[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

callmebob · Sep 19, 2020

Foxi4 said:
What you're basically saying is that the very moment they lose the upper hand they will resort to tyranny in order to get their way in the end - that's not a good look.

"Elections have consequences. (...) I won." - Barack Obama

"You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." - Mitch McConnell

The chickens have come to roost, turns out elections do have consequences, and what goes around comes around. This isn't an injustice, this is just deserts.

I think you may be counting your chickens. As hard as Trump has tried to rig this election, him and his buddies just might be leaving. Him and Baher.

Hanafuda · Sep 19, 2020

Lacius said:
McConnell's hypocrisy is comparable to court-packing by adding seats. I see very little difference between the two.

Then you're fucking blind.

One is rude. The other is theft.

It may be rude to run up the score in the 9th inning, but the rules allow it.

Changing the law to add more judges is a TAKING OVER of the Supreme Court. It's changing the rules because you don't like the result of the rules. I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from the left.

The Supreme Court has remained static at 9 members for over 150 years. I think that outweighs your perception of "McConnell's hypocrisy." You want to delve into a little more hypocrisy? Check out what Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, RBG herself, and all other left-wing puppets were saying in 2016 about the President's duty to nominate.

It's pretty simple ... the Senate controls this. If the President has the Senate majority on his side, his nomination probably gets in. It's a little tight to say Trump has that majority in this Senate ... too many "secret" Democrats using the (R) ... but if they want to hold a vote, then the vote will be held. The rules allow it.

monkeyman4412 said:
Am I the only one who remembered that Obama's appointment was stalled out, and kept vacant until Trump came into office?

Yeah that's exactly what happens when the outgoing lame duck President makes a nomination in his last year and the Senate majority is from the other party. It's happened 8 times, confirmation didn't happen 7 times.

gregory-samba · Sep 19, 2020

The law allows Trump to nominate a Supreme Court Judge and for the Senate to vote on whomever Trump nominates. Just because it's an election year doesn't mean Trump, the Senate and Congress stop doing their jobs. The reason the 2016 nomination was delayed is because the of party affiliations, but now you have a President and Senate majority sharing the same party. There's nothing wrong with appointing a new Judge right this moment and I bet those who held up the process in 2016 could care less if some liars and cheaters who just tried to oust the sitting President for simply winning the election in 2016 are crying about it.

Hanafuda said:
Changing the law to add more judges is a TAKING OVER of the Supreme Court. It's changing the rules because you don't like the result of the rules. I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from the left.

The same thing happened after the 2016 election. They refused to accept the results of rules they agreed to and then tried to change those rules. Then when they failed they played out their plan to impeach the President for any reason regardless of guilt. They are just poor losers. The right thing to do would be to accept you lost, congratulate your opponent and move on/get over it.

callmebob said:
I think you may be counting your chickens. As hard as Trump has tried to rig this election, him and his buddies just might be leaving. Him and Baher.

This is a straight out lie. Trump is not trying to rig the election. If you can wait in line at the few grocery stores that were open during the pandemic or go protest you can wait in line to vote. You are also required to show an ID to prove you are old enough to buy beer, liquor or the many other things your ID is required for. To claim that minorities are too stupid to stand in line or obtain an ID to vote is a pretty shitty thing to claim about minorities. To end, if the Liberals and Democrats have no problem with you gathering in tens of thousands to protest then they shouldn't have any problem with a couple hundred people standing in line outside of a polling site.

omgcat · Sep 19, 2020

Hanafuda said:
Then you're fucking blind.

One is rude. The other is theft.

It may be rude to run up the score in the 9th inning, but the rules allow it.

Changing the law to add more judges is a TAKING OVER of the Supreme Court. It's changing the rules because you don't like the result of the rules. I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from the left.

The Supreme Court has remained static at 9 members for over 150 years. I think that outweighs your perception of "McConnell's hypocrisy." You want to delve into a little more hypocrisy? Check out what Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, RBG herself, and all other left-wing puppets were saying in 2016 about the President's duty to nominate.

It's pretty simple ... the Senate controls this. If the President has the Senate majority on his side, his nomination probably gets in. It's a little tight to say Trump has that majority in this Senate ... too many "secret" Democrats using the (R) ... but if they want to hold a vote, then the vote will be held. The rules allow it.

Yeah that's exactly what happens when the outgoing lame duck President makes a nomination in his last year and the Senate majority is from the other party. It's happened 8 times, confirmation didn't happen 7 times.

not just rude, but flat out going against RBG's dying wish to not be replaced until after the inauguration. what happened to the party of morals? there is no limit to the number of SC seats, and upping it to 13 might need to happen. if trump puts forward a nominee like Merrick Garland, maybe the dems wouldn't push to pack the court. if it is a hard core conservative, for sure they will.

this will also have senate election ramifications. graham was recorded on video saying he would not vote for a SC justice in 2020 and is in a deadheat for his race. if he votes, his seat is lost.

callmebob · Sep 19, 2020

Quoted from callmebob:
I think you may be counting your chickens. As hard as Trump has tried to rig this election, him and his buddies just might be leaving. Him and Baher.

This is a straight out lie. Trump is not trying to rig the election. If you can wait in line at the few grocery stores that were open during the pandemic or go protest you can wait in line to vote. You are also required to show an ID to prove you are old enough to buy beer, liquor or the many other things your ID is required for. To claim that minorities are too stupid to stand in line or obtain an ID to vote is a pretty shitty thing to claim about minorities. To end, if the Liberals and Democrats have no problem with you gathering in tens of thousands to protest then they shouldn't have any problem with a couple hundred people standing in line outside of a polling site.

So why does Trump put in a donater of his to run the USPS who removes mail sorting machines and makes mail boxes disappear? That´s not trying to fix an election? I have a single finger salute to you.

gregory-samba · Sep 20, 2020

omgcat said:
not just rude, but flat out going against RBG's dying wish to not be replaced until after the inauguration. what happened to the party of morals? there is no limit to the number of SC seats, and upping it to 13 might need to happen. if trump puts forward a nominee like Merrick Garland, maybe the dems wouldn't push to pack the court. if it is a hard core conservative, for sure they will.

this will also have senate election ramifications. graham was recorded on video saying he would not vote for a SC justice in 2020 and is in a deadheat for his race. if he votes, his seat is lost.

With all due respect to Mrs. Ginsburg, her wishes regarding when and who fills her seat are irrelevant. The Supreme Court works for Americans. It wasn't her seat, she did not own it, we paid her salary nor does she extend any authority after her death to control who gets it. The Supreme Court Judges work for the legal citizens of the USA. It's our court and there's no legal problems with the seat being filled next week. If the Liberals can try to impeach the President of the USA on an election year then I don't see any problems with something not as near as important like appointing a Super Court Justice to take place in the same year.

You also can't tell how the future will play out so possibly Mr. Graham might not lose his seat and even if he does he would have gone out with a bang. I'd imagine in a perfect world elected officials would put the people of the USA before their own personal wants. Time will tell. I just hope we get another Conservative in the court as the legal baby killing, perverted sickness that are gender based rulings and the infringement of our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights all needs to stop and be reversed.

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

callmebob said:
Quoted from callmebob:
So why does Trump put in a donater of his to run the USPS who removes mail sorting machines and makes mail boxes disappear? That´s not trying to fix an election? I have a single finger salute to you.

The USPS has been in a downward spiral for some time and have removed most of their off site boxes long before Trump took office. I acknowledge there's politics being played out, but the entire point is with mail in ballots there's too many uncertainties and chances for things to go wrong (fraud). No one should have a problem going to the polls and all USA citizens should have to provide proof they are a citizen before being allowed to register to vote. The purpose of absentee ballots was for people that were serving over seas or were out of the country when voting time comes around to still have their votes counter. They weren't created to allow anyone who wants to vote to do so without having to prove who they are. So even if Trump is trying to eliminate mail in voting for normal citizens there's no problem with that as we shouldn't be allowing it in the first place. Eliminating mail in voting also wouldn't effect the ability for people to go get an ID, register to vote and show up at the polls.

Hanafuda · Sep 20, 2020

omgcat said:
not just rude, but flat out going against RBG's dying wish to not be replaced until after the inauguration..

What the fuck does her "dying wish" (which I don't believe that shit, but whatever) have to do with it??? She doesn't get to make that call. The seat isn't hers to bequeath to a like-minded successor. If she wanted to be sure of that, she should've resigned when Obama had the White House.

omgcat · Sep 20, 2020

Hanafuda said:
What the fuck does her "dying wish" (which I don't believe that shit, but whatever) have to do with it??? She doesn't get to make that call. The seat isn't hers to bequeath to a like-minded successor. If she wanted to be sure of that, she should've resigned when Obama had the White House.

she never said it should go to a like minded successor, she said she wanted the seat to be filled after the next president was sworn in. whoever that is. also fuck the recently deceased i guess. so much for morals and empathy.

there is no changes in law to take over the supreme court, there is no max court size. it has already been expanded in the past. all that needs to happen, is a president nominates, and the senate confirms.

Deleted User · Sep 20, 2020

Hanafuda said:
Then you're fucking blind.

One is rude. The other is theft.

It may be rude to run up the score in the 9th inning, but the rules allow it.

Changing the law to add more judges is a TAKING OVER of the Supreme Court. It's changing the rules because you don't like the result of the rules. I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from the left.

The Supreme Court has remained static at 9 members for over 150 years. I think that outweighs your perception of "McConnell's hypocrisy." You want to delve into a little more hypocrisy? Check out what Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, RBG herself, and all other left-wing puppets were saying in 2016 about the President's duty to nominate.

It's pretty simple ... the Senate controls this. If the President has the Senate majority on his side, his nomination probably gets in. It's a little tight to say Trump has that majority in this Senate ... too many "secret" Democrats using the (R) ... but if they want to hold a vote, then the vote will be held. The rules allow it.

Yeah that's exactly what happens when the outgoing lame duck President makes a nomination in his last year and the Senate majority is from the other party. It's happened 8 times, confirmation didn't happen 7 times.

Yes and no.
Supreme court yes did it in the last year., but for a lot of smaller courts no. Mitch got in the way of many nominees for multiple circuits keeping them vacant during his 2nd term.
and no it wasn't that they were denied, they filibustered

Hanafuda · Sep 20, 2020

h

monkeyman4412 said:
Yes and no.
Supreme court yes did it in the last year., but for a lot of smaller courts no. Mitch got in the way of many nominees for multiple circuits keeping them vacant during his 2nd term.
and no it wasn't that they were denied, they filibustered

Filibuster's gone. If you don't know why, look it up. It's a funny story.

omgcat said:
there is no changes in law to take over the supreme court, there is no max court size. it has already been expanded in the past. all that needs to happen, is a president nominates, and the senate confirms.

uhhhh .... wrong. The size of the Court is set by act of Congress, i.e. legislation. It was last changed in 1869. In 1837 during Andrew Jackson's administration, it was set to 9. In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, it was increased to 10. In 1869, Congress returned the number of Justices to 9. One for each federal judicial circuit. Except for 6 years during the 1860's, it has been at 9 for over 180 years.

omgcat · Sep 20, 2020

Hanafuda said:
h

Filibuster's gone. If you don't know why, look it up. It's a funny story.

uhhhh .... wrong. The size of the Court is set by act of Congress, i.e. legislation. It was last changed in 1869. In 1837 during Andrew Jackson's administration, it was set to 9. In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, it was increased to 10. In 1869, Congress returned the number of Justices to 9. One for each federal judicial circuit. Except for 6 years during the 1860's, it has been at 9 for over 180 years.

The founders never set the number of justices because the original idea was that the court expanded as the number of states and population did. But we’ve been at 9 baring a few bits for 150 years now. so if congress chooses to expand it, that's what happens.

a couple things that could happen:

The Senate has a spending bill coming up and spending bills take precedence over other matters.
The House could insert a provision into the spending bill that prohibits the Senate from considering judicial appointments within 90 days of a federal election.
Senate precedents are binding. Democrats could sue on the grounds that McConnell established a precedent by delaying the Merrick Garland hearing. They might not win the case but it would delay the nomination process until after inauguration.

Hanafuda · Sep 20, 2020

omgcat said:
so if congress chooses to expand it, that's what happens.

Yes, that's what I said too. Your post above said, "all that needs to happen, is a president nominates, and the senate confirms" which sounds like Trump could nominate a dozen every Monday, woohoo. But yeah the Constitution doesn't set the size of the Court but there is Federal law that does. Very, very old Federal law.

CallmeBerto · Sep 20, 2020

Morals?

What morals? She did wanted her death to be politicide but only in her way. If Trump was smart he'd fill that seat ASAP and then kneecap as much power of the SCOTUS as possible.

Lacius · Sep 20, 2020

Hanafuda said:
Then you're fucking blind.

One is rude. The other is theft.

It may be rude to run up the score in the 9th inning, but the rules allow it.

Changing the law to add more judges is a TAKING OVER of the Supreme Court. It's changing the rules because you don't like the result of the rules. I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from the left.

The Supreme Court has remained static at 9 members for over 150 years. I think that outweighs your perception of "McConnell's hypocrisy." You want to delve into a little more hypocrisy? Check out what Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, RBG herself, and all other left-wing puppets were saying in 2016 about the President's duty to nominate.

It's pretty simple ... the Senate controls this. If the President has the Senate majority on his side, his nomination probably gets in. It's a little tight to say Trump has that majority in this Senate ... too many "secret" Democrats using the (R) ... but if they want to hold a vote, then the vote will be held. The rules allow it.

Yeah that's exactly what happens when the outgoing lame duck President makes a nomination in his last year and the Senate majority is from the other party. It's happened 8 times, confirmation didn't happen 7 times.

Both are legal, but both are immoral. They're only theft in a metaphorical sense. If Republicans are going to be unapologetically hypocritical though, the Democrats should pack the court.

Again, this is coming from someone who generally thinks court-packing is an awful idea.

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

Hanafuda said:
Then you're fucking blind.

One is rude. The other is theft.

It may be rude to run up the score in the 9th inning, but the rules allow it.

Changing the law to add more judges is a TAKING OVER of the Supreme Court. It's changing the rules because you don't like the result of the rules. I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from the left.

The Supreme Court has remained static at 9 members for over 150 years. I think that outweighs your perception of "McConnell's hypocrisy." You want to delve into a little more hypocrisy? Check out what Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, RBG herself, and all other left-wing puppets were saying in 2016 about the President's duty to nominate.

It's pretty simple ... the Senate controls this. If the President has the Senate majority on his side, his nomination probably gets in. It's a little tight to say Trump has that majority in this Senate ... too many "secret" Democrats using the (R) ... but if they want to hold a vote, then the vote will be held. The rules allow it.

Yeah that's exactly what happens when the outgoing lame duck President makes a nomination in his last year and the Senate majority is from the other party. It's happened 8 times, confirmation didn't happen 7 times.

That's the most accurate description of the situation I've heard do far. It's nothing short of "we don't like the final score, so let's change the rules and give ourselves more players". In more civilised times that's how you'd start a civil war. McConnell can be as "hypocritical" as he wants, he's still following the same historical precedent he pointed out in the past. That, and his proclamation happened *before* the Democrats tried to turn an innocent man into a rapist on national television just because they didn't want a Trump-appointed justice on the court. Sorry, the gloves are off. Mitch should be running back and forth the Senate at 5000 miles per hour with paperwork in his hands, glowing red eyes and blood in his mouth to get this done.

Iamapirate · Sep 20, 2020

callmebob said:
Mitch can try and push his shit through. If the dems take the senate we´ll have 3 or 5 more supreme court members to even out this unjustice.

What's unjust about it exactly

x65943 · Sep 20, 2020

Iamapirate said:
What's unjust about it exactly

The double standard with Obama's nominee vs Trump's

Iamapirate · Sep 20, 2020

x65943 said:
The double standard with Obama's nominee vs Trump's

Okay but who cares? That was four years ago and this is now. The former also has nothing to do with Trump. As President it falls to him to nominate someone. You can complain about double standards but that doesn't make it unjust.

deficitdisorder · Sep 20, 2020

Foxi4 said:
he's still following the same historical precedent he pointed out in the past. That, and his proclamation happened *before* the Democrats tried to turn an innocent man into a rapist on national television just because they didn't want a Trump-appointed justice on the court.

1. Not sure why you felt the need to put quotation marks around hypocritical. Its pretty straught forward. He said he would do one thing and now hr is going back on that word hiding behind some justification he added well after the fact.

Trump and the GOP are well within every legal right to do so but it sure is hypocritical af to say we should never make a SC appointment in an election year only to immediately do that exact thing when its in their favor.

2. That's awfully generous way to describe the Brent Kavvanaugh proceedings. Kavannaugh being a trump appointee had little to down the outrage as they didn't pull out they same shenanigans for the Neil Gorsuch nominee.

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

deficitdisorder said:
1. Not sure why you felt the need to put quotation marks around hypocritical. Its pretty straught forward. He said he would do one thing and now hr is going back on that word hiding behind some justification he added well after the fact.

Trump and the GOP are well within every legal right to do so but it sure is hypocritical af to say we should never make a SC appointment in an election year only to immediately do that exact thing when its in their favor.

2. That's awfully generous way to describe the Brent Kavvanaugh proceedings. Kavannaugh being a trump appointee had little to down the outrage as they didn't pull out they same shenanigans for the Neil Gorsuch nominee.

Mitch McConnel specifically described his objection in the article I linked earlier, I will quote it again:

“The tradition going back to the 1880s has been if a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, and there is a different party in control of the Senate than the presidency, it is not filled."

This was said in May 2019, long before Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, so you can't claim you didn't know what his position was. The situation right now is very different - you have a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Based on the quote above nothing stands in the way of confirming a new justice. Some will consider that a 180, others won't - as far as I'm concerned, if both sides are playing games then I expect my players to "play to win".

In regards to Kavanaugh, in my opinion the "shenanigans" were pulled out of the toy box because the liberal advantage in the SC was rapidly vanishing. They wanted to nip the problem in the bud, so to speak. By fraudulently riding the #MeToo movement they were hoping they could delay the appointment until "desirable" results of the Mueller investigation were published and Trump was removed from office. Thankfully they failed on both fronts. That’s my personal view based on what happened, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong and both the Mueller investigation and the Kavanaugh hearings were done in earnest and for the good of the country, I just have a hard time believing that.

[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

For whom will/would you vote?

Donald Trump and Mike Pence (Republican Party)

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (Democratic Party)

Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen (Libertarian Party)

Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker (Green Party)

Other

The Grandpa of Awe!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Grandpa of Awe!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted User

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Lone Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

i can be your sega dreamcast or sega nightmarecast

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Endless Trash

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum