US Elections 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Two questions:

1) What happens to people in Oregon and California who have lost their homes in the dreadful fire storms? Can they vote if they no longer have the address on the register because it burned to the ground and they are in temporary accommodatiion elsewhere?

2) I read that the NYPD Union has declared it supports the President. Is this legal? In the UK police officers can vote, but they are not allowed to make any political statements or be seen supporting a political party or movement. I also wonder how this makes people in a Precinct feel knowing their local cops support a politician they don't approve of, and in particular when/if there are issues of trust between the citizens and the police which through the public support for a President who now belives in 'retribution', make them fear for their lives?

Would it not make more sense for the Police to be re-named the Republican Guard?

---

1. I don't know the answer to that.

2. Unions are allowed to endorse candidates in elections. If I'm not mistaken, my union endorsed Bernie Sanders during the primary. Which I thought was weird because the way I understand it the Medicare for All position sort of frowns upon employee health plans.

As for how the people in a precinct feel, probably no different from the other times when the PBA has endorsed other Republican candidates. Its just something most people accept. I also think a majority of the rank and file of the NYPD can separate who their union endorses and/or who they vote for and the job they have to do.

I think there is a diffculty here. I assume there are law enforcement officers whose political views are too extreme even for the so-called Republican party, and that a lot of people know this without the Union declaring its support for the President. The difficulty is in knowing if 2020 will be the most contested on the ground, if, for example, armed militias decide to 'stand guard' outside polling stations with their fingers on the triggers of their AR-15's, their bodies festooned with ammunition belts, wearing hats and t-shirts with provocative slogans -knowing that local law enforcement will not make any attempt to move them away. A more outrageous scenario with armed militias taking possessio of ballot boxes would also not be challenged by the sympathetic police.

The basis for the scenarios in which armed militias become part of the visible fabric of elections is provided by the increase in support for the terrorist who travelled to Kenosha to murder people, who is now described as a hero-

"Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, who this month was charged with committing intentional homicide in Kenosha, Wisconsin, has instead found himself being defended by Donald Trump, and hailed as a hero by rightwing punditry and an assorted bunch of Republicans and conservatives.
Experts warn that Trump’s embrace of Rittenhouse, who sat in the front row at a Trump rally in January and was in Kenosha as part of a rightwing militia nominally there to protect property, could pave the way for more vigilantism in Trump’s name – and have catastrophically violent results come November.
“Trump has made the election about the idea of citizen paramilitaries, federal forces and the government administration, against looters, rioters, demonstrators and Democrats,” said Joe Lowndes, professor of political science at the University of Oregon.
“With [Trump’s] continual messaging that there is election fraud, that mail-in ballots are going to be a form of election theft, what happens on election day, or the days that follow that? What happens if there are states where it’s unclear for a few days who the winner is?”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...mp-republicans

The key point is that a partisan police force cannot be trusted, precisely because it has taken a stand for one candidate against another, with the assumption that the Attorney General on recent form, will also take sides with the armed militias against City and State authorities, and that the purpose behind this is to ensure a second term for the incumbent, who cannot lose the election, because he never loses. At the very least, chaos is the ladder on which the man who today a the White House embraces wth passion the unelected dictatorships of the Middle East -in this case Bahrain and the UAE- seeks to climb back into an office he has defiled and does not deserve to occupy.

It mght sound hysterical, but is the USA on the road to civil war? What happens when a sitting President refuses to accept the result of an election he loses, or appears to lose, with contested results in more than one State- and the Attoney General and the Supreme Court support his claims?

"Of all of Trump’s authoritarian moves as president, it’s his approach to the 2020 election that serves as the clearest signal that America is on the brink of an institutional democratic crisis, and on the verge of becoming the sort of hybrid regime that Vladimir Putin created in Russia or that Viktor Orban put in place in Hungary."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-repu...210055864.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

She would indeed, if she had the courage to tackle that legal thing you have in he US called Child Marriage- set aside the volume of 'cute kids' on American tv in soaps, gymnastics (ban all under-18 year-olds from competitions), dance documentaries and so on, and focus less on Netflix and more on your own corrupt Union where this is concerned-

---

Are Biden/Harris tacking this?
I still stand with Gabbard....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Nobody's arguing that point. Not one single person said the Black community is monolithic or implied it.

Here is a fact for you since an you seem only able to repeat yourself and don't have much interest in the election generally: an overwhelming majority of the Black community will vote for the Democratic Party in November. In fact, of minority communities the division here is about as lopsided as it for any. Compare this to Cuban-Americans. Compare to Mexican-Americans. Compare to Asian-Americans. Compare to Jewish-Americans. Compare to LGBT. No minority community is monolithic and no vote is ever unanimous. 90% is a fairly large number though. I wasn't going to include Muslim-Americans only because I assumed the percentage would be similarly lopsided but in the first article I found it said 13% of Muslims vote Republican. Anyhow, there you go. No community is monolithic.

---

I'm just adding balance.
If you're going to mention someone on the fringe and then "call it a day", then I can do so just as well....
Most successful presidents (Clinton for example) hover within the middle ground and not on the far fringes of either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

You can read the posts above to see what I think about polls. They're not perfect and they may miss some Trump voters but I don't have anything other than data to go on.

---

In 2016, the polls had Hillary smashing Trump....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I think there is a diffculty here. I assume there are law enforcement officers whose political views are too extreme even for the so-called Republican party, and that a lot of people know this without the Union declaring its support for the President. The difficulty is in knowing if 2020 will be the most contested on the ground, if, for example, armed militias decide to 'stand guard' outside polling stations with their fingers on the triggers of their AR-15's, their bodies festooned with ammunition belts, wearing hats and t-shirts with provocative slogans -knowing that local law enforcement will not make any attempt to move them away. A more outrageous scenario with armed militias taking possessio of ballot boxes would also not be challenged by the sympathetic police.

The basis for the scenarios in which armed militias become part of the visible fabric of elections is provided by the increase in support for the terrorist who travelled to Kenosha to murder people, who is now described as a hero-

"Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, who this month was charged with committing intentional homicide in Kenosha, Wisconsin, has instead found himself being defended by Donald Trump, and hailed as a hero by rightwing punditry and an assorted bunch of Republicans and conservatives.
Experts warn that Trump’s embrace of Rittenhouse, who sat in the front row at a Trump rally in January and was in Kenosha as part of a rightwing militia nominally there to protect property, could pave the way for more vigilantism in Trump’s name – and have catastrophically violent results come November.
“Trump has made the election about the idea of citizen paramilitaries, federal forces and the government administration, against looters, rioters, demonstrators and Democrats,” said Joe Lowndes, professor of political science at the University of Oregon.
“With [Trump’s] continual messaging that there is election fraud, that mail-in ballots are going to be a form of election theft, what happens on election day, or the days that follow that? What happens if there are states where it’s unclear for a few days who the winner is?”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...mp-republicans

The key point is that a partisan police force cannot be trusted, precisely because it has taken a stand for one candidate against another, with the assumption that the Attorney General on recent form, will also take sides with the armed militias against City and State authorities, and that the purpose behind this is to ensure a second term for the incumbent, who cannot lose the election, because he never loses. At the very least, chaos is the ladder on which the man who today a the White House embraces wth passion the unelected dictatorships of the Middle East -in this case Bahrain and the UAE- seeks to climb back into an office he has defiled and does not deserve to occupy.

It mght sound hysterical, but is the USA on the road to civil war? What happens when a sitting President refuses to accept the result of an election he loses, or appears to lose, with contested results in more than one State- and the Attoney General and the Supreme Court support his claims?

---

Do you know what percent of Law Enforcement officers are Republican/Democrat/Independent?
Pretty bold guess/assumption by you considering that most Law Enforcement Unions have traditionally backed Democrat mayors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Are Biden/Harris tacking this?
I still stand with Gabbard....

---

Not as far as I know, as I think this is a taboo subject, unless the QAnon hysteria over California's SB145 Bill provokes a serious amount of thought but crucially, debate. The Bill concerns relations between teenagers where a relationship straddles the age of consent, and seeks to remove the criminal penalty an older boy or girl (but mostly male) might suffer for having relations with, say, a 15 year old, but also with regard to gay relations which had previously been exempt from reform-

"Wiener’s proposed law dealt with people who are convicted of having non-forcible sex with minors above the age of 14 and who are themselves no more than 10 years older than the minor. Judges in such cases were able to exercise discretion when deciding whether or not to place a convicted offender on the registry if the sex act was penile-vaginal sex but not if it was anal or oral sex or non-penile sexual penetration. The bizarre status quo stemmed from a 2015 California supreme court ruling which reasoned that if the victim in such a case became pregnant, placing the offender on the registry would make it harder for them to provide for the child.
To Wiener, this inequity was part of the legacy of the criminalization of LGBTQ+ people. “It used to be much more explicit and obvious in terms of anti-sodomy laws,” he said. “This is one example where the judge can keep straight kids off the registry, but the gay kids have to go on the registry. It’s mortifying that in 2020, in California, this discrimination continues to exist in our penal code.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-the-children

What might appear rational to you and me, has been transformed by QAnon into a conspiracy in which California becomes a paradise for paedos, thus-

"One such attack came in January 2020, when the website Law Enforcement Today (LET) published an inflammatory article headlined: “California lawmakers introduce bill to protect pedophiles who sexually abuse innocent kids”. “If you’re a pedophile and want to rape sweet, innocent, young children, then California is the state for you,” the piece began, before blatantly mischaracterizing the provisions in the bill."

So it seems to me that there is an hysterical campaign being organized that demonizes the rational approach to teenage relations, but gives a free pass to the more suspect relations between older men and teenage girls -as in over 35-40+ which can result in a legal marriage. It may be part of the campaign to demonize the Democrats as 'radical left' and thus by definition, immoral, and I believe the President's Junior has waded into this controversy knowing little about it, but it does nothing but distract conversation on real problems merely to convince people to vote for a man who says in the same statement that he 'under-played' the potential impact of Covid 19 on the US and then upped it.

Tulsi Gabbard appears to me to be voicing concerns without thinking through the issues, which suggests she never was Presidential material, but is an old fashioned blue stocking who prefers to spend her weekends taking tea with the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

You can read the posts above to see what I think about polls. They're not perfect and they may miss some Trump voters but I don't have anything other than data to go on.

There are certainly people who don't want to admit they support Trump but I'm not sure polls don't try to assure participants their privacy is somewhat protected. Nevertheless it might be a factor.

---

The RealClearPolitics poll average just before the 2016 election had Hillary Clinton with a 3.3% margin in the popular vote. The actual margin was 2.1%, which is well within the normal margin of error. That hardly seems consistent with the claim that the polls missed large numbers of Trump voters; eg because they were reluctant to reveal their true intentions. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...tein-5952.html

I think I posted this before, but this analysis by Nate Silver sugggests that the polls were no more inaccurate than they had been in the past. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...are-all-right/

It's interesting that the same poster who is continually criticising Joe Biden and complaining about the Democratic Party moving to the left seems to have had quite different views only two years ago.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...ove-Her/page22

"And it's my opinion (yes everyone has one) that Sanders stood a better chance of defeating Trump than Hillary."
"I think Joe Biden would have been the better President."
"Oh and speaking of Biden....Had he ran, I also believe he would have defeated Trump also......"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

It's interesting that the same poster who is continually criticising Joe Biden and complaining about the Democratic Party moving to the left seems to have had quite different views only two years ago.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...ove-Her/page22

"And it's my opinion (yes everyone has one) that Sanders stood a better chance of defeating Trump than Hillary."
"I think Joe Biden would have been the better President."
"Oh and speaking of Biden....Had he ran, I also believe he would have defeated Trump also......"

---

It's clear he's not saying what he ultimately means but in this case what is going on? I think he wants to always be in a position to say he WOULD support a Democratic candidate if Democrats made the right choice but his excuses are incompatible and don't fit any pattern of ideology. You go to the left he says you're extremists. You go to the center he might still say you're extreme but then he gets to say they're bland and unoriginal as well.

If anyone thinks I'm just trying to dump on Mr. Fanti, including Mr. Fanti, that's not really true. The above views combined with his current views don't really make sense except as a smokescreen. What else is new.

Thanks for posting the polling information. I knew it was out there and wanted to look for it but got too lazy. That was my sense and why maybe I'd say for safety sake if Florida and Ohio are within a percentage point, maybe Trump takes them comfortably. But I see state leads of 8% as durable as long as Biden doesn't do anything terrible and a 4% lead in Pennsylvania as a real lead but possibly a bit closer. Nate Silver wrote something today chastising people for not seeing the potential state by state margin of error as correlated. I assume this means he's warning people that you do have to concern yourself with systematic error that consistently lowers Trump's polling a bit and if it's the case, it might occur everywhere rather than at random. But your post is instructive as we are not talking about polling averages that miss huge swathes of Trump voters.

And in the previous 2018 link Mr. Fanti says that Sally Wasserman interfered with the primaries. The head of the Democratic National Committee was Debbie Wasserman Schultz. While people do mix up names I would expect someone who vehemently felt the Democratic establishment cheated Bernie to know who the DNC chair was, unless he was just stirring up shit as an afterthought.

Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019
https://www.census.gov/library/publi...0Table%20A%2D1).
Some interesting data points from the US Census Bureau:

The 2019 poverty rate of 10.5 percent is the lowest rate observed since estimates were initially published in 1959 (Figure 7 and Table B-5).

Median household income was $68,703 in 2019, an increase of 6.8 percent from the 2018 median of $64,324 (Figure 1 and Table A-1).

The 2019 real median incomes of family households and nonfamily households increased 7.3 percent and 6.2 percent from their respective 2018 estimates (Figure 1 and Table A-1). This is the fifth consecutive annual increase in median household income for family households, and the second consecutive increase for nonfamily households.

The 2019 real median incomes of White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic households all increased from their 2018 medians (Figure 1 and Table A-1).

Real median household incomes increased for all regions in 2019; 6.8 percent in the Northeast, 4.8 percent in the Midwest, 6.1 percent in the South, and 7.0 percent in the West (Figure 1 and Table A-1).


Now of course, this reflects everything pre-COVID...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

And in the previous 2018 link Mr. Fanti says that Sally Wasserman interfered with the primaries. The head of the Democratic National Committee was Debbie Wasserman Schultz. While people do mix up names I would expect someone who vehemently felt the Democratic establishment cheated Bernie to know who the DNC chair was, unless he was just stirring up shit as an afterthought.

---

I stand corrected in names - but the facts remain the same.
The DNC slanted the primaries to favor Hillary over Sanders & you could probably make a half-way decent argument that the DNC and also THE MEDIA did it again this year & slanted the primaries for Biden over Sanders.

And I still believe that had this NOT been done by the DNC - we would be discussing President Sanders now instead of President Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It's clear he's not saying what he ultimately means but in this case what is going on? I think he wants to always be in a position to say he WOULD support a Democratic candidate if Democrats made the right choice but his excuses are incompatible and don't fit any pattern of ideology. You go to the left he says you're extremists. You go to the center he might still say you're extreme but then he gets to say they're bland and unoriginal as well.

If anyone thinks I'm just trying to dump on Mr. Fanti, including Mr. Fanti, that's not really true. The above views combined with his current views don't really make sense except as a smokescreen. What else is new.

Thanks for posting the polling information. I knew it was out there and wanted to look for it but got too lazy. That was my sense and why maybe I'd say for safety sake if Florida and Ohio are within a percentage point, maybe Trump takes them comfortably. But I see state leads of 8% as durable as long as Biden doesn't do anything terrible and a 4% lead in Pennsylvania as a real lead but possibly a bit closer. Nate Silver wrote something today chastising people for not seeing the potential state by state margin of error as correlated. I assume this means he's warning people that you do have to concern yourself with systematic error that consistently lowers Trump's polling a bit and if it's the case, it might occur everywhere rather than at random. But your post is instructive as we are not talking about polling averages that miss huge swathes of Trump voters.

---

I'll say it yet again.
I support Tulsi Gabbard - who would make a much better POTUS than Biden IMHO....

You don't have agree with me (which is actually nice and shows independent thought rather than collective thought).....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

And I still believe that had this NOT been done by the DNC - we would be discussing President Sanders now instead of President Trump

---

Really, Mr Fanti? This plus your support for the morally holiier-than-thou Gabbard makes me wonder about your sense of judgment.

Why did Obama win his first election? Because he was young, articulate and had a passion for things positive and wanted change. That Clinton became the successor candidate might have made sense if the US was to have a woman in the White House, but it was a reversion to another age, the 1990s, just as Sanders would never have been elected with his aggressive tone, his negative copy, and the fact that he too is from another age for most Americans.

I can see Biden winning because in the midst of this crisis he looks safe and comforting, but what Obama did was tap in to what we outside it, have always believed is America's strength -compared to this place- adaptability to new things, the desire to go forwards not backwards, the science and the capital to do better things before anyone else. See it that way and you can see how the last 4 years has been a frog-march backwards in time. But if you did travel back to the 1970s, you wouldn't like it.

Oh boy, do you people need real change. And what a dismal time to be seeing self-inflated fools incapable of using generations of medical and administrative to co-ordinate action against Covid 19, because so many budgets have been slashed, and so many good people give a cheque and a 'get lost' email. Sanders? Gabbard? If they are top of your list, you are in real trouble, and you don't even know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

And...The Democratic Party has lurched so far left, it is no longer the party of Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

The "far left" here in the states are the new progressives coming into power. I.E., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, IIhan Omar, and, Rashida Tlaib. The Kennedy and Clinton Democrats for example would have taken an early an immediate stance in the violence that's happening within the U.S. cities - all of which interestingly have Democrat mayors as well. Also, 3 Pelosi backed candidates have now lost progressive candidates as well (the latest being Pelosi backed Joseph Kennedy losing to progressives backed Ed Markey).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

The DNC slanted the primaries to favor Hillary over Sanders & you could probably make a half-way decent argument that the DNC and also THE MEDIA did it again this year & slanted the primaries for Biden over Sanders.

And I still believe that had this NOT been done by the DNC - we would be discussing President Sanders now instead of President Trump

---

How exactly are these positions compatible? I take it you understand that Sanders is well to the left of Biden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It's clear he's not saying what he ultimately means but in this case what is going on? I think he wants to always be in a position to say he WOULD support a Democratic candidate if Democrats made the right choice but his excuses are incompatible and don't fit any pattern of ideology. You go to the left he says you're extremists. You go to the center he might still say you're extreme but then he gets to say they're bland and unoriginal as well.

---

In the same disingenuous way that he pretends to be an independent even though he only ever criticises one side. The question is why he has this anti-Democrat Party fixation. I suspect it's because libertarianism leads him to favour the party that professes anti-government ideology. I also don't why he thinks he's fooling anyone, but logical thinking is obviously not his strong point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

IMHO, Tulsi Gabbard was the best of the Democrats....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

2) Democrat Tulsi Gabbard is a much better candidate (IMHO) than Joe Biden - hands down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

And that person IMHO, like I said earlier was Tulsi Gabbard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

That being said, like I said in an earlier post, Tulsi Gabbard was my favorite of the Democrat primary candidates and she would smoke Trump in a debate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Speaking of Democrat TULSI GABBARD, here's a stance of hers that's very close to this forum:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Tulsi Gabbard would make a much better POTUS than Biden IMHO....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

I still stand with Gabbard....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

I'll say it yet again.
I support Tulsi Gabbard - who would make a much better POTUS than Biden IMHO....

---

Yeah, we qot that message, but Tulsi Gabbard is not on the ballot. Being around you must be like Groundhog Day.

I can't comment on Ruth Bader Ginsburg because I know little about her other than what I have seen on tv this evening. It poses a dilemma for the Senate with regard to both the timing issue as far as the selection process is concerned, and the possibility that the outcome of the election might depend on a Supreme Court vote.

Perhaps the President will nominate either his eldest son or Ivana, on the basis that his favourite States such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE are run as family firms, and maybe it is time for the USA to try it out?

Whaddaya think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I can't comment on Ruth Bader Ginsburg because I know little about her other than what I have seen on tv this evening. It poses a dilemma for the Senate with regard to both the timing issue as far as the selection process is concerned, and the possibility that the outcome of the election might depend on a Supreme Court vote.

Perhaps the President will nominate either his eldest son or Ivana, on the basis that his favourite States such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE are run as family firms, and maybe it is time for the USA to try it out?

Whaddaya think?

---

Completely agree that it does poses a dilemma for the US Senate with regard to the timing of the election process,and the possibility that the outcome of the presidential election might depend on a Supreme Court vote,I think that the Demagouge And Malignant Narcissist and Pathological Liar Donald Trump is going to nominate a conservative judge to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat, and his loyal enabler Moscow Mitch is going to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote,and try to ram it through before election day as a favor to his so-called leader.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/j...on-dies-at-87/

This was a good short write up on Ginsburg's life and tenure on the court. Mitch McConnell said within an hour of her death that they were going to try to get her successor confirmed before the next president takes office despite the fact that in 2016 Scalia's seat became empty with many more months to the election. Mitch invented some rule about not nominating a new Justice in the year of an election but I'm sure there's some loophole or reason he thinks it doesn't apply here. Or maybe they're just corrupt enough that they don't care to even explain why they shouldn't follow the principle they invented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/j...on-dies-at-87/

This was a good short write up on Ginsburg's life and tenure on the court. Mitch McConnell said within an hour of her death that they were going to try to get her successor confirmed before the next president takes office despite the fact that in 2016 Scalia's seat became empty with many more months to the election. Mitch invented some rule about not nominating a new Justice in the year of an election but I'm sure there's some loophole or reason he thinks it doesn't apply here. Or maybe they're just corrupt enough that they don't care to even explain why they shouldn't follow the principle they invented.

---

Not surprised at all that Moscow Mitch said that him and his cohorts were going to try and get a successor confirmed before the next president takes office,they are also the same ones who refused to hold a hearing to confirm Barack Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court Merrick Garland back in 2016,but they sure had no problem confirming Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanagh though,the Republican Controlled Senate is corrupt and doesn't care to explain why they shouldn't follow the principle they invented.

I am probably missing something here, but it seems to me that when it is said RBG's replacement will define the law for a generation, I am not sure how.
It is the case that Conservative Justices do not automatically 'toe the line' on judicial decision, as has happened so many times in the past, and I think Justice Roberts voted against some aspect of the President's law-making this year or last year. What strikes me about the Supeme Court since 2017, is not that they are repealing historic laws, but declining to defend them when such laws appear to be violated or undermined by States, the two most obvious being Abortion, and Voting Rights.

It thus appears that to undermine the historic laws of the 1960s, the Supreme Court actually does nothing, but defers to the State, so that as with the re-definition of term limits that makes an Abortion all but impossible, there is no need to repeal Roe-v-Wade, or in the case of voter suppression, the Voting Rghts Act of 1965 need not be repealed as State's can decide who can or cannot be on the electoral register and if they flagrantly violate the 1965 law, they know the Supreme Court will do nothing about it.

Two more things I take away from today's coverage-

1) Lindsay Graham having dug a hole for himself with his plea 'use my words against me', must find that people do; though I am sure he will find another set of words that relieves him of the embarrassing position in which, on his own evidence, no replacement for RBG should be made until 2021, but the words will not be 'I resign my seat'.

2) Is it not the case that the Constitution does not specify how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court? If he wanted to, could President Biden increase the number from 9 to 11, or 13?

Why is it, that when this President breaks conventions, the Democrats don't do so too?

Last thought -I read someone wants Michelle Obama to be nominated, ho-ho. I was sort of joking with my previous post on this, as the hot favourite so far is as Amy Barrett -one of the Roman Catholics who have ascended to the top tiers of power in the USA, confirming that the historic hostility to Catholics in the USA appears to have abated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

It thus appears that to undermine the historic laws of the 1960s, the Supreme Court actually does nothing, but defers to the State, so that as with the re-definition of term limits that makes an Abortion all but impossible, there is no need to repeal Roe-v-Wade, or in the case of voter suppression, the Voting Rghts Act of 1965 need not be repealed as State's can decide who can or cannot be on the electoral register and if they flagrantly violate the 1965 law, they know the Supreme Court will do nothing about it.

---

This is right. What would happen with Roe is that a state could just pass a law that makes abortion illegal. Or make it impermissibly difficult to get an abortion. Someone would sue the state in federal court and the federal district could provide an injunction against enforcement of the law. If the District Court doesn't provide an injunction (the first layer of breakdown imo), it can get appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the first level of appeal in federal cases. And if they don't act, the Supreme Court does not have to take the case. The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is discretionary. To hear it four Justices would have to grant a writ of certiorari, which then puts it before the court.

Another way it could happen though is that a ban on abortion could be struck down on appeal and the Supreme Court does grant writ so they can overturn Roe.

You are absolutely right though that the Supreme Court could allow the stripping of protections through inaction. Trump has not just started to stack the Supreme Court but other federal courts as well. In Pennsylvania, one of his appointments said that certain shutdowns of non-essential businesses is unconstitutional even though there's no case law or reasoning that justifies that view.

I do think Roberts is an honest man though I don't agree with his judicial philosophy. I think Gorsuch seems like a fairly honest jurist but with a fairly extreme judicial philosophy. I don't feel that way about Kavanagh who strikes me as an unprincipled, somewhat amoral person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

2) Is it not the case that the Constitution does not specify how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court? If he wanted to, could President Biden increase the number from 9 to 11, or 13?

---

The Constitution says that Congress can decide the size of the Supreme Court. The law that created a Supreme Court with 9 Justices was the Judiciary Act which was passed in 1869.

If the Republicans really want to say that they feel it's okay to set out a principle that was arbitrary to begin with and then only follow it when it benefits them, I believe Democrats should say they will play politics as well. They could create a Supreme Court with 15 Justices and have Biden immediately appoint 6 of them.

Of course, such a law would be based on backlash to Republican's actions with respect to Garland and now Ginsburg's appointment and would require a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress to pass since no Republican would vote for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The Constitution says that Congress can decide the size of the Supreme Court. The law that created a Supreme Court with 9 Justices was the Judiciary Act which was passed in 1869.

---

Thank you for these insights. I have looked up the 1869 Act, and wonder, if a new Administration seeks to expand the Supreme Court, say, to 13, would it also have to increase the number of Circuit Courts across the USA? And why are there only 9 for the whole country anyway?

One other thing: why put up a statue to RBG? Have we not leared how problematic statues are becoming? My view on this, for what it's worth, is that in Ancient Egypt and Greece, Statues were either exclusively of Gods or unknown 'types' -eg, warrior, young girl, boy etc- or in the case of Egypt the Pharoahs, such as Ramses II who were Gods in Human Form, or humans who became Gods. This is crucial in Ancient Rome which has multiple statues of the Gods and Goddessees, and later of humans such as Julius Caesar-who wanted to be seen and remembered as Divine. I believe this concept of sanctity has been part of the Statue Culture in Europe with the regrettable fact that a large number of people in the UK have been 'immortallised' in Statue form who would be best forgotten.

One curious fact here, is that in all of France, there are only two Statues of Napoleon Bonaparte -one is in the Invalides, the other in the Louvre- there are none in public.

It might be better to re-name a street after RBG, rather than build a statue. That's my two-cents worth.

I'm putting the nomination of the Supreme Court Justice, most likely Amy Coney Barrett, in a thread about the election because the nominee will probably be confirmed no matter what happens during the confirmation process.

My objection to the nomination is not the proximity of it to the election but that Republicans invoked a rule that only applies to Democrats. I actually think it's a nonsense rule to begin with. The President has a mandate throughout his term.

I'm sure Amy Coney Barrett will be an awful Justice and cause all sorts of problems over her tenure but I wonder whether there is anything Democrats can do to prevent her appointment. If the answer is no, they should not heavily contest the confirmation process. Everyone always ends up sympathizing with a person being grilled. Unless you uncover treason or that she tortured animals, it will be politically unpopular to grandstand, even if you think that's what the moment calls for.

There's simply no procedural or substantive way to prevent her appointment, no matter how awful it is. And the election coming up is the only thing we have control over. The outcome of that election will be sensitive to public perception about the conduct of congressmen in the Democratic party, fair or not.

The only chance the Democrats had at stopping Barrett's nomination was 4 years ago. But some Democratic voters decided to make excuses for not voting for Hillary Clinton and stayed home on Election Day. You reap what you sow.


As for how the Democrats should conduct themselves during the confirmation hearings, they should debate her on legal briefs and/or decisions and do their best to leave her religious beliefs out of it. Only make it an issue if Barrett makes it an issue.

As my impression so far is that she promotes herself as a moral guardian with regard to Abortion, albeit one who seeks to remove the rights if US citizens when they become pregnant, the line of questioning that might make her uncomfortable would ask why she has accepted the nomination from someone so corrupt.

For example, she could be asked if she agrees the Federal Election Law of 1971 makes it illegal for an American election candidate to canvass or receive support from a foreign national during an election, and then be asked to confirm that the FBI was entitled to investigate the Republican Party’s 2016 campaign for violating that law. She could be asked to confirm that both the Mueller Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report documented illegality noting at least 11 counts of Obstruction of Justice, and then be asked why the President was impeached.

What respectable judge would want to be nominated to the Supreme Court by a man who has violated his oath of office, who has never read the Constitution, and doesn’t think its provisions apply to him?

Why would a respectable judge Promoting her personal, Roman Catholic Morals, want to be nominated by a man who has described Americans as “total scum, they’re human scum”; and who has retweeted a description of the former First Lady of the USA and Senator for New York State and Presidential candidate, as a “skank”?

And why would such a morally decent woman want to be nominated by a tax cheat? There is a crook in the White House who could also be a traitor- does she want to be known hereafter as ‘the Traitor’s Judge”?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Thank you for these insights. I have looked up the 1869 Act, and wonder, if a new Administration seeks to expand the Supreme Court, say, to 13, would it also have to increase the number of Circuit Courts across the USA? And why are there only 9 for the whole country anyway?

One other thing: why put up a statue to RBG? Have we not leared how problematic statues are becoming? My view on this, for what it's worth, is that in Ancient Egypt and Greece, Statues were either exclusively of Gods or unknown 'types' -eg, warrior, young girl, boy etc- or in the case of Egypt the Pharoahs, such as Ramses II who were Gods in Human Form, or humans who became Gods. This is crucial in Ancient Rome which has multiple statues of the Gods and Goddessees, and later of humans such as Julius Caesar-who wanted to be seen and remembered as Divine. I believe this concept of sanctity has been part of the Statue Culture in Europe with the regrettable fact that a large number of people in the UK have been 'immortallised' in Statue form who would be best forgotten.

One curious fact here, is that in all of France, there are only two Statues of Napoleon Bonaparte -one is in the Invalides, the other in the Louvre- there are none in public.

It might be better to re-name a street after RBG, rather than build a statue. That's my two-cents worth.

---

Agree that it might better to re-name a street after Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

[QUOTE=
And why would such a morally decent woman want to be nominated by a tax cheat? There is a crook in the White House who could also be a traitor- does she want to be known hereafter as ‘the Traitor’s Judge”?[/QUOTE]

i should concede that in many cases cited by the NYT tax law was not broken, that the areas of interest may be the mansion in upstate New York, and the ‘fees’ paid to his daughter Ivana. Also, the immorality of a system that appears to excuse colossal debt and the fact that his lawyers have got him out of paying tax will bring a smile to those opposed to taxation. But it stinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

i should concede that in many cases cited by the NYT tax law was not broken, that the areas of interest may be the mansion in upstate New York, and the ‘fees’ paid to his daughter Ivana. Also, the immorality of a system that appears to excuse colossal debt and the fact that his lawyers have got him out of paying tax will bring a smile to those opposed to taxation. But it stinks.

---

Completely agree 1000%. It does stink.

In addition to paying almost nothing in taxes, and claiming losses on his tax returns while likely claiming income in loan documents, Trump owes more than 400 million dollars, most of which is due in less than 4 years. In commercial real estate, it is not uncommon to refinance, though most investors have collateral that is worth far more than their outstanding loans by the time their balloon payment is due. They are able to refinance because they have built up equity in their properties over five or ten years and the banks can see that lending to them is not a huge credit risk.

Trump, on the other hand, does not make money. It is possible to have losses on paper with real gains, but the more plausible explanation is that he's very good at getting loans and very bad at investing in and managing real estate. What if Deutschebank or whoever doesn't want to refinance? Why should they? Does he actually build equity in these properties? Does the man do anything well except lie and commit fraud?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Trump, on the other hand, does not make money. It is possible to have losses on paper with real gains, but the more plausible explanation is that he's very good at getting loans and very bad at investing in and managing real estate. What if Deutschebank or whoever doesn't want to refinance? Why should they? Does he actually build equity in these properties? Does the man do anything well except lie and commit fraud?

---

That also suggests that the people lending to him after unlikely to have been doing so on normal commercial grounds, but because they expect it will buy them influence (which will cease if he loses in November). Anyone applying for a regular government job would be unlikely to get the required security clearance with these financial exposures, yet the man who runs the show can apparently do it with no questions asked.

You do have to wonder how much his behaviour in running for President and apparently wanting to hold onto the job by any means possible is actually being motivated by financial considerations.

I wonder whether the revelation of Trump's tax-dodging will have any effect on the election. People who care about these things will likely have already assumed he was doing it. I think his working class supporters tend to excuse this kind of behaviour because it's what they would do if there could get away with it. Many people don't seem able to draw the logical connection that if rich people don't pay their share of tax then others will end up paying for it in one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

You do have to wonder how much his behaviour in running for President and apparently wanting to hold onto the job by any means possible is actually being motivated by financial considerations.

---

Look in more detail at the nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia and the people involved- Flynn, Barrack, and of course Jared Kushner with his investments in Israel and Saudi Arabia, which one assumes he relinquished control of when he became Under-President to make decisions while daddykins is tweeting, watching tv or playing golf.

Consider the speed with which Tony Blair in 2006 shut down the investigation into allegations of bribery in relation to BAE Systems and the al-Yamama arms deal. Then ask if it is possible to conclude a major deal in the Middle East without the passing from A to B of ‘Bonus Payments’ neither the tax authorities nor ‘We, the People’ are aware of. One wonders if men called David Dennison and John Barron have bank accounts in the US Virgin Islands?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ng-them-get-it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I wonder whether the revelation of Trump's tax-dodging will have any effect on the election. People who care about these things will likely have already assumed he was doing it. I think his working class supporters tend to excuse this kind of behaviour because it's what they would do if there could get away with it. Many people don't seem able to draw the logical connection that if rich people don't pay their share of tax then others will end up paying for it in one way or another.

---

The interesting thing is that his base might care more than he's not a good businessman than that he's a cheat. Yet of course there is nothing morally wrong with being bad at business and Trump's history of cheating people has left a trail of wreckage.

I'm not sure the degree to which his supporters can be reached at all at this point but I think it's better to point out that this is a guy who cannot make money with tens of millions in inheritance and with hundreds of millions in credit at low interest rates.

As you said, the loans do not seem like they're on normal commercial grounds and I am curious what claims he made in his loan documents. You expect that whatever he claimed people lending hundreds of millions of dollars knew he was a solvency risk and wanted leverage over him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I wonder whether the revelation of Trump's tax-dodging will have any effect on the election. People who care about these things will likely have already assumed he was doing it. I think his working class supporters tend to excuse this kind of behaviour because it's what they would do if there could get away with it. Many people don't seem able to draw the logical connection that if rich people don't pay their share of tax then others will end up paying for it in one way or another.

---

It might have alittle effect on the election and with undecided voters,but not with his base of delusional supporters who will think it's fake news by the media and the Democrats to take down their so-called president. and agree his working class supporters will excuse this kind of behavior,because it's what they would do if they could get away with it. and they view him as a successful business mogul,which he really isn't.

I watched the whole of the tv debates which began just after 2am here. It was a mess, and I hope they won’t repeat it. Biden is not a great public speaker, and I am not really sure what he is proposing with regard to the immediate management if COVID 19, and was not impressed with his proposals on the environment which sounded ok but lacked detail. He was strong on voting, but could have made more on the voter suppression tactics of the QAnon-Republican Party, and could have made a better presentation on community rather than confrontational policing, giving examples of where it appears to work, such as Boston.

Other than his outrageous remark on the Proud Boys, the President was just noise, slogans, and could easily have been challenged either by Biden or Wallace. Thus,

1) if the Obama era is characterised by slow economic growth, the record shows that the last four years have not shown economic growth exceeding the previous eight. Historically, economic growth under Obama is low by comparison with previous decades, but allowance must be made for the recession inherited in 2009, while by comparison, the successor administration inherited economic stability and growth but has failed to exceed previous levels, pre-COVID, and has obviously suffered since. And since when does the ‘greatest economy in the history of our country’ mean staggering levels of household debt with chronic failures to pay off monthly credit card bills; a colossal and growing national debt he is increasing by a minimum $1 trillion a year, not to mention the existence of food banks, voucher schemes and reality on the ground in states like Mississippi?

2) If the President is claiming widespread fraud and a rigged election, does that mean if he wins his victory will have been rigged?

3) As I pointed out before, it is simply ignorance and silly to say Biden did nothing for 40 years when there is a published record from his years in the Senate and as Vice-President.

I think voters would be better served with one-on-one examinations of policy by a seasoned but tough interviewer, in which more detail would need to be presented. But it may be, as Knighthawk says in the previous post, that decisions have been made, though if it is true 14% of voters have not made up their minds, that is a significant number- but will the tv debate inspire them to even vote?