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

[88Comrade2000]

35 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Can you list the damaging decisions that you have heartburn over that the Supreme Court has passed since Gorsuch entered the court? Just curious to see what the damage, as you view it, is.

The court has made several bad decisions, like Citizens United in the past. Trump gets to pick 2 or more judges; then more bad decisions will be made. They will have numbers to overturn a slew of laws you right wingers don't like. They will have also, be able to overturn any law that is passed,  they don't like.

 

Say a law is passed that overturns Citizen United. Your right wing court would overturn that.

Your rightwing court would outlaw gay marriage; overturning what many states allow.

Of course get rid of Obamacare and any potential replacement would be overturned.

The right wing doesn't want any healthcare provided by the government and will overturn Meddicare and Medicaid.

They would rule Social Security illegal and overturn that,

Abortion would be outlawed.

 

I can go on and on but every policy/law the right wing doesn't like; they will have the numbers to overturn it.

[NoCalMike]

Not to mention The Supreme Court refused to take up cases involving the impeachment process despite Trump refusing to comply with the courts below it.  They could have done the right thing and ended the back and forth once and for all, but nope.

[nonniey]

27 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just observing, since you seem to want to apply the standard of "only decisions they've actually handed down, in the last few years, count when passing judgement on the SC", and since you started this discussion by announcing your opinion on Trump's impact on the court, could you list the decisions that caused you to come to your conclusion, applying the same standard that you want him to apply?  

 

Edit:  I'll even toss out one for you two to fight over.  In Rucho v Common Cause, the new court ruled 5-4 that the Equal Protection clause does not give citizens the right to vote (even in federal elections) in elections that have not been intentionally rigged to favor one political arty.  

 

Proof that Trump's SC appointments are Right?  Or Wrong?  

Well, since I don't think they have done any "damage" not sure how to approach this. But what you posted is an example of what I was asking 2000 for (He ended up posting things they might do in the future). 

 

I'll review Rucho - the initial glance seems to be the court refusing to add power to the judicial branch at the expense of the legislative branch. 

[88Comrade2000]

Sanders is speaking; doesn't sound like he's dropping out. 

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I'll review Rucho - the initial glance seems to be the court refusing to add power to the judicial branch at the expense of the legislative branch. 

 

This additional power being the power to rule that yes, this legislation the legislature passed was passed for the obvious purpose of having an unequal effect on the population?  

[TheGreatBuzz]

21 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Not to mention The Supreme Court refused to take up cases involving the impeachment process despite Trump refusing to comply with the courts below it.  They could have done the right thing and ended the back and forth once and for all, but nope.

Some much going on, I don't remember this.  I thought the lower courts ruled against him but impeachment ended before they got to the SC.  Not saying you're wrong, just asking for details.  Google brings up a Dershowitch article and I'm not gonna rely on that.

[88Comrade2000]

He's looking forward to debate Joe on Sunday. Went thru a list of progressives issues he will ask Joe about. He said the majority of of younger voters supports him and his issues.  He wants Joe to address how he will address the issues Sanders and his supporters  his issues.

 

He acknowledge the electability issue. He said the voters agree with him on the issues but feels Joe is the only electable candidate.

I think he wants get Joe to promise his supporters, to address their concerns.

 

My guess Bernie drops out in a week if Joe addresses his supporters concerns.

[TheGreatBuzz]

10 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

 Went thru a list of progressives issues he will ask Joe about. He said the majority of of younger voters supports him and his issues.  He wants Joe to address how he will address the issues Sanders and his supporters  his issues.

 

It doesn't matter since they didn't win the vote.  Tell them to kick rocks.  At least that's what I was told this morning about the losing side of an election.

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, Hooper said:

 

The coalition he is putting together is Trump's nightmare, but the worst thing Dems can do is act like they have this.

 

But it's clear the Trump hatred is going to unite much of the party and get people to turn up to vote. Just giving Trump the finger with your vote is going to prove more important than any single issue.

 

My impression is that Democrats are coming out to support a real Democrat, instead of an independent who is dividing the party. Plus, Sanders supposedly has the youth vote; however, they didn't come out in huge numbers in the primaries. 

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Some much going on, I don't remember this.  I thought the lower courts ruled against him but impeachment ended before they got to the SC.  Not saying you're wrong, just asking for details.  Google brings up a Dershowitch article and I'm not gonna rely on that.

I think they refused to fast track it and the dems didn’t like the timeline for the normal process

[AJ*]

I caught Biden's speech a little late but it was perfect and exactly how I thought he should have sounded like at his victory speech on Super Tuesday. Calm/serious/heartfelt Joe is a lot better and more effective than "hype the crowd" Joe who shouts and repeats the same stuff over and over.

[goskins10]

5 hours ago, nonniey said:

Can you list the damaging decisions that you have heartburn over that the Supreme Court has passed since Gorsuch entered the court? Just curious to see what the damage, as you view it, is.

 

Allowing continued partisan gerrymandering - This may be the most egregious of all. Both parties do it and it takes the power of the voters away from them. It should be that all 50 states have districts drawn by non-partisan programs. This software exists. 

 

They ruled in favor of big business that employees can't sue them a class action lawsuit. This sends workers rights back a few decades. 

 

They did not rule against the racist census question, choosing instead to cowardly send it back to lower courts. - This question is directly aimed at POC and less advantaged people. They should have had the guts to just say no. In fairness it will likely get struck down in those lower courts but it should have been ended. 

 

They have agreed to re-hear abortion which has already been ruled on. This is of course a far right stalwart - yes others agree but it's a crusade for old white men. Let's make sure all babies are born then who gives a **** what happens after. 

 

They allowed a stay on the requirement that trump turn over his taxes while they deliberate - giving 45 more time to hide whatever it is he needs to hide and keep us from knowing the truth. 

 

Those are just a few. I am sure there will be more coming. 

 

 

 

 

[JSSkinz]

It makes you wonder if Bernie's support last cycle had more to do with Hillary hate than a love for Bernie and his policies.

 

I also don't believe Joe needs to answer to Bernie about healthcare when he was part of the administration that established the ACA, does Bernie think Joe didn't want to develop and expand on the ACA?  It's kind of hard when you lose the House, Senate, and Presidency.

 

I also wonder how many younger people actually understand Medicare.

 

I've become familiar with it since my dad passed away in mid-2018 and since that time I've been very involved with my moms healthcare and I can't stand the red tape that drags out the process of someone getting to a specialist because the PCP's hold them hostage.

[The Sisko]

16 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe it has to do with the fact that you represent everyone, not just your supporters.

 

That was the past. Tя☭mp and the Grand Oligarch’s Party set the tone with their tax “reform” package that among other things, was designed to stick it to blue states. I want payback for red states and their base. There’s plenty of pork barrel spending that props up rural areas that they could cut, which I’m sure as the party of fiscal conservatism, the GOP would be on board with, right?

[Mooka]

C'mon guys, the data is right in front of your face.

 

Policy simply doesn't matter and the American voter doesn't care. 

 

And no, you don't need Bernie Sanders' base or young voters. Young voters don't vote while Bernie's base is majority left. 

 

What you need to do is unify the party and just simply lie about it if its not true. Ignore Bernie and his base if they complain. Just assume they're all on board and change the subject.

 

To  change the subject you just need something more satisfying to the public then calling out Bernie Bros. 

[LadySkinsFan]

41 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

I've become familiar with it since my dad passed away in mid-2018 and since that time I've been very involved with my moms healthcare and I can't stand the red tape that drags out the process of someone getting to a specialist because the PCP's hold them hostage.

 

 

This is why I chose Supplement Plan F, which gives me the option to go directly to a specialist if I choose. I pay $200/month premium, but after having my stroke, I want to be sure that I get the care I want.

[Rufus T Firefly]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Strongly agree.  

 

I love the idea of having only one state start off.  Another one at least a week later.  (Maybe two.)  

 

It at least gives the "wild card teams" a chance to win their way into the later rounds of the playoffs.  (I think Mayor Pete demonstrated that technique, this year.  Fight your ass off to win the first few states, and hope that the money shows up to back the winner.)  

 

I also like the idea of those first states being either caucus, or ranked choice voting.  (I prefer the later.)  Give voters the choice of voting for their second choice.  Give a nudge to the candidate who might not be everybody's first choice, but he's everybody's second choice.  

 

Just not sure that those early states should be IA-NH every year.  (Although I do think I'd favor a rule that it should be small states.  Again - lower cost of entry for candidates who aren't already rich.)

 

 

Candidates who don't have a billion dollars in their campaign, a year before the election, need not apply.  

There's no reason to ever do caucuses again. And no thanks to ranked choice voting for Presidential primaries. We winnow the field by measuring how candidates do in those contests, it's not all, or even really mostly, about who finished first. Just throwing out the voting totals for everyone below a certain line and listing them at 0% does a disservice to the whole process. 

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

Quote

NEW: Biden campaign rolls out a Public Health Advisory Committee “to provide science-based, expert advice regarding steps the campaign should take to minimize health risks for the candidate, staff, and supporters.”

 

1)  Stop having campaign events.  

 

[NoCalMike]

It'll be interesting to see how aggressive or not Bernie is in this next debate.  I see two possibilities:

 

1) He is over the top, making the final push for young folks to turnout and help him rebound.  Hit Biden as hard as he can on his record.

 

2) He knows the writing is on the wall and is not looking to tear down the guy who is likely the nominee and will start giving answers that are almost posed like questions to Biden in order to give Biden openings to give answers that appeal to the wider Democratic electorate. 

[Larry]

Just wondering, 

 

If Joe Biden announces this afternoon that he's cancelling all mass campaign events, how does that go over, politically?  

 

(Me, personally?  Kinda depends on what kinds of things he cancels.  Like, does his staff still get together in a hotel ballroom after a state's primary, and every person is still there, except the candidate?  Or does he also try to limit the number of workers who are getting together, not just himself?)  

 

I think it could be a good look for him.  Draws attention to difference between himself and Trump, in dealing with a national crisis.  

 

[DogofWar1]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/487093-biden-campaign-announces-public-health-panel-to-advise-on-coronavirus

 

Biden Campaign announces Public Health Panel to Advise on Coronavirus

 

 

Lookit that guy, bein' all Presidential.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Good, quick read:

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/bernie-sanders-anti-establishment-lost-voters.html

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

This is my thing.  If all he does is not attend the event himself, if he changes "500 people in a room with Biden" into "500 people in a room, with Biden on a screen" then he's not doing squat to slow down the virus.  All he's doing is protecting himself.  

 

If he replaces the event with a YouTube channel, then he's making a difference.  (Or at least trying to.)