Biden won, it's over --- The Election Thread

[dudog]

There's something about big round numbers that seem to catch the public's attention.

We just went over 100,000 new cases today.

Winning! Anyone tired of it yet?

[CameronBornAndBred]

As if there wouldn't be dozens of "Where did all the shy Trump voters go hahahaha" posts if Biden wins. Heck, I would probably join in the chorus.

Maybe on a place like Facebook, but this isn't a place like Facebook. Keep that in mind, please.

[Nrrrrvous]

Could we possibly keep the insults in this thread for Trump, Pence, Biden and Harris? Let's not sink to the level of most message boards...

[mattman91]

Could we possibly keep the insults in this thread for Trump, Pence, Biden and Harris? Let's not sink to the level of most message boards...

Ok.

Trump is an asshole.

Joe Biden doesn't know where he is half of the time.

Kamala Harris sucked her way into power.

Pence...I can't think of many bad things about the guy. BuT dId YoU sEe ThE fLy On HiS hEaD?

In all seriousness, I agree with Nrrrrvous. Thanks for steering the ship back on path.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Could we possibly keep the insults in this thread for Trump, Pence, Biden and Harris? Let's not sink to the level of most message boards...

[CameronBornAndBred]

Election Day is setting up to be ripe with horror stories.

Postal officials say they are unaware of any issues, but the director, Aaron Sheasley, said the county has received in excess of 10,000 phone calls seeking information about ballots that were requested but not received, and that some callers have called multiple times.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/30/politics ... index.html

One example in one county in one state. In Florida there are post offices with mail literally piling up, undelivered. In other states, I'm sure there is more of the same.

[gumbomoop]

I continue to believe that Kavanaugh is the actual wild-card-swing-justice that Roberts needs to persuade to act as a non-partisan arbiter in defense of democracy and the rule of law. And I will hope that either Gorsuch or Barrett will move toward Roberts and away from Thomas and Alito.

Given Kavanaugh's recent election case dissenting opinions make me really wonder what you see here that indicate Kavanaugh would be a wildcard in a moderation sense. Late, otherwise properly cast ballots, will flip the election? States want to announce election results on election night or as soon as possible thereafter? Vermont didn't change electoral procedures? He doesn't even seem to want to bother to conduct a full and accurate evaluation of the facts, let alone the law. Kavanaugh is as overtly partisan as anyone I can recall on the Court. I haven't seen any reason to believe that he would be a moderating influence at all.

I agree with the general point you make here. To try to clarify: I have disagreed with several posters who think/hope the Court would not help Trump steal the election, as, in their view, a majority of justices would know they would be harming irreparably the Court’s reputation. If the SC gets involved in determining the winner of the election, I think odds are Trump wins.

Still, I think CJ Roberts will do everything possible to uphold the integrity of ballots cast, and by so doing attempt to avoid the Court becoming so obviously politicized in an anti-democratic way. I cannot claim that Kavanaugh is likely to be a moderating influence, on his own. So I see Kavanaugh as the likeliest — but, alas, not necessarily likely — of the Five Reactionaries to be persuaded by Roberts to not overturn legitimate ballots.

I can’t fully disagree that Kavanaugh is overtly partisan, but when I look at the Five, I see Thomas and Alito as clearly the most radically reactionary. I see Gorsuch’s and now Barrett’s “originalism/textualism” as equally likely to produce reactionary opinions. The “logic” of their ahistorical “judicial philosophy” seems to require them to rule in favor of Republican state legislators in an “alternate electors” challenge. Maybe it won’t; I hope not.

So if the Court agrees to intervene, surely the key to a hopeful, perhaps naïve, upholding-ballots scenario is Roberts. I assume he’d try to persuade one or more of Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh to secure the legitimacy of the Court. Because Kavanaugh seems not yet clearly an ideologue as obviously are Thomas and Alito, and not yet so clearly self-described as an “originalist/textualist,” i describe him as the wildcard.

But, to repeat, I’m not optimistic that we’ll avoid a constitutional crisis and a “crisis of legitimacy” for the Court. I have said for three years, over-dramatically perhaps, that sooner or later John Roberts would decide the fate of our country. With RBG’s passing, Roberts can’t decide cases simply with his own vote/opinion. His role as Chief Persuader is now paramount.

[Troublemaker]

gumbo -- over on the populist right, we're actually very concerned about Barrett. So much establishment money (Koch bros especially) went into advertising for her confirmation. We think, until proven otherwise, she's going to be another Roberts.

That isn't to say that Barrett hasn't served her purpose. With the election almost here, Trump had to replace RBG with a woman, and Barrett was photogenic, polite, and smart. Even the polls that are bad for Trump now show that the majority of America approve her confirmation.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

gumbo -- over on the populist right, we're actually very concerned about Barrett. So much establishment money (Koch bros especially) went into advertising for her confirmation. We think, until proven otherwise, she's going to be another Roberts.

That isn't to say that Barrett hasn't served her purpose. With the election almost here, Trump had to replace RBG with a woman, and Barrett was photogenic, polite, and smart. Even the polls that are bad for Trump now show that the majority of America approve her confirmation.

You had me until "photogenic." I really don't think/hope that photogenic was a qualifying characteristic for a Supreme Court justice. I wish it was not a qualifying characteristic for an elected official but I am not naive and recognize that it frequently matters there. But looks have nothing to do with being a judge. I actually prefer that judges have a bit more gray hair, but unfortunately, the trend is now to get the youngest federal judges possible with hopes that they will stay on the court the longest amount of time possible. As much as I have my issues with ACB, I know that Trump was considering judges significantly younger than her (including a Duke alum in his 30s) but chose someone with more qualifying experience.

[CameronBornAndBred]

You had me until "photogenic."

I'm guessing it wouldn't help my case if I were arguing my case and said "by the way, Your Honor, you sure are hot!".

[OPK]

You had me until "photogenic."

I'm guessing it wouldn't help my case if I were arguing my case and said "by the way, Your Honor, you sure are hot!".

I’m guessing you’re guessing correctly.

[Troublemaker]

gumbo -- over on the populist right, we're actually very concerned about Barrett. So much establishment money (Koch bros especially) went into advertising for her confirmation. We think, until proven otherwise, she's going to be another Roberts.

That isn't to say that Barrett hasn't served her purpose. With the election almost here, Trump had to replace RBG with a woman, and Barrett was photogenic, polite, and smart. Even the polls that are bad for Trump now show that the majority of America approve her confirmation.

You had me until "photogenic." I really don't think/hope that photogenic was a qualifying characteristic for a Supreme Court justice. I wish it was not a qualifying characteristic for an elected official but I am not naive and recognize that it frequently matters there. But looks have nothing to do with being a judge. I actually prefer that judges have a bit more gray hair, but unfortunately, the trend is now to get the youngest federal judges possible with hopes that they will stay on the court the longest amount of time possible. As much as I have my issues with ACB, I know that Trump was considering judges significantly younger than her (including a Duke alum in his 30s) but chose someone with more qualifying experience.

lol, except I obviously was referring to her good looks in context of public opinion polling, not as a qualification. Try harder.

[OPK]

You had me until "photogenic."

I'm guessing it wouldn't help my case if I were arguing my case and said "by the way, Your Honor, you sure are hot!".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc- ... -up-sandy/

[CrazyNotCrazie]

gumbo -- over on the populist right, we're actually very concerned about Barrett. So much establishment money (Koch bros especially) went into advertising for her confirmation. We think, until proven otherwise, she's going to be another Roberts.

That isn't to say that Barrett hasn't served her purpose. With the election almost here, Trump had to replace RBG with a woman, and Barrett was photogenic, polite, and smart. Even the polls that are bad for Trump now show that the majority of America approve her confirmation.

You had me until "photogenic." I really don't think/hope that photogenic was a qualifying characteristic for a Supreme Court justice. I wish it was not a qualifying characteristic for an elected official but I am not naive and recognize that it frequently matters there. But looks have nothing to do with being a judge. I actually prefer that judges have a bit more gray hair, but unfortunately, the trend is now to get the youngest federal judges possible with hopes that they will stay on the court the longest amount of time possible. As much as I have my issues with ACB, I know that Trump was considering judges significantly younger than her (including a Duke alum in his 30s) but chose someone with more qualifying experience.

lol, except I obviously was referring to her good looks in context of public opinion polling, not as a qualification. Try harder.

Please stop being so snarky. I do not think that public opinion polling should factor into the decision on who should be a judge. And even if it does, one would hope that appearance is not a criteria most Americans use when choosing a judge. If you had a life threatening disease, who you factor appearance into your choice of a doctor? "This doctor isn't that attractive but they have performed this really specialized surgery hundreds of times, but the other one is really hot, so I will go with them." As I said above, the same logic should apply for elected office and I know that it does not, but one would think the judiciary branch would be above this.

But what do I know. Heads you win, tails, I lose.

I apologize to the other posters on this thread for this bickering. But I have a hard time not responding to these types of posts. And I know that I am not alone.

Hopefully we can return to an intelligent discussion of the election. It's going to be a really long week...

[OPK]

You had me until "photogenic." I really don't think/hope that photogenic was a qualifying characteristic for a Supreme Court justice. I wish it was not a qualifying characteristic for an elected official but I am not naive and recognize that it frequently matters there. But looks have nothing to do with being a judge. I actually prefer that judges have a bit more gray hair, but unfortunately, the trend is now to get the youngest federal judges possible with hopes that they will stay on the court the longest amount of time possible. As much as I have my issues with ACB, I know that Trump was considering judges significantly younger than her (including a Duke alum in his 30s) but chose someone with more qualifying experience.

lol, except I obviously was referring to her good looks in context of public opinion polling, not as a qualification. Try harder.

Please stop being so snarky. I do not think that public opinion polling should factor into the decision on who should be a judge. And even if it does, one would hope that appearance is not a criteria most Americans use when choosing a judge. If you had a life threatening disease, who you factor appearance into your choice of a doctor? "This doctor isn't that attractive but they have performed this really specialized surgery hundreds of times, but the other one is really hot, so I will go with them." As I said above, the same logic should apply for elected office and I know that it does not, but one would think the judiciary branch would be above this.

But what do I know. Heads you win, tails, I lose.

I apologize to the other posters on this thread for this bickering. But I have a hard time not responding to these types of posts. And I know that I am not alone.

Hopefully we can return to an intelligent discussion of the election. It's going to be a really long week...

Week? That would be a blessing.

[Phredd3]

But, to repeat, I’m not optimistic that we’ll avoid a constitutional crisis and a “crisis of legitimacy” for the Court. I have said for three years, over-dramatically perhaps, that sooner or later John Roberts would decide the fate of our country. With RBG’s passing, Roberts can’t decide cases simply with his own vote/opinion. His role as Chief Persuader is now paramount.

Fair enough. I, too, am hopeful about Roberts' ability to be a good persuader. Also like you, 'm not, optimistic, and I don't really see a lot of reasons to think that Kavanaugh, in particular, is persuable. My hope would actually lie more with Gorsuch. I think Barrett, Alito, and Thomas are simply immoderate and unlikely to be persuaded by much of anything.

[ArkieDukie]

https://apple.news/AEfk6oRoxRS69yaSNgMYF6g
Personally, I find this terrifying on multiple levels. First, when did it become okay to attempt to run a candidate’s bus off the road? Second, and perhaps more terrifying, what candidate outright endorses and encourages this type of behavior?

[CameronBornAndBred]

https://apple.news/AEfk6oRoxRS69yaSNgMYF6g
Personally, I find this terrifying on multiple levels. First, when did it become okay to attempt to run a candidate’s bus off the road? Second, and perhaps more terrifying, what candidate outright endorses and encourages this type of behavior?

At least the FBI is investigating. I hope everyone of those assholes is arrested.

[ArkieDukie]

https://apple.news/AEfk6oRoxRS69yaSNgMYF6g
Personally, I find this terrifying on multiple levels. First, when did it become okay to attempt to run a candidate’s bus off the road? Second, and perhaps more terrifying, what candidate outright endorses and encourages this type of behavior?

At least the FBI is investigating. I hope everyone of those assholes is arrested.

I would like to see that as well. I think the videos are of sufficient quality that the vehicles can be tracked down.

Apparently the leader of the Republican Party in TX also supported the offenders and released some statement in which he asked why the MSM wasn’t talking about violence on the left. My question is this, when did a caravan of Biden supporters attempt to force a Trump campaign bus off the road? I heard something about a conflict between far right and far left groups, but nothing like what happened in TX.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

https://apple.news/AEfk6oRoxRS69yaSNgMYF6g
Personally, I find this terrifying on multiple levels. First, when did it become okay to attempt to run a candidate’s bus off the road? Second, and perhaps more terrifying, what candidate outright endorses and encourages this type of behavior?

At least the FBI is investigating. I hope everyone of those assholes is arrested.

It would be fitting if they all got arrested and were sitting in jail and unable to vote on election day. I feel strongly about having the maximum number of people voting, regardless of party, but these dirtbags don't deserve it.

It would also be nice if the president said something about it since he is so quick to call out violence when he thinks it is committed by Dems. Law and order!