Politics Official 2024 Presidential Election Thread

The Bible was written so vague that you can interpret anything in it to fit someone’s narrative.

 

New York Times continues to go out on a limb to give a pro Trump spin. Headline Trump agrees to debate.
Wrong
He backed out of previously agreed upon debate. Then proposed a debate on Trump friendly Fox with him picking moderators, time and place and no fact checking.
A correct headline would be After backing out of debate, Trump demands new format to benefit him.

 

Kinda sorta like the Second Amendment.........

 

Boy they’re really angling the black vote. Desperate measures.

The campaign knows they’re in no place to bring up character infractions regarding infidelity so they hire paid actors to do so.

They also stage the 4 black people in the crowd to be directly behind the podium.

Trump campaign is in meltdown mode worse than the great PapaG exodus of Ripcitytwo lore.

 

Almost like that was the intention...

?

?

!

 

Only if you want to ignore plain English...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
tells you the intent is for the people to have the capability of maintaining their own freedom.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is incredibly clear.

 

The bible is a collection of stories from multiple sources. It wasn’t ‘written’ in any particular way.

 

I heard someone call Vance ‘ferret face’ and it’s really, really accurate.

 

Correct. Those stories were also retold many times before being written down in their current version (anyone remember the telephone game?) and of course the meanings of some words change over time. If the bible is the accepted word of god for the reader, I'd hope it's taken with some context to accept the general gist of the stories/lessons and not taken literally. Plus or minus, it's been 2000 years

STOMP

 

Sounds like a bunch of tall tales that the feeble eat up.

 

Like I said.......

 

How else could you possibly interpret it?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The description it gave for said arms were to enable militia. Which were civilian infantry.

You'd literally have to try and make it mean something other than it actually says to interpret it any other way than intending all law abiding civilians the right to keep and use infantry level weaponry in order to be the most capable civilian infantry possible.

I can understand making the argument for changing it. But I don't understand the argument that it means something else.

 

Yes. When the law was written. That's how we know what they intended.
We're supposed to interpret laws by the definitions commonly used at the time of writing.

If that is determined to be wrong then Congress (or the states) can update the law with an amendment.

That hasn't been done to the 2nd amendment.