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

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

As I said, it's a hard truth.

They were wicked smart for their time, but would be pretty average today.

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

[Js1 87185]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The 2020 men thing is surprising

I used the Pew report, but there's no "definitive" numbers.

CBS had men Trump +8, women +15 Biden, black voters +75 Biden, 18-29 +36 Biden, independents +13 Biden, white college grads +3 Biden, white no college +35 Trump, seniors +5 Trump

So moral of the story - fuck if I know, but the NBC poll does not look far off 2020 in its sub-sample breakdowns, with Harris doing way better with women and college grads (uh duh, the 2 groups that have fled the GOP the fastest since Dobbs)

[chainsaw 10292]

Just now, David Dennison said:

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

I doubt that, and the shitshow they've left us with is pretty strong evidence of their mediocrity.

[TheStoicPaisano 9953]

 

[chainsaw 10292]

Just now, Js1 said:

I used the Pew report, but there's no "definitive" numbers.

CBS had men Trump +8, women +15 Biden, black voters +75 Biden, 18-29 +36 Biden, independents +13 Biden, white college grads +3 Biden, white no college +35 Trump, seniors +5 Trump

So moral of the story - fuck if I know, but the NBC poll does not look far off 2020 in its sub-sample breakdowns, with Harris doing way better with women and college grads (uh duh, the 2 groups that have fled the GOP the fastest since Dobbs)

It's easy to forget how popular a full-strength Biden could be especially when there's a mismanaged global pandemic. Men really did love the guy, compared to the generic D. But that love collapsed as he appeared more and more frail through his term.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

I doubt that, and the shitshow they've left us with is pretty strong evidence of their mediocrity.

They also provided a straightforward way to change it. If we can't, that's on us.

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It's easy to forget how popular a full-strength Biden could be especially when there's a mismanaged global pandemic. Men really did love the guy, compared to the generic D. But that love collapsed as he appeared more and more frail through his term.

It collapsed as prices went up. 

[chainsaw 10292]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

They also provided a straightforward way to change it. If we can't, that's on us.

It was so straightforward half the states opted to secede a few decades later.

In retrospect, the compromises made to appease slavers have had terrible consequences on a multigenerational scale. Even things that, on their face, have nothing to do with white supremacy and enjoy overwhelming popular support are politically impossible due to the filibuster.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

It was so straightforward half the states opted to secede a few decades later.

In retrospect, the compromises made to appease slavers have had terrible consequences on a multigenerational scale. Even things that, on their face, have nothing to do with white supremacy and enjoy overwhelming popular support are politically impossible due to the filibuster.

It was a third of the states, but that's beside the point. They wouldn't have been states and there wouldn't have been a union without the compromises made in Philadelphia.

The filibuster is a Senate rule that can be changed by a simple majority vote. 

[chainsaw 10292]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It was a third of the states, but that's beside the point. They wouldn't have been states and there wouldn't have been a union without the compromises made in Philadelphia.

The filibuster is a Senate rule that can be changed by a simple majority vote. 

The Senate owes its existence to the appeasement of slavers.

[SydneyCarton 49505]

It’s so weird. Chainsaw will behave normally for about a week or so, and then he’ll go on some hyper fringe rant that has to work real hard to find ways to shit on America. There’s plenty of legit reasons and ways to shit on America, dude, you don’t have to try and invent new ones. 
 

The founding fathers were flawed men of their time, but they literally created the framework from which all modern democracies work to emulate. Retroactively calling them dumb because they weren’t sages with visions into the future and their framework didn’t imagine modern society or the fact that we’d arguably regress as a species doesn’t mean they were dumb. 

 

I can’t wait to see how he’s going to try and tie this to Israel. 
 

 

[chainsaw 10292]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

the framework

What do you mean by this, exactly?

[SydneyCarton 49505]

13 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It was so straightforward half the states opted to secede a few decades later.

In retrospect, the compromises made to appease slavers have had terrible consequences on a multigenerational scale. Even things that, on their face, have nothing to do with white supremacy and enjoy overwhelming popular support are politically impossible due to the filibuster.

You realize the filibuster in its current form is literally a modern adaptation, right? And it could be changed with any majority vote. But that’s the founding father’s problem? 
 

Stop. Get Help.gif

[SydneyCarton 49505]

4 hours ago, chainsaw said:

What do you mean by this, exactly?

Are you going to attempt to argue that all of the modern democracies of the world haven’t attempted to emulate the framework that was created in the United States? 
 

Fuck this, I am not going to waste my fucking Sunday arguing with your ass. Just scream Genocide a few more times and then argue how the democratic party is fucking itself by not catering only to the hyper left progressive wing of the party that most people loathe and let’s just declare the Chainsaw hat trick, ok?

Edited September 22 by SydneyCarton

[Js1 87185]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You realize the filibuster in its current form is literally a modern adaptation, right? And it could be changed with any majority vote. But that’s the founding father’s problem? 
 

Stop. Get Help.gif

I mean, it did exist in some form from the beginning and was used frequently after 1850 once it got a name . It wasn’t a formal rule until 1917 and adapted in 1975 to three-fifths instead of two-thirds 

[chainsaw 10292]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Are you going to attempt to argue that all of the modern democracies of the world haven’t attempted to emulate the framework that was created in the United States? 
 

Fuck this, I am not going to waste my fucking Sunday arguing with your ass. Just scream Genocide a few more times and then argue how the democratic party isn’t fucking itself by catering only to the hyper left progressive wing of the party that most people loathe and let’s just declare the Chainsaw hat trick, ok?

I'm trying to understand the point you wanted to make. I'm not sure I can agree that the framework has been emulated, but even if it has been emulated, is that proof that the framework is good? It all depends what you meant by "framework."

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are here stressing about an Electoral College tie due to the shortcomings of the founding fathers. I'm grateful that the polls are trending in a good direction, but also pissed this is even a realistic possibility.

[David Dennison 19542]

12 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The Senate owes its existence to the appeasement of slavers.

The United States of America owes its existence to the appeasement of slave owners.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Straying quickly into jlaw.okay.gif-land

[BamaATL 16593]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The United States of America owes its existence to the appeasement of slave owners.

Well, that and pirates and puritans and a bunch of other people that created a series of oddball agreements and contradictions.  

[SydneyCarton 49505]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, it did exist in some form from the beginning and was used frequently after 1850 once it got a name . It wasn’t a formal rule until 1917 and adapted in 1975 to three-fifths instead of two-thirds 

I said Current form man.

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I'm trying to understand the point you wanted to make. I'm not sure I can agree that the framework has been emulated, but even if it has been emulated, is that proof that the framework is good? It all depends what you meant by "framework."

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are here stressing about an Electoral College tie due to the shortcomings of the founding fathers. I'm grateful that the polls are trending in a good direction, but also pissed this is even a realistic possibility.

Let’s try a different tact. Can you name a country whose history and form of government you admire and you believe they nailed it and got it all right? I’m being serious, can you name one? 
 

or do you just hate all of them and humanity as a whole? Because if it’s the latter then we are all exhausted by you showing up in a place with the closest thing you have to allies, people who agree America has a checked past and can and needs to do better, and have to listen to your careless bellyaching. 

[David Dennison 19542]

5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I'm trying to understand the point you wanted to make. I'm not sure I can agree that the framework has been emulated, but even if it has been emulated, is that proof that the framework is good? It all depends what you meant by "framework."

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are here stressing about an Electoral College tie due to the shortcomings of the founding fathers. I'm grateful that the polls are trending in a good direction, but also pissed this is even a realistic possibility.

Compromise is not a shortcoming. There would have been no union without the compromises made in Philadelphia. 

It's up to us to change it.

[safe sex 12010]

nm i don't really want to be involved

Edited September 22 by safe sex

[chainsaw 10292]

29 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Can you name a country whose history and form of government you admire and you believe they nailed it and got it all right? I’m being serious, can you name one? 

History? No, everyone has skeletons.

Form of government? To my mind, the best available form of government is that of Ireland. It can be improved, but it's much more democratic that what we have here.

One could argue it was influenced by the US Constitution, but it's more closely related to the parliamentary system of the UK.

Edited September 22 by chainsaw

[G650 14437]

37 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I can’t wait to see how he’s going to try and tie this to Israel. 

Aww man you might as well have just said Beetlejuice

[chainsaw 10292]

19 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Compromise is not a shortcoming. There would have been no union without the compromises made in Philadelphia. 

It's up to us to change it.

Not all compromises are shortcomings, but these compromises have continually fucked us.

Remember, the compromises made in Philadelphia took years to be ratified by different colonies. It wasn't some overnight thing, and I don't think the sky would have fallen if the colonies had told them to fuck off and get back to the drawing board. But it's pointless to speculate. We are where we are, and now someone like Trump has a higher than 10% chance of assuming office.

[SizzleChest 8314]

58 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I doubt that, and the shitshow they've left us with is pretty strong evidence of their mediocrity.

You are exhibiting the same forefather level of wisdom you are espousing on this thread.

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Not all compromises are shortcomings, but these compromises have continually fucked us.

Remember, the compromises made in Philadelphia took years to be ratified by different colonies. It wasn't some overnight thing, and I don't think the sky would have fallen if the colonies had told them to fuck off and get back to the drawing board. But it's pointless to speculate. We are where we are, and now someone like Trump has a higher than 10% chance of assuming office.

It didn't take that long. The convention was in the summer of 1787. There was a presidential election in 1788.

We've had over two centuries to change the Constitution. We should probably do that.

[chainsaw 10292]

Just now, SizzleChest said:

You are exhibiting the same forefather level of wisdom you are espousing on this thread.

Good thing I'm not trying to establish a government. I'm okay with being mediocre.

[chainsaw 10292]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It didn't take that long. The convention was in the summer of 1787. There was a presidential election in 1788.

We've had over two centuries to change the Constitution. We should probably do that.

I'd love that but it's all but impossible politically.

[David Dennison 19542]

Whoops. Wrong thread.

Edited September 22 by David Dennison

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

I'd love that but it's all but impossible politically.

LBJ got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed.

Nothing is impossible politically. Get better at politics.

[SizzleChest 8314]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

LBJ got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed.

Nothing is impossible politically. Get better at politics.

Yeah, but LBJ was a moron and would blast podcast bullshit in today's environment - chainsaw, probably.

[chainsaw 10292]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

LBJ got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed.

Nothing is impossible politically. Get better at politics.

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

[SydneyCarton 49505]

20 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

History? No, everyone has skeletons.

So you’re just a general threadshitter, got it. 
 

Quote

Form of government? To my mind, the best available form of government is that of Ireland. It can be improved, but it's much more democratic that what we have here.

One could argue it was influenced by the US Constitution, but it's more closely related to the parliamentary system of the UK.

You’re so close to getting it. Now answer who the UK copied for their parliamentary system of government. And who France copied. 
 

I’ve got to say, blaming a bunch of people over 250 years ago for our current governmental woes instead of us for failing to change and improve them is a hell of a stance for an allegedly far left progressive to take. Why don’t you just call yourself a nihilist and be done with it?

[chainsaw 10292]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

So you’re just a general threadshitter, got it. 
 

You’re so close to getting it. Now answer who the UK copied for their parliamentary system of government. And who France copied. 
 

I’ve got to say, blaming a bunch of people over 250 years ago for our current governmental woes instead of us for failing to change and improve them is a hell of a stance for an allegedly far left progressive to take. Why don’t you just call yourself a nihilist and be done with it?

The 1706 Treaty of Union?

[SizzleChest 8314]

4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The 1706 Treaty of Union?

Good lord, you are so entombed by your purity test mindset, you can't even reason.  Maybe imma can start a thread for you that only you can read and post in.

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

[chainsaw 10292]

Just now, SizzleChest said:

Good lord, you are so entombed by your purity test mindset, you can't even reason.  Maybe imma can start a thread for you that only you can read and post in.

This is why I asked what the hell he meant by "framework" because it's a bit rich to point to the good parts of other governments and attribute the good parts to the founding fathers of the United States when the truth is most of it had developed elsewhere. We did not invent the broad principles of bicameralism or the separation of powers. At most we enjoyed some modest success with certain variations of those principles, and I can't think of a single successful country that has used the exact same variations as ours.

[SizzleChest 8314]

[Pato del Muerto 53506]

58 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

just hate all of them and humanity as a whole?

[G650 14437]

Y'all please stop engaging this fool.

[Sawbonz 28223]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

I doubt that, and the shitshow they've left us with is pretty strong evidence of their mediocrity.

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 

 

 

[chainsaw 10292]

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.

[Sawbonz 28223]

Chainsaw’d

[TwiceHorn 32079]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

 

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. 

[SydneyCarton 49505]

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 September 22 by SydneyCarton

[mchookem 16769]

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

[chainsaw 10292]

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.

[G650 14437]

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.

[SydneyCarton 49505]

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.