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

1216217219221222306

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,165 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    droidus wrote: »
    I dunno, but if it's impossible, then why are Republican leaders in PA contemplating it?

    I don't know. He's been talking about it in general terms (Not PA specifically), but so far of the three states I've looked into, I've linked to the legislation where the legislature is out of the loop in the appointment of electors.

    Find me a State where the internal state legislation permits such arbitrary decisions by the legislature and I'll concede at least the theoretical possibility.

    A further theoretical possibility is if the red legislature with a red governor decides to change the law to allow for it, which I don't think would be quietly accepted, but I suspect those are likely States where a flip would not be required in the first place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,792 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    489 retired military, NatSec and staff endorse Biden, including several high-level ex-Trump officials.
    "The next president will inherit a nation – and a world – in turmoil. The current President has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office; he cannot rise to meet challenges large or small. Thanks to his disdainful attitude and his failures, our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us."

    https://www.nationalsecurityleaders4biden.com/

    Some analysis here: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/paul-selva-general-joe-biden/index.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,439 ✭✭✭✭briany


    TomOnBoard wrote: »

    Some people seem to believe that there is NO possibility that he would succeed. I think its pretty obvious by now, that Trump does not do well when he relies on the Courts to further his various corrupt agendas. I hope that record will continue, but I fear that it may not.

    People make a big deal of him trying to stack the SCOTUS with conservative judges, but even managing to do this wouldn't necessarily make it easier to pull off a soft coup and have it all legally contested. Those judges are still serious, educated people and unlikely to go along with any old chicanery just because they trend toward conservative in their rulings. They don't even have to worry about their job for voting against Trump on matters because those judges are there for life, so there isn't much reason to do anything other than what they think is right and lawful. And Trump appointees have already made rulings against him, so it's already been shown they are not blindly allied to the president.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/kavanaugh-gorsuch-rule-against-trump-in-supreme-court-tax-case-2020-7?r=US&IR=T


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    nthclare wrote: »
    The strange thing is that anyone who is in America see a different version of trumps support to the majority of us.

    It's like voting for your local TD and the republican politicians are doing a great job over there.

    People are sick of the liberals and all the violence from the left and a lot of people who vote are republicans.

    I said it the last time he'll win and I was banned from the politics forum because myself and a moderator went at each other over Trump...

    It's not because I support Trump, its because I know a lot about the demography of America.
    And I listen to people and not the media.

    He's like a magician, he's able to play chaos magic... And it works :)

    Google chaos magic
    I'm living in America and disagree with the above.

    One must remember that Trump is like a local politician for our friend above.

    Despite the posters' handle, they may have an interest in a successful Doonbeg locally.


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


    briany wrote: »
    People make a big deal of him trying to stack the SCOTUS with conservative judges, but even managing to do this wouldn't necessarily make it easier to pull off a soft coup and have it all legally contested. Those judges are still serious, educated people and unlikely to go along with any old chicanery just because they trend toward conservative in their rulings. They don't even have to worry about their job for voting against Trump on matters because those judges are there for life, so there isn't much reason to do anything other than what they think is right and lawful. And Trump appointees have already made rulings against him, so it's already been shown they are not blindly allied to the president.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/kavanaugh-gorsuch-rule-against-trump-in-supreme-court-tax-case-2020-7?r=US&IR=T

    This raises a number of issues around how political and philosophical orientations affect SCOTUS decisions.

    In the recent cases that you cite, the Trump case(s) had little/no basis in law. I see Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as not being 'blindly allied to the president'. These were cases where the issues and precedents were clear and Trump's case(s) were so legally weak that those 3 simply couldnt find for Trump with a straight face. But in newly carved territory, dealing with an election like has never been seen before in the US, the issues may not be so clear. At that point, the innate political and philosophical leanings of the Justice(s) take a much more important role. And that's why Trump wants to ensure that, at least in name, he has a 6-3 majority ASAP on the Court.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,439 ✭✭✭✭briany


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    This raises a number of issues around how political and philosophical orientations affect SCOTUS decisions.

    In the recent cases that you cite, the Trump case(s) had little/no basis in law. I see Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as not being 'blindly allied to the president'. These were cases where the issues and precedents were clear and Trump's case(s) were so legally weak that those 3 simply couldnt find for Trump with a straight face. But in newly carved territory, dealing with an election like has never been seen before in the US, the issues may not be so clear. At that point, the innate political and philosophical leanings of the Justice(s) take a much more important role. And that's why Trump wants to ensure that, at least in name, he has a 6-3 majority ASAP on the Court.

    In the event that Trump loses the election by a fair margin once all votes have been counted, the interpretation should be pretty clear. If the result is tight, there is precedent that the man who possibly lost in reality instead went on to be POTUS, but in most every other case, the man who got the most votes became POTUS. In the event of Trump losing, I expect him to cry foul and try to somehow block the transfer of power, but if it's clear that he lost then the philosophical or political leanings of certain judges shouldn't really matter and I would expect them to put constitution above all. Doing anything else would really hasten the U.S.'s slide into political instability. Playing games and picking sides would be really beyond the pale for SCOTUS judges who've spent virtually all their professional lives swearing to uphold the rule of law, and they above all should be wary of the dangers of undermining the integrity of the very highest court in the land. It's too high stakes to mess around with.


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


    Biggest problem is there are 53 of them in the Senate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Have you been in a parallel universe in last 4 years while Trump been dismantling us democracy?

    Please explain this? I think for some people they are reacting to a hysterical caricature of Trump that exists only in the media.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,939 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Please explain this? I think for some people they are reacting to a hysterical caricature of Trump that exists only in the media.

    Please tell us where we should be looking to get a view of Trump? He is the first to use social media to express his views, there is endless video of him, regardless of which media shows it, unlike the Trump Organisation the media does not tend to manipulate the video, it is just him, giving press conferences, talking at rallies, he is 'out of his own mouth'.

    Where is the truth that will dispel the 'hysterical caricature'?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    looksee wrote: »
    Please tell us where we should be looking to get a view of Trump? He is the first to use social media to express his views, there is endless video of him, regardless of which media shows it, unlike the Trump Organisation the media does not tend to manipulate the video, it is just him, giving press conferences, talking at rallies, he is 'out of his own mouth'.

    Where is the truth that will dispel the 'hysterical caricature'?

    An accusation was laid that he was "dismantling US democracy". Is there any substance to this accusation? Any example of something that he has said to back this up?


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


    An accusation was laid that he was "dismantling US democracy". Is there any substance to this accusation? Any example of something that he has said to back this up?

    Trump said he will not accept a peaceful transition of power should he lose, that's pretty much 'dismantling us democracy'


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,939 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    An accusation was laid that he was "dismantling US democracy". Is there any substance to this accusation? Any example of something that he has said to back this up?

    He has been dismantling democracy for the past year, specifically and bare-facedly in his comments about voting and ballots.

    I was asking about your reference to a 'hysterical caricature of Trump that exists only in the media'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Where do you want to start? Here are the 12 yearly signs of fascism



    Trump has ticked each one of those boxes already in his first 4 years ^

    Just a few days ago he went on live TV and told the world that he will not commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses. By the time you and your kids are being rounded up and incarcerated it would be a bit too late. Keep in mind some people do like fascism and hate democracy, which seems to be a common marker of a Trump supporter by some sheer coincidence.

    I doubt if he even checks one of those boxes.

    I saw the "peaceful transfer of power" exchange for myself and what is being reported is a misrepresentation at best.

    How is he controlling the media? 90% of TV stations in the US are against him.

    1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
    America has always been a patriotic country. The left are openly expressing hatred for the US.
    2. Disdain for human rights
    Any example of this? Enforcing immigration law?
    3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
    Which enemies are you talking about? Violent antifa or ISIS?
    4. Rampant sexism
    He is about to appoint a female supreme court judge.
    5. Controlled mass media
    No example of this... Unless you are talking about social media. What he is attempting to do in that space is admirable and in everyone's best interests
    6. Obsession with national security
    More obsessed than any previous President? Obama? No. He has tried hard to deescalate tensions with historical enemies.
    7. Religion and government intertwined
    This has always been a part of American politics.
    8. Corporate power protected
    Most americans are invested in the stock market.
    9. Labor power suppressed
    Not sure what you mean by this? Are you a marxist?
    10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
    Hmm, I think the people smashing up national monuments tick that box
    11. Obsession with crime and punishment
    The police in democrat run states are literally not enforcing the law. People's businesses and homes are being wrecked.
    12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
    Any proof? Please take a look at Hunter Biden.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    looksee wrote: »
    He has been dismantling democracy for the past year, specifically and bare-facedly in his comments about voting and ballots.

    I was asking about your reference to a 'hysterical caricature of Trump that exists only in the media'.

    Mail in ballots have been proven to be insecure. The FBI have already found ballots discarded, all for Trump.


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


    An accusation was laid that he was "dismantling US democracy". Is there any substance to this accusation? Any example of something that he has said to back this up?

    Before embarking upon this long discussion with someone who states that they don't believe an allegation against Trump, I cut to the chase to ask them first if they think the allegation is a bad thing.

    Otherwise, you spend an hour debating whether he did it or not and then when you present proof that the allegation is true, the Trump supporter usually says "well so what if he did?"


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


    Mail in ballots have been proven to be insecure. The FBI have already found ballots discarded, all for Trump.

    That's a blatant lie. Please provide citation


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich




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


    Mail in ballots have been proven to be insecure. The FBI have already found ballots discarded, all for Trump.

    Yet Trump uses mail in ballots and encourages the people of Florida to get their mail in ballots.


  • Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭hirondelle


    duploelabs wrote: »
    That's a blatant lie. Please provide citation
    Trump acknowledged himself that some of the mail in ballots were blank. I hope his word can be trusted by his supporters.


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



    9 Ballots oh no wait there's actually 7

    “At this point we can confirm that a small number of military ballots were discarded. . . . Of the nine ballots that were discarded and then recovered, 7 were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump. Two of the discarded ballots had been resealed inside their appropriate envelopes by Luzerne elections staff prior to recovery by the FBI and the contents of those 2 ballots are unknown.”


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    duploelabs wrote: »
    9 Ballots oh no wait there's actually 7

    “At this point we can confirm that a small number of military ballots were discarded. . . . Of the nine ballots that were discarded and then recovered, 7 were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump. Two of the discarded ballots had been resealed inside their appropriate envelopes by Luzerne elections staff prior to recovery by the FBI and the contents of those 2 ballots are unknown.”

    So first it was a blatant lie. Now you are picking over numbers. 2 were resealed so we don't know who they were for.


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


    hirondelle wrote: »
    Trump acknowledged himself that some of the mail in ballots were blank. I hope his word can be trusted by his supporters.

    A lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots, unfortunately


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    everlast75 wrote: »
    A lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots, unfortunately

    My understanding is that 7 were for trump and 2 were resealed.

    You all really don't think there is a problem with mass mailing ballots to every registered voter and allowing them to be mailed back without verification?

    Really?


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


    My understanding is that 7 were for trump and 2 were resealed.

    You all really don't think there is a problem with mass mailing ballots to every registered voter and allowing them to be mailed back without verification?

    Really?

    Ok, let me answer that with a question. How long has mail in balloting been in operation?


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


    My understanding is that 7 were for trump and 2 were resealed.

    You all really don't think there is a problem with mass mailing ballots to every registered voter and allowing them to be mailed back without verification?

    Really?

    But Trump loves mail in ballots, he is literally telling people to use mail in voting. So which is it? Good or bad?

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1309171857774477314?s=19


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


    So first it was a blatant lie. Now you are picking over numbers. 2 were resealed so we don't know who they were for.

    It's still not true what is attested in the link you provided


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    duploelabs wrote: »
    It's still not true what is attested in the link you provided

    The original report stated all 9 were for Trump. Only after reviewing the article just now did I see that only 7 were for certain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    But Trump loves mail in ballots, he is literally telling people to use mail in voting. So which is it? Good or bad?

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1309171857774477314?s=19

    You can disagree with the rules but still play by them. I would imagine he is being pragmatic.


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


    The original report stated all 9 were for Trump. Only after reviewing the article just now did I see that only 7 were for certain.

    Confirmation bias much?


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


    You can disagree with the rules but still play by them. I would imagine he is being pragmatic.

    Was he being "pragmatic" when he literally told people to vote twice which is pretty much the definition of voter fraud?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement