Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Bodakane]

[


"I was only following orders" is what Lawful Evil people say when they get caught. He can resign in protest.

Its the military and he's a career officer, there's a little more to it than that. And what are the crimes he's guilty of committing by following orders?

[s_bushido]

Its the military and he's a career officer, there's a little more to it than that.

Surely he could request a transfer at the very least if anything he was being asked to do went against his ethics or the law...

As for “crimes,” something doesn’t have to be illegal to be wrong. But you could easily argue that there are some pretty serious problems with lying to the public about the president having a debilitating condition.

[Breccia]

And what are the crimes he's guilty of committing by following orders?

As for “crimes,” something doesn’t have to be illegal to be wrong.

Simply put, he's a doctor being asked to put people at risk. He should refuse. This isn't as simple as a soldier refusing to fire on an enemy, and it's not exactly likely to be repeated.

[Bodakane]

Surely he could request a transfer at the very least if anything he was being asked to do went against his ethics or the law...

As for “crimes,” something doesn’t have to be illegal to be wrong. But you could easily argue that there are some pretty serious problems with lying to the public about the president having a debilitating condition.

Again, this isn't taking place in a private workplace. He'd have to defy direct orders from the highest office which happens to be occupied by a vindictive cretin. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place. But really what does it matter what he says? It won't change a single fucking thing. Trump will do whatever the hell he wants to do regardless of what Conley says. And if Conley told the truth, do you really think Trump wouldn't;t go after him?

- - - Updated - - -

Simply put, he's a doctor being asked to put people at risk. He should refuse. This isn't as simple as a soldier refusing to fire on an enemy, and it's not exactly likely to be repeated.

The doctor isn't doing anything. Trump isn't going to follow the doctor's orders. The doctor cannot legally stop Trump from anything.

[Breccia]

The doctor isn't doing anything.

This discussion was about the aforementioned doctor clearing Trump for public events.

I would count that as "doing anything". Especially since Trump hasn't tested negative yet.

[Bodakane]

This discussion was about the aforementioned doctor clearing Trump for public events.

I would count that as "doing anything". Especially since Trump hasn't tested negative yet.

Do you honestly think, if the doctor didn't clear him, Trump would not do public events though? Like I said, the doctor has exactly zero power to compel Trump to do (or not do) anything. We are asking for a guy to torpedo his career (and possibly even real military/legal troubles) for literally no reason other than a symbolic one.

[unfilteredJW]

Do you honestly think, if the doctor didn't clear him, Trump would not do public events though? Like I said, the doctor has exactly zero power to compel Trump to do (or not do) anything. We are asking for a guy to torpedo his career (and possibly even real military/legal troubles) for literally no reason other than a symbolic one.

So don’t do the right thing if there are consequences. Got it.

[Breccia]

Do you honestly think, if the doctor didn't clear him, Trump would not do public events though?

Of course not. And I find that irrelevant. Just because Trump was going to risk people's lives anyway, doesn't give the doctor the right to help. His okay has the appearance of authority. You're flat-out saying it's not his authority, and Trump is clearing himself by pretending the doctor did it. I call bullshit.

I'll completely cede the doctor can't stop him. That's not my point, just so we're clear. If my boss said "we're going to start teaching that two plus two equals five, do it or you're fired" it's true I couldn't stop him. I would probably hold a press conference "hey my boss is trying to teach that two plus two equals five" on the way out the door with my cardboard box.

And for the record, it's not symbolic. This disease kills people, and Trump is taking it on the road.

Oh, and just so we're clear: if Trump really is negative and really not contagious, in other words if the doctor is telling the truth, I don't have any problems with that.

[Paranoid Android]

Joe Biden says he'll answer court-packing question "when the election is over" https://t.co/t2qxxCqrph https://t.co/3Qh3OOerPC

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...758339076?s=19

This is a not a good answer. Many in Twitter comments do not agree with me.

Biden should answer that the Garland and now Barrett were an attempt to pack the court. Attack them. Now likely more left want added judges and Biden could say he we look at balancing the court.

[DingDongKing]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...758339076?s=19

This is a not a good answer. Many in Twitter comments do not agree with me.

Biden should answer that the Garland and now Barrett were an attempt to pack the court. Attack them. Now likely more left want added judges and Biden could say he we look at balancing the court.

It's the perfect answer. Because right now the WORST thing Biden can do is create a conversation about something controversial.

Deflect. Deflect. Put the focus on what's good, put the focus on what's bad. Put the focus on what you'll do better, and what you'll do to sort the bad.

Right now Biden is more or less teflon. Apart from the uber right wing media, centre right and left media haven't had anything to stick to him at all.

[Shadowferal]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...758339076?s=19

This is a not a good answer. Many in Twitter comments do not agree with me.

Biden should answer that the Garland and now Barrett were an attempt to pack the court. Attack them. Now likely more left want added judges and Biden could say he we look at balancing the court.

As much as I'd favor more openness, it's probably wise to avoid any political landmines at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

On another note, sounds like Trump wants to have broader talks on a covid19 relief deal.
Gee..flip flopping all over so who knows...not even Trump himself.

[DingDongKing]

As much as I'd favor more openness, it's probably wise to avoid any political landmines at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

On another note, sounds like Trump wants to have broader talks on a covid19 relief deal.
Gee..flip flopping all over so who knows...not even Trump himself.

Case in point.



Biden is also now +4.4 in Florida.

[kaid]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/stat...758339076?s=19

This is a not a good answer. Many in Twitter comments do not agree with me.

Biden should answer that the Garland and now Barrett were an attempt to pack the court. Attack them. Now likely more left want added judges and Biden could say he we look at balancing the court.

It is a good answer in that he realizes if he says yes the media will run non stop both siderisms drowning out everything else going on. Given that court packing is contingent on a lot of things falling into place it is pointless to speculate on something now that he may not be in a position to do anyway.

[xmirrors]

Republican senator says 'democracy isn't the objective' of US system

The Utah senator Mike Lee made the inflammatory declaration in an early morning tweet following Wednesday’s vice-presidential debate.

“Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that,” he wrote, misspelling prosperity.

It followed a series of tweets he made during the debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris in which Lee claimed “We’re not a democracy” and questioned its role in US government.

Lee, who is among a swath of Republicans who recently tested positive for coronavirus, wrote: ‘The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. To me it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few.’

He added: “Government is the official use of coercive force–nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution protects us by limiting the use of government force.”

His democracy tweet immediately prompted alarm, including from a number of former government officials.

Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director, tweeted: “‘Democracy isn’t the objective’. Our suspicions are confirmed.”

Good to know what the GOP thinks about democracy. Is anyone surprised?

[Ghostpanther]

Harris and Biden have another thing in common......https://www.foxnews.com/media/washin...istory-lincoln

The Washington Post offered a sharp rebuke to the "little history lesson" Sen. Kamala Harris shared during Wednesday night's vice presidential debate, which apparently "wasn't exactly true."

During an exchange with Vice President Mike Pence on the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Harris suggested that one of the most revered Republican presidents would be in favor of allowing a newly elected president to fill a vacant seat instead of rushing a confirmation in the heat of an election.

She made her argument in response to Pence saying that President Trump's appointment is following precedent.

“I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let’s do that a little more,” Harris told Pence. “In 1864... Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.”

Well, according to a report from The Washington Post on Thursday, Harris did not accurately describe what took place under Lincoln when filling the vacant seat of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

"Harris is correct that a seat became available 27 days before the election. And that Lincoln didn’t nominate anyone until after he won," the Post wrote. "But there is no evidence he thought the seat should be filled by the winner of the election. In fact, he had other motives for the delay."

According to Lincoln historian Michael Burlingame, Lincoln told his aides he wanted to delay his Supreme Court confirmation process because he was “waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country," though the Post noted, "that didn’t mean he was waiting for ballots so much as the mail."

"The overarching effect of the delay is that it held Lincoln’s broad but shaky coalition of conservative and radical Republicans together," the Post explained. "Congress was in recess until early December, so there would have been no point in naming a man before the election anyway. Lincoln shrewdly used that to his advantage. If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn’t have filled the spot in the lame-duck session."

The Post concluded, "So Harris is mistaken about Lincoln’s motivations in this regard."

And I think I will trust the opinion of a Lincoln historian over some politically motivated candidate. Good to see someone fact check her.

[Belize]

Republican senator says 'democracy isn't the objective' of US system



Good to know what the GOP thinks about democracy. Is anyone surprised?

They still haven't moved past the "ThE U.S. iS a CoNsTiTuTiOnAl RePuBlIc" line but at least now they straight up say they don't care about Democracy.

Baby steps.

[Felya]

Harris and Biden have another thing in common......https://www.foxnews.com/media/washin...istory-lincoln

I always like the parts you omitted:

Post noted, "that didn’t mean he was waiting for ballots so much as the mail."

That’s the distinction you are complaining about... Did Trump lie about Covid?

[Felya]

Nah, you only trust the opinion of people that confirm your worldview.

The difference the historian indicated, is irrelevant... ballots vs mail? That’s why she was wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

The Post concluded, "So Harris is mistaken about Lincoln’s motivations in this regard."[/I]

Thanks for confirming that you read my posts... ballots vs mail... that’s the mistake in motive?

[alexw]

It is a good answer in that he realizes if he says yes the media will run non stop both siderisms drowning out everything else going on. Given that court packing is contingent on a lot of things falling into place it is pointless to speculate on something now that he may not be in a position to do anyway.

Its pretty obvious he is going to have to do it otherwise every part of the democratic agenda will get shot down by extremist activist republican judges, as well as him having to watch many of the rights gained over the last few decades be overturned. Climate change legislation, a legal right to an abortion, anti-gerrymandering laws, anti-voter supression laws, obamacare, gun safety/control laws, LGBT anti-discrimination laws, all these and more would get ripped up by the extremist activist judges the republicans have and are packing the supreme court with. They'll invent their justifications out of whole cloth and no one will be able to stop them because no one can overrule them. They are the highest court in the land.

BUT now is not the time to be talking about this to voters. It would needlessly distract the spotlight away from what this election should be about - the utter disaster that is the Trump presidency, and the danger and threat that he and the extremist-adjacent republican party now pose to America.

[Monster Hunter]

Dr. Conley is an officer in the military. He has to take orders from his superiors, even if it conflicts with his oath. There is no higher superior than the POTUS for an enlisted person. People need to jump off this guy's case, he has no choice.

Usually an oath to divinity like the hypocratic oath trumps even the oath of alliance to a monarch,

Like if I swore an oath to God, not even the her majesty could force me to break it, anymore than a lord could force me to break an oath to her majesty.

But then as some one said not many take it anymore so he probly hasn't.