[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[Deleted User]

Just going to put this here.

 

[Lacius]

I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules. I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it. I don't want that, and many others don't want that either. And that is why the dems keep threatening it I believe. But what Trump is doing now is perfectly legal and if the dems are threatening to do something that historically is not wanted, it is another indicator they don't ultimately want what is better. It is just more of their tantrum.

What is wrong and I think it will bite them in the ass is Biden and his choice of words.

No one would stand for it if Trump said these words when asked his position on a matter:

Court packing is legal. It is no more against the rules than arbitrarily deciding nominees don't get to go through the confirmation process when it's a Democratic president, and then changing the rules to allow it when a Republican is president.

 

[crimpshrine]

Court packing is legal. It is no more against the rules than arbitrarily deciding nominees don't get to go through the confirmation process when it's a Democratic president, and then changing the rules to allow it when a Republican is president.

I never said it was not legal.

Not following.

 

[Lacius]

I never said it was not legal.

Not following.

Then, respectfully, you need to do a better job making your point. Because, it looked to me like you were contrasting court-packing with what Trump and the Republicans are doing on the basis that the latter isn't against the rules, it's legal, etc.

If anyone is going to argue it's fine the Republicans, for example, change the number of D.C. Circuit judges, change the rules about when a vacancy can be filled to suit them, etc., then you have to agree court-packing is fine in order to be consistent.

 

[crimpshrine]

Then, respectfully, you need to do a better job making your point. Because, it looked to me like you were contrasting court-packing with what Trump and the Republicans are doing on the basis that the latter isn't against the rules, it's legal, etc.

If anyone is going to argue it's fine the Republicans, for example, change the number of D.C. Circuit judges, change the rules about when a vacancy can be filled to suit them, etc., then you have to agree court-packing is fine in order to be consistent.

My first sentence I used that you responded to was:

I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules.

I even then said:

I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it.

Seems pretty clear to me, LOL.

You seem to have that typical trait I see with many liberals in blaming others for your created problems.

 

[Lacius]

My first sentence I used that you responded to was:



I even then said:




Seems pretty clear to me, LOL.

You seem to have that typical trait I see with many liberals in blaming others for your created problems.

I saw all that. So, what's the problem then? Because, respectfully, it sounds now like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[KingVamp]

If the courts do expand, expanding it to an even number seems kind of strange anyway. Unless they want to increase the chance for ties.

 

[Lacius]

If the courts do expand, expanding it to an even number seems kind of strange anyway. Unless they want to increase the chance for ties.

I agree that an odd number is best, although there's already a mechanism built in to deal with ties.

 

[crimpshrine]

I saw all that. So, what's the problem then? Because, respectfully, it sounds now like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

You told me I need to do a better job making my point.

In response to something you getting wrong, LOL.

Me calling you on your lack of attention to detail is not arguing.

 

[Lacius]

You told me I need to do a better job making my point.

In response to something you getting wrong, LOL.

Me calling you on your lack of attention to detail is not arguing.

You never answered my question. You seemed to suggest something is bothering you about court-packing, but you haven't told me what it is. Or are you okay with it? If it's the latter, we can drop it.

 

[LumInvader]

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/09/9222...nd-iowa-are-back-on-as-trumps-standing-slides

A deeper look at the ad spending in each state
Here's a state-by-state breakdown in order of where the campaigns are spending the most. The list is in order of the amount spent overall, and the totals include the outside groups supporting each candidate and/or opposing his opponent. Data include TV ad spending from Sept. 27 through the week of Nov. 1.

(Note from Lum: The candidate spending the most is listed at the top)

Florida: $112.5 million
Biden and allies: $70 million ($18.5 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $42.5 million ($25 million from campaign)

Pennsylvania: $68.3 million
Biden and allies: $45.7 million (13.6 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $22.6 million ($9.6 million from campaign)

Michigan: $43.7 million
Biden and allies: $36.5 million ($10.7 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $7.2 million ($7 million from campaign)

North Carolina: $36.9 million
Trump and allies: $20.8 million ($11 million from campaign)
Biden and allies: $16.1 million ($13.7 million from campaign)

Arizona: $31.7 million
Biden and allies: $22.2 million ($12.2 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $9.5 million ($6.3 million from campaign)

Wisconsin: $29.8 million
Biden and allies: $20.4 million ($7.6 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $9.4 million ($3.4 million from campaign)

Minnesota: $16.2 million
Biden and allies: $9.5 million ($3.5 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $6.7 million (all from campaign)

Nevada: $15.7 million
Biden and allies: $12.2 million ($2.7 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $3.5 million (all from campaign)

Ohio: $13.1 million
Trump and allies: $7.9 million (all from campaign)
Biden and allies: $5.2 million (all from campaign)

Georgia: $10.4 million
Trump and allies: $5.9 million ($1.5 million from campaign)
Biden and allies: $4.5 million ($4.3 million from campaign)

Iowa: $8 million
Trump and allies: $5.5 million ($2.7 million from campaign)
Biden and allies: $2.5 million (all from campaign)

Texas: $6.7 million
Biden and allies: $6.7 million ($6.6 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $29,000 ($27,000 from campaign)

New Hampshire: $5.1 million
Trump and allies: $2.8 million (all from campaign)
Biden and allies: $2.3 million ($2.2 million from campaign)

 

[gregory-samba]

You never answered my question. You seemed to suggest something is bothering you about court-packing, but you haven't told me what it is. Or are you okay with it? If it's the latter, we can drop it.

It's funny how your side thinks it's perfectly fine to cheat or change the game if you don't win. Though, your side has no faith or morals, so it's not surprising either.

 

[Lacius]

It's funny how your side thinks it's perfectly fine to cheat or change the game if you don't win. Though, your side has no faith or morals, so it's not surprising either.

First, the personal attacks do nothing helpful.

Second, you can only call it "cheating or changing" the game if you are admitting that what the Republicans have done is cheat or change the game.

 

[LumInvader]

Interesting reaction from the audience.

 

[crimpshrine]

You never answered my question. You seemed to suggest something is bothering you about court-packing, but you haven't told me what it is. Or are you okay with it? If it's the latter, we can drop it.

Seriously?

We literally just went back and forth (where you told me to do a better job at making my point)

I re-posted (and will do it yet again) what I said that you claimed I was not making my point clearly on:

I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules.
I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it.

Me saying I would have to accept it, means I don't like it. But I understand, if they can accomplish it based on the rules/process it is legimate.

I also believe that the more Biden doubles down on his not wanting to tell the voting public his intentions it will hurt him.

Especially when he is asked, please tell us the voters want to know. He says "That voters don't deserve to know".

Which you have avoided commenting at all about in any of this I believe.

Do you think it is OK for Biden to talk like that to the people? Who have every right to know how he stands on an issue that may or may not matter to them?

To me it shows the double standards that many liberals have. Could you imagine how much everyone's panties would be in a bunch if Trump had used that response if it was thought he was going to do that, and was being asked that publicly?

I guarantee it matters more for someone still on the fence. Someone like you probably just ignores it.

 

[gregory-samba]

First, the personal attacks do nothing helpful.

Second, you can only call it "cheating or changing" the game if you are admitting that what the Republicans have done is cheat or change the game.

There was no personal attack. I'm not sure why you tried to deflect and turn the situation around on me, but you're the side that wants to change the rules of the game because you're losing. You'd make a really shitty chess player as you'd be losing and try to change the rules and you would get kicked out of the professional league for being a moron.

 

[Lacius]

Seriously?

We literally just went back and forth (where you told me to do a better job at making my point)

I re-posted (and will do it yet again) what I said that you claimed I was not making my point clearly on:





Me saying I would have to accept it, means I don't like it. But I understand, if they can accomplish it based on the rules/process it is legimate.

I also believe that the more Biden doubles down on his not wanting to tell the voting public his intentions it will hurt him.

Especially when he is asked, please tell us the voters want to know. He says "That voters don't deserve to know".

Which you have avoided commenting at all about in any of this I believe.

Do you think it is OK for Biden to talk like that to the people? Who have every right to know how he stands on an issue that may or may not matter to them?

To me it shows the double standards that many liberals have. Could you imagine how much everyone's panties would be in a bunch if Trump had used that response if it was thought he was going to do that, and was being asked that publicly?

I guarantee it matters more for someone still on the fence. Someone like you probably just ignores it.

You say you don't like the idea of court packing but that you would have to accept it if it happened. Does that mean you also don't like what the Republicans have done with regard to the courts?

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

There was no personal attack. I'm not sure why you tried to deflect and turn the situation around on me, but you're the side that wants to change the rules of the game because you're losing. You'd make a really shitty chess player as you'd be losing and try to change the rules and you would get kicked out of the professional league for being a moron.

Saying a person, or side, doesn't have faith or morals is a personal attack if I've ever seen one.

As I've said before, the Republicans are the ones who have made the rules arbitrary by changing them when it suits them.

 

[gregory-samba]

Saying a person, or side, doesn't have faith or morals is a personal attack if I've ever seen one.

As I've said before, the Republicans are the ones who have made the rules arbitrary by changing them when it suits them.

Liberals change their moral stance on things on the drop of a dime to suit whatever situation they may be in. They are liars and morals aren't something you just get to change when you feel like it. Morals are hard core beliefs you have and if you change yours to suit whatever the current nonsense the Liberal media is telling you to lie about then you have no morals to speak of. The lack of faith is also very relevant and your side constantly attacks people of faith. Neither of those things were a personal attack against you, just facts. If you're hurt by the truth then that's your problem. The truth is you're poor losers, you still haven't been able to get over your loss in 2016 and keep trying to manipulate and change the rules to suit your situation. It's very dishonest, but your side is full of liars so again, not surprising, just sad.

 

[Lacius]

Liberals change their moral stance on things on the drop of a dime to suit whatever situation they may be in. They are liars and morals aren't something you just get to change when you feel like it. Morals are hard core beliefs you have and if you change yours to suit whatever the current nonsense the Liberal media is telling you to lie about then you have no morals to speak of. The lack of faith is also very relevant and your side constantly attacks people of faith. Neither of those things were a personal attack against you, just facts. If you're hurt by the truth then that's your problem. The truth is you're poor losers, you still haven't been able to get over your loss in 2016 and keep trying to manipulate and change the rules to suit your situation. It's very dishonest, but your side is full of liars so again, not surprising, just sad.

1. Whether you realize it or not, these are more personal attacks.
2. You're making very broad generalizations, which usually is not a very good idea if your goal is to be correct and/or not make baseless personal attacks.
3. I'm unaware of an example when liberals "changed their moral stances." It sounds like you're alluding to something significant here, but you might also be making stuff up. It's hard to tell. My guess is it's the latter.
4. I don't speak for all liberals, but I don't see any value in religious faith. Anything good one can get from religious faith can be obtained through secular means, without the surrender of skepticism and critical thinking. That being said, I respect everybody's right to believe and practice whatever religion they want. I have nothing against religious people.
5. I'm unaware of any time liberals, broadly speaking, have ever attacked people of faith. Most of the hate for people of faith seems to come from the right (disdain for Muslims, etc.).
6. Saying you believe something to be the truth doesn't make it any less of a personal attack.
7. I accepted that Donald Trump won the election on election night. That doesn't mean I can't be upset about it. He's an awful president, there were a lot of election shenanigans (hacked emails, Russia, Comey, etc.), the electoral college is a nightmare of idiocy, etc. There's nothing about this that makes one a sore loser.
8. Not to say people in the Democratic Party don't ever lie, but to get back on topic, I believe the Republican Party is the one with numerous senators who said they wouldn't take up a nominee to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court in 2020, but now they've changed their minds. I think I found the liars.

 

[crimpshrine]

You say you don't like the idea of court packing but that you would have to accept it if it happened. Does that mean you also don't like what the Republicans have done with regard to the courts?

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


Saying a person, or side, doesn't have faith or morals is a personal attack if I've ever seen one.

As I've said before, the Republicans are the ones who have made the rules arbitrary by changing them when it suits them.

I have already engaged that portion of my original post with you ad nauseam that you chose to respond to. Even though you could not keep it straight.

Any one of you 3 or 4 seem to jump at the chance to comment on something you think you can spin towards making sense in your mind.

On Friday Joe Biden said: Voters don't deserve to know when pressed by DiMattei who said Well sir don't the voters deserve to know?

How would you feel if Trump responded with the same under the same circumstances? The lack of a response seems hypocritical.

I think this is similar to the "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black" comment he made previously.

It will again push more people on the fence towards Trump.