Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:


I mean you can make a Shakespeare’s Sister type argument that there were contemporary minds as brilliant as theirs that weren’t allowed to develop and / or have a voice, but to argue they were anything other than the among the brightest is patently wrong. Their writings and actions literally set the course for world history  

The shitshow we have now is a direct result of the compromises that had to be made to get the slave states into the union. Without them there is no United States, and GB likely retakes the former colonies within 20 years. With hindsight maybe that’s a better outcome, but that’s a moral/ethical argument and has nothing to do with relative intellect 

 

 

It ultimately doesn't matter what you or I think about their intellect. Like Sark in 2021, we're still stuck with the byproducts of our predecessors' shortcomings.

The reason I originally brought up this hard truth is because the mystique that surrounds the founding fathers and the Constitution has the effect of shielding it from meaningful debate. By that I mean, the only places it gets talked about with some objectivity are academia and corners of the internet, places that wield no power to actually do anything.

It's funny because the same people following this thread who are having to constantly watch these polls, after having to force out the presumptive nominee due to his Jackson Arnoldian inability to win, are only in this position because of the hard truth I've pointed out. I love the good parts of our Constitution, but we are deluding ourselves if we think it's the product of a bona fide brain trust.

Posted
2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

 

IMG_3394.gif.50f0756dd4e63d8979eb39f17d7678d9.gif

I think that is a spectacularly bad take.  But I guess it’s conceivably possible that all the respected historians are wrong and you are correct.  

 

I mean, yeah.  There weren't a whole lot of others bucking their monarchies and coming up with governmental alternatives.

The First Republic was destroyed from within by Napoleon, essentially, and they arguably had all the political philosophers of the time.

Lords and the monarch (formally) retained veto over the Democratic Commons until the 20th Century.

So, yeah, there was some luck involved, but the design and implementation was a bit better than decent, despite all the flaws. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It ultimately doesn't matter what you or I think about their intellect. Like Sark in 2021, we're still stuck with the byproducts of our predecessors' shortcomings.

The reason I originally brought up this hard truth is because the mystique that surrounds the founding fathers and the Constitution has the effect of shielding it from meaningful debate. By that I mean, the only places it gets talked about with some objectivity are academia and corners of the internet, places that wield no power to actually do anything.

It's funny because the same people following this thread who are having to constantly watch these polls, after having to force out the presumptive nominee due to his Jackson Arnoldian inability to win, are only in this position because of the hard truth I've pointed out. I love the good parts of our Constitution, but we are deluding ourselves if we think it's the product of a bona fide brain trust.

It’s laughable you think the internet and various corners of it have no power. Those corners have subverted democracy, pushed white nationalism to mainstream, and shaped America for the worst. To pretend that it doesn’t have the power to do positive things as well is fucking insane and fatalistic. 
 

people on this shitty corner of the internet basically invented the concept of an NIL collective and brought Texas football back from the fucking abyss. The stance that places where people can talk and express ideas is inherently powerless is possibly the dumbest take I’ve ever heard anywhere. 
 

as for the bolded above, it’s apparent that you have zero concept of the difference between Truth and Opinion. Which is why almost no one takes you seriously when you go on these fucking asstastic, fully gaped rants. You sound like Iconoclast Texan. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

No, they'd be wicked smart today, too.

yeah, i've been to Monticello...if ol' TJ wasn't a freaking genius he was at minimum a super nerd lol

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, SydneyCarton said:

It’s laughable you think the internet and various corners of it have no power. Those corners have subverted democracy, pushed white nationalism to mainstream, and shaped America for the worst. To pretend that it doesn’t have the power to do positive things as well is fucking insane and fatalistic. 
 

people on this shitty corner of the internet basically invented the concept of an NIL collective and brought Texas football back from the fucking abyss. The stance that places where people can talk and express ideas is inherently powerless is possibly the dumbest take I’ve ever heard anywhere. 
 

as for the bonded above, it’s apparent that you have zero concept of the difference between Truth and Opinion. Which is why almost bo one takes you seriously when you go I these fucking asstastic, fully gaped rants. You sound like Iconoclast Texan. 

We're talking about two different things here.

I'm talking about meaningful criticism of the founding fathers and rejecting the premise that the Constitution is infallible and must be followed no matter what.

You're talking about something much broader. Of course the internet can bring good things and bad things to life. But so far, it has not actually changed the Constitution.

Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

It’s laughable you think the internet and various corners of it have no power.

The actual laughable part is completely eliding over the fact the actual problem is 45% of the country is voting for Trump.

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

We're talking about two different things here.

I'm talking about meaningful criticism of the founding fathers and rejecting the premise that the Constitution is infallible and must be followed no matter what.

You're talking about something much broader. Of course the internet can bring good things and bad things to life. But so far, it has not actually changed the Constitution.

Literally, LITERALLY, no one who frequents this fucking board believes any of the things bolded above. Fucking no one. Attempting to paint anyone with that fucking brush is laughably pathetic, and most importantly arguing in bad faith. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, G650 said:

The actual laughable part is completely eliding over the fact the actual problem is 45% of the country is voting for Trump.

Sir, I’ve been told that the real problem with this country is the way the founding fathers crafted our government. 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, G650 said:

The actual laughable part is completely eliding over the fact the actual problem is 45% of the country is voting for Trump.

That's human nature though, and to their credit I think the founding fathers realized that a great many people are too stupid for their own good and wanted a government that was able to protect them from themselves.

I just think they didn't do a good enough job with the constitution.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Chainsaw’d

Add it to the pile.

Derka’d

slorch’d

Rocko’d

chainsaw’d

who else has earned this dubious distinction?  I know I’m missing several.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Jive Turkey said:

Add it to the pile.

Derka’d

slorch’d

Rocko’d

chainsaw’d

who else has earned this dubious distinction?  I know I’m missing several.  

Gil Bang’d?

Stanco’d?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Literally, LITERALLY, no one who frequents this fucking board believes any of the things bolded above. Fucking no one. Attempting to paint anyone with that fucking brush is laughably pathetic, and most importantly arguing in bad faith. 

I hope you are right, but the mystique is a real thing. I can't think of a politician who doesn't at least pay lip service to how great and wonderful the founding fathers and constitution are.

Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I hope you are right, but the mystique is a real thing. I can't think of a politician who doesn't at least pay lip service to how great and wonderful the founding fathers and constitution are.

Yes it’s a real thing. But not fucking here it isn’t. 

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

He did and they've all been eroded because of the antidemocratic mechanisms these founding fathers put into the constitution.

Passing laws is one thing, but amending the Constitution as you're no doubt aware is a much higher hurdle to clear that doesn't happen very often without a bloody civil war preceding it

It's happened *checks notes* 27 times.

None of those amendments caused a civil war.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It ultimately doesn't matter what you or I think about their intellect. Like Sark in 2021, we're still stuck with the byproducts of our predecessors' shortcomings.

The reason I originally brought up this hard truth is because the mystique that surrounds the founding fathers and the Constitution has the effect of shielding it from meaningful debate. By that I mean, the only places it gets talked about with some objectivity are academia and corners of the internet, places that wield no power to actually do anything.

It's funny because the same people following this thread who are having to constantly watch these polls, after having to force out the presumptive nominee due to his Jackson Arnoldian inability to win, are only in this position because of the hard truth I've pointed out. I love the good parts of our Constitution, but we are deluding ourselves if we think it's the product of a bona fide brain trust.

There is a certain sanctity of the Constitution, yes, that precludes some from entertaining criticism of it.

By the same token, you can seriously discuss and criticize the shortcomings of the Constitution and the form of government it created without short-selling the Founding Fathers.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

It's happened *checks notes* 27 times.

None of those amendments caused a civil war.

I think you misread what I said. Anyway, the amendments we actually need are going to be a lot more politically unviable than repealing prohibition and regulating Congressional salary changes.

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a certain sanctity of the Constitution, yes, that precludes some from entertaining criticism of it.

By the same token, you can seriously discuss and criticize the shortcomings of the Constitution and the form of government it created without short-selling the Founding Fathers.

Fair enough.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I think you misread what I said. Anyway, the amendments we actually need are going to be a lot more politically unviable than repealing prohibition and regulating Congressional salary changes.

People who want change need to get better at politics. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

People who want change need to get better at politics. 

We can hope for and work toward that, but if the system is so rigged that it's practically impossible to accomplish, maybe the greater blame should lie with the rigged system.

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

People who want change need to get better at politics. 

Are you surprised that the guy who champions purity tests and a complete unwillingness to even understand the concept of compromise in regards to super left progressive positions doesn’t fundamentally understand the concept of politics?

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
30 minutes ago, G650 said:

The actual laughable part is completely eliding over the fact the actual problem is 45% of the country is voting for Trump.

I mean. I get the sentiment but even in major blowouts, the major party’s floor is pretty high (37-40%) and 2024 is probably the most polarized we’ve ever been. So Trump with a 45% floor sounds about right - US is 45/45 with 10% that can be swayed 

1964 - 38.5%
1980 - 41%
1984 - 40.6%
1972 - 37.5%
1932 - 39.6%
1936 - 36.5%

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

We can hope for and work toward that, but if the system is so rigged that it's practically impossible to accomplish, maybe the greater blame should lie with the rigged system.

You're diminishing all that has been accomplished within this system over the last 237 years.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Your numbers suggest it’s more like 35/35/30

Maybe 30-40 years ago, but in the past few elections? Not a chance either a Dem or Rep is getting under 45% without a major scandal or a Perot-type spoiler

The GOP destroyed the economy in 2008 and McCain still got 45.7%

Posted (edited)

The US is something like  30/30/40

The 40 is made up of three groups

1.  They are eligible to vote.....Will they even register to vote

2.  They are registered to vote.....Will they show up and vote?

3.  They are registered to vote and routinely show up to vote....Who will they vote for?

Hell maybe 25/25/50

Edited by Surly Bevo
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You're diminishing all that has been accomplished within this system over the last 237 years.

Imagine being so far left that David Dennison is dunking all over you for being myopic and absurd in your leftism. No offense, David, just stating that you’re left of most here. 

22 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Maybe 30-40 years ago, but in the past few elections? Not a chance either a Dem or Rep is getting under 45% without a major scandal or a Perot-type spoiler

The GOP destroyed the economy in 2008 and McCain still got 45.7%

To be fair, I don’t think the GOP destroyed the economy in 2008. Now, do I think their legislation changes in banking in decades prior made that happen? Absolutely. But what am I missing in 2008 specifically they did to wreck the economy? I always thought it was a combo of banking nonsense and the Clinton changed to Fanny and Freddie?

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Let's not relitigate the Financial Crises.  EVERYBODY had some degree of culpability there.  Big Financial institutions by far with the most, government for opening the doors (both parties) and not reigning it in, etc etc.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Maybe 30-40 years ago, but in the past few elections? Not a chance either a Dem or Rep is getting under 45% without a major scandal or a Perot-type spoiler

The GOP destroyed the economy in 2008 and McCain still got 45.7%

And that is totally fine. The issue is a large chunk of the country has no qualms about writing off democracy. The constitution has shit to do with that.

 

Insert whatever utopian form over government that dipshit is envisioning into the US, you are more than likely increasing Trumps chances at gaining the levers of power.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Well we can certainly scour at the politicians and voters that went through that and are still, or once again, on the path of complete deregulation because it’s how we prosper.   The politicians are bought by corporate interests for their opinions and votes, the people are just dumb animals that follow along. 

Posted

We need better progressive populists today. The OG's passed amendments instituting a national sales tax, direct senatorial elections, and women's suffrage (sure Prohibition was a screw up, but they passed yet ANOTHER amendment to fix that).

 

And that was in an equally polarized country where a majority were disenfranchised.

 

We can change things. We've done it before. Blaming the Founding Fathers is lazy and projection.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Imagine being so far left that David Dennison is dunking all over you for being myopic and absurd in your leftism. No offense, David, just stating that you’re left of most here. 

To be fair, I don’t think the GOP destroyed the economy in 2008. Now, do I think their legislation changes in banking in decades prior made that happen? Absolutely. But what am I missing in 2008 specifically they did to wreck the economy? I always thought it was a combo of banking nonsense and the Clinton changed to Fanny and Freddie?

Yes and Dems were quite complicit in laying the groundwork for 2008.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley: On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

To get slightly back on topic, I went by the Harris Walz TCDP shop on 53rd 1/2 street earlier today…and had trouble parking. There were easily a dozen volunteers inside working, and probably 15 people in there picking up signs, t-shirts, etc. I got some stuff to send the kids, and got a “COACH” shirt for myself.
Lotta good energy. Was nice to see.
The boy even ran into a guy walking down Dumbarton road in Glasgow, wearing a Harris Walz camo hat. Told him he liked his hat, they chatted a bit. The boy even commented - just good energy.

I seem to recall you saying political apparel is lame not too long ago. Hypocrite.

Posted

Hey look, @chainsaw decides to show he understands much less than he thinks he does and zealously defends some moronic takes that derive from that ignorance. News at 10.

Even better that this time his rant actually begins by questioning the intelligence of men who are head and shoulders above him. Irony at its finest. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Hey look, @chainsaw decides to show he understands much less than he thinks he does and zealously defends some moronic takes that derive from that ignorance. News at 10.

Even better that this time his rant actually begins by questioning the intelligence of men who are head and shoulders above him. Irony at its finest. 

You just don’t understand how Israel made all of this happen through their genocidal bloodlust and their collusion with our founding fathers to forever fuck us and the Palestinians over /chainsaw  

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
I seem to recall you saying political apparel is lame not too long ago. Hypocrite.

Huh?
I sure think making a political brand your entire identity is lame, even insane. I’ve never flown a flag of any candidate, ever, for example. And certainly not when I go to the beach or a tailgate. Never wrapped my truck in candidate symbols and photos. But I’ve had a t shirt, bumper stickers, and signs before. You know…normal stuff. Not weird.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

You're diminishing all that has been accomplished within this system over the last 237 years.

It's a system that has consistently held us back, allows 50-year established constitutional rights to be taken away on a whim, could lead to even more Trump despite losing the popular vote by a record margin, and even staunch liberals like RBG have said "I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

If the last 10 years have taught us anything, it's that everything this system has "accomplished" can be unraveled in an instant. If that's true, is it really me that's diminishing those accomplishments? Or is it the precarious foundation on which they're resting?

Posted
4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It's a system that has consistently held us back, allows 50-year established constitutional rights to be taken away on a whim, could lead to even more Trump despite losing the popular vote by a record margin, and even staunch liberals like RBG have said "I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

If the last 10 years have taught us anything, it's that everything this system has "accomplished" can be unraveled in an instant. If that's true, is it really me that's diminishing those accomplishments? Or is it the precarious foundation on which they're resting?

Your life can be unraveled in an instant by a bus as you walk across a street, does that unravel and diminish every good thing you’ve done in your life? 

Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Your life can be unraveled in an instant by a bus as you walk across a street, does that unravel and diminish every good thing you’ve done in your life? 

Well, you'd think that a group of guys trying to make a tyranny-proof system of government should be judged on whether the end result was tyranny-proof.

I never marketed myself as being speeding bus-proof and would humbly request that I not be judged on that criteria.

Posted
On 9/21/2024 at 10:20 AM, Aqua Buddha said:

She’s gonna run a train on his ass.  I think the margin will surprise some people.

This is exactly what I'm thinking, just judging from the momentum I'm seeing in anecdotal evidence and the polls y'all are posting.

Everyone ... JUST GO VOTE.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Well, you'd think that a group of guys trying to make a tyranny-proof system of government should be judged on whether the end result was tyranny-proof.

I never marketed myself as being speeding bus-proof and would humbly request that I not be judged on that criteria.

You give someone 250 years to find the chinks in the armor of a system, in a society and species that has evolved in ways the original founders couldn’t possibly have predicted, and I feel pretty confident that chinks will be found an exploited. Given 250 years even you might actually evolve and come up with a good idea. Either way, it’s on us to make adjustments as we go along, which we have many times. 
 

also, I’d love for you to show us all the documentation of the founding fathers sucking each others dicks and proclaiming they authored a full proof government completely impenetrable to tyranny. Like did they do a world tour proclaiming that shit somewhere that we all missed? Oh, no, it’s yet another false assertion that only exists in your secular brain. They never marketed themselves by that criteria either, you fucking liar. 
 

At some point people have to question whether or not you have a fucking agenda. 
 

also, it’s been 250 years and still no tyranny, although it’s getting close. Do you want to measure that against every other nation on earth thoughtout entire human history? Go ahead. We’ll wait. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

These have been huge problems for much longer than just the 2010s. Civil wars are not something that healthy democracies deal with, and the cause of the civil war was not beyond the imagination of the founding fathers.

If you want to debate about the founding fathers, start another thread for that. This thread is about the 2024 election and one of the many antidemocratic consequences of the shitty system they left us with.

Posted
2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

also, I’d love for you to show us all the documentation of the founding fathers sucking each others dicks and proclaiming they authored a full proof government completely impenetrable to tyranny

 I always thought this was apocryphal but apparently it’s a real quote 

Quote

On the page where McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj8

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...