Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Today, 03:23
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 8,777
But she spoke at the convention? Totally supporting? I don't know much about her statements otherwise, but her convention performance was all for electing Trump
Will Joe Biden be the next president? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter deletedT
- Start date
Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 06:23
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,682
The recent death of Ginsburg, a US Supreme Court jurist has resulted in a “major earthquake” in this years US Presidential race.
Early voting: Justice Ginsburg’s death just highlighted a reason for why early voting should not be allowed. People are already mailing in their ballots or appearing in person to submit their ballots. The political landscape has significantly changed. Those who have already voted probably cannot change their votes. Thus, those who have already voted have made a decision based on incomplete knowledge.
Who Will be the Nominee to Replace Ginsburg? Biden, on numerous occasions, claims that he is running a “transparent” and that the electorate “knows” what he stands for. Nevertheless, Biden is withholding from the public a list of potential nominees. Given that degree of vagueness and lack of disclosure, why should the public vote for Biden. Trump has already released a list of potential nominees. Yet Biden lamely asserts that the public should elect him as President contending that he should be given the power to nominate a potential Supreme Court justice without actually disclosing to the public who he would nominate. Circular logic that is exceedingly deceptive. Previously, Biden has given a hint, in that he proposes to nominate a Black woman. One could contend that this type of nomination could be considered racist and not based on competence as it should be. In subsequent Q/As concerning a variety of topics, Biden has expressed contradictory viewpoints, so one does not really know what he proposes.
Why Rush the Nomination Process? The obvious answer, the Republicans are in trouble, they may not win the Presidential election and/or retain control of the US Senate. The Republicans are now in charge. If they want to rush the process, they are entitled to do so. Recall Obama infamous remark that “election have consequences” when he stiffed the Republicans.
Disingenuously, the Democrats want to slowdown the confirmation process by claiming that this close to the election, that it should be left to the person elected this November to make the actual nomination. That is obfuscation. Trump and the Senate were elected by the people to carry-out their tasks until they leave office. Fantastically, some in the anti-Trump crowd are even calling Trump’s legitimate execution of Constitutional authority an “abuse of power”. How absurd. Trump and the Senate are entitled, until the day they leave office, to act on the nomination process. The people elected Trump and the members of the Senate to work on their behalf until the day they leave office, not to defer decision making until the next administration.
The Call for Violence: The death of Ginsburg has evidently refueled Democratic calls for so-called “peaceful protest” in the name of protecting democracy. Peaceful protest does not involve intimidating and shouting down opposition law makers. Recall the violence directed at Kavanaugh and Republican Senators during Kavanaugh’s nomination process. There are indications that this is approach to disruption is reemerging, both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michael Moore have called for protests to disrupt the nomination process. Disrupting the process of selecting a Supreme Court Justice is not protecting democracy.
Filibuster: A small story that has emerged as a sideline to the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice. Essentially, over-time, the US political process has become more “democratic” and less of a “republic”. Sounds great on the surface, but there are hidden pitfalls to being a rabid full blown democracy. That is the tyranny of the majority. I won’t be going into much detail, but the filibuster, as part of the Senate’s operational procedures are meant to put a “break” on the tyranny of the majority by permitting the minority to have sufficient power to prevent the majority from acting immediately in a unilateral dictatorial fashion. Republicans, ironically have now usurped the Democrats’ abolition of the filibuster and are now using the “tyranny of the majority” against the Democrats. Payback. To conclude, the Democrats, over the years, have (unfortunately) successfully eroded many of those “breaks” in their efforts to fully control the US political process through the “tyranny of the majority”.
Early voting: Justice Ginsburg’s death just highlighted a reason for why early voting should not be allowed. People are already mailing in their ballots or appearing in person to submit their ballots. The political landscape has significantly changed. Those who have already voted probably cannot change their votes. Thus, those who have already voted have made a decision based on incomplete knowledge.
Who Will be the Nominee to Replace Ginsburg? Biden, on numerous occasions, claims that he is running a “transparent” and that the electorate “knows” what he stands for. Nevertheless, Biden is withholding from the public a list of potential nominees. Given that degree of vagueness and lack of disclosure, why should the public vote for Biden. Trump has already released a list of potential nominees. Yet Biden lamely asserts that the public should elect him as President contending that he should be given the power to nominate a potential Supreme Court justice without actually disclosing to the public who he would nominate. Circular logic that is exceedingly deceptive. Previously, Biden has given a hint, in that he proposes to nominate a Black woman. One could contend that this type of nomination could be considered racist and not based on competence as it should be. In subsequent Q/As concerning a variety of topics, Biden has expressed contradictory viewpoints, so one does not really know what he proposes.
Why Rush the Nomination Process? The obvious answer, the Republicans are in trouble, they may not win the Presidential election and/or retain control of the US Senate. The Republicans are now in charge. If they want to rush the process, they are entitled to do so. Recall Obama infamous remark that “election have consequences” when he stiffed the Republicans.
Disingenuously, the Democrats want to slowdown the confirmation process by claiming that this close to the election, that it should be left to the person elected this November to make the actual nomination. That is obfuscation. Trump and the Senate were elected by the people to carry-out their tasks until they leave office. Fantastically, some in the anti-Trump crowd are even calling Trump’s legitimate execution of Constitutional authority an “abuse of power”. How absurd. Trump and the Senate are entitled, until the day they leave office, to act on the nomination process. The people elected Trump and the members of the Senate to work on their behalf until the day they leave office, not to defer decision making until the next administration.
The Call for Violence: The death of Ginsburg has evidently refueled Democratic calls for so-called “peaceful protest” in the name of protecting democracy. Peaceful protest does not involve intimidating and shouting down opposition law makers. Recall the violence directed at Kavanaugh and Republican Senators during Kavanaugh’s nomination process. There are indications that this is approach to disruption is reemerging, both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michael Moore have called for protests to disrupt the nomination process. Disrupting the process of selecting a Supreme Court Justice is not protecting democracy.
Filibuster: A small story that has emerged as a sideline to the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice. Essentially, over-time, the US political process has become more “democratic” and less of a “republic”. Sounds great on the surface, but there are hidden pitfalls to being a rabid full blown democracy. That is the tyranny of the majority. I won’t be going into much detail, but the filibuster, as part of the Senate’s operational procedures are meant to put a “break” on the tyranny of the majority by permitting the minority to have sufficient power to prevent the majority from acting immediately in a unilateral dictatorial fashion. Republicans, ironically have now usurped the Democrats’ abolition of the filibuster and are now using the “tyranny of the majority” against the Democrats. Payback. To conclude, the Democrats, over the years, have (unfortunately) successfully eroded many of those “breaks” in their efforts to fully control the US political process through the “tyranny of the majority”.
- Local time
- Today, 06:23
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 43,257
@Issac,
I don't remember the incident but it took place while she was still ambassador to the UN. I think she was objecting publicly to Trump's foreign policy. That may be why she got "fired".
@Steve R,
As usual, you're on the ball. Trump could use you in his campaign.
Presidents get to conduct presidential duties until the minute they turn over the reigns to their successor. It is better to have Trump nominate a new justice and vote on it before the election than to wait until after the election and vote in the lame duck session. Of course Trump is going to win, so it wouldn't make a difference anyway. As everyone knows, if the Democrats didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all. Which is why their position today is 180 from what it was in 2016 when the shoe was on the other foot. I think it was 100% wrong for McConnell to not take up a vote on Obama's nominee and his reason was pure political bull****. I'm guessing that the only reason he refused was because he thought enough Republicans would defect and vote with the Dems that the nominee would be approved. That just tells me that the leaders of the Senate and the House have way too much power since they can completely impede the process of governing. They do it with personnel appointments, with deciding which legislation to bring to the floor for a vote and they can stop a president in his tracks. We already saw that happen in Trump's first term with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell obstructing at every turn. We saw it in Obama's presidency when the Republicans held the Senate. McConnell is better now be he is still a never-Trumper at the core.
I am unhappy that Trump announced that he would replace RBG with another woman. I much prefer to have the best person for the job which might be a woman or not depending on who was available and willing at the time.. Assuming that RBG had to be replaced by another woman is as sexist as it gets.
Mail in voting is a huge problem because of the lack of controls. typically municipalities don't keep on top of maintaining their voter lists so at any given time, they are filled with dead people and people who have moved. Ballots are not serialized so there is no way to tell what ballot was sent to which person so there is no way to verify that dead people aren't voting. So, you can't conduct an audit after the fact. I don't know how easy a ballot and its envelope are to replicate so I don't know how easily people could just make up a few thousand counterfeit copies and slip them into the mix in a district where they will tilt the outcome. I've also talked to the people in my town and they don't seem to keep careful track of how many ballots they sent out vs how many they got back. The Democrats have also blocked the ability of the census to count citizens so there is no way to compare the number of citizens in a district to the number of registered voters. There have been elections where there have been more votes received than there were registered voters which indicates that there is some potential for counterfeiting aside from the dead people voting and the vote harvesting from people who are willing to take a few bucks for an empty ballot. How about that Bloomberg raising millions to pay the fines for convicted felons in Florida so they can vote again. Sure hope the court sees this as election interference and sends the bum to jail. Now that judges are making rulings that you can still be counting votes two weeks after election day, I can be certain that the Democrats will keep finding misplaced boxes of mail until they have enough ballots to win.
Also, in many places, there doesn't seem to be any way to stop you from voting by mail and voting in person also.
I still remember working through the office Christmas party one year because an important report was out of balance. Stuff like this matters and I don't see anyone who is taking this seriously enough to develop methods to ensure that if x ballots go out, x or fewer ballots come back.
I don't remember the incident but it took place while she was still ambassador to the UN. I think she was objecting publicly to Trump's foreign policy. That may be why she got "fired".
@Steve R,
As usual, you're on the ball. Trump could use you in his campaign.
Presidents get to conduct presidential duties until the minute they turn over the reigns to their successor. It is better to have Trump nominate a new justice and vote on it before the election than to wait until after the election and vote in the lame duck session. Of course Trump is going to win, so it wouldn't make a difference anyway. As everyone knows, if the Democrats didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all. Which is why their position today is 180 from what it was in 2016 when the shoe was on the other foot. I think it was 100% wrong for McConnell to not take up a vote on Obama's nominee and his reason was pure political bull****. I'm guessing that the only reason he refused was because he thought enough Republicans would defect and vote with the Dems that the nominee would be approved. That just tells me that the leaders of the Senate and the House have way too much power since they can completely impede the process of governing. They do it with personnel appointments, with deciding which legislation to bring to the floor for a vote and they can stop a president in his tracks. We already saw that happen in Trump's first term with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell obstructing at every turn. We saw it in Obama's presidency when the Republicans held the Senate. McConnell is better now be he is still a never-Trumper at the core.
I am unhappy that Trump announced that he would replace RBG with another woman. I much prefer to have the best person for the job which might be a woman or not depending on who was available and willing at the time.. Assuming that RBG had to be replaced by another woman is as sexist as it gets.
Mail in voting is a huge problem because of the lack of controls. typically municipalities don't keep on top of maintaining their voter lists so at any given time, they are filled with dead people and people who have moved. Ballots are not serialized so there is no way to tell what ballot was sent to which person so there is no way to verify that dead people aren't voting. So, you can't conduct an audit after the fact. I don't know how easy a ballot and its envelope are to replicate so I don't know how easily people could just make up a few thousand counterfeit copies and slip them into the mix in a district where they will tilt the outcome. I've also talked to the people in my town and they don't seem to keep careful track of how many ballots they sent out vs how many they got back. The Democrats have also blocked the ability of the census to count citizens so there is no way to compare the number of citizens in a district to the number of registered voters. There have been elections where there have been more votes received than there were registered voters which indicates that there is some potential for counterfeiting aside from the dead people voting and the vote harvesting from people who are willing to take a few bucks for an empty ballot. How about that Bloomberg raising millions to pay the fines for convicted felons in Florida so they can vote again. Sure hope the court sees this as election interference and sends the bum to jail. Now that judges are making rulings that you can still be counting votes two weeks after election day, I can be certain that the Democrats will keep finding misplaced boxes of mail until they have enough ballots to win.
Also, in many places, there doesn't seem to be any way to stop you from voting by mail and voting in person also.
I still remember working through the office Christmas party one year because an important report was out of balance. Stuff like this matters and I don't see anyone who is taking this seriously enough to develop methods to ensure that if x ballots go out, x or fewer ballots come back.
Last edited:
Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 06:23
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,682
A really horrendous decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. "Activist" judges usurping the power of the legislative branch.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Extends Vote By Mail Deadline, Allows Drop Boxes. Democrats speaks sanctimoniously about protecting the "right to vote" and the integrity of the voting process. Yet Democrats, in the name of empowering the votes, make election fraud ever easier by doing things, such as not mandating voter identification. Note this small print phrase in the article that should give everyone cause for alarm: "or there is no evidence to suggest they were sent after Election Day." (emphasis added). That opens up the whole possibility that, after the election, a whole bunch of ballots can be filled out and quietly surreptitiously deposited in some dark corner of the vote vote counting area while no one is looking and magically found later.
Another side note: The Green Party, at apparantly the last minute, was removed from the ballot. It would seem that this was done to "force" those who would vote Green to then voted Democratic since those who would vote Green would be more philosophically friendly to the Democrats. Anyway, if Democrats are concerned about the integrity of the election process, the Green Party should be on the ballot, assuming it has met all requirements (not politically manipulated).
It is also unfortunate that a supposedly neutral media organization "NPR" (supported by tax $$) writes a biased article that takes a negative swipe at the Republicans. "More Democrats are expected to vote by mail than Republicans, in part because President Trump for months has seeded doubts, without any evidence, about the integrity of mail ballots." The article fails to investigate exactly how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could possibly legally reach such an "activist" decision, why the Green Party (at the last minute) was removed from the ballot, and/or evaluate that mail-in voting is subject to numerous processing problems, one of which is actually potential fraud.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Extends Vote By Mail Deadline, Allows Drop Boxes. Democrats speaks sanctimoniously about protecting the "right to vote" and the integrity of the voting process. Yet Democrats, in the name of empowering the votes, make election fraud ever easier by doing things, such as not mandating voter identification. Note this small print phrase in the article that should give everyone cause for alarm: "or there is no evidence to suggest they were sent after Election Day." (emphasis added). That opens up the whole possibility that, after the election, a whole bunch of ballots can be filled out and quietly surreptitiously deposited in some dark corner of the vote vote counting area while no one is looking and magically found later.
Another side note: The Green Party, at apparantly the last minute, was removed from the ballot. It would seem that this was done to "force" those who would vote Green to then voted Democratic since those who would vote Green would be more philosophically friendly to the Democrats. Anyway, if Democrats are concerned about the integrity of the election process, the Green Party should be on the ballot, assuming it has met all requirements (not politically manipulated).
It is also unfortunate that a supposedly neutral media organization "NPR" (supported by tax $$) writes a biased article that takes a negative swipe at the Republicans. "More Democrats are expected to vote by mail than Republicans, in part because President Trump for months has seeded doubts, without any evidence, about the integrity of mail ballots." The article fails to investigate exactly how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could possibly legally reach such an "activist" decision, why the Green Party (at the last minute) was removed from the ballot, and/or evaluate that mail-in voting is subject to numerous processing problems, one of which is actually potential fraud.
Last edited:
Isaac
Lifelong Learner
- Local time
- Today, 03:23
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 8,777
This whole supreme court thing is HUGE. All things considered, and given the context of everything, this qualifies as the "something big is going to happen between now and the election" that I guessed. I was wrong in thinking that it would be a direct result of someone's action, as in fact it was someone's natural death. Still .... to me this sudden vacancy, given the situation, is the biggest single piece of political news in at least 3-4 years.
Amazing circumstances, actually. I can hardly believe it and we will have to see how it plays out. Republicans cannot afford to lose another couple votes, but, they probably won't. I was waiting on the edge of my seat about Romney but he seems to be on board. I can't deny it's absolutely fascinating that the President will probably be appointing a justice who will also cast their vote in his election results. BUT....in 2000 during Bush v. Gore, would it have been any different, had one of those justices been appointed a few years prior by a hypothetically-incumbent Bush Jr.? No, of course not. The only difference here that really pertains to the comparison is that the timing is shorter.
What a day we live in, it will be a fascinating few more weeks both before and after the election.
Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 06:23
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,682
The media incessantly repeats the same questions over and over again, along with caustic demands of "clarification". One would think that the public, like Dilbert, would finally bail-out on accepting the reporters questions as even being remotely honest. (Wallace, four years ago, asked Trump about so-called White supremacy. Trump answered back then, nevertheless Wallace, along with many other reports; today (four years later) keep asking Trump this very same question. When Trump answers, they seem to have "trouble" comprehending Trump's response; they then make pejorative demands for "clarification". Unfortunate and a lack of journalistic integrity that they don't give Biden the same level of scrutiny.)
Last edited:
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 03:23
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,933
I've seen at least 3 clips where Trump denounces white supremacy, KKK and more. You have people on the left who are blatantly anti Semitic but the press ignores them. They just repeat their mantra "Orangeman bad"
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 03:23
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,933
Did Wallace and half of the world miss this memo.
Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 06:23
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 4,682
Other recent "ripe" items that Wallace conveniently overlooked (suppressed) that could have been presented to the public for consideration of Biden's character. Biden's claim about attending historically Black Delaware State refuted by university.
Last edited:
- Local time
- Today, 06:23
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 43,257
Wallace was soooooooo bad that even left wing pundits are panning him.
Trump should send out Air Force 2 (It's only Air Force 1 when the President is on board) to all the scheduled airport venues and park it in the regular place but erect a huge screen so that he can talk from the White House.
Trump should send out Air Force 2 (It's only Air Force 1 when the President is on board) to all the scheduled airport venues and park it in the regular place but erect a huge screen so that he can talk from the White House.
- Local time
- Today, 11:23
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 7,383
Alex Jones is saying that there are videos of Hunter Biden torturing little kids. He talked about Jeffrey Epstein 3 years ago and was right about that. Let's see what happens 10 days before the election, when Rudy Giuliani says they will release something significant. Could it be what Alex is alluding to?
There is a certain irony to all of this. Before Trump got elected, the DNC funded salacious dossier had zero evidence, yet it was spread around as though it was the truth. When it comes to the Hunter Biden emails, tens of thousands of them, plus thousands of images, they say its all about Russian influence. Nothing to see here!
I find it hard to believe that the only candidates the Dems can push forward are corrupt. Hilliary with her emails, pay-for-play foundation and destruction of evidence, and now Quid-Pro-Joe and "Where's Hunter?" Quite how Hilliary wasn't prosecuted for at least obstruction of justice is beyond me. The FBI are up to their necks in bias, falsification and dishonesty.
There is a certain irony to all of this. Before Trump got elected, the DNC funded salacious dossier had zero evidence, yet it was spread around as though it was the truth. When it comes to the Hunter Biden emails, tens of thousands of them, plus thousands of images, they say its all about Russian influence. Nothing to see here!
I find it hard to believe that the only candidates the Dems can push forward are corrupt. Hilliary with her emails, pay-for-play foundation and destruction of evidence, and now Quid-Pro-Joe and "Where's Hunter?" Quite how Hilliary wasn't prosecuted for at least obstruction of justice is beyond me. The FBI are up to their necks in bias, falsification and dishonesty.
Last edited:
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 03:23
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,933
I would be more comfortable if Rudy wasn't at the helm. And remember Alex denied Sandy Hook.
- Local time
- Today, 11:23
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 7,383
The Sandy Hook thing, he did change his position on that. He is a conspiracy theorist, so lots of what he says is out there. Everybody latched on to what he said about Sandy Hook, but don't seem to care that he alleges Bill Gates wants to remove your t********! Show me any news outlet and I will show you something they said that was wrong.
Many people think the whole Covid thing is overblown and a hoax. It doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong. Most of US citizens believe in God, yet an atheist will say they are wrong. Do you not believe anything the religious say because they believe in God? Or, the reversal of that if you do believe in God?
Masks...the WHO said masks are ineffective, now everybody says wear a mask. Shall we stop following the advice of the WHO and Fauci?
I am not saying Alex Jones is right or wrong, because lots of the time he is right, but also lots of the time he is wrong. However, he did talk about Epstein before the mainstream media were talking about it. He might have some information that is legit. Only time will tell.
Many people think the whole Covid thing is overblown and a hoax. It doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong. Most of US citizens believe in God, yet an atheist will say they are wrong. Do you not believe anything the religious say because they believe in God? Or, the reversal of that if you do believe in God?
Masks...the WHO said masks are ineffective, now everybody says wear a mask. Shall we stop following the advice of the WHO and Fauci?
I am not saying Alex Jones is right or wrong, because lots of the time he is right, but also lots of the time he is wrong. However, he did talk about Epstein before the mainstream media were talking about it. He might have some information that is legit. Only time will tell.
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 03:23
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,933
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 03:23
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 5,933
Just out of curiosity.
Isn't there any Democrat member here at all? Or you don't give them room to speak?
Not that I care, since I hate both, but I was simply thinking that everybody's talking about media bias, but nobody feels this situation here is somewhat strange.
I'm a new member and a kid in politic. Just wondering.
Isn't there any Democrat member here at all? Or you don't give them room to speak?
Not that I care, since I hate both, but I was simply thinking that everybody's talking about media bias, but nobody feels this situation here is somewhat strange.
I'm a new member and a kid in politic. Just wondering.
