hardtack

The Dems should get that 1 seat/vote in Maine.

Fraud??? They are doing things the way they have always been done and within the law. Trump may well win, but there is still a slight chance that he won’t. What does it matter if counting stops during the night? No laws have been broken. Edit: It was Trump who said “We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them adding new votes to the list at four in the morning.”.

Almost 2pm and it’s 212 Biden to 103 Trump. Texas looks to be going towards Trump and Florida is virtually Trump’s although still being considered to early to call.

At 12pm, it’s Biden 203, Trump 88 But Florida is looking more and more like being won by Trump, although with almost 75% of the vote counted there, Biden is still slightly ahead.

I’ll be watching on the TV, so I’ll try to remember to post a progressive count maybe every hour or two. It really is the proverbial train wreck when it comes to watchability.

I’m working on the theory that a very large number of people will have since jumped off that bandwagon. I guess we’ll all know one way or another, by the end of the week.

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!

To quote your hero... Fake news!

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.

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.

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. It would seem that you are.

Fair point. My thinking was that this might give us some more leverage when it comes to further trades this year (I assume we're still looking at a winger and possibly a small forward).

Next year's second round pick... that would (or should) be in the 30's.

The Clock!

Your modesty is admirable good sir! However, in all honesty, the Smith to Dees move was also pretty much common knowledge and expected by all and sundry, until he did an 11th hour u-turn.

I hope his main detractors in the Smith thread, will now see fit to sing @Dr evil's praises in this thread.

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.

I bet you're the person who sits in their car at the KFC drive thru, honking their horn because you've had to wait more than 5 minutes.

Not to mention that with a Brown in the side to take the first defender, Weideman will have a lot more freedom (his best this year was before Jackson went down injured and they were working in tandem).

Hopefully not also related in some way to Judd's grandmother.

My son mentioned earlier today (a couple of hours ago) that he heard (or read?) something which I think he said was from Fox Sports, that he has already nominated a club, but which club that is, is yet to be announced.

I'm assuming he has too, but I'm also guessing that both clubs are ironing out the fine details; possibly pick 23 and a player?

Oh goody, I get to use it again...

And this is why I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see us giving Ronke some consideration.