US Presidential Election 2020

duploelabs · 19-09-2020 9:49am

StringerBell wrote: »

No I know he will, sorry you must have misunderstood the post. Without doubt he is going to fill that position, or at least he will be desperately trying, if you re read the post you'll see I'm asking what effect that might have on the election.

Pretty sh!tty thing to do, considering her dying wish was not to be replaced until the new president is elected

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-death-supreme-court-trump-justice-b490603.html

Igotadose · 19-09-2020 9:50am

Aha my bad. Sorry didn't understand it, somewhat out of sorts this a.m. on the news hearing from friends&family in the US.
You raise a good point - why bother vote if this position is filled, if you're an evangelical? I guess the argument is the federal judges need to be converted, too, so there's always more 'work' to do.

I don't think the #IMPOTUS is fool enough (though, you never know) to NOT nominate an SC judge, using the 'vote me in or you're out of luck' argument. He will nominate someone.

Shelga · 19-09-2020 10:33am

duploelabs wrote: »

Pretty sh!tty thing to do, considering her dying wish was not to be replaced until the new president is elected

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-death-supreme-court-trump-justice-b490603.html

Her dying wish is all well and good, but what does the law actually say? Haven’t seen anything about whether Trump is legally able to replace her before the election or not.

StringerBell · 19-09-2020 10:40am

duploelabs wrote: »

Pretty sh!tty thing to do, considering her dying wish was not to be replaced until the new president is elected

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-death-supreme-court-trump-justice-b490603.html

Mitch Mconnell.

Igotadose · 19-09-2020 10:43am

Shelga wrote: »

Her dying wish is all well and good, but what does the law actually say? Haven’t seen anything about whether Trump is legally able to replace her before the election or not.

He can replace her up to the inauguration day next year (assuming he doesn't win.) Can be replaced whenever the Senate is in session to vote on it. He just nominates someone, can do that as early as today and you can be sure there's a list of names. Probably won't happen before next week, he'll want to make hay with the name.

StringerBell · 19-09-2020 10:44am

Shelga wrote: »

Her dying wish is all well and good, but what does the law actually say? Haven’t seen anything about whether Trump is legally able to replace her before the election or not.

Legally? of course he can fill her seat, and he will try. Not really him though, this is one of the scenarios that trump gets credit/blamed for when its actually very little to do with him.

The Federalist Society, hell Mcabe apparently have pretty much solely selected his picks (not just Supreme Court, all his judicial appointments), trump according to reports wanted to nominate Rudy Giuliani and other similarly bat**** crazy suggestions.

The Christian fundamentalists will not let this opportunity to take control of the legal branch completely slip by them without a big fight.

Brussels Sprout · 19-09-2020 11:05am

In terms of the Presidential election I think it may be better for Trump NOT to have his pick confirmed before the election. He can nominate some rabid pro-Jesus, pro-Life, pro-Second Amendment Federalist judge and leave that hanging there going into the election. That might win over some Republicans who were thinking of voting for Biden or sitting this one out. If the pick is already confirmed they don't have the same immediate incentive to vote for him.

TomOnBoard · 19-09-2020 12:51pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

In terms of the Presidential election I think it may be better for Trump NOT to have his pick confirmed before the election. He can nominate some rabid pro-Jesus, pro-Life, pro-Second Amendment Federalist judge and leave that hanging there going into the election. That might win over some Republicans who were thinking of voting for Biden or sitting this one out. If the pick is already confirmed they don't have the same immediate incentive to vote for him.

I think he'll be nominating Amy Coney Barrett. But he wont want it done and dusted b4 the election. They'll squeeze more votes out of keeping an open seat going into the election. The message will be Vote Trump and go Rep down ballot to ensure they keep the Senate and prevent the God-hating, Gun-removing, Baby murdering, Communist loving Democrats from winning back the Supreme Court seat and instead have a staunch God-fearing, Abortion stopping, Gun rights protecting, America loving, Law and order supporting Republican seat on the Court for a generation...

StringerBell · 19-09-2020 1:17pm

That's a valid argument actually. Could be more valuable for them to run on the seat especially down ballot.

Brussels Sprout · 19-09-2020 1:38pm

On the flip side Mitch McConnell and all of the Republicans will want to get this done before the election to lock it in in case Trump loses. So there could be a battle there between Trump and the Republicans about when to hold the Senate confirmation hearings.

Not sure if the Democrats can do anything to stop it in a scenario where Biden wins and the Republican Senate then try and ram it through in a lame-duck session before January.

TomOnBoard · 19-09-2020 2:03pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

On the flip side Mitch McConnell and all of the Republicans will want to get this done before the election to lock it in in case Trump loses. So there could be a battle there between Trump and the Republicans about when to hold the Senate confirmation hearings.

Not sure if the Democrats can do anything to stop it in a scenario where Biden wins and the Republican Senate then try and ram it through in a lame-duck session before January.

If either Trump loses or Reps lose the majority, they could still proceed to confirmation after Nov 3 up until end of Senate session in December. There would be no legal barrier to Mc Connell doing so. The current Senators remain until end of year, EXCEPT if Mc Sally loses her seat in Arizona's Special Election (shes in the Jon Kyl seat to which she was nominated by the Governor after he resigned in December 2018). If Mc Sally loses to Mark Kelly (Dem) he would take over the remainder of that seat's term of office and could be sworn in soon after the Special Election possibly end November.

So a loss by McSally would leave McConnell with a very slim 52-48 majority after Kelly is sworn in.

I'd see a confirmation in November being the railroad option most likely to be favoured by McConnell. Also, if Reps lose the Senate majority and the Presidency, they could put Justice Clarence Thomas's seat into play as well..

letowski · 19-09-2020 2:15pm

Lindsey Graham, current Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary back in 2016..

https://twitter.com/vanitaguptaCR/status/1307153104941518848

He also has an election of his own this November coming.

Brussels Sprout · 19-09-2020 5:06pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'd see a confirmation in November being the railroad option most likely to be favoured by McConnell. Also, if Reps lose the Senate majority and the Presidency, they could put Justice Clarence Thomas's seat into play as well..

In this scenario could the Senate Democrats choose not to show up meaning a quorum could not be reached or anything like that?

That sort of thing has definitely happened at state levels in recent years. I recall in one state, law enforcement being tasked with rounding up members of the legislature after a court ordered them to return.

AbusesToilets · 19-09-2020 7:43pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

In this scenario could the Senate Democrats choose not to show up meaning a quorum could not be reached or anything like that?

That sort of thing has definitely happened at state levels in recent years. I recall in one state, law enforcement being tasked with rounding up members of the legislature after a court ordered them to return.

There's nothing the Democrats can do to stop this, outide of assassination. The Republican's will control the SC for the next decade most likely

TomOnBoard · 19-09-2020 7:54pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

In this scenario could the Senate Democrats choose not to show up meaning a quorum could not be reached or anything like that?

I think the Senate quorum is a simple majority, so 51.

Gbear · 19-09-2020 7:58pm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There's nothing the Democrats can do to stop this, outide of assassination. The Republican's will control the SC for the next decade most likely

If they hold all 3 other branches of government I think they have quite a lot of latitude.

They could totally change how it works - a panel of sitting judges drawn from 15, say, where 6-9 of whom are selected in the next presidential term.
Or just pack it with as many judges as they like.

There's no constitutional limit on the number of justices on the SC, as far as I'm aware.

It will depend first on securing the presidency, then the senate (I don't think there's much chance of losing the house), and then whether or not the Dems have any balls.

AbusesToilets · 19-09-2020 8:03pm

Gbear wrote: »

If they hold all 3 other branches of government I think they have quite a lot of latitude.

They could totally change how it works - a panel of sitting judges drawn from 15, say, where 6-9 of whom are selected in the next presidential term.
Or just pack it with as many judges as they like.

There's no constitutional limit on the number of justices on the SC, as far as I'm aware.

It will depend first on securing the presidency, then the senate (I don't think there's much chance of losing the house), and then whether or not the Dems have any balls.

They won't win the senate imo

eire4 · 20-09-2020 4:20am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There's nothing the Democrats can do to stop this, outide of assassination. The Republican's will control the SC for the next decade most likely

Firstly the Republicans already control the supreme court. What is in play now is a powerful 6-3 majority with another far right activist judge who will be around for a lot longer then the next decade. The US has for a while now been lurching further and further to the right as a country and this situation will allow the Republicans to push their anti democratic agenda on steroids. Watch for a mass of voter suppression laws being enacted at state level as an example and if anything is challenged the so called supreme court will be basically a rubber stamp to allow it.
What is particularly scary for Ireland and the world is that not only will the US lurch even further to the far right but we are likely to see this take on a very much ominous authoritarian tone as we have seen increasingly the past few years.

Wanderer78 · 20-09-2020 5:11am

eire4 wrote:

Firstly the Republicans already control the supreme court. What is in play now is a powerful 6-3 majority with another far right activist judge who will be around for a lot longer then the next decade. The US has for a while now been lurching further and further to the right as a country and this situation will allow the Republicans to push their anti democratic agenda on steroids. Watch for a mass of voter suppression laws being enacted at state level as an example and if anything is challenged the so called supreme court will be basically a rubber stamp to allow it. What is particularly scary for Ireland and the world is that not only will the US lurch even further to the far right but we are likely to see this take on a very much ominous authoritarian tone as we have seen increasingly the past few years.

Completely agree, it does look like history repeats itself, anyone building gas chambers at the moment!

Manic Moran · 20-09-2020 5:32am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I think he'll be nominating Amy Coney Barrett. But he wont want it done and dusted b4 the election. They'll squeeze more votes out of keeping an open seat going into the election. The message will be Vote Trump and go Rep down ballot to ensure they keep the Senate and prevent the God-hating, Gun-removing, Baby murdering, Communist loving Democrats from winning back the Supreme Court seat and instead have a staunch God-fearing, Abortion stopping, Gun rights protecting, America loving, Law and order supporting Republican seat on the Court for a generation...

I'll put my fiver on Lagoa. Nominated before the election, hearings before the election, but not voted on until afterwards.

Just how much do the Democrats want to be seen on TV just before the election to be preventing a Hispanic female from a swing state from being appointed to SCOTUS, especially since she is well regarded and when they voted on her appointment to the 11th Circuit 80-15 in favor?

everlast75 · 20-09-2020 8:21am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just how much do the Democrats want to be seen on TV just before the election to be preventing a Hispanic female from a swing state from being appointed to SCOTUS, especially since she is well regarded and when they voted on her appointment to the 11th Circuit 80-15 in favor?

Simple. They run on the principle that the next president gets to choose. The one the republicans came up with. It doesn't matter who it is.

Ah, good old principles. Remember those??

Manic Moran · 20-09-2020 2:13pm

It is a stupid and unnecessary principle which McConnell should have never said in the first place, which I believe most Democrats observed correctly at the time. They aren’t going to be running on that principle because they believe in it, they are running on the schoolyard principle of “well, he did it first”

Given that the Democrats seem unable to actually stop the process, do they really want to antagonize, if nothing else, the Caribbean Hispanic population in places like Florida by supporting what most people know to be a disingenuous principle in an impotent attempt to prevent someone that population considers to be “for the first time, one of us” (Sotomayor is North Eastern), only to see a candidate confirmed in December anyway?

Brussels Sprout · 20-09-2020 3:04pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given that the Democrats seem unable to actually stop the process, do they really want to antagonize, if nothing else, the Caribbean Hispanic population in places like Florida by supporting what most people know to be a disingenuous principle in an impotent attempt to prevent someone that population considers to be “for the first time, one of us” (Sotomayor is North Eastern), only to see a candidate confirmed in December anyway?

If the Republicans go ahead and stick an arch-conservative on there then the last thing the Democrats should do is go along with that. That is the mistake that they have made over and over again since 2009 - giving in to the Republicans in the hope that they'll be rewarded in the future either by the Republicans reciprocating or the voters acknowledging it. Instead the Republicans have ruthlessly taken advantage of that stance and there has been no thanks from the voters.

This isn't "The West Wing". There's no appealing to the better nature of a party who elected Donald Trump as their standard bearer and have Mitch McConnell as their Senate majority leader. The Democrats need to fight, not roll over for fear of losing Florida. They'd probably end up losing it anyway.

As others have pointed out it doesn't look like they have any power to stop this but they need to be seen to fight it - both to fire up their own base and spread awareness amongst low information voters about the double standards. The Kavanaugh hearings happened 2 months before the mid-term elections and by all account they galvanised a lot of Democrats into turning out in numbers not typically seen for those types of elections and decimating the Republicans in House suburban districts.

StringerBell · 20-09-2020 5:29pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is a stupid and unnecessary principle which McConnell should have never said in the first place, which I believe most Democrats observed correctly at the time. They aren’t going to be running on that principle because they believe in it, they are running on the schoolyard principle of “well, he did it first”

Given that the Democrats seem unable to actually stop the process, do they really want to antagonize, if nothing else, the Caribbean Hispanic population in places like Florida by supporting what most people know to be a disingenuous principle in an impotent attempt to prevent someone that population considers to be “for the first time, one of us” (Sotomayor is North Eastern), only to see a candidate confirmed in December anyway?

It's irrelevant, it's what McConnell and other republican senators decided in 2016 so complaining about asking them to maintain the same standards they set (according to Cruz they hadn't confirmed one in the previous 80 years during an election year) is s bit rich. Typical of course, but still, rich.

Your second paragraph is pure conjecture based on a supposed candidate, and whoever the candidate is. Yes, they should delay it and drag it out procedurally as much as the republicans would. **** em tbh and it's something that can be run on v senators too, more good than bad.

Water John · 20-09-2020 10:05pm

Latest swing states polling:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/19/us-election-polls-tracker-who-is-leading-in-the-swing-states

Biden seems to be opening a small gap in Florida.

StringerBell · 20-09-2020 11:08pm

Good and bad there. Amazing how red Ohio is becoming though as it goes(I know its tightened, a general comment), Wisconsin looks good at 50%+ for Biden, Arizona narrowing again should be cause for concern I'd imagine. Michigan looking strong for Biden too and that North Carolina is holding steady is an interesting one. Florida is ****ing nuts regardless, it will be down to the wire on election day there as it always is.

ExMachina1000 · 20-09-2020 11:23pm

Water John wrote: »

Latest swing states polling:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/19/us-election-polls-tracker-who-is-leading-in-the-swing-states

Biden seems to be opening a small gap in Florida.

Bloomberg's money I would imagine. He is pumping at least 100 million dollars into Florida alone to help get Biden over the line

letowski · 20-09-2020 11:27pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Good and bad there. Amazing how red Ohio is becoming though as it goes(I know its tightened, a general comment), Wisconsin looks good at 50%+ for Biden, Arizona narrowing again should be cause for concern I'd imagine. Michigan looking strong for Biden too and that North Carolina is holding steady is an interesting one. Florida is ****ing nuts regardless, it will be down to the wire on election day there as it always is.

I'd say there is a good chance was won't know the final result in Florida on election day.

StringerBell · 20-09-2020 11:55pm

letowski wrote: »

I'd say there is a good chance was won't know the final result in Florida on election day.

I'd say we will this time around and apparently it's expected around 8.30/9pm election night.

TomOnBoard · 20-09-2020 11:59pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is a stupid and unnecessary principle which McConnell should have never said in the first place, which I believe most Democrats observed correctly at the time. They aren’t going to be running on that principle because they believe in it, they are running on the schoolyard principle of “well, he did it first”

Given that the Democrats seem unable to actually stop the process, do they really want to antagonize, if nothing else, the Caribbean Hispanic population in places like Florida by supporting what most people know to be a disingenuous principle in an impotent attempt to prevent someone that population considers to be “for the first time, one of us” (Sotomayor is North Eastern), only to see a candidate confirmed in December anyway?

I'm a bit confused, Manic... Has Lagoa been announced as the nominee which this argument seems to rely upon?

Tell me how · 21-09-2020 12:02am

StringerBell wrote: »

Good and bad there. Amazing how red Ohio is becoming though as it goes(I know its tightened, a general comment), Wisconsin looks good at 50%+ for Biden, Arizona narrowing again should be cause for concern I'd imagine. Michigan looking strong for Biden too and that North Carolina is holding steady is an interesting one. Florida is ****ing nuts regardless, it will be down to the wire on election day there as it always is.

I was in a shop in Mid-Massachusetts last week and someone came in without a mask and the person working there said they had to put one on. They went out to their car and got one and came in and explained, 'I understand you have to do all that crap, I'm from Ohio and we're doing none of that at home. It's ok though, this will all go away when Trump wins in November, just wait and see. They're trying to use this to make him look bad'.

I wanted to ask were all the deaths in Italy part of the plan as well.

TomOnBoard · 21-09-2020 12:12am

eire4 wrote: »

Firstly the Republicans already control the supreme court. What is in play now is a powerful 6-3 majority with another far right activist judge who will be around for a lot longer then the next decade. The US has for a while now been lurching further and further to the right as a country and this situation will allow the Republicans to push their anti democratic agenda on steroids. Watch for a mass of voter suppression laws being enacted at state level as an example and if anything is challenged the so called supreme court will be basically a rubber stamp to allow it.
What is particularly scary for Ireland and the world is that not only will the US lurch even further to the far right but we are likely to see this take on a very much ominous authoritarian tone as we have seen increasingly the past few years.

If you look at the Supreme Court in terms of Liberal vs Conservative on a scale from 1-9 where, arguably, Roberts tries to be 5, Ginsburg was 1 or 2. Her opinions served as a supra-legal challenge to Conservatism that has now been lost.

If she is now replaced by a very Conservative Justice, such as Barrett, its not just that the Court's make-up in terms of their originating politics simply moves from 5-4 to 6-3 on some needle... Its about the loss of the opposing thought, which would have made its way into opinion, even those to which she would have dissented!

Now, thats seismic!

Quin_Dub · 21-09-2020 8:43am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm a bit confused, Manic... Has Lagoa been announced as the nominee which this argument seems to rely upon?

Lagoa is on his short list and he said he would likely nominate a woman.

There's only her and Coney-Barrett on the list he released a few weeks back.

Of the 2 , Lagoa is the only one that could really help him in a swing state.

She's a Cuban American from Florida , Biden is already under pressure with that voting block so forcing him and the Democrats to argue against her nomination could swing Florida to Trump.

Trump cannot win without Florida - I know lots of people are talking up Coney-Barrett , but I'd tend to agree with Manic - Lagoa is the more politically beneficial nomination for Trump personally.

salmocab · 21-09-2020 8:55am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Lagoa is on his short list and he said he would likely nominate a woman.

There's only her and Coney-Barrett on the list he released a few weeks back.

Of the 2 , Lagoa is the only one that could really help him in a swing state.

She's a Cuban American from Florida , Biden is already under pressure with that voting block so forcing him and the Democrats to argue against her nomination could swing Florida to Trump.

Trump cannot win without Florida - I know lots of people are talking up Coney-Barrett , but I'd tend to agree with Manic - Lagoa is the more politically beneficial nomination for Trump personally.

Although this shows American politics for the cess pool it is, appointing a SCJ to win votes is everything that’s wrong with the worst democratic process on the planet.

Quin_Dub · 21-09-2020 9:26am

salmocab wrote: »

Although this shows American politics for the cess pool it is, appointing a SCJ to win votes is everything that’s wrong with the worst democratic process on the planet.

Absolutely agree with you.

But everything is political in the US , virtually every role in their society is an elected position.

Roles that everywhere else are just standard issue Civil Service mid-level mgmt positions are subject to election campaigns and the candidates are aligned to political parties. It's crazy.

We go to the polls and at worst we might have 2 or maybe 3 things to vote on. People will go to the polls in the US and they are voting for literally dozens of things each time .

Quin_Dub · 21-09-2020 9:58am

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that imho

The problem is not that they get to vote for multiple positions all way from local to federal

The problem is that unlike Ireland they do not have proportional representation with a single transferable vote. This means you endup with a polarized two party outcomes at all levels, there is no room for political coalitions and compromises which make Irish system so resilient to the type of polarization we seen in UK and US (tho Sinn Fein are trying hard to drag us into the same political cesspool)

I get where you are coming from , but the fact that even the most basic "civil servant" job becomes a political role that is bargained over and that requires campaigning and funding etc. is just crazy.

TomOnBoard · 21-09-2020 1:02pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Lagoa is on his short list and he said he would likely nominate a woman.

There's only her and Coney-Barrett on the list he released a few weeks back.

Of the 2 , Lagoa is the only one that could really help him in a swing state.

She's a Cuban American from Florida , Biden is already under pressure with that voting block so forcing him and the Democrats to argue against her nomination could swing Florida to Trump.

Trump cannot win without Florida - I know lots of people are talking up Coney-Barrett , but I'd tend to agree with Manic - Lagoa is the more politically beneficial nomination for Trump personally.

OK. I can see the benefit to Trump in Hispanic voting from picking Lagoa. I'm seeing Coney Barrett because she was in the frame the last time, when Kavanaugh was picked. He'll have a right battle with the religious right to pass over her now.

salmocab · 21-09-2020 2:28pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with that imho

The problem is not that they get to vote for multiple positions all way from local to federal

That is a problem though, voting for civil servants means that instead of getting a professional who’s built a career in a department you can get a chancer who just says the right thing to get the job. Having your job up for election also means that a lot of people will see it as a job without security and that will reduce the number of qualified people interested. Now the other side of the coin doesn’t mean the person getting the job would be the best person but it certainly increases the chances.
I said on one of the other threads recently that if you were setting up a country and someone suggested the American model you’d throw them out of the meeting.

Manic Moran · 21-09-2020 2:57pm

It would certainly need tweaking.

That said, it's not an entire free-for-all. Basic standards have now been generally instituted, such as "If you're going to be a sheriff, you must be a cop" (Which wasn't always the case), but even today there are still some minor level courts (misdemeanors, etc) in rural states where the judge doesn't need to be a lawyer.

In any case, normally for even boring civil service type positions like "water commissioner" or "county school supervisor", the backgrounds of the folks running tend to be on topic.

Rjd2 · 21-09-2020 4:11pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll put my fiver on Lagoa. Nominated before the election, hearings before the election, but not voted on until afterwards.

Just how much do the Democrats want to be seen on TV just before the election to be preventing a Hispanic female from a swing state from being appointed to SCOTUS, especially since she is well regarded and when they voted on her appointment to the 11th Circuit 80-15 in favor?

Isn't the story he met Barrett a year or so ago and was deeply unimpressed?

She'd be their to keep the social conservatives happy because she'd be more trusted to bin Roe v Wade unlike Lagao who may be considered more squishy.

However yeah the electoral logic of her along with De Santiis approval does make her the more sensible choice from that POV.

Unsure she'd get the numbers, but the GOP want the spectacle of the Dems arguing against her on the board.

everlast75 · 21-09-2020 4:48pm

He is contemplating who will replace RBG, but in the meantime has enough time to call her grand daughter a liar and allege his political opponents made it all up.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1308018515283267589?s=19

What a thoroughly disgusting, revolting human being.

salmocab · 21-09-2020 4:56pm

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

What's that saying, the electorate get the representatives they deserve.
Points at Trump

But yeh i suppose there has to be a balance where politics gets too "local", one could draw the line at mayor being lowest electable office.

But like i pointed out the election format is also a big factor, first past the post does create 2 party outcomes with extreme polarisation.

The format is not good agreed but voting for offices that in other countries would be filled generally by the best candidate is a recipe for getting sub par people into the system. Your sheriff shouldn’t get the job because he campaigned the best he should get it because he’s the best person for the job. No system is perfect for this sort of thing but jobs like these should be merit based.

dinorebel · 21-09-2020 5:41pm

everlast75 wrote: »

He is contemplating who will replace RBG, but in the meantime has enough time to call her grand daughter a liar and allege his political opponents made it all up.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1308018515283267589?s=19

What a thoroughly disgusting, revolting human being.

Projection again it's what he'd do.

Itssoeasy · 21-09-2020 6:19pm

So I see that Donald trump thinks that anti racist teaching is “child abuse.” So let that sink in even though it’s hardly a shock at this point that the president of the United States thinks that teaching kids how not be believe you are superior to someone based on skin colour is child abuse ? And I see that he’s using the Khan family strategy with regards to the late justice Ginsberg's granddaughter. I know Joe Biden isn’t ideal but Nixon looks better than Donald trump does.

Carfacemandog · 21-09-2020 6:25pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

If the Republicans go ahead and stick an arch-conservative on there then the last thing the Democrats should do is go along with that. That is the mistake that they have made over and over again since 2009 - giving in to the Republicans in the hope that they'll be rewarded in the future either by the Republicans reciprocating or the voters acknowledging it. Instead the Republicans have ruthlessly taken advantage of that stance and there has been no thanks from the voters.

This isn't "The West Wing". There's no appealing to the better nature of a party who elected Donald Trump as their standard bearer and have Mitch McConnell as their Senate majority leader. The Democrats need to fight, not roll over for fear of losing Florida. They'd probably end up losing it anyway.

As others have pointed out it doesn't look like they have any power to stop this but they need to be seen to fight it - both to fire up their own base and spread awareness amongst low information voters about the double standards. The Kavanaugh hearings happened 2 months before the mid-term elections and by all account they galvanised a lot of Democrats into turning out in numbers not typically seen for those types of elections and decimating the Republicans in House suburban districts.

If Manic Moran voted republican in 2016, then this clusterf*ck is exactly what they deserve after rewarding the utter nonsense that McConnell and Paul Ryan got up to in the years before, which stretches far and beyond the Merrick Garland fiasco.

If they want to decry the end of decorum or properly functional government and look for someone to blame, they need look only at themselves.

Manic Moran · 21-09-2020 6:32pm

salmocab wrote: »

The format is not good agreed but voting for offices that in other countries would be filled generally by the best candidate is a recipe for getting sub par people into the system. Your sheriff shouldn’t get the job because he campaigned the best he should get it because he’s the best person for the job. No system is perfect for this sort of thing but jobs like these should be merit based.

Hmm. If you're going to assume that the police should operate with the consent of the people, is not the best way of ensuring this to ensure the chap in charge is elected by the people? Plus, it's sometimes nice to get folks from outside the organization in. It may be weird to have a Sheriff who has no powers of arrest because he has not gone to the Academy, but realistically, it's also an administrative/policy position.

Such is the case for the election of Sheriff of my county this year. The incumbent, who runs a department of 1,900 personnel with a $135mn budget, is going up against someone who used to be the County Clerk (Difficult to explain the role, but think "chief administrator") for 25 years, but who has absolutely no law enforcement experience at all. Just how much of his daily work is really related to enforcing laws, vs managing a large organization and dealing with politics and politicians?

The Sheriff's administration has been beset by deaths in jail (8 so far this year) and a number of deputies fired for alleged malfeasance without process (6 so far this year). His opponent is talking about installing civilian review boards, body cameras and mental health. I think the Sheriff's going to win, but it's going to be very close.

This is a more blue than red town, the current Sheriff is a Democrat. His opponent is a Republican. (which is my real problem with the election process here in Texas. It's not that judges and sheriffs are elected, but unlike California, they are elected by party after a primary, just like any other elected position). If it were a mere appointment by the county leadership, there may well be less change if at the large scale the sheriff follows principles of the county leadership even if that leadership were elected for policies entirely unrelated to the Sheriff's department.

If Manic Moran voted republican in 2016,

That's a bit of an 'if' isn't it? Why call me out specifically?

eire4 · 21-09-2020 6:35pm

Carfacemandog wrote: »

If Manic Moran voted republican in 2016, then this clusterf*ck is exactly what they deserve after rewarding the utter nonsense that McConnell and Paul Ryan got up to in the years before, which stretches far and beyond the Merrick Garland fiasco.

If they want to decry the end of decorum or properly functional government and look for someone to blame, they need look only at themselves.

I could not agree more. People who think it will all be ok if they just get rid of the president are either been disingenuous or wilfully ignorant. The Republican party has been lurching towards being a far right authoritarian party for a long time now long before the current president. The president is vulgar, crass etc in how he speaks and conducts himself but the Republicans have been and it seems will continue to be interested only in maintaining power by any means no matter how undemocratic so they can continue to operate in the interests of the very wealthiest long after this president is gone.

mcmoustache · 21-09-2020 6:37pm

Carfacemandog wrote: »

If Manic Moran voted republican in 2016...

He mentioned multiple times who he voted for and it wasn't Trump.

salmocab · 21-09-2020 7:01pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hmm. If you're going to assume that the police should operate with the consent of the people, is not the best way of ensuring this to ensure the chap in charge is elected by the people? Plus, it's sometimes nice to get folks from outside the organization in. It may be weird to have a Sheriff who has no powers of arrest because he has not gone to the Academy, but realistically, it's also an administrative/policy position.

No I don’t agree that voting for him ensures the consent of the people, having a competent professional force ensures that, having elected people ensures that you get someone with an agenda and also puts people who might actually be the right person for the job out of the race if they don’t want to campaign for a promotion. It also creates a bizarre circumstance where someone could effectively be running against their current boss for the current bosses job which again surely discourages people from applying/campaigning. Certainly getting people from outside is a good thing but there are plenty of jurisdictions or school districts etc to get outside competent people from through a normal process.

Igotadose · 22-09-2020 12:45pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I see that Donald trump thinks that anti racist teaching is “child abuse.” So let that sink in even though it’s hardly a shock at this point that the president of the United States thinks that teaching kids how not be believe you are superior to someone based on skin colour is child abuse ? And I see that he’s using the Khan family strategy with regards to the late justice Ginsberg's granddaughter. I know Joe Biden isn’t ideal but Nixon looks better than Donald trump does.

Nixon looks better than Trump *today* and he's been dead for awhile.

The #IMPOTUS last night claimed Covid-19 affects 'virtually nobody.' Good to know, tell that to 200,000 dead people. And a few million very sick from it.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-says-coronavirus-affects-virtually-nobody-as-death-toll-set-to-hit-200000/

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments