President Biden and US politics catchall

[fishfoodie]

I have had a number of forms sent to me to apply for absentee ballots to both my name and resident at this address. And in my district, if not the whole state, multiple polling drop boxes will be placed over the whole area, making the need for using the PO unnecessary. So, there should be no place to complain about voter suppression. And extra polling stations will be opened.

My concern is more at the counting offices. Probably they will have to employ temporary workers to check that absentee ballots are legitimate by checking signatures etc, giving a lot of room for human error.

More polling stations than for a normal general election? And whilst there should be a lot of drop boxes there are already moves in place to curb those numbers, which is just barking even before there's a pandemic.

Checking the signatures might be problematic but one assumes there's more than one set of eyes on the ballots so at minimum they're double checked?

A lot of extra polling stations have been proposed (I seem to remember the number of 40)as well as multiple temporary drop boxes for absentee ballots only. That at least is what is happening in the Atlanta area. I must assume that every district is making their own arrangements.

And naturally it has not happened before as these are unique conditions.

One of the many problems/vote suppression tactics in Minnesota, was reducing the number of polling stations, so forcing people to queue for hours in a pandemic, to cast their ballot.

People also pointed out that most of the volunteers in these polling stations are elderly, & shouldn't have been exposing themselves to Covid in this way.

Its ridiculous the way the simple Democratic basics are politicised, & corrupted in the US.

Why does every State chose to use different methods for the simple process of voting ?
Why are Political Parties allowed to jerrymander boundaries ?

[Hugo]

Here in South Africa, we have an independent judiciary which is able to make judgements based on the rule of law rather than political affiliation.

It seems extraordinary that the US does not.

This is entirely the problem with the system and one that would in my opinion be at least somewhat mitigated by the presence of a third party.

Justices are either 0 or 1. Red or blue. Liberal or conservative. Why would you give an inch in this zero sum game when every bit of power you concede nourishes your enemy?

The system as currently constructed does not facilitate compromise. A third party that siphoned off votes from both parties would marginalize the radicals in both parties rather than putting them at the core of their party.

[Rinkals]

Precisely.

That the judiciary in a backwoods like South Africa is considerably more enlightened than that in a Country that makes claim to be a lot more civilised should be a source of enduring embarrassment to Americans, but apparently not.

Mind you, the fact that their President has the warm approval of at least 40% of Americans gives some insight into the height of the bar in regard to their standards.

[Fangle]

Justices don’t always vote the way that the president who nominated them would like. I can think of a few off the top of my head who were nominated by Republican presidents but often argue with the liberals. The most recent was of course John Roberts. And Gorsach and Kavanagh have voted against each other. In the fairly recent past there were Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day Lewis, Souter, amongst others. It’s all in the interpretation of the constitution.

For a far better analysis you should talk to Mr Mike who has a much better understanding than us idiots who don’t really know what we are talking about.

Of course I’ve read the constitution, and biographies of at least five past justices including RBG, but a lot of their arguments go over my head.

[Ali Cadoo]

[Hugo]

Justices don’t always vote the way that the president who nominated them would like. I can think of a few off the top of my head who were nominated by Republican presidents but often argue with the liberals. The most recent was of course John Roberts. And Gorsach and Kavanagh have voted against each other. In the fairly recent past there were Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day Lewis, Souter, amongst others. It’s all in the interpretation of the constitution.

For a far better analysis you should talk to Mr Mike who has a much better understanding than us idiots who don’t really know what we are talking about.

Of course I’ve read the constitution, and biographies of at least five past justices including RBG, but a lot of their arguments go over my head.

That's true Fangle, they don't always vote on party/ideological lines but don't you think we are getting to a point where both parties are going to just nominate hardliners who always will?

Chuck Schumer was outside the Supreme Court a few months ago threatening Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Lindsay Graham said that there will be "a reckoning" if Amy Barrett gets the same forensic grilling that Kavanaugh got.

The middle ground and the moderates are fast disappearing.

[obelixtim]

I wonder how much he owes Putin?

[Guy Smiley]

[Rinkals]

Justices don’t always vote the way that the president who nominated them would like. I can think of a few off the top of my head who were nominated by Republican presidents but often argue with the liberals. The most recent was of course John Roberts. And Gorsach and Kavanagh have voted against each other. In the fairly recent past there were Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day Lewis, Souter, amongst others. It’s all in the interpretation of the constitution.

For a far better analysis you should talk to Mr Mike who has a much better understanding than us idiots who don’t really know what we are talking about.

Of course I’ve read the constitution, and biographies of at least five past justices including RBG, but a lot of their arguments go over my head.

That's true Fangle, they don't always vote on party/ideological lines but don't you think we are getting to a point where both parties are going to just nominate hardliners who always will?

Chuck Schumer was outside the Supreme Court a few months ago threatening Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Lindsay Graham said that there will be "a reckoning" if Amy Barrett gets the same forensic grilling that Kavanaugh got.

The middle ground and the moderates are fast disappearing.

I don't think it's very likely that that anyone will come forward to claim that ACB was a drunken sexual predator, TBF.

Ostensibly, the lifetime appointment is supposed to counter any attempt by the ruling administration to control how the SCOTUS adjudicates, but in the past it has shown a willingness to make judgements along party political lines and from an idealogical standpoint.

Having a 6-3 idealogical split is probably not going to lend much in the way of objectivity to their decision-making.

My comparison with an African country's judiciary might have been a little tongue-in-cheek, but the underlying sentiment remains.

[Rinkals]

I wonder how much he owes Putin?

Quite a lot.

[JM2K6]

Justices don’t always vote the way that the president who nominated them would like. I can think of a few off the top of my head who were nominated by Republican presidents but often argue with the liberals. The most recent was of course John Roberts. And Gorsach and Kavanagh have voted against each other. In the fairly recent past there were Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day Lewis, Souter, amongst others. It’s all in the interpretation of the constitution.

For a far better analysis you should talk to Mr Mike who has a much better understanding than us idiots who don’t really know what we are talking about.

Of course I’ve read the constitution, and biographies of at least five past justices including RBG, but a lot of their arguments go over my head.

Come now. They're nominating idealogical fruitcakes who owe their presence on the Supreme Court entirely to their warped world-views and the largesse of the people who put them there.

There is absolutely no question that ACB would vote precisely how Trump and his backers would want on all the issues that matter to them. To think otherwise is painfully naive.

[JM2K6]

[Kiwias]

I haven't lived in the USA for a long time but when was the requirement for a photo ID when you go grocery shopping imtroduced?

[Flockwitt]

Remind me again who the sheeple are?

[Biffer]

Saw Arnold Schwarzenegger tweet the other day about polling stations and the idea that some were being cut because of cost reasons. He's said outright that any area which is struggling with the cost should contact him and he'll pay for it. And he said this should then mean that any stations which are withdrawn are withdrawn for non-financial reasons, the suggestion being that it would be political reasons.

[mat the expat]

Saw Arnold Schwarzenegger tweet the other day about polling stations and the idea that some were being cut because of cost reasons. He's said outright that any area which is struggling with the cost should contact him and he'll pay for it. And he said this should then mean that any stations which are withdrawn are withdrawn for non-financial reasons, the suggestion being that it would be political reasons.

I saw that also

He is a canny observer

[tabascoboy]

At this point I reckon DJT could spear a baby and roast it over an open fire and people would still be rushing to say it's right and necessary.

[ScarfaceClaw]

At this point I reckon DJT could spear a baby and roast it over an open fire and people would still be rushing to say it's right and necessary.

Probably a Mexican baby. Or from Chyyyyyyynaaaa.

[ScarfaceClaw]

Saw Arnold Schwarzenegger tweet the other day about polling stations and the idea that some were being cut because of cost reasons. He's said outright that any area which is struggling with the cost should contact him and he'll pay for it. And he said this should then mean that any stations which are withdrawn are withdrawn for non-financial reasons, the suggestion being that it would be political reasons.

Mickey Bloomberg is offering to pay outstanding fines for people who can’t afford them and who wouldn’t be allowed to vote until they are paid.

[Hugo]

I find it hard to stomach the likes of John Oliver bemoaning that things are hopeless as the SC is surely going to go to the right.

He must have forgotten that he encouraged Trump to run years ago and like many commentators of his ilk did not treat his candidacy with respect preferring to make cheap jokes about "Make Donald Drumpf Again", small hands, orange, bad hair and all those other childish jibes. When a dangerous person from a dangerous party runs for the job of most powerful man in the world it might behoove you to actually take that threat seriously and not be so smug and complacent.

[JM2K6]

What should the comedian have done exactly?

[sockwithaticket]

I find it hard to stomach the likes of John Oliver bemoaning that things are hopeless as the SC is surely going to go to the right.

He must have forgotten that he encouraged Trump to run years ago and like many commentators of his ilk did not treat his candidacy with respect preferring to make cheap jokes about "Make Donald Drumpf Again", small hands, orange, bad hair and all those other childish jibes. When a dangerous person from a dangerous party runs for the job of most powerful man in the world it might behoove you to actually take that threat seriously and not be so smug and complacent.

On what basis should anyone have taken Trump seriously? He was ridiculed and reviled by prominent Republicans until he, against all expectation, won the Presidential nomination.

Few commentators from the political sphere, let alone the comedic one, viewed Trump as a dangerous person or a credible presidential candidate because, as we've seen over the last few years, he lacks any suitability for the position and there was an over-estimation of the American public, as it turns out, that enough of them were cognisant of this to keep the orange one out of office.

[Ali Cadoo]

I wouldn't place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the deplorables, Trump was a knee-jerk reaction to the public's distaste, distrust and frustration with US politics in general. They wanted a non-politician to drain the swamp.

The fact that they were dull enough to trust Trump, King Swampy McSwampfuck with this task remains a depressing fact, though.

[sockwithaticket]

I wouldn't place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the deplorables], Trump was a knee-jerk reaction to the public's distaste, distrust and frustration with US politics in general. They wanted a non-politician to drain the swamp.

The fact that they were dull enough to trust Trump, King Swampy McSwampfuck with this task remains a depressing fact, though.

There's a lot of blame to go around, but the deplorables do shoulder a lot of it, he wouldn't be there without them. While I'm sure he's got a not insignificant amount of support from non-cultists who simply can't bring themselves to vote blue, its the other lot who've given him more or less unwavering support and enough votes to get him through the electoral college.

As to why the deplorables exist, that's where we can start talking about other ingredients for this most fetid of swamps.

[ScarfaceClaw]

What should the comedian have done exactly?

Being funny for a start might have helped.

[JM2K6]

What should the comedian have done exactly?

Being funny for a start might have helped.

I'm sure he's sobbing in the cold embrace of his eight Emmy awards for comedy shows at the thought of you not finding him funny...

[ScarfaceClaw]

What should the comedian have done exactly?

Being funny for a start might have helped.

I'm sure he's sobbing in the cold embrace of his eight Emmy awards for comedy shows at the thought of you not finding him funny...

But is he really happy?

[Ali Cadoo]

John Oliver nails more things than Wilt Chamberlain:

SCOTUS and electoral college dissected.

[JM2K6]

Being funny for a start might have helped.

I'm sure he's sobbing in the cold embrace of his eight Emmy awards for comedy shows at the thought of you not finding him funny...

But is he really happy?

A happy comedian is a boring comedian

[Uncle fester]

Saw Arnold Schwarzenegger tweet the other day about polling stations and the idea that some were being cut because of cost reasons. He's said outright that any area which is struggling with the cost should contact him and he'll pay for it. And he said this should then mean that any stations which are withdrawn are withdrawn for non-financial reasons, the suggestion being that it would be political reasons.

Mickey Bloomberg is offering to pay outstanding fines for people who can’t afford them and who wouldn’t be allowed to vote until they are paid.

That one is too easily spun in a negative light.

[Saint]

Saw Arnold Schwarzenegger tweet the other day about polling stations and the idea that some were being cut because of cost reasons. He's said outright that any area which is struggling with the cost should contact him and he'll pay for it. And he said this should then mean that any stations which are withdrawn are withdrawn for non-financial reasons, the suggestion being that it would be political reasons.

Mickey Bloomberg is offering to pay outstanding fines for people who can’t afford them and who wouldn’t be allowed to vote until they are paid.

That one is too easily spun in a negative light.

The bigger issue is that the State of Florida still can't tell people whether they have outstanding fines or not.

[fishfoodie]

So with us finally getting a look into the shitballs taxes; & 'it', of course calling it, 'FAKE NEWS !!!!!', how does Biden use this to twist his tail in the debate tomorrow ??

Is the easiest thing for Biden to straight up, first retort, to just get him to claim it's a lie that he only paid $1,500 in Federal taxes in 2016-2017; & then call him liar to his face when he denies it ?

Then go back at him, & when he continues to deny it; & say all he has to do is show his tax returns to show he isn't lying, & have a sheet of his own returns to wave in his face if he tries retorting ?

Just stick him on the lie, or proving that he did make any meaningful contribution ?

.. and then any time he tells another lie; just go back to this same lie he's told for years, & ask why anyone would believe him, when he's lied, & been showed to have lied, & is too much of a coward to tell the truth.

Burrow deep under his thin skin & don't let up !!

Money is the only fucking thing the Yanks take seriously, & way too many of them fell for the myth that this piece of shit was a; "successful business man"; & showing what a fuck up he is, & how he is so disconnected from the reality of majority of his base, will really damage him, & the GOP.

[Fonz]

Justices don’t always vote the way that the president who nominated them would like. I can think of a few off the top of my head who were nominated by Republican presidents but often argue with the liberals. The most recent was of course John Roberts. And Gorsach and Kavanagh have voted against each other. In the fairly recent past there were Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day Lewis, Souter, amongst others. It’s all in the interpretation of the constitution.

For a far better analysis you should talk to Mr Mike who has a much better understanding than us idiots who don’t really know what we are talking about.

Of course I’ve read the constitution, and biographies of at least five past justices including RBG, but a lot of their arguments go over my head.

Come now. They're nominating idealogical fruitcakes who owe their presence on the Supreme Court entirely to their warped world-views and the largesse of the people who put them there.

There is absolutely no question that ACB would vote precisely how Trump and his backers would want on all the issues that matter to them. To think otherwise is painfully naive.

Again though, it matters how you define "issues that matter to them". I think it's fair to say that the extent of federal power matters to the GOP, yet look how Roberts landed on the ACA (you could argue that Obamacare itself was not an issue in 2005, but one's belief that the federal government has the right to force people to do something, like buy insurance, is exactly the sort of thing they screen for behind closed doors and in countless hours of hearings).

Even then, if we limit these issues to guns and abortion, Roberts and even Kavanaugh(!) haven't quite gone as far as they could have, declining to hear cases that would have meant the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and the former even voted to strike down a law restricting abortion earlier this year. The Ann Coulters of the world fumed, as you'd expect. And of course you have justices like Justice Stevens who evolve quite a bit over time: began a conservative, left as a liberal.

I'm not saying Roe wouldn't be in trouble if ACB got confirmed, but let's be honest -- there are more than tenable arguments to be made that Roe is bad law. I'm pro-abortion personally, as I think society is better off with it being easily available, but there are reasonable disagreements to be had that do not require a warped worldview, and even moreso if you rely upon a reading of the Constitution, be it plain or in-depth.

The 2nd Amendment decisions are more contentious, but mostly because the originalists suddenly become functionalists (and vice versa), not because they stray further from the law. If you accept the liberal justices' positions on Roe, there's little reason to reject conservative justices' positions on gun control. It's the same logic underpinning both.

I know I've strayed here but just wanted to put that out there. These are incredibly, incredibly intelligent people, not hacks.

[Slick]

I wouldn't place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the deplorables], Trump was a knee-jerk reaction to the public's distaste, distrust and frustration with US politics in general. They wanted a non-politician to drain the swamp.

The fact that they were dull enough to trust Trump, King Swampy McSwampfuck with this task remains a depressing fact, though.

There's a lot of blame to go around, but the deplorables do shoulder a lot of it, he wouldn't be there without them. While I'm sure he's got a not insignificant amount of support from non-cultists who simply can't bring themselves to vote blue, its the other lot who've given him more or less unwavering support and enough votes to get him through the electoral college.

As to why the deplorables exist, that's where we can start talking about other ingredients for this most fetid of swamps.

Whilst anyone who voted for the prick shoulders some blame, I find it a bit difficult to pin all that has happened on the voters. Pretty much the entire GOP has fallen into line and supplicated themselves at his feet. The people that should be standing up to his idiocy have backed him to the hilt for self preservation, to keep their comfy jobs, and fuck the country and the people. How some of these lawmakers can look at themselves in the mirror every morning is completely beyond me, cunts to a man and woman.

[Sinkers]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... 968e7a6128

Keeps on giving.

[JM2K6]

Justices don’t always vote the way that the president who nominated them would like. I can think of a few off the top of my head who were nominated by Republican presidents but often argue with the liberals. The most recent was of course John Roberts. And Gorsach and Kavanagh have voted against each other. In the fairly recent past there were Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day Lewis, Souter, amongst others. It’s all in the interpretation of the constitution.

For a far better analysis you should talk to Mr Mike who has a much better understanding than us idiots who don’t really know what we are talking about.

Of course I’ve read the constitution, and biographies of at least five past justices including RBG, but a lot of their arguments go over my head.

Come now. They're nominating idealogical fruitcakes who owe their presence on the Supreme Court entirely to their warped world-views and the largesse of the people who put them there.

There is absolutely no question that ACB would vote precisely how Trump and his backers would want on all the issues that matter to them. To think otherwise is painfully naive.

Again though, it matters how you define "issues that matter to them". I think it's fair to say that the extent of federal power matters to the GOP, yet look how Roberts landed on the ACA (you could argue that Obamacare itself was not an issue in 2005, but one's belief that the federal government has the right to force people to do something, like buy insurance, is exactly the sort of thing they screen for behind closed doors and in countless hours of hearings).

Even then, if we limit these issues to guns and abortion, Roberts and even Kavanaugh(!) haven't quite gone as far as they could have, declining to hear cases that would have meant the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and the former even voted to strike down a law restricting abortion earlier this year. The Ann Coulters of the world fumed, as you'd expect. And of course you have justices like Justice Stevens who evolve quite a bit over time: began a conservative, left as a liberal.

I'm not saying Roe wouldn't be in trouble if ACB got confirmed, but let's be honest -- there are more than tenable arguments to be made that Roe is bad law. I'm pro-abortion personally, as I think society is better off with it being easily available, but there are reasonable disagreements to be had that do not require a warped worldview, and even moreso if you rely upon a reading of the Constitution, be it plain or in-depth.

The 2nd Amendment decisions are more contentious, but mostly because the originalists suddenly become functionalists (and vice versa), not because they stray further from the law. If you accept the liberal justices' positions on Roe, there's little reason to reject conservative justices' positions on gun control. It's the same logic underpinning both.

I know I've strayed here but just wanted to put that out there. These are incredibly, incredibly intelligent people, not hacks.

I'm not lumping them all in the same bucket. Kavanaugh and ACB are bought and paid for, though.

[Ted.]

Justices don’t always vote the way that the president who nominated them would like. I can think of a few off the top of my head who were nominated by Republican presidents but often argue with the liberals. The most recent was of course John Roberts. And Gorsach and Kavanagh have voted against each other. In the fairly recent past there were Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day Lewis, Souter, amongst others. It’s all in the interpretation of the constitution.

For a far better analysis you should talk to Mr Mike who has a much better understanding than us idiots who don’t really know what we are talking about.

Of course I’ve read the constitution, and biographies of at least five past justices including RBG, but a lot of their arguments go over my head.

Come now. They're nominating idealogical fruitcakes who owe their presence on the Supreme Court entirely to their warped world-views and the largesse of the people who put them there.

There is absolutely no question that ACB would vote precisely how Trump and his backers would want on all the issues that matter to them. To think otherwise is painfully naive.

Again though, it matters how you define "issues that matter to them". I think it's fair to say that the extent of federal power matters to the GOP, yet look how Roberts landed on the ACA (you could argue that Obamacare itself was not an issue in 2005, but one's belief that the federal government has the right to force people to do something, like buy insurance, is exactly the sort of thing they screen for behind closed doors and in countless hours of hearings).

Even then, if we limit these issues to guns and abortion, Roberts and even Kavanaugh(!) haven't quite gone as far as they could have, declining to hear cases that would have meant the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and the former even voted to strike down a law restricting abortion earlier this year. The Ann Coulters of the world fumed, as you'd expect. And of course you have justices like Justice Stevens who evolve quite a bit over time: began a conservative, left as a liberal.

I'm not saying Roe wouldn't be in trouble if ACB got confirmed, but let's be honest -- there are more than tenable arguments to be made that Roe is bad law. I'm pro-abortion personally, as I think society is better off with it being easily available, but there are reasonable disagreements to be had that do not require a warped worldview, and even moreso if you rely upon a reading of the Constitution, be it plain or in-depth.

The 2nd Amendment decisions are more contentious, but mostly because the originalists suddenly become functionalists (and vice versa), not because they stray further from the law. If you accept the liberal justices' positions on Roe, there's little reason to reject conservative justices' positions on gun control. It's the same logic underpinning both.

I know I've strayed here but just wanted to put that out there. These are incredibly, incredibly intelligent people, not hacks.

Out of interest, in your view, what are those tenable arguments and reasonable disagreements?

Just an opinion, but the fact that you get widely differing interpretations of the intent and meaning of the constitution, plus the areas of importance to today, suggests that areas of it needs an overhaul to make it more relevant to the times.

[Fonz]

Out of interest, in your view, what are those tenable arguments and reasonable disagreements?

Just an opinion, but the fact that you get widely differing interpretations of the intent and meaning of the constitution, plus the areas of importance to today, suggests that areas of it needs an overhaul to make it more relevant to the times.

I'll give you a nice TLDR response on that first question when I have some spare time later this week...

The second point though is one that is made often here, even by seasoned constitutional scholars (most notably Lawrence Lessig). I just don't see how you could ever possibly find enough agreement on anything substantive (but unsettled) to "fix" anything via a proper overhaul (i.e. a new constitution), leaving the only recourse to be...the incrementalism we have presently.

It sounds nice but I just don't see how it could come off in reality. And besides, as I said on the bored, any system can work if the people are committed to it; no system will work if people aren't.

[Ali Cadoo]

That was a debate where each side would have done better to just shut up and let their opponent speak and dig their own hole. Joe could have looked old and Trump, well... he actually dug his own hole quite effectively. Joe suffered from the old adage 'never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down and beat you through experience.'

[Fonz]

That was a debate where each side would have done better to just shut up and let their opponent speak and dig their own hole. Joe could have looked old and Trump, well... he actually dug his own hole quite effectively. Joe suffered from the old adage 'never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down and beat you through experience.'

There was a few times where Joe had to snap back to not look weak, but then he would look down briefly and you could sense that he hated himself for doing it.