The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Liquid]

The temerity of any Republican lamenting a packed court is beyond absurd.

 

[FuriousDemon]

Hopefully if Democrats win everything they make a law stating that Trump is an illegal alien and needs to be deported. He is not paying taxes anyway, so as good as worthless piece of ****. ****ing president of USA my ass. This guy brings up the worst feelings in me. I do have to say thank you to him for one thing though. Never in my life was I interested in politics as I was last 5 years and from now on for the rest of my life.

 

[Joey D]

He is not paying taxes anyway

Well, he's not paying taxes to the US. But it certainly sounds like he's paying taxes to other countries, including China.

 

[McLaren]

Hopefully if Democrats win everything they make a law stating that Trump is an illegal alien and needs to be deported. He is not paying taxes anyway, so as good as worthless piece of ****. ****ing president of USA my ass. This guy brings up the worst feelings in me. I do have to say thank you to him for one thing though. Never in my life was I interested in politics as I was last 5 years and from now on for the rest of my life.

I'd rather he brought forth upon trial for any crimes they believe he has committed. He's also got a $400m+ debt he owes to the IRS he needs to pay up before leaving the country.

 

[Blitz24]

I'd rather he brought forth upon trial for any crimes they believe he has committed. He's also got a $400m+ debt he owes to the IRS he needs to pay up before leaving the country.

Debtor's prison to be re-instated perhaps?

 

[UKMikey]

Hopefully if Democrats win everything they make a law stating that Trump is an illegal alien and needs to be deported. He is not paying taxes anyway, so as good as worthless piece of ****. ****ing president of USA my ass. This guy brings up the worst feelings in me. I do have to say thank you to him for one thing though. Never in my life was I interested in politics as I was last 5 years and from now on for the rest of my life.

So long as you're interested in voting... that's the main thing.

I think I'm actually less engaged in politics now than when the Bush and Blair duumvirate were around in the early twenty-first century. Since then I think I've resigned myself to the fact that activism has a limited effect if any and that the rich and powerful will have their way whatever happens.

 

[Biggles]

Going into Nov 3rd, the hopes of the civilized world rest on American women & African Americans.

According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, more white people support Trump than Biden. This is primarily a function of white men who prefer Trump over Biden 57 percent to 36 percent.

Like Trump, the Republican Party sees a future in which the only way they can win is to cheat. That is why they are stacking the courts. That is why they openly embrace tactics that are well known to result in voter suppression. That is why they gerrymander. That is why they staunchly oppose immigration.

Trump’s base of mostly white men, mostly without a college degree, see him as the ambassador of their anger, one who ministers to their fear, consoles their losses and champions their victimhood. Trump is the angry white man leading the battle charge for angry white men.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/ang...ow-will-they-react-to-his-defeat-8954201.html

 

[Imari]

I think I'm actually less engaged in politics now than when the Bush and Blair duumvirate were around in the early twenty-first century. Since then I think I've resigned myself to the fact that activism has a limited effect if any and that the rich and powerful will have their way whatever happens.

It's right interesting, because my understanding is that's in very broad strokes how independent America came into existence. The people in power were entirely disconnected from the populace and did pretty much whatever they pleased, to the extent that the populace had to go to war with them in order to effect meaningful change. Which seems legit, naked force is the one thing that can't be argued with or ignored.

For a while it looked like societies had learned that actually in situations like that everyone loses so it's more beneficial to have avenues through which societal distress can be peacefully addressed and relieved, even if it ultimately results in those in power having to make some sacrifices. But I guess there's always someone who comes along and thinks that the rules don't apply to them, that history is bunk and that they're special and unique, and that they can definitely wield absolute power and not have people come for their head. And the only proof that they're wrong that they cannot deny is again, naked force.

It will be interesting to see how the military responds in the case of significant internal violence. As a group that is familiar with conflict and it's consequences, as well as generally being more into serving the country as an ideal than any specific leader, it'll be informative to see their answer if Trump (or Biden, for that matter) orders them to start going and violating people's rights.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

@Joey D made a comment on the COVID thread that I think is relevant here:

I have to imagine things are really going to get out of hand next week with the election. No matter who wins, there's going to be unrest and I can see the people who are already radicals becoming even more radical because their guy lost.

Honestly, this is part of the reason why I voted for Jorgensen. This country has only gotten more divided on party lines since 2016, at least in my experience. It's gotten down to Trump supporters vs. Trump opposers at this point, complete with tactics that make American politics look like professional wrestling. I think that if Clinton won in 2016 the situation wouldn't be much different, the only difference being which side supports the incumbent.

I genuinely fear that both sides, depending on which one loses, will pull all the stops to challenge the results: massive protests, looting, riots, claim voter fraud, etc. I don't think that there's any positive way out of this no matter what happens: if Trump wins, he and his supporters will likely double down on his worrying authoritarian rhetoric; if Biden wins, he'll likely take very aggressive measures to try to undo what Trump did which would end up making a president who's just as authoritarian as Trump. Neither situation would go over well for a certain half of the populace, that half depending on which one supports Trump or Biden. Only a competitive third party can end the excessive partisanship at this point.

 

[Liquid]

if Biden wins, he'll likely take very aggressive measures to try to undo what Trump did which would end up making a president who's just as authoritarian as Trump.

If Biden starts aggressively upholding the constitution, aggressively listens to experts who know more than him on a subject, aggressively doesn't incite treasonous actions and aggressively doesn't censor the press, then it's a step in the right direction.

Even if you disagree with him ideologically, he'll almost certainly bring an element of tact, grace and dignity to the office that has been severely lacking during the last four years.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

If Biden starts aggressively upholding the constitution, aggressively listens to experts who know more than him on a subject, aggressively doesn't incite treasonous actions and aggressively doesn't censor the press, then it's a step in the right direction.

Even if you disagree with him ideologically, he'll almost certainly bring an element of tact, grace and dignity to the office that has been severely lacking during the last four years.

I’m more worried about how Biden would handle the Supreme Court situation than anything else. Expanding the SC with justices who would likely rule in his favor seems to be part of the strategy, which is a worrying authoritarian tactic and would certainly not go over well with Republicans. At the same time, I’m worried of a SC that might try to bend over backwards to favor Trump. It’s a catch-22.

 

[FuriousDemon]

I’m more worried about how Biden would handle the Supreme Court situation than anything else. Expanding the SC with justices who would likely rule in his favor seems to be part of the strategy, which is a worrying authoritarian tactic and would certainly not go over well with Republicans. At the same time, I’m worried of a SC that might try to bend over backwards to favor Trump. It’s a catch-22.

Trump and his backers already stacked the SC 6-3. I doubt Democrats will be adding 4 more judges to even the odds. Did he say something of this sort? Third party voters so afraid of Biden and Democrats, it’s insane. Wake up. We got a real threat in Trump, we know what he does, what he is capable of, and what 4 more years of him means. Saying vote third party is about as good as saying I’m recycling so the plastic is not a problem anymore, or I don’t buy Apple products so slave labor is solved.

The only reason I see why you’d not vote for Biden is if you are afraid that Trump supporters will start the revolution and mass shootings in area where you live, since they are the ones who own majority of high power weapons. The riots and looting will be peanuts compared to what all ARs and AKs can do.

 

[TexRex]

I’m more worried about how Biden would handle the Supreme Court situation than anything else. Expanding the SC with justices who would likely rule in his favor seems to be part of the strategy, which is a worrying authoritarian tactic and would certainly not go over well with Republicans.

This isn't really a concern of mine. I don't think it'll happen.

At the same time, I’m worried of a SC that might try to bend over backwards to favor Trump.

This isn't much of a concern either. Sure, I can easily see the conservative Justices ruling in conservatives' favor on matters, and Trump is obviously going to pander to those that have so latched onto him, just to keep up appearances, but I think there's a good chance of other things going differently and him imploding on Twitter, but he will no longer represent me merely by holding the highest office in the country I call home, so **** him.

 

[Famine]

Expanding the SC with justices who would likely rule in his favor seems to be part of the strategy, which is a worrying authoritarian tactic and would certainly not go over well with Republicans.

They're supposed to rule in the Constitution's favour - but is it not a worrying authoritarian tactic that the current administration has put in three SCJs who would likely rule in their favour, two of which have highly questionable suitability? The most recent appeared at a Trump rally the same days as she was confirmed...

Given the average age of an SCJ at retirement/death, the Biden administration can expect to replace one SCJ: Breyer. Breyer was a Clinton appointment, so that'd still leave the SC at a 6:3 split of Republican/Democrat appointments. And that'd most likely be during the final year of Biden's first term, so the Senate Republicans will play merry hell at the concept of appointing a new SCJ in an election year (again).


Who was the last President to appoint as many as three SCJs in a single term anyway?

 

[TexRex]

Who was the last President to appoint as many as three SCJs in a single term anyway?

Jefferson. Adams appointed the same immediately before him.

Do we count Washington? That may be a little heavy-handed.

Edit:



Read that wrong. It was in order by President, not by number of appointments.

Reagan was the last at four appointments.

 

[McLaren]

I wouldn't really worry about Biden trying to pack the court with Democratic judges to do his bidding, more so with people who will do as Famine said.

This is an article from a little over a week ago about Biden already looking for GOP candidates for Cabinet slots, which tells me he's open to non-partisanship which is the way it actually used to be.

Joe Biden’s transition team is vetting a handful of Republicans for potential Cabinet positions — despite doubts it will win him new support from the right and the risk it will enrage the left.

Reaching across the aisle to pick senior members of his administration could shore up Biden's credentials as a unity candidate, a message he's made a cornerstone of his campaign. Past presidents including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have all done the same. But that tradition died with President Donald Trump, and liberal Democrats are already warning that a Republican pick, even a moderate one, could sow distrust within the party before Biden even takes office.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/20/biden-transition-republican-cabinet-429972

 

[Keef]

I’m more worried about how Biden would handle the Supreme Court situation than anything else. Expanding the SC with justices who would likely rule in his favor seems to be part of the strategy, which is a worrying authoritarian tactic and would certainly not go over well with Republicans.

What do you think Trump already did? In particular, Kavanaugh and Barrett *both* were lawyers for Bush's recount legal team, as was Roberts. All three of them have since been appointed, Trump choosing two of them. Prior to Barrett's appointment, the court was 4-4 plus a swaying Chief. Now, it's 5-3 plus a Chief whose sway no longer matters. If anybody made it imbalanced, it was Trump, and Biden's goal would be to rebalance it by making it 5-5 plus Chief Roberts's sway.

 

[Imari]

I’m more worried about how Biden would handle the Supreme Court situation than anything else. Expanding the SC with justices who would likely rule in his favor seems to be part of the strategy, which is a worrying authoritarian tactic and would certainly not go over well with Republicans. At the same time, I’m worried of a SC that might try to bend over backwards to favor Trump. It’s a catch-22.

One would hope that they're smart enough not to play into tactics that will escalate. Stacking the court simply means that Republicans will add even more justices the next time they have power. I don't think there's anything to be done about the SC at this point other than change the rules to try and close some of the loopholes around the appointment process for the future.

The system legitimately allowed for this and relied on good-will on the behalf of the government not to abuse the privilege. In hindsight, that's pretty clearly a mistake. If you want this to never happen, you've just got to change the rules to not allow it.

 

[Famine]

The system legitimately allowed for this and relied on good-will on the behalf of the government not to abuse the privilege. In hindsight, that's pretty clearly a mistake. If you want this to never happen, you've just got to change the rules to not allow it.

I was idly wondering if term limits on SCJs would fix it, but there's always the possibility that there'll be successive Presidents (and Senates) under one party's tenure that even if you set a term limit of 20 years you might get a 9-0 Supreme Court.

 

[Biggles]

From what I understand Democrats opened the door to this scenario in 2013 by changing the 60 votes needed to confirm a SCOTUS justice to a simple majority. What seems apparent is that the US political system has come off the rails in pursuit of unbridled partisanship.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry...-judges_n_5af5b263e4b00d7e4c1a24c3?ri18n=true

 

[Danoff]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden...-event-after-pro-trump-ambush-on-campaign-bus

This is what it's come to. Armed pickup-truck brigade blockading the Biden caravan on public streets in Texas. One Biden campaign staffer's car was hit. It makes me embarrassed to have any affiliation with the state, and somewhat embarrassed for my country.

 

[Dotini]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden...-event-after-pro-trump-ambush-on-campaign-bus

This is what it's come to. Armed pickup-truck brigade blockading the Biden caravan on public streets in Texas. One Biden campaign staffer's car was hit. It makes me embarrassed to have any affiliation with the state, and somewhat embarrassed for my country.

It sounds like this post would fit very well in the Next Civil War thread.

 

[Danoff]

It sounds like this post would fit very well in the Next Civil War thread.

A terrorist attack on a presidential candidate, even a large one like this, doesn't constitute a war. I hope all these a-holes are in jail on election day.

 

[McLaren]

Lindsey Graham doubles down on his, "You can be go anywhere as long as you are ______".

You know what I like about Judge Barrett? She's got everything She's not just wicked smart, she's incredibly good. She embraces her faith.

I want every young woman to know there's a place for you in America if you are pro-life, if you embrace your religion, and you follow traditional family structure. That you can go anywhere, young lady.

https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-gr...eyre-pro-life-embrace-religion-points-1543807

 

[Dotini]

A terrorist attack on a presidential candidate, even a large one like this, doesn't constitute a war. I hope all these a-holes are in jail on election day.

Local authorities alerted to the shocking attack took no action, according to this report below. Are they complicit?

Warning: mild profanity

 

[McLaren]

Local authorities alerted to the shocking attack took no action, according to this report below. Are they complicit?

The reports I heard claimed the police on hand were outnumbered. Although, 1 report claims a witness asked an officer & the officer said, "They were out of his jurisdiction".

 

[FrankMurphy]

Local authorities alerted to the shocking attack took no action, according to this report below. Are they complicit?

Warning: mild profanity

How can the truck be guilty of hitting a car that is half in it's lane.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

How can the truck be guilty of hitting a car that is half in it's lane.

Judging by the footage in the beginning they were both taking half a lane. Then they rammed the car out of the lane.

 

[Joey D]

How can the truck be guilty of hitting a car that is half in it's lane.

I don't think that's how you're supposed to handle a situation like that on the road.

 

[Dotini]

If it's true the Biden-Harris campaign has pulled out of Texas as a result of this attack, then couldn't that constitute some kind of interference in the campaign? Could grounds now be present that might justify legal actions challenging the admissibility of the vote in Texas?