrong (and based on the extreme rhetoric he and his followers have been using, that is quite a lot*), when on the other hand if he loses he'll likely be banished from politics for good (you can't lose twice in a row and stay relevant, not even DT) and perhaps the whole country could start to moderate a bit? If Trump loses, the GOP will be forced to become more relevant to more people and less extreme and probably more effective. This should have happened in 2016 and it's clear that the GOP was ready to make that pivot, but the Hillary glitch happened and we ended up with Trump. I mean if Trump is your guy then that's a different story.

*Heard an interview on the radio the other day where a fairly intelligent sounding Trump supporter gave his opinion that should Trump win the election every democratic politician should be tried for treason and executed. Every one. I mean...come on, is this seriously where we are as a country? You can say this guy is a quack, and he is, but Trump has developed a superhuman ability to attract quacks....
Trump, I have always said, “isn’t my guy”. However, if I do decide to vote at the top of the ticket (keeping in mind that it won’t matter much, because I’m in California), it’ll be for Trump. I mean, I am a Republican 🤷🏼‍♂️


As a moderate Republican, and without getting into the weeds, I think both candidates have the potential to cause equal amounts of damage in opposite directions. I honestly feel that way.


And the MAGA agenda is very far from being non-relevant. If anything, it’s gaining steam as you watch different demographics moving away from the Democratic Party - all of them voting demographics that they’ve historically relied heavily upon. Trump barely won in 2016, he barely lost in 2020, and he’ll probably win by close margins in 2024.

MAGA without Trump is quite popular. It’s the exact reason why Reagan and Clinton were so popular. If you feel the urge to take a journey back in time, listen to old Reagan and Clinton SOTU addresses. You’ll be shocked
 
*Heard an interview on the radio the other day where a fairly intelligent sounding Trump supporter gave his opinion that should Trump win the election every democratic politician should be tried for treason and executed. Every one. I mean...come on, is this seriously where we are as a country? You can say this guy is a quack, and he is, but Trump has developed a superhuman ability to attract quacks....
It's funny in a ha-ha-but-not-really way that Trump supporters will take something Trump said like being a dictator on day one as, "He's joking/he's not gonna do that/etc." as their way of explaining his words. And, then you'll have a Trump supporter like the guy you cited who has such deranged views that when he hears dictator on day one, he gets excited that his deranged views might actually come to fruition.
 
It is not. It is extremely simple: bodily autonomy is the fundamental right from which all other rights derive. If you think other people's bodily autonomy is subject to the fiat of legislatures, so is yours.

Why is taking rights away from women a good thing?
To each their own, man. I personally have issues with both sides of the aisle’s legislation and moral compasses. But that’s just my opinion. And I’ve openly stated many times that my various opinions are very complicated and often hypocritical. Never once have put myself on some sort of moral pedestal, hence my omission in my opinion of utilizing the 3rd world’s very loose labor laws to our pragmatic benefit - to which neither side republicans nor democrats want to talk about except when convenient


***late edit

FWIW, I got a vasectomy just after I turned 33. We tried to conceive a few times, but she kept miscarrying. So when we decided not to try anymore, I got snipped because I didn’t feel it was fair for her to go back on birth control when I could just as easily take care of it myself
 
Last edited:
To each their own, man.
No. Bodily autonomy is the fundamental right. It's simply not possible to have any kind of rational conversation with anyone who thinks anyone else's bodily autonomy can and should be removed (as you're proving over and over again here).

You say it's a good thing that your national court says that women don't have this right, but you don't comprehend that this means you don't either.

If they don't have it, you don't have it.
 
No. Bodily autonomy is the fundamental right. It's simply not possible to have any kind of rational conversation with anyone who thinks anyone else's bodily autonomy can and should be removed (as you're proving over and over again here).

You say it's a good thing that your national court says that women don't have this right, but you don't comprehend that this means you don't either.

If they don't have it, you don't have it.
Wasn’t really trying to have any conversation about what I’ve admittedly stated (like all my opinions), are complicated and oftentimes hypocritical.
What is your opinion of Project 2025?

Honestly had never heard of it until I heard every Liberal outlet started including it in their lock-step talking points as an coordinated attempt to steer the consumer away from the Democratic Party’s current mess, and back towards Trump. Don’t know much about it to be honest. 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
 
Wasn’t really trying to have any conversation about
Your several replies say otherwise.
about what I’ve admittedly stated (like all my opinions), are complicated and oftentimes hypocritical.
Yeah, it's neither. You're saying it's a good thing your country stripped rights from women - and therefore people. That's not complicated or hypocritical, it's reprehensible and dumb.
 
Your several replies say otherwise.

Yeah, it's neither. You're saying it's a good thing your country stripped rights from women - and therefore people. That's not complicated or hypocritical, it's reprehensible and dumb.

You’re trying to have a conversation about it.


And yourself and others can think whatever you want about my opinions. Like I’ve stated many, many times in a variety of threads about a multitude of subjects; I’m not trying to push my opinions on anyone
 
You’re trying to have a conversation about it.
I'm telling you that your opinion is repugnant, and that it's not possible to converse with anyone who does not recognise the fundamental basis of bodily autonomy.

You're choosing to reply.

And yourself and others can think whatever you want about my opinions. Like I’ve stated many, many times in a variety of threads about a multitude of subjects; I’m not trying to push my opinions on anyone
You're posting them. And seemingly defending them (although you've not actually defended the notion of stripping human rights as a good thing, only that you have that opinion).
 
Guess Fox is on a roll today. They spent this morning trying to claim Fox & Friends said Kamala was attending "a college sorority" when it sounded like he was saying she was attending "a colored sorority".


My thing is, "a sorority, a college sorority" sounds kind of weird to say b/c yes, that's what a sorority is? A social organization on a college campus? However, phrasing it as, "a sorority, a colored sorority" b/c the sorority is in fact, a historically African-American sorority, well that makes more sense. But, that would make the host look like a racist ass & frankly, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt given these shows' history with saying false, unhinged things.

We’ve all done it, say the quiet part out loud in whatever situation, and we realize right as it comes out that we don’t want to say it, and it comes out an obviously slurred attempt to cover it up. I seem to remember this happening often in high school lmao.

To me, what he said sounds more like “coward” which is nonsensical. He definitely meant it and said it.
 
Last edited:
But the state, or individual states, is/are.
Yup, and that’s politics. Personally, I’ve always thought this was a dead-end issue for Republicans to keep pursuing throughout the decades. It’s not like a large constituency votes Republican on that one single issue, although there are some, I’m sure.



I'm telling you that your opinion is repugnant, and that it's not possible to converse with anyone who does not recognise the fundamental basis of bodily autonomy.

You're choosing to reply.

You're posting them. And seemingly defending them (although you've not actually defended the notion of stripping human rights as a good thing, only that you have that opinion).
I must’ve missed the amendment in the AUP that reads "one shall defend their opinions and personal morals against a moderator and/or administrator when summoned; using said Moderator/administrator's moral compass and opinions as the baseline of measure."


You say my views and opinions are repugnant. You say that I seemingly, but not overtly defend them. Fine. I don't really care. That's your prerogative and part of this whole Free Speech thang. I don't denounce others for their opinions that I might take issue with.... because, I really don't care. Whatever someone believes in is their business, not mine.
 
Last edited:
I must’ve missed the amendment in the AUP that reads "one shall defend their opinions and personal morals against a moderator and/or administrator when summoned; using said Moderator/administrator's moral compass and opinions as the baseline of measure.
What does any of that have to do with anything?
Fine. I don't really care.
Your continued replies say otherwise.
You same my views and opinions are repugnant.
That's because they are.

Again, you just don't seem to recognise that bodily autonomy is the fundamental human right, because if you did you wouldn't say that stripping this right from women is "a step in the right direction". You also don't recognise that women are people, and stripping rights from women is stripping them from people. Your bodily autonomy has also been affected by this decision that you support.

Thus far all your replies have been about how you hold "complicated" views (and now you're bringing in GTPlanet's moderation and AUP for some reason?) and not defending this fundamental point: by championing the removal of reproductive rights from women, you do not recognise the fundamental right of bodily autonomy in others, nor yourself. This position that women have less right to their body than a state legislature also requires you to accept that other people have more right to your body than you do.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not possible to hold any kind of rational conversation with someone who doesn't recognise bodily autonomy as a fundamental right - and you've proven this repeatedly by evading doing so.


Of course if you don't accept that other people have more right to your body than you, then you do recognise the fundamental right of bodily autonomy and really it's just that you don't think women are people...
 
“The great thing about America is here, kings and dictators do not rule,” - Biden

The Supreme Court:
Think Tim Robinson GIF by NETFLIX
 
What does any of that have to do with anything?

Your continued replies say otherwise.

That's because they are.

Again, you just don't seem to recognise that bodily autonomy is the fundamental human right, because if you did you wouldn't say that stripping this right from women is "a step in the right direction". You also don't recognise that women are people, and stripping rights from women is stripping them from people. Your bodily autonomy has also been affected by this decision that you support.

Thus far all your replies have been about how you hold "complicated" views (and now you're bringing in GTPlanet's moderation and AUP for some reason?) and not defending this fundamental point: by championing the removal of reproductive rights from women, you do not recognise the fundamental right of bodily autonomy in others, nor yourself. This position that women have less right to their body than a state legislature also requires you to accept that other people have more right to your body than you do.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not possible to hold any kind of rational conversation with someone who doesn't recognise bodily autonomy as a fundamental right - and you've proven this repeatedly by evading doing so.


Of course if you don't accept that other people have more right to your body than you, then you do recognise the fundamental right of bodily autonomy and really it's just that you don't think women are people...

Cool, man.



When I choose to share an opinion (or I’m asked), I give an honest response of how I feel, and perceive. I know my opinions are flawed, as I’ve openly admitted many times. Expressing the intricacies of how I think, is very hard to do when text via screen is the only medium of communication. Therefore I don’t really try. Nor do I rarely ask others to do the same.

I might quote Stephen King from time to time, but I am most certainly not him, or even a fraction of a percent of him
 
Last edited:
As I've said repeatedly, it's not possible to hold any kind of rational conversation with someone who doesn't recognise bodily autonomy as a fundamental right - and you've proven this repeatedly by evading doing so
Heh, no surprises.

Additionally:

I chose my words carefully on purpose.
We tried to conceive a few times, but she kept miscarrying.
It'd save a lot of time if you just up and said you don't think women are people rather than just carefully on purpose saying lots of things that show that you don't.
 
Heh, no surprises.

Additionally:


It'd save a lot of time if you just up and said you don't think women are people rather than just carefully on purpose saying lots of things that show that you don't.
Sure, it would be easier…


Except there’s many shades of gray in between the many different shades of black and white, on a spectrum
















But for those whom are in constant pursuit of moral superiority, I wish you luck in your conquest of chasing your own tail
 
Last edited:
Back