Jump to content

Trump is the President


Recommended Posts

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-protesters-gather-outside-mitch-mcconnells-home/news-story/5348a72375ff604c248f9b48943610cb

 

The 'tolerant' left really are continuing to prove themselves to be nothing more than violent domestic  terrorists who continually resort to violence and intimidation to try and force their ways..

“If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f***ing thing down,” former CNN anchor Reza Aslan tweeted, later saying a Senate vote would be held “over our dead bodies – literally”.

Freelance political reporter Laura Bassett, formerly of the Huffington Post, said if Mr McConnell “jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots”, adding in a clarifying tweet: “More, bigger riots.”

 

What an absolute disgrace...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The sandbox is for non Tri related topics.  It’s not a place for people to carry on like idiots. 

A few posts of the last 24hrs have been deleted. I don't have time to go over the previous 96 pages.  If it's not adding value to the thread, discussing politics in a respectful manner towards th

If the last few months have taught me anything it’s that when you peel back the thin veneer the US is a mighty screwed up place on oh so many fronts.   

Posted Images

Should we be surprised that the two journalists calling for violence are from CNN and Huffington Post? 

So what they are really saying is if they Government do something that they are legally entitled to do, because they don't agree with it there should be bloodshed... Absolutely amazing.. 

Even more reason people sitting on the sidelines will vote Trump 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, more said:

Should we be surprised that the two journalists calling for violence are from CNN and Huffington Post? 

So what they are really saying is if they Government do something that they are legally entitled to do, because they don't agree with it there should be bloodshed... Absolutely amazing.. 

Even more reason people sitting on the sidelines will vote Trump 

But they're on the 'right' side...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year,"

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2016

True... but she doesn’t get to vote on it, however these guys do. 
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Obviously politicians from both sides will change their ethics at the drop of a hat if it suits them, we’ve come to expect that. I would point to the fact that     your Ginsburg quote above  as well as the Republicans I’ve quoted are referring to replacing a High Court Judge who died 9 months before and election, not 6 weeks as is the case now. But, it doesn’t really matter does it? If the shoe was on the other foot ect.

Im an interested though IJ what is your opinion, should Trump nominate a promotion to fill the vacancy before the election?

Personally I think he should wait as people have already started voting in some states. I’m not sure there will be time to get a new appointee in and it might be detrimental to his campaign, especially with and centre/undecided voters IMO

Edited by Mike Del
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

True... but she doesn’t get to vote on it, however these guys do. 
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Mcconnel also took that view in 16 and is now saying we will appoint. So More and Iron Jim, what do you think of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Mcconnel also took that view in 16 and is now saying we will appoint. So More and Iron Jim, what do you think of that?

I think politicians will always do whatever benefits their party. So I can't see the problem, it's all legal isn't it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, more said:

I think politicians will always do whatever benefits their party. So I can't see the problem, it's all legal isn't it? 

yes it is.

But you have been quite strident in your views of people on the left. Would you be happy if this was a Dem doing this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

True... but she doesn’t get to vote on it, however these guys do. 
2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Lol, you came up with a list of comments from Politicians than have changed given a changed circumstance... I'm shocked and amazed... I'm going to go flip a car and burn down a building 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BarryBevan said:

yes it is.

But you have been quite strident in your views of people on the left. Would you be happy if this was a Dem doing this?

I would probably use it as another example of politicians being opportunistic...hardly worth starting a riot over though.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, more said:

 So I can't see the problem, it's all legal isn't it? 

I think it would be ok under their constitution. Are you ok with it because it more a moral and ethical issue than a legal one? 

Edited by Mike Del
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for morals I think its sad a lot of the left seem worried about abortion being overturned.... abortion is absolutely disgusting, the most vile, murderous act on a totally innocent and defenseless life a civilized human can do. But lets not go there eh...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, more said:

As for morals I think its sad a lot of the left seem worried about abortion being overturned.... abortion is absolutely disgusting, the most vile, murderous act on a totally innocent and defenseless life a civilized human can do. But lets not go there eh...

You just did. You stated your opinion like it’s the only one that matters then tell us not to go there. 
I’ll pray for for More, we’ll see if that helps
 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mike Del said:

You just did. You stated your opinion like it’s the only one that matters then tell us not to go there. 
I’ll pray for for More, we’ll see if that helps
 

 

See Mike, you are typical of the type of person who seems to think abortion is a religious issue, when for me it is just a matter of decency, humanity at its absolute essence.

I'm not sure if you have kids but from the second your wife becomes pregnant you are very aware that's a little life in there, dependent solely on you for survival.

That people can so easily and flippantly end this defenseless life in bewildering to me.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Mcconnel also took that view in 16 and is now saying we will appoint. So More and Iron Jim, what do you think of that?

I think those guys were wrong to paint themselves into that corner. Like in the 90s when Nancy Pelosi said that impeachment should not happen unless it is bipartisan   

The difference was that in 2016 you had a Democratic President and Republican senate, so the nomination would likely have struggled to get up anyway 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, more said:

See Mike, you are typical of the type of person who seems to think abortion is a religious issue, when for me it is just a matter of decency, humanity at its absolute essence.

I'm not sure if you have kids but from the second your wife becomes pregnant you are very aware that's a little life in there, dependent solely on you for survival.

That people can so easily and flippantly end this defenseless life in bewildering to me.

 

Now you’re going there for the second time after you instructed everyone else not to go there. 

And as usual you assumptions are wrong, I never said it had anything to do with religion. 
I’m praying for you because you seem to have so much hate in you. 🙏

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

Now you’re going there for the second time after you instructed everyone else not to go there. 

And as usual you assumptions are wrong, I never said it had anything to do with religion. 
I’m praying for you because you seem to have so much hate in you. 🙏

You are a weird one Mike...

and no I don't have hate, juts a lot of sadness for those who would think abortion is o.k

The left on the other hand seem to have a lock on hate...its their mantra

Edited by more
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

I think those guys were wrong to paint themselves into that corner. Like in the 90s when Nancy Pelosi said that impeachment should not happen unless it is bipartisan   

The difference was that in 2016 you had a Democratic President and Republican senate, so the nomination would likely have struggled to get up anyway 

But at the time their key issue was that the election was only 9 months away so in their opinion the US people should decide, this time around the election is in a mere 6 weeks, but now the people shouldn’t decide? Did you know voting has already commenced in some states? I think that needs to be considered, but doubt it will.

 

But as I mentioned earlier it doesn’t really matter, they are US politicians. If not played carefully it turn out bad for trump regardless of his decision.

Edited by Mike Del
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

But at the time their key issue was that the election was only 9 months away so in their opinion the US people should decide, this time around the election is in a mere 6 weeks, but now the people shouldn’t decide? Did you know voting has already commenced in some states? I think that needs to be considered, but doubt it will.

 

But as I mentioned earlier it doesn’t really matter, they are US politicians. If not played carefully it turn out bad for trump regardless of his decision.

You still haven't answered the question-what difference would it have made if she died 8 months ago, or 8 weeks into Trumps term?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

No its more one of those unwritten rules that both sides have adhered to ... until now.

 

Is there an unwritten rule about stacking the bench,,as the Democrats are threatening to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

But at the time their key issue was that the election was only 9 months away so in their opinion the US people should decide, this time around the election is in a mere 6 weeks, but now the people shouldn’t decide? Did you know voting has already commenced in some states? I think that needs to be considered, but doubt it will.

 

But as I mentioned earlier it doesn’t really matter, they are US politicians. If not played carefully it turn out bad for trump regardless of his decision.

As I said, they were wrong to say that.  They should have had a vote and rejected the nominee

In any case the GOP increased their senate numbers both in 2016 and 2918, so the public didn't seem to mind too much

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Is there an unwritten rule about stacking the bench,,as the Democrats are threatening to do?

You mean Republicans.   There are 9 seats on the bench.  5 are aligned with the Republicans, 3 are aligned with the democrats with one vacancy.

Trump wants to fill that vacancy with another Republican aligned Judge to make it 6 to 3. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

You mean Republicans.   There are 9 seats on the bench.  5 are aligned with the Republicans, 3 are aligned with the democrats with one vacancy.

Trump wants to fill that vacancy with another Republican aligned Judge to make it 6 to 3. 

No, I'm referring to Democrats who are saying if they win back the Presidency and Senate, that Biden should nominate as many additional judges as necessary to swing the bench back to a liberal majority  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

You mean Republicans.   There are 9 seats on the bench.  5 are aligned with the Republicans, 3 are aligned with the democrats with one vacancy.

Trump wants to fill that vacancy with another Republican aligned Judge to make it 6 to 3. 

Regardless of the when's and why's ,,,, why the hell are judges politically aligned anyway? Surely that goes against everything the law should stand for. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

No, I'm referring to Democrats who are saying if they win back the Presidency and Senate, that Biden should nominate as many additional judges as necessary to swing the bench back to a liberal majority  

Yeah they can.  Just as the Republicans are doing now.   If theres a vacancy they can fill it with whoever they want.  No requirement to have any sort of balance.

Problem is they can only fill vacancies.  The job is for life (or retirement).  They can't be "sacked"

If no vacancies, then they can't fill them. Which is why Trump is going out of his way to fill this one with a judge that suits his future needs.

Of course, I'm assuming that the bench stays at its current number of 9 seats.  Not sure of the process required to make that number larger or smaller

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, roxii said:

Regardless of the when's and why's ,,,, why the hell are judges politically aligned anyway? Surely that goes against everything the law should stand for. 

Law is all about interpretation 

There seem to be two kinds of judges over there - the originalists who try to interpret the constitution as written (and guided by the federalist papers) and the activists who try to modernise it

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, roxii said:

Regardless of the when's and why's ,,,, why the hell are judges politically aligned anyway? Surely that goes against everything the law should stand for. 

Just their general leanings not necessarily a physical alignment.  Conservative judges are generally considered to be Republican.  Its like saying Blue collar workers are generally ALP supporters.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

Yeah they can.  Just as the Republicans are doing now.   If theres a vacancy they can fill it with whoever they want.  No requirement to have any sort of balance.

Problem is they can only fill vacancies.  The job is for life (or retirement).  They can't be "sacked"

If no vacancies, then they can't fill them. Which is why Trump is going out of his way to fill this one with a judge that suits his future needs.

Of course, I'm assuming that the bench stays at its current number of 9 seats.  Not sure of the process required to make that number larger or smaller

That's what I'm talking about (as are they)

They are talking about increasing the number of seats until they have a majority 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronJimbo said:

That's what I'm talking about (as are they)

They are talking about increasing the number of seats until they have a majority 

OK Done some research.  The number can be changed by Congress but that hasn't happened since 1869. 

Politically, I'd suggest that any party doing this now would be committing political suicide.  If/When things calm down a little politically, common sense will hopefully prevail.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

 

Of course, I'm assuming that the bench stays at its current number of 9 seats.  Not sure of the process required to make that number larger or smaller

Congress picks the number. It started at 6 and has gone up and down, 10 was the max. Both parties have stacked it when it’s suited then. It’s been 9 for at least 100 years now I think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

OK Done some research.  The number can be changed by Congress but that hasn't happened since 1869. 

Politically, I'd suggest that any party doing this now would be committing political suicide.  If/When things calm down a little politically, common sense will hopefully prevail.

 

Unless they also succeed in adding DC and Puerto Rico as states in order to stack the senate

Which has also been proposed

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronJimbo said:

Unless they also succeed in adding DC and Puerto Rico as states in order to stack the senate

Which has also been proposed

I'm sure all sorts of proposals have been circulating around the various think tanks over the past 4 years.  Whether any of them get off the ground is another matter entirely.  Only time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2020 at 12:41 PM, more said:

Talk about playing identity politics.... 

"During a Thursday meeting with Kenosha, Wis., community leaders, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said that a Black man, rather than Thomas Edison, invented the light bulb"

 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-claims-black-man-invented-light-bulb-during-campaign-event.amp

I’m late to this little debate. As noted by others above the bloke Biden was referring to was Lewis Latimer.

I note that the fact checking website Snopes rated Biden’s claim as ‘mostly false’:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-black-man-invented-lightbulb/

However, if you actually read Snopes’ facts it seems pretty clear to me that Biden’;s claim is actually ‘mostly true’.

One should never underestimate the role of Thomas Edison developing technical innovations, he is a true giant of the 19th and early 20th centuries. But (and there is a big but here) his role - at least regarding electrical lighting - is as a developer and business entrepreneur: not as an inventor. Other people had already described theoretically how electrical lighting was possible using filaments in vacuum tubing. Edison put together a team to investigate and commercialise these theoretical possibilities.

No-one - least of all Edison himself - could find a way to make filament-vacuum tube lighting commercially viable because all of the filaments experimented on would fail. Until Latimer invented the carbon filament and behold the breakthrough was made. Whilst Latimer’s light bulb might be seen as only as light bulb’ it was very much THE light bulb that mattered in history. It was a genuine ‘inventive step’ (which is what must be demonstrated to obtain a patent) & he owned it. Ergo, he WAS the inventor of THE light bulb.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2020 at 9:10 PM, IronJimbo said:

The Nobel prize became irrelevant when they gave it to Arafat

The Nobel peace prize was irrelevant and embarrassing as soon as it was created.

Same as the Nobel Prize for Literature and Economics.

The only creditable Nobel prises are the scientific ones.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

I’m late to this little debate. As noted by others above the bloke Biden was referring to was Lewis Latimer.

I note that the fact checking website Snopes rated Biden’s claim as ‘mostly false’:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-black-man-invented-lightbulb/

However, if you actually read Snopes’ facts it seems pretty clear to me that Biden’;s claim is actually ‘mostly true’.

One should never underestimate the role of Thomas Edison developing technical innovations, he is a true giant of the 19th and early 20th centuries. But (and there is a big but here) his role - at least regarding electrical lighting - is as a developer and business entrepreneur: not as an inventor. Other people had already described theoretically how electrical lighting was possible using filaments in vacuum tubing. Edison put together a team to investigate and commercialise these theoretical possibilities.

No-one - least of all Edison himself - could find a way to make filament-vacuum tube lighting commercially viable because all of the filaments experimented on would fail. Until Latimer invented the carbon filament and behold the breakthrough was made. Whilst Latimer’s light bulb might be seen as only as light bulb’ it was very much THE light bulb that mattered in history. It was a genuine ‘inventive step’ (which is what must be demonstrated to obtain a patent) & he owned it. Ergo, he WAS the inventor of THE light bulb.   

 

By that logic, neither Edison nor Latimer should be credited 

In any case, crediting Latimer is like saying Henry Ford invented the automobile 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/09/2020 at 4:44 PM, more said:

Looks like an interesting swing to Trump in Nevada if the crowd turn out is any indication:

The 2016 United States presidential election in Nevada, held on November 8, 2016 was part of the 2016 United States presidential election, and was won by Hillary Clinton with a 47.92% popular vote plurality over Donald Trump's 45.5%.[1] All of Nevada's 6 electoral votes were assigned to Clinton. Trump became the first Republican since William Howard Taft in 1908 to win the presidency without Nevada. This is also the first time since the 1976 election that the state has voted for the losing presidential candidate.

The most recent Nevada poll I could find was published on 12 September - two days before this comment a day before Trump’s rally. It has Biden ahead By 4 points - 46-42.

Trump’s people like to rally. I’m not sure that is a true indication of a state wide vote. However, In my view he will also have very little problem getting out the same 28% of the enrolled voters he got last time: ‘the base’ is super reliable and they vote. Many of these folk live in the urban fringes, small towns and rural areas of the seven states that are most likely to decide the election. That’s gives him a formidable advantage, because the urban based democrat majority is very febrile and fickle when it comes to the actual business of voting.

I think Biden has a lock on the national vote, but I just don’t know whether enough Urban folk will turn out to vote: Hillary missed by an inch in getting enough out in urban counties in the rust belt she needed to win, but with just not enough actual votes to overcome the white-uneducated-rural block that Trump can count on (less than 55% of under 25 voters voted in the swing states;  Under 50% of registered urban male blacks actually voted. Bothe demographics came out at more than 70% in the swing states for Obama). Biden doesn’t engender ‘enthusiasm’ and I reckon there are a whole bunch of people who will tell a pollster that they intend voting for Biden, but actually can’t be bothered on Election Day. That’s the fear and the risk in a Biden candidacy.

On the other hand inner urban areas are recording unprecidented levels of early voting already & I bet they are Biden voters who are shit of the shit show and dumpster fire of the last 4 years. So maybe personal enthusiasm for the candidate wont matter this year. Maybe. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

The most recent Nevada poll I could find was published on 12 September - two days before this comment a day before Trump’s rally. It has Biden ahead By 4 points - 46-42.

Trump’s people like to rally. I’m not sure that is a true indication of a state wide vote. However, In my view he will also have very little problem getting out the same 28% of the enrolled voters he got last time: ‘the base’ is super reliable and they vote. Many of these folk live in the urban fringes, small towns and rural areas of the seven states that are most likely to decide the election. That’s gives him a formidable advantage, because the urban based democrat majority is very febrile and fickle when it comes to the actual business of voting.

I think Biden has a lock on the national vote, but I just don’t know whether enough Urban folk will turn out to vote: Hillary missed by an inch in getting enough out in urban counties in the rust belt she needed to win, but with just not enough actual votes to overcome the white-uneducated-rural block that Trump can count on (less than 55% of under 25 voters voted in the swing states;  Under 50% of registered urban male blacks actually voted. Bothe demographics came out at more than 70% in the swing states for Obama). Biden doesn’t engender ‘enthusiasm’ and I reckon there are a whole bunch of people who will tell a pollster that they intend voting for Biden, but actually can’t be bothered on Election Day. That’s the fear and the risk in a Biden candidacy.

On the other hand inner urban areas are recording unprecidented levels of early voting already & I bet they are Biden voters who are shit of the shit show and dumpster fire of the last 4 years. So maybe personal enthusiasm for the candidate wont matter this year. Maybe. 

Yep, seems people still haven't learnt from the last election that polls mean next to nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

By that logic, neither Edison nor Latimer should be credited 

In any case, crediting Latimer is like saying Henry Ford invented the automobile 

You didn’t do logic do you? Look up patent law. A quick google search should suffice. The key issue is demonstrating an ‘inventive step’. Latimer could and his step was a game changer. He invented the light bulb that mattered in history. 

The proper historical parallel is with the role Tim Berners-Lee played with the internet: he invented the World Wide Web (but not web-nets themselves). Another parallel is with the iPhone and iPad. Steve Jobs developed and brought each to market, but Jony Ives invented each device.  

Edited by Andrew #1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, more said:

Yep, seems people still haven't learnt from the last election that polls mean next to nothing

The polls that really matter are the ones that show Trump still polling (whether it be regarding his approval ratings or voting intentions) in the mid to low 40% range. He’s done that for the last 5 years and he can bank on 28% of that translating into actual votes. That, coupled with the electoral college bias and the febrile nature of non Republican’s voting habits makes him a very formidable opponent. 

Biden could literally poll 10 points ahead on election eve, win the national vote On Election Day by 5%, yet still lose the electoral college and hence the presidency. 

Edited by Andrew #1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

The polls that really matter are the ones that show Trump still polling (there it be approval ratings or voting intentions) in the mid to low 40s> he’s done that for the last 5 years and he can bank on 28% of that translating into actual votes. That, coupled with the electoral college bias and the febrile nature of non Republican’s voting habits makes him a very formidable opponent. 

Biden could literally poll 10 points ahead on election eve, with the national vote by 5%, yet lose the electoral college and hence the presidency. 

Do you really use words like 'febrile' in every day conversation? 

Edited by more
Link to post
Share on other sites

The two key demographics are African Americans and suburbanites. And neither are helpful to Biden 

Hillary got 94% of the black vote and lost. Trump regularly gets over 10% and has been as high as 30%

The big-city suburbs are where the dems did well in the midterms in 2018, but are also very concerned about law and order these days

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

The two key demographics are African Americans and suburbanites. And neither are helpful to Biden 

Hillary got 94% of the black vote and lost. Trump regularly gets over 10% and has been as high as 30%

The big-city suburbs are where the dems did well in the midterms in 2018, but are also very concerned about law and order these days

Trump’s vote amongst blacks isn’t significant. It’s like describing unicorns. However, you do hit on an important point. There are a lot of middle class independent registered voters and middle class democrats who turned out and voted for Hillary in very large numbers in the burbs of the big cities that ARE worried about the apparent radicalisation of elements of BLM. They are not tempted to vote Trump, but they may well be tempted to ‘sit this one out’. At least that’s how the Trumpisn wing of the Republican Party are trying to manipulate these voter’s sentiments. The bad news for Trump is, that as much as they don’t like the left wing radical fringe, they are simply repulsed by the radical right wing militias, armed to the teeth, invading their suburbs looking for trouble and in many cases finding it. I reckon a lot of them are amount the queues lining up already to cast a vote. They may not line up at a Biden rally, but they seem to be lining up in equally spectacular numbers to throw Trump out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

Trump’s vote amongst blacks isn’t significant. It’s like describing unicorns. However, you do hit on an important point. There are a lot of middle class independent registered voters and middle class democrats who turned out and voted for Hillary in very large numbers in the burbs of the big cities that ARE worried about the apparent radicalisation of elements of BLM. They are not tempted to vote Trump, but they may well be tempted to ‘sit this one out’. At least that’s how the Trumpisn wing of the Republican Party are trying to manipulate these voter’s sentiments. The bad news for Trump is, that as much as they don’t like the left wing radical fringe, they are simply repulsed by the radical right wing militias, armed to the teeth, invading their suburbs looking for trouble and in many cases finding it. I reckon a lot of them are amount the queues lining up already to cast a vote. They may not line up at a Biden rally, but they seem to be lining up in equally spectacular numbers to throw Trump out.

I'm curious about these 'radical right wing militias' you refer to

Got an example? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...