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

[Yuk 1509]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

sure there is.  it's just over in DT and the football board grievance-signaling about "SJW" and "wokeness"

We all know we'd be be 6-0 right now if the players had focused on important things like football.

[Texaspython 231]

Really, my election anxiety is from the complete lack of a ground game this year by Dems. I understand the calls/texting subbing for a ground game but we’re in unknown territory here. No modern prez has won without a great ground game.

That’s really the only thing I can foresee derailing Biden. It’s so incredibly unlikely but I can’t shake the lingering thought there just isn’t enough follow through from Dems there. 

[TexasEd 8064]

25 minutes ago, 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

I'm more concerned with how much power the legislative branch has ceded to the Executive branch.  Congress needs to get its shit together and stop deferring to the President.  Set limits on executive orders and vote on bills instead of filibustering.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by TexasEd
its

[Beau Vine 54001]

32 minutes ago, G650 said:

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

He's murdering the GOP, soooo... 6 of one, half-dozen of another, or something like that?

[jimmyjazz 45557]

47 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Mrs.LL just learned last night that her parents voted for Trump.  She had real hopes and expectations that they would flip this year, particularly because of the COVID thing.  But her father, in particular, is a racist at his core.  And he's just not going to get over that.

She has always kind of idolized her father, in particular.  It's amazing to watch someone's respect for her parents evaporate in the span of a few minutes.

It's especially tough to sit there and just be supportive.  Of course, I want to yell "fuck them in their stupid racist asses."  But those are her parents, and that's not productive.  So there was just a lot of "I know" and "I'm sorry" and "I can't imagine how disappointed you are."

I don't even think they have the first clue about how disappointed and disguised she is.  They really should be praying for a Biden victory.  If Biden wins, then I think she'll get over it.  But if Trump somehow wins, that relationship may be irreparably damaged.

That's when I make the phone call that they have alienated their own daughter.  Make it hurt.  My wife's mom is still "well, I guess I'll vote for Trump, but I don't really want to".  We knew that.  Her dad is "I can't see voting for the guy, even though I'm a Republican".  (He has a BA in Art from UT, for fuck's sake.)  If he ends up voting for Trump, that will end it between my wife and them.  She knew she couldn't count on her mom, but her dad?  That will crush her.  And my wife is in many ways an old school Republican.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

4 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

Really, my election anxiety is from the complete lack of a ground game this year by Dems. I understand the calls/texting subbing for a ground game but we’re in unknown territory here. No modern prez has won without a great ground game.

That’s really the only thing I can foresee derailing Biden. It’s so incredibly unlikely but I can’t shake the lingering thought there just isn’t enough follow through from Dems there. 

you mean the ground game that was all but halted by a global pandemic?

[TwiceHorn 31272]

2 hours ago, Gap03 said:

Some great replies ...

 

Especially ironic since Giuliani has been running a shadow foreign policy for a couple of years now.

[Texaspython 231]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

you mean the ground game that was all but halted by a global pandemic?

Yes, to be clear, this isn’t a criticism but rather an acknowledgment that a huge piece of a winning strategy just isn’t there and it scares me.

[Cairn Horn88 8169]

Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Candlestick!

[Bama Chick 28596]

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 a life long Democrat, this almost brings tears to my eyes.

Welcome home.

[Bottlecap 1522]

58 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Mrs.LL just learned last night that her parents voted for Trump.  She had real hopes and expectations that they would flip this year, particularly because of the COVID thing.  But her father, in particular, is a racist at his core.  And he's just not going to get over that.

She has always kind of idolized her father, in particular.  It's amazing to watch someone's respect for her parents evaporate in the span of a few minutes.

It's especially tough to sit there and just be supportive.  Of course, I want to yell "fuck them in their stupid racist asses."  But those are her parents, and that's not productive.  So there was just a lot of "I know" and "I'm sorry" and "I can't imagine how disappointed you are."

I don't even think they have the first clue about how disappointed and disguised she is.  They really should be praying for a Biden victory.  If Biden wins, then I think she'll get over it.  But if Trump somehow wins, that relationship may be irreparably damaged.

I'm in the same boat. My wife and her brother tried to the bitter end, but it extends to most of her extended family (btw, they are in key states ohio, michigan, and georgia, so its a more painful fuck you to her and our family). The only difference between my situation and yours is that i'm willing to say fuck them out loud and cut them off from their brown grandchildren. we spent 4-6 weeks with them every summer up in northern michigan.  enough is enough.  they better fuckin pray that biden wins or i don't see this ever getting mended before they're too old to do shit with their grandkids or us, really.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Bottlecap

[Reynolds Woodcock 4669]

10 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

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?

You don't have to wonder. The answer is undeniably yes.  Mitch McConnell has made it crystal clear that only one thing matters in modern politics, and that is power. No norms, no precedents, just power.  As a result,  if the Democrats win they should exercise every ounce of constitutional power to further their constituents' interests, gnashing of teeth on Fox News be damned.  That includes ending the filibuster, expanding the HOR, pushing for statehood for DC and PR, and expanding the SCOTUS to 13. 

Of course, I doubt that Biden, Schumer and Pelosi are the triumvirate to effectively maximize that power, but that is a conversation I very much hope to have starting on Wednesday.     

[wildcat09 29241]

20 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

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?

Yes. There's no question.

[GRHorn 105]

A lot of “center right” people here disavowing family members over voting for a candidate that at least 45% of the country will be voting for. 

[wildcat09 29241]

Also, the Supreme Court isn't some fucking high and holy institution. The history of SCOTUS is a history of ignoring democratically-enacted laws and telling ordinary Americans to get fucked, with about a 15 year break during the Warren Court era. We'd be better off if it had 99 justices.

Edited November 2, 2020 by wildcat09

[Wanker Bob 379]

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

with any luck, thomas will croak really quick and we can preserve sanctity as we dance on his grave.

How well are those people guarded?

Because if it isn't near president level now it won't be long before someone realizes how easy it can be to take an opportunist shot. It's the danger of the supreme court being politicized. Shouldn't have happened but here were are. 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Wanker Bob

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Especially ironic since Giuliani has been running a shadow foreign policy for a couple of years now.

The anti semitism is nothing new, the  reliance on the same old names is like they are reading Dostoevsky or Solzhenitsyn and get confused with the names and dashes go "screw it, I'm going with Bill and the Pope". I swear the main reason they use Soros isn't because of his religion and his history with supporting pro democracy groups, it's because it's easy to spell.

[GRHorn 105]

53 minutes ago, G650 said:

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.

The emphasis on the Supreme Court has more to do with minimizing legislating from the bench as it pertains to all issues. But as a member of the center right, you knew that already. 

[G650 14106]

Steve Schale's final missive of the cycle.

http://steveschale.squarespace.com/blog/2020/11/2/here-we-are.html

[G650 14106]

Just now, GRHorn said:

The emphasis on the Supreme Court has more to do with minimizing legislating from the bench as it pertains to all issues. But as a member of the center right, you knew that already. 

Nope. Thanks for playing though.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

40 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.  

Arguably, because the Federal Circuit has no territorial "constituency," it doesn't deserve "its own justice."  And you can kind of make a similar argument about the DC Circuit because its territorial constituency is tiny and overrepresents government interests (most cases coming from the DC Circuit are government as a party, opposing party from outside the Circuit).

The counter-argument might be that the Federal and DC circuits represent a national constituency.

I am kind of intrigued by the idea of justices being nominated from each of the regional circuits.  Not the judges from the court of appeals, although that is not wholly objectionable, but from the states making up the circuit.  I suppose the DC Circuit judge could be a government-type and the Federal Circuit judge an IP-type, although the Federal Circuit is not exclusively IP.  That is certainly one way to dilute the partisanship and increase the cross-sectionality of the Justices.

Edited November 2, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[HornOnTheBayou 8881]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The emphasis on the Supreme Court has more to do with minimizing legislating from the bench as it pertains to all issues. 

[ndawg 1242]

Just now, GRHorn said:

The emphasis on the Supreme Court has more to do with minimizing legislating from the bench as it pertains to all issues. But as a member of the center right, you knew that already. 

What is the actual reason y'all believe that Merrick Garland would "legislate from the bench" more than Barrett or Kavanaugh? What examples of supreme court decisions of the last 50 years come to mind?

I think this is a hole in my understanding of conservative opinion. I often hear trepidation about judicial activism, but I don't know what real world instances of judicial activism that you're thinking of.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

A lot of “center right” people here disavowing family members over voting for a candidate that at least 45% of the country will be voting for. 

do you suck this much naturally or did you have to work to get here?

[wildcat09 29241]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The emphasis on the Supreme Court has more to do with minimizing legislating from the bench as it pertains to all issues. But as a member of the center right, you knew that already. 

This is the exact opposite of the truth. You’re a perfect little trumper.

[hobbes2702 12824]

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

A lot of “center right” people here disavowing family members over voting for a candidate that at least 45% of the country will be voting for. 

Disingenuous troll is disingenuous 

[Gil Bang 25898]

The Coleman/Franken comment reminds me of one of the million funny things that Franken said while campaigning.  

"Of the two New York Jews in this race, I'm the one that's actually FROM Minnesota"

 

[Michael Knight 12896]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The emphasis on the Supreme Court has more to do with minimizing legislating from the bench as it pertains to all issues. But as a member of the center right, you knew that already. 

The emphasis on the Supreme Court is about reversing the gains in Civil Rights that have come about from legislation. Its exactly how the 14th amendment was neutered by the decisions in The Civil Rights cases. Its literally legislating from the bench, but its just that you agree with it so you call it something else.

[hobbes2702 12824]

6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The emphasis on the Supreme Court has more to do with minimizing legislating from the bench as it pertains to all issues. But as a member of the center right, you knew that already. 

Disingenuous troll is disingenuous 

[wildcat09 29241]

The conservative justices have in multiple opinions recently made it quite clear they think they can and should overrule a state supreme court’s interpretation of state law, and this fucking troll is pretending they care about restraint.

It’s been awhile since I talked with the Biden team about my internet trolls get gibbets proposal. I need to give them a call.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

5 minutes ago, ndawg said:

What is the actual reason y'all believe that Merrick Garland would "legislate from the bench" more than Barrett or Kavanaugh? What examples of supreme court decisions of the last 50 years come to mind?

I think this is a hole in my understanding of conservative opinion. I often hear trepidation about judicial activism, but I don't know what real world instances of judicial activism that you're thinking of.

You could make an argument that the opinion/judgment in Bostock v. Clayton County alters the meaning of TItle VII in a way that Congress didn't intend and protection of LGBTQ rights in the employment context should be done by Congress.

But Gorsuch.  So it can't possibly be legislating from the bench.

The Supreme Court's job since Marbury v. Madison has been to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.  Any time it thwarts the will of Congress, it thwarts the will of the people, arguably.  It's also "legislating from the bench."

Edited November 2, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

45 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

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

It’s what my point has been to brisket for years now. 
trump was the dead cat bounce. He’s turned this country way left of where it would otherwise be. 

[Dnaguy 11775]

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

with any luck, thomas will croak really quick and we can preserve sanctity as we dance on his grave.

He’s right there in the sweet spot of Covid.

Old, black, male.

idk of any health issues... but it would be fitting a raging Covid outbreak cuts into the 6-3 majority of the court too.

 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

11 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

A lot of “center right” people here disavowing family members over voting for a candidate that at least 45% of the country will be voting for. 

Yep. Don’t forget the cartoon that is the example of all that is wrong in the world because two people can vote differently and still be friends. None of this is a healthy or mainstream position. 

[StruggleBus 3922]

I’m voting for Biden. My parents are voting for Trump.

Im also a normal person and would never end the relationship with my parents over something so stupid. Some of y’all need to get a fucking grip.

[Valmy77 13094]

16 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

A lot of “center right” people here disavowing family members over voting for a candidate that at least 45% of the country will be voting for. 

Well I guess there are two. Though maybe there is more to it than that? A few of them being serious racists would make more sense than just one election.

But I have been a Democrat for decades. Having family and friends being aligned with evil...er...the other party is just something I am used to. Nothing personal. May they someday see the light.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Valmy77

[hobbes2702 12824]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yep. Don’t forget the cartoon that is the example of all that is wrong in the world because two people can vote differently and still be friends. None of this is a healthy or mainstream position. 

Why is it do you think that so many people here are losing friendships? Is it because they take politics to seriously? Honestly I’m interested to hear this. 
 

Do you consider politics and morals the same? If you do not then you should understand why people are losing friends.

Edited November 2, 2020 by hobbes2702

[hobbes2702 12824]

1 minute ago, StruggleBus said:

I’m voting for Biden. My parents are voting for Trump.

Im also a normal person and would never end the relationship with my parents over something so stupid. Some of y’all need to get a fucking grip.

Something so stupid like racism? Or nationalism? Or sexism? Or xenophobia? Or rape? Or tax fraud? Or money laundering?

Edited November 2, 2020 by hobbes2702

[mchookem 16212]

12 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

A lot of “center right” people here disavowing family members over voting for a candidate that at least 45% of the country will be voting for. 

so...you're saying having standards of human decency and expecting/hoping that one"s loved ones live up to those standards to preserve American democracy and standing in the world is a left-wing ideal?

you should probably stop posting today. you aren't very good at it 🤣

[Huckleberry 32701]

We're still communicating with our in-laws, of course, but have had to tell my mother-in-law to let my father-in-law know that he needs to quit it with the literally never shutting up about politics or we will have to reevaluate the situation.

So far he's gotten the point.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

1 hour ago, Valmy77 said:

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.

I don't think any party that doesn't control both the white house and senate is going to ever be able to appoint a judge again from this point forward, so even if the court gets expanded to 15, we might be down to 6 or 7 before we fill any seats.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

We're still communicating with our in-laws, of course, but have had to tell my mother-in-law to let my father-in-law know that he needs to quit it with the literally never shutting up about politics or we will have to reevaluate the situation.

So far he's gotten the point.

Most of the older generation of my family (all well educated) are voting for Trump.  We don't talk politics.  Funnily enough, they get angry with me faster because they know I'm right.  

 

[Michael Knight 12896]

The tradition of southern gentility came about because if no one talked about slaves then no one would ever question if they should keep them

[G650 14106]

I mean my Grandmother is all in on Trump,  but I still love her and talk to her. It helps that she is just brainwashed by Fox, and whoever the Republicans nominate she is all in on, not a Trumper specifically. I think she wanted Ted Cruz in '16.

 

Hell, my neighbor flies Trump flags and I'm still friendly to him

[wildcat09 29241]

I have no problem remaining friends with those with whom I disagree politically.

But disagreeing with me on questions like “should we have a representative government or a dictatorship” and “are non-white people human beings who should have the same rights as white people” goes beyond mere political disagreement. If you’re ok remaining friends with people who answer no to those questions, that says a lot more bad things about you than it does about me.

[hobbes2702 12824]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I have no problem remaining friends with those with whom I disagree politically.

But disagreeing with me on questions like “should we have a representative government or a dictatorship” and “are non-white people human beings who should have the same rights as white people” goes beyond mere political disagreement. If you’re ok remaining friends with people who answer no to those questions, that says a lot more bad things about you than it does about me.

How dare you have moral standards for the people you associate with.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

16 minutes ago, ndawg said:

What is the actual reason y'all believe that Merrick Garland would "legislate from the bench" more than Barrett or Kavanaugh? What examples of supreme court decisions of the last 50 years come to mind?

I think this is a hole in my understanding of conservative opinion. I often hear trepidation about judicial activism, but I don't know what real world instances of judicial activism that you're thinking of.

Are you starting from the position that all republicans are morally sound and all democrats are morally corrupt?  It’s easy to get there if so, more difficult if not. 

[Beau Vine 54001]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

We're still communicating with our in-laws, of course, but have had to tell my mother-in-law to let my father-in-law know that he needs to quit it with the literally never shutting up about politics or we will have to reevaluate the situation.

So far he's gotten the point.

My mom finally learned to shut up about Christianity and how awful the Democrats are back in February.

Of course, it was because she died. 

[jimmyjazz 45557]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I have no problem remaining friends with those with whom I disagree politically.

But disagreeing with me on questions like “should we have a representative government or a dictatorship” and “are non-white people human beings who should have the same rights as white people” goes beyond mere political disagreement. If you’re ok remaining friends with people who answer no to those questions, that says a lot more bad things about you than it does about me.

I happen to think the number of Trump supporters who think we should have a representative government and that everybody should have the same rights as white people number in the, oh, low 20% range.  That's why I am so quick to turn on them.  Prove otherwise, bitches.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Supporter of the party that gave us

Thomas
Alito
Kavanaugh
Coney-Barrett

Wringing hands about “legislating from the bench” is just,