Pre-match: Can't believe it took this long for this thread, the 2024 Presidential election thread!

Two comments on the last five pages or so:

1) Wow, a whole bunch of hacks just played an unregulated elections betting market??? Crazy. Never seen that before.

2) Why are any of you arguing with @Athlone ? He knows he's wrong. But he'll never admit it to any of you. That's why he's here posting: so he can feel better about his obviously terrible choice.

 

Was point 1 directed at me?

The market I'm referring to is hardly a bastion of inside knowledge. Trust me, it's run by a Canadian provincial government organization.

 

It was not directed at you.

 

Admittedly, I have skimmed the last 5 pages at best.

 

Nope, just shocked to discover another band of bottom feeding troglodytes have played the media again by shorting the market.

 

Doing the…

Arnold Palmer (open) Arnold Palmer (close)

1852551081726722509 is not a valid tweet id

 

He is truly demented. No words…..

 

Not sure I follow you here. The courts guidance is with not with respect to common function, but common use among the general population at any given time. The idea allows for the amendment to keep up with technological advancements that change which weapons may be common at any given time.

A modern glock and a musket are obviously quite different in function, but both are weapons in common use during their respective eras, so both fit within the philosophical guidelines here (the M16A2 isn't available to civilians so I don't think thats the best comparison here - the AR-15 is a very different weapon and not military grade).

I can't agree and don't see the law evolving in that direction either, even under a more conservative court. The legal doctrine being followed/articulated by the courts now just doesn't indicate any trend in this direction.

A bump stock isn't a weapon in and of itself. It is a device intended to modify one. The bump stock ban was struck down by the Court precisely on these grounds in Cargill. To make the case you're making, you would need the court to view a tank or a rocket launcher in the same light as a bump stock - not an actual weapon in and of itself, just an add-on to one. This just doesn't follow and isn't a realistic legal outcome.

I came here to have an open discussion with people whose sincerely held beliefs differ from my own, because i think thats a healthy thing for anyone to do. I'm no less convinced of my position than you are of yours. I'm no less comfortable with my position than you are with yours.

It is one thing to make these assumptions about people who make unserious, unsubstantive engagement but Ive tried to engage in good faith with everyone here and explained my view points in detail, with sourcing where applicable. It is possible for people to disagree with you without being mentally challenged or dishonest about their viewpoints. It is possible for reasonable minds to differ.

Many in here can't seem to appreciate that concept, which is pretty foundational to any democracy or Republic, yet simultaneously proclaim to be steadfast defenders of said democracy/republic against anti-democratic elements. The irony is pretty incredible, and it does not go unnoticed, but I understand there is no chance of most here fully appreciating it. It just is what it is, and that's ok. These discussions are still worth having imo.

 

I'm mostly a lurker on this board, but I've read a lot of your posts here, and the main thing I want to know is how you can square caring about democracy with Trump's authoritarian views. He's outright promised to weaponize the justice department against his political enemies if he's elected. He admires dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping. He's talked admiringly about Hitler. He's even promised his supporters that if he's elected, they'll "never have to vote again."

How do you reconcile all of this with caring about democracy? Do you think he's just spouting off and don't believe anything he says? Do your other positions like protecting the police and the 2nd amendment (neither of which Kamala is a threat to) just matter more? Do you really believe his promised economic policies (which mainly seem to involve tariffs and lowering taxes for the wealthy) will benefit the overall economy more than Kamala's proposed policies?

Not to mention Trump is clearly racist, xenophobic, and narcissistic, and all of those traits will affect how he governs. Seriously . . . how can you justify voting for him?

 

No, in this election -- as with 2016 and 2020 -- you are either a Trump supporter because you like watching people suffer OR you always vote Team Red and will do or say anything to justify that vote.

You can argue all you want with the others, but with the political scientist you can be honest.

 

Texas and Florida arent going to allow Federal Election officials into the state to monitor voting during the election…. gee I wonder if its because Greg Abbott and AG Ken Paxton intend to purge a few million votes like last time.. Gotta protect Ted Cruz I suppose

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/gop-l...-monitors-voting-locations/story?id=115356555

 

My good friend loves to say, " you can lie to yourself but don't lie to me."

 

Well, I am sure some will try to convince us that is not what he meant....Go figure.


Donald Trump appeared to question whether Milwaukee Bucks basketball star Giannis Antetokounmpo can actually be called Greek.

The NBA champion and two-time MVP – admiringly nicknamed The Greek Freak – was born and raised in Athens to Nigerian parents. Antetokounmpo is a Greek citizen, speaks fluent Greek, and plays on the Greek Olympic team.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-suggests-giannis-antetokounmpo-isnt-a-real-greek/

 

Send them in the feds and in swat gear.

 

Last YouGov poll for this election. Not bad at all.

1852446772922036570 is not a valid tweet id

 

Right, so the excuse being used to cover their asses in this one is that they want a supposedly originalist's ruling, with a pragmatist's application. They want it both ways.

Got it.

Again: Rule as an originalist, apply it as a pragmatist. Claim that the 2A was intended in one way by the framers, but then apply it using modern technology.

Extending it further, what, exactly, have the courts done to prevent ever more potent weaponry from being protected by THEIR pretzel-like interpretation of the 2A?

(And yeah, I used M16A2 instead of AR15 because the latter is a hot button topic these days, however, I can tell you that they are almost identical in operation.)

And yet, the courts have simply decided, in more recent times that the 2A ain't about a militia/the existence of the national guard, and have moved the needle to an almost universal right to carry weaponry.

Even after decades of the courts having interpreted the 2A as more of the former than the latter. Again, continuing along this same track, and with an ever-more conservative-owned courts, whats to stop them now?

They've ALREADY evolved the application of the 2A in recent times.

Having tried both, a bump stock alters the function so dramatically, that it strains credulity.

Yeah, 20-40 rounds per minute vs 400 rounds per minute with a bump stock is equivalent to semi auto vs full auto. And the guy who carried an M60 had such a different job than the guy carrying an M16 were considered so different that they had different MOS' when i was on active duty.

IOW, military planners saw the different personnel themselves as different weapons, which they are. OTOH, the clowns on the court, who never served, and who have no direct experience, ruled otherwise.

All it would take, is for the right political donors to decide that they need/want this weapon, or that weapon, and this court will rule favorably. The bump stock issue reveals this already.

So again, why, exactly, can we "ban tanks," based on all of this?

 

My guess is that he has dementia, too. Seems to be a thing with republican presidents.

 

So, IOW, it looks like the blue wall and the confederacy are pretty much predictive.

 

A moment of levity. I like the flaming flatulence - nice touch.

 

Yep.....She is close though in the sun belt....I would be shocked if she does not snap one there...

 

Possibly, although I'd bet more on NV than AZ, based on my recent visits to that part of the world.


And looking at the confederacy, it took a porn-addicted loser as the GOP's gubernatorial candidate in NC for a black woman to have a prayer as the Dems' POTUS candidate. In 2024. Which is sad.

IOW, take away the turd the GOP picked for governor, and she'd have no fvkcing chance whatsoever in NC. (Just like taking away the pedo-candidate for Senator in Alabama, and a plain white guy Dem had no fvkcing chance there.)


The takeaway: Count on the confederacy as a dem to your own peril. Those southerners like it that way, and thats that. They can't be helped.

 

Good point...I think she has a chance in Az for the same reason you mentioned for NC.....Ruben Gallego will beat Kari Lake by double digits and a reverse coattail is pretty much in the cards there as well.

 

https://politicalwire.com/2024/11/02/trump-simulates-sex-act-on-microphone-stand/

Imagine the chutzpah required to think this shithead is good for bond markets.