Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[RedskinsFan44]

The implications of the ACA being gone are huge. What replaces it? I don't see the environment in which a new plan can get passed for at least two years, and God knows Trump doesn't have a plan.

 

[DCranon21]

Let them ram through his nominee. If Joe wins, he should expand the SC to at least 11 justices and expand the federal judges too. Also if and when the Dems win the Senate, nix the filibuster. They have to fight fire with fire now. Threaten Mitch and call his bluff. He will go through with it, and everything he worked for in 3+ years I would burn it all down if I was the Dems. 

[88Comrade2000]

7 minutes ago, DCranon21 said:

Let them ram through his nominee. If Joe wins, he should expand the SC to at least 11 justices and expand the federal judges too. Also if and when the Dems win the Senate, nix the filibuster. They have to fight fire with fire now. Threaten Mitch and call his bluff. He will go through with it, and everything he worked for in 3+ years I would burn it all down if I was the Dems. 

Thing is, does Joe the traditionalist; have it in him to do that. Joe is thinking he can make deals with the idiot gop. 
 

He needs to go on the warpath and I don’t think he will.

[TheDoyler23]

12 minutes ago, DCranon21 said:

Let them ram through his nominee. If Joe wins, he should expand the SC to at least 11 justices and expand the federal judges too. Also if and when the Dems win the Senate, nix the filibuster. They have to fight fire with fire now. Threaten Mitch and call his bluff. He will go through with it, and everything he worked for in 3+ years I would burn it all down if I was the Dems. 

Plus DC (and possibly PR) statehood! 

[skinsmarydu]

4 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Thing is, does Joe the traditionalist; have it in him to do that. Joe is thinking he can make deals with the idiot gop. 
 

He needs to go on the warpath and I don’t think he will.

I do. We've seen him get very angry lately, and I also think he knows that working with the other side has gone the way of the Dodo. 

And if not him, get Kamala & her Chucks in the ring...she'll convince him. 😉

[Larry]

1)  Admiring the folks claiming that the court is suddenly overturn Roe.  And that states will have trouble passing legislation banning abortion.  

 

There will never be a case where the question is "All in favor of overturning Roe?:  

 

And how many states have we seen, recently, gleefully celebrating that there was now only one place in the state that could perform abortions?  In how much of the country are they effectively illegal, right now?  

 

2)  And I keep remembering a piece that the now-departed Predicto posted, where he sais that the SC had been moving the country vastly rightward, with a lot of amall, technical, rulings that didn;t get much press, but which has vast cha ges.  

 

He pointed out that the Roberts court, by making a lot of rulings as to the matter of standing, had pretty much imposed corporate rule by simply declaring that there was no one in the Universe with standing to sue for relief of this matter or that. 

 

And that the court had interpreted one phrase in the federal law that covers arbitration agreements, to rule that any employer or corporation can exempt itself from all state and civil regulations or employment laws, even matters which state laws state cannot be signed away, simply by putting the clause in the same page as an arbitration agreement.  

 

3)   And the Republican plan isn't to abolish, say, Medicaid.  (Or SS).  That would be political suicide.  

 

The plan which has been included in every Ryan budget since he was elected, is to announce that the states are now in charge of SS.  And that the feds will simply send a chunk of money to the states to the states, to cover the federal share.  

 

And then just not increase the amount they send to the states.  

 

I mean, hey, yeah, we know.  In order to keep SS checks the same as they were last year, we have to increase total spending by 8% a year.  just to keep the payments the same.  (Because of population growth, inflation, and newer retirees getting more money than the old ones that die off.)  But hey, the feds just sent the same amount as last year, and how dare you call that a cut?  If your SS check got 8% smaller, that's because your state didn't come up with the money somewhere else, to cover the shortfall.  

[Momma There Goes That Man]

18 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

Plus DC (and possibly PR) statehood! 

this seems to be our only recourse. 
 

Nuke the filibuster, make DC and PR states hopefully giving Dems 4 senators. Will PR vote Dem senators anyway? 
 

In addition to that, use the new power to sign a new apportionment act of 1929 so that the house representatives are far larger in number which should help prevent gerrymandering as well and will fix the electoral college numbers.

 

the pass a new voting rights act allowing same day registration, ending voter suppression, creating universal mail in voting as well as increases in polling locations, and Election Day holiday. 

and after all this, or hell likely before all this can start, pack the courts. 

 

then we just pray it’s enough to save democracy? 

, 

[DCranon21]

9 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

this seems to be our only recourse. 
 

Nuke the filibuster, make DC and PR states hopefully giving Dems 4 senators. Will PR vote Dem senators anyway? 
 

In addition to that, use the new power to sign a new apportionment act of 1929 so that the house representatives are far larger in number which should help prevent gerrymandering as well and will fix the electoral college numbers.

 

the pass a new voting rights act allowing same day registration, ending voter suppression, creating universal mail in voting as well as increases in polling locations, and Election Day holiday. 

and after all this, or hell likely before all this can start, pack the courts. 

 

then we just pray it’s enough to save democracy? 

, 

 

Also abolish the Electoral College needs to be put up there. That's another topic of discussion, but the EC needs to go away. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

16 minutes ago, DCranon21 said:

 

Also abolish the Electoral College needs to be put up there. That's another topic of discussion, but the EC needs to go away. 

I agree but don’t think they’ll be able to pass an amendment doing do. Passing a new apportionment act would update the electoral college votes though so it should prevent someone from winning the presidency while losing the popular vote again. Which is a start 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

The thought of losing my healthcare is truly frightening. I feel pretty hopeless this morning. 
 

[tshile]

The consequences of decisions for the 2016 election grow by the week

[Larry]

1 hour ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

The thought of losing my healthcare is truly frightening. I feel pretty hopeless this morning. 
 

 

Don't worry.  They'll make sure to "protect preexisting conditions".  The voters demand that.  

 

They'll just do exactly what they did last time.  Insurers don't have to cover preexisting conditions.  But they'll be required to offer you a different policy, that covers them  

 

Which they can charge whatever they want, for.  

[PokerPacker]

2 hours ago, DCranon21 said:

 

Also abolish the Electoral College needs to be put up there. That's another topic of discussion, but the EC needs to go away. 

I disagree.  Electoral College is fine in theory, the execution needs to change, however.  If, as stated in the post you quoted, the House grows in size (as it was originally supposed to), it will help to fix the proportions of voting power for the states.

 

Another change that I think could be big is an amendment to require a proportional apportionment of electoral votes.  Either by percentage of State popular vote, or by district, and then the two senate votes goes to the overall winner of the state.  With those two changes, the balance of power will tilt more in the favor of total population size without completely nullifying the voice of rural areas who would otherwise by subject to tyranny of the big city.  Plus, by keeping some form of EC, it prevents an election strategy built entirely around riling up your base in particular areas to simply raise the number of people who vote rather than increasing the percentage of the population that would vote for you.  Seems like a system that would lead to even more polarization.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

The consequences of decisions for the 2016 election grow by the week

that was our definitely an alternate timeline moment where the course of history was irreparably changed. Goes along with things like getting defeated at Normandy or JFK not being assassinated

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

that was our definitely an alternate timeline moment where the course or history was irreparably changed. Goes along with things like getting defeated at Normandy or JFK not being assassinated

 

I'm thinking more like "Hitler develops the Bomb".  

[mammajamma]

EC has to go. 1 person should equal 1 vote, that simple. If a big city has more people that vote than a rural area, the city should absolutely have a much bigger voice. why should 1 person in a city have less of a voice than 1 person in a rural area, just because they don't want to live in the boonies? i'm tired of living in a country that is run by the minority with minority opinions, just so we don't piss off areas of land with nobody living there

[DCranon21]

34 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

I disagree.  Electoral College is fine in theory, the execution needs to change, however.  If, as stated in the post you quoted, the House grows in size (as it was originally supposed to), it will help to fix the proportions of voting power for the states.

 

Another change that I think could be big is an amendment to require a proportional apportionment of electoral votes.  Either by percentage of State popular vote, or by district, and then the two senate votes goes to the overall winner of the state.  With those two changes, the balance of power will tilt more in the favor of total population size without completely nullifying the voice of rural areas who would otherwise by subject to tyranny of the big city.  Plus, by keeping some form of EC, it prevents an election strategy built entirely around riling up your base in particular areas to simply raise the number of people who vote rather than increasing the percentage of the population that would vote for you.  Seems like a system that would lead to even more polarization.

 

I like your idea, but there is one problem, gerrymandering. Look at the some of the swing states(OH, NC, FL, PA, MI) and look at their maps. Ohio lines are so messed up, it will still tilt majority GOP in a general election. There are 16 districts, the GOP controls 10. Look at this map:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/ohio/

 

I do believe Nebraska and New Hampshire splits the EC's depending on districts. 

Remember this ruling from the SC that was 5-4 in favor of the conservative justices saying that Partisan Gerrymandering is beyond the reach of Federal Courts. This is why the elections are so tight and favor the GOP every election cycle. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court

 

The bottom line is Joe needs to pass the 270 threshold and they can declare him the winner. Let Orange Hitler cry foul and say it was rigged and the results will still show he lost. I hate to say this phrase, but everyone needs to vote like their life depended on it. 

 

[PokerPacker]

1 minute ago, DCranon21 said:

 

I like your idea, but there is one problem, gerrymandering. Look at the some of the swing states(OH, NC, FL, PA, MI) and look at their maps. Ohio lines are so messed up, it will still tilt majority GOP in a general election. There are 16 districts, the GOP controls 10. Look at this map:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/ohio/

 

I do believe Nebraska and New Hampshire splits the EC's depending on districts. 

Remember this ruling from the SC that was 5-4 in favor of the conservative justices saying that Partisan Gerrymandering is beyond the reach of Federal Courts. This is why the elections are so tight and favor the GOP every election cycle. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/731847977/supreme-court-rules-partisan-gerrymandering-is-beyond-the-reach-of-federal-court

 

The bottom line is Joe needs to pass the 270 threshold and they can declare him the winner. Let Orange Hitler cry foul and say it was rigged and the results will still show he lost. I hate to say this phrase, but everyone needs to vote like their life depended on it. 

 

Then fix the gerrymandering.  That's its own problem that needs to be fixed regardless of the electoral college.

[mammajamma]

Guy who got almost 3 million less votes gets to appoint the most lifetime judges ever and 1/3 of the supreme court. This system is so broken that this country is toast without major, structure changing reforms. Incremental, play-nice steps won't work anymore

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

I disagree.  Electoral College is fine in theory, the execution needs to change, however.  If, as stated in the post you quoted, the House grows in size (as it was originally supposed to), it will help to fix the proportions of voting power for the states.

 

Another change that I think could be big is an amendment to require a proportional apportionment of electoral votes.  Either by percentage of State popular vote, or by district, and then the two senate votes goes to the overall winner of the state.  With those two changes, the balance of power will tilt more in the favor of total population size without completely nullifying the voice of rural areas who would otherwise by subject to tyranny of the big city.  Plus, by keeping some form of EC, it prevents an election strategy built entirely around riling up your base in particular areas to simply raise the number of people who vote rather than increasing the percentage of the population that would vote for you.  Seems like a system that would lead to even more polarization.

I prefer to ditch the EC but that won’t happen. What you suggest is good in the meantime.  Maine and Nebraska already do that. So, you have one Maine district that goes to the GOP in an otherwise Dem state and in Nebraska, you have one District that goes Dem in an otherwise GOP state.

[88Comrade2000]

RGB death is bound to effect the race for not only president but senate also.

 

The evangelicals are euphoric  right now. They are so close to be able to turn America into the Christian version of Iran. They will be motivated to vote and keep the gop in control of the presidency and senate.

 

Will the Dem voters realize what’s now at stake?  Life as they know it will change in 21/22 as the right wing courts strip away everything. No, you won’t stop Trump from replacing RGB but you can have a Dem President and senate to correct things. I don’t know which side turns out more?

[redskins59]

I am obviously voting for Biden.  I have always supported Biden, but you have to wonder how much of a fighter he is. Will he try to expand the supreme court?  This is now important.  With Sanders, he would put up a fight.

 

If this does not work well to my liking, next time  I am supporting the most far-left candidate out there.  

 

You cannot expect Repiblicans to be decent.  They aren't decent.  

[bearrock]

ACA is easily salvageable by passing a 1 cent tax for not having health insurance.  Campaign on why Dems must be given control of both chambers and the WH because Trump's appointees will strike down the ACA and GOP senate will not lift a finger to save it.  Dems will.  

[tshile]

Not a fan or expanding the Supreme Court just because the guys you don’t like that won the last election got to appoint enough of their own you don’t like the balance. 
 

Kind of like how I don’t like getting rid of the electoral college just because you have difficulty winning and so you’ve decided this other metric you don’t have difficulty winning should be the new way to do it (and along the way we’ll pretend to be the only ones with logical arguments on the topic)

 

 

[mammajamma]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Not a fan or expanding the Supreme Court just because the guys you don’t like that won the last election got to appoint enough of their own you don’t like the balance. 
 

Kind of like how I don’t like getting rid of the electoral college just because you have difficulty winning and so you’ve decided this other metric you don’t have difficulty winning should be the new way to do it (and along the way we’ll pretend to be the only ones with logical arguments on the topic)

 

 

no, we don't like the electoral college because it gives the presidency to the person who doesnt get the most votes, and therefore doesnt represent america. It may have worked back in 1800s, but it does not work with how our society is currently setup today

 

and again, the guy who had less votes should not be appointing 1/3 of the supreme court. if he does, it definitely justifies expanding the court