2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[wildcat09 29224]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

As several posters have already indicated, there's a fundamental problem with the GOP strategy.  The GOP is litigating on the basis that any restriction to voting is good and helps them.  But with 60M people having already voted, that's not true at all.  

Poll after poll reflects that the votes that have already been received heavily favor Biden.  That means two things--(1) the votes received from here on out will probably favor Trump (at least relative to the votes that have already been cast) and (2) Trump needs a lot of votes.  So the GOP should be shifting its litigation strategy to make it easier for people to vote from here on out.

But the GOP appears to be the Charlie Strong of litigants--they can't make halftime adjustments.  By disqualifying votes that are cast legally but received after election day, they're not disqualifying votes from Dane County (71% of which have already been received).  They're disqualifying votes from Trumpublican counties.  They're disqualifying their own votes.

And, on top of that, they're pissing off Independents.  We saw this in the Wisconsin special election this past summer, when the GOP tried its best to suppress the vote.  What happened--the GOP got fucking trounced.  It turns out that undermining democracy isn't very popular in a democracy.

I understand the concern.  But let's also look at the facts--these are stupid people who are bad at politics.

I have started to come to the conclusion that there's going to be some sort of bargain to avoid court packing done between Roberts and Biden.  Roberts is an institutionalist, and more than anything he's going to want to avoid court packing because it will undermine the authority and role of the Supreme Court.  So I think Roberts will agree that he and Thomas will retire in exchange for no court packing.

And this kind of stick is exactly what will be needed to get Thomas on board with that bargain.

Roberts doesn't have the pull with any of the conservatives on the Court, and especially not with Thomas, to make that bargain. Thomas gives the fewest fucks of any of them about the Court as an institution and has the most eccentric views on the law of any of the conservatives. He probably doesn't even want a standard conservative to replace him; he's certainly not going to retire so he can be replaced with a liberal. 

[wildcat09 29224]

1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

You are, yet again, filtering out actual facts to fit your delusion.

The base is only useful to the extent that they are able to win elections. If we see the massive anti-GOP landslide we expect from the polls, the GOP members will run so fast DK Metcalf couldn't catch them.

If there's a massive anti-GOP landslide, the remaining GOP will be the dumbest and most insane sonsofbitches from the reddest of red parts of the country. They'll double down on the insanity and the lies because it works for them.

[SizzleChest 8275]

Social media has just about been fully weaponized.  We have a larger percentage of our population that is truly vulnerable than most of us want to admit.

The only way to solve this in my view is for the primary big tech platforms to restrain content via strict editorial controls (far stricter than already seen).  Push the nutters on to private platforms.

The role of the IC, including FBI counter-intelligence, does need to be examined, but not changed wholesale.  The domestic cyber war will need to be fought much more in plain sight.  

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

As several posters have already indicated, there's a fundamental problem with the GOP strategy.  The GOP is litigating on the basis that any restriction to voting is good and helps them.  But with 60M people having already voted, that's not true at all.  

Poll after poll reflects that the votes that have already been received heavily favor Biden.  That means two things--(1) the votes received from here on out will probably favor Trump (at least relative to the votes that have already been cast) and (2) Trump needs a lot of votes.  So the GOP should be shifting its litigation strategy to make it easier for people to vote from here on out.

But the GOP appears to be the Charlie Strong of litigants--they can't make halftime adjustments.  By disqualifying votes that are cast legally but received after election day, they're not disqualifying votes from Dane County (71% of which have already been received).  They're disqualifying votes from Trumpublican counties.  They're disqualifying their own votes.

And, on top of that, they're pissing off Independents.  We saw this in the Wisconsin special election this past summer, when the GOP tried its best to suppress the vote.  What happened--the GOP got fucking trounced.  It turns out that undermining democracy isn't very popular in a democracy.

I understand the concern.  But let's also look at the facts--these are stupid people who are bad at politics.

I have started to come to the conclusion that there's going to be some sort of bargain to avoid court packing done between Roberts and Biden.  Roberts is an institutionalist, and more than anything he's going to want to avoid court packing because it will undermine the authority and role of the Supreme Court.  So I think Roberts will agree that he and Thomas will retire in exchange for no court packing.

And this kind of stick is exactly what will be needed to get Thomas on board with that bargain.

I’m with you on the election strategy. When Trump is behind on election night due to massive early vote count, all of a sudden they will start claiming they need to count every vote. 
 

I like your idea on SCOTUS, but it’s never going to happen. The Court is already irredeemably damaged by partisans who have no guise of impartiality (see Thomas and Barrett at the WH last night). I say Dems go big and expand to 13 - one justice for each federal appellate court. Bring in DC and Puerto Rico as states and amend the constitution via state legislature votes to close the door on future retribution. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21052]

14 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

They’ll distance unless they want to lose governorships and congressional races and even more localized races all over 2/3 of the country.  Being party to subverting the American voters is instant death. 

Not if there are no more free elections.

[tantric superman 4667]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Y'all keep saying this as if he doesn't control the base as a cult.  He does.  They will do whatever he says.  Because he controls the base, he controls the party, even if he's not a current elected official.  The GOP cannot alienate its base.  Its base will continue to take their marching orders from Trump.  Thus, so will the GOP.

 

[Brisketexan 104557]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Look folks, I can’t tell you exactly what will happen but we are easily entering the most dangerous period in my lifetime.  Listen to the people sounding the alarms.  Listen to the experts.  This isn’t a going away. 

This.  And the fact at the chances of complete societal collapse and full on violent revolution are still "low" (below 50%) doesn't mean that they are not dangerously high.

If the chances of a nuclear bomb going off in your city went up from .001% to 10%, you COULD say "hey, 10%, not a big deal."  Of course, a rational person would say "a 10% chance of complete destruction of an entire city is WAY too fucking high, this is unacceptably dangerous."

The nature of the risk dictates the acceptability of the margin of risk.  If there's a 50/50 shot that one of your farts is a mild shart, you can live with that, because it's just a shart - let it rip, and if need be, change your drawers.  If there's a 10% chance that your house will blow up from a gas leak in the next hour, you're goddamned well getting out of the house.  Why?  I mean, it's just a 10% chance, and you weren't even worried about something with FIVE TIMES that likelihood!

Our country descending into either a fascist authoritarian state, or descending into violent revolution, are really terrible outcomes.  So even a low percentage risk that is nonetheless many orders of magnitude higher than its been at any time since the Civil War is unacceptably dangerous.

Maybe there's only a 5-10% chance of it all going to shit.  When you realize that historically, since the Civil War it's never been over a 1-2% chance, that's sobering as shit.  

[wildcat09 29224]

5 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I’m with you on the election strategy. When Trump is behind on election night due to massive early vote count, all of a sudden they will start claiming they need to count every vote. 
 

I like your idea on SCOTUS, but it’s never going to happen. The Court is already irredeemably damaged by partisans who have no guise of impartiality (see Thomas and Barrett at the WH last night). I say Dems go big and expand to 13 - one justice for each federal appellate court. Bring in DC and Puerto Rico as states and amend the constitution via state legislature votes to close the door on future retribution. 

Expanding to 13 isn't going big.

[Bruh Man 3160]

Another powerful ad from TLP...wow.

 

[ndawg 1242]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  And the fact at the chances of complete societal collapse and full on violent revolution are still "low" (below 50%) doesn't mean that they are not dangerously high.

If the chances of a nuclear bomb going off in your city went up from .001% to 10%, you COULD say "hey, 10%, not a big deal."  Of course, a rational person would say "a 10% chance of complete destruction of an entire city is WAY too fucking high, this is unacceptably dangerous."

The nature of the risk dictates the acceptability of the margin of risk.  If there's a 50/50 shot that one of your farts is a mild shart, you can live with that, because it's just a shart - let it rip, and if need be, change your drawers.  If there's a 10% chance that your house will blow up from a gas leak in the next hour, you're goddamned well getting out of the house.  Why?  I mean, it's just a 10% chance, and you weren't even worried about something with FIVE TIMES that likelihood!

Our country descending into either a fascist authoritarian state, or descending into violent revolution, are really terrible outcomes.  So even a low percentage risk that is nonetheless many orders of magnitude higher than its been at any time since the Civil War is unacceptably dangerous.

Maybe there's only a 5-10% chance of it all going to shit.  When you realize that historically, since the Civil War it's never been over a 1-2% chance, that's sobering as shit.  

Moreover, Trump losing doesn't cause the needle to move from 10% back down to 1%. In fact, it doesn't move the needle back at all. Trump winning would move the needle upwards, so Trump losing merely pauses a disturbing trend. It's what comes next that determines whether there's hope for a return to normalcy.

[Beau Vine 53983]

1 hour ago, Snake Diggity said:

My guess is in the unlikely event Trump claims victory in the face of convincing defeat, the immediate revolt would look a lot like the BLM protests, except 1/3 of the “protesters” will have guns and the other 2/3 will have Molotov cocktails.  After that initial wave it’s hard to guess how it would evolve, but I think Democrat governors would be huge influences on how it proceeded from there.  Hopefully they have the stones if it goes that route.  But I don’t expect it to go down like that. I expect Trump to bitch and whine but ultimately concede on Tuesday.

[Brisketexan 104557]

3 minutes ago, ndawg said:

Moreover, Trump losing doesn't cause the needle to move from 10% back down to 1%. In fact, it doesn't move the needle back at all. Trump winning would move the needle upwards, so Trump losing merely pauses a disturbing trend. It's what comes next that determines whether there's hope for a return to normalcy.

Yep.  Winning this election is just the Battle of Midway.  It COULD be the turning point, but there's a lot of danger to follow.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

4 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Another powerful ad from TLP...wow.

 

Jesus. That is fucking powerful. 

[Chuckie Finster 22598]

Someone poke a hole in my logic:

Trump is dumb as hell, but the Federalist Society/etc. are not.  A short term victory of stealing the election for Trump would (likely) result in an uprising not seen in this country for centuries.  Surely they know that.  But denying Trump the election would give them basically a blank check to pass conservative reform for the... next generation?  While the loudest progressives would still be (rightfully) chanting for SCOTUS reform, the bomb would likely be diffused with the general populace.  Meanwhile, the court will be able to hide behind "We aren't biased!  We rejected Trump!" as they strip away rights for the foreseeable future.

Surely Trump thinks they will side with him, but I'd be shocked if this hasn't been planned out already.

[SameSame 1692]

21 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

the second he loses he becomes a liability to the GOP.  they'll cut bait and remove him if they have to,

Look around at the populous of Republicans now.  Look at all the Qers running for city, state and federal seats.  Trump is the GOP.

 He only loses if he can’t get the courts to overturn the results.

[BrickHorn 18186]

25 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Why would I sign up to listen to your fan fiction? Why would I add myself to another mass delusional bubble? I'm going to stick to uninterpreted facts and ALL the facts, thanks.

You said that same shit back when you were defending Greg Davis. You haven’t gotten any smarter.

[Ghost of LL 15477]

17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Roberts doesn't have the pull with any of the conservatives on the Court, and especially not with Thomas, to make that bargain. Thomas gives the fewest fucks of any of them about the Court as an institution and has the most eccentric views on the law of any of the conservatives. He probably doesn't even want a standard conservative to replace him; he's certainly not going to retire so he can be replaced with a liberal. 

And that's why I say you need a separate stick to prompt someone else to retire.  The threat of reopening the Anita Hill hearings--and the fact that Thomas perjured himself during those hearings--may be enough to prompt him to retire.

12 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I’m with you on the election strategy. When Trump is behind on election night due to massive early vote count, all of a sudden they will start claiming they need to count every vote. 
 

I like your idea on SCOTUS, but it’s never going to happen. The Court is already irredeemably damaged by partisans who have no guise of impartiality (see Thomas and Barrett at the WH last night). I say Dems go big and expand to 13 - one justice for each federal appellate court. Bring in DC and Puerto Rico as states and amend the constitution via state legislature votes to close the door on future retribution. 

The one-justice-per-COA makes a whole lot of sense.  That is why the Court was originally expanded to nine justices--one for each now circuit court of appeals.  Now that there are 13 courts of appeals, it only makes sense to expand the Court to that number.

[Aqua Buddha 14501]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

And that's why I say you need a separate stick to prompt someone else to retire.  The threat of reopening the Anita Hill hearings--and the fact that Thomas perjured himself during those hearings--may be enough to prompt him to retire.

The one-justice-per-COA makes a whole lot of sense.  That is why the Court was originally expanded to nine justices--one for each now circuit court of appeals.  Now that there are 13 courts of appeals, it only makes sense to expand the Court to that number.

Agreed.  As a non law person, this is easiest sell to me.  It makes sense that it should match the circuit court numbers.

[Wulaw Horn 18971]

20 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I’m with you on the election strategy. When Trump is behind on election night due to massive early vote count, all of a sudden they will start claiming they need to count every vote. 
 

I like your idea on SCOTUS, but it’s never going to happen. The Court is already irredeemably damaged by partisans who have no guise of impartiality (see Thomas and Barrett at the WH last night). I say Dems go big and expand to 13 - one justice for each federal appellate court. Bring in DC and Puerto Rico as states and amend the constitution via state legislature votes to close the door on future retribution. 

There is zero chance of that amendment to the constitution happening. It’s literally a waste of time and bandwidth to type that. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

52 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I think it was Tantric Superman who PM'ed me a while back to say I should throttle back on the vehement posts because I was sounding like Brisket. He was right, I was merely being repetitive and tiresome. Thanks for that feedback. Still, I have the same feeling about the gathering dark clouds. A Biden victory does not cure the disease of Trumpism; it just puts it into remission. 

I got called out this morning by Immamac for fear mongering, and I hope I explained that wasn't my point, but to point out that a close race could lead to issues. I'm done thinking Roberts is such a good guy, he did preside over the impeachment and I'm not sure he did that great a job ; regardless --if it heads to the courts someone R or D is going to be unhappy with the outcome and thus issues. And yes, this disease will not disappear, it will multiply at the next available opportunity. Thinking of those families in El Paso and other victims around the country who have been objects of hate is enough to make one alarmed and uneasy. I don't believe unrest is coming into my neighborhood or bubble as much as I pray for others who may not be as fortunate.

 

But enough. I can sit on the ledge with a bottle of gin without adding to other's anxiety and annoyances. Best of luck to you Roma.! Let's hope we can all toast peace and post pandemic prosperity in the future.

[elfenix 34171]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

It’s not easy to escape and you see plenty of poor people who will always be poor because they make poor people decisions and you can’t do anything to help them out of that.

this is false.  poor people stop making poor people decisions when you make them secure in food and housing.  no, you can't entirely undo some of the permanent changes that long term poverty, particularly childhood poverty, does to people.  but that's a far cry from not being able to do anything. 

[Wulaw Horn 18971]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

this is false.  poor people stop making poor people decisions when you make them secure in food and housing.  no, you can't entirely undo some of the permanent changes that long term poverty, particularly childhood poverty, does to people.  but that's a far cry from not being able to do anything. 

I think you missed the modifier of me saying plenty at the beginning of that sentence you quoted. I’m not saying you can’t help/show some of them the way out-  or many the way out- I’m saying you can’t show all of them the way so there will always be “plenty” that don’t change 

[Fudge Nuggets 19146]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

You don't think they have compromising dirt on Kav and ACB?  Do you not know how the mafia operates?  "Take my  orders, or I reveal this shit."  Again, stop thinking of the Trump regime as a government, and start thinking of them as a criminal enterprise, and everything starts to make sense.

Then you should have stated they are beholden to him because of compromising dirt instead of insinuating they would go his way because he gave them their current position.

[elfenix 34171]

4 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I think you missed the modifier of me saying plenty at the beginning of that sentence you quoted. I’m not saying you can’t help/show some of them the way out-  or many the way out- I’m saying you can’t show all of them the way so there will always be “plenty” that don’t change 

you don't show them the way out, you make them not poor and they figure it out themselves or they never start making the poor people decisions if you can catch them in childhood. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by elfenix

[cactusflinthead 27594]

Fuck it.

We're on rock hurtling through space. It ain't a burnt up cinder yet.

 

[Brisketexan 104557]

4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Then you should have stated they are beholden to him because of compromising dirt instead of insinuating they would go his way because he gave them their current position.

Oh, both are in play.  Loyalty in any crime syndicate is secured both by carrots and sticks.  I put you in a position where you can make great profit, so you're loyal to me for that reason.  I can also have you killed and dumped offshore where you'll never be missed, so you're loyal to me for THAT reason as well.

Trump supporters are a cult.  Think of them that way, and you're thinking accurately.

The GOP is a criminal enterprise, led by a crime boss.  Think of it that way, and you're thinking accurately.

Thinking of these people as ordinary voters and a run-of-the-mill political party is dangerous self-deception.

[Superhero 8767]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

Another thing to consider is that the GOP has encouraged their supporters to wait until election day, when they could be faced with a logistical nightmare due to COVID. Poll places have strict social distancing measures and will limit the number of people voting at once which will lead to long lines. You're could see some people say "fuck it' and just go home.

Not to mention it's the rural (more Trumpy) areas that are being hit hard with Covid. It would be so sweetly ironic that his playing down of the virus and asking supporters to vote on election day ends up suppressing the deplorables.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Then you should have stated they are beholden to him because of compromising dirt instead of insinuating they would go his way because he gave them their current position.

Is it wrong that when you mentioned beholden to him I immediately thought of Coney-Barrett's adopted children and Stephen Miller? Far fetched, but my mind is starting to go in dark places. Seriously though , Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett IMO would be more likely to consider the people behind the shadow donor groups that assisted them along the way before Trump wouldn't they?

[workswithseed 2035]

1 hour ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

oh for fuck's sake...you didn't grow up any poorer and certainly not in a worse place than i did.  and you're certainly no bigger a champion of the working poor than myself and many of my fellow Southeast Texans.

so drop your nuts and become a fucking man.

fucking sally...tells me all i need to know about how you grew up given how utterly weak and devoid of any toughness you are.

[Wulaw Horn 18971]

9 minutes ago, elfenix said:

you don't show them the way out, you make them not poor and they figure it out themselves or they never start making the poor people decisions if you can catch them in childhood. 

Ok. But my point remains the same in that it’s baked in that you can’t get everyone out and some will always be left behind. 
I don’t think we really are disagreeing. I’m saying you have to try to help as a moral imperative but you won’t succeed with making it work for everyone. 
That’s simply my take on human nature. 

[Wulaw Horn 18971]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah- especially when I literally said- one post later- that I watched my parents flip the script as a teenager and that made it easy for me. Which is literally the opposite of his response. But it was a nice rant that really put me in my place as not a man, so there is that, I suppose. 

[4th&Five 41457]

 

[Bookman 4610]

Y’all are talking about civil war and poor people while I’m looking forward to Trump getting his ass kicked a week from today. This isn’t going to be close.

The next ten years will see the G.O.P. lose a ton of power. They’ll have to shift to the left to remain relevant. If the Supreme Court starts acting like a little bitch, Congress will show them why Article 1 comes before Article 3.

[TheStoicPaisano 9904]

 

[4th&Five 41457]

Link?

 

[Hiphopopotamos 20865]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, both are in play.  Loyalty in any crime syndicate is secured both by carrots and sticks.  I put you in a position where you can make great profit, so you're loyal to me for that reason.  I can also have you killed and dumped offshore where you'll never be missed, so you're loyal to me for THAT reason as well.

Trump supporters are a cult.  Think of them that way, and you're thinking accurately.

The GOP is a criminal enterprise, led by a crime boss.  Think of it that way, and you're thinking accurately.

Thinking of these people as ordinary voters and a run-of-the-mill political party is dangerous self-deception.

These people are fanatics.  Kavanaugh is ruling exactly how he wants to rule - he doesn't need someone to bribe or threaten him.  He was chosen because he is a fanatic for the cause.  And it is the same for Coney-Barrett.  They're doing this because they are shitty human beings - not because anyone is forcing them to.

[immamac 42516]

1 minute ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

These people are fanatics.  Kavanaugh is ruling exactly how he wants to rule - he doesn't need someone to bribe or threaten him.  He was chosen because he is a fanatic for the cause.  And it is the same for Coney-Barrett.  They're doing this because they are shitty human beings - not because anyone is forcing them to.

This. Any person who would have accepted the nomination and confirmation under the circumstances is a horribly shitty person. 

[henrygandorf 29174]

siap, but this should make some of you feel better.  hopefully he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Eastwood 4394]

13 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Someone poke a hole in my logic:

Trump is dumb as hell, but the Federalist Society/etc. are not.  A short term victory of stealing the election for Trump would (likely) result in an uprising not seen in this country for centuries.  Surely they know that.  But denying Trump the election would give them basically a blank check to pass conservative reform for the... next generation?  While the loudest progressives would still be (rightfully) chanting for SCOTUS reform, the bomb would likely be diffused with the general populace.  Meanwhile, the court will be able to hide behind "We aren't biased!  We rejected Trump!" as they strip away rights for the foreseeable future.

Surely Trump thinks they will side with him, but I'd be shocked if this hasn't been planned out already.

This is where I stand. If Trump really was a useful idiot, his time in office has outlived his usefulness. They'll take what they got out of the last 4 years and punt if it really is Biden by more than a 300 EVs projected. They absolutely cannot risk the civil war that WILL happen if SCOTUS comes in and overturns votes cast to flip the EV counts of Biden and Trump. Trump might be a "King of the Ashes" type, but the established Rs that rode the Trump train are not. McConnell isn't a "King of the Ashes" kind of guy. He will circle the wagons and, for lack of a better term for McConnell, turtle up and let the next two years play out to reposition and reset. The Rs won't push all in on a guy who has been nationally embarrassing and insulting him when he sees fit. Once there's blood in the water, the establishment Rs will be the first ones to swarm him.

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

5 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

 

Lynda Carter is 69 (nice) years old. Holy shit. 

 

 

[Wulaw Horn 18971]

8 minutes ago, Bookman said:

. If the Supreme Court starts acting like a little bitch, Congress will show them why Article 1 comes before Article 3.

I don’t care what the results are- I would love to see this happen. 

[Brisketexan 104557]

7 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

That at least made me chuckle.  Because the same thing happened to me as a young lawyer.  I was counsel for a party in a dispute that was a hot political topic, and the local paper HATED my client.  We had a hearing on a pointless (truly, pointless -- it asked for some relief for zero stated reason) motion.  So, my argument strategy (which succeeded, by the way) was to open by telling the judge that this was a pointless motion that would change nothing.

So, I opened with "So, I have no idea why I'm even here."  Then went on to explain that we all came down to the courthouse for a pointless nothing, so he should deny it.

The next day's paper tore into my client, and in the top paragraph, stated that "Brisketexan, attorney for [bad guy], even admitted 'I have no idea why I'm here.'"  That story stayed pinned to the office fridge for years.

Kudos to the Trump campaign for being that chickenshit.  So perfectly on-brand.

[StassneyHorn 6536]

Everyone google Lynda Carter and Bobbie Jo and the Outlaw.

boobies

[Wulaw Horn 18971]

3 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

This is where I stand. If Trump really was a useful idiot, his time in office has outlived his usefulness. They'll take what they got out of the last 4 years and punt if it really is Biden by more than a 300 EVs projected. They absolutely cannot risk the civil war that WILL happen if SCOTUS comes in and overturns votes cast to flip the EV counts of Biden and Trump. Trump might be a "King of the Ashes" type, but the established Rs that rode the Trump train are not. McConnell isn't a "King of the Ashes" kind of guy. He will circle the wagons and, for lack of a better term for McConnell, turtle up and let the next two years play out to reposition and reset. The Rs won't push all in on a guy who has been nationally embarrassing and insulting him when he sees fit. Once there's blood in the water, the establishment Rs will be the first ones to swarm him.

B I N G O. 

[Red Five 40632]

11 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Link?

 

He just said at whatever rally he's at, "I don't know if you've seen the newest polls, but we're up 3 in Michigan."

And, "In the real polls, we're leading almost everywhere". 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Red Five

[SydneyCarton 47846]

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He just said at whatever rally he's at, "I don't know if you've seen the newest polls, but we're up 3 in Michigan."

And, "In the real polls, we're leading almost everywhere". 

Just once I'd love to see him specify these "real polls." You know, so his supporters could see them too. Oh wait, they don't give a fuck because they'd cut their own dick and tits off if he asked them to...

[Rimbo 25772]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

You said that same shit back when you were defending Greg Davis. You haven’t gotten any smarter.

Nonsense. I stopped defending Greg Davis because I did get smarter. I learned more about Football, and learned why I was wrong.

I'm willing to gamble that I've spent more time legitimately studying the fall of democracies more than those of y'all who are panicking, listening to podcast fan fiction, screaming bloody murder, etc.

The simple fact of the matter is that America isn't ready or primed for authoritarian takeover yet, and the folks behind the alleged attempt are not exactly cowing the majority into silent acceptance. The military is split at best, and most likely going to side against the authoritarians; the states have too much power as well.

Y'all think you're witnessing the death of American democracy. What you're really witnessing is the last gasps of a dying movement before it fades into irrelevance.

[Wulaw Horn 18971]

11 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He just said at whatever rally he's at, "I don't know if you've seen the newest polls, but we're up 3 in Michigan."

And, "In the real polls, we're leading almost everywhere". 

It’s really amazing. 

[Left Coast 863]

You know what GOPers like more than Trump? Money. And high stock prices. 
 

Do you know what the markets don’t like? Uncertainty and anything even approaching “civil war”. 

The powers that be behind the Trump movement (Murdoch, Kochs, Adelson, etc etc etc) will not like seeing what happens to their portfolios if Trump tries to stay in power. For better or worse, self-interest will drive a peaceful transition at the end of the day, in my very humble opinion.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

The one-justice-per-COA makes a whole lot of sense.  That is why the Court was originally expanded to nine justices--one for each now circuit court of appeals.  Now that there are 13 courts of appeals, it only makes sense to expand the Court to that number.

Why?  Not being snarky, I think packing the court is the best way forward, but what is the rationale between tying the # of SCOTUS seats to the # of courts of appeals?  It just feels good?  Is there a pragmatic or technical justification?