2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by ProdigalHorn, Dec 6, 2018.

  1. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Voter registration is up in Penn (setting a record)

    "A record number of Pennsylvanians have registered to vote in the presidential election, but voters may not be registering in the political party you think.

    When you dig into the numbers, one thing is clear in this state: in the last four years, the number of registered Democrats has dropped by nearly 50,000, while Republicans have picked up 150,000 registered voters statewide.

    “You had a lot of people who were registered as Democrats but tended to vote Republican, and a lot of those people are changing their registration,” professor Kristin Kanthak, a University of Pittsburgh political scientist..."

    Republicans Gain Statewide And Locally In Voter Registration
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 6
  3. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    Democrats in 2016: “ Trump can’t be trusted with the Nuclear Code”

    2020: Trump gets 3 nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. :beertoast:
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    ******* retard.
    • Hot Hot x 1
  5. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    Will the MSM report this BS?
  6. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Of course not.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    Does anybody know the name of the reporter who asked Biden the SCOTUS packing question? Bravo for him.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Watch him get reassigned to reporting on ribbon-cutting ceremonies for new grocery stores.
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    "I’m voting for the most corrupt, self-serving politician I’ve ever seen because the other side won’t stand up against violence, Marxism and race-baiting. I feel like I’m drowning and, in order to keep from going under, I’ve had to throw my arms around a giant, floating turd."

    For me, it was won't stand up against court packing. Link.

    This lady is kinda weird. She has a significant Twitter following and posts pictures of herself naked on social media from time to time, which I think is strange. However, she makes points that sometimes go along with what I feel like, though she's probably a little more hostile to Trump than I am.
    • Like Like x 3
  10. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Thread on battleground states:

    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Twitter won’t allow me to forward this tweet:

    • Like Like x 3
  12. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    • Hot Hot x 2
  13. Horn2RunAgain

    Horn2RunAgain 1,000+ Posts

    Mc I don't know that's necessarily a good sign. My wife's dad recently passed, she sold his firearms at a local pawn shop to get rid of them. Of the 3 pawn shops we went to, the people we saw looking to buy guns weren't exactly your typical Trump supporters.
  14. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 3
  15. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Yea We Biden Harris are having a campaign event but we won't tell anyone.:lmao:
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Yeah, what a joke
  17. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Trump has promised to bring home all troops from Afghanistan by Christmas. He has already brought home thousands.

    I will be voting for Trump this election. For several reasons, but that is a major one. He is for peace, for life, benefitting people of races and nationalities. Biden would probably start a new hot war with Syria and Iran.
    • Like Like x 4
  18. WillUSAF

    WillUSAF 500+ Posts

    Biden does not have the balls to go to war. Not that I'm a hawk just saying he has no balls if needed.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  20. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    Stand alone Biden does not have balls to go to war, but propped up by the establishment Biden does.
  21. lkainer

    lkainer 250+ Posts

    • WTF? WTF? x 1
    • Hot Hot x 1
  22. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    That is incredible. Not just for the irrefutable lies
    But that it is All so easy to find and STILL DMC ignores
    And Trump haters pretend to support him.
    After all the proven good Trump has done for minorities and would continue to do the haters would let their dislike of his personality sway their vote to that pos Biden or to a 3rd party candidate which is the same as a vote for Biden. :brickwall:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Hot Hot x 1
  24. WillUSAF

    WillUSAF 500+ Posts

    We can agree to disagree on this. I look back at the Obama administration and the Democratic establishment then. While war is a horrible thing and shoudl be a last resort I just don't believe the Democrats have the hawkish attitude some Republicans have. Also if we HAD to go to war they would be afraid of hurting someone's feelings.
  25. WillUSAF

    WillUSAF 500+ Posts

    So if you were a Democrat would voting for a 3rd party be just like voting for Trump?

    I hear this comment a lot. Its stupid. (the comment not you sir)
  26. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Thank you for generous clarification.:coolnana:

    History has shown a 3rd party candidate takes votes away from the GOP
    Would you say your candidate shares more views with the Dems or Republicans?
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2020
  27. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Why take a chance? If you think the country is better off under trump, vote for him. If Biden, vote for him. 3rd party vote is a colossal waste. Your prerogative, of course.
  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 1
  29. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 1,000+ Posts

    I thought, and still think, that there is a strong case that the 2016 seat should have gone to a Democratic appointment. At most, the Senate's confirmation power should be used as leverage to force a more moderate appointment. But I was able to see the other side of that argument.

    But that is different now. Trump should get to fill one seat or the other, but not both. The combination of what happened in 2016 and what is about to happen in 2020 is outright theft of a seat. And no, I'm not persuaded by your resort to definitions of "theft" in the literal context of taking away another person's property.

    Many of your points, including this one, address questions about what one side or the other can get away with. That argument doesn't address the much more relevant questions -- what is fair and best for the American experiment. Plus, this argument does not distinguish the current Republican shenanigans from the possibility of Court packing by the Democrats. The fact that they might be able to get away with it would not make it right.

    On this, we will have to disagree. The vast majority of appointments to the Supreme Court have been filled by the sitting president. That is true regardless of who controlled the Senate. Control of the Senate creates leverage to do the wrong thing, and across history the Senate has done the wrong thing on occasion. I believe n=1 on that, but it might be 2. Regardless, that doesn't make it right.

    On this we can agree. In fact, this is fundamental to my point. Both sides are firmly in the wrong, and they keep trying to one-up each other on how outrageous they can be. The Barrett confirmation hearing is a huge escalation, but I have no doubt the Democrats would've done the same thing if the shoes were reversed.

    I pretty much agree with you on all of this -- except the idea that the freakout will dissipate and feminist women in New Jersey will let this go if Roe gets overturned. Not a chance.

    The Democrats vetoed Bork and forced Reagan to nominate another Republican. That's exactly how the system was designed, and is fundamentally different from vetoing any and all Reagan appointments and stealing the seat.

    The power to nominate is meaningful only if the Senate gives some level of deference to the nomination. Without that deference, the Senate is co-equal on a practical level.

    You are understating the wrongness of the Republican's conduct, and overstating the impact of Court-packing. We'll probably never agree on either point, and I've already discussed the first point so I'll move on.

    With respect to Court packing -- there were several changes to the Court's size in the first 80 years or so, but none of those seemed to be about packing the Court because control didn't shift. But that changed in the 1870s, when the Supreme Court was expanded from 7 to 9 to dilute Southern influence. The most direct impact was on the validity of paper money, which swapped more or less overnight from being unconstitutional (4-3) to being constitutional (5-4). More broadly, the newly expanded Court became much more open to an expanded role for the Federal government. Of course, it's hard to assess this as a precedent because it happened in the shadow of the Civil War.

    The second attempt at Court packing was the better-known Roosevelt plan to increase the Court from 9 to 15. That plan faced considerable opposition -- for good reason -- but it was headed towards a close vote. But then, two Justices changed their position, in what is known as "the switch in time that saved nine", and started upholding New Deal legislation. This made Court packing unnecessary, and the Senate voted it down.

    Both prior Court-packing plans were put forth out of the blue, in a blatant attempt to change the Supreme Court's direction. I also feel that packing the Court would be unwise in the current situation, but the case will be murkier if Barrett is confirmed. That act will severely hurt the Court's credibility and threatens to undermine America's democratic institutions. Court packing is just the next logical step in the spiraling destruction of our judiciary. Other than packing the Court, the Democrats' only other option is to tip their caps at the Republicans and congratulate them on their success in stealing a Supreme Court seat. And yes, I think that would make them the "better person" in this contest. Of course, "better" doesn't have to mean good -- just less bad.

    This seems to be the core of the issue. To summarize:
    • The right supported blocking Garland and now supports confirming Barrett because they like Barrett's judicial philosophy and dislike Garland's.
    • The left supported confirming Garland and now supports blocking Barrett because they like Garland's judicial philosophy and dislike Barrett's.
    This hyper-partisanship enables conservatives to employ tactics that are Constitutionally sound but threaten political stability, and tempts liberals to consider tactics that are equally Constitutional but even more destructive.

    And with that said, I'm probably done with this topic. We have both said all we really can, and I don't plan to keep checking back through this thread to figure out if anything new was said. Of course, I might... lol.
  30. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    I agree with that longhorn. The GOP is playing with fire. In 1869 they adjusted the number to match the number of federal court districts at 9. That number is now 12 if you count the DC circuit. I don't want to see them increase the number of justices. That said, if it happens it's because of what happened since the death of RBG.

Share This Page