• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump Tweets

Why are Democrats and unions working against life-changing school choice for underserved children? President Trump supports SCHOOL CHOICE! #SchoolChoiceNow
 
Trump Tweets

I just spoke to the highly respected Mayor of Tulsa, G.T. Bynum, who informed me there will be no curfew tonight or tomorrow for our many supporters attending the #MAGA Rally. Enjoy yourselves - thank you to Mayor Bynum!
@gtbynum
 
Segnosaur said:
That's actually very common...

In several polls, the number of people who plan to vote for biden is much higher than the number of people who think Biden will win.

Maybe its a good thing for the Democrats... desperation may drive people to the polls. (As long as it doesn't make them defeatist and decide to stay home.)
Click to expand...

My feeling (and I could be wrong) is many Democrats didn't bother voting in 2016 because they saw Hilllary as a shoe-in, and won't make the same mistake again this year.
 
Blue Mountain said:
My feeling (and I could be wrong) is many Democrats didn't bother voting in 2016 because they saw Hilllary as a shoe-in, and won't make the same mistake again this year.
Click to expand...

A fundamental flaw in her campaign is that her tone was "I deserve to win and I'm sure to win." There's no doubt that some of her supporters stayed home. If she had made speeches in Detroit and Milwaukee and a few other cities in the last week of the campaign and said "I need every vote! I need your vote!" history would be different.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
The law and the constitution are two things.
Click to expand...

No, the laws are passed by Congress in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. The basic premise of the Constitution is that the details of government would be left to the Congress, and the courts determine whether legislation violates Constitutional principles. What is the claim here?
 
Bob001 said:
No, the laws are passed by Congress in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. The basic premise of the Constitution is that the details of government would be left to the Congress, and the courts determine whether legislation violates Constitutional principles. What is the claim here?
Click to expand...

I don't dismiss this. But the Constitution says the President appoints judges. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
 
No, the President *nominates* judges. Justices must be confirmed by vote. How do you think so many judge benches were left empty during Obama's term? Votes were not held.
 
portlandatheist said:
The Latest Swing State Polls Look Good For Biden We can't be complacent but I also can't imagine him winning. The worrisome thing is, I felt exactly the same way in 2016
Click to expand...
Caveat: ZERO complacency here.

But, here are a couple of 2016 differences that I think are relevant, and offer a sliver of hope that this nightmare can end:
  • The Democrats had no idea just how many people hated Hillary Clinton. They still don't. A huge number of otherwise likely Democratic voters wanted something quite different (Bernie Sanders). Millions of middle-aged folks like me were rolling our eyes at her nomination but millions of Millennials were seething with anger at that nomination. Biden is another eyeroll candidate for many likely Democratic voters, but he is nowhere near reviled as Clinton was/is.
  • Eight years of pretty good times from Obama had people feeling that it was a decent time to take a chance on someone "outside the establishment", i.e., Trump (or for quite a few Americans, Gary Johnson). They assumed Clinton would win and we'd get status quo or, if by some miracle Trump won we could see what it'd be like to have a non-politician be president. How bad could it be? Now a few years into this Trumpian crapstorm, most folks understand how quickly things can go South.
Note I'm not rationalizing the hatred against Clinton nor the ignorance of the danger of handing the reins to a clown like Trump. That's just how things were. We don't have that this time.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Why are Democrats and unions working against life-changing school choice for underserved children? President Trump supports SCHOOL CHOICE! #SchoolChoiceNow
Click to expand...

Looks like DeVos figured out how to use Twitter and PMd Herr Gropenfuhrer.
 
portlandatheist said:
I have seen a few articles that basically go down that road. 538 has this article: The Latest Swing State Polls Look Good For Biden We can't be complacent but I also can't imagine him winning. The worrisome thing is, I felt exactly the same way in 2016
Click to expand...


Yes, that's why I said "There are some who post links to polls that suggest he'll lose, in hopes of not letting people succumb to cynicism and defeatism, but that's not the same as counting him out." Analyzing polling data to see if Biden is on the right track isn't "counting Trump out".



Segnosaur said:
That's actually very common...

In several polls, the number of people who plan to vote for Biden is much higher than the number of people who think Biden will win.

Maybe its a good thing for the Democrats... desperation may drive people to the polls. (As long as it doesn't make them defeatist and decide to stay home.)
Click to expand...


My concern is exactly that. Turnout is going to be a key factor in this election, and the "Trump is unstoppable/will steal the election/the Dems will find a way to lose" narratives lead directly to despair.

What I'm looking for is "Cautious optimism". The poll numbers look good, but it can still blow up in our faces if we get complacent or give in to despair.

And as I said, I've seen a lot of despair, but no "counting Trump out". That trope is just a part of the "Dems will find a way to lose" narrative; a part I think is almost entirely made up.
 
The Shrike said:
Caveat: ZERO complacency here.

But, here are a couple of 2016 differences that I think are relevant, and offer a sliver of hope that this nightmare can end:
  • The Democrats had no idea just how many people hated Hillary Clinton. They still don't. A huge number of otherwise likely Democratic voters wanted something quite different (Bernie Sanders). Millions of middle-aged folks like me were rolling our eyes at her nomination but millions of Millennials were seething with anger at that nomination. Biden is another eyeroll candidate for many likely Democratic voters, but he is nowhere near reviled as Clinton was/is.
  • Eight years of pretty good times from Obama had people feeling that it was a decent time to take a chance on someone "outside the establishment", i.e., Trump (or for quite a few Americans, Gary Johnson). They assumed Clinton would win and we'd get status quo or, if by some miracle Trump won we could see what it'd be like to have a non-politician be president. How bad could it be? Now a few years into this Trumpian crapstorm, most folks understand how quickly things can go South.
Note I'm not rationalizing the hatred against Clinton nor the ignorance of the danger of handing the reins to a clown like Trump. That's just how things were. We don't have that this time.
Click to expand...

I'd like to emphasize the distinction between a candidate's appeal due to promises spoken or implied, versus a candidate with a political history. Trump was a Rorschach for many voters, seeing what they wanted to see in vagueness, which led to a lot of benefit of the doubt.

I'll give you a specific example. I have a friend in the states who absolutely thought Trump was the LGBT candidate. And why not? Trump wrote about extending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected classes to sexual orientation as a Libertarian no brainer in The America We Deserve. Right, there in black and white. He has a signed copy.

When I ask this person if he thinks he made the right call... crickets.

Times, concievably, ten million people.
 
Bob001 said:
No, the laws are passed by Congress in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. The basic premise of the Constitution is that the details of government would be left to the Congress, and the courts determine whether legislation violates Constitutional principles. What is the claim here?
Click to expand...

You're completely missing the point. That a law establishes something doesn't counter the claim that the Constitution doesn't establish this thing.

It's quite simple.
 
Horatius said:
.....
My concern is exactly that. Turnout is going to be a key factor in this election, and the "Trump is unstoppable/will steal the election/the Dems will find a way to lose" narratives lead directly to despair.
....
Click to expand...

"Will steal election" is a legtimate concern if you consider the Repubs' extensive voter suppression efforts. They don't need to win votes; they just need to keep Democrats from voting against them.
 
Facebook deleted Trump’s 'doctored' CNN video entirely due to a copyright claim filed by the toddler’s parent. Now Twitter has done the same.
 
FOr the record, the Constituion leaves the number of Supreme Court Justices for the congress to establish. The number has gone up and down in US History;it was orginally 5.
All it would take to increase the number of justices is a simple majority vote in each house;no 2/3 or super majority needed.
 
Belz... said:
You're completely missing the point. That a law establishes something doesn't counter the claim that the Constitution doesn't establish this thing.
....
Click to expand...

Sure. But the fact that the Constitution doesn't mention something doesn't mean that the laws passed by Congress are unconstitutional. The fact that the Constitution doesn't establish the number of justices or federal judges doesn't mean that the laws that do so somehow run counter to the Constitution. That seems to be what's being argued.
 
Trebuchet said:
CENSORSHIP! THEY ARE TOTALLY VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT! GET RID OF SECTION 230!
Click to expand...

Smms to me Facebook has a right to decide what is allows and what it does not allow...as much as I might disagree with the individual decisiions.
Anyway the days when Facebook dominated social media is over. Too many competing formats.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
No, the President *nominates* judges. Justices must be confirmed by vote. How do you think so many judge benches were left empty during Obama's term? Votes were not held.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I still hold that the Constitution doesn't say anything limiting the number of SCOTUS jurists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom