2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[a fan]

So when you flit from one thread to another and constantly demand obedience by Republicans without once asking the same of Democrats

The Dems aren't in charge of elections in Florida, Pete. You can't dance your way out of this.

So I'll ask again: what has your Republican leadership in Florida done to fix these voting problems over their 20 year uninterrupted control of the FL Sec of State, and to make Florida elections flawless, and secure?

The answer, obviously, is NOTHING. And the best part, Pete? You don't care. You'd rather ask some guy on the internet (me) as to why I'm not complaining about the Dems, then hold your own party to account to solve the problems that YOU elected them to solve, Pete.

Wake up. Blaming the Dems does NOTHING to fix these problems.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So when you flit from one thread to another and constantly demand obedience by Republicans without once asking the same of Democrats

The Dems aren't in charge of elections in Florida, Pete. You can't dance your way out of this.

So I'll ask again: what has your Republican leadership in Florida done to fix these voting problems over their 20 year uninterrupted control of the FL Sec of State, and to make Florida elections flawless, and secure?

The answer, obviously, is NOTHING. And the best part, Pete? You don't care. You'd rather ask some guy on the internet (me) as to why I'm not complaining about the Dems, then hold your own party to account to solve the problems that YOU elected them to solve, Pete.

Wake up. Blaming the Dems does NOTHING to fix these problems.

He is “owning libs”

[6ftstick]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

https://www.facebook.com/crawfordology/ ... 9833273592

He won't discuss the filibuster or the electoral college either.

After all he doesn't work for us horse faced pony soldiers.

[a fan]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

Mitch McConnell didn't let votes know that he'd deny Obama his choice, either. You didn't complain.

Welcome to the downward spiral of our country, 6foot. Remember that you didn't complain when your team did shady stuff....you better hope that the Dems don't take both Houses.

Let the President have his appointees, and stop playing these petty games in the Senate. If they did that? We wouldn't have these problems.

I want Trump to have every single REASONABLE appointee to get put on the bench. Amy Barrett? Clearly qualified. She should get her appointment.

But the problem is------Garland, too, was qualified, and should have been put on the bench. So I don't want to hear one shred of whining about "not playing fair".

We're doing this to ourselves, 6ft. What's more? Your team knows it. You KNOW not putting Garland on was wrong. But you did it with the idea that you didn't think the Dems would play this game, too.

Bed was made. Better hope we don't have to lie in it. And nope, I'm not happy about the idea of Court packing. Or breaking the filibuster. Or, or, or...

[Typical Lax Dad]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

https://www.facebook.com/crawfordology/ ... 9833273592

He won't discuss the filibuster or the electoral college either.

After all he doesn't work for us horse faced pony soldiers.

Who cares....if he is duly elected he can do whatever he wants... and you should support him because he is the President of The United States of America.

[njbill]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

https://www.facebook.com/crawfordology/ ... 9833273592

He won't discuss the filibuster or the electoral college either.

After all he doesn't work for us horse faced pony soldiers.

If you don’t like what he says or doesn’t say, don’t vote for him.

Pretty simple, really.

[ggait]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

Agree. It is better to tell people that you positively absolutely will never ever do X. And then after the election is over and the votes are counted, you do X.

Hold the tape. Use my words against me.

If I were Joe, I'd say that if you are worried about a court pack then you need to hold off filling the seat.

The rule now, per Mitch, is that if you have the votes, then you are allowed to use those votes. Regardless of what you did/did not say before the election. Like Trump always says, I'm keeping all my options open and I'll keep you in suspense.

Goose meet gander.

[youthathletics]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

Agree. It is better to tell people that you positively absolutely will never ever do X. And then after the election is over and the votes are counted, you do X.

Hold the tape. Use my words against me.

If I were Joe, I'd say that if you are worried about a court pack then you need to hold off filling the seat.

The rule now, per Mitch, is that if you have the votes, then you are allowed to use those votes. Regardless of what you did/did not say before the election. Like Trump always says, I'm keeping all my options open and I'll keep you in suspense.

Goose meet gander.

Kinda like we gotta pass it before we read it. People want to hear plans and what you are going to do for them....this is not about Trump, as Joe said, it's about his inability to make a decision and live with it. He knows full well what's at stake if he answers it, and THAT is why he will not.

[seacoaster]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

Agree. It is better to tell people that you positively absolutely will never ever do X. And then after the election is over and the votes are counted, you do X.

Hold the tape. Use my words against me.

If I were Joe, I'd say that if you are worried about a court pack then you need to hold off filling the seat.

The rule now, per Mitch, is that if you have the votes, then you are allowed to use those votes. Regardless of what you did/did not say before the election. Like Trump always says, I'm keeping all my options open and I'll keep you in suspense.

Goose meet gander.

+1. Exactly. Reap what you...throw at others.

[youthathletics]

Trump speaks to a crowd of #LEXIT and #BLEXIT crowds....funny, this article now shits on the crowd for not social distancing but wearing masks....does that mean the same for all the #peacfulprotests ?


While the event was outdoors and supporters were required to wear masks to be admitted to the event, there appeared to be little enforced social distancing, with supporters listening to Trump in close proximity to one another, and repeatedly shouting and cheering — activities known to increase the risk of virus spread. #VoxClownShow

[Typical Lax Dad]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

Agree. It is better to tell people that you positively absolutely will never ever do X. And then after the election is over and the votes are counted, you do X.

Hold the tape. Use my words against me.

If I were Joe, I'd say that if you are worried about a court pack then you need to hold off filling the seat.

The rule now, per Mitch, is that if you have the votes, then you are allowed to use those votes. Regardless of what you did/did not say before the election. Like Trump always says, I'm keeping all my options open and I'll keep you in suspense.

Goose meet gander.

Kinda like we gotta pass it before we read it. People want to hear plans and what you are going to do for them....this is not about Trump, as Joe said, it's about his inability to make a decision and live with it. He knows full well what's at stake if he answers it, and THAT is why he will not.

Like tax reform that nobody was able to read before it was passed?

[ggait]

Kinda like we gotta pass it before we read it. People want to hear plans and what you are going to do for them....

Joe doesn't have to answer your questions if he doesn't want to.

Trump doesn't have to show us his taxes. Or his health care plan.

You can go ahead and vote how you want to vote.

Joe is just being "unpredictable", "keeping all options open" and "negotiating." "We'll just have to see what happens."

[njbill]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

Agree. It is better to tell people that you positively absolutely will never ever do X. And then after the election is over and the votes are counted, you do X.

Hold the tape. Use my words against me.

If I were Joe, I'd say that if you are worried about a court pack then you need to hold off filling the seat.

The rule now, per Mitch, is that if you have the votes, then you are allowed to use those votes. Regardless of what you did/did not say before the election. Like Trump always says, I'm keeping all my options open and I'll keep you in suspense.

Goose meet gander.

Kinda like we gotta pass it before we read it. People want to hear plans and what you are going to do for them....this is not about Trump, as Joe said, it's about his inability to make a decision and live with it. He knows full well what's at stake if he answers it, and THAT is why he will not.

It’s actually not an issue that is particularly important to the large majority of voters. At least it is not in their top three.

Trump voters don’t care about Joe’s position, except for one reason. They don’t care, because they aren’t going to vote for Biden and they think Trump is going to win. The only reason they “care” is they think that if Joe says he is for court packing, he will lose votes. That is an illegitimate reason.

People who are going to vote for Joe are going to do so regardless of his position on the court.

It is a long term “what if” issue anyway. Lots of things have to happen before you get to the issue. For one, Barrett would need to be confirmed. When she was nominated, that looked to be almost certain. Now, it is still likely, but less certain.

Two, obviously Joe has to win the election. Three, the Dems have to take the Senate.

Four, the Dems would need to do away with the filibuster. I think they should, and there is a lot of talk that they will, but it is not a certainty. Joe Manchin, for one, opposes it.

And then, the Supreme Court would have to issue a series of rulings that would turn around public sentiment on court packing. They would have to overrule Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, and gay marriage. If they did all that, the court should get packed.

[youthathletics]

What possible reason would voters need to know if one of the presidential candidates
was planning to fundamentally alter the three branches of government forever.

Agree. It is better to tell people that you positively absolutely will never ever do X. And then after the election is over and the votes are counted, you do X.

Hold the tape. Use my words against me.

If I were Joe, I'd say that if you are worried about a court pack then you need to hold off filling the seat.

The rule now, per Mitch, is that if you have the votes, then you are allowed to use those votes. Regardless of what you did/did not say before the election. Like Trump always says, I'm keeping all my options open and I'll keep you in suspense.

Goose meet gander.

Kinda like we gotta pass it before we read it. People want to hear plans and what you are going to do for them....this is not about Trump, as Joe said, it's about his inability to make a decision and live with it. He knows full well what's at stake if he answers it, and THAT is why he will not.

It’s actually not an issue that is particularly important to the large majority of voters. At least it is not in their top three.

Trump voters don’t care about Joe’s position, except for one reason. They don’t care, because they aren’t going to vote for Biden and they think Trump is going to win. The only reason they “care” is they think that if Joe says he is for court packing, he will lose votes. That is an illegitimate reason.

People who are going to vote for Joe are going to do so regardless of his position on the court.

It is a long term “what if” issue anyway. Lots of things have to happen before you get to the issue. For one, Barrett would need to be confirmed. When she was nominated, that looked to be almost certain. Now, it is still likely, but less certain.

Two, obviously Joe has to win the election. Three, the Dems have to take the Senate.

Four, the Dems would need to do away with the filibuster. I think they should, and there is a lot of talk that they will, but it is not a certainty. Joe Manchin, for one, opposes it.

And then, the Supreme Court would have to issue a series of rulings that would turn around public sentiment on court packing. They would have to overrule Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, and gay marriage. If they did all that, the court should get packed.

That is because most people have no clue the implications or history of.

[youthathletics]

Kinda like we gotta pass it before we read it. People want to hear plans and what you are going to do for them....

Joe is just being "unpredictable", "keeping all options open" and "negotiating." "We'll just have to see what happens."

BS! Otherwise he’d say what you suggest. As an attorney are for packing the court?

[ggait]

I really doubt the Dems would actually pack the court. But I'd be totally fine if they did.

People voted for them. Gave the Dems the WH, Senate and House. They have the votes. Nothing unconstitutional about using the votes. So use them. Perfectly legal retaliation for Garland and Barrett. Would be nice to see the Dems finally bring a gun to the gun fight.

If you're going to play hardball, you can't complain if the other team doesn't unilaterally disarm. If you don't like it, talk to the voters.

In addition to the court pack, I'd also impose hard SCOTUS term limits as a way to hopefully get out of this eye-for-an-eye game.

[youthathletics]

I'd also impose hard SCOTUS term limits as a way to hopefully get out of this eye-for-an-eye game.

Agreed

[njbill]

ggait, I think you’re right. At the end of the day, I don’t think the Dems will pack the court. For it to happen, I think all of the scenarios I laid out would have to occur. Critically, public opinion would have to turn.

I’m not convinced that the Court will overrule all of these decisions. And if they invalidate Obamacare, the Dems can simply pass new legislation.

As a traditionalist, I would like to see the Court remain at nine, but would change my view if the Court went backwards in time. Reversing Brown v. Board of Education? Are you kidding me?

I am unhappy about the Barrett nomination largely because a conservative would be replacing a liberal. In terms of legitimacy, however, yes, it does fit within the four corners of the constitution.

On the other hand, Mitch’s handling of the Garland nomination was dirty pool. In my view, he acted illegally by refusing to allow hearings and a vote. The constitution requires the Senate to give advice and consent. He blocked that, and by so doing, violated the Constitution. I have wondered whether he did that because he knew Garland would be approved. Why else would he not allow a vote?

As I have said before, until the end of time, the Dems should fight to get that seat back. This stuff and nonsense that what Mitch did was OK because the Republicans had the Senate is baloney. Even in prior cases where one party had the presidency and the other the Senate, the nominee still got a vote.

[ggait]

The threat of a court pack might help Roberts keep his conservative colleagues from driving the Court over a cliff.

So it would be quite dumb for Joe to take the option off the table. Even if he's extremley unlikely to take that step, the correct position is to say that it would depend on what the GOP does.

[njbill]

I don’t disagree.

I’m largely responding to all of the pearl clutching about Joe’s failure to answer the question.

He should simply say that it’s premature to discuss the issue and leave it at that. People want to complain about that answer, let them.