[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[gregory-samba]

So getting back to the politics, this happened today.View attachment 226016

Not exactly the best source to quote, but it seems that the DOJ is currently investigating this case, no doubt we'll hear more about it soon.

A similar situation was just discovered in Wisconsin where three tray of ballots and mail were found under a bridge:
https://www.fox6now.com/news/wiscon...trays-of-mail-absentee-ballots-found-in-ditch

TDS runs deep so I'm not surprised some people suffering from it would risk their jobs and jail time to make sure people who vote for Trump votes suddenly "vanish". I'm not sure why people think mail in voting is secure as your ballot has way too many chances to vanish then it does if you personally go to the polling center and turn it in. I'm also not sure why people think that minorities are too stupid to obtain an ID or wait in line to vote. If you can go wait in line at Target or Walmart to buy goods you can wait in line to vote. Voting is much, much more important then spending some of that $1,200 check you got.

 

[omgcat]

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/24/9166...nce-theyre-investigating-discarded-pa-ballots

the total number of ballots in question is 9. 2 were resealed, all of them were related to the military. on an interesting note, it seems rules were broken about how the investigation was handled, as who was voted for was improperly released.

"Because the U.S. attorney's office offered so few details about the situation in Luzerne County, Thornburgh said he's concerned voters might conclude the situation is much worse than it actually is and wrongly conclude there could be wider problems, based on an anecdotal example.

"You have to be on the lookout for breakdowns in the system, but we have to be careful not to extrapolate from single-digit incidents to more systemic problems," he said."

with all the fuckery the trump campaign is doing, it wouldn't be too out of the imagination that someone grabbed a handful of ballots, tampered with them, and then is trying to discredit the election. especially when the PA supreme court ruled that mail in ballots get extra time for delivery, and the GOP is pissed. Smells like a false flag to me.

 

[notimp]

False. You received TWO warning points today, WITH justification given. You got your warning points as your post was removed at 4:35 PM my time. You reported his post at 5:20 PM my time, 45 minutes after you got the warning points.

You aren't being silenced, even

To this moment, I have no idea which post of mine was removed, with what argumentation given. None.

None of this was communicated. I was given a public threat, not an explanation for moderating action.

The moderating efforts in here are partial, this forum is intentionally allowed to run amock, I'm threatend publically to be banned, if I dont stop flaming against people trying to normalize calling women babykillers, ...

None of this is a joke.

And thats after receiving mixed messages on being banned or not.


You have lost control at this point. Get a grip on things, and get the moderator to a state, where he doesnt post cynical vitreal, and likes insane debunked comments, just for the 'flair' in here.

Next confrontation with him, and I'm banned.

And looking at the state of thing in here, its a question of when, not if.

 

[notimp]

Looks like someone finally reminded Romney that kicking the ball into your own goal isn't a good idea if you want to win, he's finally doing the right thing.
View attachment 225870
Took him long enough to remember how he was smeared during his campaign.

Speaking of things scripted:


Void of zero content, just identity politics for no reason, mixed in with "so happy that you broke down, and went back in line", which apparently is a very popular stance in this forum as well.

Those "ideas" transported in here by people often are unaltered PR lines, straight out of speeches or scripts with no extra thought added, that are supposed to win an argument, simply by 'look how many folks are saying that'. It can be the most enraging BS position possible, it literally can be a guy breaking down on his public position by party pressures -- you are sure to find a moderator in here that brings you that as a happy story of redemption.

Its sickening. Disgusting, Revolting.

Wielding power just to shut up dissenting voices.

But then, how did the posting in question start?

5? 30 years ago we had a President who screwed his female staff in the oval office and put his cigar inside their lady parts, let's not pretend that the Presidency carries any form of moral superiority with it, or ever has. Trust me,

Oh, a consentual sexual relationship? How equally morally disgusting. I guess everything is fine then. Keep breaking down people then.

Until they become mere husks of their former selfs, only fit to reiterate the party line on TV or twitter. Come on Mr. moderator, why not promote more of that?

 

[Foxi4]

To this moment, I have no idea which post of mine was removed, with what argumentation given. None.

None of this was communicated. I was given a public threat, not an explanation for moderating action.

Gee willikers, that sounds like a real Scooby mystery! Let's uncover it together.

So, according to you, you've received no notification of your warning and no indication which post it might be referring to. How exciting!



If only there was some kind of way I could inform you in private about your infraction to make you aware of the content in question.



Some way to message you and tell you which rule you've broken and which posts have been removed or modified...



...something I could invite a higher instance to in the event the action is questioned. I wish we had that system in place.

You can stop nailing yourself to the cross now, we can see that you're using a Fisher Price tool set. The jig is up, you got caught lying. Are you one of those guys who thinks that as long as they don't accept a ticket from the officer, they didn't get a ticket? Because I'm afraid that's not a real thing.

If you're trying to trick @Issac into thinking that you're getting bullied, you're going to have a hard time. In addition to being of excellent moral character, I'm also willing to wager a $100 right now that he's the smartest person in the room, and I'll win that bet anytime.

I don't know what to do with you at this stage so I'm just going to ignore your attempts at crucifying yourself. If you continue breaking the rules, you will continue seeing consequences of your actions. I took the liberty of inviting @Issac into every exchange we've had within the last week, for the purposes of transparency. I wanted him to know everything that has transpired in order to ensure a fair and just judgement, and that's exactly the kind of judgement he made.

Since you are fond of Latin, "Ignorantia juris non excusat". You should check your inbox a little more often, might save you future headaches and a fair bit of embarrassment.

I won't address this issue anymore, I consider the case closed. Ball's in your court, be respectful to other users, regardless of whether or not their opinions align with yours.

 

[Foxi4]

Right. Now, on with actual developments in politics, no more drama.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/25/...ats-bill-supreme-court-term-limits/index.html

House Democrats are in the process of introducing a bill that sets SCOTUS term limits to 18 years. Right now SCOTUS justices have lifetime appointments in order to ensure that they are not beholden to any political party and their opinion cannot be swayed with political pressure. Under the constitution congress can set the number of seats on the SCOTUS, but not the term limits, so this proposal may require amending the constitution - it's up in the air right now depending on how you interpret "senior justice". It's obviously a reaction to the recent RBG-related news. Any opinions on the matter? Who's for, who's against?

 

[Hanafuda]

Any opinions on the matter? Who's for, who's against?

Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, or near it. It's only on the very high profile social policy decisions that it seems the justices' ideological leanings influence the outcome, but they're human beings too so not surprising. Term limits for Supreme Court Justices will mean they'll just be politicians like all the rest. Lifetime appointment isn't a perfect solution, but it's the best one.

 

[Foxi4]

Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, or near it. It's only on the very high profile social policy stuff that the decisions that it seems the justices' ideological leanings influence the outcome, but they're human beings too so not surprising. Term limits for Supreme Court Justices will mean they'll just be politicians like all the rest. Lifetime appointment isn't a perfect solution, but it's the best one.

I tend to agree. I would like to think that the SCOTUS justices are not beholden to any political party, concerning themselves with the constitution only. They should be impartial arbiters of how the text is to be interpreted, and if their term limits are to be set to 18 years, that changes the dynamics quite significantly. I would like to see some more robust limitations in regards to their ability to perform the job though - if they're on death's door or their mental faculties are affected, perhaps it's time to retire. I don't think we should put a number to that, rather it should be judged on a case by case basis and on the advice of medical professionals. I call my benchmark "the driving test" - if I wouldn't want someone at a very advanced age to drive, I also wouldn't want them to steer national policy for decades to come. We definitely don't want a justice to stay in the seat to the very last second, that's just cruel.

 

[Iamapirate]

I'm not too bothered about lifetime appointments since Justices are vetted by the President before nomination and then vetted by Congress. If I'm understanding it correctly, the reason for lifetime appointments is to keep them objective and not acting in political self-interest for purpose for re-election.

I do however support term limits on Congress.

 

[gregory-samba]

So the Liberal Left doesn't like something Trump might do and a knee jerk reaction wants to change the rules of the game? How surprising.

 

[omgcat]

I'm not too bothered about lifetime appointments since Justices are vetted by the President before nomination and then vetted by Congress. If I'm understanding it correctly, the reason for lifetime appointments is to keep them objective and not acting in political self-interest for purpose for re-election.

I do however support term limits on Congress.

they are vetted by just the senate, so half of congress. I'm not quite in favor of supreme court term limits, but i am highly in favor of increased transparency regarding the health and financial dealings of supreme court justices. If you get a lifetime appointment, your right to privacy should be waived, in case corruption occurs after vetting. adding the house to the vetting process would also solve some problems.

 

[gregory-samba]

It seems the sexist and racist Trump, who hires black, latinos and married an immigrant has decided to nominate a women for the Supreme Court. I wonder how the Left will attack this, him or her? I'll give it a few hours for the attacks to start.

Amy Coney Barrett 'to be picked by Trump for Supreme Court'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54303942

 

[Chrisssj2]

Giving your power away to fake authority. Sigh. Slaves.

 

[Foxi4]

Giving your power away to fake authority. Sigh. Slaves.

That's a fair argument, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone followed the law as it is written. Sadly, this is not the case, so law only exists if there are entities that 1) legislate, 2) execute and 3) adjudicate. That's how you end up with three branches of government. Without arbiters of the law there would be no end to conflict as everyone would have their own interpretation of what is and is not permissable.

 

[Hanafuda]

Media reports all saying it's ACB for SCOTUS. AceyBee!!!

Can't say I know much about her. I know the left is all worked over her because of Roe v Wade, but that decision will never be reversed. It's as safe as Brown v Bd of Education.

She's a Catholic. It'll be interesting to see if Democrat Senators say that's disqualifying. Joe Biden also claims to be a devout Catholic.

 

[FAST6191]

Re life vs term limits.

I am not opposed to a one and done affair of considerable length (20 years/your retirement/your death), maybe pensioning out (though I imagine anybody that made it that far is not exactly hurting and could probably do better for a single speaking engagement or lecture series than you or I will earn in a decade). Would not necessarily preclude public office either afterwards. Such a thing should be a reasonable balance between putting you above party politics (though I am curious how much there already is and might be under shorter) and the "while I still function" of lifetime.

Might suck to get the nod in your mid-late 40s but also eh. Plenty of others do worse.

 

[Iamapirate]

The attacks of Amy Barrett are nothing new. They started preemptively before Kavanagh was picked, and they started back up when she was the clear frontrunner this time around. Her crime is being religious, of course.

If Democrats want to throw tantrums and screech that Roe v Wade will be overturned, why don't Republicans nominate people that will do that? It seems Democrat appointments almost always deliver for their side, but Republican voters have a hard time getting good senators, let alone justices.

 

[chrisrlink]

I bet my money that if a trump loss occurs one of two things will happen (maybe both)
1) will declare martial law to remain in power and or 2 will do a Tropico/Archie Sonic and do a military coup what i worry more than the justice he appoints will allow him a get out of jail free card it doesn't pertain to republicans HE KNOWS one out his goose is cooked nothing can protect his financial records once out his only way of avoiding prison is to stuff the scotus with as many right wing lunatics as possiable my biggest fear besides roe v wade is if they go even further barring abortion in a life or death situation (meaning the mothers life) (then again lots of lawsuits against the justices will occur (and possiable charges of neglegent homocide and debenching (even though they serve for life i doubt their immune to charges unlike the potus

 

[gregory-samba]

I bet my money that if a trump loss occurs one of two things will happen (maybe both)
1) will declare martial law to remain in power and or 2 will do a Tropico/Archie Sonic and do a military coup what i worry more than the justice he appoints will allow him a get out of jail free card it doesn't pertain to republicans HE KNOWS one out his goose is cooked nothing can protect his financial records once out his only way of avoiding prison is to stuff the scotus with as many right wing lunatics as possiable my biggest fear besides roe v wade is if they go even further barring abortion in a life or death situation (meaning the mothers life) (then again lots of lawsuits against the justices will occur (and possiable charges of neglegent homocide and debenching (even though they serve for life i doubt their immune to charges unlike the potus

I doubt Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses fairly. Plus, if there was something wrong with his taxes the IRS would have already found out because they have his tax records. Trump has already turned in his taxes to the only group in the Government that needs to see them - the IRS.

 

[Lacius]

I doubt Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses fairly. Plus, if there was something wrong with his taxes the IRS would have already found out because they have his tax records. Trump has already turned in his taxes to the only group in the Government that needs to see them - the IRS.

The question isn't whether or not there's something wrong with his taxes. The question is whether or not his taxes are evidence of other crimes.