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

Who thinks Trump will win?

whiskeyman

Hope the mods don't mind a new thread, but I just want to see how many of us think Trump will beat Biden in Nov?
I think he just has so much of a populist ground swell and I wouldn't be surprised if 'external' participants get involved in the process.

Do you think he'll get reelected?
Where will that leave America?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

moritz1234

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Mitch McConnell basically conceding the Presidency and the Senate.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/oct/25/mitch-mcconnell-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-republicans-democrats-mike-pence-covid

But the democrats won't be able to undo the surpreme court for a "long time"...which is the only reason the confirmation was rushed. Republicans knew the end was coming for Trump and they have long since priced it in.

Can the democrats not just increase the number of supreme court judges and appoint some more liberal (less conservative) ?
I didn't think there was a limit

Eric Cartman

moritz1234 wrote: »

Can the democrats not just increase the number of supreme court judges and appoint some more liberal (less conservative) ?
I didn't think there was a limit

That would literally be the most insane and anti democracy move in the US and may lead to a civil war. I would like to think even the democrats arent silly enough to try pull that one

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That would literally be the most insane and anti democracy move in the US and may lead to a civil war. I would like to think even the democrats arent silly enough to try pull that one

Nah, Not as bad as shoehorning Barrett in. Sauce for the goose etc.

astrofool

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That would literally be the most insane and anti democracy move in the US and may lead to a civil war. I would like to think even the democrats arent silly enough to try pull that one

The supreme court itself is completely anti-democratic, literally waiting for people to die, and putting inexperienced judges onto it because they live longer.

Term limits should be brought in, probably something like 4 * presidential terms, staggered at the beginning based on current tenure.

I also doubt there would be civil war, that's very hyperbolic.

osarusan

Adding extra Supreme Court members would be a kneejerk reaction and a bad precedent to set and I hope it doesn't happen.

They just have to wait it out. Clarence Thomas is already 72.

Term limits, or a retirement age, might be a better option.

partyguinness

IMO the focus on the Supreme Court is a little overblown.

8-10

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nah, Not as bad as shoehorning Barrett in. Sauce for the goose etc.

I actually have no issue with them confirming Barrett.

I have an issue with Garland not getting a vote, but if you think he should have been confirmed then you have to think Barrett should be too.

The Senate leader's power needs to be curtailed. And the Supreme Court shouldn't be a lifetime appointment.

But a sitting president should be entitled to nominate a justice for a vacancy right up to the January that ends his term

Faugheen

8-10 wrote: »

I actually have no issue with them confirming Barrett.

I have an issue with Garland not getting a vote, but if you think he should have been confirmed then you have to think Barrett should be too.

The Senate leader's power needs to be curtailed. And the Supreme Court shouldn't be a lifetime appointment.

But a sitting president should be entitled to nominate a justice for a vacancy right up to the January that ends his term

I actually do have an issue with Barrett, in that she sees climate change as a politically sensitive issue.

It’s not a politically sensitive issue and the fact she sees it that way means she’s absolutely not qualified.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That would literally be the most insane and anti democracy move in the US and may lead to a civil war. I would like to think even the democrats arent silly enough to try pull that one

See i would think voter suppression, literally ensuring millions cannot vote because more voters means you lose would be "the most insane and anti democracy move in the US"

astrofool

spook_cook wrote: »

Well they can retire? I mean RBG could have pre-Trump but for some reason, didn't want Barack Obama to name her successor, but rather President Clinton. Funny that, you'd have to wonder what it was about the President that she didn't like or trust?

I think what happened with Garland has opened the can of worms here, the GOP went for a short term gain that may backfire on them spectacularly. They can only gerrymander losing the popular vote so many times, and may have to reinvent the party to become properly relevant again. Helping kill off a lot of their own supporters via COVID hasn't helped of course.

Larbre34

spook_cook wrote: »

Well they can retire? I mean RBG could have pre-Trump but for some reason, didn't want Barack Obama to name her successor, but rather President Clinton. Funny that, you'd have to wonder what it was about the President that she didn't like or trust?

Utter inexperience and a lack of political capital. She may have been wrong on that front.

Pack the Court Joe, pack it to the rafters! All ivy league, all sun tanned under 50s progressives. Make the MAGAs eat it for 40 years!

Then give 'em dessert and abolish the electoral college system. Republicans must be made to rue the day they surrendered their once proud party to the tea party and evangelicals. Who knows, maybe a new one-nation, secular conservative movement will emerge from the ashes of the GOP and leave send the mouth breathers back to the Blue Ridge mountains to seek solace in the beds of their sisters.

Outlaw Pete

Biden's 60 Minutes compared to Trump's says it all. Soft ball helping hand questions for Joe and argumentative uninformed belligerence for Trump. The liberal media worldwide, along with big tech, enable leftists to push their false propaganda narratives. They're more dangerous than ever before and if Trump loses, they'll just get worse. The truth does not matter to these people.

Outlaw Pete

They're unreal ..

Three years screaming 'Russia, Russia, Russia, are trying to influence our election!!' but then when Putin says something they like, they amplify the fcuk out of it.

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1320696458874638336

ohnonotgmail

8-10 wrote: »

I actually have no issue with them confirming Barrett.

I have an issue with Garland not getting a vote, but if you think he should have been confirmed then you have to think Barrett should be too.

The Senate leader's power needs to be curtailed. And the Supreme Court shouldn't be a lifetime appointment.

But a sitting president should be entitled to nominate a justice for a vacancy right up to the January that ends his term

no issue with shoehorning in somebody who is totally unqualified for the job?

ohnonotgmail

spook_cook wrote: »

Well they can retire? I mean RBG could have pre-Trump but for some reason, didn't want Barack Obama to name her successor, but rather President Clinton. Funny that, you'd have to wonder what it was about the President that she didn't like or trust?

the GOP were in charge of the house so Obama would not have been able to get a nomination approved by the senate.

partyguinness

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They're unreal ..

Three years screaming 'Russia, Russia, Russia, are trying to influence our election!!' but then when Putin says something they like, they amplify the fcuk out of it.

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1320696458874638336

Since when is reporting as simple soundbite from Putin amount to amplifying?

Oh yes of course.....when it does not suit your narrative.

vojiwox

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

argumentative uninformed belligerence for from Trump.

FYP

8-10

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no issue with shoehorning in somebody who is totally unqualified for the job?

It's up to Congress to decide that and vote. This is the process. It's not me saying I like her or anything.

I just think it's a bit hypocritical to say she shouldn't be confirmed because Garland wasnt

Also the American Bar Association gave her the highest rating of 'well qualified' which contrasts directly with you saying she's unqualified

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Biden's 60 Minutes compared to Trump's says it all. Soft ball helping hand questions for Joe and argumentative uninformed belligerence for Trump. The liberal media worldwide, along with big tech, enable leftists to push their false propaganda narratives. They're more dangerous than ever before and if Trump loses, they'll just get worse. The truth does not matter to these people.

Could you expand on “uninformed belligerence?” Because Stahl seemed incredibly well informed about Trumps lopsided Covid response and his “always in 2 weeks” healthcare plan.

Do you have a side by sides of the questions asked of Biden/Trump? Let’s see what the softballs were, like.

ohnonotgmail

8-10 wrote: »

It's up to Congress to decide that and vote. This is the process. It's not me saying I like her or anything.

I just think it's a bit hypocritical to say she shouldn't be confirmed because Garland wasnt

it is hypocritical to expect the GOP to observe a rule that they created?

8-10

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is hypocritical to expect the GOP to observe a rule that they created?

It's not a rule

ohnonotgmail

8-10 wrote: »

It's not a rule

well clearly not as the GOP hypocritically decided that the reasoning that applied 4 years ago no longer applies.

8-10

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well clearly not as the GOP hypocritically decided that the reasoning that applied 4 years ago no longer applies.

Correct. But them being hypocritical doesn't mean the Democrats aren't either. It's the same on both sides.

You either think that justices should be confirmed in an election year, in which case you think Garland and Barrett should be on the bench. Or, you think they should wait until after the election in which case neither should be.

The former is my opinion, and I don't think she's unqualified.

vojiwox

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The liberal media worldwide, along with big tech, enable leftists to push their false propaganda narratives.

You know the way republicans/conservatives go on about this all the time.

What does a republican only country look like?

Great musicians don't want to be associated with them. The people who make our movies. Our great comedians. Women with less rights? Gay people with less rights? You can't even Netflix and chill as you've kicked out Big Tech:) Even their master himself has said he'd be nowhere without the Big Tech leftists and their scientific smarts.

Who are the smart and talented people on the republican/Trump side?

ohnonotgmail

8-10 wrote: »

Correct. But them being hypocritical doesn't mean the Democrats aren't either. It's the same on both sides.

You either think that justices should be confirmed in an election year, in which case you think Garland and Barrett should be on the bench. Or, you think they should wait until after the election in which case neither should be.

The former is my opinion, and I don't think she's unqualified.

Barret should not be on the court irrespective of what time of year it is. She is grossly unqualified. She has never tried a case. She has never lead an appeal. gross unqualified

partyguinness

The Republican Party are like Glasgow Rangers.

Apart from their own small minded insular diehard fans nobody else likes them. No celebrity or musician or person in the public eye (that I can think of anyway)admits to following Rangers unlike say Celtic.

8-10

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Barret should not be on the court irrespective of what time of year it is. She is grossly unqualified. She has never tried a case. She has never lead an appeal. gross unqualified

The American Bar Association rate her 'well qualified' so I'll trust them over you on this

pearcider

vojiwox wrote: »

You know the way republicans/conservatives go on about this all the time.

What does a republican only country look like?

Great musicians don't want to be associated with them. The people who make our movies. Our great comedians. Women with less rights? Gay people with less rights? You can't even Netflix and chill as you've kicked out Big Tech:) Even their master himself has said he'd be nowhere without the Big Tech leftists and their scientific smarts.

Who are the smart and talented people on the republican/Trump side?

Great musicians who will be sidelined and demonised if they come out as having pro Conservative values you mean. LOL

Anyways you make it sound as if it’s a good thing to have the support of the champagne socialists that populate Silicon Valley and the narcissists in Hollywood. These hypocrites are nauseating to the average working person who actually has a brain.

vojiwox

pearcider wrote: »

Great musicians who will be sidelined and demonised if they come out as having pro Conservative values you mean. LOL

Ah so you think they really support Conservative values but are afraid to say it?

[Deleted User]

pearcider wrote: »

Great musicians who will be sidelined and demonised if they come out as having pro Conservative values you mean. LOL

Anyways you make it sound as if it’s a good thing to have the support of the champagne socialists that populate Silicon Valley and the narcissists in Hollywood. These hypocrites are nauseating to the average working person who actually has a brain.

By sidelined, do you mean just not listened to?