2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[Greater Miami Shores]

Being right-wing doesn't mean you have to support Trump. Trump's been useful in demolishing the fusion conservative faction and some other stuff but other than that he's been a shit show. The best thing that could happen is postliberal right-wingers coming to dominate the GOP, which could very well happen as even former fusionist conservatives are moving towards that (eg Marco Rubio); but this also means relegating MAGA conservatives to a minority faction.

Can you even pin MAGA people to an ideology? What they support tends to boil down to "whatever Trump says" and Trump is incoherent and contradicting himself all the time.

I respect all of your opinions with respect back. Not with unnecessary Personal and Political insults as has been done to me recently and many times. I respect your rights to your opinions. I respect your rights to post them too me and any person on NS. This respect is given it is not earned. It is called Democracy. While I strongly disagree with all of you. I know my fellow Republicans and I have talked about all these related issues on NS, Discord, and off site, and they agree with me. I am not the only one on NS who agrees with me. They don't have any problems with me and my posts and views on this issue, and I am not lying. Thank you all for your posts, opinions, views and comments.

GMS.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Being right-wing doesn't mean you have to support Trump. Trump's been useful in demolishing the fusion conservative faction and some other stuff but other than that he's been a shit show. The best thing that could happen is postliberal right-wingers coming to dominate the GOP, which could very well happen as even former fusionist conservatives are moving towards that (eg Marco Rubio); but this also means relegating MAGA conservatives to a minority faction.

Can you even pin MAGA people to an ideology? What they support tends to boil down to "whatever Trump says" and Trump is incoherent and contradicting himself all the time.

I’d say a mix of reactionary conservatism and nationalism.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Can you even pin MAGA people to an ideology? What they support tends to boil down to "whatever Trump says" and Trump is incoherent and contradicting himself all the time.

I’d say a mix of reactionary conservatism and nationalism.

Just for the sake of argument lets say this is true about me. There is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with my personal and political views on President Trump, the Republicans and any and all Issues, It is called Democracy. Just like there is nothing wrong with your personal and political views on President Trump, the Republicans and any and all issues, it is called Democracy. This respect is given it is not earned. This Post is for all of you. This Post is for all my fellow nation Persons on NS. Including my self, vice versa and vice versa. The same rules apply too me, towards all of my fellow nation persons on NS. Without the unnecessary personal and political insults, which have been done recently against me, and many times over and over again.

I rest my case again.

GMS.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I’d say a mix of reactionary conservatism and nationalism.

Just for the sake of argument lets say this is true about me. There is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with my personal and political views on President Trump, the Republicans and any and all Issues, It is called Democracy. Just like there is nothing wrong with your personal and political views on President Trump, the Republicans and any and all issues, it is called Democracy. This respect is given it is not earned. This Post is for all of you. This Post is for all my fellow nation Persons on NS. Including my self, vice versa and vice versa. The same rules apply too me, towards all of my fellow nation persons on NS. Without the unnecessary personal and political insults, which have been done recently against me, and many times over and over again.

I rest my case again.

GMS.

I wasn’t even talking about you specifically, please stop.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Facts VP Joe Biden said you will all know my Position on Court Packing after the election is over.

When asked by a Reporter, don't the voters deserve to know.

VP Joe Biden said, No They Don't.

Joe Biden faces backlash for suggesting during an interview with host Charlamagne tha God that those having a hard time ‘figuring out’ whether to support him or Trump ‘ain't black

Here are the Links I have so far:

Biden was questioned on this by a Black African American at his recent Townhall event in Pennsylvania.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden- ... ne-tha-god

https://twitter.com/RossDiMattei/status ... 2062185472

Harris has refused to answer the question.

The Politico article I Posted about earlier about their respective Townhall events had an Anti Trump Headline and No anti Biden Headline.

A Perfect example of Anti Trump Media bias.

A Fair and Balanced Headline From Politico must be an Anti Trump Headline and an Anti Biden Headline.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... lls-429751

Trump gets grilled as Biden coasts: Takeaways from the dueling town halls

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... ays-429758

I guess this Headline is what Politico calls Fair and Balanced on President Trump and VP Joe Biden?

I condemn this unfair and biased Political Headline of Politico.

1 - Who agrees with me?

2 - Who disagrees with me?

I rest my case again.

My New Favorite Expression.

[The Black Forrest]

This post was made by Greater Miami Shores who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Ahh the static is pretty well gone. Anyway.

Interesting town hall talks. Trump did look like he was getting angry a few times. He might have been outed on his claims of testing and may have been infected when he debated Biden. The nonsense comment of the talks? Eight-five percent of the people who wear masks get covid. Oh and of course he supports mask wearing.

I don’t know why people are hung up on court packing. I doubt it’s going to happen....well maybe if Barrett turned into a mess. Other then that; I take it more as shit taking the republicans.

The next debate will be interesting

[Kowani]

Just for the sake of argument lets say this is true about me. There is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with my personal and political views on President Trump, the Republicans and any and all Issues, It is called Democracy. Just like there is nothing wrong with your personal and political views on President Trump, the Republicans and any and all issues, it is called Democracy. This respect is given it is not earned. This Post is for all of you. This Post is for all my fellow nation Persons on NS. Including my self, vice versa and vice versa. The same rules apply too me, towards all of my fellow nation persons on NS. Without the unnecessary personal and political insults, which have been done recently against me, and many times over and over again.

I rest my case again.

GMS.

I wasn’t even talking about you specifically, please stop.

Please. For the sake of us all. Mute him.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Please. For the sake of us all. Mute him.

Done. It’ll be good to never see his posts again unless someone else quotes him for some reason. I just wish the mods would do something about what has definitely devolved into a form of spam.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I love NS the RPs and General.

I repeat myself because the Posts fit the Posts.

I am Proud of my self for not muting any fellow nation person for any personal and political insults and reasons against me.

Many Persons here post directly too me and un directly too each other. It has happened many times before on related issues to President Trump and the Republicans. Strange they don't have any problems with me on the Castro's Cuba or any other issues. I hope I never have too prove it.

I respect all of my fellow nations rights to their views and their rights to post them too me and to all fellow nation persons, with Respect. The same Rules apply too me towards them with Respect. This Respect is given it is not earned. This Respect is Called Democracy in the USA.

I am sick and tired of this against me on President Trump and the Republicans, but most of the time they are not actionable. But a few times they have been actionable. These are facts an I am not lying.

I love NS the RPs and General.

My Last Post on this. My Next Post will be on the related issues of this thread.

[Picairn]

Done. It’ll be good to never see his posts again unless someone else quotes him for some reason. I just wish the mods would do something about what has definitely devolved into a form of spam.

At this point GMS has been rather... too repetitive for my own liking. So yeah, I did as you did too.

[Greater Miami Shores]

WATCH VIDEO | 'Prosperity will surge': Trump pledges virus vaccine, backs fracking and coal in Johnstown stop

https://www.tribdem.com/news/trump-chal ... ae27d.html

GMS: I don't know anything about the vaccines, I am not a doctor. My main issue on this post is Fracking in Pennsylvania. Which Biden has said he is for limited Fracking and President Trump says he is for Fracking in Pennsylvania. Sounds like VP Joe Biden is trying to have it both ways.

[Greater Miami Shores]

This post was made by Greater Miami Shores who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Ahh the static is pretty well gone. Anyway.

Interesting town hall talks. Trump did look like he was getting angry a few times. He might have been outed on his claims of testing and may have been infected when he debated Biden. The nonsense comment of the talks? Eight-five percent of the people who wear masks get covid. Oh and of course he supports mask wearing.

I don’t know why people are hung up on court packing. I doubt it’s going to happen....well maybe if Barrett turned into a mess. Other then that; I take it more as shit taking the republicans.

The next debate will be interesting

Since you posted about me I guess I can quote you.

The reasons people are hung up on court packing are obvious. VP Joe Biden's statements on court packing. Harris non statements on court packing.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a highly qualified US Supreme Court Nominee. I asked you a few times, you should not have any objections to ACB, since you keep saying to another poster, you are just against ACB when she disagrees with your point of views. Those were not your exact words but this what you mean.

So I will ask you again. Why don't you support ACB as a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice, if agreeing with her or disagreeing with her on the issues does not matter too you?

Notice I have asked you this question in different and similar words.

[The Archregimancy]

I know I said I wouldn't post in this thread as an ordinary poster anymore, but given the misconceptions and hypocrisy over this issue, I think it's important to post the below.

Republicans Are Enthusiastic about Court Packing

Although Republicans are universally warning how undemocratic it would be for Democrats to expand the U.S. Supreme Court next year, at the state level they are wildly enthusiastic about the idea. Strange. Oddly, their views on court packing seem to correlate rather strongly with who is doing the packing. Here is a state-by-state rundown on recent attempts to pack state supreme courts, some successful and some not.

Alabama: For some reason, in 2009, the Democratic majority leader introduced a bill to slim down the state Supreme Court from nine to seven justices. However, all nine were Republican appointees, so it is not clear what he was up to. The bill failed.

Arizona: In 2016, Arizona Republicans successfully expanded the Arizona Supreme Court from five to seven justices over the objections of the chief justice. The state's Republican governor picked the new justices. The bill's (Republican) sponsor let the cat out of the bag when he said: "If there were a different person appointing [the justices], I might feel less comfortable."

Georgia: In 2016, Republicans in the state legislature pushed through a bill allowing then-governor Nathan Deal (R) to add two more justices to the seven-member state Supreme Court. Deal's lawyer said that he hoped the new court would make more decisions favorable to businesses.

Florida: In 2007, the Republican-controlled Florida legislature attempted to increase the state Supreme Court from seven to 15 justices because they were upset about a ruling it had made on school vouchers. It failed. In 2011, the legislature tried again and failed again.

Iowa: After the state Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in 2009, Republicans in the legislature attempted to pack the court by adding two more justices. That didn't work because Democrats controlled the legislature at the time.

Louisiana: In 2017, a Democrat introduced a bill to expand the Louisiana Supreme Court from seven to nine justices. It failed.

Montana: In 2011, Republicans in the state legislature attempted to unpack the state's top court by removing the two most liberal justices. They were completely open about their motives. Nevertheless, the bill died in committee.

Oklahoma: Same story in Oklahoma, only this time the unpacking would have reduced the number of justices from nine to five, eliminating four Democratic appointees. The effort failed.

Pennsylvania: In 2014, the Republicans in the state legislature introduced a bill to shrink government, including eliminating the office of the lieutenant governor, reducing the size of the general assembly, and also the size of the state Supreme Court. Just by chance, all of these changes would have benefited the Republicans. It didn't make it.

South Carolina: From 1995 to 2010, Democratic state senator Robert Ford kept introducing a bill to expand the top court from five to seven justices. It kept failing. Since 2013, Republicans have been trying to pack the court and have kept failing.

Washington: In 2013, Republicans attempted to get rid of four Democratic appointees on the nine-member Supreme Court after the court shot down a Republican-imposed restriction on tax hikes. The Brennan Center for Justice characterized the move as a threat to judicial independence. It failed.

In nearly all the cases above, increasing or decreasing the size of the state Supreme Court would have helped the Republicans. Often the ideological balance of the Court was at stake. Clearly at the state level, the Republicans have been playing ideological hardball with the courts and sometimes succeeding. It would be hypocritical in the extreme if they condemned Democrats in a potential Biden administration for doing at the federal level what they have been actively trying to do at the state level for years. Needless to say, they will say that packing the state Supreme Courts with Republicans is completely different from packing the U.S. Supreme Court with Democrats. But it follows the same hallowed principle: It is legal and we have the power to do it so we will do it.

https://electoral-vote.com/#item-9

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Why is the size of the highest court undefined in so many constitutions? It seems like an oversight.

Did the Founding Fathers have any writings talking about this issue? Was court packing foreseen, or considered as a method for the legislature to check a hostile court?

[Corrian]

Also read this little snippet not too long ago

Biden was also asked by a voter about how to bring bipartisan cooperation back to Washington. The former vice president and senator said he'd reach out to Republicans to find common ground and believes some GOP members would work with him on certain issues.

"I'm going to pick up the phone and call them and say, 'let's get together," Biden said. "There's so many things we really do agree on. And with Trump out of the way, the vindictiveness of a president going after Republicans who don't do exactly what he says gets taken away."

Biden also spoke about passing a bill for funding cancer research before he and President Obama left office, when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered to name the bill after Biden's son Beau, who died from cancer in 2015.

"Mitch McConnell stood up and I was presiding officer and moved to name the bill after my deceased son Beau," Biden said. "There are ways to bring this together."

If nothing else it's at least refreshing to me that Biden sees the opposition as people. We could certainly use a lot more of that.

The opposition has shown a hatred for the country and democracy, though, so its understandable why a lot of us absolutely hate their guts. They're useless and they're equally as responsible for the current situation we're in, so fuck them. Bipartisanship is good and all, but Republicans in the Senate are basically all trash.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I know I said I wouldn't post in this thread as an ordinary poster anymore, but given the misconceptions and hypocrisy over this issue, I think it's important to post the below.

Republicans Are Enthusiastic about Court Packing

Although Republicans are universally warning how undemocratic it would be for Democrats to expand the U.S. Supreme Court next year, at the state level they are wildly enthusiastic about the idea. Strange. Oddly, their views on court packing seem to correlate rather strongly with who is doing the packing. Here is a state-by-state rundown on recent attempts to pack state supreme courts, some successful and some not.

Alabama: For some reason, in 2009, the Democratic majority leader introduced a bill to slim down the state Supreme Court from nine to seven justices. However, all nine were Republican appointees, so it is not clear what he was up to. The bill failed.

Arizona: In 2016, Arizona Republicans successfully expanded the Arizona Supreme Court from five to seven justices over the objections of the chief justice. The state's Republican governor picked the new justices. The bill's (Republican) sponsor let the cat out of the bag when he said: "If there were a different person appointing [the justices], I might feel less comfortable."

Georgia: In 2016, Republicans in the state legislature pushed through a bill allowing then-governor Nathan Deal (R) to add two more justices to the seven-member state Supreme Court. Deal's lawyer said that he hoped the new court would make more decisions favorable to businesses.

Florida: In 2007, the Republican-controlled Florida legislature attempted to increase the state Supreme Court from seven to 15 justices because they were upset about a ruling it had made on school vouchers. It failed. In 2011, the legislature tried again and failed again.

Iowa: After the state Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in 2009, Republicans in the legislature attempted to pack the court by adding two more justices. That didn't work because Democrats controlled the legislature at the time.

Louisiana: In 2017, a Democrat introduced a bill to expand the Louisiana Supreme Court from seven to nine justices. It failed.

Montana: In 2011, Republicans in the state legislature attempted to unpack the state's top court by removing the two most liberal justices. They were completely open about their motives. Nevertheless, the bill died in committee.

Oklahoma: Same story in Oklahoma, only this time the unpacking would have reduced the number of justices from nine to five, eliminating four Democratic appointees. The effort failed.

Pennsylvania: In 2014, the Republicans in the state legislature introduced a bill to shrink government, including eliminating the office of the lieutenant governor, reducing the size of the general assembly, and also the size of the state Supreme Court. Just by chance, all of these changes would have benefited the Republicans. It didn't make it.

South Carolina: From 1995 to 2010, Democratic state senator Robert Ford kept introducing a bill to expand the top court from five to seven justices. It kept failing. Since 2013, Republicans have been trying to pack the court and have kept failing.

Washington: In 2013, Republicans attempted to get rid of four Democratic appointees on the nine-member Supreme Court after the court shot down a Republican-imposed restriction on tax hikes. The Brennan Center for Justice characterized the move as a threat to judicial independence. It failed.

In nearly all the cases above, increasing or decreasing the size of the state Supreme Court would have helped the Republicans. Often the ideological balance of the Court was at stake. Clearly at the state level, the Republicans have been playing ideological hardball with the courts and sometimes succeeding. It would be hypocritical in the extreme if they condemned Democrats in a potential Biden administration for doing at the federal level what they have been actively trying to do at the state level for years. Needless to say, they will say that packing the state Supreme Courts with Republicans is completely different from packing the U.S. Supreme Court with Democrats. But it follows the same hallowed principle: It is legal and we have the power to do it so we will do it.

https://electoral-vote.com/#item-9

Sorry and my apology Arch, I have too repeat myself again as the broken record I am and cant help it.

ok good point and fair enough. But it does not change the other hypocrisy on both sides.

VP Joe Biden: you will all know my opinion on court packing after the election is over.

Reporter: But don't the voters deserve to know.

VP Joe Biden: No They Don't.

Kamala Harris on the Vice Presidential Debate refused to answer the question.

Thank you for this interesting post. I will now read in details over and over again.

I just read it all in details, a very interesting post. I will try to find something similar on the Democrats side and post it.

But it does not change the hypocrisy on the Democrats side as I Just posted on this post.

It does not change the fact.

President Trump has a constitutional right to name a highly qualified US Supreme Court Justice and try to have him or her confirmed during his elected term.

I think a Democrat President Obama, A Democrat President Hillary or any Democrat President would do the same, I said I think.

GMS.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I turned on the TV last night.

Apparently, if Trump doesn’t win this election “China will own all of America.” That’s what he said.

So apparently, I’ll be living in the country (China) that becomes a colonial power over America should Biden win. I didn’t know it. But apparently, in the 21st century it’s possible for first world countries to be colonized immediately based on electoral results.

Apparently Biden winning = China owning. Somehow.

Trump also owes big money to the Bank of China and his daughter Ivanka had dealings in China too.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/ ... ebt-205475
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... ected/amp/
Trump is already owned by China, stones and glass houses and all.

Not wholly owned, just a few hundred million worth.

It's well known that no US bank would lend any more to Trump, before he got elected. That would give him serious problems rolling over his debt (not much of which is with China tbh). But luckily for him, being President has opened up a vast realm of borrowing possibilities, or as his supporters will see it: investment opportunities. If the smart money won't lend to him, he can go to the dumb money.

And anyway, Trump could sell property to repay his debts, and I'm sure he'd do that before going into personal bankruptcy and having an administrator sell his property for him. He seems a lot like the late Alan Bond: he's a property speculator who doesn't know when to sell, he's got Buy Low worked out but can't seem to grasp Sell High.

[Kowani]

Why is the size of the highest court undefined in so many constitutions? It seems like an oversight.

Did the Founding Fathers have any writings talking about this issue? Was court packing foreseen, or considered as a method for the legislature to check a hostile court?

Well, they considered the court to be the weakest branch, and although Hamilton suggests judicial review in the Federalist papers (Fed 78), they never actually got around to putting it explicitly in the constitution. It was a power the court gave itself in 1803.
So…there are many things to criticize the FF on, but in this case, they’re largely innocent.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

The latest thing Biden said about court packing is that he's "not a fan" of the idea. I think that he wants to keep his options open, but doesn't want to make the election about the issue.

He'd rather focus on COVID-19 and climate change than get into the weeds about court packing. I expect Trump to continue to hit him on it, although he's gone off in some weird directions (the SEAL Team 6 conspiracy talk, for example).

If I was Trump, I'd focus on that and trade policy.

[Corrian]

Why is the size of the highest court undefined in so many constitutions? It seems like an oversight.

Did the Founding Fathers have any writings talking about this issue? Was court packing foreseen, or considered as a method for the legislature to check a hostile court?

Judges really should be chosen independently. Its becoming dangerous how the courts are being handled on a partisan level.

[Corrian]

The latest thing Biden said about court packing is that he's "not a fan" of the idea. I think that he wants to keep his options open, but doesn't want to make the election about the issue.

He'd rather focus on COVID-19 and climate change than get into the weeds about court packing. I expect Trump to continue to hit him on it, although he's gone off in some weird directions (the SEAL Team 6 conspiracy talk, for example).

If I was Trump, I'd focus on that and trade policy.

But we all know he won't.

[Shrillland]

Why is the size of the highest court undefined in so many constitutions? It seems like an oversight.

Did the Founding Fathers have any writings talking about this issue? Was court packing foreseen, or considered as a method for the legislature to check a hostile court?

As I can see, none. The only thing that may be pertinent to our discussion is Federalist 78, where Hamilton claims that life terms for justices are part of the methods necessary to ensure judicial independence whilst Anti-Federalist 78 written by Yates warns that such measures will only lead to the court becoming far more powerful than the framers could have ever envisioned. Of course, Hamilton did not foresee folks like Trump or Andrew Jackson exploiting the wrinkle that the court can't actually enforce decisions, neither did he believe that SCOTUS could ever be as powerful as it has become in modern times.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The latest thing he's said about court packing is that he's "not a fan" of the idea. I think that he wants to keep his options open, but doesn't want to make the election about the issue.

He'd rather focus on COVID-19 and climate change than get into the weeds about court packing. I expect Trump to continue to hit him on it, although he's gone off in some weird directions (the SEAL Team 6 conspiracy talk, for example).

If I was Trump, I'd focus on that and trade policy.

If I were a leftist Democrat I would want him to say court packing is still on the table. That would motivate me to vote, better than the single-digit chance there will be an opportunity in the next 4 years to move the court back towards the center by death or retirement.

The more I hear people who aren't leftists say how Terrible and Unprecedented court packing would be, the more I think Why The Fuck Not. Adhering to precedent is the credo of losers who get shit pulled on them but are too chickenshit to fight back.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If I was Trump, I'd focus on that and trade policy.

Trade policy seems to be a weakness of Biden's (electorally anyway) but it's hardly a strength of Trump's.

[Greater Miami Shores]

The latest thing Biden said about court packing is that he's "not a fan" of the idea. I think that he wants to keep his options open, but doesn't want to make the election about the issue.

He'd rather focus on COVID-19 and climate change than get into the weeds about court packing. I expect Trump to continue to hit him on it, although he's gone off in some weird directions (the SEAL Team 6 conspiracy talk, for example).

If I was Trump, I'd focus on that and trade policy.

Yes, I agree with you on VP Biden's latest. But how convenient, again trying to have it both ways, on court packing and fracking in Pennsylvania.

President Trump is trying all of the above.