Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all. 

But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.

RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.

The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.

Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.

Two seats stolen.

Two.

unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law. 

zero seats were stolen. 

it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red. 

if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?

I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones

It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.

Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?

But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.

let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same. 

that I do not agree with. Actually that bolder part is a false statement.The rules are written and have been applicable for a long time. The fact is McConnell changed them . Every Justice was subject to the 60 vote test since 1805, except the 3 nominated by trump. Changing the rules to only benefit yourself but to punish the other side is not playing by the rules.

If the Dodgers were to “buy” the commissioners office, and change the strikeout rule to 2 strikes for opponents of teams in LA and beginning with the letter D and then go on to win the World Series, would everyone agree the Dodgers are “playing by the rules?”

he was allowed to change the rules. hence, he's playing by them. 

brianlux

Biden

Got this bulk email from Move On this morning:

Brian,

Let me be clear about what's at stake with the deadline facing Joe and Kamala tomorrow night:

This is the last public fundraising deadline of this entire campaign. Once it passes, Joe and Kamala will have to reveal how much they've raised, and the whole world will see whether they have the resources they need to finish the race strong, or whether Donald Trump and the wealthy Super PACs that support him can drown out our message in the final weeks before Election Day.

I can tell you from experience, Brian, the pressure to meet this deadline is real. It matters. And the truth is, Joe and Kamala cannot meet their goal without more help from grassroots supporters like you.

So I'm asking you directly: Please, make your $10 donation right now, and help Joe and Kamala raise the money they still need from California before midnight tomorrow.

Brian, I don't have to tell you how important it is that we elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The future of our democracy hangs in the balance.

I believe in Joe and Kamala's ability to lead our country out of these dark times and build it back better, and I know that you do too. But they cannot do this alone.

Their campaign—and our future—relies on people like you and me embracing our responsibility as citizens and pouring all of our effort into these last 21 days before Election Day.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We all need to do more to help Joe and Kamala win this thing. And, Brian, the best way to help today is by chipping in $10 or whatever you can afford, and making sure the campaign hits its goal before tomorrow's public fundraising deadline.

So, Brian, if you've been waiting to make your donation to Joe and Kamala's campaign, now is the time: Please, chip in $10 or whatever you can afford today.

Thank you—for everything that you do.

–Barack Obama

*******************************************

So I sent $100 to the Biden campaign while I could.  We normally use our tithing money to support environmental work, but this years election is HUGELY important, so we coughed up the bucks for Biden/Harris.  Perhaps others here might consider doing the same here:

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/obamaforbiden_moveon_final?akid=278965.5755935.30n0lT&rd=1&refcode=278965&refcode2=278965_5755935_30n0lT&t=1

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all. 

But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.

RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.

The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.

Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.

Two seats stolen.

Two.

unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law. 

zero seats were stolen. 

it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red. 

if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?

I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones

It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.

Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?

But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.

let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same. 

that I do not agree with. Actually that bolder part is a false statement.The rules are written and have been applicable for a long time. The fact is McConnell changed them . Every Justice was subject to the 60 vote test since 1805, except the 3 nominated by trump. Changing the rules to only benefit yourself but to punish the other side is not playing by the rules.

If the Dodgers were to “buy” the commissioners office, and change the strikeout rule to 2 strikes for opponents of teams in LA and beginning with the letter D and then go on to win the World Series, would everyone agree the Dodgers are “playing by the rules?”

he was allowed to change the rules. hence, he's playing by them. 

I’m not sure that logic recognizes the purpose of rules. The rules are designed to maintain order and the rights of everybody, Including the minority. Without them (or constantly changing or manipulating them) a democratic and free society can not exist. It is what authoritarians do.

Did democrats allow the republicans this power when they set rules for the Supreme Court  ? Yes. But why? Because it’s their expectation the rules  will be apply  to both sides. And giving the minority power brings moderate views to the process. Denying it rewards extremism. They allowed McConnell to use it at the appellate level more times than it had been previously used in the history of the senate. Now McConnell has taken that power away for the highest court. When the Dems responded by changing it at the lower level, the check was the Supreme Court. Changing it at the SC level like mcconell has , provides no checks nor balances.

If it were just this one rule one time, you might have a point. But it’s hundreds of rules hundreds of times being changed or broken, whether it’s putting blacks into one CD so they only have one congressman in the state, or closing all voting places within a 45 minute drive, or benefiting from the 41 Senator vote rule for 215 years then changing it when it’s expedient or willing to keep a Court seat empty for five years because we hate Obama and Clinton 

Its led to a degradation of leadership and society. It’s part of the reason for our polarization. The minority party, and minority races, have no rights in that logic. 

Now the Dems have no choice but to fight fire with fire. Do I really want 104 senators and 15 Supreme Court justices? Not really. But when one side always changes rules  it’s hardly a govt by the people for the people if the other side doesn’t fight back.

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

cincybearcat said:

Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all. 

But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.

RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.

The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.

Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.

Two seats stolen.

Two.

unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law. 

zero seats were stolen. 

it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red. 

if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?

I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones

It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.

Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?

But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.

let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same. 

that I do not agree with. Actually that bolder part is a false statement.The rules are written and have been applicable for a long time. The fact is McConnell changed them . Every Justice was subject to the 60 vote test since 1805, except the 3 nominated by trump. Changing the rules to only benefit yourself but to punish the other side is not playing by the rules.

If the Dodgers were to “buy” the commissioners office, and change the strikeout rule to 2 strikes for opponents of teams in LA and beginning with the letter D and then go on to win the World Series, would everyone agree the Dodgers are “playing by the rules?”

he was allowed to change the rules. hence, he's playing by them. 

I’m not sure that logic recognizes the purpose of rules. The rules are designed to maintain order and the rights of everybody, Including the minority. Without them (or constantly changing or manipulating them) a democratic and free society can not exist. It is what authoritarians do.

Did democrats allow the republicans this power when they set rules for the Supreme Court  ? Yes. But why? Because it’s their expectation the rules  will be apply  to both sides. And giving the minority power brings moderate views to the process. Denying it rewards extremism. They allowed McConnell to use it at the appellate level more times than it had been previously used in the history of the senate. Now McConnell has taken that power away for the highest court. When the Dems responded by changing it at the lower level, the check was the Supreme Court. Changing it at the SC level like mcconell has , provides no checks nor balances.

If it were just this one rule one time, you might have a point. But it’s hundreds of rules hundreds of times being changed or broken, whether it’s putting blacks into one CD so they only have one congressman in the state, or closing all voting places within a 45 minute drive, or benefiting from the 41 Senator vote rule for 215 years then changing it when it’s expedient or willing to keep a Court seat empty for five years because we hate Obama and Clinton 

Its led to a degradation of leadership and society. It’s part of the reason for our polarization. The minority party, and minority races, have no rights in that logic. 

Now the Dems have no choice but to fight fire with fire. Do I really want 104 senators and 15 Supreme Court justices? Not really. But when one side always changes rules  it’s hardly a govt by the people for the people if the other side doesn’t fight back.

democrats should absolutely fight back. it's their right. it's time to stop assuming everyone will play by the unwritten rules. I sincerely hope dems take back the senate, and then we can all listen to mcconel bitch and moan and whine and cry for at least two years while dems railroad everything he tries to do. 

mrussel1

Biden

Now this is surprising.  I didn't think he was toast but I thought this would give center R people a reason to move back to Tillis.  We'll see, I'm not sold, but certainly surprising. 
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/520846-cunningham-holds-lead-over-tillis-in-poll-after-news-of-affair-poll

mrussel1

Biden

Pete the Slayer for president.  https://news.yahoo.com/column-way-slayer-pete-buttigieg-003618262.html

The Juggler

Biden

mrussel1 said:

Pete the Slayer for president.  https://news.yahoo.com/column-way-slayer-pete-buttigieg-003618262.html

Pete vs Kamala could be an interesting primary debate in four years

mickeyrat

Biden

OnWis97 said:

PJNB said:

• National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump

So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40.  In theory he's more well-liked now.  That's disturbing.  Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now).  Now?  After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.

except its not half of Americans. he garnered what 60 million votes in 16? has lost a fair amount of supporters.

60 million in a nation of 320 million is far short of half.....

he doesnt even have half of eligible voters......

Bentleyspop

Biden

https://twitter.com/PearlJam/status/1316139406512861193?s=19

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

mickeyrat said:

OnWis97 said:

PJNB said:

• National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump

So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40.  In theory he's more well-liked now.  That's disturbing.  Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now).  Now?  After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.

except its not half of Americans. he garnered what 60 million votes in 16? has lost a fair amount of supporters.

60 million in a nation of 320 million is far short of half.....

he doesnt even have half of eligible voters......

i don't understand where people keep getting this "half of america" nonsense. 

dignin

mrussel1 said:

Pete the Slayer for president.  https://news.yahoo.com/column-way-slayer-pete-buttigieg-003618262.html

Mayor Pete is now Slayer Pete. The guy is a beast.

mickeyrat

Biden

HughFreakingDillon said:

mickeyrat said:

OnWis97 said:

PJNB said:

• National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump

So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40.  In theory he's more well-liked now.  That's disturbing.  Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now).  Now?  After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.

except its not half of Americans. he garnered what 60 million votes in 16? has lost a fair amount of supporters.

60 million in a nation of 320 million is far short of half.....

he doesnt even have half of eligible voters......

i don't understand where people keep getting this "half of america" nonsense. 

because he garned a little less than half of the votes cast... so lazy math says half the country.....

GOP registered voters comprise about 25% of the electorate, give or take.....

mickeyrat

Biden

 https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/12/ohio-2020-election-what-poll-observer-what-can-they-do/5941069002/

mickeyrat

Biden

  https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/13/more-than-193-000-ohioans-cast-person-early-votes-first-week-on-trump-vs-biden-and-other-races/3640295001/

JimmyV

Biden

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

Pete the Slayer for president.  https://news.yahoo.com/column-way-slayer-pete-buttigieg-003618262.html

Pete vs Kamala could be an interesting primary debate in four years

I don't want Pete turning his fire on a Biden/Harris administration in an attempt to get the nomination. 

HughFreakingDillon

Biden

mickeyrat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mickeyrat said:

OnWis97 said:

PJNB said:

• National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump

So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40.  In theory he's more well-liked now.  That's disturbing.  Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now).  Now?  After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.

except its not half of Americans. he garnered what 60 million votes in 16? has lost a fair amount of supporters.

60 million in a nation of 320 million is far short of half.....

he doesnt even have half of eligible voters......

i don't understand where people keep getting this "half of america" nonsense. 

because he garned a little less than half of the votes cast... so lazy math says half the country.....

GOP registered voters comprise about 25% of the electorate, give or take.....

I know. i just don't get why it gets propagated so much. 

The Juggler

Biden

How the fuck do dueling townhalls benefit anyone but the trailing campaign? What kind of sense does this make?

mickeyrat

Biden

The Juggler said:

How the fuck do dueling townhalls benefit anyone but the trailing campaign? What kind of sense does this make?

ratings...... so nbc having had the prior relationship via the apprentice is looking for ad sales from trumps supporters watching.

mrussel1

Biden

The Juggler said:

How the fuck do dueling townhalls benefit anyone but the trailing campaign? What kind of sense does this make?

To be fair, Biden scheduled his last week as soon as Trump was whining about the virtual debates.  Trump scheduled his yesterday.  I don't see Biden pulling the plug now. 

Jearlpam0925

Biden

This is very, very good:

https://youtu.be/tJQZ7yG7Tdg