September 10, 2024 Presidential Debate Thread. (Insert snarky subtitles here.)

#835
#835
BreatheUT said:
Karl Marx, who had studied law and philosophy, said, “Accuse your enemy of what you are doing, as you are doing it, to create confusion.”
Click to expand...

I'd never heard of this from Marx, so I had to Google it. I don't think he said it. Didn't really find anything on page 1 that credibly linked it to Marx. I did find this, which you lifted word-for-word.

1726066333646.png

And then I found this

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#837
#837
RavinDave said:
I have no love for Trump though I am a conservative and hope he wins. And I plan to vote for him. But my opinion is he blew it last night. He fell for all of her cheap shots and was angry and on the defensive all night. While Kamala was not held to account at all by the ABC idiots.
Click to expand...
I agree. He missed opportunities to press her on issues. He tried on late term abortion. Spent way too much time on defending his rally sizes. He also pressed on immigration but a lot of the average voters have no idea WTF he was talking about with immigrants eating people’s pets. He had to contrast what Kamala has said in the past and the way she’s voted in the past with what her platform is today. He didn’t do that and made it more about his ego.

I still think he is by far the better candidate in this election but he didn’t help himself in this debate. Could’ve pointed out gun buybacks, asked about where money was coming from for all of these programs she was proposing, asked how many more taxpayer dollars are going to illegal immigrants. Not one single person watching the debates gave a crap about rally sizes but he fell into that trap and wasted time better used for attacking her past record. His closing statement was by far his best moment in the debate he should’ve started there and pressed her the whole night on why she hasn’t done anything she’s proposing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and RavinDave
#841
#841
utvolpj said:
Evidently she didn't get taxed by Trump either and got under his skin. He's really a weak man when you can get him on defense
Click to expand...
😂 dude if Kamala had three people pressing her she would fall to pieces. Trump was stupid last night, didn’t help himself. Kamala is a candidate that has waffled on every single major issue she stood on. You talk about Trump lying, every damn thing about Kamala is a lie. Package up in a pretty package acceptable for consumption by idiots that don’t see how bad things have gotten. Housing, food, energy prices are up. You’ve got wars in multiple areas of the world now. You’ve got millions of illegals being shipped in to the country committing crimes. Is there any major metric that you’re better off by today than you were four years ago?

Hell I’m not even mentioning the secret service bungling, the fbi screwups, the Afghanistan withdrawal. This administration has demonstrated their incompetence over and over yet some people defend them. This is the absolute bottom of the barrel politically right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolFreakJosh, UT_Dutchman and InVOLuntary
#842
#842
Orangeslice13 said:
That’s the perfect example of where the media devolves its skills at shilling for democrats.


Anyone else here, besides me, lose significant portion of their family tree to the Dachau concentration camp?


No, then maybe stop throwing around Nazi propaganda to cover for the party that’s closest to the Nazis
Click to expand...
Heh. Yeah, you guys are always the victims. I mean Trump targets the conspiracy theorists and disaffected of our society, so sure you'll buy into anything.

It's also ABC's fault that Donald got curb stomped by Kamala.

DAMN LIBERAL MEDIA!!!
 
#845
#845
RockyTop85 said:

Been described in a few different places since 2002, but this was the first result.
Click to expand...
I found the article to be very self aggrandizing. too much "me, I and mine" in there to sit well as an objective argument.

the second argument seems to be implying some sort of age restriction as well. there is nothing else mentioned in this plan to stop an older justice to be appointed to the SC, so this point isn't really negated by the plan.

The Third argument presented here clearly shows this is not a constitutional/better government/better judiciary he is seeking. He wants judges more in tune with the current "mood"? what relevance is the "mood" of the nation?

the fifth and sixth arguments have nothing to do with anything "Magical number of 18" bs? I don't want our courts decided on some type of assumed mysticism. just seems like the author is seeking things to fill out their "argument". the sixth argument makes some sense, but trying to tie it to some sort of significance with the magical 18 just really weakens the argument.

7. voters should have nothing to do with the courts. this just seems to argue FOR partisanship in the courts, rather than removing it.

9 is funny, justice humility.

12 is completely irrelevant to our country. trying to point towards foreign nations as justification is bad. 11 at least points to the states and is a much better argument.

13 is in conflict with the flaw I pointed out in 7.

15, 16, and 17 are the same point, just explained and extrapolated differently. they aren't bad points, just clearly filler to hit their 18 magic number.

its not a bad plan overall, but the justifications and reasoning behind about half of the points for it in this article are just bad. 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15. Not sure what 18 means.

interesting concept, but I think there are some real flaws. and I think without some sort of "screening" process you aren't going to avoid some of the base issues. and in the current election swing we would have had 2 appointed by a mentally Biden, 2 appointed by Trump, 4 appointed by Obama, 1 by Bush, hard to see to see that as balanced. unless they are going to enforce the political party of the president to change every term, this doesn't seem to really fix the issue it claims. it also makes the presidential election a pseudo election of justices, which will definitely tie a justice to their president as almost running mates.

a much better solution would be screening the candidates on some type of actual "constitutional" or neutrality basis. to make it completely irrelevant who appoints them, or when. you can still do 18 years with that.
 
Last edited:
#847
#847
volsforever27 said:
Honest question. Did anyone learn anything especially about Kamala?

She didn’t answer anything.
Click to expand...
That’s one major takeaway. From the first question to her closing remark the goal was to avoid and use up the time with memorized remarks.

Trump missed opportunities to make her get sidetracked but was irritated to rein it in. Golden opportunity was her chastising his crowds…he missed an opportunity on speaking of the two hit who survived and the one who died.
 
#850
#850
InVOLuntary said:
I this would have been the best year for a third party candidate to emerge. No viable 3rd party candidate did.
Click to expand...
there were some out there, they have now aligned with the other various candidates but they were there. it was the same self defeating argument voters have used forever.

"I won't vote third party because they can't get enough votes to justify my vote." because no one is willing to take the first step, everybody is stuck.

got to break yourselves of the habit, and just vote for people you actually want. willing to bet in the case of "blind" vote the third party would shake out a lot better than when the two parties tell the voters a third party is a wasted vote.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top