2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
If the dnc can somehow truck along with this same kind of exuberance until election day, id put money on kamala today. But once you take you foot of the gas, trunp is going to gain again - unless he shoots clint eastwood or bangs taylor swift or something.
lol hasan got kicked out of the dnc today
Spoiler
#bluemaga is a helluva drug
I just watched Kamala's speech at the DNC and I haven't been moved like this since 2008 when I saw Barack Obama's speech after the NH primary he lost. I cried then and I cried tonight. I think she is going to win and win by a wide margin.
What she said about Israel was incredible. The democrats who are angry about how the Palestinians have been affected by Netanyahu now have a path back to support Kamala.
People who are upset about immigration will now understand that Kamala will do what Trump killed. And she won't do it by separating children from their parents.
She spoke about Trump and called him out for what he is and what he would do in a second term. It wasn't pretty but then what he stands for isn't either.
Trump having an absolute meltdown, Kamala was better than I expected and I expected a lot given her campaign speeches.
Trump is going to run from the debate, he'll look so weak, and Vance is the worst VP pick in modern history.
That said the US is broken and it'll probably still come down to small margins in PA, AZ, GA, WI again, along with whatever ****ery they can do with fake electors/Supreme Court interference.
just stole all the Republican positions from the last decade and then went full on genocide support. just an incredibly scary speech.
Didn't watch it, but if Victor and his basement-dwelling brethren hated it, it was probably pretty good.
I watched some of the DNC speeches, something I've never done before. I have to say, there were some damn good speeches. Both Obamas killed it. Clinton was good but, damn, he looks old now. The tone was really upbeat and positive, no fear mongering.
I kind of wished (well, maybe not?) I had watched the RNC as well, just to compare.
What'd you think of tonight? Kamala Night was chock full of fear.
Not tasteless, but the previous days themed with joy and motivation to fight was a build up to what their fighting against. And they utilized a lot of fear tactics. Effectively.
I just watched Kamala's speech at the DNC and I haven't been moved like this since 2008 when I saw Barack Obama's speech after the NH primary he lost. I cried then and I cried tonight. I think she is going to win and win by a wide margin.
I thought Trump would win by a slim margin coming into tonight, but I might be with you. She played the role of president in the realm of 2008 Obama and 1992 Clinton, whereas 2000 Gore and 2004 Kerry were kinda boring and offputting, 2000 Bush was just dumb, 2016 Trump was like a meme stock who beat a largely unlikeable 2016 Clinton.
What she said about Israel was incredible. The democrats who are angry about how the Palestinians have been affected by Netanyahu now have a path back to support Kamala.
Effective triangulation. Maybe.
Zionists are gonna say she was too critical of Israel while the Intifada NOW crowd is gonna say that she was was too friendly to Israel.
But those people dont' really matter. I think she effectively spoke to whatever sentiments independents feel. It isn't very nuanced. It's very confused. And independents prefer empathy to ridicule when it comes to their confusion.
People who are upset about immigration will now understand that Kamala will do what Trump killed. And she won't do it by separating children from their parents.
I very much agree with you here. I"m an open borders guy, so I disagree with the bill, but the bill is incredibly popular, so riding that wave should be effective.
It's the centrist take that Obama had with healthcare. When he responded to single payer with a public-private partnership, all the GOP had to foil was a stupid voucher program. The only foil the GOP has to the half-measure on immigration proposed by the Dems is mass deportation -- which is a waste of resources to consequentialists and appalling to deontologists.
She spoke about Trump and called him out for what he is and what he would do in a second term. It wasn't pretty but then what he stands for isn't either.
I think this was weaker than it could've been. She said what Trump will do with reproductive rights, driving up the debt, and healthcare, but lacked specifics on what he'll do with immigration, Ukraine, and the SCOTUS. Unless I missed something.
But if I missed it, how many others did, too?
just stole all the Republican positions from the last decade and then went full on genocide support. just an incredibly scary speech.
I don't know about scary. She's pivoting to "govern from the center" where a lot of independents lie and leaning right on immigration and Israel where Never-Trumper Republicans lie. She's just trying to win an election. Nothing really new to see here.
It isn't appealing to me, but that speech wasn't for me.
just stole all the Republican positions from the last decade and then went full on genocide support. just an incredibly scary speech.
"nothing will change"
Didn't watch it, but if Victor and his basement-dwelling brethren hated it, it was probably pretty good.
Spoiler
#bluemaga is a helluva drug
Wait a sec the horror, why would deontologists dislike mass deportation of illegals? It is moral to punish illegal behavior
You have accused so many people of lying in this forum (including me twice) I am kind of stunned that I have never seen you accuse Donald Trump of lying.
Like he has lied hundreds of times about the 2020 Election being stolen. Do you find that to be a blatant lie?
Or is it that you actually like people who lie?
Aside from the fact that I actually wrote more than once that trump lies all the times, there is the detail that trump does not write in this forum.
Btw it's interesting you say this after I simply pointed out an objective lie.
Wait a sec the horror, why would deontologists dislike mass deportation of illegals? It is moral to punish illegal behavior
Was it moral to execute runaway slaves? Imprison people for selling pot? Or for bootlegging during prohibition?
C'mon, man.
I don't consider our immigration system to be legitimate, as a proponent of open borders, so the laws are, therefore, as illegitimate as fugitive slave laws and the prohibition of drugs and alcohol.
Your usage of the term "illegals" shouldn't really be tolerated, either. They're people. Not contraband.
A Republican made the best case against Trump at the DNC convention.
Was it moral to execute runaway slaves? Imprison people for selling pot? Or for bootlegging during prohibition?
C'mon, man.
I don't consider our immigration system to be legitimate, as a proponent of open borders, so the laws are, therefore, as illegitimate as fugitive slave laws and the prohibition of drugs and alcohol.
Your usage of the term "illegals" shouldn't really be tolerated, either. They're people. Not contraband.
Well open border deontologists would consider deportation immoral sure, now for the vast majority of the people who aren't pro open border, deontologism would require deportation exactly because "consequences be damned".
Illegals shouldn't be tolerated because even if that's the law, given you disagree with it your preferences should rule language. That's a fascist requirement and I disagree with it.
They are people who committed a crime, and keep committing it.
People who rape can be called rapists, people who steal can be called thieves, and people who are illegally in the country can be called illegals.
Well open border deontologists would consider deportation immoral sure, now for the vast majority of the people who aren't pro open border, deontologism would require deportation exactly because "consequences be damned".
This isn't true. A deontologist is indifferent to the laws. They would only be guided by their moral compass.
Illegals shouldn't be tolerated because even if that's the law, given you disagree with it your preferences should rule language. That's a fascist requirement and I disagree with it.
They are people who committed a crime, and keep committing it.
People who rape can be called rapists, people who steal can be called thieves, and people who are illegally in the country can be called illegals.
Immigration doesn't inherently harm people. Unlike rape and theft, which are direct violations of people and property. Landlords should be free to rent to whomever they please. Employers should be free to employ whomever they please. No matter which dirt they were born on. People born ont his dirt aren't entitled to all of the jobs on this dirt.
Enslaved people committed the crime of escaping over and over again. Pot dealers committed the crime of selling drugs and kept committing the crime. Bootleggers committed the crime of manufacturing alcohol over and over again. The laws were illegitimate, ergo, their punishments.
You can be anti-immigrant. But peaceably crossing borders isn't a violation of person or property in and of itself. As for those who commit acts of aggression, sure, punish them for it.
A deontologist can, and often will have, a moral that prescribes to follow the law.
Btw the laws you listed weren't illegitimate, they were simply laws you disagree with.
Which is why for two of those things the constitution was amended to make future laws on the topic illegitimate. Which meant they were legitimate before.
A rule of law deontologist is exactly the kind of person who both agrees with capturing fleeing slaves and with arresting slave owners or dealers depending on the law.
Entering a place you are forbidden to entry by the owners of the place is a very basic form of aggression even if you don't use further violence after you are in.
Trespassing borders is identical to trespassing private property.
Being against trespassers isn't the same as being against people who you are ok to enter coming in
A deontologist can, and often will have, a moral that prescribes to follow the law.
Btw the laws you listed weren't illegitimate, they were simply laws you disagree with.
Laws against escaping slavery, pot, and alcohol weren't illegitimate? Please, do tell, because this is about as weird as it gets.
Which is why for two of those things the constitution was amended to make future laws on the topic illegitimate. Which meant they were legitimate before.
This is not true. When laws change, it's only just that past offenders have their sentences commuted (at the very least). This is rudimentary legal theory, dude.
A rule of law deontologist is exactly the kind of person who both agrees with capturing fleeing slaves and with arresting slave owners or dealers depending on the law.
You can't simultaneously believe that slavery was unjust and also that escaping slavery can be a legitimate crime.
Entering a place you are forbidden to entry by the owners of the place is a very basic form of aggression even if you don't use further violence after you are in.
Trespassing borders is identical to trespassing private property.
Being against trespassers isn't the same as being against people who you are ok to enter coming in
Again, batshit crazy. The state using borders to forceably limit the supply of renters and workers is aggression against landlords and employers. Crossing from Mexico to Texas is the same as crossing from Illinois to Indiana. No harm, no foul. Victimless crime isn't crime.
They were legitimate, passed by congress using the constitutional framework in a democracy. As legitimate as it can get.
Legitimate means "made legal" literally. If something is formally legal and the procedures are followed, it's legitimate. It doesn't mean "moral" outside of the legal aspect.
Doesn't matter how much you disagree with a law to determine legitimacy of the law.
You can claim the entire system is illegitimate if it's not a democracy so all laws produced are illegitimate. But if the system is legitimate as clearly the USA were when slavery was legal, then those laws were legitimate as well.
Try to read again the part about the amendments: the amendments made FURTHER laws re slavery illegitimate. Ie NOW it would be illegitimate to have rules allowing slaves and so on. But it was legitimate back then.
Same as federal income tax would have been illegitimate before they passed an amendment allowing for it.
I can certainly believe that something is unjust yet unjust laws can be legitimate lol. Legitimacy has no moral connotation. I am against tariffs but tariffs aren't illegitimate. I want the FDA abolished but it looks to be legitimate (i think it's unconstitutional but my opinion doesn't matter: if courts say it's constitutional , it becomes so).
Didn't watch it, but if Victor and his basement-dwelling brethren hated it, it was probably pretty good.
I think that is too harsh, but I do think it is fair to that the far left with a strong stance on the issue has to decide if they want to move towards influence, or if they want to remain in that comfortable political place where you just want to complain about others and retweet hot takes and half-truths.
The former means haggling for influence by delivering votes, because that is still the most important currency in elections. The latter requires nothing, so it is certainly the easy way out. The latter almost invariably labels the former as sell-outs, which is probably the main way this movement consistently shoots itself in the foot.
The far left, like their counterparts on the right, also need to realize that a lot of pundits and central personalities on social media has no incentive to be part of a solution. Their business thrive when problems persist. I'm sure there are well-meaning souls on those platforms, but hate-influencers are a thing.
As for former comments on protests, that organized protests happens in places where they can influence stuff is normal. Democrats are also the ones currently residing in the White House and asking for another term. They'll meet stiffer political demands than the opposition.
"only democrats want to solve problems" is one of the funniest hallucinations i read in this forum in a while
