2016 Election vs 2020 Election

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, H2o said:

I appreciate your thoughts and opinions my friend. We differ in how we see things as far as Trump and Biden go. Trump is a political outsider who was already rich when he obtained the office so he can't be bought, not like these career politicians who have turned their Office into a cash cow. He's not trying to be a dictator, he's trying to get everything turned back over to the people. He has fought tooth and nail against the rest of the corrupt politicians since the night he received enough Electoral votes to become POTUS. He had no peaceful transition, he was given no chance to just do his job, and those same corrupt politicians (with the help of the corrupt mainstream media) have done nothing, but slander and throw accusation after accusation his way while trying absolutely everything within their power to remove him from office. Why? Because he's stopped all the backhanded transactions they were using to amass their personal fortunes and is bringing down their plots to bring us into a One World Government system under the rule of the same Globalist Elite who run the Central Banking system. Biden is a 47 year politician who has really accomplished nothing outside of the 1994 Crime Bill, a bill which basically targeted blacks in general. There are numerous videos of him making racist statements, his strange to say the least touching/fondling/sniffing of women or children, and many times he's not able to put a coherent conversation together. There are also multiple instances of corruption he's been involved in whether it be himself or tied in through his family. Everyone, including the MSM, is turning a blind eye to it. Why might that be? Is it because Trump is really their enemy and not the people's? Everything since he has been elected has shown me what the Dem party is about and that is "win at all costs" no matter those who get caught up in the wash. They don't care about the people, they care about power. The power to impose their wil, their policies, and enslave us all. They don't care about the Constitution, they want to change it to fit their agenda. There's a reason they want bigger government, heavier financial burdens placed on us all, and a disarmed populace. Biden would be nothing more than a puppet of those pushing this agenda. His "plans" arer those dictated to him by the puppet masters pulling the strings. 

We'll just have to disagree.  Ultimately what is needed to get us out of this nonsense is a viable third party that wrests control away from the two parties that only want to remain in power.  I suggest formation of the 537 Party.  You nee one person for each congressional district, two for each senate position per state, and a President and Vice President.  If we could get 537 people who recognize that effective government means honest debate and dialog, that decisions on the main issues of the day require compromise and consensus, then we can get back to actually getting things done for the citizens of this nation.  

 

It didn't used to be this way.  When Nixon the criminal occupied the office, both parties recognized the harm to the country.  Reagan and Tip O'Neill were as diametrically opposed politically as any two people could be, but they would sit down for drinks at the White House on a regular basis, because they knew that governance required them to work together, as when they saved Social Security.  We can do this again but we need people in DC that put country before party.

 

Let's flip a coin.  Winner can be President and loser Vice President.  

[spartacus]

13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

We'll just have to disagree.  Ultimately what is needed to get us out of this nonsense is a viable third party that wrests control away from the two parties that only want to remain in power.  I suggest formation of the 537 Party.  You nee one person for each congressional district, two for each senate position per state, and a President and Vice President.  If we could get 537 people who recognize that effective government means honest debate and dialog, that decisions on the main issues of the day require compromise and consensus, then we can get back to actually getting things done for the citizens of this nation.  

 

It didn't used to be this way.  When Nixon the criminal occupied the office, both parties recognized the harm to the country.  Reagan and Tip O'Neill were as diametrically opposed politically as any two people could be, but they would sit down for drinks at the White House on a regular basis, because they knew that governance required them to work together, as when they saved Social Security.  We can do this again but we need people in DC that put country before party.

 

Let's flip a coin.  Winner can be President and loser Vice President.  

You allude to it that the Republican / Democrat paradigm is a huge mirage

 

For this electio0n, the choice is outsider  vs establishment (both Reb & Dem)

Trump is massively upsetting the under the table cash available to both Reb & Dem from lobbyists and special interests

both sides want him out, so the Congress critters can go back to feeding at the public trough  and getting rich

How is is that most politicians in Congress are multi-millionaires after being in office for a while

[oldmanfan]

Just now, spartacus said:

You allude to it that the Republican / Democrat paradigm is a huge mirage

 

For this electio0n, the choice is outsider  vs establishment (both Reb & Dem)

Trump is massively upsetting the under the table cash available to both Reb & Dem from lobbyists and special interests

both sides want him out, so the Congress critters can go back to feeding at the public trough  and getting rich

How is is that most politicians in Congress are multi-millionaires after being in office for a while

This election to me is about our form of government surviving.  It should be abundantly clear Trump wants an autocratic government. Go back and look at Bannon's stuff before 2016 election.

[Backintheday544]

1 hour ago, H2o said:

I appreciate your thoughts and opinions my friend. We differ in how we see things as far as Trump and Biden go. Trump is a political outsider who was already rich when he obtained the office so he can't be bought, not like these career politicians who have turned their Office into a cash cow. He's not trying to be a dictator, he's trying to get everything turned back over to the people. He has fought tooth and nail against the rest of the corrupt politicians since the night he received enough Electoral votes to become POTUS. He had no peaceful transition, he was given no chance to just do his job, and those same corrupt politicians (with the help of the corrupt mainstream media) have done nothing, but slander and throw accusation after accusation his way while trying absolutely everything within their power to remove him from office. Why? Because he's stopped all the backhanded transactions they were using to amass their personal fortunes and is bringing down their plots to bring us into a One World Government system under the rule of the same Globalist Elite who run the Central Banking system. Biden is a 47 year politician who has really accomplished nothing outside of the 1994 Crime Bill, a bill which basically targeted blacks in general. There are numerous videos of him making racist statements, his strange to say the least touching/fondling/sniffing of women or children, and many times he's not able to put a coherent conversation together. There are also multiple instances of corruption he's been involved in whether it be himself or tied in through his family. Everyone, including the MSM, is turning a blind eye to it. Why might that be? Is it because Trump is really their enemy and not the people's? Everything since he has been elected has shown me what the Dem party is about and that is "win at all costs" no matter those who get caught up in the wash. They don't care about the people, they care about power. The power to impose their wil, their policies, and enslave us all. They don't care about the Constitution, they want to change it to fit their agenda. There's a reason they want bigger government, heavier financial burdens placed on us all, and a disarmed populace. Biden would be nothing more than a puppet of those pushing this agenda. His "plans" are those dictated to him by the puppet masters pulling the strings. 

 

If only that was true. Just look at UD government and foreign government spending at Trump Properties since the election. Look at money given Trump family members from the campaigns.

 

Trump has profited off being president and Trump has shown he only cares about Trump.

 

This is a man who used funds from a charity to buy a Ton Tebow jersey and a painting from himself.

 

This is a man who pays $70,000 a year for America's second worst haircut.

 

 

[spartacus]

52 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

This election to me is about our form of government surviving.  It should be abundantly clear Trump wants an autocratic government. Go back and look at Bannon's stuff before 2016 election.

Trump is not the one threatening to add additional justices to the Supreme Court

 

[Backintheday544]

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.

[spartacus]

Just now, Backintheday544 said:

 

Adding Justices to the Supreme Court and is Constitutional and has been done before.

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

 

[Backintheday544]

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?

[spartacus]

10 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

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.

 

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?

McConnell is not creating new seats

he is filling open seats

 

 

[Backintheday544]

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.

[spartacus]

2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Open seats that should have been filled by Obama but he purposely subverted the will of the people to keep open.

 

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

 

 

[Backintheday544]

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.

[BuffaloHokie13]

19 hours ago, H2o said:

Thank you for the information my friend. A much appreciated reference and breakdown. There was a blue wave in the House, but the Republicans did manage to flip seats in the Senate. I believe that the House was more of the Dems focus in 2018 because they felt it was more vulnerable and did a lot more campaign work. We shall see in how it shakes out in 26 days. 

Plus a week to count mail ins plus litigation after someone inevitably disagrees with the results 😂

[oldmanfan]

3 hours 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

 

It would not agree with that.  But our form of government has three coequal branches.  Biden believes in that and Trump does not.

[spartacus]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

It would not agree with that.  But our form of government has three coequal branches.  Biden believes in that and Trump does not.

please explain- because you have it backwards

 

Biden was VP to the master of the executive order

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, spartacus said:

please explain- because you have it backwards

 

Biden was VP to the master of the executive order

Executive orders are generally not good; President’s if both parties use them too much.  Biden and Obama accepted decisions of the court.  When Congress subpoenaed people in the Administration they went.  The Trump administration routinely ignores the Congress, they have placed a number of people rated as unqualified to the judiciary, and Trump has said under the Second Article he has unlimited power.   He wants an autocratic government where he is not checked by the other two branches.  

[spartacus]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Executive orders are generally not good; President’s if both parties use them too much.  Biden and Obama accepted decisions of the court.  When Congress subpoenaed people in the Administration they went.  The Trump administration routinely ignores the Congress, they have placed a number of people rated as unqualified to the judiciary, and Trump has said under the Second Article he has unlimited power.   He wants an autocratic government where he is not checked by the other two branches.  

you insuate Trump foes not follow the decisions of the Supreme court- 

please elaborate, I am not aware of these transgressions

 

you must have missed the Russia investigation and impeachment fiasco  -  during which the Trump admin cooperated fully

please provide examples of your above claims

[snafu]

5 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

This is a man who pays $70,000 a year for America's second worst haircut.

 

This is a great point.  I mean, he can get the same result from a free barber school cut.

It certainly calls into question his judgment skills.

 

5 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

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.

 

These conditions have held before -- but there was no call to pack the Court.

Why would that be different today?  Why remove all checks and balances?

 

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

It would not agree with that.  But our form of government has three coequal branches.  Biden believes in that and Trump does not.

 

That can't be true if Biden supports packing  the Court.  

[oldmanfan]

10 minutes ago, spartacus said:

you insuate Trump foes not follow the decisions of the Supreme court- 

please elaborate, I am not aware of these transgressions

 

you must have missed the Russia investigation and impeachment fiasco  -  during which the Trump admin cooperated fully

please provide examples of your above claims

McGann and Bolton come to mind

9 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

This is a great point.  I mean, he can get the same result from a free barber school cut.

It certainly calls into question his judgment skills.

 

 

These conditions have held before -- but there was no call to pack the Court.

Why would that be different today?  Why remove all checks and balances?

 

 

That can't be true if Biden supports packing  the Court.  

The Constitution does not state a specific number of justices.  I would not agree with adding justices but if the Senate, House and Executive branch all go Democrat then you could make the same argument Republicans are making, namely that the people through the elective process are telling their government what they want on the court.

[The Frankish Reich]

6 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

If only that was true. Just look at UD government and foreign government spending at Trump Properties since the election. Look at money given Trump family members from the campaigns.

 

Trump has profited off being president and Trump has shown he only cares about Trump.

 

This is a man who used funds from a charity to buy a Ton Tebow jersey and a painting from himself.

 

This is a man who pays $70,000 a year for America's second worst haircut.

 

 

Mark Davis?

[snafu]

24 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

McGann and Bolton come to mind

The Constitution does not state a specific number of justices.  I would not agree with adding justices but if the Senate, House and Executive branch all go Democrat then you could make the same argument Republicans are making, namely that the people through the elective process are telling their government what they want on the court.

 

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.

 

 

 

[Backintheday544]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Mark Davis?

 

Yes!

 

[Backintheday544]

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.

[spartacus]

34 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

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.

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

 

 

 

[Backintheday544]

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.

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Backintheday544

[Rob's House]

5 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.

 

 

No one genuinely cares about 95% of the principled positions we argue about. It's all about what's politically convenient at the moment. 

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

No one genuinely cares about 95% of the principled positions we argue about. It's all about what's politically convenient at the moment. 

Most of the left is basically nihilist.

[Rob's House]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Most of the left is basically nihilist.

 

It's not just the left, but it's not a "both sides" situation either. Liberals are heavy on emotion and narrative and light on facts and principle. There's a reason most authoritarian regimes that have committed mass atrocities have arisen from collectivist movements. The only underlying principle that is absolute is that their side is right, no matter what their side represents.

[unbillievable]

4 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

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.

 

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...

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

People stayed home or voted for 3rd party candidates.

 

And that won't happen this year.

 

It really is just that simple.

 

Some of you act like there was this insane win for Trump in 2016 when the reality is that 70,000+ votes across 3 states won the election for Trump.

 

I get it. I see Trump voters and the "Trump trains" out there, too. They're desperate. That's fine. 

 

They're the vocal minority.

 

America in 2016: " Fool me once, shame on you."

 

America in 2020: "Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

The country won't shame itself this time.

[shoshin]

4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

People stayed home or voted for 3rd party candidates.

 

And that won't happen this year.

 

It really is just that simple.

 

Some of you act like there was this insane win for Trump in 2016 when the reality is that 70,000+ votes across 3 states won the election for Trump.

 

I get it. I see Trump voters and the "Trump trains" out there, too. They're desperate. That's fine. 

 

They're the vocal minority.

 

America in 2016: " Fool me once, shame on you."

 

America in 2020: "Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

The country won't shame itself this time.

I voted third party in a critically tight swing state last time and won’t this time. Not happy to help give the Dems the seat, and in fact loathe mich of the Dem platform and especially the AOC wing, but Trump and Trumpism has to go.
 

I’d like to purge Gaetz and Graham and the whole lot of unprincipled swamp things that latched on to Trump.

 

It could give the Dems a 5-8 year run but the Reps need to create a more principled opposition party that speaks to the working person’s advantage. Demographically the Reps have a chance—a chance—to go after the Latinx vote, perhaps by focusing on pathways to legal immigration and citizenship and abandoning their anti immigrant rhetoric. If they don’t win a good portion of that demo, the debate in the US is going to shift to socialism vs centrism (like EU politics) and no longer be socialism vs capitalism. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by shoshin

[Backintheday544]

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.

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

17 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.

 

 

 

 

...so when institutions like the Electorate College, SC appointments et al do NOT fall your way, you tip your hi-chair over screaming "foul" and demand a change of the rules....so we change the rules and down the road the opposing party is faced with these same dilemmas, demanding rules change...ANSWER from party in charge?..."everything is just fine......forget it"......sound about right??.............

[oldmanfan]

18 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.

 

 

 

I agree the country would function best with a two party system where there was actual dialog and debate and compromise.  But that is not happening, which is why I believe the only way back to a functional government is a third party that takes over.

 

As for packing the court, if I were Biden I’d say the following:

 

The Republicans justified not placing Garland and now rushing to seat Barrett because they claim the voters mandated it by voting for Republican Senate.  If this election votes in a Democratic Senate as well as a Democratic President as well as maintain a Democratic House, it would seem clear the people are saying they want a change to the judicial branch.  How that would look will have to be seriously considered

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree the country would function best with a two party system where there was actual dialog and debate and compromise.  But that is not happening, which is why I believe the only way back to a functional government is a third party that takes over.

 

As for packing the court, if I were Biden I’d say the following:

 

The Republicans justified not placing Garland and now rushing to seat Barrett because they claim the voters mandated it by voting for Republican Senate.  If this election votes in a Democratic Senate as well as a Democratic President as well as maintain a Democratic House, it would seem clear the people are saying they want a change to the judicial branch.  How that would look will have to be seriously considered

...LOL my good friend....."two party system" is code for "Good 'ol Boyz Clan Protectionism"...Trump exposed that fraternity.....proclamation of the US as the "world's greatest democracy" is a ruse......in your college days, didn't you promise her, "I WILL call you tomorrow"......fallacious as "doing the people's business".....535 parasites whose SOLE goals are self aggrandizement and PERSONAL enrichment.....kind of like finding a poor(COUGH) Union official.....ever wonder when a "term limits proposal" surfaces?....... a/k/a "bite the hand that feeds you"?........YAWN........

Edited October 10, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Dr. Who]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree the country would function best with a two party system where there was actual dialog and debate and compromise.  But that is not happening, which is why I believe the only way back to a functional government is a third party that takes over.

 

As for packing the court, if I were Biden I’d say the following:

 

The Republicans justified not placing Garland and now rushing to seat Barrett because they claim the voters mandated it by voting for Republican Senate.  If this election votes in a Democratic Senate as well as a Democratic President as well as maintain a Democratic House, it would seem clear the people are saying they want a change to the judicial branch.  How that would look will have to be seriously considered

The people are saying what their techno overlords have told them to think. They're just ratifying the totalitarian groupthink already in place -- Puerto Rico, DC Statehood, electoral college goodbye, packing the Court. So long republic; we couldn't keep it. They slipped up with Trump the first time because they didn't think he had a chance. Unless there's a wave of silent anger at the massive loss of liberty and respect for the dignity of the common man and innocent life, it's welcome to Venezuela.

[snafu]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree the country would function best with a two party system where there was actual dialog and debate and compromise.  But that is not happening, which is why I believe the only way back to a functional government is a third party that takes over.

 

As for packing the court, if I were Biden I’d say the following:

 

The Republicans justified not placing Garland and now rushing to seat Barrett because they claim the voters mandated it by voting for Republican Senate.  If this election votes in a Democratic Senate as well as a Democratic President as well as maintain a Democratic House, it would seem clear the people are saying they want a change to the judicial branch.  How that would look will have to be seriously considered

 

Plurality politics make for strange results.  You’re seeing it within the Democrat party this year. I’m not 100% sold on third or fourth or fifth parties. People already complain that the President didn’t win the popular vote.  With third parties you’d see a lot of backroom dealmaking. 

 

As for packing, I’d say a couple things: (1) using the Garland “wrong” (and I didn’t like what happened back then) as justification for packing the Court is juvenile and it really doesn’t look into the future of recrimination on this issue. Some day we would have 27 Justices based on past partisan transgressions. (2) if Biden wins, he will get his chance at likely two appointments in his 4 years. One of them might be Thomas, irony of ironies.  Why bother to pack the Court? (3) packing the Court might be within the President’s power, but overreach has political blowback consequences. (4) Even what would appear to be a 6-3 conservative majority doesn’t always see results.  Roberts isn’t a stalwart conservative by any means.  Gorsuch is up in the air, as well.

 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Plurality politics make for strange results.  You’re seeing it within the Democrat party this year. I’m not 100% sold on third or fourth or fifth parties. People already complain that the President didn’t win the popular vote.  With third parties you’d see a lot of backroom dealmaking. 

 

As for packing, I’d say a couple things: (1) using the Garland “wrong” (and I didn’t like what happened back then) as justification for packing the Court is juvenile and it really doesn’t look into the future of recrimination on this issue. Some day we would have 27 Justices based on past partisan transgressions. (2) if Biden wins, he will get his chance at likely two appointments in his 4 years. One of them might be Thomas, irony of ironies.  Why bother to pack the Court? (3) packing the Court might be within the President’s power, but overreach has political blowback consequences. (4) Even what would appear to be a 6-3 conservative majority doesn’t always see results.  Roberts isn’t a stalwart conservative by any means.  Gorsuch is up in the air, as well.

 

 

 

I agree.  I would leave the court as is.  Roberts is sensitive about his legacy.

[snafu]

Just now, Jaraxxus said:

 

Biden won't serve out his term if elected. He's a placeholder for a year and then it's president knobshiner.

 

Having kids, I’ve learned that I’m able to see the future, and it is always disappointing when I see the worst — and it comes true.

 

[transplantbillsfan]

It wasn’t a silent majority that won Trump the Presidency. He barely won in the first place.

 

Most people thought Hillary would win and probably (this is conjecture) preferred her over Trump, but wouldn't go out and "hold their nose" and vote because they thought there was no need.

 

You say what "you've seen." That's nice. It's also cherry picking. Trump voters are naturally loud and obnoxious (sorry but the politically active ones just are)... that doesn't mean they represent even close to a majority. What you're seeing is sheer desperation clinging to a cult of personality.

 

The rest of us might not be out there loud and obnoxious... it's because we're just clenching our teeth bracing and hoping we can make it another couple months of a horrible Presidency without too much more damage.

 

My in-laws are pretty adamant Trump supporters and I can tell even they see the end.

 

It's just better if you start coming to terms with it.

Edited October 13, 2020 by transplantbillsfan