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

Christy42 · 21-09-2020 8:41am

Man with broke phone wrote: »

If you slow things down and explain your points to me I will reply, to me it sounds like a few random things. Im not sure what you are asking but Im here with an open mind and if you explain what you mean I will hear them out.

Trump boasted about how great it was that a reporter was shot by a rubber bullet. Do you support this sort of violence or is it not a big deal. For me that should be a deal breaker. Fine you can not like Biden but you should want someone else instead of someone who wants violence against reporters (not his first time either, he was very pro that Montana thug attacking a reporter for asking a question a few years back).

The situation today with Mitch trying to ram through a justice in super quick time is different than 4 years ago when the Republicans spent ages blocking Garland without a hearing. Now people have already started voting. Plus they set the standard of waiting till the election when a justice dies in an election year which is what the Democrats expect them to stand to.

Mitch decided not to bother putting the corona virus relief bill to the floor for months because, well ask him but I suspect it is due to his dislike of helping poor people. Here he has a chance to hurt women's rights and so is all over getting work done in super quick time.

Quin_Dub · 21-09-2020 8:54am

StringerBell wrote: »

I see it being reported that Graham has shockingly done yet another 180 and said he will support trump in any effort to push forward on the nomination.

Americans have a thing about flip floppers and this is going to be one hell of an example of flip flopping from a whole lot of spineless, devoid of integrity bottom feeders.

I read a perfect description of Graham the other day.

Basically , they said that Graham was like a pilot fish - He attaches himself to the nearest Apex fish and swim along with them.

McCain was the Apex and when Graham was connected to him he gained a degree of respect etc. on that basis.

McCain then died and Graham needed to find a new Apex to cling to and he chose Trump and is now a reflection of him.

“People try to analyze Lindsey through the prism of the manifest inconsistencies that exist between things that he used to believe and what he’s doing now,” Schmidt says. “The way to understand him is to look at what’s consistent. And essentially what he is in American politics is what, in the aquatic world, would be a pilot fish: a smaller fish that hovers about a larger predator, like a shark, living off of its detritus. That’s Lindsey. And when he swam around the McCain shark, broadly viewed as a virtuous and good shark, Lindsey took on the patina of virtue. But wherever the apex shark is, you find the Lindsey fish hovering about, and Trump’s the newest shark in the sea.

Lindsey has a real draw to power — but he’s found it unattainable on his own merits.”

VinLieger · 21-09-2020 8:59am

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I read a perfect description of Graham the other day.

Basically , they said that Graham was like a pilot fish - He attaches himself to the nearest Apex fish and swim along with them.

McCain was the Apex and when Graham was connected to him he gained a degree of respect etc. on that basis.

McCain then died and Graham needed to find a new Apex to cling to and he chose Trump and is now a reflection of him.

Its a good analogy however i still 100% believe somebody also has pictures of him

Chips Lovell · 21-09-2020 9:53am

Mod Note
Another user has been threadbanned. If you can't have a civil conversation, don't post here.

abff · 21-09-2020 10:57am

I know that opinions on this thread are very polarised and that most people can appear at times to be totally closed to the idea that anything anyone on the other side says is valid. Personally, I find it very hard to take anything that’s said by Trump supporters at face value. But I try to do so.

Unfortunately, I find that any valid point they might be making is usually lost in the middle of over inflated rhetoric and an apparent assumption that if you don’t support Trump, you must be a far left extremist. I think this is an almost inevitable byproduct of the way in which Trump is running his election campaign, but I am open to considering any reasonable points that any Trump supporters might wish to make as to why another four years with Trump might be a good thing rather than the unmitigated disaster that I fear it would be.

pixelburp · 21-09-2020 11:15am

The problem with an even handed discussion of the Trump presidency, as is the case with Brexit IMO, is that more often than not support for both can be based upon a highly emotive decision; and because emotional decisions have more of a tendency towards Sunk Cost or an aggressive rejection of logic or legislative response, it reduces the conversation into a "he said, she said". It can't go anywhere except the personal or argumentative.

That's not to say there's a right and wrong here. Although I would argue a lot of key decisions with the Trump Presidency & Brexit are short sighted & selfish at best (many of Trump's executive decisions) or dangerous Disaster Capitalism at worst (the entirity of Brexit). Fundamentally IMO, the Trump Presidency is one of "feeling" and anti-intellectualism - again ala Brexit - where its key tenets are based around rejecting the very ammunition those arguing against it might use: ie, facts, figures and the granular discussion that's both rigorous - and boring. America is broken but fixing it requires long-term thinking and complex solutions. It's like Climate Change: as the comedian David Mitchell once remarked, you can throw as many celebrities at the problem as you like; but at the end of the day, fixing our environment is a long, tedious and boring task you can't sex up. Humans as a group don't have the patience for that (which is why in the dead of night I've often thought saving the world might require a Benevolant Dicator or AI lol)

Trump & Brexit have offered exciting, easy answers to complex problems and to plead complexity in response is to feed into that sense both movements are responding to, that pushback against "the experts" seen ever since 2008 saw the world economic crash. To me, that was the kernel which really started this anti-intellectualism. Without sounding smug or reductive, there's a sense that pleading logic to a Trump supporter is akin to begging a nihilist against the joys of burning everything down; for them, that's the appeal.

Tell me how · 21-09-2020 5:09pm

pixelburp wrote: »

That's not to say there's a right and wrong here. Although I would argue a lot of key decisions with the Trump Presidency & Brexit are short sighted & selfish at best (many of Trump's executive decisions) or dangerous Disaster Capitalism at worst (the entirity of Brexit). Fundamentally IMO, the Trump Presidency is one of "feeling" and anti-intellectualism - again ala Brexit - where its key tenets are based around rejecting the very ammunition those arguing against it might use: ie, facts, figures and the granular discussion that's both rigorous - and boring. America is broken but fixing it requires long-term thinking and complex solutions. It's like Climate Change: as the comedian David Mitchell once remarked, you can throw as many celebrities at the problem as you like; but at the end of the day, fixing our environment is a long, tedious and boring task you can't sex up. Humans as a group don't have the patience for that (which is why in the dead of night I've often thought saving the world might require a Benevolant Dicator or AI lol)

Trump & Brexit have offered exciting, easy answers to complex problems and to plead complexity in response is to feed into that sense both movements are responding to, that pushback against "the experts" seen ever since 2008 saw the world economic crash. To me, that was the kernel which really started this anti-intellectualism. Without sounding smug or reductive, there's a sense that pleading logic to a Trump supporter is akin to begging a nihilist against the joys of burning everything down; for them, that's the appeal.

I agree with a lot here but am also somewhat more sceptical on the opportunities or likelihood of fixing things as I think that that cannot happen without a strong government with the support of a large section of the population and currently, this is far from being possible.

Even if Biden wins, there are still going to be issues, Covid, BLM, Climate, gun control, immigration etc in the US. Tackling these would involve diametrically opposing conservative views in many cases and as a consequence, this will be fueled by conservative politicians seeking to gain power once again. They will always have something to point to in order to say that things are bad under the Democrats and so finding an eager audience will not be difficult. And the rise of the social media influencer/celebrity has changed the game in how public opinion is formed.

I mentioned on Boards recently that unfortunately, I think a cataclysmic event could be all that would bring the US together at this point as they unite in its aftermath (as with 911) but that would like burning a house down to fix a damaged roof.

I'd be even more pessimistic when looking at Irish politics. We have seen Peter Casey and Herman Kelly and a few more seek to appeal to a particular sector of society and we have seen a growing voice in opposition to science, unity, education etc with the increase in numbers following the narrative from some ultra regressive individuals.
As time goes on, as the economy, jobs, housing, healthcare etc continue to be an issue, I fear that we will see these groups gain even more and more support. There will always be something which they can point to to say that the government is wrong, or full of 'the elite' etc leading to people to consider radical alternatives such as the above. Have seen such a narrative grow significantly on Boards in recent years.

I've had friends and former colleagues send me links and memes etc which, to me, indicate they are going down a sinister path and I fear we will see more and more of that.

Detritus70 · 21-09-2020 5:35pm

Man with broke phone wrote: »

If you slow things down and explain your points to me I will reply, to me it sounds like a few random things. Im not sure what you are asking but Im here with an open mind and if you explain what you mean I will hear them out.

If it's too fast, just read slower.

CelticRambler · 21-09-2020 6:48pm

Tell me how wrote: »

I mentioned on Boards recently that unfortunately, I think a cataclysmic event could be all that would bring the US together at this point as they unite in its aftermath (as with 911) but that would like burning a house down to fix a damaged roof.

The way the population of the US has been polarised in just about every social and political domain, I don't believe there is any event or person who could now re-unite the states in any long-lasting way. To a certain extent, that's only "natural" because the US is not an alliance born out of a shared identity: it's more akin to the UK or Yugoslavia - a collection of states and territories bundled together by outside forces, and whose raison d'être has long since ceased to exist.

I don't expect that I'll see the break-up of the United States in my lifetime, but so much of that country's politics is based on 17th century habits, sooner or later one or other of the more forwards-looking states will decide they'd be better off outside the Union, and free from the toxicity currently on display.

looksee · 21-09-2020 9:09pm

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54238101

Not sure how the BBC has this when neither CNN or MSNBC has it, but between Barr and Trump this just reads as spite. The Mayors are threatening to sue. Presumably all New York has to do is not pay, since it gives more than it receives?

Has this ever happened before - states being refused federal payments?

The Trump administration has named three cities that are slated to lose federal funding after the White House accused them of tolerating crime.

New York City, Portland and Seattle are on the list of "anarchist cities" that Trump officials say have failed to stem crime linked to a summer of protests.

Itssoeasy · 21-09-2020 9:49pm

looksee wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54238101

Not sure how the BBC has this when neither CNN or MSNBC has it, but between Barr and Trump this just reads as spite. The Mayors are threatening to sue. Presumably all New York has to do is not pay, since it gives more than it receives?

Has this ever happened before - states being refused federal payments?

NBC news had it so not sure why MSNBC didn’t have it. I’ve no idea if it’s happened before but the likelihood is that probably not like this.

New York just stops contributing to the the country and let’s see how Kentucky and those states get on.

duploelabs · 21-09-2020 9:58pm

pixelburp wrote: »

The problem with an even handed discussion of the Trump presidency, as is the case with Brexit IMO, is that more often than not support for both can be based upon a highly emotive decision; and because emotional decisions have more of a tendency towards Sunk Cost or an aggressive rejection of logic or legislative response, it reduces the conversation into a "he said, she said". It can't go anywhere except the personal or argumentative.

That's not to say there's a right and wrong here. Although I would argue a lot of key decisions with the Trump Presidency & Brexit are short sighted & selfish at best (many of Trump's executive decisions) or dangerous Disaster Capitalism at worst (the entirity of Brexit). Fundamentally IMO, the Trump Presidency is one of "feeling" and anti-intellectualism - again ala Brexit - where its key tenets are based around rejecting the very ammunition those arguing against it might use: ie, facts, figures and the granular discussion that's both rigorous - and boring. America is broken but fixing it requires long-term thinking and complex solutions. It's like Climate Change: as the comedian David Mitchell once remarked, you can throw as many celebrities at the problem as you like; but at the end of the day, fixing our environment is a long, tedious and boring task you can't sex up. Humans as a group don't have the patience for that (which is why in the dead of night I've often thought saving the world might require a Benevolant Dicator or AI lol)

Trump & Brexit have offered exciting, easy answers to complex problems and to plead complexity in response is to feed into that sense both movements are responding to, that pushback against "the experts" seen ever since 2008 saw the world economic crash. To me, that was the kernel which really started this anti-intellectualism. Without sounding smug or reductive, there's a sense that pleading logic to a Trump supporter is akin to begging a nihilist against the joys of burning everything down; for them, that's the appeal.

That needs to be published, bang on the money

briany · 21-09-2020 10:44pm

duploelabs wrote: »

That needs to be published, bang on the money

If Trumpists cannot be reasoned with, then short of forcibly suppressing their views, the only way to dispel them is to let their game play out and collapse into ruin and thereafter draw their own conclusions.

VinLieger · 21-09-2020 11:01pm

briany wrote: »

If Trumpists cannot be reasoned with, then short of forcibly suppressing their views, the only way to dispel them is to let their game play out and collapse into ruin and thereafter draw their own conclusions.

Wherin it will still always be somebody elses fault, brexit is a great example. Theyve got what they say they wanted, the UK has left but now its the EUs fault for not giving them the promised easy as pie trade deal and bowing down to all their demands. They will never admit they were wrong or mislead.

Headshot · 21-09-2020 11:04pm

So with the debate coming up at the end of the month, where will it be held and do we know who will be over seeing the debate yet?

Itssoeasy · 21-09-2020 11:05pm

Headshot wrote: »

So with the debate coming up at the end of the month, where will it be held and do we know who will be over seeing the debate yet?

Don’t know where it is but it’s Chris Wallace of Fox News who is moderating the debate.

Water John · 21-09-2020 11:06pm

I think the moderator is Chris Wallace and is on the 29/30th Sept.
Open to correction.

Headshot · 21-09-2020 11:09pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Don’t know where it is but it’s Chris Wallace of Fox News who is moderating the debate.

Chris Wallace, im okay with this. I dont think Trump will get an easy time even from the propaganda branch of his administration "FOX News"

Tell me how · 21-09-2020 11:10pm

There are 3 debates scheduled between Trump/Biden.

Guy:Incognito · 21-09-2020 11:15pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Without sounding smug or reductive, there's a sense that pleading logic to a Trump supporter is akin to begging a nihilist against the joys of burning everything down; for them, that's the appeal.

Its like the conspiracy theory forum. Presenting them with evidence just makes them look for a comma in the wrong place and they use that as the basis that its wrong and the system is just against them.

None of the stuff stands up to any scrutiny but they just dont want to know. Look at the evangelicals. They are making him some sort of god like figure because he says he is "pro life" , despite everything about the man being against what they say they stand for. Havnt seen any of them looking for him to be put to death for adultery for instance............

His whole presidency has been the conspiracy playbook. Throw out some bull****, let the people bite, then just when its time to pony up with action, throw the next one out and they move on and forget the last one didnt pay off. All the things he says will happen never do but they just remember him saying it will.

They dont even see all the irony beating them in the face. Things like saying the stuff in the atlantic is made up because "anonymous sources"(even though the sources are not anonymous to the reporters) but at the same time their twitter feed is full of Qanon nonsense.

bobbyy gee · 21-09-2020 11:17pm

trump delays mail in voting

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/21/usps-post-office-mail-slowdowns-louis-dejoy

Itssoeasy · 21-09-2020 11:45pm

Water John wrote: »

I think the moderator is Chris Wallace and is on the 29/30th Sept.
Open to correction.

Correct. I was reminded of it several times yesterday while I was watching the Philadelphia eagles lose and the game was on Fox.

Water John · 22-09-2020 12:09am

CNN say they are carrying it live.
See trump rally in Ohio ATM, doubt REM are happy at their music being used.

Carfacemandog · 22-09-2020 12:33am

Has anyone got an idea where to find the ad Fox News were showing during the NFL games yesterday, for the debates? People really should see them, they didn't come over as biased, but are among the most batsh*t things I have seen in the last 4 years and might just be the greatest 60 second microcosm ever made on what is wrong with America's attitude to politics. I don't think I've even seen anything from actual reality TV ads that seemed even half as trashy.

Tell me how · 22-09-2020 12:50am

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Has anyone got an idea where to find the ad Fox News were showing during the NFL games yesterday, for the debates? People really should see them, they didn't come over as biased, but are among the most batsh*t things I have seen in the last 4 years and might just be the greatest 60 second microcosm ever made on what is wrong with America's attitude to politics. I don't think I've even seen anything from actual reality TV ads that seemed even half as trashy.

More batsh*t than this?

https://twitter.com/JacobRubashkin/status/1308102428240359424

StringerBell · 22-09-2020 7:41am

There's always a tweet, except this time. There's actually audio, from trump speaking with Cuomo regarding what happens with an open senate seat in an election year. Naturally he is in lockstep with the republicans, too close to an election. Will any of them care? Not a jot. A more repugnant bunch I can't remember in my lifetime in that country.

Edit: trump has been pretty honest about why he wants to fill the seat so fast funnily enough, he spoke about the issues that will be coming from the election that will likely go to the supreme court.

Rjd2 · 22-09-2020 9:11am

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Joe Rogan

3 hours long, Rogan spends most of the time asking them about aliens and pot.

"roll that clip again their Jamie"

Crap joke aside, would be good to see somebody outside the mainstream media bubble host one, but obviously even if Trump were not the nominee to find someone the Dems and Republicans would agree on would be impossible.

salmocab · 22-09-2020 9:15am

Rjd2 wrote: »

3 hours long, Rogan spends most of the time asking them about aliens and pot.

"roll that clip again their Jamie"

Crap joke aside, would be good to see somebody outside the mainstream media bubble host one, but obviously even if Trump were not the nominee to find someone the Dems and Republicans would agree on would be impossible.

The problem with going outside of what’s called MSM is getting someone qualified to do the job, in Irish terms you’d end up with someone from RTÉ who isn’t a journo which means we’d get Ray Darcy, I’m not sure who the American equivalent is but nobody really wants that standard of moderation.

5GMadeMeDoIt · 22-09-2020 1:20pm

Tell me how wrote: »

More batsh*t than this?

https://twitter.com/JacobRubashkin/status/1308102428240359424

Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but that seems more like a depiction of Genghis Khan than Attila the Hun?

I blame the schools.

Igotadose · 22-09-2020 1:33pm

5GMadeMeDoIt wrote: »

Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but that seems more like a depiction of Genghis Khan than Attila the Hun?

I blame the schools.

Yeah, whoever made that abysmal commercial got their historic figures wrong. Twitter's gone mad with it. But, hey, Loeffler made her $$ off of Covid, she'll go back to being the spouse of some wealthy wall streeter if she loses the election with all kinds of DC connections now.

PropJoe10 · 22-09-2020 3:15pm

Headshot wrote: »

So with the debate coming up at the end of the month, where will it be held and do we know who will be over seeing the debate yet?

I am genuinely looking forward to the VP debate. But I bet Mike Pence isn't. Harris is going to absolutely destroy him.

StringerBell · 22-09-2020 3:32pm

Romney has come out in support of moving forward to fill the seat, that will be that so. I hope they get absolutely crucified in this and subsequent elections.

Leroy42 · 22-09-2020 3:43pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Romney has come out in support of moving forward to fill the seat, that will be that so. I hope they get absolutely crucified in this and subsequent elections.

If they can get it through, which I see no reason why not, that will make it 3 SCOTUS during Trumps term. From the GoP POV, they didn't think Trump had a chance in hell 4 years ago, and are now walking away with SCOTUS tied up for many years to come and many conservative judges now in place across the country.

Regardless of how the POTUS election goes, once they don't completely crash in the Senate election (and I don't see evidence of that in the polls) then they will be more than happy with the last four years.

EltonJohn69 · 22-09-2020 3:52pm

StringerBell wrote: »

Romney has come out in support of moving forward to fill the seat, that will be that so. I hope they get absolutely crucified in this and subsequent elections.

I just watched the Romney documentary, I thought he had a bit more character to him then to be Trumps errand boy

StringerBell · 22-09-2020 4:00pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I just watched the Romney documentary, I thought he had a bit more character to him then to be Trumps errand boy

I don't think he is, but I think as a conservative who is safe from the hypocrisy claim and when it became clear that his opposition probably wouldn't have been enough to stop it he got in line and is happy to have a conservative appointed to the court even though it will upset the balance of the court and all the other negative connotations.

Leroy42 · 22-09-2020 4:00pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I just watched the Romney documentary, I thought he had a bit more character to him then to be Trumps errand boy

That is a bit unfair. He is GoP senator, the constitution gives senators the right to vote on SCOTUS if and when an opening occurs.

That the GoP pulled a fast one in 2016 is just part of the game, had the DNC not been so cock sure that HC would walk it anyway they probably should have put up a bigger fight.

The voting public, who vote for Senators, clearly felt that it was reasonable, given that the GOP still retain the majority.

Whilst i am completely against the whole politicalisation of the courts, that is the system that they currently have. It is up to the DNC to change that if and when they net get back into power.

StringerBell · 22-09-2020 4:02pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

If they can get it through, which I see no reason why not, that will make it 3 SCOTUS during Trumps term. From the GoP POV, they didn't think Trump had a chance in hell 4 years ago, and are now walking away with SCOTUS tied up for many years to come and many conservative judges now in place across the country.

Regardless of how the POTUS election goes, once they don't completely crash in the Senate election (and I don't see evidence of that in the polls) then they will be more than happy with the last four years.

It's absolutely incredible to think donald trump will have picked 3 sitting supreme court justices (in one term no less!) and will have such a long lasting impact on American lives so long after he is dead and buried alright. Incredible.

I think there's a chance this backfires on them in the down ballot races, but as it's the US I wouldn't put much money on it.

Sean.3516 · 22-09-2020 4:19pm

There’s no such thing as the “Biden Rule”, the “Garland Rule” or the “McConnell Rule”.
These BS conventions that politicians make up on the fly and never consistently apply anyway are just that. BS.

The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.

Retr0gamer · 22-09-2020 4:32pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

There’s no such thing as the “Biden Rule”, the “Garland Rule” or the “McConnell Rule”.
These BS conventions that politicians make up on the fly and never consistently apply anyway are just that. BS.

The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.

True but just because they can and will do it doesn't mean the Democrats shouldn't complain about something which will be so damaging to the country and also takes a massive scuttery dump over the legacy and dying wish of a remarkable woman. Not to mention the O'Connells hypocrisy.

The media has been pretty quiet today about the US hitting the grim milestone of 200,000 dead from Covid-19.

StringerBell · 22-09-2020 4:53pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

There’s no such thing as the “Biden Rule”, the “Garland Rule” or the “McConnell Rule”.
These BS conventions that politicians make up on the fly and never consistently apply anyway are just that. BS.

The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.

Kinda reads like you don't know what happened/ or what you're talking about. I have no idea which it is.

eire4 · 22-09-2020 5:26pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

There’s no such thing as the “Biden Rule”, the “Garland Rule” or the “McConnell Rule”.
These BS conventions that politicians make up on the fly and never consistently apply anyway are just that. BS.

The process is laid out clearly in the Constitution: The President has a responsibility to nominate and the Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent.

Obama has every right to nominate Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell has every right to reject him without looking twice.

That’s how the process works. Democrats throwing a tantrum because they don’t like it.

All you say there is factually correct and true. The caveat I would put forward though is that at this point the Supreme Court which should be an independent arbiter of the law has been holed below the water line.

Nody · 22-09-2020 5:27pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

If they can get it through, which I see no reason why not, that will make it 3 SCOTUS during Trumps term. From the GoP POV, they didn't think Trump had a chance in hell 4 years ago, and are now walking away with SCOTUS tied up for many years to come and many conservative judges now in place across the country.

Regardless of how the POTUS election goes, once they don't completely crash in the Senate election (and I don't see evidence of that in the polls) then they will be more than happy with the last four years.

Because 3 republican senators have said they are not going to vote for it is why not; they don't have the majority to push it through anymore. This is as well ideal for Trump to be honest because he can go to election with the rest of the party on the third seat without having to actually get it confirmed (i.e. re-elect me and you get a third judge).

Overheal · 22-09-2020 5:29pm

I'm not, quite sure if this belongs here, but, it is Trump's world now and stranger things are sure to happen. I felt that, given it's nature it should be savored here like a fine wine that it is, and not like, the dregs of CA/IMHO who will take a sip from it and carry on bickering. No! It needs to be treated like the fine upscale smoking lounge pulp that it is, I say.

I present to you the Actual Cover for Boehner's new memoir/book:

EihPnRfWoAAnVwt?format=jpg&name=900x900

*sniff* ah, that's good egocentrism.

Sean.3516 · 22-09-2020 5:53pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

True but just because they can and will do it doesn't mean the Democrats shouldn't complain about something which will be so damaging to the country

They can absolutely criticise the nominee on the grounds you've laid out above but that's not the only thing they're doing. They're criticising on the grounds that it's somehow unjust to appoint a Justice in an election year when every single President has nominated somebody whenever a vacancy arose. Election year or no.

Not only that, they're threatening to flip the system if they don't get their way. Packing the court, eliminating the filibuster entirely, packing the Senate etc.

If Democrats actually hold a principled belief that it's wrong to nominate a Justice in an election year, then why did Obama nominate Merrick Garland? There's no grounds to that belief at all. McConnell was being too cute by half in saying that the 2016 election was grounds to reject Garland. They would have rejected him in any case yet certain Senate Republicans have a misplaced sense of bipartisanship when it comes to judicial appointments dating back to the days before Dems got rid of the filibuster on judicial appointments (when Republicans confirmed two previous Obama Supreme Court nominees). They felt they needed to make a non-partisan justification for rejecting Garland. Completely misguided as they had to know the Democrats would never have shown the same courtesy. Nor should they have. Elections have never influenced this process in the past.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

and also takes a massive scuttery dump over the legacy and dying wish of a remarkable woman.

With all due respect to RBG, her legacy and her "dying wish" shouldn't mean squat when determining her successor.
This isn't some aristocracy where Judges appoint their successors. That seat didn't belong to her. It pre-existed before and it'll be around long after she's gone.
Seriously, who did she think she was to believe she could dictate this process post-mortem?

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Not to mention the O'Connells hypocrisy.

As for McConnell's so called hypocrisy, there were two components to McConnell's rejecting Garland in 2016:
1.) Our job is to advise and consent and only confirm Justices we believe will interpret the Constitution correctly and we have no obligation to confirm a nominee who we believe doesn't share those principles. We don't trust this President to nominate someone who fits that description so we're not holding hearings.

2.) There's an election in November and the people should have the chance to elect somebody who can fill this seat with the Justice they want.

As I've said reason 2 is complete BS. Republicans and Democrats knew this and still know it. That was McConnell trying to be too clever at the time and screwing himself politically 4 years later.

Still it's not actually hypocrisy on McConnell's part since only the 2nd reason applies this time around. The 1st does not since Senate Republicans happen to approve of the nominees on Trump's list. McConnell made it clear he thought the 2nd reason was only essential if the 1st was true. Yes, I agree, this is McConnell winding himself into a pretzel but you can't actually accuse the guy of inconsistency.

Sean.3516 · 22-09-2020 6:13pm

eire4 wrote: »

All you say there is factually correct and true. The caveat I would put forward though is that at this point the Supreme Court which should be an independent arbiter of the law has been holed below the water line.

Exactly. And one political party started using the court to shoe horn their political priorities into law without to need actually legislate. That would be the Democrats.

The Republican position on judicial philosophy: Textualism, (that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written) happens to be correct.

Igotadose · 22-09-2020 6:20pm

DoD funnelling $$ to their budwans under the pretext of Covid relief. Where's William Proxmire when you need him?
"A $1 billion fund Congress gave the Pentagon in March to build up the country’s supplies of medical equipment has instead been mostly funneled to defense contractors and used to make things such as jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/22/covid-funds-pentagon/

eire4 · 22-09-2020 6:24pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Exactly. And one political party started using the court to shoe horn their political priorities into law without to need actually legislate. That would be the Democrats.

The Republican position on judicial philosophy: Textualism, (that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written) happens to be correct.

The claim you make about the Republicans is risible. They are just as guilty of what your saying the Democrats are. For example they have made it a mission to overturn abortion rights in the US and that is exactly what the president said he was and would do with any nominees he put forward. Making sure their nominees do the bidding of big business has also been important in recent and previous Republican appointees.

The dangerous reality is that the supreme court as a legitimate independent arbiter of the law has as I said before been holed below the water line and the Republicans have been front and centre in that coming to pass as well.

Igotadose · 22-09-2020 6:25pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

1.) Our job is to advise and consent and only confirm Justices we believe will interpret the Constitution correctly and we have no obligation to confirm a nominee who we believe doesn't share those principles. We don't trust this President to nominate someone who fits that description so we're not holding hearings.

Funnily, the Constitution just states that Advise and Consent is what's needed. It doesn't say how the Senate provides it, which is the ticket. Otherwise, Justices might never be confirmed. So, even though Garland was proposed far in advance of the election, throw principle out the window (which is, when the President proposes someone, the Senate through it's process advises and consents, or not, which has been known to happen as well cf. Robert Bork for example).

Basically, what you're doing to rubberstamp this behavior is, "Whoever gets the Majority in the Senate gets to choose the SC judges." Sad place you're striving for, and has been readily stated, a minority of the population is dictating who is on the SCOTUS, since a minority population state like, say, Wyoming, has as much impact as say, Florida or California.

I don't think that's what the Founders intended.

Sean.3516 · 22-09-2020 6:51pm

eire4 wrote: »

The claim you make about the Republicans is risible. They are just as guilty of what your saying the Democrats are. For example they have made it a mission to overturn abortion rights in the US and that is exactly what the president said he was and would do with any nominees he put forward.

Did it ever cross your mind that Roe V Wade could have been wrongly decided?

Also none of Trump's Supreme Court Justices so far would ever vote to overturn Roe. None. They maybe textualists but their squishy when it comes to bad precedents and have shown they won't overturn established precedents. There's only one Justice currently on the Court who would definitely overturn Roe and that's Clarence Thomas.

Even if Roe was overturned (which it won't be any time in the near future) all that means is that States would have the chance to decide for themselves if the want abortion or not.

eire4 wrote: »

Making sure their nominees do the bidding of big business has also been important in recent and previous Republican appointees.

What does "doing the bidding of big business mean? Any examples?

eire4 wrote: »

The dangerous reality is that the supreme court as a legitimate independent arbiter of the law has as I said before been holed below the water line and the Republicans have been front and centre in that coming to pass as well.

It's more the case that interpreting the Constitution as it was written leads to outcomes that certain people don't like. Rather than putting those questions directly to the people by actually legislating, they've decided to appoint Justices who misinterpret the Constitution in aid of causes they agree with.

Igotadose · 22-09-2020 7:11pm

You just have to wonder, what motivates someone working for the NIH for years, to have been the leading anti-masker at "Redstate." Prior to that he criticized the Ebola response.

Fair play to the Daily Beast in finding this guy out, he was being actively destructive in his writings. Seems like he's 'retiring' from his government job, I hope his pension goes away.

Some people are just filled with hate, I guess.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/redstate-covid-troll-streiff-is-actually-bill-crews-and-he-actually-works-for-dr-anthony-fauci

"The managing editor of the prominent conservative website RedState has spent months trashing U.S. officials tasked with combating COVID-19, dubbing White House coronavirus task force member Dr. Anthony Fauci a “mask nazi,” and intimating that government officials responsible for the pandemic response should be executed.

But that writer, who goes by the pseudonym “streiff,” isn’t just another political blogger. The Daily Beast has discovered that he actually works in the public affairs shop of the very agency that Fauci leads.

William B. Crews is, by day, a public affairs specialist for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases."

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

Comments