Election Chatter Thread...

[Cotton]

Hey I'm buying all the ammo I can find it's just the days of 1k rounds w/10 mags for $300 are long gone

There is a reason why ammo and guns are flying off the shelf.

 

[shane]

This vote steal is the craziest shit ever.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Even if they don't overturn this election, they need to get to the bottom of this shit to prove to the American people they have fixed it, or there will be major public unrest.

But what happens when half the country doesn't care if it's fair? They don't care one bit about the will of the people. They only care about their party having power.

I just hope those Georgia Senate runoffs are legitimate, but I have little faith they will be... even with a month's notice to make sure they are.

 

[Smitty]

I don't expect the Georgia run offs will be particularly close.

The one was a race wherein the Democrat got the most votes but because like 11 people were running. The Democrat had like 29% of the vote and then the next two contenders were Republicans with like 21% and 17%. They will consolidate and swallow up the Democrat in a run off.

The other was close but the Republican really won it and there's no reason for that to change in a run off, especially because Republican turnout is always higher in a run off and there will no longer be the same passion for demanding mail in ballots from all the first time voters who normally never would have bothered to get off their ass and walk into a polling place.... most of which votes went to Biden/the Dems last time.

So I think R's win both those seats.

 

[Cotton]

I don't expect the Georgia run offs will be particularly close.

The one was a race wherein the Democrat got the most votes but because like 11 people were running. The Democrat had like 29% of the vote and then the next two contenders were Republicans with like 21% and 17%. They will consolidate and swallow up the Democrat in a run off.

The other was close but the Republican really won it and there's no reason for that to change in a run off, especially because Republican turnout is always higher in a run off and there will no longer be the same passion for demanding mail in ballots from all the first time voters who normally never would have bothered to get off their ass and walk into a polling place.... most of which votes went to Biden/the Dems last time.

So I think R's win both those seats.

Man, I hope you're right. 4 years of them holding a super majority could be irreparable.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I don't expect the Georgia run offs will be particularly close.

In previous years with a straight election they wouldn't be. But this year when the Dems have gone all in on winning both races, when they're pouring tremendous amounts of money into the campaigns and actually encouraging people to move to Georgia just to vote? I'm not optimistic.

 

[Smitty]

Man, I hope you're right. 4 years of them holding a super majority could be irreparable.

Well the Republicans already have 50 Senate seats, so even in matters where it was 50-50, and Kamala Harris could come break a tie, that is really a difficult scenario for Democrats to pass any extreme legislation. In 2010 when they passed Obamacare, the Republicans only had 41 seats. The Democrats held 57, plus there were two "independents," who were caucusing with the Democrats.... Joe Lieberman from Connecticut was one (and he was the Democratic VP nominee in 2000, so he is basically a Dem), and I forget the other, but it was another "basically a Democrat," independent. So in reality it was like 59-41 in favor of Democrats when they passed Obamacare. All Democrats voted for it, but if the vote had been closer, centrist Democrats in centrist states may have thought twice about being painted as the deciding votes.

The worst case scenario right now is 50-50, but again, I believe pretty strongly that it will be 52-48 Republicans shortly.

The second angle to consider is the House. The House was something like 254-178 when they passed Obamacare. The House only passed Obamacare by a vote of 219-212. 34 House Dems voted against Obamacare, probably because they were from conservative or centrist districts where they couldn't risk their seats by voting for it.

So basically, a piece of legislation that is a central tenet of the moderate left (universal healthcare/reform of healthcare) BARELY made it through when the Democrats held leads in Congress that were unparalleled since the 1980s. They do not hold those leads now and are unlikely to again any time soon, as those Congressional leads were almost certainly a result of down-ticket boosts from Obama being on the ticket and attracting "first time," voters to his celebrity status.

Now consider the third angle: Obamacare/health reform, again, is a relatively mainstream tenet of the left.

The things you are scared of and consider to be "irreparable," are certainly worth fearing, but if they could barely pass Obamacare in a House that was 254 Democrat votes, they are not going to pass even more politically toxic things like expansion of the Supreme Court or Puerto Rican/DC statehood with only 222 seats or whatever they are gonna have this time. They will get at least 5-10 defectors on these issues, and that's being generous. Given how toxic these issues are I'd expect actually way more defectors than 34.

Summary: While it is unfortunate that Trump lost, I reiterate that it may end up being a best case scenario for Republicans. They staved off Hillary, got tax reform, roll back of lots of regulations that an incompetent fool will be hard pressed to re-establish, and got 3 great Supreme Court nominees.... because...... the results of the Congressional election make a repeat of first-term Obama downright impossible. Biden will not be able to get Supreme Court nominees through for 2 years at least and probably not after that. I expect further conservative gains in Congress at midterms and probably the House swings back and the Senate at least does not lose any R seats. He will be hard pressed to confirm extremist cabinet appointments. And there will be absolutely ZERO left-wing favorite legislation passed. Meanwhile, the Dems will take the blame for the poor economy that is on the horizon, giving Republicans a golden opportunity to re-seize power in 2024 with a charismatic, LIKEABLE candidate like Crenshaw or Haley in 2024, who can then usher in a decade of rule to really stabilize the country away from leftism. This hiccup in Presidential control, given that Rs hold the Senate, very well could turn out to be worth it long term.

 

[Smitty]

In previous years with a straight election they wouldn't be. But this year when the Dems have gone all in on winning both races, when they're pouring tremendous amounts of money into the campaigns and actually encouraging people to move to Georgia just to vote? I'm not optimistic.

They won't go much further than they've gone. There is gonna be too much scrutiny now, and on top of that, they have what the majority of their idiot voters want; a deposed "dictator," in Trump, gone. That is where the passion of their base is now and always is, frankly: Who is the "king"? And frankly, I'd much rather live in a world with a Democratic President and Republican Congress than vice-versa.

As tyrants themselves, and also reliant on the gullible uneducated idiot voters largely, they only do well in Presidential elections where they can drum up the masses because they can make it a rock star popularity contest.... a contest they won this time because Trump ended up helping them make him appear so damn unlikable (I was saying all along, push for weed legalization and he locks up a second term, and he would have).

They can't generate the enthusiasm for issue-related congressional elections and run offs, because no one in the mainstream actually gives a damn about socialism, which is their platform.

 

[Simpleton]

So let me get this straight, now it's completely normal and fine for the Senate to block Supreme Court nominees for however long is required to get a nominee they like?

So if a justice died in 6 months it'd be fine for a Republican Senate to hold up the nomination until a Republican President is in office (4 years? 8 years?) and vice versa?

That's a slippery and very short-sighted slope to go down.

And yea, please run someone in 2024 who isn't described as anti-American by his own Defense Secretary, that'd go a long way towards "uneducated, gullible voters" not turning out for a "rock star popularity contest", or as others might call it, choosing democracy and what this country stands for over a wannabe authoritarian despot who has literally no respect for the principles this country was built on.

 

[Cotton]

So let me get this straight, now it's completely normal and fine for the Senate to block Supreme Court nominees for however long is required to get a nominee they like?

So if a justice died in 6 months it'd be fine for a Republican Senate to hold up the nomination until a Republican President is in office (4 years? 8 years?) and vice versa?

That's a slippery and very short-sighted slope to go down.

And yea, please run someone in 2024 who isn't described as anti-American by his own Defense Secretary, that'd go a long way towards "uneducated, gullible voters" not turning out for a "rock star popularity contest", or as others might call it, choosing democracy and what this country stands for over a wannabe authoritarian despot who has literally no respect for the principles this country was built on.

All I read in that last paragraph was a bunch of lies I've heard spewed 50,000 times by CNN. Be better, Simp.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Yeah, should I even ask how he's a wannabe authoritarian or has no respect for the principles the country was founded on?

No, I probably shouldn't.

 

[Smitty]

So let me get this straight, now it's completely normal and fine for the Senate to block Supreme Court nominees for however long is required to get a nominee they like?

Define normal and fine. It is the President's job to nominate and the Senate's job to confirm. The Senate has every right, every right to deny confirmation to a nominee. Perhaps you've heard of Robert Bork, for example. When the Senate is held by the opposite party of the President, there is no obligation of the Senate to confirm. That is not cheating and there is nothing underhanded about it whatsoever. Just like President Reagan did not get to appoint whomever he wants, so it goes that Obama does not get to appoint whoever he chooses either.

As I've stated on this matter many times, the underhanded nature of the Merrick Garland process, such that there was one, was that Garland would have been immediately confirmed had Hillary Clinton won the election. What McConnell did was essentially establish "wait and see," groundwork. He knew that if he outright rejected Garland, Obama could have nominated another younger, more liberal candidate. Rejection after rejection would have grown tedious to voters.... eventually there would be seen (probably relatively quickly, like the second, or at worst, maybe the third nominee) by voters of the need for the Senate to find middle ground. So what he did was simply hold the vote open.

Sneaky, yes, but by the rules allowed. There is no time limit set on when a vote must be had. Any more sneaky than changing the votes required from 60 to 51 simply because you are unhappy that you don't have a big enough majority? If you say yes, then we can be done here right now because that's just ridiculous.

Conversely, when the Presidency and Senate are held by the same party, there is nothing stopping confirmation quickly. That's just how it works. When the Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate votes they will do the same thing next time.

So if a justice died in 6 months it'd be fine for a Republican Senate to hold up the nomination until a Republican President is in office (4 years? 8 years?) and vice versa?

I think voters would probably tire of that act and vote them out quickly. But the Senate could in theory vote down nominee after nominee, how's that any different?

That's a slippery and very short-sighted slope to go down.

So was changing the number of votes needed. Thanks, Harry Reid.

Speaking of, you know what would be a REALLY slippery slope? Changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court simply because you are unhappy that you didn't control the Senate when time came to do the appointing. Change it to 11 now and watch that become 13 next time Republicans are in power. Might want to think twice about that.

And yea, please run someone in 2024 who isn't described as anti-American by his own Defense Secretary, that'd go a long way towards "uneducated, gullible voters" not turning out for a "rock star popularity contest", or as others might call it, choosing democracy and what this country stands for over a wannabe authoritarian despot who has literally no respect for the principles this country was built on.

Did that hurt your feelings? Sorry, you might have been informed, but there are lots and lots of voters who pay no attention and turn out for Presidential elections and then not mid terms or other elections, simply because they are able to process the importance of "this candidate is for abortion and this one isn't," or somesuch, but not able to understand the intricacies of more general elections.

The right is not immune to this either, but obviously less so, because, as I pointed out, the Democrats have bigger numbers turn up for the popularity contest. Sorry, that's just how it is.

 

[Smitty]

Yeah, should I even ask how he's a wannabe authoritarian or has no respect for the principles the country was founded on?

No, I probably shouldn't.

Reducing the size and reach of the federal government across the board, but he complains on twitter a lot. That fucking dictator!

 

[Cotton]

Yeah, should I even ask how he's a wannabe authoritarian or has no respect for the principles the country was founded on?

No, I probably shouldn't.

The trade deals and peace brokering alone show Trump has done more for this country than the last 4 presidents combined.

 

[Simpleton]

All I read in that last paragraph was a bunch of lies I've heard spewed 50,000 times by CNN. Be better, Simp.

What is a lie?

I was referring to smitty saying that Biden won't be able to get a Supreme Court nominee for at least 2 years or longer, which implies that he thinks it's fine for the Senate to roadblock nominees for years at a time, which is obviously ridiculous.

And the anti-American stuff is certainly not a lie, Mattis himself literally said the following:

1. "When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside."

2. "Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us ... was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis — confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children."

3. "We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution."

How can you take that any other way than Mattis literally calling Trump the antithesis of what this country stands for?

 

[Cotton]

Define normal and fine. It is the President's job to nominate and the Senate's job to confirm. The Senate has every right, every right to deny confirmation to a nominee. Perhaps you've heard of Robert Bork, for example. When the Senate is held by the opposite party of the President, there is no obligation of the Senate to confirm. That is not cheating and there is nothing underhanded about it whatsoever. Just like President Reagan did not get to appoint whomever he wants, so it goes that Obama does not get to appoint whoever he chooses either.

As I've stated on this matter many times, the underhanded nature of the Merrick Garland process, such that there was one, was that Garland would have been immediately confirmed had Hillary Clinton won the election. What McConnell did was essentially establish "wait and see," groundwork. He knew that if he outright rejected Garland, Obama could have nominated another younger, more liberal candidate. Rejection after rejection would have grown tedious to voters.... eventually there would be seen (probably relatively quickly, like the second, or at worst, maybe the third nominee) by voters of the need for the Senate to find middle ground. So what he did was simply hold the vote open.

Sneaky, yes, but by the rules allowed. There is no time limit set on when a vote must be had. Any more sneaky than changing the votes required from 60 to 51 simply because you are unhappy that you don't have a big enough majority? If you say yes, then we can be done here right now because that's just ridiculous.

Conversely, when the Presidency and Senate are held by the same party, there is nothing stopping confirmation quickly. That's just how it works. When the Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate votes they will do the same thing next time.



I think voters would probably tire of that act and vote them out quickly. But the Senate could in theory vote down nominee after nominee, how's that any different?



So was changing the number of votes needed. Thanks, Harry Reid.

Speaking of, you know what would be a REALLY slippery slope? Changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court simply because you are unhappy that you didn't control the Senate when time came to do the appointing. Change it to 11 now and watch that become 13 next time Republicans are in power. Might want to think twice about that.



Did that hurt your feelings? Sorry, you might have been informed, but there are lots and lots of voters who pay no attention and turn out for Presidential elections and then not mid terms or other elections, simply because they are able to process the importance of "this candidate is for abortion and this one isn't," or somesuch, but not able to understand the intricacies of more general elections.

The right is not immune to this either, but obviously less so, because, as I pointed out, the Democrats have bigger numbers turn up for the popularity contest. Sorry, that's just how it is.

You would think the Dems would have learned from the Harry Reid fuck up, but it sure doesn't seem like it.

 

[Smitty]

He's authoritarian because he ignores the laws that demand more citizen compulsion against their will.

An enigma wrapped in a riddle!

 

[Simpleton]

Yeah, should I even ask how he's a wannabe authoritarian or has no respect for the principles the country was founded on?

No, I probably shouldn't.

See my last post, do you need someone more credible than Trump's own defense secretary?

 

[Simpleton]

Define normal and fine. It is the President's job to nominate and the Senate's job to confirm. The Senate has every right, every right to deny confirmation to a nominee. Perhaps you've heard of Robert Bork, for example. When the Senate is held by the opposite party of the President, there is no obligation of the Senate to confirm. That is not cheating and there is nothing underhanded about it whatsoever. Just like President Reagan did not get to appoint whomever he wants, so it goes that Obama does not get to appoint whoever he chooses either.

As I've stated on this matter many times, the underhanded nature of the Merrick Garland process, such that there was one, was that Garland would have been immediately confirmed had Hillary Clinton won the election. What McConnell did was essentially establish "wait and see," groundwork. He knew that if he outright rejected Garland, Obama could have nominated another younger, more liberal candidate. Rejection after rejection would have grown tedious to voters.... eventually there would be seen (probably relatively quickly, like the second, or at worst, maybe the third nominee) by voters of the need for the Senate to find middle ground. So what he did was simply hold the vote open.

Sneaky, yes, but by the rules allowed. There is no time limit set on when a vote must be had. Any more sneaky than changing the votes required from 60 to 51 simply because you are unhappy that you don't have a big enough majority? If you say yes, then we can be done here right now because that's just ridiculous.

Conversely, when the Presidency and Senate are held by the same party, there is nothing stopping confirmation quickly. That's just how it works. When the Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate votes they will do the same thing next time.



I think voters would probably tire of that act and vote them out quickly. But the Senate could in theory vote down nominee after nominee, how's that any different?



So was changing the number of votes needed. Thanks, Harry Reid.

Speaking of, you know what would be a REALLY slippery slope? Changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court simply because you are unhappy that you didn't control the Senate when time came to do the appointing. Change it to 11 now and watch that become 13 next time Republicans are in power. Might want to think twice about that.



Did that hurt your feelings? Sorry, you might have been informed, but there are lots and lots of voters who pay no attention and turn out for Presidential elections and then not mid terms or other elections, simply because they are able to process the importance of "this candidate is for abortion and this one isn't," or somesuch, but not able to understand the intricacies of more general elections.

The right is not immune to this either, but obviously less so, because, as I pointed out, the Democrats have bigger numbers turn up for the popularity contest. Sorry, that's just how it is.

Nothing you could say would hurt my feelings because you're the delusional fuck who'd rather lie to himself because someone has an "R" next to his name and hypothesize how Republicans can hold onto power rather than objectively prioritize what this country is supposed to stand for.

 

[Smitty]

What is a lie?

I was referring to smitty saying that Biden won't be able to get a Supreme Court nominee for at least 2 years or longer, which implies that he thinks it's fine for the Senate to roadblock nominees for years at a time, which is obviously ridiculous.

To operate under the most likely hypothetical, let's say Stephen Breyer retires in the next two years (before midterms).

I do not think a Republican Senate would simply hold the seat open two years. I do think they would reject any and all nominees who were any further left than Merrick Garland. Part of that compromise will be up to Biden to cooperate.

If Biden nominates a moderate, I don't think the Senate Republicans would be able to escape culpability to voters in 2022 if they either held the vote open for 2 years, or rejected moderate after moderate.

There is a check and balance on the system and it is elections.