Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1566567569571572694

Comments

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).

    They'll do it though. I'd bet everything I had on that rather than the other outcome if I was forced to bet it all one way or the other. I wouldn't blame the Democrats if they decided to pack the SCOTUS in that case (assuming Biden wins and they take the Senate), but I honestly hope they won't. Kavanaugh has already surprised me twice with his rulings and I'm willing to bet that Harris won't be worse than him in that regard. A 6-3 court with the threat of court packing won't be the conservative roadblock that everybody fears.
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).

    They'll do it though. I'd bet everything I had on that rather than the other outcome if I was forced to bet it all one way or the other. I wouldn't blame the Democrats if they decided to pack the SCOTUS in that case (assuming Biden wins and they take the Senate), but I honestly hope they won't. Kavanaugh has already surprised me twice with his rulings and I'm willing to bet that Harris won't be worse than him in that regard. A 6-3 court with the threat of court packing won't be the conservative roadblock that everybody fears.

    A lot of the SCOTUS being fairly neutral in this last term was because of Roberts keeping it that way. He is sidelined as a swing judge in the event Trump adds a new pick to the SCOTUS.

    There will be isolated victories for the liberal bloc, sure - but things like the ACA and RvW will be deeply imperiled. Probably less than 3% chance either survive 5 years in a 6-3 court. Of equally scary concern is damage done to the Civil Rights era protections. Conservatives have wanted to reevaluate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for 60 years. A conservative court can do that.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    edited October 2020
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).

    They'll do it though. I'd bet everything I had on that rather than the other outcome if I was forced to bet it all one way or the other. I wouldn't blame the Democrats if they decided to pack the SCOTUS in that case (assuming Biden wins and they take the Senate), but I honestly hope they won't. Kavanaugh has already surprised me twice with his rulings and I'm willing to bet that Harris won't be worse than him in that regard. A 6-3 court with the threat of court packing won't be the conservative roadblock that everybody fears.

    A lot of the SCOTUS being fairly neutral in this last term was because of Roberts keeping it that way. He is sidelined as a swing judge in the event Trump adds a new pick to the SCOTUS.

    There will be isolated victories for the liberal bloc, sure - but things like the ACA and RvW will be deeply imperiled. Probably less than 3% chance either survive 5 years in a 6-3 court. Of equally scary concern is damage done to the Civil Rights era protections. Conservatives have wanted to reevaluate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for 60 years. A conservative court can do that.

    A conservative SCOTUS absolutely can not do that if liberals control the Congress and the Presidency. This illusion that the Court controls all is an illusion created by Congress being a bunch of pussies for decades (pardon my French). There's a reason it's called a 'balance' of power and its not because the judicial branch trumps all other branches...

    Edit: In my opinion, this might prove to be the perfect opportunity to check the supposed power of SCOTUS to rule all. That was never the intent of the Constitution and should be relegated to the scrap heap.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,655
    I disagree. I think the members of SCOTUS are well aware that being seen as an arm of a political party damages the reputation of the court. I really do think that there will be little in the way of changes to long established law like RvW, because of that and their personal statements on the matter.

    Amy Cony Barrett, on her voting record alone, is someone I would have the least concern for. The major criticism I have of conservative justices is their tendency to default to the side of law enforcement on matters of citizens rights and potential police brutality. Her record does not seem to reflect this at all, she seems fair and willing to side with the citizens against law enforcement when the need calls for it.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    I disagree. I think the members of SCOTUS are well aware that being seen as an arm of a political party damages the reputation of the court. I really do think that there will be little in the way of changes to long established law like RvW, because of that and their personal statements on the matter.

    Amy Cony Barrett, on her voting record alone, is someone I would have the least concern for. The major criticism I have of conservative justices is their tendency to default to the side of law enforcement on matters of citizens rights and potential police brutality. Her record does not seem to reflect this at all, she seems fair and willing to side with the citizens against law enforcement when the need calls for it.

    I love it. Even conservatives can disagree on this forum. Do you disagree that the balance of power is unnecessarily shifted in favor of the judicial? If not, what are your arguments?
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).

    They'll do it though. I'd bet everything I had on that rather than the other outcome if I was forced to bet it all one way or the other. I wouldn't blame the Democrats if they decided to pack the SCOTUS in that case (assuming Biden wins and they take the Senate), but I honestly hope they won't. Kavanaugh has already surprised me twice with his rulings and I'm willing to bet that Harris won't be worse than him in that regard. A 6-3 court with the threat of court packing won't be the conservative roadblock that everybody fears.

    A lot of the SCOTUS being fairly neutral in this last term was because of Roberts keeping it that way. He is sidelined as a swing judge in the event Trump adds a new pick to the SCOTUS.

    There will be isolated victories for the liberal bloc, sure - but things like the ACA and RvW will be deeply imperiled. Probably less than 3% chance either survive 5 years in a 6-3 court. Of equally scary concern is damage done to the Civil Rights era protections. Conservatives have wanted to reevaluate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for 60 years. A conservative court can do that.

    This will not happen if Biden wins and the Senate goes Democrat. It's high time we realize that Congress has some balls too. Too many of these assholes have become career politicians willing to let SCOTUS and the President take the reigns of power. Fuck them and their cushy pensions for life. Make them exert their real power or send them packing.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,655
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    I disagree. I think the members of SCOTUS are well aware that being seen as an arm of a political party damages the reputation of the court. I really do think that there will be little in the way of changes to long established law like RvW, because of that and their personal statements on the matter.

    Amy Cony Barrett, on her voting record alone, is someone I would have the least concern for. The major criticism I have of conservative justices is their tendency to default to the side of law enforcement on matters of citizens rights and potential police brutality. Her record does not seem to reflect this at all, she seems fair and willing to side with the citizens against law enforcement when the need calls for it.

    I love it. Even conservatives can disagree on this forum. Do you disagree that the balance of power is unnecessarily shifted in favor of the judicial? If not, what are your arguments?

    It's hard to say. The SC has had no issue giving away power to other branches of government, namely the Executive. I think the balance of power has shifted away from the Senate most importantly. It was supposed to be the most powerful branch, but nowadays it feels like the least, with the Executive and Judicial ultimately making most decisions and the Senate playing more of a side role.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    I've actually got one guy at work considering not voting for Trump now. It's not because I like Biden, nor have I been successful in turning him to Biden. He thinks he may not vote at all for president. This guy is almost as conservative as my mom & dad (neither whom will listen to me at all so don't ask). That's the best I can do. I don't expect any likes or accolades since I don't agree with many of you folks on this forum in regards to political views. However, Trump is a cancer, and I'm tired of his bullshit...
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    Politics thread - from neither right or left perspective. Gamble that you won't contract a virus while not taking the minimum protective measures = idiotic gamble. Result = get the disease = fucking lose. If not, there is something wrong with this country. Scientific degree conclusion...
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    edited October 2020
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).

    They'll do it though. I'd bet everything I had on that rather than the other outcome if I was forced to bet it all one way or the other. I wouldn't blame the Democrats if they decided to pack the SCOTUS in that case (assuming Biden wins and they take the Senate), but I honestly hope they won't. Kavanaugh has already surprised me twice with his rulings and I'm willing to bet that Harris won't be worse than him in that regard. A 6-3 court with the threat of court packing won't be the conservative roadblock that everybody fears.

    A lot of the SCOTUS being fairly neutral in this last term was because of Roberts keeping it that way. He is sidelined as a swing judge in the event Trump adds a new pick to the SCOTUS.

    There will be isolated victories for the liberal bloc, sure - but things like the ACA and RvW will be deeply imperiled. Probably less than 3% chance either survive 5 years in a 6-3 court. Of equally scary concern is damage done to the Civil Rights era protections. Conservatives have wanted to reevaluate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for 60 years. A conservative court can do that.

    A conservative SCOTUS absolutely can not do that if liberals control the Congress and the Presidency. This illusion that the Court controls all is an illusion created by Congress being a bunch of pussies for decades (pardon my French). There's a reason it's called a 'balance' of power and its not because the judicial branch trumps all other branches...

    Edit: In my opinion, this might prove to be the perfect opportunity to check the supposed power of SCOTUS to rule all. That was never the intent of the Constitution and should be relegated to the scrap heap.


    Why? Present a constitutional argument. The Supreme Court gets to decide if laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not. They hold that card. It doesnt matter if there are 100 Democratic Senators and a Democratic President, it would require an amendment to make an unconstitutional law constitutional (or a rewriting of the law until it is now constitutional).

    That's straight forward.


    It's not at all clear that RvW will be struck down on day one - but a conservative court has every opportunity to poke holes in the ruling. Allowing the closure of all abortion clinics in a state, for example. Allowing laws that prevent abortion after 8 weeks (so called, "Heartbeat" Bills). If you allow enough loop holes and exceptions, you can make it essentially illegal in a state. That's been the GOP's game for 50 years, to try to get those kind of exceptions in place.

    The Supreme court is set to hear a case on the ACA in the next term if I am mistaken, and it was only upheld as constitutional by a 5-4 ruling because Roberts went over to the liberal bloc. That doesnt save the act moving forward.

    In fact, if I understand correctly - Trump asked for a stay on the SCOTUS looking into the case until after the election because his administration is arguing for killing it, which would knock 10s of millions of people off of health insurance in an election year. It's cynical and disgusting.

    As for Civil Rights - it's already happened. Look no further than the Voting RIghts act, of which sections were ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS in 2013. That was a 5-4 split, back when the court was actually fairly centrist. A 6-3 court can take things a lot further than that.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).

    They'll do it though. I'd bet everything I had on that rather than the other outcome if I was forced to bet it all one way or the other. I wouldn't blame the Democrats if they decided to pack the SCOTUS in that case (assuming Biden wins and they take the Senate), but I honestly hope they won't. Kavanaugh has already surprised me twice with his rulings and I'm willing to bet that Harris won't be worse than him in that regard. A 6-3 court with the threat of court packing won't be the conservative roadblock that everybody fears.

    A lot of the SCOTUS being fairly neutral in this last term was because of Roberts keeping it that way. He is sidelined as a swing judge in the event Trump adds a new pick to the SCOTUS.

    There will be isolated victories for the liberal bloc, sure - but things like the ACA and RvW will be deeply imperiled. Probably less than 3% chance either survive 5 years in a 6-3 court. Of equally scary concern is damage done to the Civil Rights era protections. Conservatives have wanted to reevaluate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for 60 years. A conservative court can do that.

    A conservative SCOTUS absolutely can not do that if liberals control the Congress and the Presidency. This illusion that the Court controls all is an illusion created by Congress being a bunch of pussies for decades (pardon my French). There's a reason it's called a 'balance' of power and its not because the judicial branch trumps all other branches...

    Edit: In my opinion, this might prove to be the perfect opportunity to check the supposed power of SCOTUS to rule all. That was never the intent of the Constitution and should be relegated to the scrap heap.


    Why? Present a constitutional argument. The Supreme Court gets to decide if laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not. They hold that card. It doesnt matter if there are 100 Democratic Senators and a Democratic President, it would require an amendment to make an unconstitutional law constitutional (or a rewriting of the law until it is now constitutional).

    That's straight forward.


    It's not at all clear that RvW will be struck down on day one - but a conservative court has every opportunity to poke holes in the ruling. Allowing the closure of all abortion clinics in a state, for example. Allowing laws that prevent abortion after 8 weeks (so called, "Heartbeat" Bills). If you allow enough loop holes and exceptions, you can make it essentially illegal in a state. That's been the GOP's game for 50 years, to try to get those kind of exceptions in place.

    The Supreme court is set to hear a case on the ACA in the next term if I am mistaken, and it was only upheld as constitutional by a 5-4 ruling because Roberts went over to the liberal bloc. That doesnt save the act moving forward.

    In fact, if I understand correctly - Trump asked for a stay on the SCOTUS looking into the case until after the election because his administration is arguing for killing it, which would knock 10s of millions of people off of health insurance in an election year. It's cynical and disgusting.

    As for Civil Rights - it's already happened. Look no further than the Voting RIghts act, of which sections were ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS in 2013. That was a 5-4 split, back when the court was actually fairly centrist. A 6-3 court can take things a lot further than that.

    Change one word in the law and send it to them again. If they vote that down change another word and send it again. If the people are for it the Court risks alienating themselves and making themselves the barricade to change. Congress hasn't fucking challenged them for decades. Congress is the literal closest to the will of the people and they don't do shit. Why is that? Are they really so powerless against the court? Hell no, they've been relinquishing their power to the courts and executive and wringing their hands like they're powerless. Bullshit!!!
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Kellyanne Conway and Trump's campaign manager are now the 7th or 8th people sitting in close proximity at the Amy Coney Barret reveal to test positive. In their rush to replace RBG before the body was cold, they literally created their own COVID-19 cluster. Many of these people were at the MN rally two nights ago, and many were in Cleveland for the debate, where a Cleveland clinic doctor offered members of the Trump entourage masks to wear (the entire Biden team was wearing them). They refused. In the afrermath of all of this, NO ONE from the White House reached out to the Biden camp for a heads-up.

    Meanwhile, a group of three Republican elected officials from MN boarded a flight AFTER learning they were in close conact with known infected persons, a specific question the airline asks, and a blatant disregard of their rule that if you have, you can't take that flight. It's their wanton disregard for the lives of their fellow citizens that, after everything else, makes this party totally unqualified to hold any type of power. They are truly, as @Balrog99 has previously mentioned, the revelers at Prince Prospero's palace.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Kellyanne Conway and Trump's campaign manager are now the 7th or 8th people sitting in close proximity at the Amy Coney Barret reveal to test positive. In their rush to replace RBG before the body was cold, they literally created their own COVID-19 cluster. Many of these people were at the MN rally two nights ago, and many were in Cleveland for the debate, where a Cleveland clinic doctor offered members of the Trump entourage masks to wear (the entire Biden team was wearing them). They refused. In the afrermath of all of this, NO ONE from the White House reached out to the Biden camp for a heads-up.

    Meanwhile, a group of three Republican elected officials from MN boarded a flight AFTER learning they were in close conact with known infected persons, a specific question the airline asks, and a blatant disregard of their rule that if you have, you can't take that flight. It's their wanton disregard for the lives of their fellow citizens that, after everything else, makes this party totally unqualified to hold any type of power. They are truly, as @Balrog99 has previously mentioned, the revelers at Prince Prospero's palace.

    Masque of the Red Death! I majored in chemistry but I don't at all regret my learning in the liberal arts. One needs to learn all kinds of shit to round oneself out...
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    edited October 2020
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).

    They'll do it though. I'd bet everything I had on that rather than the other outcome if I was forced to bet it all one way or the other. I wouldn't blame the Democrats if they decided to pack the SCOTUS in that case (assuming Biden wins and they take the Senate), but I honestly hope they won't. Kavanaugh has already surprised me twice with his rulings and I'm willing to bet that Harris won't be worse than him in that regard. A 6-3 court with the threat of court packing won't be the conservative roadblock that everybody fears.

    A lot of the SCOTUS being fairly neutral in this last term was because of Roberts keeping it that way. He is sidelined as a swing judge in the event Trump adds a new pick to the SCOTUS.

    There will be isolated victories for the liberal bloc, sure - but things like the ACA and RvW will be deeply imperiled. Probably less than 3% chance either survive 5 years in a 6-3 court. Of equally scary concern is damage done to the Civil Rights era protections. Conservatives have wanted to reevaluate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for 60 years. A conservative court can do that.

    A conservative SCOTUS absolutely can not do that if liberals control the Congress and the Presidency. This illusion that the Court controls all is an illusion created by Congress being a bunch of pussies for decades (pardon my French). There's a reason it's called a 'balance' of power and its not because the judicial branch trumps all other branches...

    Edit: In my opinion, this might prove to be the perfect opportunity to check the supposed power of SCOTUS to rule all. That was never the intent of the Constitution and should be relegated to the scrap heap.


    Why? Present a constitutional argument. The Supreme Court gets to decide if laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not. They hold that card. It doesnt matter if there are 100 Democratic Senators and a Democratic President, it would require an amendment to make an unconstitutional law constitutional (or a rewriting of the law until it is now constitutional).

    That's straight forward.


    It's not at all clear that RvW will be struck down on day one - but a conservative court has every opportunity to poke holes in the ruling. Allowing the closure of all abortion clinics in a state, for example. Allowing laws that prevent abortion after 8 weeks (so called, "Heartbeat" Bills). If you allow enough loop holes and exceptions, you can make it essentially illegal in a state. That's been the GOP's game for 50 years, to try to get those kind of exceptions in place.

    The Supreme court is set to hear a case on the ACA in the next term if I am mistaken, and it was only upheld as constitutional by a 5-4 ruling because Roberts went over to the liberal bloc. That doesnt save the act moving forward.

    In fact, if I understand correctly - Trump asked for a stay on the SCOTUS looking into the case until after the election because his administration is arguing for killing it, which would knock 10s of millions of people off of health insurance in an election year. It's cynical and disgusting.

    As for Civil Rights - it's already happened. Look no further than the Voting RIghts act, of which sections were ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS in 2013. That was a 5-4 split, back when the court was actually fairly centrist. A 6-3 court can take things a lot further than that.

    Change one word in the law and send it to them again. If they vote that down change another word and send it again. If the people are for it the Court risks alienating themselves and making themselves the barricade to change. Congress hasn't fucking challenged them for decades. Congress is the literal closest to the will of the people and they don't do shit. Why is that? Are they really so powerless against the court? Hell no, they've been relinquishing their power to the courts and executive and wringing their hands like they're powerless. Bullshit!!!

    It doesnt really work that way. The court can just decline to hear the case. Even if they agreed to hear the case, they dont have to take it up immediately.

    The fact is - constitutionally speaking, the court holds the power in a situation like this.

    Lifetime appointments mean that the court doesnt have to worry about upsetting people very much. The only real vestige we've ever seen of that is Roberts being willing to try to preserve the impartiality of the court. That he's having to act that way should be all the information anyone needs to understand what happened when the court goes 6-3.

    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Kellyanne Conway and Trump's campaign manager are now the 7th or 8th people sitting in close proximity at the Amy Coney Barret reveal to test positive. In their rush to replace RBG before the body was cold, they literally created their own COVID-19 cluster. Many of these people were at the MN rally two nights ago, and many were in Cleveland for the debate, where a Cleveland clinic doctor offered members of the Trump entourage masks to wear (the entire Biden team was wearing them). They refused. In the afrermath of all of this, NO ONE from the White House reached out to the Biden camp for a heads-up.

    Meanwhile, a group of three Republican elected officials from MN boarded a flight AFTER learning they were in close conact with known infected persons, a specific question the airline asks, and a blatant disregard of their rule that if you have, you can't take that flight. It's their wanton disregard for the lives of their fellow citizens that, after everything else, makes this party totally unqualified to hold any type of power. They are truly, as @Balrog99 has previously mentioned, the revelers at Prince Prospero's palace.



    This kind of stuff is what is going to kill any chance for Trump's COVID diagnosis to be meaningfully beneficial to him. If it was just him, you could feel sorry. Since it's becoming clear that it happened at an event that we have video evidence of no social distancing or masks, it's just going to look more and more awful.

    Saw a tweet that Trump made the decision to go to the hospital "while he could still walk". So. That's scary if accurate.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).

    They'll do it though. I'd bet everything I had on that rather than the other outcome if I was forced to bet it all one way or the other. I wouldn't blame the Democrats if they decided to pack the SCOTUS in that case (assuming Biden wins and they take the Senate), but I honestly hope they won't. Kavanaugh has already surprised me twice with his rulings and I'm willing to bet that Harris won't be worse than him in that regard. A 6-3 court with the threat of court packing won't be the conservative roadblock that everybody fears.

    A lot of the SCOTUS being fairly neutral in this last term was because of Roberts keeping it that way. He is sidelined as a swing judge in the event Trump adds a new pick to the SCOTUS.

    There will be isolated victories for the liberal bloc, sure - but things like the ACA and RvW will be deeply imperiled. Probably less than 3% chance either survive 5 years in a 6-3 court. Of equally scary concern is damage done to the Civil Rights era protections. Conservatives have wanted to reevaluate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for 60 years. A conservative court can do that.

    A conservative SCOTUS absolutely can not do that if liberals control the Congress and the Presidency. This illusion that the Court controls all is an illusion created by Congress being a bunch of pussies for decades (pardon my French). There's a reason it's called a 'balance' of power and its not because the judicial branch trumps all other branches...

    Edit: In my opinion, this might prove to be the perfect opportunity to check the supposed power of SCOTUS to rule all. That was never the intent of the Constitution and should be relegated to the scrap heap.


    Why? Present a constitutional argument. The Supreme Court gets to decide if laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not. They hold that card. It doesnt matter if there are 100 Democratic Senators and a Democratic President, it would require an amendment to make an unconstitutional law constitutional (or a rewriting of the law until it is now constitutional).

    That's straight forward.


    It's not at all clear that RvW will be struck down on day one - but a conservative court has every opportunity to poke holes in the ruling. Allowing the closure of all abortion clinics in a state, for example. Allowing laws that prevent abortion after 8 weeks (so called, "Heartbeat" Bills). If you allow enough loop holes and exceptions, you can make it essentially illegal in a state. That's been the GOP's game for 50 years, to try to get those kind of exceptions in place.

    The Supreme court is set to hear a case on the ACA in the next term if I am mistaken, and it was only upheld as constitutional by a 5-4 ruling because Roberts went over to the liberal bloc. That doesnt save the act moving forward.

    In fact, if I understand correctly - Trump asked for a stay on the SCOTUS looking into the case until after the election because his administration is arguing for killing it, which would knock 10s of millions of people off of health insurance in an election year. It's cynical and disgusting.

    As for Civil Rights - it's already happened. Look no further than the Voting RIghts act, of which sections were ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS in 2013. That was a 5-4 split, back when the court was actually fairly centrist. A 6-3 court can take things a lot further than that.

    Change one word in the law and send it to them again. If they vote that down change another word and send it again. If the people are for it the Court risks alienating themselves and making themselves the barricade to change. Congress hasn't fucking challenged them for decades. Congress is the literal closest to the will of the people and they don't do shit. Why is that? Are they really so powerless against the court? Hell no, they've been relinquishing their power to the courts and executive and wringing their hands like they're powerless. Bullshit!!!

    It doesnt really work that way. The court can just decline to hear the case. Even if they agreed to hear the case, they dont have to take it up immediately.

    The fact is - constitutionally speaking, the court holds the power in a situation like this.

    Lifetime appointments mean that the court doesnt have to worry about upsetting people very much. The only real vestige we've ever seen of that is Roberts being willing to try to preserve the impartiality of the court. That he's having to act that way should be all the information anyone needs to understand what happened when the court goes 6-3.

    Bullshit! FDR didn't take their crap and neither does any other party that holds the other two branches. This is total fantasy that the judicial is the branch that holds all the cards. That is the antithesis of balance of power!
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,596
    I don't wish harm on Trump, but if he were in some way incapacitated and Mike Pence took over the duties of government, I think the US would benefit instantly. I'm no fan of Pence. I think the SCOTUS nomination would go thru, even more smoothly and I'm not a fan of that. But I think Pence actually gives a crap about doing the job. And that alone means the government would do a substantially better job than it is currently doing.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    edited October 2020
    The court should be the most conservative of the theee branches in my opinion. That's why the founders gave them the lifetime terms. However, I don't think they were ever intended to be the sole arbiter of change. Changes take time in order for them to happen without complete disruptions that threaten order. The Supreme Court is the bulwark against full revolution imho. Having said that, I will admit that I'm wrong if the new SCOTUS rules against RvW...
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,447
    edited October 2020
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Now Senator Thom Tillis has tested positive as well. It now seems pretty clear the vector for this particular outbreak among conservative politicians can be directly tied to the event held to unveil the Supreme Court nominee. Both Mike Lee and Tillis are on the Judiciary Committee. They now must both quarantine for almost two weeks. Republicans only hold a 2 seat majority on that committee. Any chances for a pre-lame duck confirmation are now up in flames. And it's all self-inflicted. Their reckless dismissal of the virus caused the current situation. Chuck Grassley is also on the committee. He is 87 years old. And has met within the last few days with one of the Senators who tested positive. Grassley is apparently not getting a test. I'm struggling to understand how you are supposed to feel obligated to feel sympathy for people who are deliberately putting their hand on a hot stove after being told half a dozen times not to. If Tillis and Lee DO show up before the recommended guidelines expire, they are saying nothing less than they are willing to KILL their fellow Senators to ram the pick through.

    And you really think the lame duck session will stop them from ramming their lady through? I don't have that same confidence.

    No, they absolutey will. But if they lose in both Arizona and Georgia they will only have about 20 days to do so before those seats are filled (because the current occupants were appointed, not elected).

    They'll do it though. I'd bet everything I had on that rather than the other outcome if I was forced to bet it all one way or the other. I wouldn't blame the Democrats if they decided to pack the SCOTUS in that case (assuming Biden wins and they take the Senate), but I honestly hope they won't. Kavanaugh has already surprised me twice with his rulings and I'm willing to bet that Harris won't be worse than him in that regard. A 6-3 court with the threat of court packing won't be the conservative roadblock that everybody fears.

    A lot of the SCOTUS being fairly neutral in this last term was because of Roberts keeping it that way. He is sidelined as a swing judge in the event Trump adds a new pick to the SCOTUS.

    There will be isolated victories for the liberal bloc, sure - but things like the ACA and RvW will be deeply imperiled. Probably less than 3% chance either survive 5 years in a 6-3 court. Of equally scary concern is damage done to the Civil Rights era protections. Conservatives have wanted to reevaluate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for 60 years. A conservative court can do that.

    A conservative SCOTUS absolutely can not do that if liberals control the Congress and the Presidency. This illusion that the Court controls all is an illusion created by Congress being a bunch of pussies for decades (pardon my French). There's a reason it's called a 'balance' of power and its not because the judicial branch trumps all other branches...

    Edit: In my opinion, this might prove to be the perfect opportunity to check the supposed power of SCOTUS to rule all. That was never the intent of the Constitution and should be relegated to the scrap heap.


    Why? Present a constitutional argument. The Supreme Court gets to decide if laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not. They hold that card. It doesnt matter if there are 100 Democratic Senators and a Democratic President, it would require an amendment to make an unconstitutional law constitutional (or a rewriting of the law until it is now constitutional).

    That's straight forward.


    It's not at all clear that RvW will be struck down on day one - but a conservative court has every opportunity to poke holes in the ruling. Allowing the closure of all abortion clinics in a state, for example. Allowing laws that prevent abortion after 8 weeks (so called, "Heartbeat" Bills). If you allow enough loop holes and exceptions, you can make it essentially illegal in a state. That's been the GOP's game for 50 years, to try to get those kind of exceptions in place.

    The Supreme court is set to hear a case on the ACA in the next term if I am mistaken, and it was only upheld as constitutional by a 5-4 ruling because Roberts went over to the liberal bloc. That doesnt save the act moving forward.

    In fact, if I understand correctly - Trump asked for a stay on the SCOTUS looking into the case until after the election because his administration is arguing for killing it, which would knock 10s of millions of people off of health insurance in an election year. It's cynical and disgusting.

    As for Civil Rights - it's already happened. Look no further than the Voting RIghts act, of which sections were ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS in 2013. That was a 5-4 split, back when the court was actually fairly centrist. A 6-3 court can take things a lot further than that.

    Change one word in the law and send it to them again. If they vote that down change another word and send it again. If the people are for it the Court risks alienating themselves and making themselves the barricade to change. Congress hasn't fucking challenged them for decades. Congress is the literal closest to the will of the people and they don't do shit. Why is that? Are they really so powerless against the court? Hell no, they've been relinquishing their power to the courts and executive and wringing their hands like they're powerless. Bullshit!!!

    It doesnt really work that way. The court can just decline to hear the case. Even if they agreed to hear the case, they dont have to take it up immediately.

    The fact is - constitutionally speaking, the court holds the power in a situation like this.

    Lifetime appointments mean that the court doesnt have to worry about upsetting people very much. The only real vestige we've ever seen of that is Roberts being willing to try to preserve the impartiality of the court. That he's having to act that way should be all the information anyone needs to understand what happened when the court goes 6-3.

    Bullshit! FDR didn't take their crap and neither does any other party that holds the other two branches. This is total fantasy that the judicial is the branch that holds all the cards. That is the antithesis of balance of power!

    I agree that Congress has options to use against SCOTUS if it came to it. For instance there's been a fair amount of discussion about packing the court with additional members to change the political balance, but another option would be to substantially reduce the number of members (the lowest number to date has been 5, but it could go below that). If each judge knew their own power and livelihoods were on the line, that might help concentrate minds about the need to maintain an overall balance of power ...
  • ÆmrysÆmrys Member Posts: 125
    edited October 2020
    Rick Moranis was assaulted today.

    *Edit: Yesterday.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Here’s a list of (so far) everyone in Trump’s orbit who also got Covid:
    https://globalnews.ca/news/7375917/trump-coronavirus-spread/

    The journalist are the scary ones. Three of them, who contacted it at three different times.

    At least one of those journalists attended the Rose Garden event on Saturday, while another had travelled with the president through the weekend. The third attended Trump’s press conference on Sunday.

    If Trump got tested ‘multiple times a day’ according to Politico, (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/21/trump-tested-coronavirus-multiple-times-day-375957) did the government keep his condition a secret long enough for him to actually spread it to other people all while ignoring prevention measures such as wearing a mask in those days?

    I know he’s sick and all, and I know it’s an election year, but this really needs to be investigated by congress or something as it is extremely unacceptable.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2020
    What's interesting is that Trump is supposedly a notorious germaphobe. The only thing that can possibly explain his cavalier attitude is that he had bought into the FOX News brainrot as surely as most regular viewers have.

    It's very, very likely that Trump will survive, even as someone in his mid-70s. It's also entirely likely he is going to be very, very sick for at least the next two weeks.

    I frankly can't see how the optics here, given the video and pictures of the Supreme Court rollout, come off as anything but a group of people with outsized hubris acting irresponsibly. And the line "how can they keep America safe if they can't even keep themselves safe" doesn't even need to be said. It's just there for everyone to take in by osmosis.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Æmrys wrote: »
    Rick Moranis was assaulted today.

    *Edit: Yesterday.

    WHO WOULD EVEN WANT TO DO THAT!? Rick Moranis is great :(
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2020
    Arvia wrote: »
    Some things aren't adding up.
    Taking Trump to a hospital might be only precautionary.
    Saying that he's treated, among other things, with Remdesivir, but he's fine and doesn't need oxygen, doesn't make much sense.
    I don't know how things are being handled in the US. Here in Europe, Remdesivir is only recommended in Covid-19 treatment when you have pneumonia and need oxygen. Data on side effects is scarce, especially because it has mostly been used experimentally (it was used for Ebola treatment originally) and therefore it's hard to make a distinction between effects of the disease or side effects of the treatment.

    So, there are two options: Either he's in worse condition than the public is supposed to know, or they're going rather far with preventive measures, especially because there's not much data on the usefulness of Remdesivir in mild cases. Doesn't seem very responsible to use it preemptively.

    First of all, his Dr. just (I assume by accident) revealed that Trump had already tested positive by Wednesday afternoon. Just ONE day after the debate. And they never even so much as THOUGHT about telling the Biden camp. The Hope Hicks blame-game was a cover story. They knew about this long before it came out. Moreover, he went to fundraisers and a rally after testing positive, if the Dr. is correct in mentioning a 72-hour timeline.

    Moreover, an anonymous source leaked to CNN minutes after the Dr. was done that Trump's condition is far worse than what the medical team just portrayed in that press conference, specifically that his vitals were concerning and that they have no idea how the next 48 hours are going to go:


    Whether the Dr. is misinformed or misspoke on the timeline, I have no idea. What I do know is that this is another instance where lying about everything on a daily basis for four years shatters all possible credibility when you need it most. No one would actually put it past Trump to get a diagnosis and willfully expose others if he saw an advantage to doing so in the moment. And it appears CNN's source (based on picked up off the record audio) saying things are worse than they are letting on is none other than Mark Meadows, the frickin' Chief of Staff.

    We're getting conflicting statements within minutes of each other from the guy who runs his White House and his doctors. They are going to try and bullshit their way out of this like they do everything else. The virus is unimpressed with a media spin operation. Trump could have been diagnosed on Wednesday, or it could have been Thursday night. He may actually be fine, or he may be in serious trouble. There is no way to actually know because the people providing the info are serial liars.

    For my money, Trump's lack of communication the last 48 hours is a bit of a tell. His one tweet was odd, and, in it's own way, sounded like someone who was frightened ("doing well, I think"). I imagine most of us fear death, but I guarantee a megalomaniac like Trump fears it far, far more.

    Now AP is reporting Trump was administered supplemental oxygen yesterday before being flown to the hospital. If you are being administered oxygen, it is absolutely not a "mild" case of COVID-19. He didn't go to the hospital as a precaution, he went because he had to. Best case scenario right now is the public can trust nothing they are saying and the President is mostly fine. Worst case he is deteriorating and Pence should be in charge right now. Again, we have NO WAY of knowing.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,596
    As jj points out, it's starting to emerge that

    1. Trump and White House staffers knew he had been exposed to a COVID positive person (Hicks) long before they informed anyone else. And they even flouted basic pandemic protocols at the debate despite knowing this.
    2. They also knew about his *positive* diagnosis and still didn't inform people instantly and even did an event with other Republicans at the White House.

    I mean... this is just insane, cavalier, self-destructive behavior.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2020
    DinoDin wrote: »
    As jj points out, it's starting to emerge that

    1. Trump and White House staffers knew he had been exposed to a COVID positive person (Hicks) long before they informed anyone else. And they even flouted basic pandemic protocols at the debate despite knowing this.
    2. They also knew about his *positive* diagnosis and still didn't inform people instantly and even did an event with other Republicans at the White House.

    I mean... this is just insane, cavalier, self-destructive behavior.

    They held a buffet lunch fundraiser after they knew about Hope Hicks (at a bare minimum). A buffet. That is one step from a face-licking party.

    Edit: Chris Christie, who was locked in a room with Trump in debate prep, has tested positive and has been admitted to the hospital as a "precaution". I'd be more inclined to believe this if he wasn't about 200 lbs. overweight. Non-insignificant portions of the Republican Party have basically self-immolated within the last 72 hours. I read a stat that more people in the Trump White House (and those in contact with them) have tested positive for the virus than entire states have had within the same time-frame. And while these assholes are getting the best treatment in the world, they are in court attempting to make sure the rest of us can't have healthcare.

    This is some end of empire shit, honestly. I guess I wouldn't have picked "Republican Party overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases" on my October surprise bingo card, but this isn't exactly a shock. I've seen conspiracy theories on right-wing social media ACTUALLY wondering out loud why no Democratic lawmakers are coming down with the virus. I'll give you one guess...........

    I don't necessarily believe karma is a thing, but if I'm wrong, and it is, it's laying it on pretty goddamn thick at the current moment. Lest we forget, former Presidential candidate Herman Cain DIED because of Trump's Oklahoma rally. None of these people are "young" besides Hope Hicks. Everyone else is at least in their 50s. There has even been reporting that the Secret Service is absolutely furious with Trump and his reckless endangerment of them and their families. To give you a sense of how big it is that story is even coming out, the Secret Service does NOT talk about sitting Presidents in that manner.

    Edit 2: It now appears that the White House spin is that Trump had to get out there and "take one for the team". I honestly have no idea what that is even supposed to mean.

    Edit 3: I saw this and am quoting a tweet:

    I want to see a journalist examine the rage felt by the millions of ordinary Americans who wear masks and follow the rules in order to protect themselves and others. Meanwhile, they see other people, from the President on down, ignore those rules and mock them for their adherence.


    Would sure be more useful than the 500th story talking to Trump supporters in a diner. But all things considered here, I just cannot see a scenario where the debate performance combined with this doesn't end this election from a competitive standpoint. Defending the Administration at this point requires such a hefty lift that I simply don't believe a large enough portion of Americans can do so.

    In other news, Jaime Harrison had his debate with Lindsey Graham tonight, and while he may not win this race, he absolutely smacked Graham around the room. It wasn't even close.

    These pictures are absurd. The idea that Donald Trump is sick as a dog up at 11pm at night going through briefing papers is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. He wouldn't even be doing this on a NORMAL Saturday night, much less this one. In the history of staged photographs, these have to be right up at the top. People have zoomed in on the photo and he is literally doing nothing but signing his name on blank sheets of paper. Feels very North Korea:

    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,177
    On the importance of the Supreme Court some of you might be interested to know that the University of Chicago offers a free ebook every month. This month’s is called The Hollow Hope, and argues that the impact of legal decisions are relatively limited in comparison to legislation and civil protests.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,655
    Something I didn't know; California is adding new data protection laws, similar to ones that exist in some European countries, that gives you more control over who collects your data and how they use it. Andrew Yang is taking a leading role in seeing it implemented.

    I know many don't care but it has always been an important issue to me. Tech companies like Google and Amazon cross the line into downright creepy and stalkerish. I don't have to inform many people anymore that your voice is being recorded and used to better understand/manipulate you, since so many have direct experience with it already.

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/andrew-yang-takes-lead-california-data-privacy-measure.amp?__twitter_impression=true
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659



    More and more, the Trump COVID story doesnt exactly line up. The WH is pushing it to seem like a mild case that will be over soon, with Trump discharged tomorrow. Yet he apparently had another concerning drop in his Oxygen level on Saturday, and is on an aggressive medicine that is usually reserved for serious cases.

    Also, apparently doctors believe days 7-10 of COVID are the most dangerous/important. Although the timeline is fuzzy, Trump is somewhere between days 5-8. So releasing him tomorrow seems like a weird call.
Sign In or Register to comment.