[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[Hanafuda]

It was arguably unconstitutional when McConnell didn't bring Garland's nomination to the Senate.

You were also arguing the Constitution "specifies that [the President] should nominate a Justice and the Senate should confirm them," with the hypocrisy of what the Republicans did in 2016 apparently lost on you.

It was "arguably"

You can argue till you're blue in the face. If it goes to the Senate and dies on the vine, you don't have the Senate's consent.

 

[callmebob]

This will come as a shock, but I acknowledge that Putin and the Kremlin are friendly towards the Trump administration, however my reasoning as to why is not a collusion fairy that so far nobody's managed to find despite years of searching. The reason why it would be beneficial to Putin to have Trump re-elected is because Trump's focused on the home turf and will not be in the way of Russia's possible expansion into areas they've recently "liberated" - he's not a war hawk. Not only that, Trump is extremely hostile to the Chinese government, a direct economic competitor. He's also "unpredictable" compared to the usual politician since he plays by a completely different book, so there is some potential that he will cause chaos in various international organisations like NATO and the WHO, which I'm all for anyway. Putin is less interested in "weakening the position of the United States" than he is in completing strategic objectives the Middle East and Eastern Europe. As far as interference is concerned, Russia is a goliath on clay legs - it's an enormous country with the economic output smaller than that of Texas. Anyone worrying about Russia is under the same spell as people who were worried about the Red Scare many decades ago.

I´m surprised that you, being Polish aren´t concerned about Putin. To think that he will be satisfied with the Ukraine and Belarus is a leap. I´m living in Germany and I´m not happy about Trump pulling out the troops here.

 

[Foxi4]

The American way of life was never "an experiment". That's wording the Liberals created to undermine its legitimacy. Even in the amidst an ending global pandemic America is functioning just fine right now. There's is however an element that's working to overthrow the Government, which entails people who are lighting wild fires out west to push a false narrative about global warming and rioting, looting, arson, murders and general unrest in once great cities that Democrats have run into the ground. There's also foreign powers who are indeed our enemies who would like to divide us to sow discord and then there's the rich international globalists that would also like to see our county in ruin.

There's a lot at play right now, but Capitalism is still the best option on the board right now and the American way of life was never and is not an "experiment". We have always been a country that fights for itself, but in the recent years we've been getting the shit end of deals with rest of the world. It is indeed the USA vs everyone else as it always has been. I'm glad we have someone like Trump in office that's fighting for our country and way of life and doesn't want to tear and down and replace it with something far worse. If we can manage retain Trump as President, get the majority in Congress and keep the majority in the Senate I hope normal as-is politics ends and we get to fixing all of the problems the Liberals have been introducing into our country. I really hope Biden doesn't win as the only places things are getting bad are the places run by Democrats and Liberals. We don't need any more of their failing leadership.

I hate to be that guy, but "the great American experiment" refers to "a bunch of people from wildly different walks of life who left their homes due to religious persecution, government tyranny or simply poverty, sailed across the ocean, found a new life on an uncharted continent and established a country with no lords or kings". The fact that the U.S. exists, became a superpower and the benchmark of success in many facets of modern life is proof positive that it was an experiment at trying something different, and it was wildly successful. It's not a disparaging term, it's praise. In terms of statistical probability the United States shouldn't even exist, and yet here we are - that alone is an achievement.

I´m surprised that you, being Polish aren´t concerned about Putin. To think that he will be satisfied with the Ukraine and Belarus is a leap. I´m living in Germany and I´m not happy about Trump pulling out the troops here.

You have to balance your priorities. I'm not happy with Putin and the Kremlin *existing*, however I do not expect the U.S. to be the world's policeman. If Russia continues its expansion, at some point it will have to be curbed, but that's more of a concern to Russia's immediate neighbours than it is to the U.S. - one hand washes the other, if you expect the U.S. to sacrifice their American boys for the sake of your security, you'd better give them something good in return because that's not their responsibility, it's yours.

 

[callmebob]

You´re right. Let Putin take all of Eastern Europe, including Poland. Win for both Trump and Putin!!

 

[gregory-samba]

I hate to be that guy, but "the great American experiment" refers to "a bunch of people from wildly different walks of life who left their homes due to religious persecution, government tyranny or simply poverty, sailed across the ocean, found a new life on an uncharted continent and established a country with no lords or kings". The fact that the U.S. exists, became a superpower and the benchmark of success in many facets of modern life is proof positive that it was an experiment at trying something different, and it was wildly successful. It's not a disparaging term, it's praise. In terms of statistical probability the United States shouldn't even exist, and yet here we are - that alone is an achievement.

No apologies needed. I've only seen the words "American Experiment" used in a negative connotation, for the reasons I outlined in the post you replied to. It's good to hear there's a more proper explanation that's positive floating around out there.

See above. I've already quoted the justification twice, you'll have to argue with Mitch, not me.

Liberals like to play word games. They'll pick out a few words in a statement and ignore the context or other parts of the statement to craft something that was never implied nor said. It's very dishonest as it's straight up fabricating what someone said or meant. Lying is not a positive character trait. When you quote something or are referring to something someone said you don't get to pick and choose only the stuff you want to manipulate and then twist it up into something that the person never said. If @Lacius would read the entire statement and interpret in its entirety and not just pick out a few words that he wants to see and ignore the rest it's plain and simple to see the intent, context and reasoning behind the entire quote. Once you're being honest about what you're interpreting it's easy to see you're correct on this one and Lacius is incorrect.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You´re right. Let Putin take all of Eastern Europe, including Poland. Win for both Trump and Putin!!

That entire Putin colluded with Trump has been so played out and has been proven time and time again not to be true. I'm not sure if you're just joking or if you seriously believe that the USA President is a Russian Agent.

 

[Lacius]

It was "arguably"

You can argue till you're blue in the face. If it goes to the Senate and dies on the vine, you don't have the Senate's consent.

The problems are:

1. Garland never got to go to the Senate
2. Garland was blocked from going to the Senate on the sole basis that it was an election year.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

No apologies needed. I've only seen the words "American Experiment" used in a negative connotation, for the reasons I outlined in the post you replied to. It's good to hear there's a more proper explanation that's positive floating around out there.



Liberals like to play word games. They'll pick out a few words in a statement and ignore the context or other parts of the statement to craft something that was never implied nor said. It's very dishonest as it's straight up fabricating what someone said or meant. Lying is not a positive character trait. When you quote something or are referring to something someone said you don't get to pick and choose only the stuff you want to manipulate and then twist it up into something that the person never said. If @Lacius would read the entire statement and interpret in its entirety and not just pick out a few words that he wants to see and ignore the rest it's plain and simple to see the intent, context and reasoning behind the entire quote. Once you're being honest about what you're interpreting it's easy to see you're correct on this one and Lacius is incorrect.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



That entire Putin colluded with Trump has been so played out and has been proven time and time again not to be true. I'm not sure if you're just joking or if you seriously believe that the USA President is a Russian Agent.

I'm not wrong that Mcconnell is a hypocrite. The Senate either takes up appointments in an election year or it doesn't. I don't really care which the standard is as long as there's a standard.

 

[Deleted User]

It was "arguably"

You can argue till you're blue in the face. If it goes to the Senate and dies on the vine, you don't have the Senate's consent.

Basically what Lacius is saying, since sometimes you just have to spell it out.
In 2016 Mitch said blocked garland, his reason: "it's an election year" guy didn't even get a hearing.
now, it's 2020, we have a similar situation, a justice needs to be replaced, Mitch now for some reason, doesn't follow his "election year" reason, and desires to let Trump have his/her justice.
Essentially double standard, you either let a president's choice get a hearing and the process for becoming a justice, or you stop them because it's an election year, it can't be both.

 

[callmebob]

That entire Putin colluded with Trump has been so played out and has been proven time and time again not to be true. I'm not sure if you're just joking or if you seriously believe that the USA President is a Russian Agent.

1st. That has definitely NOT been proven untrue. 2nd. Putin undoubtedly has something on Trump, and it´s not just some pee-pee tapes. Trump is just a treacherous tool. Do we need to start with his lying about the Coronavirus?

 

[Deleted User]

1st. That has definitely NOT been proven untrue. 2nd. Putin undoubtedly has something on Trump, and it´s not just some pee-pee tapes. Trump is just a treacherous tool. Do we need to start with his lying about the Coronavirus?

Nah, think we should start with his friendly ties to Russia? Or what about the fact we know Russia did indeed, interfere with the 2016 election, and he decided to do nothing about it? Or what about stopping in mail in voting.
This list could go on, but point is, Trump is no good/I agree with you.

 

[Doran754]

1st. That has definitely NOT been proven untrue. 2nd. Putin undoubtedly has something on Trump, and it´s not just some pee-pee tapes. Trump is just a treacherous tool. Do we need to start with his lying about the Coronavirus?

How do you manage to get out of the bed in the mornings, crying about Putin for 4 straight years my god. Give it a rest, I hate to break it to you, you're just not that important. Russia doesn't care about you. But speaking on foreign countries. Why aren't you bothered about China interfering in American sport and politics. You don't seem to care that China has basically taken over every country around it. Does China not suit your victim narrative, will the story change after November if Trump wins again or will it be another 4 years of this incessant bullshit. Just want a heads up

I'm not wrong that Mcconnell is a hypocrite. The Senate either takes up appointments in an election year or it doesn't. I don't really care which the standard is as long as there's a standard.

Yes you are. Obama was a lame duck, and didn't control the senate. I'm sure you're very aware its a different set of circumstances now and that Republicans control the senate and have a republican president in place. That hasn't stopped you whinging even though you know you're wrong.

As a non american It's easy for me to see why your country will probably never recover, especially after November. Because of people like you who refuse to play by the rules, cry when you lose and attempt to change the rules. Were governed by consent but It's been months and months of riots and years of crying.

Nah, think we should start with his friendly ties to Russia? Or what about the fact we know Russia did indeed, interfere with the 2016 election, and he decided to do nothing about it? Or what about stopping in mail in voting.
This list could go on, but point is, Trump is no good/I agree with you.

Or how about the fact Obama flew over to the UK and interfered in the UK brexit referendum. "It'S oKaY wHeN wE dO iT"

I sit eagerly awaiting your condemnation of your then president blatantly interfering in another countries vote, telling us how to vote.

 

[gregory-samba]

Basically what Lacius is saying, since sometimes you just have to spell it out.
In 2016 Mitch said blocked garland, his reason: "it's an election year" guy didn't even get a hearing.
now, it's 2020, we have a similar situation, a justice needs to be replaced, Mitch now for some reason, doesn't follow his "election year" reason, and desires to let Trump have his/her justice.
Essentially double standard, you either let a president's choice get a hearing and the process for becoming a justice, or you stop them because it's an election year, it can't be both.

Mitch gave a specific set of circumstances regarding the appointment in an election year. You're conveniently excluding criteria that was outlined in his statements. You don't get to pick and choose what verbage you want to include. You either quote the man on what he said or you're simply making shit up out of thin air.

1st. That has definitely NOT been proven untrue. 2nd. Putin undoubtedly has something on Trump, and it´s not just some pee-pee tapes. Trump is just a treacherous tool. Do we need to start with his lying about the Coronavirus?

I'm sorry you're too dense to initially or still believe in that nonsense. I'd cite logic, but that would apparently be a waste of time.

 

[Deleted User]

Yes you are. Obama was a lame duck, and didn't control the senate. I'm sure you're very aware its a different set of circumstances now and that Republicans control the senate and have a republican president in place. That hasn't stopped you whinging even though you know you're wrong.

What backwards logic am I actually reading? Holy shit.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
article 2 section 2
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
as a reminder, Obama's pick, never got a hearing. Now does this matter? Well there is a rule in the senate that says they will not have any hearings until the next president is elected if in a election year.
However, Mitch, decided to go against that rule, and said that he would push a vote.
That is not how this is supposed to work.
Again, double standard.

 

[Doran754]

What backwards logic am I actually reading? Holy shit.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
article 2 section 2
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
as a reminder, Obama's pick, never got a hearing. Now does this matter? Well there is a rule in the senate that says they will not have any hearings until the next president is elected if in a election year.
However, Mitch, decided to go against that rule, and said that he would push a vote.
That is not how this is supposed to work.
Again, double standard.

Why didn't they get a hearing? Because democrats didn't control the Senate. Why is trumps pick going to be confirmed? Because they control the senate. You're boring, cry more.

 

[gregory-samba]

What backwards logic am I actually reading? Holy shit.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
article 2 section 2
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
as a reminder, Obama's pick, never got a hearing. Now does this matter? Well there is a rule in the senate that says they will not have any hearings until the next president is elected if in a election year.
However, Mitch, decided to go against that rule, and said that he would push a vote.
That is not how this is supposed to work.
Again, double standard.

Both circumstances are not the same and the criteria Mitch set out doesn't even apply to this unique situation.

Though I understand, the situation is quite simple.

Liberals don't want Trump to appoint a Judge and Conservatives want him to appoint one.

That's all it boils down to. No amount of selective cherry picking things that don't apply or simply don't exist or didn't happen by the dishonest Liberal Democrats will change this situation. Trump is the President and the Republicans are the majority in the Senate. They'll do as they please and hopefully in this certain situation get a Judge in there as soon as possible. The last thing we need is more Democrats deciding on important matters.

 

[callmebob]

How do you manage to get out of the bed in the mornings, crying about Putin for 4 straight years my god. Give it a rest, I hate to break it to you, you're just not that important. Russia doesn't care about you. But speaking on foreign countries. Why aren't you bothered about China interfering in American sport and politics. You don't seem to care that China has basically taken over every country around it. Does China not suit your victim narrative, will the story change after November if Trump wins again or will it be another 4 years of this incessant bullshit. Just want a heads up.

If Russia doesn´t give a shit, why do they keep trying to influence our elections? Also China doesn´t own Trump, Russia does.

 

[Lacius]

Obama was a lame duck

Obama wasn't a lame duck yet.

and didn't control the senate.

So what? Control of the Senate was irrelevant to the argument the Republicans were making in 2016, and it should be irrelevant.

 

[Doran754]

If Russia doesn´t give a shit, why do they keep trying to influence our elections? Also China doesn´t own Trump, Russia does.

Completely ignored the fact a sitting US president openly interfered in another countries election. Of course you do lmao.

Obama wasn't a lame duck yet.


So what? Control of the Senate was irrelevant to the argument the Republicans were making in 2016, and it should be irrelevant.

Stop being facetious. Its completely relevant. If dems controlled the senate we wouldn't be having this conversation. And you'd still be making the same arguments in January after the election because greg is right, it doesn't matter who or why you're making the arguments you are. You'd be upset and try and stop any conservative judge anyway.

 

[Lacius]

Both circumstances are not the same and the criteria Mitch set out doesn't even apply to this unique situation.

Though I understand, the situation is quite simple.

Liberals don't want Trump to appoint a Judge and Conservatives want him to appoint one.

That's all it boils down to. No amount of selective cherry picking things that don't apply or simply don't exist or didn't happen by the dishonest Liberal Democrats will change this situation. Trump is the President and the Republicans are the majority in the Senate. They'll do as they please and hopefully in this certain situation get a Judge in there as soon as possible. The last thing we need is more Democrats deciding on important matters.

The only dishonesty I've seen so far is McConnell's hypocrisy.

 

[Foxi4]

Regardless of anyone's position on Russia, the largest threat to the free world right now is China, plain and simple. According to the UN they control 28% of global manufacturing output, which includes 80% of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) used to manufacture essential drugs in America. You would think that the possibility of being cut off from your supply of life-saving medicine on a whim of a communist tyrant would be considered an existential threat to national security, especially in times of a pandemic, but apparently this is fine and not worth reporting on. This situation was largely caused by years of policy that gutted the manufacturing prowess of the western world - the Chinese were willing to do the same job for less, with no regard to the health and safety of the workers, and this is the result. Beijing is laughing all the way to the bank while you guys are chasing Russian fairies, at this stage the conversation is moot. 2016 is irrelevant, we have a new election - make sure this one is watertight. One way to do it would be to not introduce new avenues to affect the result. But alas, what do I know? I'm just looking at the numbers.

 

[Lacius]

Completely ignored the fact a sitting US president openly interfered in another countries election. Of course you do lmao.



Stop being facetious. Its completely relevant. If dems controlled the senate we wouldn't be having this conversation. And you'd still be making the same arguments in January after the election because greg is right, it doesn't matter who or why you're making the arguments you are. You'd be upset and try and stop any conservative judge anyway.

You're right that we wouldn't be having this conversation if Democrats controlled the Senate, but that doesn't make party control of the Senate at all relevant to the standards allegedly set in place for if a Supreme Court appointment occurs in an election year. It also doesn't mean it should be relevant.

The Republican standard was "no," but now it's "yes." The reason? They're willing to be hypocritical to get what they want, which is as many conservative seats as possible. McConnell's reasoning in 2016 had nothing to do with which party controls the Senate, nor should it. Also, please remember that McConnell said that if Hillary won in 2016, the seat would potentially be kept open indefinitely (until either the Senate went Democratic or the presidency went Republican). Are those the new standards? Because that's what it sounds like.