[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

notimp · Sep 20, 2020

Foxi4 said:
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".

What a wonderful description of the end of democracy proper.

Its not just that, its that afair the minimum time to vet and confirm a new supreme court justice so far was edit 50 days (WIth an average of above 90.) Now we gonna press to move it to under 40, to get significant republican influence over supreme court decisions in the next 30 years. Before the next election. Which gives us a supreme court, that will, be - in essence rightwing in all decisions.

Against the (PR but still) dying wish of the justice that just died.

Your only outs really - are to look away and claim that this didnt just happen, or do what you did - and insist, that this is not your political structure, this is just a "game" meant to be played hard.

Never mind the 'i like this person to b president' idiocy that most people mistake for politics in this forum, this is an issue with a checks and balances system that will be set up for 30, 40 years - and now cant be changed for that time - coming down to we can make that court hung, and always decide in favor of conservative ideals.

And people voting can do nothing about it.

This is hugely problematic, and makes me glad that I dont live in the US after all..

edit: Even the flipping spin machine already started. Because this has the potential to take away womens right to choose, Trump has to be told to do the following:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg death: Trump to nominate woman to fill Supreme Court seat
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54216710

Which as far as I remember he has never done in his life.

For people not to freak out entirely.

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

notimp said:
What a wonderful description of the end of democracy proper.

Its not just that, its that afair the minimum time to vet and confirm a new supreme court justice so far was 70 days. Now we gonna press to move it to under 40, to get significant republican influence over supreme court decisions in the next 30 years. Before the next election. Which gives us a supreme court, that will, be - in essence rightwing in all decisions.

Against the (PR but still) dying wish of the justice that just died.

Your only outs really - are to look away and claim that this didnt just happen, or do what you did - and insist, that this is not your political structure, this is just a "game" meant to be played hard.

Never mind the 'i like this person to b president' idiocy that most people mistake for politics in this forum, this is an issue with a checks and balances system that will be set up for 30, 40 years - and now cant be changed for that time - coming down to we can make that court hung, and always decide in favor of conservative ideals.

This is hugely problematic, and makes me glad that I dont live in the US after all..

First of all, it is the epitome of democracy to allow a duly elected President to nominate a Supreme Court justice, as per the letter of law. Secondly, the check on the President in this case is the Senate, and as long as Trump doesn't nominate a house plant, I doubt that they will object. The appointment is a matter of how qualified the nominee is, not who nominated them or when. Thirdly, just because a justice was nominated by a Republican President does not mean that said justice will rule in favour of conservative ideals 100% of the time - Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch proved as much in the recent ruling regarding LGBT workplace discrimination by siding with the liberal judges. The political landscape isn't black and white, there's a spectrum of opinions on both sides of the aisle. People's political views aren't carved with a cookie cutter, they evolve as a result of one's life experience.

edit: Even the flipping spin machine already started. Because this has the potential to take away womens right to choose, Trump has to be told to do the following:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg death: Trump to nominate woman to fill Supreme Court seat
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54216710

Which as far as I remember he has never done in his life.

You remember wrong. Trump listed Amy Coney Barret, Joan Larsen, Barbara Lagoa, Bridget Bade, Allison Eid, Martha Pacold, Sarah Pitlyk, Britt Grant and more. Not that it matters whether the replacement is a woman or not, it is inherently sexist to assume that being a woman automatically bestows a nominee with some otherwise unattainable wisdom. Sex, gender or sexual orientation should not be a relevant qualifier - they *just* ruled on that. The candidate who gets appointed should be chosen based on their merits.

Edit: Current list of candidates, for those interested:

https://www.npr.org/sections/death-...umps-list-of-potential-supreme-court-nominees

FAST6191 · Sep 20, 2020

notimp said:
Its not just that, its that afair the minimum time to vet and confirm a new supreme court justice so far was edit 50 days (WIth an average of above 90.) Now we gonna press to move it to under 40

From a practical standpoint then
a) she was at death's door for years now (not to mention being 80+ generally is effectively that). Even news has long lists of people with prebaked obituaries and articles updated and ready to go possibly before the body is released to a funeral parlour.
and b) it is the kind of role you probably want to have a backup for, and generally have a limited pool to pick from at the best of times; the shortlists tend to be those already in high courts which is not the biggest number in the world, even more so if you factor age and health into the matter (more again if they have to have tits, more melanin or some other pointless factor, albeit one that tends to reduce things considerably more than that). Depending upon how you want to play it then you might even share that list (being considered or nominated is generally an honour) with your political opponents or they could have a pretty good guess or at best a bit of redundancy.
Similarly does being current space year 2020 where any random police officer can pull up my arrest record possibly across the nation, maybe even internationally, on the side of the road play into things? I can similarly look up the voting records of any politician and probably any ruling the judge ever made (albeit I might have subscribe to something like lexis nexis for that one, though with donations in the millions and a fund probably way over that I am sure they can spring for that one for their researchers). If you have to trawl, possibly incomplete, paper archives and libraries, send a sanctified dude on a horse set up in person background interviews and whatnot then yeah time is real factor. If they were... actually baseline competent then all those nice keyword, dissent classifications (think all those stats that sports generate. Possibly backed up by analysis of each decision made by a legal type similar to research vetting, being as they are mostly drawn from serious big boy courts that is probably already available without you paying anybody) and phrasing measuring computer fun (positive, negative, word choice and the actually fun stuff that computers tell me nowadays) would be constantly running ready to spit up to date things out in a second, possibly including a nice list of things to press them on and dubious or debatable decisions (or some cheap points scoring).

https://xkcd.com/1122/ also seems relevant at this point.

Hanafuda · Sep 20, 2020

Iamapirate said:
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.

And if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. (In other words, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, for everyone.)

In 2106 the Democrats and even RBG were all adamant that the President nominates and the Senate votes on confirmation in the event of a vacancy on the Court, no matter when it happens (including during election years). Historically that's true, but when the Senate majority is not of the same party as the President, the nominee doesn't make it. Because they only get in with the consent of the Senate. If the Senate doesn't want to cooperate/approve anyone the President names, they just don't.

notimp said:
And people voting can do nothing about it.

The people voting did do something about it. They elected a Republican Senate majority, so conservative judges would be appointed.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to be sure of an ideologically similar replacement, she should've retired when Obama was President.

I don't really expect a new Justice will be confirmed before the election. It could happen ... John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Conner, and RBG herself all went from nomination to confirmation in less time. But I don't think it will happen. But this situation is all RBG's doing ... the rage on the left at the Republicans for getting this opportunity is misplaced.

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

Apparently Nancy Pelosi does not rule out a second impeachment inquiry explicitly to delay the nomination:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trump-delay-supreme-court-battle-b507574.html

You know, in case you were wondering if they were going to use underhanded tricks. I quote:

“We have a responsibility, we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" - Nancy Pelosi

For those unfamiliar with the Constitution, that's the founding document which specifies that Trump should nominate a Justice and the Senate should confirm them.

"(...) and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint (...) judges of the Supreme Court" - the Constitution

They're not defending that part, stop seeing things.

Lacius · Sep 20, 2020

Foxi4 said:
Apparently Nancy Pelosi does not rule out a second impeachment inquiry explicitly to delay the nomination:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trump-delay-supreme-court-battle-b507574.html

There was a possibility Trump would be impeached a second time, with or without RBG's death.

Foxi4 said:
For those unfamiliar with the Constitution, that's the founding document which specifies that Trump should nominate a Justice and the Senate should confirm them.

They're not defending that part, stop seeing things.

The Republicans are the ones who decided in 2016 that part of the Constitution didn't matter.

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

Lacius said:
The Republicans are the ones who decided in 2016 that part of the Constitution didn't matter.

Which part of "with the advice and consent of the Senate" needs to be explained? Obama did not have the Senate's consent, it wasn't unconstitutional.

callmebob · Sep 20, 2020

@Foxi4 It´s funny that "Fox" is part of your name. It fits wonderfully.

Your flag says Poland. Is that your nationality or just your location, because your English is perfect.

You may be brainwashed from to much Fox, but you´re not plain stupid.

Lacius · Sep 20, 2020

Foxi4 said:
Which part of "with the advice and consent of the Senate" needs to be explained? Obama did not have the Senate's consent, it wasn't unconstitutional.

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.

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

Lacius said:
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.

They should confirm the Justice if the President had the Senate's consent in the first place and if the selection was made with the Senate's advice. Don't worry, nothing is "lost" on me.

Lacius · Sep 20, 2020

Foxi4 said:
They should confirm the Justice if the President had the Senate's consent in the first place and if the selection was made with the Senate's advice. Don't worry, nothing is "lost" on me.

It clearly is. The argument in 2016 was that the Senate shouldn't even take up a nomination in a presidential election year, with the sole reason being it was an election year.

The Senate didn't have a chance to vote yes or no on Obama's nominee. One man chose not to bring it to the Senate.

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

Lacius said:
It clearly is. The argument in 2016 was that the Senate shouldn't even take up a nomination in a presidential election year, with the sole reason being it was an election year.

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

Lacius · Sep 20, 2020

Foxi4 said:
See above. I've already quoted the justification twice, you'll have to argue with Mitch, not me.

Which Mitch? Because he's hypocritically moving the goalposts, depending on who is president.

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

callmebob said:
@Foxi4 It´s funny that "Fox" is part of your name. It fits wonderfully.

Your flag says Poland. Is that your nationality or just your location, because your English is perfect.

You may be brainwashed from to much Fox, but you´re not plain stupid.

I don't watch Fox. In fact, I don't watch television, period. I leave the idiot box to people who can't form their own opinions, so they just acquire other people's views by osmosis.

I'm Polish, but I don't reside in my country of origin - I live in the UK, hence you see a lot of links to UK sites from me. Thank you for the compliment, it's always nice to be complimented on your use of a second language.

callmebob · Sep 20, 2020

@Foxi4 Off topic, that explains the English a bit, how long have you lived there, your whole life?

On topic, If you´re Polish living in the U.K., why so concerned with U.S. politics? Particularly with supreme court members?

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

callmebob said:
@Foxi4 Off topic, that explains the English a bit, how long have you lived there, your whole life.

On topic, If you´re Polish living in the U.K., why so concerned with U.S. politics? Particularly with supreme court members?

That's a good question. I've lived here for around 5-6 years - I don't keep count, home is where your heart is. The English is probably better explained by the fact that I have a degree in English Philology and Computer Science, it was a nice course that combined the best of both worlds, the humanities and the sciences. It was a nightmare to keep up with all the work, but it made me a well-rounded person. American history, literature and civics were my bread and butter for a good portion of my life, so I'm "quite familiar" with the subject matter.

As for the interest in American news, international politics and culture are downstream from the United States and the global economy lives by the pulse of the dollar. I'm surprised *more* people aren't interested in these matters, especially considering the fact that what happens across the pond affects all of us, without exaggeration. Not only that, I consider the United States to be the most amazing political experiment in history - it's a very unique construct built on great tenants. The emphasis on individual freedoms appeals to me.

We're straying off-topic though, I feel like I'm getting interviewed.

callmebob · Sep 20, 2020

Foxi4 said:
That's a good question. I've lived here for around 5-6 years - I don't keep count, home is where your heart is. The English is probably better explained by the fact that I have a degree in English Philology and Computer Science, it was a nice course that combined the best of both worlds, the humanities and the sciences. It was a nightmare to keep up with all the work, but it made me a well-rounded person. American history, literature and civics were my bread and butter for a good portion of my life, so I'm "quite familiar" with the subject matter.

As for the interest in American news, international politics and culture are downstream from the United States and the global economy lives by the pulse of the dollar. I'm surprised *more* people aren't interested in these matters, especially considering the fact that what happens across the pond affects all of us, without exaggeration. Not only that, I consider the United States to be the most amazing political experiment in history - it's a very unique construct built on great tenants. The emphasis on individual freedoms appeals to me.

We're straying off-topic though, I feel like I'm getting interviewed.

Sorry, yes getting off topic, and not an interview. I think the experiment is over though, should Trump win, the Reps keep the senate and take the supreme court on top of it. Game over, give Putin the keys to the white house.

gregory-samba · Sep 20, 2020

Foxi4 said:
Apparently Nancy Pelosi does not rule out a second impeachment inquiry explicitly to delay the nomination:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trump-delay-supreme-court-battle-b507574.html

You know, in case you were wondering if they were going to use underhanded tricks. I quote:
For those unfamiliar with the Constitution, that's the founding document which specifies that Trump should nominate a Justice and the Senate should confirm them.

They're not defending that part, stop seeing things.

It doesn't surprise me that the Democrats would try to impeach the President again for no valid reason. The first impeachment attempt was done purely due to their unwillingness to accept the 2016 election results and they were scheming even before Trump took office to figure out a way to impeach him. Impeach without guilt is what my circle of friends called it. Now they want to use impeachment again like it's some normal tool so Trump doesn't do his job and appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. It makes me sick to think they can just use impeachment as a tool when it was originally created to only be used in rare and extreme circumstances. It wasn't made to be used each time you simply don't like something the other side has done or might do. Hey, at least if Biden wins we can start the impeachment process before he takes office, you know, since there's precedent for that. Might as well start the impeachment process on Harris too. Kill two birds with one stone?

Foxi4 · Sep 20, 2020

callmebob said:
Sorry, yes getting off topic, and not an interview. I think the experiment is over though, should Trump win, the Reps keep the senate and take the supreme court on top of it. Game over, give Putin the keys to the white house.

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.

gregory-samba · Sep 20, 2020

callmebob said:
Sorry, yes getting off topic, and not an interview. I think the experiment is over though, should Trump win, the Reps keep the senate and take the supreme court on top of it. Game over, give Putin the keys to the white house.

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.

[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

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

The Grandpa of Awe!

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

The Grandpa of Awe!

Endless Trash

The Grandpa of Awe!

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum