US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

Kudos to Trump for taking questions from independents in a Townhall. While I think Biden's strategy is largely sound, it's this final phase that always leaves me dissatisfied with Democratic campaigners. You just don't get the feeling they're trying to get the votes, it's more like they're expecting it. I would have expected to be hearing about this new green economy Biden wants to build, and how that would help tackle the fires and create new jobs. Hope he doesn't blow it. A tight win isn't really going to cut it this time..

 

[Federberg]

RBG is dead. RIP...

Almost poor taste to say this, but a possible game changer for the election?

 

[Moxie]

RBG is dead. RIP...

Almost poor taste to say this, but a possible game changer for the election?

Leave it for tomorrow. Today is for mourning a great woman. RIP RBG.

 

[Moxie]

Almost poor taste to say this, but a possible game changer for the election?

The first question is if McConnell will actually manage to shove through a nominee before the election. That would be lightening-fast, and a complete reversal of the Republican's position that Obama couldn't get a vote on Merrick Garland, even with 8 months to go before the election. But they are not embarrassed by contradicting themselves when power is in play. There is already a groundswell of opposition to this, mainly popular, but including political.

Let's say, though, that they don't, and the seat remains empty: This will bring out the vote on both sides. Trump already knows that basically all he's really done is deliver judges to his evangelical and far-right base. It was the one promise he's come good on. Maybe those who have soured on him, and were likely to stay home might now come out. However, this will also unite the Democratic vote, for those who might also sit at home in protest. Much has been discussed about the Hispanic vote, already. I think that will become even more hard-fought for. (Abortion v. Immigration, though it's far more complicated than that.)

 

[Federberg]

The first question is if McConnell will actually manage to shove through a nominee before the election. That would be lightening-fast, and a complete reversal of the Republican's position that Obama couldn't get a vote on Merrick Garland, even with 8 months to go before the election. But they are not embarrassed by contradicting themselves when power is in play. There is already a groundswell of opposition to this, mainly popular, but including political.

Let's say, though, that they don't, and the seat remains empty: This will bring out the vote on both sides. Trump already knows that basically all he's really done is deliver judges to his evangelical and far-right base. It was the one promise he's come good on. Maybe those who have soured on him, and were likely to stay home might now come out. However, this will also unite the Democratic vote, for those who might also sit at home in protest. Much has been discussed about the Hispanic vote, already. I think that will become even more hard-fought for. (Abortion v. Immigration, though it's far more complicated than that.)

everything I read tells me that they're likely to be successful forcing this through. Romney came out today to say that he would support putting in a new Justice. This is going to lead to a major imbalance on the Court that could play to the Dems advantage. It seems to me Rowe v Wade is pretty much consensus in the US now, and so is the ACA. If the Dems can successfully get the message out about the consequences they could win everything in a landslide. To be perfectly honest they have only themselves to blame. When Obama came in they had 60 seats in the Senate didn't they? I simply don't understand how they didn't use that to put a lot of these contentious issues on the statute books. If there's anything good that comes out of it, it will force them to play tougher going forward and actually push through laws that leave little room for the Supreme Court to manoeuvre around

 

[calitennis127]

The first question is if McConnell will actually manage to shove through a nominee before the election. That would be lightening-fast, and a complete reversal of the Republican's position that Obama couldn't get a vote on Merrick Garland, even with 8 months to go before the election. But they are not embarrassed by contradicting themselves when power is in play. There is already a groundswell of opposition to this, mainly popular, but including political.

Moxie, in all seriousness, is there a single occasion in your life in which you don't simply repeat the Democratic Party line on something? It is no exaggeration to say that it is your church, although I'm not sure that description does justice to your fanatical devotion to the Democratic Party. It truly is cult-like.

At any rate, your remarks here show, yet again, just how low-information the Democratic voting base is. You can't even honestly characterize McConnell's argument because your sources are too lazy and/or dishonest to provide it to you, so you repeat the idiotic Democratic cliche of the moment that McConnell is contradicting himself based on what he said in 2016. He absolutely is not. His argument then as now was that a Supreme Court justice had not been confirmed by the Senate when opposite parties held the presidency and the Senate since 1888. And in 2016, Democrats held the presidency while Republicans held the Senate. Here in 2020, Republicans hold both the presidency and the Senate.

So no, McConnell is not contradicting himself. As usual, you are going to sources that misinform the public and rely on credulous low-information voters to be prominent. Listen to McConnell in the video below.

As you can see, McConnell has the arguments; Schumer does not. All Schumer can do is shout out inanities about Neil Gorsuch. McConnell is the one with the Constitution and historical precedent on his side. Listen and learn:


McConnell TORCHES Dems For Threatening to Destroy the Country to Stop Next SCOTUS Confirmation

 

[Moxie]

In all seriousness, here is the Republican party line for you, from 2016. Defend it, if you can.

 

[calitennis127]

In all seriousness, here is the Republican party line for you, from 2016. Defend it, if you can.

LOL.....the key point is DIVIDED GOVERNMENT. Let me repeat: DIVIDED GOVERNMENT. How much more explicit could I have made it in my last post? And how much more explicit could McConnell have made it in his speech on the Senate floor that I posted?

All of the Republican quotes from 2016 that you cite miss the context that McConnell as Senate Majority Leader had made it abundantly clear that he wasn’t moving forward with a vote on Merrick Garland because opposite parties held the presidency and the Senate. That was the case in 2016, but it is not the case in 2020. What is so hard about that to understand?

Look at the video I posted from 3:23 to 6:34. McConnell explains very clearly there the differences between 2016 and 2020. He then goes on to explain that there have been 8 times in American history when a Supreme Court justice was confirmed in an election year when the presidency and the Senate were held by the same party, as is the case right now in 2020.

Again, maybe you should learn to properly characterize your opponent’s arguments. You keep proving me right that Democrats rely on low-information voters.

 

[Moxie]

LOL.....the key point is DIVIDED GOVERNMENT. Let me repeat: DIVIDED GOVERNMENT. How much more explicit could I have made it in my last post? And how much more explicit could McConnell have made it in his speech on the Senate floor that I posted?

All of the Republican quotes from 2016 that you cite miss the context that McConnell as Senate Majority Leader had made it abundantly clear that he wasn’t moving forward with a vote on Merrick Garland because opposite parties held the presidency and the Senate. That was the case in 2016, but it is not the case in 2020. What is so hard about that to understand?

Look at the video I posted from 3:23 to 6:34. McConnell explains very clearly there the differences between 2016 and 2020. He then goes on to explain that there have been 8 times in American history when a Supreme Court justice was confirmed in an election year when the presidency and the Senate were held by the same party, as is the case right now in 2020.

Again, maybe you should learn to properly characterize your opponent’s arguments. You keep proving me right that Democrats rely on low-information voters.

I've heard these arguments, and I find them to be mainly excusing hypocrisy. (And I watched your video of Mitch presenting his arguments.) Using the argument of divided government is an excuse for why they let the Scalia seat go vacant for more than a year. They didn't even give hearing to the Garland nomination. That wasn't just precedent, it was obstruction. Now the Republicans are saying that, because they can, they will force through a nominee, in what will be the shortest timeline ever, if they can, and they probably can. This has nothing to do with precedent or the will of the people...it has to do with grabbing power while it is available. Everything those Republicans said leads to waiting for the election before confirming a new Supreme Court justice. The notion of divided government is just a slippery way of getting around what they said 4 years ago.

Democrats are not "low-information" voters, as you keep trying to say. We simply don't drink the kool-aid, or abide the hypocrisy that you do. I'm sure it chaps your a$$ that educated voters tend to vote Democrat.

A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation

39% of Americans identify as independents, more than they do as Democrats ( 32%) or as Republicans (23%). This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.

www.pewresearch.org

Education. Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men.

 

[calitennis127]

Leave it for tomorrow. Today is for mourning a great woman. RIP RBG.
View attachment 3997

Actually Ginsburg was not a great anything if you are talking about political impact on the world. The court is better off without her on it. She wasn't by any means a great legal mind and intellectually she was nothing special. She was just a left-wing activist on the court, which is why you like her. Trump is a much greater and much more impactful historical figure, as he has demonstrated with, among other things, the peace deals between Israel and the UAE/Bahrain as well as Serbia and Kosovo (the latter being a situation the Clintons screwed up royally in the 1990s). That's why he was just nominated for two Nobel Peace prizes. Obama and his foreign policy team (including Hillary, Biden, and Kerry) were too incompetent to ever pull something like that off.

As for your charge of hypocrisy toward the GOP in 2016 with Garland, you are entirely wrong. McConnell's position has not changed. In 2016 his argument rested on divided government between Senate and presidency, and he has not contradicted that stance with his current position in 2020. That said, if you do want to talk about hypocrisy, numerous prominent Democrats including Obahmmy, Tara Reade-rapist Joe Biden, and "RBG" herself all said that there was nothing wrong with moving forward with a Supreme Court nominee in an election year.

You want hypocrisy? Here you go sweetheart. Enjoy the first video and then open up the 1.5 minute C-SPAN video in the second link; it shows "RBG" herself saying in 2016 there was nothing wrong with advancing a Supreme Court nominee in an election year, a position that Obama also expressed. Here's some hypocrisy for you:


Biden, Obama Attack Trump for Pushing SCOTUS Pick...Then Their 2016 Comments Come Out







Ginsburg in 2016: President’s ‘Power’ to Fill SCOTUS for ‘Four Years, Not Three Years’
by HARIS ALIC 22 Sep 2020

Ginsburg: President's 'Power' to Fill SCOTUS Not Impacted by Elections

Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued a president's power is for "four years, not three years," when it comes to Supreme Court appointments.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Moxie]

Actually Ginsburg was not a great anything if you are talking about political impact on the world.

The woman who almost single-handedly changed the court's opinion on women's rights, and by using men's rights as part of her argument. You can pretend that she wasn't "a great anything," but no one will believe you. When was the last time that a Supreme Court justice became a cultural icon? She changed women's lives in this country. It has international reverberations, as well.

 

[calitennis127]

The woman who almost single-handedly changed the court's opinion on women's rights, and by using men's rights as part of her argument. You can pretend that she wasn't "a great anything," but no one will believe you. When was the last time that a Supreme Court justice became a cultural icon? She changed women's lives in this country. It has international reverberations, as well.

She became a cultural icon in a very limited sense because of the inhuman politicization of white college-educated females who have been indoctrinated for generations now in an utterly bogus version of history about white male sexist oppression. These brainwashed idiots combined their ideological admiration for Ginsburg with a hip hop lite moniker of “RBG” because they think it is cool to say that Ginsburg stood for women’s rights and did so with swagger and emphatic attitude, as diminutive as she was. That’s the message.

Now let’s get one thing clear: Ginsburg was not a “cultural icon” for actually producing or creating anything cultural. She was not an author or screen writer or playwright or musician or satirist. She was only an icon for her ideological views, particularly her pro-abortion stance. If she had been pro-life, you would not be calling her a “cultural icon” and Democrats would not be gushing over like she was, say, John Lewis (another completely overrated Democratic Party operative).

Of course, this is all about abortion, and it is really sad that people like you have turned the abortion procedure into a sacred religious act and then refer to this new definition as something befitting a “cultural icon".....No, abortion is not high culture. It is a medical procedure for killing the children of mothers who have engaged in irresponsible sexual activity. It is not a novel by Jane Austen or a play by Shakespeare or an aesthetically pleasing fashion line. So please stop calling it that.

That said, if you revere Justice Ginsburg so much, then what do you think of a) her criticism of Colin Kaepernick and b) her position in 2016, which Obama completely agreed with, that there is nothing wrong with a president advancing a Supreme Court nomination in an election year? You completely dodged that point above.

 

[Federberg]

Am I the only one who is appalled at Trump's response to the question about a peaceful transition? I mean... this is the United States of America we're talking about here? Seriously.. what the absolute fuck?? Look... we know the Trumpists are going to support him no matter what, but for him to win independents and non-Trumpist Republicans will have to vote for him. But those comments were absolutely disqualifying. It's ironic that one of his arguments has been that Biden and the leftists will turn America into Venezuela, but seriously if voters even allow this thing to be close then Venezuelan democracy is what we'll end up with. How the fuck can Senate Republicans not speak up about this?

 

[calitennis127]

Am I the only one who is appalled at Trump's response to the question about a peaceful transition? I mean... this is the United States of America we're talking about here? Seriously.. what the absolute fuck??

Uh, if you were concerned about a peaceful transition of power, then you would be condemning the Obama administration for sabotaging the incoming Trump administration with various manufactured scandals pertaining to Russia. Trump was not the beneficiary of a peaceful transition of power and you did not care about that. In fact, you were Exhibit A of someone who believed every lie about collusion with Russia.

Speaking of the Russia collusion narrative, shithead, did you hear the news about Lunchbucket Joe’s son Hunter yesterday? That he was paid $3.5 million by the wife of the ex-mayor of Moscow and was tied to prostitution rings in Eastern Europe? If this was anyone in the Trump family you would not be shutting up about it.

With everything you believed about the Russia collusion narrative, the opposite was true:


Hunter Biden Took $3.5 Million From Ex-Moscow Mayor’s Wife

SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 By Tristan Justice

Hunter Biden Took $3.5 Million From Ex-Moscow Mayor's Wife

A new Senate report out Wednesday shows former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden accepted $3.5 million from the wife of a fired mayor of Moscow.

thefederalist.com

 

[britbox]

Am I the only one who is appalled at Trump's response to the question about a peaceful transition? I mean... this is the United States of America we're talking about here? Seriously.. what the absolute fuck?? Look... we know the Trumpists are going to support him no matter what, but for him to win independents and non-Trumpist Republicans will have to vote for him. But those comments were absolutely disqualifying. It's ironic that one of his arguments has been that Biden and the leftists will turn America into Venezuela, but seriously if voters even allow this thing to be close then Venezuelan democracy is what we'll end up with. How the fuck can Senate Republicans not speak up about this?

Are you equally appalled at statements from the Democratic camp? i.e. Hillary's comments that Biden should not concede under "any circumstances".

Maybe you missed the Democratic Party recruiting volunteers to count votes and the 600 lawyers in place to contest the election...

For the record, Trump's statements are wrong... but the Dems are saying exactly the same thing. It's the most bitter dirty election in history... the rulebook was thrown out of the window a long time ago. Both sides are looking to win by any means necessary. Not good for the United States, but we're coming to an end of Empire moment anyway.

 

[britbox]

Venezuelan democracy is what we'll end up with.

Bizarrely, Venezuelan democracy or attempts at it, together with most attempts in South America have been met with fierce resistance from the United States when the "wrong" person was elected. Sandanistas anyone?

 

[Federberg]

Are you equally appalled at statements from the Democratic camp? i.e. Hillary's comments that Biden should not concede under "any circumstances".

Maybe you missed the Democratic Party recruiting volunteers to count votes and the 600 lawyers in place to contest the election...

For the record, Trump's statements are wrong... but the Dems are saying exactly the same thing. It's the most bitter dirty election in history... the rulebook was thrown out of the window a long time ago. Both sides are looking to win by any means necessary. Not good for the United States, but we're coming to an end of Empire moment anyway.

mate what are you even talking about. Trump is the President. Hilary isn't even the freaking candidate. This what-aboutism is just crazy..

 

[britbox]

mate what are you even talking about. Trump is the President. Hilary isn't even the freaking candidate. This what-aboutism is just crazy..

Let me ask you a question... would the Democrats concede on election night? You know the answer... lets quit the pretence. It's a dirty war. Neither side will concede on election night. You know it, I know it.

 

[calitennis127]

Let me ask you a question... would the Democrats concede on election night? You know the answer... lets quit the pretence. It's a dirty war. Neither side will concede on election night. You know it, I know it.

Federbergy is apparently too clueless to know that Hillary still has major influence at the higher levels of the Democratic Party. It’s also funny how he is completely silent on the news that Hunter Biden’s company took $3.5 million from the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. Wasn’t Tinfoil Federturd concerned about “Russia ties”? I guess not anymore.

As for the point about peaceful transition of power, here are some great recent tweets on that subject.....

 

[Federberg]

Let me ask you a question... would the Democrats concede on election night? You know the answer... lets quit the pretence. It's a dirty war. Neither side will concede on election night. You know it, I know it.

First of all this election will not be resolved on election night unless Biden wins Texas and Florida (then a reasonable but not definitive projection could be made) so I'm not sure why you're looking at that scenario. This is not what he said. If you don't understand the difference then I can't help you. He refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses. He is basically implying that even if he loses in a landslide he will not commit to a peaceful transfer of power. If you think that Biden will not concede if he has definitively lost then I don't know what world you living on.