Jump to content
UnevenEdge

2024 Presidential Elections: the schadenfreude commences


NewBluntsworth

Recommended Posts

Wonder how this plays out with the pro-life crowd.

Quote

Trump, in a brief interview with NBC News, said he didn’t agree with the six-week ban adopted in Florida after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

“I think the six week (ban) is too short — it has to be more time,” Trump told NBC News. “I told them I want more weeks.”

Trump did not explicitly say how he, as a resident of Florida, would vote for Amendment 4, which is opposed by DeSantis and would provide a right to abortion under the state constitution until the fetus is viable or if necessary to protect the health of the mother. But he suggested that he is on the “yes” side.

“I’m going to be voting that we need more than six weeks,” he said.

The comments are part of a broader effort by the former president to moderate his stance on reproductive rights and abortion, which has become a major political liability for Republicans since the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority because of Trump’s nominees, overturned the 1973 case that established a right to the procedure.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/29/trump-measure-overturn-florida-six-week-abortion-ban-00176809

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2024 at 6:58 PM, Master-Debater131 said:

Your point on the environmental regulations has me wondering why there were so many in the first place.

[I'm trying to go through everything as well and since I quote a lot to keep my own thoughts straight, this might look weird, sorry. lol]

Here’s a list but the sources they linked to weren’t smart enough to establish redirects before moving their content… *grumbles in web development* Obviously, there are a lot so it would take a while to go over them one by one, but here are some that stood out to me as “WTF material”:

These two, when looked at side by side, are odd-

1) Revoked California’s power to set stricter tailpipe emissions standards than the federal government.

2) Replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, with a new version that would let states set their own rules.

Why would you revoke a state’s power to set their own tailpipe emissions standards, and then replace the Clean Power Plan to give power to the states? It’s like he’s picking and choosing based on who and what he dislikes. In the first, it’s California, in the second, it’s Obama. And as I continued to scroll through this list, I couldn’t help but notice he made it a point to target much of what Obama did which I 100%, fully and completely believe is because of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. I genuinely believe his leap into the presidency, and everything that came after, was a “fuck you” to Obama and it's been one hell of a villain arc.

3) Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions.

Is this really such a big ask? They should be tracking that info, they should be able to report it fairly easily. It’s just a report…

4) Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks.

Why were the states not allowed to do that without meddling? Our national parks need to be protected.

5) Lifted ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

=(

6) Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands.

7) Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they can cover the costs of removing rigs once they stop producing.

That’s blatantly pro-corporation, and it’s ridiculous. Why shouldn’t they have to remove their own ugly shit from the landscape? Why do we have to pay for it? Because you fucking know we will, we always do. Now this is a use of taxes I am 100% against.

8) Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution.

Another pro-corporation move - if they cause pollution, why wouldn’t they be responsible for cleaning it up? Why are companies never responsible for anything? We’ll be paying for this some day, too.

9) Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. 

He really went to town attacking national parks. He’s been called “The Most Anti-Nature President in U.S. History” : https://www.americanprogress.org/article/anti-nature-president-u-s-history/

The National Parks Conservation Association called it out, too.

10) Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interpretation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico.

Why was he even looking a 40 year old policy interpretation? Which corporation do we think he was looking out for here?

11) Loosened fishing restrictions intended to reduce bycatch of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna.

Another corporate butt-kissing move. There was a point to those restrictions: "Bluefin tuna bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico is particularly concerning because this area is the only known spawning ground for the western Atlantic population of bluefin tuna. Additionally, Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna were historically overfished and are still recovering from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill."

12) Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to developmental disabilities in children.

Another decision made specifically for corporations. We’ll worry about vaccines causing autism, but then we’ll do shit like this, that does cause developmental disabilities in children.

13) Rolled back most of the requirements of a 2017 rule aimed at improving safety at sites that use hazardous chemicals that was instituted after a chemical plant exploded in Texas.

Annnd another point for corporations, at the expense, this time, of workers, the surrounding land, the economy, etc. We're just gonna blow everything up, I guess… Reminds me of this tragedy, which was also caused by corruption and mismanagement: https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/08/03/they-killed-us-inside/investigation-august-4-beirut-blast 

 

So looking at that list, it’s clear that there are a lot of things being regulated that you and I don’t consider, or know about. Like the fact that “bluefin tuna were historically overfished and are still recovering from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.” So while it sounds like the government is just strangling the hell out of corporations, corporations are causing a significant amount of damage that they don’t regulate themselves on. They don't care even when 218 people die in an explosion that was 100% preventable. If the government doesn’t regulate this, they clearly don’t, and it costs lives, land, livelihoods, etc.

Most regulations are written in blood anyways - something bad has already happened that pre-dates the policy. We’re rarely, very rarely ever ahead of anything.

Quote

But in recent years there has been this continued creep to bring this kind of stuff into classrooms. People can say its not happening all they want, but it is. 

 

Could you give me some examples of what that means to you?

Quote

There are countless images of classrooms that look like a Pride parade went on a bender, got sick, and threw up the rainbow all over the room.

Do they actually have Pride paraphernalia or just rainbows? Because my childhood classrooms were always colorful, they were never drab so they look kind of like what I grew up in. Only now if you put a rainbow anywhere, you must be some liberal child pedo or something. I was thinking of putting a rainbow flag up outside my house at one point, because the whole damn thing was tan and I hate that so much, but then I thought, "Someone might tp my house..."

Quote

And they can be for it all they want, but at no time has an adult saying "Its OK, this can be our secret" to a kid ever turned out OK. 

I’ve never heard of this happening, do you have any news stories I can read?

I didn't reply to the stuff I agreed with, and I may have missed some things in my rush, but as you said, it's not intentional. =)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an interesting conversation happening on reddit (shocker lol): I'm a 10 year veteran. I have disagreed with many of bidens policies and planned on voting for trump, but then I remembered Mattis resigned as SECDEF, and looked into it. I will not be voting for trump any longer.

Someone compiled a list that is so damning I can't believe - well, I can - that we're not talking about it more:

Quote

 

I'd advise listening to the people that ran Trump's presidency last time around.

Trump's 2nd Sec of Defense Esper says that Trump is a threat to continued democracy in the US.

https://www.aol.com/trumps-defense-secretary-fox-news-former-president-threatens-our-democracy-070019008.html

Trump's 1st Sec of Defense Jim Mattis says that Trump is a threat to the US Constitution who uses Nazi like tactics to divide Americans:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/

Trump's National Security Advisor says Trump is unfit to serve in the office of the Presidency:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bolton-excoriates-trump-fresh-introduction-his-memoir-2024-01-30

And Trump's longest serving Chief of Staff and former 4 Star general John Kelly talking about Trump:

“A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on evangelical Christians, on Jews, on working men and women,” Kelly continued. “A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.

“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/john-kelly-donald-trump-us-service-members-veterans/index.html

Trump's Vice President says that Trump should 'never be President again.'

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/07/pence-says-trump-should-never-be-president-again-launching-2024-bid-with-potent-attacks/

Maybe it was Trump tweeting Pence was a traitor and then a crowd of his supporters hunted through the capital building chanting 'hang Mike Pence' and Trump approved of that.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/jan-6-hearing-trump-thought-pence-deserved-chants-to-hang-him-aide-says.html

These aren't Democrats, only one is even a rival Republican politician. They are the people that served at the very highest levels in Trump's presidency, working with him on a daily basis.

This is completely without precedent in American history.

 

Apparently Mattis is very well-liked so it's especially terrible that he resigned. If you have any respect for vets you just can't ignore this stuff. It's an either or situation - you either stand with vets or you don't.

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these numbers are accurate, Trump campaign is basically ceding the airwaves for virtually everything on the table (268-D) and staking the entire election on PA/GA (on the assumption of holding NC).

A national election decided by three states.

 

EDIT:

Chair of Wisconsin Dems clarified the Trump campaign is buying ads in real-time, so I guess that lets them pivot quicker but probably less cost effective? 

Edited by Raptorpat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

If these numbers are accurate, Trump campaign is basically ceding the airwaves for virtually everything on the table (268-D) and staking the entire election on PA/GA (on the assumption of holding NC).

A national election decided by three states.

 

EDIT:

Chair of Wisconsin Dems clarified the Trump campaign is buying ads in real-time, so I guess that lets them pivot quicker but probably less cost effective? 

We’re feeling it here in Georgia. Any sort of ad break is either Kamala being positive about Kamala or Trump being negative about Kamala (there exist no positive Trump ads). It’s ceaseless.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume he got fired because he effectively leaked internal deliberations that weren't supposed to trickle down to the volunteer level. Like even if the actual decision makers pulled the plug on NH, you're not supposed to admit it out loud.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some online pundits are making guesses about the Trump campaign's strategy based on spending on upcoming TV and radio ads. Apparently the only two states that Trump is dedicating much money to are Pennsylvania and Georgia. 

Putting all the eggs in those two baskets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Belize said:

Apparently the only two states that Trump is dedicating much money to are Pennsylvania and Georgia. 

Putting all the eggs in those two baskets.

 

13 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

Chair of Wisconsin Dems clarified the Trump campaign is buying ads in real-time, so I guess that lets them pivot quicker but probably less cost effective? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SwimOdin said:

We’re feeling it here in Georgia. Any sort of ad break is either Kamala being positive about Kamala or Trump being negative about Kamala (there exist no positive Trump ads). It’s ceaseless.

I loved how you'd have two Dumpster ads in a row with one of Harris listing all the various costs of things that have gone up and the cut to how it's totally 'Bidenomics!' and the next one is claiming that she doesn't know how much things costs all!

Like, I know you can't read but you should be able to look at those two ads and see that they contradict themselves.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SwimOdin said:

We’re feeling it here in Georgia. Any sort of ad break is either Kamala being positive about Kamala or Trump being negative about Kamala (there exist no positive Trump ads). It’s ceaseless.

ooooh. let's play. "which county is the worst??"

me first.

MTG will be here 10.05 to rally for trump. 

your turn. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really hurts to hear Kamala Harris and Tim Walz come to Pittsburgh and talk negatively about the potential acquisition of US Steel by Nippon Steel. I mainly agree with this opinion piece.

https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2024/09/04/harris-nippon-united-steelworkers-trump-vance-shapiro/stories/202409040013

Of course, I suppose I'm uniquely affected by this problem, but still. 😑 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, discolé monade said:

ooooh. let's play. "which county is the worst??"

me first.

MTG will be here 10.05 to rally for trump. 

your turn. 

I’m in Cobb. We’re consistently terrible, but at least no Republican has won the county since Romney.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Insipid said:

It really hurts to hear Kamala Harris and Tim Walz come to Pittsburgh and talk negatively about the potential acquisition of US Steel by Nippon Steel. I mainly agree with this opinion piece.

https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2024/09/04/harris-nippon-united-steelworkers-trump-vance-shapiro/stories/202409040013

Of course, I suppose I'm uniquely affected by this problem, but still. 😑 

I'm not sure why it would hurt personally.  Having an iconic steel mill owned by a foreign corporation is problematic, at best, even considering the buyer is friendly and fairly integrated into our economy already.  It creates the unpalatable trade off of a keeping American jobs while handing off control of a natural resource and the profits to a foreign corporation, which is a proverbial third rail for any political candidate.  That being said, I wouldn't interpret candidates speaking out against it as actual opposition either.  The US government isn't in a position to be critical of an ally, especially not one so critical to its bulwark against China.  This is more likely to be angling to put in some US friendly provisions during the negotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

I'm not sure why it would hurt personally.  Having an iconic steel mill owned by a foreign corporation is problematic, at best, even considering the buyer is friendly and fairly integrated into our economy already.  It creates the unpalatable trade off of a keeping American jobs while handing off control of a natural resource and the profits to a foreign corporation, which is a proverbial third rail for any political candidate.  That being said, I wouldn't interpret candidates speaking out against it as actual opposition either.  The US government isn't in a position to be critical of an ally, especially not one so critical to its bulwark against China.  This is more likely to be angling to put in some US friendly provisions during the negotiation.

It's a personal problem of which you know why. Japan was the main US industrial competitor during the time the Rust Belt became . . . well, rusty, and there are many older citizens who remember that time. That anti-Japan industry sentiment has mellowed much, now that China has become the main contender. Of course, you still have many who think China and Japan are the same regardless of the context, but I digress. The fact is although I suppose this could be angling to get a better deal, I think it's more to appeal to working class and older voters who remember those times. It's politics after all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Insipid said:

It's a personal problem of which you know why. Japan was the main US industrial competitor during the time the Rust Belt became . . . well, rusty, and there are many older citizens who remember that time. That anti-Japan industry sentiment has mellowed much, now that China has become the main contender. Of course, you still have many who think China and Japan are the same regardless of the context, but I digress. The fact is although I suppose this could be angling to get a better deal, I think it's more to appeal to working class and older voters who remember those times. It's politics after all.

Both can be true simultaneously.  My point is that once the election is over, the opposition likely dissipates.  I would never discount racism; I just don't think it's much of, if at all, a factor here because of how deep anti-Chinese sentiment runs.  Stupid white people might assume that anyone that has ethnic Han features is Chinese, but they still know the difference between Japanese and Chinese corporations.  In fact, if this deal does not go through, there is likely a Chinese proxy rather than a mythical American savior waiting in the wings to swoop in.  It's a brutal and somewhat craven game of cat and mouse, where, ultimately, politicians find a way to shine the light in another direction and let the deal go through, out of sight.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Insipid said:

Japan was the main US industrial competitor during the time the Rust Belt became . . . well, rusty, and there are many older citizens who remember that time

As I was told in college, the fault lies with the US Iron & Steel manufacturers.  In the 70s, a US research group came up with a way to make the metals better & cheaper, but it would have meant major retooling of the factories.  The US companies demurred (read as "That'll hurt our profits!") and Japan bought the process instead.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...