Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

[phiwum]

She should appoint a 35 year old, black, atheist, lesbian, ACLU lawyer.

She should appoint someone reasonably qualified to do the job, and given that, any features that are congenial to Clinton's desires and likely to be appointed are good enough.

Supreme Court appointees are not a matter of revenge, for ****'s sake. Indeed, they can be an opportunity for conciliation.

Of course, if you think that everyone in the opposing camp is "scumbags", looking to harm the underclass, then you might not really understand how democracy ought to work. You might be better off playing World of Warcraft.

 

[Stacko]

She should appoint someone reasonably qualified to do the job, and given that, any features that are congenial to Clinton's desires and likely to be appointed are good enough.

Supreme Court appointees are not a matter of revenge, for ****'s sake. Indeed, they can be an opportunity for conciliation.

Of course, if you think that everyone in the opposing camp is "scumbags", looking to harm the underclass, then you might not really understand how democracy ought to work. You might be better off playing World of Warcraft.

Republican's are starting vow to obstruct any nominee Clinton puts forward. If you're going to be dealing with a completely unreasonable opposition pandering to a diminishing and increasingly delusional base, you might as well make them look as ridiculous as possible.

 

[Tony Stark]

She should appoint someone reasonably qualified to do the job, and given that, any features that are congenial to Clinton's desires and likely to be appointed are good enough.

Supreme Court appointees are not a matter of revenge, for ****'s sake. Indeed, they can be an opportunity for conciliation.

Of course, if you think that everyone in the opposing camp is "scumbags", looking to harm the underclass, then you might not really understand how democracy ought to work. You might be better off playing World of Warcraft.

It is not possible to reconciliate with Republicans. Those low life scumbags are refusing to even hold hearings for an extremely qualified moderate judge on the slim hope that Donald *********** Trump will be able to fill the seat.

**** them.

 

[Foolmewunz]

She should appoint someone reasonably qualified to do the job, and given that, any features that are congenial to Clinton's desires and likely to be appointed are good enough.

Supreme Court appointees are not a matter of revenge, for ****'s sake. Indeed, they can be an opportunity for conciliation.

Of course, if you think that everyone in the opposing camp is "scumbags", looking to harm the underclass, then you might not really understand how democracy ought to work. You might be better off playing World of Warcraft.

Or, Iron Man might actually think that the description he gave is of an ideal Supreme Court Justice. If you assume that a nominee to the Supreme Court pre-supposes judicial experience, I have no problem with an appointee meeting that criteria. Why do you leap to the conclusion that this is some sort of revenge?

Let's remember that Republican presidents appointed Thomas and Scalia and tried to have Bork appointed. They have a different-items but similar list of bullet points on their credentials.

 

[Garrison]

She should appoint someone reasonably qualified to do the job, and given that, any features that are congenial to Clinton's desires and likely to be appointed are good enough.

Supreme Court appointees are not a matter of revenge, for ****'s sake. Indeed, they can be an opportunity for conciliation.

Of course, if you think that everyone in the opposing camp is "scumbags", looking to harm the underclass, then you might not really understand how democracy ought to work. You might be better off playing World of Warcraft.

So that would be pretty much the entire Republican membership of congress who vowed to oppose any candidate President Obama put forward for the Supreme Court? But hey I'm sure they will be far more reasonable with President Clinton, I mean the Republicans have been so warm and friendly towards her so far.

 

[acbytesla]

She should appoint someone reasonably qualified to do the job, and given that, any features that are congenial to Clinton's desires and likely to be appointed are good enough.

Supreme Court appointees are not a matter of revenge, for ****'s sake. Indeed, they can be an opportunity for conciliation. .

No, it is NOT. While it isn't about revenge, it is about promoting your political philosophy long after your administration. A young liberal who knows what it is like to be discriminated against would be perfect. This as opposed to a conservative who will protect privilege.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm sure Trump doesn't get it that if the elections are rigged against him they could be rigged in favor of any Republican candidate who wins in November. Then again, in Trump world, if it isn't about Trump it isn't important.

Without trying to sound too much like a conspiracy theorists, but...

I do believe that Trump got some signal from Moscow (or believes he did) that Kremlin hackers will help him get elected, including hacking voting machines.
If you plan to cheat, the first thing you do is claim that there will be cheating ; when everyone denies that, they are on record saying that the elections will be fair.

We have strong evidence for Russian meddling, through Wikileaks, twitterbots and voting machine hacking. And all for the benefit of Trump. Combine that with Trump's bizarre defense of Russia against anything, and the picture you get is a kind of Manchurian candidate.

 

[Belz...]

No, it is NOT. While it isn't about revenge, it is about promoting your political philosophy long after your administration.

Indeed, though it kind of goes against the principle that SCOTUS should be apolitical and unbiased, doesn't it?

 

[phiwum]

Republican's are starting vow to obstruct any nominee Clinton puts forward. If you're going to be dealing with a completely unreasonable opposition pandering to a diminishing and increasingly delusional base, you might as well make them look as ridiculous as possible.

Uh, but you would do this by selecting a perfectly moderate candidate, not the candidate obviously unacceptable to a large portion of voters.

In other words, you would make Republicans look ridiculous in just the way that Obama has.

Now, if the Senate shifts, then Clinton probably ought to select someone more liberal than Obama's choice. That would be useful. But otherwise, she ought to nominate someone who would be acceptable to the moderates.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Indeed, though it kind of goes against the principle that SCOTUS should be apolitical and unbiased, doesn't it?

In theory... maybe? Not in the USA. All the Constitution has to say on the subject is the method of appointment. The court has been political since its inception.

 

[phiwum]

It is not possible to reconciliate with Republicans. Those low life scumbags are refusing to even hold hearings for an extremely qualified moderate judge on the slim hope that Donald *********** Trump will be able to fill the seat.

**** them.

Dear, kind sir.

You do realize that her nomination has to pass a Senate vote, yes?

You do realize that it's unlikely the Dems can override a filibuster, yes?

I know your quite passionate on these things, but the next president has to work with the Republicans to some extent. This is how the system is set up.

Sorry we can't just line 'em up against the wall, but it turns out there are rules.

 

[Faydra]

Sorry we can't just line 'em up against the wall, but it turns out there are rules.

There's always a catch.

 

[Tony Stark]

Dear, kind sir.

You do realize that her nomination has to pass a Senate vote, yes?

You do realize that it's unlikely the Dems can override a filibuster, yes?

I know your quite passionate on these things, but the next president has to work with the Republicans to some extent. This is how the system is set up.

Sorry we can't just line 'em up against the wall, but it turns out there are rules.

If the Dems take the Senate, they should just eliminate the filibuster and tell the Republicans to go **** themselves as Hillary stacks the Supreme Court with liberals. First filling Scalia's seat, then RBG and Breyer retire. Oh and a bunch of other federal courts.

I really couldn't possibly care less if Republicans don't like it. Actually, them disliking it would bring me pleasure.

 

[varwoche]

Dear, kind sir.

You do realize that her nomination has to pass a Senate vote, yes?
You do realize that it's unlikely the Dems can override a filibuster, yes?

I know your quite passionate on these things, but the next president has to work with the Republicans to some extent. This is how the system is set up.

Sorry we can't just line 'em up against the wall, but it turns out there are rules.

If the senate swings Dem, and if GOP filibusters SCOTUS appointments, then I won't be at all surprised if a rules change is pushed through, which only requires simple majority. The threat of rules change might even bring the know/do-nothings into line.

 

[phiwum]

Or, Iron Man might actually think that the description he gave is of an ideal Supreme Court Justice. If you assume that a nominee to the Supreme Court pre-supposes judicial experience, I have no problem with an appointee meeting that criteria. Why do you leap to the conclusion that this is some sort of revenge?

Let's remember that Republican presidents appointed Thomas and Scalia and tried to have Bork appointed. They have a different-items but similar list of bullet points on their credentials.

I think it's fairly clear that Stark's suggestion was about revenge.

But, in any case, surely we don't choose justices on the fact that they are lesbians or what-not, but on the grounds that they are qualified. At least that's the primary goal. The secondary goal has to do with whether they fit this or that political philosophy. None of the good goals have to do with being black or lesbian. All of that seems to be purely vengeance based (and fairly bigoted).

Please, Stark thinks that Dems ought not negotiate with Republicans, and that Republicans are scumbags. He literally says this. This is not the position of a well-considered voter, but one who thinks this election is the Game of Thrones.

 

[phiwum]

So that would be pretty much the entire Republican membership of congress who vowed to oppose any candidate President Obama put forward for the Supreme Court? But hey I'm sure they will be far more reasonable with President Clinton, I mean the Republicans have been so warm and friendly towards her so far.

I am very much concerned about that attitude, and it was wrong to deny a vote to Obama's nominee. It's entirely possible that they might do the same for another four years.

What is your point otherwise? How does this reflect on my comments?

 

[phiwum]

No, it is NOT. While it isn't about revenge, it is about promoting your political philosophy long after your administration. A young liberal who knows what it is like to be discriminated against would be perfect. This as opposed to a conservative who will protect privilege.

And a moderate who might be actually accepted by the senate is also worth considering.

I'm not opposed to the president nominating one similar to his philosophy, if that person can pass the senate. It's the situation in which the senate is in the other party's hand when conciliation is in order.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think it's fairly clear that Stark's suggestion was about revenge.

But, in any case, surely we don't choose justices on the fact that they are lesbians or what-not, but on the grounds that they are qualified. At least that's the primary goal. The secondary goal has to do with whether they fit this or that political philosophy. None of the good goals have to do with being black or lesbian. All of that seems to be purely vengeance based (and fairly bigoted).

Please, Stark thinks that Dems ought not negotiate with Republicans, and that Republicans are scumbags. He literally says this. This is not the position of a well-considered voter, but one who thinks this election is the Game of Thrones.

Obviously the person should be qualified. It would be a bonus if it is someone the GOP scumbags hate.

 

[phiwum]

Indeed, though it kind of goes against the principle that SCOTUS should be apolitical and unbiased, doesn't it?

Quite! But I guess I've been disabused of that ideal.

 

[Darat]

Another thought.

I get articles from CNN and elsewhere commenting on how badly Clinton is outspending Trump, with special emphasis on states that could be close, such as Florida.

Trump is allegedly a multi-billionaire.

15 or 20 million dollars or more of his own money spent in swing states might actually make a difference in the outcome of this election, yet he holds back.

Why?

Possibilities:

A) He's not as rich as he purports, and might have trouble putting his hands on even those trivial amounts of cash, relative to his stated net worth.

B) Neither he nor his staff is smart enough to spend money where it might actually do some good.

C) He's resigned to losing, and sees that as "good money after bad".

D) He never intended to win and is doing everything he can behind the scenes not to.

E) He's so far down the rabbit hole that he thinks he's winning by a landslide, so he doesn't need to spend any more money. (Thanks to Dave Rogers)

F) He doesn't think political advertising does much good, and he relishes the idea of beating Hillary on a shoestring budget. (Thanks to sunmaster14)

I'm leaning towards "D", though of course the options are not mutually exclusive.

Your thoughts?

It's a mixture of A, B and E.