Election Chatter Thread...

[Smitty]

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.

That's funny because I'm the one who has the obvious grasp on what the Constitution says, of the two of us.

 

[Simpleton]

Just for the record, I'd be 100% open-minded about voting for a Haley or some such in 2024, that's the difference, I'm not going to twist myself into knots about how Joe Biden (about as moderate a Democrat as you're going to find) is really a socialist so I can justify voting for Trump.

 

[Simpleton]

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.

So if a Democrat Senate roadblocks for 2 years at some point in 2028 and opts to "let the elections decide" you're completely fine with it?

 

[Smitty]

Also, I think it's funny how it is well established around here how I went to board war with true Republican party homers like TN Cowboy back in the day.... but now because someone is being petulant about mean old Donald Trump, we want to pretend that never happened.

 

[cml750]

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.

Bernie Sanders was the other independent. That being said I have to agree with Chocolate Lab that we should be VERY concerned about Georgia. The left will do ANYTHING for power. Everyone needs to donate to the campaigns of the Republican candidates. If the left were to get control of the Senate the results would be disastrous. What you fail to see is the left was much closer to the center when Obamacare was passed. They have now fallen off the left side of oblivion. They would have no problem doing things like getting rid of the filibuster, packing the SCOTUS with many more ultra left justices, and making new states to get more senators to ensure they retain power. We have already seen they can manipulate a Presidential election and if they win they will do nothing about it other than make it easier for them to manipulate future elections. The people in power on the left are just pure evil and will do anything to get and retain power to turn this great nation into the Peoples Republic of America.

 

[Simpleton]

That's funny because I'm the one who has the obvious grasp on what the Constitution says, of the two of us.

Maybe and you'd rather twist yourself into knots to use it to justify what your favorite "R" does rather than take the word of someone like Mattis who is clearly not someone who wants to engage in political drama. He said what he said because he seemingly legitimately feared that Trump did not respect what this country is.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

You know that military people can be as political as anyone, right? Just because Mattis says it doesn't make it the gospel. Lots of higher-ups in the military-industrial complex are upset at Trump for wanting to reduce our troop presence overseas. That doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means he's a threat to their power, prestige, and money.

 

[Genghis Khan]

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

The Covid-1984 nonsense should have put to rest any talk of Trump being a dictator, if the charges were at all genuine.

The virus was a perfect opportunity for tyrannical leaders to play dictator.

What we've seen is a boatload of democrat governors seize near dictatorial power in the wake of the virus.

We've also seen Biden threaten to exercise unconstitutional powers if he's elected.

Have we seen it from Trump? No?

Oh.

That's how I know a leftist is full of shit when they make that claim against Trump.

 

[Smitty]

So if a Democrat Senate roadblocks for 2 years at some point in 2028 and opts to "let the elections decide" you're completely fine with it?

There is no alternative.

Republicans cannot force a Democrat Senate to confirm. The Democrats cannot force a Republican Senate to confirm.

Again, you seem to want to be upset over the "delay" tactic. I've agreed and stipulated that it was underhanded and it is not what I would have done. The honest thing to do would have been to deny confirmation on Garland, and then run your chances with the next nominee. Deny him or her too, if you want, and keep doing that till election day, if you want. All that is perfectly fine, because again, the Senate has that power.

What's the difference, really? Does the Senate owe the President a confirmation of his choosing? As we learned with Robert Bork, no, and then Reagan was forced to appoint a centrist who ended up siding with the left for a large portion of his career in Anthony Kennedy. It can be the Democrat's turn to taste that for a generation now; it's not like they are owed a died in the wool liberal.

If a Senate roadblocks and refuses to appoint justices that will be seen as politically toxic and one party will suffer the consequences for the division at some point.

Or they could each act like adults and stop changing the rules on each other.... but again.... Harry Reid changed the rules on federal judges first, so who is to blame for this?

 

[Genghis Khan]

Also, I think it's funny how it is well established around here how I went to board war with true Republican party homers like TN Cowboy back in the day.... but now because someone is being petulant about mean old Donald Trump, we want to pretend that never happened.

Leftists are unhinged projectionists.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Does the Senate owe the President a confirmation of his choosing? As we learned with Robert Bork, no, and then Reagan was forced to appoint a centrist who ended up siding with the left for a large portion of his career in Anthony Kennedy. It can be the Democrat's turn to taste that for a generation now; it's not like they are owed a died in the wool liberal.

Funny how leftists always completely ignore this absolute fact.

 

[Smitty]

Just for the record, I'd be 100% open-minded about voting for a Haley or some such in 2024, that's the difference, I'm not going to twist myself into knots about how Joe Biden (about as moderate a Democrat as you're going to find) is really a socialist so I can justify voting for Trump.

And just for the record, I did not vote for Trump in 2016 because I found him to be so divisive and unpalatable, so your accusations of me sticking up for whatever "R" nominee falls flat on that fact alone.

I voted for him in 2020 because he actually proved to NOT be an neocon authoritarian like Bush. No more foreign wars, drastic reduction of government power (thereby reducing his power to, you know, be authoritarian), reduction of taxes, etc.

I mean, there's really nothing you can cite that would demonstrate an increase in Presidential power since he took over, OTHER THAN loose conspiracy theories about foreign intervention in elections and the dubious claims about his influence over the election via improper communications to other branches of government or the populace via twitter. But I attribute that to him being a dummy and not knowing protocol rather than actually having dictatorial aspirations.

 

[Simpleton]

There is no alternative.

Republicans cannot force a Democrat Senate to confirm. The Democrats cannot force a Republican Senate to confirm.

Again, you seem to want to be upset over the "delay" tactic. I've agreed and stipulated that it was underhanded and it is not what I would have done. The honest thing to do would have been to deny confirmation on Garland, and then run your chances with the next nominee. Deny him or her too, if you want, and keep doing that till election day, if you want. All that is perfectly fine, because again, the Senate has that power.

What's the difference, really? Does the Senate owe the President a confirmation of his choosing? As we learned with Robert Bork, no, and then Reagan was forced to appoint a centrist who ended up siding with the left for a large portion of his career in Anthony Kennedy. It can be the Democrat's turn to taste that for a generation now; it's not like they are owed a died in the wool liberal.

If a Senate roadblocks and refuses to appoint justices that will be seen as politically toxic and one party will suffer the consequences for the division at some point.

Or they could each act like adults and stop changing the rules on each other.... but again.... Harry Reid changed the rules on federal judges first, so who is to blame for this?

Your post implied that the Republican Senate would sit on a nomination for at least 2 years or more, so yes, that tactic is something that would upset me. And whether or not you want to blame a Dmeocrat or Republican for the genesis of the issue, it has to stop somewhere, which is why I called it a slippery slope, and you seem to agree saying that they need to act like adults.

 

[Simpleton]

You know that military people can be as political as anyone, right? Just because Mattis says it doesn't make it the gospel. Lots of higher-ups in the military-industrial complex are upset at Trump for wanting to reduce our troop presence overseas. That doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means he's a threat to their power, prestige, and money.

Well, it's not just Mattis saying it that makes it gospel, it's the opinion that I'd have whether or not Mattis said it based on my own views.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Well, it's not just Mattis saying it that makes it gospel, it's the opinion that I'd have whether or not Mattis said it based on my own views.

So what has he done that makes him a threat to the Constitution? I'd love to hear actual concrete reasons, because I never do. It just seems to be one of those things that people repeat without basis.

 

[Smitty]

Your post implied that the Republican Senate would sit on a nomination for at least 2 years or more, so yes, that tactic is something that would upset me. And whether or not you want to blame a Dmeocrat or Republican for the genesis of the issue, it has to stop somewhere, which is why I called it a slippery slope, and you seem to agree saying that they need to act like adults.

It may have been poorly worded.

I was assuaging Iamtdg's fears of "irreparability," by indicating that since Republicans control the Senate for at least the next two years and actually likely will have gains after that, they control the ultimate destiny of Supreme Court nominees. I do not suspect they'd sit on a nominee for two years again if Breyer was to retire, say, Feb 1, due to election repercussions, but I do suspect they would, with all due right, deny anyone left of Merrick Garland.

And that's fine. See Robert Bork - no hardcore justices allowed when the opposing party controls the Senate. The left can nominate it's own Anthony Kennedy who turns on them for once.

And the point is, ultimately, if they sat on a nominee till Biden withdrew it, or conversely, denied it and then denied the next unfit nominee, and then denied the next unfit nominee, etc, what is the difference?

Biden has the responsibility in this too. He doesn't get someone that he likes just cause he's President (see Bork). He has to pick someone the Senate agrees to confirm. Maybe he should pick a conservative. (half sarcasm)

 

[Simpleton]

So what has he done that makes him a threat to the Constitution? I'd love to hear actual concrete reasons, because I never do. It just seems to be one of those things that people repeat without basis.

It's not so much that he has taken literal legal action to undermine the Constitution because that obviously hasn't happened but he's shown no respect or regard for the country's institutions or what it stands for.

I mean, look no further than this embarrassing display where with no concrete evidence whatsoever he's calling the election a fraud, stolen, and so forth. He's lashed out against the intelligence community, to this day refusing to believe them and preferring to take the word of a sworn enemy in Putin. He seems to think he can use the levers of power to benefit himself when he attempted to literally blackmail a foreign ally by withholding aid so that they'd open an investigation into Biden. He regularly calls the media the "enemy of the people" (but only those who don't support him of course), which is the type of language used by authoritarians for the last 50-100 years. Taking advantage of social unrest to divide the country (extra bonus if there are racial undertones!) in order to scare people into voting for him using himself as some sort of beacon for "law and order". "Joking" about how he deserves to be President for 12 years instead of 8 because of some contrived nonsense about Obama "spying" on his campaign.

I realize that almost everybody in this thread is going to scoff at all of this and brush it off as nothing but CNN, leftist, socialist fear-mongering (I literally haven't watched CNN in months aside from the few days around the election to get updates), and that's fine, but I surely wonder how you'd all react if Hillary was President and choosing to publicly side with Russia or attempting to strongarm a foreign ally into opening an investigation into Nikki Haley or whoever was running against her in 2020.

 

[Simpleton]

It may have been poorly worded.

I was assuaging Iamtdg's fears of "irreparability," by indicating that since Republicans control the Senate for at least the next two years and actually likely will have gains after that, they control the ultimate destiny of Supreme Court nominees. I do not suspect they'd sit on a nominee for two years again if Breyer was to retire, say, Feb 1, due to election repercussions, but I do suspect they would, with all due right, deny anyone left of Merrick Garland.

And that's fine. See Robert Bork - no hardcore justices allowed when the opposing party controls the Senate. The left can nominate it's own Anthony Kennedy who turns on them for once.

And the point is, ultimately, if they sat on a nominee till Biden withdrew it, or conversely, denied it and then denied the next unfit nominee, and then denied the next unfit nominee, etc, what is the difference?

Biden has the responsibility in this too. He doesn't get someone that he likes just cause he's President (see Bork). He has to pick someone the Senate agrees to confirm. Maybe he should pick a conservative. (half sarcasm)

That's fine, although as you said it requires both sides working together in relative good faith.

 

[Smitty]

It's not so much that he has taken literal legal action to undermine the Constitution because that obviously hasn't happened but he's shown no respect or regard for the country's institutions or what it stands for.

See, this is where your argument immediately loses steam.

Right, it's not so much he's actually authoritarian at all, since he's actually reduced the power of the Presidency and the federal government in general, it's just that he's an uncouth douchebag who doesn't respect anything. Granted. He's a petulant, whining narcissist who insulted Marco Rubio's junk size on national TV, a prominent member of his own party.

All reasons why maybe he shouldn't be President. Fair enough.

But leave the "he's a wannabe despot," accusations at the door. It's what the left has done without evidence, without end, for the last four years.

I mean, look no further than this embarrassing display where with no concrete evidence whatsoever he's calling the election a fraud, stolen, and so forth. He's lashed out against the intelligence community, to this day refusing to believe them and preferring to take the word of a sworn enemy in Putin.

Ok, tap the breaks. Russia is not a sworn enemy. Please revert to your Ron Paul days and realize that the Cold War is over and while there is reason to be cautious around Russia and China, there is no imminent war with either of those countries and instead we are just in a global influence race with them. I also hope you realize that we are about to get a healthy dose of war hawking, something you have professed to be against, now that the centrists are back in power who will intervene against European-based Russian allies.

Yes much of his grandstanding both pre and post election has been embarrassing to the office. His first debate performance was abysmal (and I would believe the argument that it may by itself have cost him the election) (of course Biden's performance that night was almost just as bad, frankly).

It falls far, far short of despotism. It's annoying asshole syndrome but that's just about all.

He regularly calls the media the "enemy of the people" (but only those who don't support him of course), which is the type of language used by authoritarians for the last 50-100 years. Taking advantage of social unrest to divide the country (extra bonus if there are racial undertones!) in order to scare people into voting for him using himself as some sort of beacon for "law and order". "Joking" about how he deserves to be President for 12 years instead of 8 because of some contrived nonsense about Obama "spying" on his campaign.

I don't know if you've been paying attention but the press has absolutely abandoned it's journalistic integrity in favor of propaganda for one of the parties. It NEEDS to be called out. This might be the most important issue facing our country, frankly.

He does not advocate whatsoever any elimination of our first amendment rights to a free press. What he does is advocate that there needs to be serious examination of the role our free press has and the powers and protections it has as a free press.... for example.... they are getting right strung up for their terrible slandering of the Covington Catholic kids.

That's not despotic. This press has become funded by special interests and has abandoned truth and justice as it's aim. This needs to have a light shone on it.

And I don't care if he's mean and uncouth while doing so. The left is slandering half the populace as racists, bigots, nazis, fascists, etc, and they have created a national echo chamber to try to fan those flames centralized around social media on the left coast and cable news and print on the right coast. Where are the bodies that will stick up for us? He's not ending free press, he's protecting the honestly held non racist views of the American right, including people like Ron and Rand Paul.

Again, if he's not trying to deprive us of our rights via the first amendment, and he's not, I have no problem with him trying to bring about the reform through public pressure of a corrupt journalist system.

Taking advantage of social unrest.... lol.... have you been following the riots and the left's reaction to it? That's not "scaring people into voting for him." Those people are unhinged lunatics and anyone who supports them doesn't get my vote. You've seen the multitude of evidence in these threads that the protests are not simple and non violent. They are radical and violent. Do you mean to tell me you have an honest defense of that? Do you mean to tell me that such things should not be rightly condemned?

This is like a weird inverse of the "Trump hasn't denounced white supremacism," routine, even though he has denounced it. In this case, somehow, his actual denouncing of very obvious and indefensible extremism gets him labeled as a fascist.

I would love to hear your explanation of all that.

He seems to think he can use the levers of power to benefit himself when he attempted to literally blackmailing a foreign ally by withholding aid so that they'd open an investigation into Biden.

This is such a convoluted debate that I'll let this article speak for me, suffice to say, there really is nothing there that shows he's a "despot."

The GOP’s Four-Point Defense Of Trump Is Devastating

Rep. Jim Jordan and other GOP House members presented four specific facts refuting the Democrats arguments for impeachment.

thefederalist.com

Maybe violating policy because he's a shady NY businessman accustomed to dealmaking, but, again, the cries that he's trying to undermine the election are silly. He's not, you know, stealing votes. ~coughs~

I realize that almost everybody in this thread is going to scoff at all of this and brush it off as nothing but CNN, leftist, socialist fear-mongering (I literally haven't watched CNN in months aside from the few days around the election to get updates), and that's fine, but I surely wonder how you'd all react if Hillary was President and choosing to publicly side with Russia or attempting to strongarm a foreign ally into opening an investigation into Nikki Haley or whoever was running against her in 2020.

She DID do that, it's called the Steele dossier, and Obama did open investigations into his political adversaries, it's called the Carter Page wiretaps.

Maybe we should be having THAT conversation, except I suspect you are just going to "scoff at it and brush it off as nothing but Fox News fearmongering."

 

[Simpleton]

I'm definitely not replying to all that but Putin himself is a sworn enemy to the US, as in he is still KGB at heart with a Cold War mindset regardless of the fact that the Cold War is over. As far as Hillary, she didn't win and was never President, so I'm not exactly concerned about what existential threat she represents as a private citizen with...no real power.