2020 Presidential Election

[Vanimal46]

Rip Roe. And people still won't vote.

Long way to go before it's dead. If I understand correctly they can try going through the circuit courts but will ultimately get denied at the Supreme Court level if it ever gets there.

[Mike Sixel]

Long way to go before it's dead. If I understand correctly they can try going through the circuit courts but will ultimately get denied at the Supreme Court level if it ever gets there.

We don't know what SCOTUS will do..... And that still doesn't explain people not voting

[Brock Beauchamp]

We don't know what SCOTUS will do..... And that still doesn't explain people not voting

SCOTUS is loathe to backtrack on itself so there’s not much to worry about... yet. It still has to get past the circuit court, which is also loathe to backtrack on SCOTUS rulings.

[PseudoSABR]

 

SCOTUS is loathe to backtrack on itself so there’s not much to worry about... yet. It still has to get past the circuit court, which is also loathe to backtrack on SCOTUS rulings.

So we hope.  The chief judge of my state appellate court expressed, just today, that the seeds have been sown for decades for this change. That a whole class of judges have been reared in the endeavor on overturning Roe, stare decisis be f'ed. 

 

In Kavanaugh we trust? Roberts?

 

That said, this is a ridiculously poor political play what with the upcoming presidential election: you've just empowered every non-bat-**** crazy women to turn out in 2020; so much for that desensitization advantage the GOP had. 

[Mr. Brooks]

SCOTUS is loathe to backtrack on itself so there’s not much to worry about... yet. It still has to get past the circuit court, which is also loathe to backtrack on SCOTUS rulings.

According to Wikipedia, they have overruled previous precedent 37 times in their history. That works out to about once every seven years, perhaps not as uncommon as you think.

[Doomtints]

Facebook claims they deleted 2.2 billion fake accounts over the past quarter. Their total user base is 2.34 billion.

 

Unless Twitter, youtube, the FoxNews comments section, etc., etc., have deleted a similar number of fake accounts be very careful trusting anything on social media for the next few years. Fake accounts might be quiet now, but they will lie dormant until someone needs them....

[Doomtints]

 

 

According to Wikipedia, they have overruled previous precedent 37 times in their history. That works out to about once every seven years, perhaps not as uncommon as you think.

 

That seems incredibly uncommon. I imagine that comes out to 0.5% of cases, probably less, not even including the cases they refuse to hear based on precedent.

[Mr. Brooks]

That seems incredibly uncommon. I imagine that comes out to 0.5% of cases, probably less, not even including the cases they refuse to hear based on precedent.

Sure, it's rare. However, keep in mind that the vast majority of cases are setting precedence, not reviewing it, so the percentage of overturned rulings may be higher in relation to the number of opportunities to do so.

 

Mainly though, I just mean that it does happen. And it's not nearly rare enough to just dismiss the possibility out of hand.

 

I mean, this is the reason, the only reason that evangelicals supported someone like Trump. So that he could stack the SC with justices willing to overturn Roe v Wade.

 

I think Gorsuch seems to be a man of principle, but I think Bart is 100% in the bag for Trump.

[LaBombo]

 

I mean, this is the reason, the only reason that evangelicals supported someone like Trump. So that he could stack the SC with justices willing to overturn Roe v Wade.

I think Gorsuch seems to be a man of principle, but I think Bart is 100% in the bag for Trump.

 

Many of the media persons decrying evangelicals as single-issue anti-abort simpletons are the same people whose analysis and predictions turned out to be  rubbish in the 2016 election.

 

Meanwhile, the perihelion of Justice Kavanaugh's distant orbit around RvW thus far was a pair of lower court decisions that effectively barred KS and LA from cutting PP's Medicaid funding. The court declined to review their decisions, with both Roberts and Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices.

 

But maybe Kavanaugh's non-partisan vote escaped the attention of the mainstream media in the midst of their mad scramble to cover all the highly principled conservative-leaning votes that liberal justices have cast in recent days. 

[Mr. Brooks]

Many of the media persons decrying evangelicals as single-issue anti-abort simpletons are the same people whose analysis and predictions turned out to be rubbish in the 2016 election.

 

Meanwhile, the perihelion of Justice Kavanaugh's distant orbit around RvW thus far was a pair of lower court decisions that effectively barred KS and LA from cutting PP's Medicaid funding. The court declined to review their decisions, with both Roberts and Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices.

 

But maybe Kavanaugh's non-partisan vote escaped the attention of the mainstream media in the midst of their mad scramble to cover all the highly principled conservative-leaning votes that liberal justices have cast in recent days.

You're right, I'm sure there are countless reasons why people of God would support a twice divorced man who brags about sexually assaulting women and cheats on his wife with pornstars.

 

Let's ask them, in their own words.

 

"Issues matter more than a person's personal life," Killian said. "The two issues that come up are pro-life - appointment of judges (who oppose abortion), and support for Israel." - Alabama State Baptist Convention President John Killian.

 

 

"He has defended the womb," Kilpatrick said. "The president has taken a stand for life. Second, the president has taken up for Israel and has declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Third, he has chosen Supreme Court justices - that's going to turn this nation around. Those three things are why the spirit of Jezebel hates him and wants him out. We may be on the verge of the greatest revival this world has ever seen."-Alabama Pastor John Kilpatrick

 

80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. If they were voting for other reasons than abortion, then we should expect that number to more closely shadow whites overall.

[Squirrel]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/anti-trump-republicans-could-help-democrats-2020/589933/?fbclid=IwAR33BUKvMHHz4BVzc5JIX8VQpkGlKSU-8aFArfsA2l3Dz1tIcMmoqcsekGM&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=5cea0f742866ef00011c83f5_ta&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

 

 

Disclaimer: I haven't read this yet, but I like the writing of The Atlantic. The title and lead in made me think it might be a discussion point. As I said, I haven't read it so not posting in agreement or disagreement with this.

[TheLeviathan]

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/anti-trump-republicans-could-help-democrats-2020/589933/?fbclid=IwAR33BUKvMHHz4BVzc5JIX8VQpkGlKSU-8aFArfsA2l3Dz1tIcMmoqcsekGM&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=5cea0f742866ef00011c83f5_ta&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

 

 

Disclaimer: I haven't read this yet, but I like the writing of The Atlantic. The title and lead in made me think it might be a discussion point. As I said, I haven't read it so not posting in agreement or disagreement with this.

 

It'll be interesting to see what his disapproval numbers look like among Republicans 6-8 months from now.  People with ideology as their top priority will dismiss it, but getting 10% of Republicans to switch their vote basically makes Trump's defeat a certainty.  It matters and should be part of the calculus.

[Doomtints]

Pundits in conservative states often rail on "activist judges" which don't seem to exist ... all while they make a concerted attempt to stack the courts with what they claim the other side is doing.

 

Same old tricks from the evangelists.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/anti-trump-republicans-could-help-democrats-2020/589933/?fbclid=IwAR33BUKvMHHz4BVzc5JIX8VQpkGlKSU-8aFArfsA2l3Dz1tIcMmoqcsekGM&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=5cea0f742866ef00011c83f5_ta&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

 

 

Disclaimer: I haven't read this yet, but I like the writing of The Atlantic. The title and lead in made me think it might be a discussion point. As I said, I haven't read it so not posting in agreement or disagreement with this.

Same type of article from the same type of guy we’ve been seeing quite a bit of, in my opinion. I had some snarky comments to make but really, just better left unsaid. Perhaps there’s nothing wrong with this guy’s point of view; I’m just not having it.

 

”If the Democratic Party is smart enough to nominate a moderate candidate who is respectful of Republican ideas, voters like me will have an opportunity to become an important part of the coalition that gets a candidate elected to replace Trump.”

 

I think this writer (George Mason University law professor, proud Republican, and conservative think-tank hack) thinks this is a majority point of view among the electorate because it’s the majority view in his little world, and articles like this get amplified by the media who caters to this point of view. But get outside the circles most of us move in, and I don’t think this point of view is as popular as many believe.

[TheLeviathan]

Man what a good article.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Man what a good article.

Agree. Don’t know anything about her broader point of view or Australia politics, but I like where she’s going.

[Doomtints]

 

Same type of article from the same type of guy we’ve been seeing quite a bit of, in my opinion. I had some snarky comments to make but really, just better left unsaid. Perhaps there’s nothing wrong with this guy’s point of view; I’m just not having it.

”If the Democratic Party is smart enough to nominate a moderate candidate who is respectful of Republican ideas, voters like me will have an opportunity to become an important part of the coalition that gets a candidate elected to replace Trump.”

I think this writer (George Mason University law professor, proud Republican, and conservative think-tank hack) thinks this is a majority point of view among the electorate because it’s the majority view in his little world, and articles like this get amplified by the media who caters to this point of view. But get outside the circles most of us move in, and I don’t think this point of view is as popular as many believe.

 

As someone who lived in Texas for far too long, I can tell you that many would rather die than ever vote Democratic. Many have been programmed to believe that Democrats are immoral and even satanic. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for rapists, drug users, and baby killers.

 

You probably remember Obama being picked as a forerunner for the 2008 election right after the 2004 election. Republicans said the exact same thing this guy is saying now -- wow if the Democrats actually nominate Obama I would be all for that. He is a smart economically sound guy and I would vote for him!

 

We know how that actually went down.

[TheLeviathan]

Yes, this person may not be sincere.  But we know there were a lot of Obama to Trump swing voters in 2016.  Maybe that author doesn't fit in that camp, but a lot of people do.  (What drove them to Trump, by the way, had nothing to do with where on the political spectrum you think Hillary Clinton fell.  It was just that it was Hillary Clinton.)

 

Those voters can be brought back and, in many places, account for the margin of victory.  Nevermind the possible hardcore Republicans you might be able to flip who can't see Trump as an actual Republican.  I wouldn't count on them right now, but I wouldn't count them out either.

[PseudoSABR]

[TheLeviathan]

“If he wants to translate his front-runner status in the polls to actual leadership on climate, we need him to come out with a bold, concrete plan in line with the scale of the crisis we’re facing,” said Janet Redman, climate campaign director for Greenpeace USA.

 

 

Sure.  After he wins.  As with any candidate it's best to talk about this issue more generally and keep the focus on jobs.

[Badsmerf]

Sure. After he wins. As with any candidate it's best to talk about this issue more generally and keep the focus on jobs.

Pffft. The only climate deniers are so far into the Republican party, it is worthless pandering for them. I can accept not blowing the doors down for transgender bathrooms, but strong on climate is necessary for me. I will not vote for a wishy washy weenie on this topic.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Pffft. The only climate deniers are so far into the Republican party, it is worthless pandering for them. I can accept not blowing the doors down for transgender bathrooms, but strong on climate is necessary for me. I will not vote for a wishy washy weenie on this topic.

 

Did you see the link about Australia the other day?  It's not pandering, it's just being smart about what you say.  Talk about climate change in terms of jobs.  Stop telling them their job is going away and they work for a terrible industry, etc.  Tell them you have a plan to help train them and get them new, sustainable employment.

 

The Green New Deal reads as a farce to most people.  If you want to march a farce out to voters, don't have high expectations for your results.  

 

I suggest you read the article I posted by a bright professor from Queensland on the issue.  That's the playbook.

[Badsmerf]

I did read it. I'm not denying you have to be smart about what you talk about. This isn't the issue to be weak on. I'm not saying everyone has to sign on with the green new deal, but just don't pander on this topic. That will lose my support (in the primaries at least). I'm not voting for Biden anyway, so I really don't care what he does. I do believe if he is weak on climate it will hurt turnout of young people.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I did read it. I'm not denying you have to be smart about what you talk about. This isn't the issue to be weak on. I'm not saying everyone has to sign on with the green new deal, but just don't pander on this topic. That will lose my support (in the primaries at least). I'm not voting for Biden anyway, so I really don't care what he does. I do believe if he is weak on climate it will hurt turnout of young people.

 

I'm unclear about what you mean by "weak" and "pander"?

[Badsmerf]

I'm unclear about what you mean by "weak" and "pander"?

I mean refusing to take a stance, and refusing commit to solutions. I want somebody on the record on climate, that we can hold accountable. I want no chance of fossil fuel companies coming in and lobbying with big money to sway the next president.

[TheLeviathan]

I mean refusing to take a stance, and refusing commit to solutions. I want somebody on the record on climate, that we can hold accountable. I want no chance of fossil fuel companies coming in and lobbying with big money to sway the next president.

Fair enough. I think a candidate can be clear about climate mattering but also avoid the traps of specificity. Just talk jobs and climate importance.

[Badsmerf]

Fair enough. I think a candidate can be clear about climate mattering but also avoid the traps of specificity. Just talk jobs and climate importance.

I'm fine with that... to an extent. Being a politician is what it is. My only request, is that I know where the candidate stands, and that they will stand for the climate. No grey area for me.

 

I'm not sure Biden will do that. He wants to win PA, and the coal and gas opposition will be strong. I worry he'll accept money to be less decisive on climate change.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm fine with that... to an extent. Being a politician is what it is. My only request, is that I know where the candidate stands, and that they will stand for the climate. No grey area for me.

I'm not sure Biden will do that. He wants to win PA, and the coal and gas opposition will be strong. I worry he'll accept money to be less decisive on climate change.

 

I absolutely agree with holding candidates accountable to who they take money from.  So no argument there.  I'm focused on the rhetorical aspect.

[Brock Beauchamp]

According to Wikipedia, they have overruled previous precedent 37 times in their history. That works out to about once every seven years, perhaps not as uncommon as you think.

Remove the progressive over-rulings and then look at the number again.

[Mr. Brooks]

Scary, but probably accurate:

 

"In the past few weeks, analysts who have created models to predict the outcome of presidential elections have all noted that, as of right now, President Donald Trump is on track to win re-election, possibly in a landslide."

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/47929/analyst-whos-predicted-presidency-correctly-last-9-ashe-schow