2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Boo]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

Where did anyone say we were on total lock down?

No one said that, he's carrying TH's unhinged torch.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by discostu

I have zero issue with Amy Comey Barrett's appointment. Zero.

My issue is shirking of duty in the refusal to hear/seat Merrick Garland in 2016 and the lasting consequences of that.

The precedent that the current Senate leaders are setting is paving an ugly path. A dangerous path.

Where that path heads? Great question.

If the Dems sweep...and follow in suit, we'll look at two new Democrat leaning states and perhaps up to 6 new Supreme Court Justices. All completely constitutional and completely valid based on this precedent.

The "elections have consequences" line is dangerous.

This is a legacy that can get really ugly in a hurry.

So again, if I was McConnell, I would have postponed these hearings until after the election and still pushed ACB through no matter the outcome. His focus should be retaining the Senate majority. The ugly scenario above would be the death knell to the GOP, especially with the purple coloring shift of Texas (and other GOP strongholds).

Agree. And who's words are those?

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

So again, if I was McConnell, I would have postponed these hearings until after the election and still pushed ACB through no matter the outcome. His focus should be retaining the Senate majority. The ugly scenario above would be the death knell to the GOP, especially with the purple coloring shift of Texas (and other GOP strongholds).

This simply isn't true. The GOP is going to be just fine, especially if Biden wins and is ineffective in every way.

10 years ago Obama had a majority everywhere, 60 Senate seats and did absolutely nothing. Biden will do even less.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by cnewby

Agree. And who's words are those?

Obama, then Trump. But surely you know that.

Who said it is irrelevant.

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by Boo

We aren't hiding in our basements like you, we can feel your fear from reading your posts.

Never missed a day of work.
I also lived my life and wore a mask when I went out

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

What Americans want doesn't mean *(#*. This is not a democracy where the will of the people matters.

The people elect house members, senators, presidents (and all of these things at a local level) to make decisions based on their best interests. It begins and ends there so polls that show what people want are worth absolutely nothing. We've made our choices and we live by those choices. If you don't like what your representation is doing, vote for someone else.

And if you don't like the system, live somewhere else. You live in America, this is what it is.

Boom. Done.

This is not a democracy... thank god.

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by cnewby

I don't follow. Is this another reference to how bad the orange man is?

You make me sad today..

You loved to as me about my Sox, daily as a way to try and get under my skin and would ask me about the Yanks.

You in a Covid fog, perhaps?

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by discostu

I have zero issue with Amy Comey Barrett's appointment. Zero.

My issue is shirking of duty in the refusal to hear/seat Merrick Garland in 2016 and the lasting consequences of that.

The precedent that the current Senate leaders are setting is paving an ugly path. A dangerous path.

Where that path heads? Great question.

If the Dems sweep...and follow in suit, we'll look at two new Democrat leaning states and perhaps up to 6 new Supreme Court Justices. All completely constitutional and completely valid based on this precedent.

The "elections have consequences" line is dangerous.

This is a legacy that can get really ugly in a hurry.

So again, if I was McConnell, I would have postponed these hearings until after the election and still pushed ACB through no matter the outcome. His focus should be retaining the Senate majority. The ugly scenario above would be the death knell to the GOP, especially with the purple coloring shift of Texas (and other GOP strongholds).

What precedent are they setting? When a party holds both the Presidency and the Senate and there is a SC seat open in an election year that seat is filled. That precedent has already been set.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

What precedent are they setting? When a party holds both the Presidency and the Senate and there is a SC seat open in an election year that seat is filled. That precedent has already been set.

Nothing. Nonsense to justify if/when Democrats go and change the rules like they did in '13.

Dems won't be dumb enough to delegitimize the courts simply because it now swings Red (I would be totally happy to watch them try) It would ruin an entire Biden presidency in the process while also ensuring that moderates swing right in upcoming elections. It's just fodder and empty threats.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

I wasn't insulting you - I was replying back to someone else's post.
/shrug

I apologize if i took the wrong way, but after your little lecture towards what I said then your comment about lack of knowledge, etc it just struck me the wrong way.

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

What precedent are they setting? When a party holds both the Presidency and the Senate and there is a SC seat open in an election year that seat is filled. That precedent has already been set.

What precedent was that"

Eisenhower in 1956 (R) and 22 days before election?
Lincoln in 1828?
Adams in 1864?

I think people need to look up the facts before they run around and believe what is being told to them.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN11514.pdf

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

I apologize if i took the wrong way, but after your little lecture towards what I said then your comment about lack of knowledge, etc it just struck me the wrong way.

Honestly - It was not pointed at you and I am not here to lecture anyone.

Thank you for your post and I appreciate your points of view

Be safe !!

[lionsfan20]

I may have missed it in here but what is the thoughts on both sides regarding WHO statement that lockdowns are bad and should not be used again?? Left has been screaming for lockdowns since the beginning and stating "follow the science" well the science seems to suggest the lockdowns are not so good. Has the left flip flopped officially or is there still belief in needing to lock down again to stop 2nd wave or whatever the current goal post is?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

What precedent was that"

Eisenhower in 1956 (R) and 22 days before election?
Lincoln in 1828?
Adams in 1864?

I think people need to look up the facts before they run around and believe what is being told to them.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN11514.pdf

Thanks, I have read the facts. Here is a paragraph from what you posted:


Of the seven vacancies that arose during presidential election years, and also had a nomination submitted and confirmed that same year, six featured unified party control (i.e., the party of the President was the same as the Senate majority party) and one featured divided party control (i.e., the party of the President was different than the Senate majority party). Of the four presidential election-year vacancies for which nominations were submitted during the election year but not confirmed, each featured divided party control.

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by techtre2003

Thanks, I have read the facts. Here is a paragraph from what you posted:


Of the seven vacancies that arose during presidential election years, and also had a nomination submitted and confirmed that same year, six featured unified party control (i.e., the party of the President was the same as the Senate majority party) and one featured divided party control (i.e., the party of the President was different than the Senate majority party). Of the four presidential election-year vacancies for which nominations were submitted during the election year but not confirmed, each featured divided party control.

That is a break down of the data - and I get it.
Wilson was the last Democrat to do this and had 2 openings in 1916 due to 2 sudden deaths.
Further, the Brandeis nomination was the first public hearing on this (and subsequently passed 47-22) - on JUNE 1, 1916
Clarke was unanimous decision on JULY 24 1916.

These were 4 and 5 months prior to the election and not approx 10 days.

[Brobocop]

The seat is getting filled. I think it's lame that the Senate can just up and refuse to even have a hearing like they did with Garland but it's politics. I hate it and I think it's things like that that cause the public to hate Washington DC more. If the Democrats win the Senate and Presidency and choose to expand the Supreme Court or somehow figure out term limits then it is what it is. Both parties play dirty, I don't care which one is dirtier.

If the Democrats expand the court then the same smug Republicans you see today will lose their minds while the Democrats will then be full of smug. These parties only work to expand their own power, they have no interest in working with each other. It's so disappointing but it's what happens when you live in a time of hyper partisanship. The amount of partisanship in this country is dangerous to our future.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

If the Democrats expand the court then the same smug Republicans you see today will lose their minds while the Democrats will then be full of smug. These parties only work to expand their own power, they have no interest in working with each other. It's so disappointing but it's what happens when you live in a time of hyper partisanship. The amount of partisanship in this country is dangerous to our future.

There is less than a 0% chance that the Dems pack the Supreme Court.

It's just not reality.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Last poll I saw was that a majority of the American people want the SCOTUS position filled by the duly-elected POTUS, in the UPCOMING election in 22 days.

Last poll I saw was that a majority of American people want a second stimulus package so they can just live.

Last I checked, the constitution is the law of the land not polls.
Thank God for that or else we'd be suffering through Hillary.
Isn't civics taught anymore?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

The seat is getting filled. I think it's lame that the Senate can just up and refuse to even have a hearing like they did with Garland but it's politics. I hate it and I think it's things like that that cause the public to hate Washington DC more. If the Democrats win the Senate and Presidency and choose to expand the Supreme Court or somehow figure out term limits then it is what it is. Both parties play dirty, I don't care which one is dirtier.

If the Democrats expand the court then the same smug Republicans you see today will lose their minds while the Democrats will then be full of smug. These parties only work to expand their own power, they have no interest in working with each other. It's so disappointing but it's what happens when you live in a time of hyper partisanship. The amount of partisanship in this country is dangerous to our future.

For what it's worth, I thought that was a crappy move too. At least have the hearing.

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

And let me say this, the GOP loves to jump and down about protests - let me say this:

I can count MORE masks at a protest of 100,000 people than I can count at a single Trump rally of 1,000 people

I’d hope so. Anything over 1% of the 100,000 protest population would be a certain victory here. That’s a tough one for the Republicans to match due to sheer numbers.

It’s not really tit for that, though. There’s a general sense that the Democratic Party is the party that believes Covid is super serious, while the Republican Party is the “Covid is fake news” party. When you’ve painted yourself in such a way, the onus is on you to play by the rules you’ve set forth. It’s why this whole thing became a joke when protests were endorsed. You can’t have it both ways and still be taken seriously by anyone who isn’t dumb as sh**.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

I can count MORE masks at a protest of 100,000 people than I can count at a single Trump rally of 1,000 people

Uh, ya think?

Let's run a hypothetical situation.....

1,100 people out of 100,000 at a protest wear a mask.
All 1,000 people at a Trump rally wear a mask.

You're saying, then, that the protesters are more responsible?

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by lionsfan20

I may have missed it in here but what is the thoughts on both sides regarding WHO statement that lockdowns are bad and should not be used again?? Left has been screaming for lockdowns since the beginning and stating "follow the science" well the science seems to suggest the lockdowns are not so good. Has the left flip flopped officially or is there still belief in needing to lock down again to stop 2nd wave or whatever the current goal post is?

They seem to lean on science when it supports the latest narrative.

[pac213up]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

The seat is getting filled. I think it's lame that the Senate can just up and refuse to even have a hearing like they did with Garland but it's politics. I hate it and I think it's things like that that cause the public to hate Washington DC more. If the Democrats win the Senate and Presidency and choose to expand the Supreme Court or somehow figure out term limits then it is what it is. Both parties play dirty, I don't care which one is dirtier.

If the Democrats expand the court then the same smug Republicans you see today will lose their minds while the Democrats will then be full of smug. These parties only work to expand their own power, they have no interest in working with each other. It's so disappointing but it's what happens when you live in a time of hyper partisanship. The amount of partisanship in this country is dangerous to our future.

Dems should not focus on packing the court, it is likely a losing issue. Statehood for Puerto Rico is a better target strategically.

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by lionsfan20

I may have missed it in here but what is the thoughts on both sides regarding WHO statement that lockdowns are bad and should not be used again?? Left has been screaming for lockdowns since the beginning and stating "follow the science" well the science seems to suggest the lockdowns are not so good. Has the left flip flopped officially or is there still belief in needing to lock down again to stop 2nd wave or whatever the current goal post is?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Without having seen the WHO statement, my thoughts are... Flip flopping is not always a bad thing. I flip flopped on Covid once there was a conflicting message about lockdowns and protests. For the first couple of months I was all in on distancing and sanitizing and whatnot. As I observed certain things, I changed course. I think it's more childish than admirable to hold a position for the sake of holding a position.

My one buddy that's big into the Constitution and knows I'm generally in line in terms of thinking the same as him was giving me a hard time over giving up my freedom for the sake of security, etc. etc. I had initially argued that we need to make sure we eradicate the virus... safety first. But that was a pipe dream. Either way, I changed position. And I'm certain with enough time, everyone else will too. If this lasts three years, are there still going to be people going on about this "mask up!" nonsense? Eventually you just kinda give up and go on about your business. It's a calculated risk, just like getting in the car. We're past the point of me being obligated to save everyone else. Save yerself... stay home... wear a HAZMAT suit... not my problem anymore, but you can't say I didn't try.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Uh, ya think?

Let's run a hypothetical situation.....

1,100 people out of 100,000 at a protest wear a mask.
All 1,000 people at a Trump rally wear a mask.

You're saying, then, that the protesters are more responsible?

Don't make - fun. Mathing is hard for.....some.