2 hours ago, Dante said:

I'll leave that to others.

Not many howlers forthcoming, Andrew.

3 hours ago, Dante said:

Perhaps you should read her record as a judge in California, look it up.

 

Look up the Catholic Judge's record: you want appalling....?

On 10/15/2020 at 1:08 PM, Jara said:

Great comment.

The people who feel that instinctive dislike of Harris (like calling her a snake simply because she side-stepped a question about the Supreme court, or Trump calling her a 'monster') do so for one reason: she's an eloquent, forthright woman of colour. 

( This between you and me: I don't like her as well - she does have shady track record but it evaporates into oblivion in comparison with The Trumpeters and Pences of the world.) 

6 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Here's the list, there's certainly women and persons of colour (including women of colour). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump#United_States_courts_of_appeals

My apologies he appointed a very respectable 2% of black judges...

 

 

Most would have heard about the 'Shy' Trump voters but now there are apparently an abundance of shy Biden voters (especially amongst the elderly voters down in Florida)

I'm predicting a cliff-hanger outcome with the State of Florida possibly playing a big part

 

On 10/16/2020 at 5:36 PM, hardtack said:

The main issue with her appointment is that Obama was howled down/blocked by McConnell for trying to install a new judge in the supreme court 300 days out from an election, the reason being that it was an election year.  

No, the main difference is that Obama did not have the procedural capacity to enact the appointment and as such his attempt failed.  Nothing whatsoever to do with it being an election year and to say otherwise is a re-writing of history.

17 minutes ago, Trisul said:

No, the main difference is that Obama did not have the procedural capacity to enact the appointment and as such his attempt failed.  Nothing whatsoever to do with it being an election year and to say otherwise is a re-writing of history.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the procedural capacity".

From the Wiki page, "Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination" (link below):
"This vacancy arose during Obama's final year as president. Hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year."

"Attention returned to the nomination in fall 2020 after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, when many Democrats and some commentators contended that Republicans violated the precedent they had established for Garland by voting to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the court."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination

And from Time Magazine (link below):
"For the GOP, it’s a sharp departure from the precedent they set in 2016. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of that year, nearly nine months before that year’s election. With President Barack Obama set to nominate a replacement who would pull the court to the left, Senate Republicans said that the seat should not be filled in an election year, and refused to hold hearings to consider Obama’s eventual nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. McConnell argued that not since 1888 had the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee by an opposing party’s President to fill a vacancy that arose in an election year."

https://time.com/5892574/senate-republicans-supreme-court-vote/

So no, not rewriting history... simply stating what was being said at the time.

Edited November 2, 20204 yr by hardtack

1 hour ago, Trisul said:

No, the main difference is that Obama did not have the procedural capacity to enact the appointment and as such his attempt failed.  Nothing whatsoever to do with it being an election year and to say otherwise is a re-writing of history.

Hey Trisul, have a look at this clip: 2016, Cruz saying they can't replace a SC judge in an election year, 2020 saying they have to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_hxRPeb1iI

 

I'm not questioning what people said.  Obama would have confirmed the SC candidate if he could.  He could not and therefore did not.  What people said then is irrelevant, just as it is now.   

3 hours ago, Trisul said:

Nothing whatsoever to do with it being an election year and to say otherwise is a re-writing of history.

After you stated this, I posted two sources supporting my comments re McConnell’s refusal to allow a nomination in an election year (2016) and his u-turn in 2020. You claimed I was “rewriting history”, I showed that I was not.

11 minutes ago, Trisul said:

I'm not questioning what people said. 

It would seem that you are.

Edited November 2, 20204 yr by hardtack

11 minutes ago, Trisul said:

I'm not questioning what people said.  Obama would have confirmed the SC candidate if he could.  He could not and therefore did not.  What people said then is irrelevant, just as it is now.   

Fair enough - in part. The Dems may well have done the same thing - who knows? - but it's a bit rich to say it's irrelevant. It demonstrates that the Republicans are unmitigated hypocrites and liars - look at the contradictory statements of Mitch McConnell in 2016 and in 2018. Hypocrisy may be irrelevant to you, but it's not to me. 

 

Edited - oops - Hardtack - we crossed in mid-air, re the liar McConnell

Edited November 2, 20204 yr by Jara

To clarify, I'm not questioning what people involved in the decision making said.  It's a simple statement Hardtack.  Obama wanted to do what Trump did but couldn't.  He would have, but couldn't.  To then frame that inability as some sort of reason why Trump can't, IS a re-writing of history.

38 minutes ago, Trisul said:

To clarify, I'm not questioning what people involved in the decision making said.  It's a simple statement Hardtack.  Obama wanted to do what Trump did but couldn't.  He would have, but couldn't.  To then frame that inability as some sort of reason why Trump can't, IS a re-writing of history.

I disagree.  The fact was that it was stated that the installing of a new judge should NOT be done in an election year... that it should be done by the next elected president.  McConnell explicitly stated in 2016 that "...the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year.".  He also "...argued that not since 1888 had the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee by an opposing party’s President to fill a vacancy that arose in an election year.". 

As is quite apparent from those comments, it was nothing was nothing to do with Obama not having the "procedural capacity", but all to do with filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court in an election year.  As I said, not a rewriting of history, but placing focus on the hypocrisy involved; particularly as it was the same individual, McConnell, involved in both instances.

You're actually making my point for me Hardtack.    "Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee by an opposing party".  If Obama held the senate he would have confirmed the SC candidate (in an election year) and thus this has everything  to do with Obama not having the "procedural capacity".  By the way, on 29 other occasions the sitting President has nomiated a SC candidate in an election year.

55 minutes ago, Trisul said:

You're actually making my point for me Hardtack.    "Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee by an opposing party".  If Obama held the senate he would have confirmed the SC candidate (in an election year) and thus this has everything  to do with Obama not having the "procedural capacity".  By the way, on 29 other occasions the sitting President has nomiated a SC candidate in an election year.

Ok, I hadn’t realised that was the case, so thanks for the information. However, as this was regarding my original statement being a rewriting of history, I still disagree as McConnell had denied Obama’s nominee, stating that it should wait until after a new president was installed, before it was to be filled, 9 months out from the election.

Imagine having 50 different voting eligibility systems not to mention 50 different sets of rules on how ballots are cast.

The mind boggles.

Used to work a lot in the US for a very big company. As you know the elections are on Tuesday (a work day) but the company dared not give their workers time off to vote as that was a political minefield.

When looking at our policies for the Australian workplace they asked me what was our guns in the workplace policy.

Imagine electing a guy (George W Bush) who had never been outside the US except to Mexico. 

They're just different and I'm not sure that being their "special friend"in the Pacific is the smartest move.

Wednesday our time will be fascinating... Biden in a landslide (326 -210 if not 355-181) is my prediction simply because Trump will lose followers in the battleground states and Biden will gain more.The only unknown for me is how much the fear of covid has kept voters away (postal ballots etc aside).*

The 2024 election could be interesting. Biden will be given a crap economy and a decent Republican candidate could easily take back the White House.

Historically the real question for me  is whether Trump is a a trend or an aberration.

* I see the pundits are predicting the highest % turnout ever (around 65%) but they are doing that based on the number of pre poll votes. Voting on the day may well be low numbers thus balancing the two... who knows

Finally here's a fun predictor to play with

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/oct/30/build-your-own-us-election-result-plot-a-win-for-biden-or-trump

Texas could be the decider... if it swings to Biden it's game over

Edited November 2, 20204 yr by Diamond_Jim

In the last election Trump claimed victory at 2.30am (ET) which is 6.30pm AEST (on a Wednesday of course)

Could be earlier this time or it could be later if a State or 3 needs a recount.   Which is what could happen. 

With such a large lead the pollsters would normally be advocating a Biden victory but they're not so confident this time

The rust-belt States & Swing States weren't talked about nearly enough last time but this time it's all we've heard about.  For good reason.

On a side note,  a number of the large Oz bookmaking firms stand to lose a small fortune if Trump gets up and wins.  They are holding 10's of millions of dollars on the outcome.

That's in Australia,  believe it or not. 

Bets of $50,000 on Trump at about $2.80 or $3.00 have been quite commonplace.

Copy & paste the following to google for the story ...

'Australian Bookies stand to lose staggering amount if Trump wins'

There won't be much sympathy if the bookies lose big but a guaranteed mountain of laughs will probably occur (in true Aussie style)

Edited November 3, 20204 yr by Macca

15 minutes ago, Macca said:

Bets of $50,000 on Trump at about $2.80 or $3.00 have been quite commonplace.

 

Why not, it is free money.

Trump will crush Biden.

4 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Why not

Well,  put your money where your mouth is

A substantial wager to back up your claim is required if you want people to take you seriously

Maybe $500 or $1000 and provide the proof

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well,  put your money where your mouth is

A substantial wager to back up your claim is required if you want people to take you seriously

Maybe $500 or $1000 and provide the proof

I put my money where my mouth is a month ago when I placed a good sized bet on Trump.

Won easy money on him in 2016 and will do it again tomorrow.

18 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

I put my money where my mouth is a month ago when I placed a good sized bet on Trump.

Won easy money on him in 2016 and will do it again tomorrow.

Fair enough,  good comeback and I will take you on your word

Anyway,  if the bookies lose out big time that'll sting.  A bit like the following ...

 

 

25 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

I put my money where my mouth is a month ago when I placed a good sized bet on Trump.

Won easy money on him in 2016 and will do it again tomorrow.

To quote your hero... Fake news!

32 minutes ago, hardtack said:

To quote your hero... Fake news!

But what we now know HT is that a lot of people don't or won't admit to voting for Trump

And that's a new thing in some ways but maybe that sort of factor has always been a thing

And if the 'Shy' Trump voters are a substantial number then it stands to reason that the Trump voters understand their own brethren

Does that make sense?

So indeed,  P2J's call may not be outrageous at all.  In fact,  I'm inclined to believe P2J if there is an understanding that Trump voters aren't necessarily transparent with their intentions

A comparison might be in regards to racism and the hidden racism that exists.  I mean,  how many people actually admit to being racist as compared to how many racists actually exist? 

For goodness sakes, extreme racists put hoods over their heads to disguise themselves.

I believe because of the above Trump can win but I truly hope he doesn't win.  But I'm also not impressed at all by the Democrats or Biden

Whatever the outcome the USA will still be a mess

Edited November 3, 20204 yr by Macca

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

But what we now know HT is that a lot of people don't or won't admit to voting for Trump

And that's a new thing in some ways but maybe that sort of factor has always been a thing

And if the 'Shy' Trump voters are a substantial number then it stands to reason that the Trump voters understand their own brethren

Does that make sense?

So indeed,  P2J's call may not be outrageous at all.  In fact,  I'm inclined to believe P2J if there is an understanding that Trump voters aren't necessarily transparent with their intentions

A comparison might be in regards to racism and the hidden racism that exists.  I mean,  how many people actually admit to being racist as compared to how many racists actually exist? 

For goodness sakes, extreme racists put hoods over their heads to disguise themselves.

I believe because of the above Trump can win but I truly hope he doesn't win.  But I'm also not impressed at all by the Democrats or Biden

I don't have a side nor do I want one

Whatever the outcome the USA will still be a mess.

It's probably a matter of whether voters want the current train wreck to continue or whether they want someone who is actually a politician and who might actually put the peoples' welfare ahead of his own.  And if he is elected, I would be very surprised if Biden remained President for a full term; that may well be the reason that Harris was chosen as VP.

What concerns me about Trump is that he has openly been encouraging harassment of Democrat voters and has been convincing his kool-aid drinking followers that the election will have been rigged if he loses.  I honestly think that regardless of the outcome, there will be blood on the streets, purely because of this narrative.

Apart from all of that, I believe that the fact that 90 million people have turned out to cast early votes, is probably indicative of a big swing against Trump.  Already 75% of the entire voting numbers of 2016 has turned out to vote before election day... and have queued up for very lengthy periods of time in less than perfect conditions.  One problem I can see Trump having is that like the Democrat voters in 2016, those Trump supporters may fall into the trap of being too comfortable that their guy is going to walk it in, and not turn out in large enough numbers.  The other issue is that a lot of those swinging voters who voted for Trump to send a message to the Democrats, might decide that after seeing what has unfolded in the 4 years of Trump's presidency, they do not want 4 more years.

However it ends up, tomorrow is going to be an interesting day!

42 minutes ago, hardtack said:

It's probably a matter of whether voters want the current train wreck to continue or whether they want someone who is actually a politician and who might actually put the peoples' welfare ahead of his own.  And if he is elected, I would be very surprised if Biden remained President for a full term; that may well be the reason that Harris was chosen as VP.

What concerns me about Trump is that he has openly been encouraging harassment of Democrat voters and has been convincing his kool-aid drinking followers that the election will have been rigged if he loses.  I honestly think that regardless of the outcome, there will be blood on the streets, purely because of this narrative.

Apart from all of that, I believe that the fact that 90 million people have turned out to cast early votes, is probably indicative of a big swing against Trump.  Already 75% of the entire voting numbers of 2016 has turned out to vote before election day... and have queued up for very lengthy periods of time in less than perfect conditions.  One problem I can see Trump having is that like the Democrat voters in 2016, those Trump supporters may fall into the trap of being too comfortable that their guy is going to walk it in, and not turn out in large enough numbers.  The other issue is that a lot of those swinging voters who voted for Trump to send a message to the Democrats, might decide that after seeing what has unfolded in the 4 years of Trump's presidency, they do not want 4 more years.

However it ends up, tomorrow is going to be an interesting day!

You make a lot of sensible points HT but I remember you stating 4 years ago that there was large percentage of Americans who are into celebrity status.  So they think differently ... not the Trump fans here in Oz,  they are just rusted on conservatives.  But the tens of millions of Americans who adore Trump. 

And that's part of Trump's appeal.  At the last election I was taken by surprise by the sheer amount of Americans who actually voted for Trump.  But lesson learned

Don't forget that Trump represents at least 43% of the electorate.  That's a lot of people and I find that number to be far more alarming than the bloke that they are voting for.

Those people are sending us a message whether we like the message or not.

It's not even about policy but that's what the Democrats needed to concentrate on.  They are playing into Trump's hand by playing against Trump.  To him it's like a TV show and ratings.  And like it or not,  he's good at that stuff

He plays to his audience like no other

And that's why he might just win again

Lord help us!  ?

Edited November 3, 20204 yr by Macca
Spelling!