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

[VRHorn 718]

1 minute ago, Planet Houston said:

You left out the minor detail of the unjust process when taken hand in hand with the GOP strategy with Merrick Garland.  Convenient.  

I was typing the same thing, but I decided it wasn't worth it.

If @GRHorn wants to say "precedent aside, fuck it" about ACB, then he has to acknowledge that a reaction should be coming if the Ds win everything. It's either extremely disingenuous or he's a complete idiot.

[G650 14106]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

-- I support universal healthcare.  I'm open to mutliple different visions of it, but between looking at the hard data of our costs, outcomes, and how much of a bitch it is to find coverage for many people, and how hard it is to navigate as a business owner trying to find plans for your employees (I'm a business owner now), it just makes a metric shit ton of sense.   It's actually the fiscally responsible path.  And hey, it just so happens to be the decent thing to do.  It's remarkable how often those interests intersect, if you look at things objectively.

This is far and away my biggest shift policy wise. And its not of a leftward lurch, but rather of empirical experience as a business owner. If you own or run any business I truly believe share holders should be able to sue you for malfeasance if you aren't pushing as ard as possible for universal Healthcare, period, as its the biggest albatross that exists in corporate America

[Planet Houston 4923]

Just now, VRHorn said:

It's either extremely disingenuous or he's a complete idiot.

And this is a perfect summary of the 2020 GOP voter.

[Beau Vine 54001]

1 minute ago, Planet Houston said:

Why?  There's nothing in the constitution that says this.  It expanded to 9 justices when the federal circuit expanded to 9.  Now there are 13 circuits. 

What could possibly give "sanctity" to the number 9?  

Ted Williams.

[Valmy77 13094]

1 minute ago, Planet Houston said:

Why?  There's nothing in the constitution that says this.  It expanded to 9 justices when the federal circuit expanded to 9.  Now there are 13 circuits. 

What could possibly give "sanctity" to the number 9?  

Tradition! And well once we start expanding it well the other side could do the same thing and eventually we have 83 judges.

We have only managed to appoint four judges since 1968 and we have managed. I think we will continue to do so. Best to just win the elections and not get cute.

[GRHorn 105]

7 minutes ago, G650 said:

And this is the crux of it. The far right sees itself as center right

What was far right about Republicans prioritizing the Supreme Court?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13412]

16 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Here.  I fully support court packing now.

I feel into this support when someone pointed out that GOP activities since 2010 have effectively been court packing.

[4th&Five 41460]

 

[Aqua Buddha 14509]

Just now, 4th&Five said:

 

I keep saying this but there might not be many votes left out there tomorrow.  We'll know a lot by noon with clips from polling locations.

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What was far right about Republicans prioritizing the Supreme Court?

Denying to go through the process of advice and consent as a strategy to hold seats open isn't far right, but it is openly hostile to the institution and outside the intent of the framers. Happy?

Edited November 2, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[mchookem 16212]

4 minutes ago, Planet Houston said:

You left out the minor detail of the unjust process when taken hand in hand with the GOP strategy with Merrick Garland.  Convenient.  

yeah...pretty disingenuous of you @GRHorn to pretend like THE COMPLETE AND UTTER HYPOCRISY wasn't just disgusting 🙄

you're ridiculous. go eat Lindsey Graham's words for him. 

[G650 14106]

Just now, GRHorn said:

What was far right about Republicans prioritizing the Supreme Court?

The center right cares about globalism, moderate to low tax environment and national security.

The far right cares about judicial appointments. Nobody on the  enter right is looking to judicially fuck with abortion or promote Jesus shit.

[hobbes2702 12824]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

What was far right about Republicans prioritizing the Supreme Court?

 

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Denying advice and consent as a strategy to hold seats open isn't far right, but it is openly hostile to the institution and outside the intent of the framers. Happy?

Fascism is far right. Seems pretty simple 

[henrygandorf 29175]

8 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

It’s amazing how one candidate very seriously faces the prospect of prison if he loses, and the race is still this close. 

yes, that is amazing.

i heard the other day that biden may win 91 of the 100 biggest counties in the country.

he's projected to win this election by 6-15mm votes.

one candidate has nothing to run on, so his platform is basically telling lies about what biden will do, attacking his family, and calling on his justice department to lock them all up.

yet here we are.  thanks, electoral college.  thanks unbalanced bullshit senate representation.

when those in power are so desperate to keep it that they'll lie, cheat, steal, extort, bribe, and kill, then yes, we should question who those people are, and why they're allowed to stay in power.

either this is america, or it isn't.

let's fucking go.

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

21 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Has anyone else seen some "mission creep" into their beliefs where the D platform seems a bit better than it would have before Trumpism? Being Anti-Trump has led me far down the progressive path that I never would've imagined 4 years ago.

Yes.  But, I will give this whole Trump fiasco one thing....I am definitely more knowledgeable on the goings on in DC.  I am much more well versed on Trumps cabinet or lack thereof than I have been for any previous Admin. 

[4th&Five 41460]

 

[henrygandorf 29175]

10 minutes ago, Planet Houston said:

Why?  There's nothing in the constitution that says this.  It expanded to 9 justices when the federal circuit expanded to 9.  Now there are 13 circuits. 

What could possibly give "sanctity" to the number 9?  

people used to smoke on airplanes.

can we not evolve as a species?

[G650 14106]

1 minute ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Yes.  But, I will give this whole Trump fiasco one thing....I am definitely more knowledgeable on the goings on in DC.  I am much more well versed on Trumps cabinet or lack thereof than I have been for any previous Admin. 

I've actually told several people there's a chance Trump has actually saved American democracy because of this phenomenon.

[mdmost 42865]

35 minutes ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

 

[The Royal We 3065]

18 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Has anyone else seen some "mission creep" into their beliefs where the D platform seems a bit better than it would have before Trumpism? Being Anti-Trump has led me far down the progressive path that I never would've imagined 4 years ago.

[Valmy77 13094]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I feel into this support when someone pointed out that GOP activities since 2010 have effectively been court packing.

I mean if we want to reverse that or pack some lower courts or whatever. If they set a precedent we can take advantage of we should do it. For example, next time we control the Senate and a Republican President appoints a new justice...well maybe we just wait until the next election. That precedent has been established.

But adding justices to the Supreme Court is a dangerous game I think.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Valmy77

[hobbes2702 12824]

1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

I mean if we want to reverse that or pack some lower courts or whatever. If they set a precedent we can take advantage of we should do it.

But adding justices to the Supreme Court is a dangerous game I think.

There’s no precedent to set. It’s literally a power granted by the constitution to Congress. And pretending that the Supreme Court hasn’t already become massively anti American and political is a joke.

[South Austin 52144]

39 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

anyone else getting election anxiety bout now

I'm feeling nothing.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10145]

13 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

The Supreme Court should have more sanctity.  It should be fixed at 9.

I'm less concerned about the number than I am of how much power they have been given and asked to decide.  I'm tired of the other branches punting on actually doing something that might require compromise and instead "we'll let the courts decide"... which translates to we're not going to do our job ... we're just here to screw over our constituents for the benefit of our own self interests

[heso 2748]

16 minutes ago, C-Man said:

All of my MAGA friends on Facebook are talking about a big Trump win tomorrow. Sheer bravado? Blissful ignorance? Fox/OANN poison? All of the above?

Because none of the math seems to work for 45.

The southern states all stay red, Dems turnout lower than expected in PA after mail in voting, and polls are wrong on Arizona. 

its a slim path but 538 has him with a 10% chance. 

Their chosen media outlet has them convinced that it’s the most likely outcome because the polls were wrong last time. 

also, in their mind, Trump winning with 270 EC means that it was actually a landslide but the Dems couldn’t cheat enough to pull it off. 

[Dark Horse 2263]

4 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I mean if we want to reverse that or pack some lower courts or whatever. If they set a precedent we can take advantage of we should do it. For example, next time we control the Senate and a Republican President appoints a new justice...well maybe we just wait until the next election. That precedent has been established.

But adding justices to the Supreme Court is a dangerous game I think.

You’ll always be a step behind as Republicans establish new precedents in their favor. The Republicans do not act in good faith. 

[Valmy77 13094]

Just now, MonkeyDoughnut said:

I'm less concerned about the number than I am of how much power they have been given and asked to decide.  I'm tired of the other branches punting on actually doing something that might require compromise and instead "we'll let the courts decide"... which translates to we're not going to do our job ... we're just here to screw over our constituents for the benefit of our own self interests

Hey and when we do pass some big legislation we have to sweat out the Supreme Court decision to keep it.

[C-Man 27052]

18 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Ted Williams.

[Valmy77 13094]

Just now, Dark Horse said:

You’ll always be a step behind as Republicans establish new precedents in their favor. The Republicans do not act in good faith. 

You may have a point.

I guess I just my party to act in good faith. To be pro-America and our institutions.

It is just a hard line for me to cross.

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

10 minutes ago, G650 said:

I've actually told several people there's a chance Trump has actually saved American democracy because of this phenomenon.

Had that thought myself but would never mention it aloud....at least until 1/21/21.

[Cairn Horn88 8169]

25 minutes ago, C-Man said:

All of my MAGA friends on Facebook are talking about a big Trump win tomorrow. Sheer bravado? Blissful ignorance? Fox/OANN poison? All of the above?

Because none of the math seems to work for 45.

Garbage in.....garbage out.

[Ghost of LL 15490]

24 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Has anyone else seen some "mission creep" into their beliefs where the D platform seems a bit better than it would have before Trumpism? Being Anti-Trump has led me far down the progressive path that I never would've imagined 4 years ago.

It's not "mission creep."  It's the fact that as soon as I stopped reflexively opposing things just because they came from the other party, I found that some of the things for which they were arguing were pretty damned persuasive.

Brisket is exactly right with the trickle-down theory.  I believed that for a long time.  It's part of GOP orthodoxy.  We tried it.  And guess what--it didn't work.  You know what did work?  When GHWB broke from GOP orthodoxy and raised taxes on the rich.  Clinton did it again in 1993, balanced the budget, and damned if we didn't have the strongest economy in post-war history.  But then we had to try trickle-down again with GWB.  And again it didn't work.  Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, can't be fooled again.

18 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Honest question: why?

The Court has already been packed.  Mitch McConnell held up 110 Obama nominations (including 1 SCOTUS seat) with no justification other than he didn't want Obama filling them.  So those got filled by Trump.

The question is whether we're going to return the judiciary to some semblance of balance.

14 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

The Supreme Court should have more sanctity.  It should be fixed at 9.

Why?  The number of SCOTUS seats is not fixed by the Constitution.  The Court has had anywhere from 5 justices to 10.  The first time the Court was expanded was in 1807 (under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson--are we going to argue that Jefferson and the 10th Congress didn't know what the Constitution allowed for?)  It has only been set at 9 since 1869.

And the reason it was set at 9 in the Judiciary Act of 1869 was so that one justice could preside over each of the nine circuit courts of appeals.  But now there are 13 courts of appeals (12 circuit courts and the Federal Circuit).  Logic dictates that the Court should be expanded to 13 justices.

And if your position is that Congress shouldn't play politics with the Court, then I'm sorry that the ship has already sailed.  You should take your gripe to Mitch McConnell.  

[BradInATX 9208]

41 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Has anyone else seen some "mission creep" into their beliefs where the D platform seems a bit better than it would have before Trumpism? Being Anti-Trump has led me far down the progressive path that I never would've imagined 4 years ago.

As I've found myself firmly aligned with the Democrats since Bush Jr's war and even more strongly since Trumpism and anti-intellectualism, I'm more sympathetic to and understanding of democratic ideas like universal healthcare, criminal justice reform, and progressive taxation. And I've become far less sympathetic towards actual Democrats as I've realized how incompetent and terrible they are at strategy and picking their spots.

I think I hate Democrats more now that I'm aligned with them than when I sort of drifted in the gray space of a pre-Trump independent/centrist. I hate watching people lose over and over because of their own incompetence and I have to do that shit every Saturday now, so I'm at my saturation point.

Edited November 2, 2020 by BradInATX

[mycox 582]

1 hour ago, APMP said:

Wonder if Harris County can put up some garages overnight around tomorrow's drivethrough voting spots. Garage gotta be a building right?

I'm not sure what the rules are but there will be a polling station at Buddy's, a gay bar in Montrose. They encourage everyone in the neighborhood to go vote if the haven't yet, and then grab a drink and watch the show on the patio.

[TexEx15 17480]

 

[tantric superman 4667]

42 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Has anyone else seen some "mission creep" into their beliefs where the D platform seems a bit better than it would have before Trumpism? Being Anti-Trump has led me far down the progressive path that I never would've imagined 4 years ago.

Not me.  Once Trump is defeated I'm afraid that other than an extremely aggressive approach to protecting the environment, I'm going to be pretty damned conservative.

Edited November 2, 2020 by tantric superman

[Storm the Field 5273]

FWIW, 538 updated their popular vote chart.

Current polling averages:

RCP: Biden +6.8

538: Biden +8.4 (Forecast Result +7.9).

[Skipper 6103]

I read my buddy's Orangebloods political page this afternoon and you can count them in the group that are all convinced of a big Trump W.  All the talk about some Baris guy and some Barnes guy that I guess explain to their followers why the polling is all wrong that they are taking as gospel.

[G650 14106]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

As I've found myself firmly aligned with the Democrats since Bush Jr's war and even more strongly since Trumpism and anti-intellectualism, I'm more sympathetic to and understanding of democratic ideas like universal healthcare, criminal justice reform, and progressive taxation. And I've become far less sympathetic towards actual Democrats as I've realized how incompetent and terrible they are at strategy and picking their spots.

I think I hate Democrats more now that I'm aligned with them than when I sort of drifted in the gray space of a pre-Trump independent/centrist.

I'm sort of the mirror image in a way. My wife, who is a Democrat, can carry on conversations with current Republicans whereas I am absolutely savage to them.

[hobbes2702 12824]

7 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

You may have a point.

I guess I just my party to act in good faith. To be pro-America and our institutions.

It is just a hard line for me to cross.

How is expanding the Supreme Court not pro America or our institutions? It’s in the fucking constitution 

[G650 14106]

2 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

I truly think people are sleeping on NC.

[UTHornFan014 710]

anyone else getting election anxiety bout now

I have a weird discomfort in my stomach. But, that could be the Taco Bell I just ate.

Sent from my HD1925 using Tapatalk

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Before the after work doom party starts:

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not "mission creep."  It's the fact that as soon as I stopped reflexively opposing things just because they came from the other party, I found that some of the things for which they were arguing were pretty damned persuasive.

Brisket is exactly right with the trickle-down theory.  I believed that for a long time.  It's part of GOP orthodoxy.  We tried it.  And guess what--it didn't work.  You know what did work?  When GHWB broke from GOP orthodoxy and raised taxes on the rich.  Clinton did it again in 1993, balanced the budget, and damned if we didn't have the strongest economy in post-war history.  But then we had to try trickle-down again with GWB.  And again it didn't work.  Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, can't be fooled again.

The Court has already been packed.  Mitch McConnell held up 110 Obama nominations (including 1 SCOTUS seat) with no justification other than he didn't want Obama filling them.  So those got filled by Trump.

The question is whether we're going to return the judiciary to some semblance of balance.

Why?  The number of SCOTUS seats is not fixed by the Constitution.  The Court has had anywhere from 5 justices to 10.  The first time the Court was expanded was in 1807 (under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson--are we going to argue that Jefferson and the 10th Congress didn't know what the Constitution allowed for?)  It has only been set at 9 since 1869.

And the reason it was set at 9 in the Judiciary Act of 1869 was so that one justice could preside over each of the nine circuit courts of appeals.  But now there are 13 courts of appeals (12 circuit courts and the Federal Circuit).  Logic dictates that the Court should be expanded to 13 justices.

And if your position is that Congress shouldn't play politics with the Court, then I'm sorry that the ship has already sailed.  You should take your gripe to Mitch McConnell.  

This is what I would have said were I much more thoughtful and eloquent.

[406W30th 1111]

The Trump era hasn't changed my politics much, except now I'm a prison abolitionist and am in favor of the guillotine for billionaires.

 

[Valmy77 13094]

 

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And the reason it was set at 9 in the Judiciary Act of 1869 was so that one justice could preside over each of the nine circuit courts of appeals.  But now there are 13 courts of appeals (12 circuit courts and the Federal Circuit).  Logic dictates that the Court should be expanded to 13 justices.

Now that might work if you want to expand the Supreme Court. Senators could vote for that with political cover.

[TexasEd 8064]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

When 45% of Americans have gone absolutely batshit off the deep end, yes, we remain in the center.   The center remains where it was, in spite of the batshit insane attempt to shift the Overton Window to a position where the only acceptable conversation is how white supremacist you think things should be.

almost exactly what I was going to say.

I'm right of center.  The republican party in current form started leaving me years ago when the cold war ended and went all in with the war on drugs, kept funding for the military at cold war levels (I was a defense contractor- go figure) and when birtherism started.

They went all in with the fear mongering and then they started eating the moderates in the party for more extreme views.  I studied enough history to know where this was going back in the 90s but did not make the full break until Trump was elected.  I still think Hillary was a horrible candidate and was thrilled to see 3-4 Dem primary candidates that I could align with this term but I voted for Joe in the Primary because it was all about beating Donald.  Nothing else matters right now except that domestic enemy that should have been thrown out in February.

[Valmy77 13094]

I do wonder if in that alternative universe where Clinton won in 2016 are all those judiciary appointments still being held up by Mitch McConnell?

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, Michael Knight said:

anyone else getting election anxiety bout now

Nah. I'm getting more confident as we lurch towards tomorrow. There's been a lot of concern and doom here and I think that's perfectly reasonable and rational after 2016. But I believe in data science and I think that most of the folks doing it, whether pollsters or aggregators like 538, are good at what they do. I believe they've learned and adapted since 2016. I believe in the numbers I've put together and the smart shit a lot of you guys have put together on this board. I think 2016 rocked a lot of people's faith in their gut feelings and common sense about politics and the world in general, but everyone knows what's coming.

I believe in my instincts and I don't think Trump has any realistic chance this time around. End of the day Hillary was 100,000 votes in three states away from winning. And there is a zero percent chance that Biden is not more popular than Hillary by 100,000 or even 1,000,000 votes in those three states. Zero. A Trump win would require such a convergence of improbable events and absolute failures of science and data science that I can't visualize it. If it happened it would be disastrous. Ruinous. But It won't.

I think it will be over tomorrow night, or early Wednesday morning. I feel good.

Ask me again tomorrow though.

Edited November 2, 2020 by BradInATX

[TeeDubya 3358]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not "mission creep."  It's the fact that as soon as I stopped reflexively opposing things just because they came from the other party, I found that some of the things for which they were arguing were pretty damned persuasive.

Brisket is exactly right with the trickle-down theory.  I believed that for a long time.  It's part of GOP orthodoxy.  We tried it.  And guess what--it didn't work.  You know what did work?  When GHWB broke from GOP orthodoxy and raised taxes on the rich.  Clinton did it again in 1993, balanced the budget, and damned if we didn't have the strongest economy in post-war history.  But then we had to try trickle-down again with GWB.  And again it didn't work.  Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, can't be fooled again.

The Court has already been packed.  Mitch McConnell held up 110 Obama nominations (including 1 SCOTUS seat) with no justification other than he didn't want Obama filling them.  So those got filled by Trump.

The question is whether we're going to return the judiciary to some semblance of balance.

Why?  The number of SCOTUS seats is not fixed by the Constitution.  The Court has had anywhere from 5 justices to 10.  The first time the Court was expanded was in 1807 (under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson--are we going to argue that Jefferson and the 10th Congress didn't know what the Constitution allowed for?)  It has only been set at 9 since 1869.

And the reason it was set at 9 in the Judiciary Act of 1869 was so that one justice could preside over each of the nine circuit courts of appeals.  But now there are 13 courts of appeals (12 circuit courts and the Federal Circuit).  Logic dictates that the Court should be expanded to 13 justices.

And if your position is that Congress shouldn't play politics with the Court, then I'm sorry that the ship has already sailed.  You should take your gripe to Mitch McConnell.  

100x.

Edited November 2, 2020 by TeeDubya