Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[omerome]

Well, when the Democrats get power, and it will happen at some point, time to go scorched earth.

The GOP has clearly shown they don't care about bi-partisanship anymore - so they can eat lava.

[cubby]

Dude, the left is done in this country for the next 30 years, if not longer. No need to grandstand.

Not if the Democrats win the Senate and Biden takes the White House. 13 SCOTUS seats sounds like a good number. We can use the fines levied on Trump for his felonies to pay for the chambers expansion construction projects.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, when the Democrats get power, and it will happen at some point, time to go scorched earth.

The GOP has clearly shown they don't care about bi-partisanship anymore - so they can eat lava.

Agreed. And the irony is that Democrats "scorched earth" will be to actually help the American people. No $1.5 Trillion Tax Break for the Wealthy, just as a for instance.

[Hammerfest]

You still don't know what a lame duck president is...read up, get back to us, we'll be here with any questions.

Well then neither does McConnell and I'm not too worried about it. In the English language, the definitions of words and terms are changing all the time. Just as Democrats. They're experts at manipulating the language.

[Blur4stuff]

They can lie to themselves and the rest of us all they like, it's just more justification to expand the court next time dems have control. Anyone arguing that it was okay to block Garland and okay to rush a vote now absolutely knows how full of shit they are. Making an argument like that is an admission that they can't be trusted.

If you're gonna push to fill the seat now then just be honest. You want more power and control don't give a shit how you get it.

The GOP is, once again, sacrificing present and future voters while destroying their credibility. Everyone outside the bubble (and inside it honestly) sees the hypocrisy.

[cubby]

Well then neither does McConnell and I'm not too worried about it. In the English language, the definitions of words and terms are changing all the time. Just as Democrats. They're experts at manipulating the language.

So when you're blatantly wrong about something, your answer is "words don't mean the same thing anymore"? Interesting.

Shout when you understand what a lame duck president is. There's only one definition of that...if you're confused, just ask, we can help.

[DocSavageFan]

Obama wasn't up for re-election is the point... or wasn't that obvious?

Looks like cubby's the one who doesn't know what lame duck means. Wow.

That's hilarious!

[Hammerfest]

So when you're blatantly wrong about something, your answer is "words don't mean the same thing anymore"? Interesting.

Yeah, well I guess that's my loss. I do look forward to you guys potentially trashing a hispanic woman in the coming days.

[cubby]

We're just murdering irony in this thread today, huh?

Indeed.

You know, if the Democrats had the opportunity to increase the number of SCOTUS seats (something Pelosi/Schumer have already put on the table), the GOP wouldn't be able to change that for awhile. They might wrestle back the Senate in 2022/2024, and perhaps the White House (fucking Trump would be eligible to run again - how's that for nightmare scenario?), but the House is pretty solid for awhile.

[shimerra]

Go ahead and provide evidence. I'm intrigued.

Are you? Someone who thinks the earth is flat isn't someone with an actual intellectual curiosity about anything.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/5837543002

McConnells initial comments had nothing to do with divided government except for a single brief mention that it had been a while since there had not been a nomination under divided government in an election year. But if you actually read the comments including a letter signed by Republicans of the senate judiciary committee zero comments were about who controlled what part of government and entirely focused on it being an election year regardless of who was in power. They cried the people deserved a say because of the proximity to the election. That was 10 months before the election then and here we are basically one month out with ballots already being cast by some.


You'll see the caveat about divided government/the we are in power exception didn't emerge until trump was elected. Just remember if you support the McConnell rule, a single man yanking a rule out of his ass and twisting it when he didn't like following it, you have zero right to cry like I know you will when democrats pack the court to use McConnells words "as is their constitutional right".

[Deja Thoris]

I can just see the 2048 election where theres 27 supreme court justices as they keep adding to the total as the balance tilts one way or the other.

[cubby]

Yeah, well I guess that's my loss.

Word comprehension is "[your] loss"?

I do look forward to you guys potentially trashing a hispanic woman in the coming days.

We're discussing the United States, in a round-about way. Where are we seeing an opportunity for hispanic woman trashing? By the Democrats? Aren't you people still locking them up in private prisons for profit?

[JohnBrown1917]

Well there went my modicum of hope for him.

In the end though . . . it was only ever a modicum.

Never trust a member of a fascist party to actually do anything to slow its spread.

[cubby]

Looks like cubby's the one who doesn't know what lame duck means. Wow.

That's hilarious!

Guess you missed the definition part of this discussion - it's linked above. Or was Obama a lame duck in 2014?

Remember - we're here when you're done learning new things - shout if you have questions! We'll be busy fixing the fuckups you people levied on the United States (again), but there is always time for learnin'.

[shimerra]

Oh the ironing....lol.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-said-in-2016/

Would you like to post an actual rebuttal? I made zero claims that the senate HAS to do anything. They had every right constitutionally speaking to say no then and yes now. The issue was with their bullshit justification to block garland that McConnell gave as a free citizen and his choice to violate it now and attempt to twist his previous statement to avoid a conflict he created. That conflict and people taking issue with it is 200% the fault of conservatives. Why are you so against personal responsibility?


What I am saying, if you actually can read it this time, is McConnell made up a bullshit rule to cover his ass and then changed it the literal second his own rule dictated he should not confirm his own party nomination and that any quibbling about the rule and which party was in power came after Trump was elected not during the Garland debacle.

Garland actually had a history of siding with roberts, a conservative leaning judge I'll remind you, but y'all cried like Chairman Mao was nominated. Now when your comments are turned back on you rather than abide by them you squirm, lie, twist, and connive.

[omerome]

Yeah, well I guess that's my loss. I do look forward to you guys potentially trashing a hispanic woman in the coming days.

Do you mean the judge candidate from Florida with Cuban descent? If so, then if she is deserving of being criticized, why should she be immune? Because she's Hispanic?

[DocSavageFan]

Guess you missed the definition part of this discussion - it's linked above. Or was Obama a lame duck in 2014?

Remember - we're here when you're done learning new things - shout if you have questions! We'll be busy fixing the fuckups you people levied on the United States (again), but there is always time for learnin'.

Dude...we were talking about 2016 (an election year)...not 2014 ffs. Perhaps you should reread the Wikipedia definition you cited.

In politics, a lame duck or outgoing politician is an elected official whose successor has already been elected or will be soon.

[omerome]

I do have a question though, and it really bothers me. The United States have three equal branches of government - Executive, Judicial, and Legislative and they should all be keeping each other in check. So, why did our constitution allow one branch to dictate the direction of another? I mean, why does the Legistlative branch have the power to tilt the influence of another branch (Judicial) if in fact, they should all be co-equal?

How in the world could they have not seen it being used as a political weapon at some point? Or am I missing something here? I just felt that this should have been revised long time ago.

[cubby]

Dude...we were talking about 2016 (an election year)...not 2014 ffs. Perhaps you should reread the Wikipedia definition you cited.

Oh Lil Doc'y...still can't read the stuff you quote...not really surprising, just disappointing. Read what you quoted and tell us what soon means again?

[Adam Jensen]

Yeah, well I guess that's my loss. I do look forward to you guys potentially trashing a hispanic woman in the coming days.

There something wrong with trashing a hispanic woman, if she lacks the qualifications to be a SCOTUS judge? Do hispanics get a pass suddenly? Thought you guys hated identity politics.

I know if Trump picks an unqualified hispanic woman, I'll be attacking her for not being qualified, and not making comments on her being hispanic.

Thought you guys wanted affirmative action to be undone so people would pick qualified candidates and not fill diversity quotas?

[cubby]

I do have a question though, and it really bothers me. The United States have three equal branches of government - Executive, Judicial, and Legislative and they should all be keeping each other in check. So, why did our constitution allow one branch to dictate the direction of another? I mean, why does the Legistlative branch have the power to tilt the influence of another branch (Judicial) if in fact, they should all be co-equal?

How in the world could they have not seen it being used as a political weapon at some point? Or am I missing something here? I just felt that this should have been revised long time ago.

The problem has come up a lot since the GOP went full fascist. The issue is that the founding fathers assumed the parties would work together, not game the system for personal power. The GOP over the last two decades has essentially ignored any kind of collegial atmosphere and gone full partisan. And unfortunately, the rules set in place didn't account for that kind of behavior.

The Impeachment was just one example.