Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Presidential Election 2020

1211212214216217306

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,874 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Out with somebody else's chequebook. The only way he solves his problems...


    https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1306980319384555526?s=19


    Too little to late, given his disgusting remarks previously?

    Or will this win voters over?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,348 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Out with somebody else's chequebook. The only way he solves his problems...


    https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1306980319384555526?s=19


    Too little to late, given his disgusting remarks previously?

    Or will this win voters over?

    I suppose throwing Billions of dollars at them is better than throwing paper towels like he did before.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,107 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Michael Moore, who called Trump's victory more or less right, is saying that the Biden campaign in his home state of Michigan is even poorer than Hillary's was in 2016. Trump squeaked through in Michigan. Moore claims that there is little campaign presence on the ground and an almost total failure to engage with black and hispanic voters with most of the limited obvious attention being paid to try and take votes from Trump by focusing on Republican leaning undecideds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,064 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Biden speaking ATM in Minnesota, quite impressive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    Michael Moore, who called Trump's victory more or less right, is saying that the Biden campaign in his home state of Michigan is even poorer than Hillary's was in 2016. Trump squeaked through in Michigan. Moore claims that there is little campaign presence on the ground and an almost total failure to engage with black and hispanic voters with most of the limited obvious attention being paid to try and take votes from Trump by focusing on Republican leaning undecideds.

    Is that maybe down to the whole plague thing going on?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,874 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    RBG has passed away. R.I.P.

    Now, you understand McConnell's standing on appointing a SC judge? Merrick Garland?

    Well, not anymore!

    https://twitter.com/ESCochrane/status/1307119186230022156?s=19

    Trump's only chance of winning imho is via the courts, so they'll try cram another one through.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,650 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    Michael Moore, who called Trump's victory more or less right, is saying that the Biden campaign in his home state of Michigan is even poorer than Hillary's was in 2016. Trump squeaked through in Michigan. Moore claims that there is little campaign presence on the ground and an almost total failure to engage with black and hispanic voters with most of the limited obvious attention being paid to try and take votes from Trump by focusing on Republican leaning undecideds.

    In fairness Moore is a doom monger, he was right about Trump but only because he kept predicting the worst.

    I refuse to believe that the Dems wouldn't learn something from 2016. They're spending big where it needs to be spent. If they can flip Florida, Trump is done. Michigan can't save him.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Is there any chance that McConnell ramming through the federalist society's next judge will be the act that seals their doom in the White House and the senate?

    Obviously the base will be happy I don't mean it will turn anyone but it may be an appalling enough act of hypocrisy and callousness so close to the election that it has an impact on any remaining fence sitters etc?

    You can expect nothing from a pig other than a grunt so the nomination process will only go one way, this opportunity is too big for them to turn down but surely, surely this time there will be repercussions for how truly disgusting their behaviour is?

    Maybe I'm being too naive.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,790 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Is there any chance that McConnell ramming through the federalist society's next judge will be the act that seals their doom in the White House and the senate?

    Obviously the base will be happy I don't mean it will turn anyone but it may be an appalling enough act of hypocrisy and callousness so close to the election that it has an impact on any remaining fence sitters etc?

    You can expect nothing from a pig other than a grunt so the nomination process will only go one way, this opportunity is too big for them to turn down but surely, surely this time there will be repercussions for how truly disgusting their behaviour is?

    Maybe I'm being too naive.

    Very good chance. There's a list of names out there already (read this on some RW rag this a.m.) Moscow Mitch has already released a statement that they would.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Very good chance. There's a list of names out there already (read this on some RW rag this a.m.) Moscow Mitch has already released a statement that they would.

    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.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,068 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,790 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,995 ✭✭✭Shelga


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    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.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,790 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    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.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,361 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,107 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    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...


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


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

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,361 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,107 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    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..


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭letowski


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,361 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,902 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,107 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,902 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,593 ✭✭✭eire4


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,703 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,164 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    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?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement