nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

ancapailldorcha

This thread is a continuation of the megathreads for discussing the presidency of Donald Trump and any matters which relate to this.

Please keep discussion civil and constructive and bear the charter in mind before posting.

Update 23/9/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
lawrencesummers
RIGOLO

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Manic Moran

Quin_Dub wrote: »

For example , could the Federal Government define a set of guidelines or metrics for Voting , whilst still allowing the voting to be managed at the local level?

e.g. "No voter should typically have to travel more than X miles to vote or typically have wait more than X time to submit their vote"

How that's achieved at the State/County level is up to them - They could chose early/mail-in voting or open more/bigger voting centres etc.

I don't know, honestly. The existence of the Voting Rights Act seems to indicate at least the possibility of the legal authority to do so. The practicality of such blanket requirements given the diverse nature the States is another matter. Note that most of the VRA are prohibitions on what local agencies can do, not mandates to do something, which is typical of US constitutional law. The exception is the mandate for language accessibility, which can also be seen in a negative form on the basis of discrimination given that there is no US national language.

o voter apathy, puts texas as the 50th state. Does that not two things..

1) seem a bit odd.
2) appear to be a problem since you know democracy should be cherished.

Not necessarily odd. Energising different segments of the voting population is a long-running problem for different parties over the years, which seems to be solvable by running the right candidates with the right campaigns. I personally believe the apathy problem can be reduced by having more viable third parties for folks to vote for.
Problem, no. Disappointing, yes. If people choose to discount their civic duty and not vote, that's their problem. I do believe there are problems in the US's election structure which are encouraging the two-party-system with the result of apathy, but that's a separate issue from actually being able to get up and vote.

banie01

Quin_Dub wrote: »

They could and then the GOP could raise that bar again.

I just think that Term limits would be an easier sell politically and equally a harder one to undo for the same reasons.

It's also fundamentally less partisan.

I agree with this.
It would however require conciliation, compromise and a move towards the centre that many Red State republicans fear and their representatives do too and I think barring a near blue sweep is unlikely to ever happen.

For a state that was created to be inherently secular, evangelism and the Christianity it flavours stateside hold far, far too much sway in US politics.

eire4

listermint wrote: »

It is quite literally in the opening line i quoted. They have not left it to the reader to infer.

When I see Republicans trying to deny their parties rampant voter suppression efforts in recent years and which continues to increase I just roll my eyes as it is utterly risible and shows that the person in question is either being disingenuous or wilfully ignorant.
Plus I should add with the imminent appointment of Barrett to do the bidding of the major corporations and the big government social agenda voter suppression will continue to increase as now Republicans know that can engage in even more blatant moves and the supreme court will say go for it.

check_six

How is it that a court appointment can be categorised as thoroughly political? How can either party be so assured that "their guy" on the Supreme Court will simply side with them and not side with the law? I just don't get it.

Igotadose

check_six wrote: »

How is it that a court appointment can be categorised as thoroughly political? How can either party be so assured that "their guy" on the Supreme Court will simply side with them and not side with the law? I just don't get it.

Obviously they can't, though at least 1 Senator has said he'd ask Barrett if she'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Wailing about Roe *is* where the bulk of GOP politicians get their money from.

Foxtrol

check_six wrote: »

How is it that a court appointment can be categorised as thoroughly political? How can either party be so assured that "their guy" on the Supreme Court will simply side with them and not side with the law? I just don't get it.

In theory they can't and the GOP had this issue repeatedly over the years, they have nominated significantly more supreme court judges recently but they ended up voting with the Dem judges. Conservatives have since created groups, like the Federalist Society, to thoroughly vet candidates and then promote them.

There are presumed under the table discussions on how they'd vote and a quid pro quo agreement to vote a certain way when they get the job. Obviously given the life time appointment they could turn their back on it but there isn't much evidence yet.

Foxtrol

Igotadose wrote: »

Obviously they can't, though at least 1 Senator has said he'd ask Barrett if she'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Wailing about Roe *is* where the bulk of GOP politicians get their money from.

Wailing about that gets them their evangelical/religious vote, the main driver of their money comes from tax and regulation policy

Nody

check_six wrote: »

How is it that a court appointment can be categorised as thoroughly political? How can either party be so assured that "their guy" on the Supreme Court will simply side with them and not side with the law? I just don't get it.

It basically comes down to if they are going to be a stickler for the letter of the law (what GOP wants because it means they can get away with more as the court will simply state it's not written in the constitution/law it's a Senate/House problem to deal with) or in the spirit of the law (what Dems want because they believe in progressive improvements such as Roe vs. Wade, LGBTQ rights etc.). Even then in some cases the appointments made have changed their style on the court so there's no guarantee either way.

eire4

check_six wrote: »

How is it that a court appointment can be categorised as thoroughly political? How can either party be so assured that "their guy" on the Supreme Court will simply side with them and not side with the law? I just don't get it.

Well the Federalist society a so called non for profit body but one which takes big donations from major corporations and wealthy individuals has been working hand in glove with the current Republican administration and Republicans at state level to pack the courts with judges who will do the bidding of big business and the big government social agenda and they have been enormously successful at this.

Quin_Dub

Nody wrote: »

It basically comes down to if they are going to be a stickler for the letter of the law (what GOP wants because it means they can get away with more as the court will simply state it's not written in the constitution/law it's a Senate/House problem to deal with) or in the spirit of the law (what Dems want because they believe in progressive improvements such as Roe vs. Wade, LGBTQ rights etc.). Even then in some cases the appointments made have changed their style on the court so there's no guarantee either way.

It's the whole "Originalist" vs. "Living Document" issue.

The GOP take the belief that the original creators of the Constitution were these omniscient beings that knew everything and planned for centuries into the future and as such the Constitution is not open to interpretation. If it's not there verbatim , you can't have it.

Which in and of itself isn't necessarily such a terrible thing - At a simple level , if you want change the meaning of the Constitution then update it via an amendment and move forward.

However , if someone wrote an amendment to the Constitution for something like Same Sex Marriage , Abortion or Gun Control, the GOP would literally burn the place down before they'd put to a National vote - Because they know they'd definitely lose the first two and the Gun control one could go either way depending on the scope of the amendment.

Equally they were perfectly fine with updated "interpretations" of the Constitution that favored their positions like DC vs. Heller or Citizens United.

Foxtrol

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's the whole "Originalist" vs. "Living Document" issue.

The GOP take the belief that the original creators of the Constitution were these omniscient beings that knew everything and planned for centuries into the future and as such the Constitution is not open to interpretation. If it's not there verbatim , you can't have it.

Which in and of itself isn't necessarily such a terrible thing - At a simple level , if you want change the meaning of the Constitution then update it via an amendment and move forward.

However , if someone wrote an amendment to the Constitution for something like Same Sex Marriage , Abortion or Gun Control, the GOP would literally burn the place down before they'd put to a National vote - Because they know they'd definitely lose the first two and the Gun control one could go either way depending on the scope of the amendment.

Equally they were perfectly fine with updated "interpretations" of the Constitution that favored their positions like DC vs. Heller or Citizens United.

"Originalist" is absolute nonsense, when it suits they take the exact same "Living Document" approach but just claim some galaxy brain understanding of what they meant at the time. Take ACB, if she was a true originalist she wouldn't vote nor be a judge.

This tweet covers it off their hypocrisy quite well.

https://twitter.com/The_Law_Boy/status/1316010747164581888?s=20

froog

the confirmation hearings are a farce. what purpose do they serve other than various butthead senators trying to get a soundbite?

as for barrett, she seems impressive enough to be honest. certainly not like that kavanaugh ghoul who has no business at that level of law.

all the anger from various people should be directed at the lifetime status of these appointments by the way, no job as important as that should be for life, for obvious reasons.

amandstu

froog wrote: »

the confirmation hearings are a farce. what purpose do they serve other than various butthead senators trying to get a soundbite?

as for barrett, she seems impressive enough to be honest. certainly not like that kavanaugh ghoul who has no business at that level of law.

all the anger from various people should be directed at the lifetime status of these appointments by the way, no job as important as that should be for life, for obvious reasons.

What happened to "Separation of Powers " when the President and the Senate can stack the SCOTUS with their own picks?

Don't they trust Judges to be impartial or professional?

StringerBell

Barrett? She is a fundamentalist, I'm sorry but fundamentalist anythings should never be arbitrators.

She has also refused to answer very simple black and white legal questions, is it illegal to intimidate people while they vote is pretty straight forward, can the president unilaterally delay the election is pretty straight forward, she has written many opinion pieces and her thoughts on certain laws are well known yet we now have the charade from herself and the republicans that we cannot prejudge or assume how she will rule on X or y?

The whole thing is a sham yes, and the sooner it's over the better. It's the ball game for the GOP. If the democrats can't bring in term limits once they take back legislative control then the GOP in or out of power, the minority opinion of the country will hold sway over the majority for the medium to long term.

Gorsuch I don't dislike, my biggest issue with him is that it's Garlands seat, kavanaugh should not have been near the bench given his character issues and Barrett falls into that category, just without the whole sexual predator angle. Extremists should not be put in a position to adjudicate matters in the highest court of the land. Not only that but all the signs point to her being nothing more than a shill for Trump. This was not the impression from the other two, particularly gorsuch but kavanaugh is no Trump stooge whatever else can (and should) be said about him.

Itssoeasy

This NY post story about a laptop and Hunter Biden smells to high heaven. The owner of the shop can’t say if it was Hunter Biden who owned the laptop which knowing who owns stuff would seem like a basic thing. And it seems like a copy of it’s hard drive was made.

VinLieger

Itssoeasy wrote: »

This NY post story about a laptop and Hunter Biden smells to high heaven. The owner of the shop can’t say if it was Hunter Biden who owned the laptop which knowing who owns stuff would seem like a basic thing. And it seems like a copy of it’s hard drive was made.

Ive read a synopsis and the owner seems to switch his story about 5 or 6 times about what actually happened regarding the FBI involvement and somehow he didnt actually see Hunter Biden drop off the laptop but assumed it due to a biden charity sticker on said laptop?

Roanmore

VinLieger wrote: »

Ive read a synopsis and the owner seems to switch his story about 5 or 6 times about what actually happened regarding the FBI involvement and somehow he didnt actually see Hunter Biden drop off the laptop but assumed it due to a biden charity sticker on said laptop?

Did I read that it was dropped off in Delaware but Biden was living in LA at the time.
NY Post is owned by Murdoch? It does seem to stink.
Rudy when asked about how he got it went off on one again saying the media are not focusing on the real story.

Tell me how

Speaking of Rudy.

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1316560011846393856?s=19

Conservatives are a laughing stock right now.

aloyisious

StringerBell wrote: »

Barrett? She is a fundamentalist, I'm sorry but fundamentalist anythings should never be arbitrators.

She has also refused to answer very simple black and white legal questions, is it illegal to intimidate people while they vote is pretty straight forward, can the president unilaterally delay the election is pretty straight forward, she has written many opinion pieces and her thoughts on certain laws are well known yet we now have the charade from herself and the republicans that we cannot prejudge or assume how she will rule on X or y?

The whole thing is a sham yes, and the sooner it's over the better. It's the ball game for the GOP. If the democrats can't bring in term limits once they take back legislative control then the GOP in or out of power, the minority opinion of the country will hold sway over the majority for the medium to long term.

Gorsuch I don't dislike, my biggest issue with him is that it's Garlands seat, kavanaugh should not have been near the bench given his character issues and Barrett falls into that category, just without the whole sexual predator angle. Extremists should not be put in a position to adjudicate matters in the highest court of the land. Not only that but all the signs point to her being nothing more than a shill for Trump. This was not the impression from the other two, particularly gorsuch but kavanaugh is no Trump stooge whatever else can (and should) be said about him.

Now if Amy were just to say "If I was given the privilege of sitting on the USSC, I won't do the bidding of the president what ever he says, including his present everyday statements" a bit of distancing might help give her the appearance of independence of thought and judgement but that thought does not appear to have entered her statements.

Her thoughts, statements and scholastic papers on the extension of civil rights availed of regularly by those of religious belief to other US citizens over the past few decades, said extensions not denying or decreasing the worth and value of the same civil rights of the religious, are of obvious standing when it comes to evaluating her independence of judicial mind, especially when she uses the excuse of not making statements about her current and past beliefs on such issues during her fitness to sit on the USSC bench hearing to avoid indicating she might be judicially biased towards any one section of U.S society over others.

StringerBell

It doesn't need to enter her statements though tbh. Nobody is going to have their mind changed here, the GOP will be voting to confirm, the Democrats don't even need to be there. They didn't need to take part in the charade at all in fact and there is an argument to made for them to have made a protest of sorts by not taking part at all but its very rare you will see a politician give up some TV time.

Igotadose

StringerBell wrote: »

It doesn't need to enter her statements though tbh. Nobody is going to have their mind changed here, the GOP will be voting to confirm, the Democrats don't even need to be there. They didn't need to take part in the charade at all in fact and there is an argument to made for them to have made a protest of sorts by not taking part at all but its very rare you will see a politician give up some TV time.

The thing is a farce. She's not even taking notes ffs. Vapid, deer-in-the-headlights responses to straightforward questions from Harris. Pathetic choice, better than Harriet Myers at least but that's a very low bar.

seamus

Igotadose wrote: »

The thing is a farce. She's not even taking notes ffs. Vapid, deer-in-the-headlights responses to straightforward questions from Harris. Pathetic choice, better than Harriet Myers at least but that's a very low bar.

She's probably been told in no uncertain terms that she's a shoe-in for the job, the republicans will back her. Just sit there, smile and nod, don't commit to any specific opinions, and so long as no historical rape allegations surface, then she'll get a job for life.

This is what the US system has been reduced to. It's bad enough that this is how they appoint SC judges, but the whole process is so partisan now that a candidate barely even has to turn up to their own interview process so long as the majority party backs them.

She's a relatively young, conservative woman with a legal qualification. That's literally all the GOP wanted. And her gender and legal qualification are nice-to-haves.

Tchaikovsky

Igotadose wrote: »

Vapid, deer-in-the-headlights responses

That's just her normal expression I think.
She's not the the most inept Trump-appointee at a hearing, but that's an extremely low bar.

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

Conservatives are a laughing stock right now.

As time passes and the more I familiarise myself with it, American Conservatism seems to be heavily rooted in ethnic nationalism. They view the US primarily as an ethno-state with their specific demographic, ie wealthy, white, ethnic northern Europeans at the top of the hierarchy. Some of them may be happy to condemn individual cases of racism and prejudice but on the whole they're deeply committed to maintain both the hierarchy and their position at its top. Once someone embraces this simple truth, anything can be forgiven. It's why Christians voted for Trump. They don't care that he's disgraced some of their most cherished beliefs as long as they think he'll be their guarantor.

Institutions such as the Church and elements of America's culture such as their odd obsession with the armed forces and the police buttress this. The problem is that as time has passed, America has gotten more culturally diverse and dynamic their hold has faltered, necessitating dirty tricks such as rampant gerrymandering and stacking the supreme court with loyalists to the cause. Meanwhile, race riots have reignited and all they can do is wag the finger after having broken the social contract.

A Biden presidency will not fix America's underlying issues but it might give it time to breathe and hopefully change attitudes towards looking for long term solutions that can't be expressed in incessant tweets.

banie01

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As time passes and the more I familiarise myself with it, American Conservatism seems to be heavily rooted in ethnic nationalism. They view the US primarily as an ethno-state with their specific demographic, ie wealthy, white, ethnic northern Europeans at the top of the hierarchy.

Their Utopian vision is IMO quite frighteningly akin to Margaret Atwood's Gilead.

It is an exercise in coercive control that is given a veneer of morality by repeated waffle about "in Jesus name' and other such BS.

The court appointments and the immorality and outright malfeasance of the GOP in pursuing it, are all too easily justified by their lean on faith.

As for ACB's affiliation with People of Praise?
In a secular state there should be no room for religious fundamentalism on the highest courts bench.
One wonders how the senate would feel if the nominee was an adherent of Wahhabism?

There are plenty of stories around regarding the PoF crew that would Opus Dei seem moderate.

VinLieger

banie01 wrote: »

One wonders how the senate would feel if the nominee was an adherent of Wahhabism?

Ilhan Omar made this point the other day about how if it was a Muslim woman being nominated the republicans would be losing their minds but with Barrett they are all about religious freedom.

https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1315691638849703938

banie01

VinLieger wrote: »

Ilhan Omar made this point the other day about how if it was a Muslim woman being nominated the republicans would be losing their minds but with Barrett they are all about religious freedom.

https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1315691638849703938

Thanks for that Vin, hadn't seen it but I agree 100% with Omar on that.

Thinkingaboutit

Itssoeasy wrote: »

This NY post story about a laptop and Hunter Biden smells to high heaven. The owner of the shop can’t say if it was Hunter Biden who owned the laptop which knowing who owns stuff would seem like a basic thing. And it seems like a copy of it’s hard drive was made.

The aggressive censorship on Facebook and Twitter about Hunter Biden allegedly influence peddling to the Chicoms and smoking meth, suggests it's fairly credible.

Quin_Dub

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

The aggressive censorship on Facebook and Twitter about Hunter Biden allegedly influence peddling to the Chicoms and smoking meth, suggests it's fairly credible.

Quite the opposite I'd suggest.

The whole story reeks of disinformation.

Read the details from the alleged repair shop - It's all over the place.

He doesn't know who dropped off the system - apparently because he has "a medical condition that means he couldn't see the person dropping the system off"
He called the FBI
No they called him
No he called Rudi
He was afraid he was going to get murdered so he took a copy of the hard drive (he thinks Seth Rich was murdered)
The FBI asked him to help them access the drive - Not their own techs , the pc repair shop guy. For a Drive that he'd already accessed and copied.
Rudi got the drive and didn't give it to the Grassley Senate Investigation but instead decided to give it to the NY Post

It's laughably inept , but absolutely consistent with Rudi Guiliani desperate attempts to get Ukraine dirt on Biden

listermint

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

The aggressive censorship on Facebook and Twitter about Hunter Biden allegedly influence peddling to the Chicoms and smoking meth, suggests it's fairly credible.

no it suggests entirely the opposite,

But what it does show is, you sir are down a rabbit hole. There is time to save yourself but only you can.