Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Quin_Dub

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What’s your point? It was one election, and if you look it up you’d see it was a mid-term with a massive blue wave against an unpopular president. And it was the largest single swing in the history of the Senate.

If you want a more objective view look at the presidential election results of those state since.

Republicans have carried Alaska 14 out of 15 times with the exception of 1964
Democrats have carried Hawaii 13 out of 15 times with the exceptions of 1972 and 1984.

That in itself constitutes a shift in voting patterns.

The GOP and Democratic parties of today bear little to no relationship to their counterparts in the 60's

I guess my point is that an argument saying that States should only be added in equal/opposite pairs doesn't really make sense beyond a snap shot in time.

If you look at DC & PR , whilst DC is definitely solidly blue , PR is far less so and would present an opportunity for at least 1 Senate seat for the GOP.

In terms of the Presidential elections , both new states would get 2 EC votes probably from a mix of 1 additional EC vote in the overall (for the PR voters) - going from 538 total to 539 and with States like California and New York losing a vote or two in the redistribution so I wouldn't see either new State massively impacting the Presidential elections.

You talk of "no taxation without representation" as being a key tenet in the founding of the US - That certainly applies in the case of DC - PR don't currently pay Federal taxes , but would do were they to become a States.

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

This time around the Senate actually likes the nominee so it’s not an issue.

I'm not being picky here but that's actually not correct as the senate is split along party lines on the act of the GOP pushing to fill the present vacancy on the USSC. The senate is not comprised solely of the GOP.

Has Trump even named the person he will be nominating [from the group of judges rumoured to be his favourites]?

VinLieger

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I said they’d treat the specific Federal laws as illigitmate. They’d still follow their own state laws.

Theres a difference between not enforcing and treating them as illegitimate which would effectively in my interpretation of your words be encouraging the breaking of federal laws.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Exactly. As I said before, the way an impasse like that is settled is both sides have to decide how far they’re willing to go.

Raiding pot sellers is on thing. I wonder would a Democrat led government like to try enforcing a mass gun confiscation in the red states?

From your cold dead hands ehh? Wow were all soooo impressed with how hard you believe the gun toting militia members in the red states are. They looooove their murica soooo much that they would be willing to take up an armed rebellion against their own democratically elected government?


Is that really what your sadly trying to infer without actually saying it?

Gbear

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I guess my point is that an argument saying that States should only be added in equal/opposite pairs doesn't really make sense beyond a snap shot in time.

It's also completely historically illiterate and myopic, because the US is not supposed to be a 2-party state.

Creating explicit conventions or laws that cemented the duopoly would be totally anti-democratic.

It's enough of a joke already.

briany

RIGOLO wrote: »

The obvious fallacy with that position is that its the left and Democrat supporters who are collapsing everything into ruin... #defund hte blace, antifa, burn the system down, BLM riots, Portland 100+ days of attacks on Federal buildings ...

Is there a consensus of polls and surveys that Democrat supporters are in favour of looting and rioting? Are 70 year old suburban Democrats from Boston in favour of burning everything down? Really?

Is your hardcore Antifa/BLM protestor with radical ideas particularly excited about Joe Biden, a man who seems designed from the ground up to appeal to middle of the road voters? Do they think their ideas would come to fruition under Biden? Really?

One thing that could be gleaned from Biden's sound primary win over Bernie Sanders is that the majority of Democrat voters are not particularly hard to the left at all, because if the majority of them were, there's probably be a 'yuge' difference in how this race would look right now.

CelticRambler

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What makes you think they didn’t?

Seriously, I’m looking forward to hearing an actual argument.

This:

Sean.3516 wrote: »

That’s why you usually add states two at a time and make them balance out politically.

Everything you've argued is built on the idea that a two-party system, based on non-representative democracy, is functional and healthy. It isn't: it's wide open to abuse (see examples of the US, the UK, France [esp from the 1960-2000s] and encourages tribalism. The very fact that there might be a requirement to "balance out politically" the addition of one state by finding another shows that the concept is fundamentally flawed.

The European Union has successfully grown in size and competence without feeling the need to "balance out politically" any new members; and has very effectively introduced pan-European legislation and standards (many of which are now default global standards) through consensual governance across a wide spectrum of political stances. There is no equivalent at any level of US politics, resulting in the toxic polarity that we see in action today and a chronic disenfranchisement of individual voters through the obsolete "all-or-nothing" electoral college system.

Bozacke

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I said they’d treat the specific Federal laws as illigitmate. They’d still follow their own state laws.


Exactly. As I said before, the way an impasse like that is settled is both sides have to decide how far they’re willing to go.

Raiding pot sellers is on thing. I wonder would a Democrat led government like to try enforcing a mass gun confiscation in the red states?

Sean, Are you Sean Hannity, because you’re certainly using an awful lot of Fox News twisted and inaccurate talking points. I really think you need to lay off Fox and maybe watch some RTÉ news and try and find out what’s really going on.

Sean.3516

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That in itself constitutes a shift in voting patterns.

Compared to what? They only became states in 1959, they hadn't been voting in Federal elections before that. Some people who thought Alaska would be reliant on Federal subsidies thought they would vote Democrat making it two blue states added. Eisenhower, the Republican President at the time had doubts and he was right. Oil was discovered in Alaska and they became self reliant and voted Republican in almost every election since then.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The GOP and Democratic parties of today bear little to no relationship to their counterparts in the 60's.

I guess my point is that an argument saying that States should only be added in equal/opposite pairs doesn't really make sense beyond a snap shot in time.

If states change their politics organically over time, that's fine. The point is that you shouldn't just use the mechanism for adding states to artificially boost your power in Congress.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If you look at DC & PR , whilst DC is definitely solidly blue , PR is far less so and would present an opportunity for at least 1 Senate seat for the GOP.

I'd have my doubts about that. From what I've seen Puerto Rico has had only two Republican governors in the last 30 years. If they do get statehood, they'll seek to have the Feds bail them out of their debt. I don't reckon any Republican administration would be willing to pass a bail out. Under those conditions you can be sure the Democrats will get those Senate seats.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

In terms of the Presidential elections , both new states would get 2 EC votes probably from a mix of 1 additional EC vote in the overall (for the PR voters) - going from 538 total to 539 and with States like California and New York losing a vote or two in the redistribution so I wouldn't see either new State massively impacting the Presidential elections.

Although that's true, Democrats plan to abolish the Electoral College anyway if they get the chance. They need a two thirds majority in Congress (both houses) for a constitutional amendment and two thirds of states. Four extra Senators and two more states onside would go a long way toward making that happen.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You talk of "no taxation without representation" as being a key tenet in the founding of the US - That certainly applies in the case of DC - PR don't currently pay Federal taxes , but would do were they to become a States.

A sensible solution to this rather than make DC a state would be to either abolish Federal taxes for DC residents, make it a sort of "duty free" zone. Another interesting idea I've heard would be to reduce the size of DC to a sort of Vatican style zone containing only government buildings. The people of DC would become residents of the neighbouring Maryland and would have representation as part of that state.

Sean.3516

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Actually ,McConnell announced that he wouldn't hold hearings long before Obama even put forward a nomination.

The decision had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of Merrick Garland , it was simply - We don't want Obama to get a SCOTUS nomination.

I don't know why this is an issue. If Republicans don't trust Obama to nominate someone they'd approve of, that's their prerogative. With the election coming up, they wanted to hold out for a possible Republican President.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Given that the filibuster was gone , they could have allowed the nomination but just not given him the votes , but McConnell was too worried that a Collins or a Murkowski would change sides so he couldn't take that risk , so he came up with his "excuse"

Again, that's his prerogative. I don't know why people think the Senate has an obligation to entertain a nomination.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly the same reason that he slow walked every single judicial nomination such that there was a massive backlog of positions to be filled once Trump took office.

It was a power-grab , pure and simple.

Are you moaning about the system or McConnell's politics?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The GOP know that they are losing ground rapidly in the US , their % of the vote is decreasing every single election - By stacking the courts they get to cling to power by ensuring they can block voting rights legislation etc.

Okay, you obviously don't know what "stacking the courts" means.

That's when you increase the amount of seats on a court simply so you can fill the court with your own nominees. Republicans haven't done that. They've just filled vacancies on courts already understaffed.

Sean.3516

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not being picky here but that's actually not correct as the senate is split along party lines on the act of the GOP pushing to fill the present vacancy on the USSC. The senate is not comprised solely of the GOP.

Fair enough, the controlling interest in the Senate (Republicans) like Trump's nominee and will confirm them.
By the way, the reason Republicans will be able to ram this through is because Democrats decided to get rid of the filibuster on judicial appointments back when they held the Senate. Cocaine Mitch has been making them pay for that ever since. I hope it makes the Democrats recognise the value of the filibuster but of course it won't. They're talking about eliminating it for all Senate business.

aloyisious wrote: »

Has Trump even named the person he will be nominating [from the group of judges rumoured to be his favourites]?

We know it will be one of two women.

Leroy42

Sean.3516 wrote: »

We know it will be one of two women.

Trump supporters must be going mad that he is been taken in by all this PC nonsense.

What about all the qualified men out there, but as usual people like Trump are too busy virtue signalling to look at what is best.

Kinda of like Biden picking a women VP candidate.

Am I right?

Sean.3516

VinLieger wrote: »

Theres a difference between not enforcing and treating them as illegitimate which would effectively in my interpretation of your words be encouraging the breaking of federal laws.

Not really. It would just mean they wouldn't be enforced.

VinLieger wrote: »

From your cold dead hands ehh? Wow were all soooo impressed with how hard you believe the gun toting militia members in the red states are. They looooove their murica soooo much that they would be willing to take up an armed rebellion against their own democratically elected government?

Well in that case, it wouldn't be militias but actual states squaring off against the Federal Government. If that sounds improbable to you it's because it is improbable. As I said it's never gonna happen. Nobody has the stomach for that.

Believe it or not I actually don't want that to happen.

A good rule of thumb for politics is never pass a law you're not willing to enforce at the point of a gun if necessary. Whether it's a marginal tax increase or a gun confiscation.

If Democrats haven't got the stones to deal with people trying to burn down courthouses, I highly doubt they're gonna do anything about gun owners who just want to be left the hell alone.

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don't know why this is an issue. If Republicans don't trust Obama to nominate someone they'd approve of, that's their prerogative. With the election coming up, they wanted to hold out for a possible Republican President.

What difference is there between that and what the Dems want in respect of the vacancy, seeing as they want to hold off on nomination until the election is over for a possible Democratic President? Do you think they have a different reason for their pushing the GOP to hold off on a vote until after the election?

Sean.3516

Leroy42 wrote: »

Trump supporters must be going mad that he is been taken in by all this PC nonsense.

What about all the qualified men out there, but as usual people like Trump are too busy virtue signalling to look at what is best.

Kinda of like Biden picking a women VP candidate.

Am I right?

The woman who's currently the favourite, Amy Coney Barret was also highly considered for the seat eventually taken by Kavanaugh.

So it's not just virtue signalling by picking a woman. She would have been near the top of Trump's list in any case.

Biden literally said he was picking a woman for the sake of picking a woman.

Sean.3516

aloyisious wrote: »

What difference is there between that and what the Dems want in respect of the vacancy, seeing as they want to hold off on nomination until the election is over for a possible Democratic President? Do you think they have a different reason for their pushing the GOP to hold off on a vote until after the election?

Obviously they're hoping to win back the Presidency and the Senate.

But Republicans already had the Senate in 2016, and now they have the Presidency too. There's no reason they can't press forward with whoever Trump goes with.

People mistook Republicans as saying in 2016 that the Senate should hold off on hearings in every election year no matter what. That this would be some new precedent.

In fact, it was a case of Republicans wanting to wait as an alternative to confirming an Obama nominee.

Water John

'Biden literally said he was picking a woman for the sake of picking a woman' Sean
Biden picked a woman to reflect the diversity of the people of the US, in the knowledge that he a selection of women who could well fulfil the role.

CelticRambler

Sean.3516 wrote: »

A good rule of thumb for politics is never pass a law you're not willing to enforce at the point of a gun if necessary.

That's some seriously messed up politics you believe in! :pac:

StringerBell

According to Ted Cruz it wasn't a new precedent. It was an old one, old principled republicans.

VinLieger

Sean.3516 wrote: »

A good rule of thumb for politics is never pass a law you're not willing to enforce at the point of a gun if necessary. Whether it's a marginal tax increase or a gun confiscation.

Firstly that's an absurd statement.

Secondly its not a rule of politics, you've co-opted a quote from an american law professor to make yourself seem edgy and cool. It has nothing to do with politics, he uses it to teach his law students about invoking the power of law.

Thirdly the reason its not a rule of politics is because it would only be anything close to applicable in countries like the united states that have more guns than people.

Leroy42

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The woman who's currently the favourite, Amy Coney Barret was also highly considered for the seat eventually taken by Kavanaugh.

So it's not just virtue signalling by picking a woman. She would have been near the top of Trump's list in any case.

Biden literally said he was picking a woman for the sake of picking a woman.

So you think there are no qualified men that woyld rank alongside her?

Good grief, you have even given in to the PC nonsense just to stick by your guy.

Biden does it, typical leftie pc rubbish. Trump does it and she is simply the best person for the job.

The hypocrisy is unreal.

kowloon

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Biden literally said he was picking a woman for the sake of picking a woman.

Yeah, he could have avoided that had he just spat out a name but the points scoring was too important.

looksee

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Obviously they're hoping to win back the Presidency and the Senate.

But Republicans already had the Senate in 2016, and now they have the Presidency too. There's no reason they can't press forward with whoever Trump goes with.

People mistook Republicans as saying in 2016 that the Senate should hold off on hearings in every election year no matter what. That this would be some new precedent.

In fact, it was a case of Republicans wanting to wait as an alternative to confirming an Obama nominee.

This is very convenient tunnel vision, and absolutely fails to answer the question that was asked.

So what about Linsey Graham's statement (quote from New York Times)

When Senator Lindsey Graham joined a Republican blockade of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016, he went out of his way to frame his position that a confirmation to the court should never be allowed in an election year as principled, apolitical and utterly permanent.

“I want you to use my words against me,” Mr. Graham said then, swearing that he would hold the same stance even if it meant denying a future Republican president the chance to confirm his chosen nominee.

Itssoeasy

Donald trump has refused to answer whether he’d ensure a peaceful transfer of power if he were to lose the election in November and as I say he gave the usual we will have to see what happens.

Water John

He also has signalled that he'll overrule the FDA and approve a vaccine.

briany

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Donald trump has refused to answer whether he’d ensure a peaceful transfer of power if he were to lose the election in November and as I say he gave the usual we will have to see what happens.

Trump loses:-

"The election was rigged"

Trump loses in a landslide:-

"The election was extremely rigged"

Trump wins:-

"I won in spite of the rigging"

Trump wins in a landslide:-

"....and I really won with every demographic, including LGBTQ Mexican immigrants who the crooked Democrats bussed in to vote against me."

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1308897152874221569

He wont commit toa. peaceful of power after the election...this is getting scary.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

He also has signalled that he'll overrule the FDA and approve a vaccine.

The rub in that is that he's accused the FDA of politicizing the virus.

Water John

Eric Trump will have to give evidence in NY Trump Organisation investigation next month.
https://www.thejournal.ie/eric-trump-subpoena-5213380-Sep2020/

Timberrrrrrrr

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1308897152874221569

He wont commit toa. peaceful of power after the election...this is getting scary.

Biden needs to hammer him with this at the debates, He won't be able to move on to the next reporter and will be forced to give a straight yes/no answer.

Detritus70

Water John wrote: »

Eric Trump will have to give evidence in NY Trump Organisation investigation next month.
https://www.thejournal.ie/eric-trump-subpoena-5213380-Sep2020/

And that is why Trump is unleashing a full on crazy sh*tstorm, because he wants this news buried.
Forget all that bullsh*t about not conceding the election, it's a smokescreen.
This is the true story!

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/manhattan-da-vance-trump-could-face-tax-fraud-investigation.html

Early last month, the Manhattan district attorney’s office announced that it was investigating “public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization,” which led days later to a subpoena of Trump’s main lender Deutsche Bank. Seven weeks later, Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. announced in a court filing that his office had the grounds to investigate the president and his businesses for tax fraud.

IMO Trump is guilty of laundering dirty Russian money through his businesses and that Deutsche Bank is the middle man. €5 and my left nut.
And quite frankly I have a bottle of champagne on ice for when Trump loses and gets prosecuted.