Backintheday544
-
Posts
1,790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Backintheday544
-
-
Interesting quote for a Republican Strategist in the race:
Legendary Republican campaign strategist Ed Rollins, who is the chair of the pro-Donald Trump Great America PAC, told me "I'm afraid the race is over." Rollins said that he "would definitely recommend that candidates make the case for their own reelection, and when asked about President Trump they should say 'I support him when it's in the interest of my state, North Carolina, Arizona — and oppose him when it's not in the interest of our state. My job to support the people of our state.'"
"What happened after the first presidential debate is every Senate race saw a 3- to 4-point drop [for Republican candidates] across the board," said Rollins. "So campaigns are panicking and it's the first time in a long while that they are being outraised. The potential is there to lose not only the presidency but the Senate as well...and to see the kind of wipeout we haven't an experienced since the post-Watergate year of 1974."
-
Great support in Florida!!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senior-warning-sign-trump-biden-043109910.html
"An armada of as many as 500 golf carts gathered at the Sea Breeze Recreation Center to caravan to the nearby elections office, so folks could drop off ballots for Biden."
A great point made by one supporter: "But there was also “an overwhelming sense in 2016 of ‘we’ve got this in the bag.’ There was a level of complacency that she’d win,” said Stanley. “Now there’s a heightened sense of urgency, and in many ways, Trump has been our best recruiting tool ever.”"
-
14 minutes ago, westside2 said:
This is a thread about Biden. If you want to talk about Trump, start your own thread.
This is a thread about the reasons you will not vote for Biden. I am now asking you the question, your reason is that he steals and is a liar.
If another candidate was a proven thief in court, would that change your opinion on that candidate?
If it would not, then being a thief and a liar is not a reason would you won't vote for Biden because you wouldn't apply that standard to another candidate.
I'm just trying to clarify your position on why you would or would not vote for someone.
1 minute ago, Golden Goat said:Why'd you lead with it, then, if that wasn't really your point?
Oh, and it's well documented here that I am far from a Trump supporter and will not be voting in November. Why would I defend him?I led with that because the OP started with plagiarism and then went with stealing. I was simply following his ramble.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Golden Goat said:
You first. Do you really not see the difference between a presidential candidate plagiarizing and a foreign-born first lady doing it?Yes, I do. The point was more it's something the Trump campaign has done. Now your turn.
-
6 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Most people have issues when someone immediately tries to highjack a threadThe reasons I won't vote for Biden.
By westside2, 36 minutes agoNo hijacking. Just wondering if his reasons apply universally to all candidates or just ones named Joe.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Taro T said:
You expect that D's would be less likely to join a riot than R's would be? The events of the summer & fall don't seem to bear that out.
I'm not saying that. Riots are the language of the unheard (and Canucks fans). It just so happens minorities are the ones feeling unheard and lean D.
-
19 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Too bad they didn't ask how comfortable they'd be attending a riot. Expecting those #'s would've flipped.
Probably would have been closer to the same. Don't forget all those mask protests we saw.
-
8 minutes ago, Golden Goat said:
Seriously? You're comparing a presidential candidate to a first lady whose second language is English? 🤣
Just adding to the list. No issues with the other Trump stealing?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, westside2 said:
After starting a thread looking for reasons why I should vote for Biden, I was really hoping to hear valid reasons from Biden supporters on why I should vote for him. Instead I got no valid reasons to votr for Biden, only the same old excuses on why you would. Mostly, orange man bad. That's not a good enough reason to me.So after a lot of consideration, I am going to, over the course of this thread, give you reasons why I will not vote for him. Starting with this.
Joe Biden has proven over and over again to not only be a liar, but a Thief as well. You may not think stealing someones speech is a big issue. I believe it shows his immoral Character. I will give more reasons why I will not be voting democrat later on, I think this is a good place to start.
You make good points.
Stealing speeches is bad, like when Melania stole Michelle's: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36832095
Stealing is also bad:
1) President Trump has paid $2 million to eight charities as part of a settlement in which the president admitted he misused funds raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his presidential bid and pay off business debts, the New York State attorney general said on Tuesday. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html)
2) A federal judge finalized the $25 million settlement between President Trump and students of his now shuttered Trump University on Monday, with New York's attorney general claiming “victims of Donald Trump’s fraudulent university will finally receive the relief they deserve.” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/04/10/trump-university-settlement-judge-finalized/502387002/)
-
5
-
-
30 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
Such a massive groundswell of support and excitement!
There's also a major difference in opinion of COVID based on political party:
The main own is the last one. 8 percent of Democrats are comfortable attending a crowded party vs 31 percent.
-
29 minutes ago, Kemp said:
Note the weakness. Still can't dispute that Trump failed miserably with North Korea.
What a STRONG leader!
Trump really is becoming Captain Queeg.
Old Yellowstain will find those frozen strawberries.Having Dennis Rodman as our envoy to North Korea probably wasn't a good idea.
-
18 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
My "yes indeed" applied to me alone. Good for the AP for scouring the country high and low to find two dozen voters who may not vote for Trump again, but are certainly giving no indication that they will crawl across broken glass to vote for Biden.
I'm a single issue voter this time, and from the article I linked it's this.
Then as details about SpyGate were revealed in early 2018, I became a full-throated proponent of Trump, incensed that the Obama administration colluded with Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and legacy media to weaponize the federal government intelligence and law enforcement agencies against an opposition party candidate and then a sitting president. When the Russian collusion hoax didn’t work, Trump’s enemies tried to take him down with fake impeachment charges over a legitimate phone call with a new Ukrainian administration.
That's it. There are now mountains upon mountains of real actual evidence pointing to the above being true. Trump is still the same egotistical blowhard ahole everyone always knew he was. But you know what? The country is absolutely allowed to elect an egotistal, bowhard ahole without unelected bureaucrats attempting to overturn the election. If these people aren't ultimately held to account we all are living in an illusion of a constitutional republic.
Also, we had a poll down here on PPP a few months ago asking who everyone voted for in 2016 and how they plan to vote this time. I can't find it now but I'd say we had close to a dozen voters just in this little sub-forum who didn't vote for Trump in 2016 that plan to vote for him this time.
A lot of polls ask the question. Here is one from Pew yesterday:
People who didn't vote in 2916, support Biden more.
6 percent of people who voted Trump are voting Biden.
4 percent of people who voted Clinton are voting Trump.
I think the biggest take away is the 3rd party support from 2016 isn't there in 2020 (even with Republican lawyers trying to get possibly popular third parties on swing state ballots) and those 3rd party votes are going heavily towards Biden.
-
4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:
How much in taxes were taken out in your paychecks after 2018? My guess is your paychecks were higher because they didn't take as much out in taxes. I consider owing money to the government good because you aren't giving them an interest free loan.
The main thing he needs to look at is tax liability, not owing or not owing at the end of the year like you said.
TCJA had pros and cons. It did cost a lot. The cost is one reason that the Republicans had to make the corporate tax cuts permanent and the individual tax cuts expire in 2026. Under reconciliation, the bill could only cost so much, so that was one settlement.
A major con is the complexity. The cornerstone for businesses was the QBI deduction which is a very complex deduction. Per a recent TIGTA study over 1,000,000 Americans didn't take it even though they're eligible.
The other major con was the speed at writing it. The Blue book had over a hundred technical corrections that were needed. The Republicans had 96 technical corrections they wanted to make. The biggest was 15 year life for qualified improvement property. They forgot to write that part in.
Overall, it was costly and rushed. It could have and should have been better.
The disproportionate favor towards the wealthy also led to Trump's promise of a middle tax class cut right before the 2018 election that never happened.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:
Yes indeed.
Yes double indeed:
"In two dozen interviews with voters in three traditional swing states and Texas, people discussed why they aren’t voting for him again and what it feels like to leave behind a political allegiance that was part of their personal identity"
-
6 hours ago, unbillievable said:
You're only going back 1 term. The exact same scenario played out in the opposite direction with previous presidents and senates.
The current crisis was caused by Democrats who used the nuclear option despite being warned that it can used against them.
It's recent history, but the Democrats are once again being short-sighted. WHEN the republicans impeach, pack the SC, and threaten the 25th amendment, we'll see more whining about unfair treatment from the left in the future...
This never happened in a prior term.
As to the nuclear option, Democrats waived the filibuster for executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. They did not use it for Supreme Court nominations. The Republicans are the ones who used the nuclear option for the Supreme Court. Doing so paved the way for packing the court by the Dems after 2020.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, spartacus said:
29 times a justice seat has come empty in an election year
29 times the Pres has nominated a replacement- every , single, time
Whether they get confirmed or not depends on the candidate and the preference of the Senate
19 times, the Senate was the same party as the Pres
17 were approved before the election and 2 were not but not for unique circumstances
what played out in 2016 and 2020 is tacking what has happened for the life of the Supreme Court
Which is why it was odd McConnell said we're not going to hold hearings on Garland. Never has the Senate flat out refused hearings. Their excuse was it was an election year. Just look at Graham's quote. Mitch created a rule, he should stick by it.
Here is Graham's clear articulation of the Mitch rule: “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."
Part of the election will be a referendum on that and a sweep for Democrats shows the American people want a Supreme Court packing.
To be clear, I think Trump should get to nominate a judge and the Senate should give their advice and consent. However, Obama should have had that same chance.
-
2 hours ago, snafu said:
I understand that about the Court. Republicans have had the Executive and both branches of Congress before. Democrats have, too. Nobody has seriously called for packing the Court ever since Roosevelt got himself screwed up in that.
I find it extremely curious that packing the Court has become an issue alongside calls for abolishing the Electoral College and making states out of D.C and Puerto Rico. You don't think there's a message there: change the rules to suit your goal of making a one-party county? I live in a one-party City inside a one-party state. I can tell you that it sucks.
This all stems back to 2016 with Merrick Garland.
Conservative Justice Scalia passed and with 8 months before the election, the Dems proposed Garland as his replacement. Garland is much more centrist than some of the more liberal judges Obama could have picked.
The rights justification is you should not pick a Supreme Court Justice in a Presidents last term. Republican Lindsey Graham said it best: "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."
Before Scalia died the court was 5-4 in favor of conservatives with 2 justices on the right that would cross over to the left at times.
Garland would have moved the court more left, but that's because Scalia was so far right. Garland was more of a compromise pick.
Fast forward to 2020, one of the most liberal judges dies, RGB, and all of a sudden the right want to change the fake rule they made in 2016 and be hypocrites to fill a seat. Filling the seat will give the court a hard right favorite 6-3.
The idea of packing the court isn't to make a one party system, it's to rebalance the court, especially with how hypocritical the right is.
Packing the court isn't discussed at all today if Garland was given the proper hearings in 2016.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Mark Davis?
Yes!
-
3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:
He already debated in person once. It just led to his poll numbers increasing.
-
Spanberger's district went from Eric Cantor to being not conservative enough so Cantor got primaried. Now is leans Democrat for Spanberger's second term
-
1 minute ago, spartacus said:
you claim open seats should have been filled by the Senate under Obama to maintain the "will of the people"
However, it seems since 2014, the "will of the people" has been to elect more Republican Senators than Democrats
Based on the actual vote on who approves judges, the "will of the people" is they want the Constitution followed and not "interpretted" by liberal feelings
The Senate has been following the will of the people
And the Senate will follow the will of the people when the Dems take it back and add some seats to the Supreme Court.
-
Just now, spartacus said:
McConnell is not creating new seats
he is filling open seats
Open seats that should have been filled by Obama but he purposely subverted the will of the people to keep open.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, spartacus said:
it's not something you do if trying to "maintain our form of govt"- which is what was the stated concern
it's what you do when you want to legislate from the court because you can't pass what you want in Congress
If the polls hold and Dems control the House, Senate and White House, it seems to me almost a mandate by the American people to pack the court and bring balance back to the Court.
4 minutes ago, spartacus said:it's not something you do if trying to "maintain our form of govt"- which is what was the stated concern
it's what you do when you want to legislate from the court because you can't pass what you want in Congress
Also you do realize this is what McConnell for the Republicans has been doing? He held up as many of Obama's judges as possible, including a Supreme Court judge and now has been ramming them through as fast as he can?
-
5 minutes ago, spartacus said:
Trump is not the one threatening to add additional justices to the Supreme Court
Adding Justices to the Supreme Court and is Constitutional and has been done before.
Covid 19 vs Trump
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Kind of excited for the new movie:
https://mobile.twitter.com/BoratSagdiyev/status/1314722422285717504