Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 31 Days Left


31 Day Poll  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. See the Data in the First Post: Who do you think wins if the election were today?

  2. 2. Pres. Trump has tested positive for Covid. What do you think happens?

    • It's supposedly a mild case, so I think he recovers quickly and people forget it ever happened.
    • I think he's just pretending to have it for some sort of electoral effect.
    • I think this will gain Trump sympathy points, which will see him rise in the polls
    • I think Trump comes out of this telling people to be much more cautious about Covid.
    • I think Trump comes out of this telling people that "it wasn't a big deal," which will likely result in more maskless people going out and about.
    • I think his condition gets much worse and he's taken effectively out of the race until possibly the very end.
    • This will cancel the debates.
    • Biden will now be campaigning more than Trump for the rest of the election.
    • Biden will campaign even less (somehow) for fear of catching it himself.
    • Trump will die from Covid, and Pence unofficially at the top of the ticket will alter the polls.
    • Trump catching Covid will see his poll numbers drop.
    • Trump catching Covid will have no effect on the race.
    • Other (mention below)
  3. 3. A new poll shows that 1 in 3 Americans are willing to endorse violence if their party loses in November. While Republicans are more okay with violence than Democrats, the Far-Left is the group that finds it the most justifiable. What is your opinion.

    • There is zero justification for any sort of political violence whether it is to further political goals or to protest the 2020 election if my candidate loses, even if it is controversial.
    • There is at least a little justification for violence to further political goals or to protest the 2020 election if my candidate loses, especially if it is a controversial election.
    • There is a great deal of justification for violence to further political goals or to protest the 2020 election if my candidate loses, especially if it is a controversial election.
  4. 4. Which cuisines do you enjoy?



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is zero justification for violence but great justification for protest if the election is controversial (and there is massive evidence about electoral fraud).  

@Conservative Elector 2 @admin_270 and anyone else who was involved in this convo. Actually, they couldn't. Article IV, Section 3 expressly prohibits making new states by dividing up old states. 

My sister is a little picky as well...not as bad as I am, but worse than most people.     Growing up, the story was that my dad was a picky eater, and so as my mom made food tailored to his pic

Just now, Patine said:

I think lowering the unemployment rate is not to be a factor in this kind of election with this kind of rhetoric and the stakes being laid. I mean, think realistically here.

The % of people unemployed is usually important in an election. One of the biggest impacts of COVID-19 has been government responses resulting in vast numbers of people being out of work. I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

The % of people unemployed is usually important in an election. One of the biggest impacts of COVID-19 has been government responses resulting in vast numbers of people being out of work. I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.

The word I bolded is the keyboard. However, the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election is NOT normal or standard election - and "usual," factors cannot be relied upon. But, aberrant factors from the 2016 U.S. Presidential, which also was not normal or standard, cannot be relied upon, either. Ignoring polls is probably not as wise this time around, and the "silent majority," some expect to strike again for Trump have obviously already played their hand in 2016, and are no longer silent - or even likely a majority. These are two examples which have come up of late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For 2., chances are the case will be mild and Trump will recover completely. He is mildly obese, and age is a significant factor, but as far as we know he doesn't have any of the other underlying health issues that put people at a greater risk. There is a small but significant chance it could be serious, requiring hospitalization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

I am a notoriously picky eater, generally preferring my food to be as bland as possible.  I've been to seventeen countries and lived on three continents, but I tend to get my meals at their local McDonalds.  

When it comes to local McDonalds, I usually find they tend to be better than American McDonalds'. I'll always consider McDonalds in Dublin to be the best I've ever had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trump having covid results in no debates, he will both tell people to be more cautious and tell people  it wasn't a big deal and to be less conscious.   I don't think it hurts his numbers much (maybe there'll less enthusiasm, so it could mean a lower turnout from his voters, though), rather it helps Biden with undecideds because it focuses the rest of the election on Covid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@Conservative Elector 2 didn't realize you were so pro-violence, except for military intervention. 

I'll happily defer to my explanation for my vote, which you may have overlooked.

2 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

There is zero justification for violence but great justification for protest if the election is controversial (and there is massive evidence about electoral fraud).

 

 

Given the ''or'' in your question, I had to choose this option

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I'll happily defer to my explanation for my vote, which you may have overlooked.

 

Given the ''or'' in your question, I had to choose this option

It says 'violence to further political goals or to protest', if you don't believe in violent protest you could have voted zero justification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I'll happily defer to my explanation for my vote, which you may have overlooked.

 

Given the ''or'' in your question, I had to choose this option

 

3 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

It says 'violence to further political goals or to protest', if you don't believe in violent protest you could have voted zero justification.

Yeah, seems like you picked the wrong option @Conservative Elector 2

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Simple question: if Dems were to pack the Supreme Court upon winning, what would prevent Reps from doing so if-when they take power?

Yes, that is the obvious flaw in a stupid plan.  Much like making Washington DC a state -- Republicans can declare that there are now 23 Dakotas.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Simple question: if Dems were to pack the Supreme Court upon winning, what would prevent Reps from doing so if-when they take power?

Theoretically nothing, unless the court packing legislation is written in a way that requires the bill to be repealed and then replaced or something that might make it more of a process to get rid of it. 

However, there's court packing and then there's court expanding. 

1) Court packing is creating X number of seats to be filled by the incumbent president.

2) Court expansion is creating a set number of seats to be filled gradually over the course of time. Say something like, 4 new seats with of the new justices being filled every two years. Basically, this delays the impact. The incumbent might get 2 of the 4 justices. He'll get all 4 if reelected or the opposing party will get 2 new justices. 

FDR's "court packing" was rather unique. A president is allowed to add a new SC justice once any incumbent justice hits the age of 70. It limited the President to only 6 appointments, but it had no limit to the number of total justices. Therefore, if you had 6 of 9 justices hit 70 during your term, you'd appoint 6 justices and have 15 justices. Theoretically, if 6 of these hit 70, the court could be at 21 justices, assuming none died. 

I like the idea of more SC Justices. I think every new president should be allowed to appoint 1 SC Justice to the court on taking office. If a justice resigns or dies, then the seat is just eliminated, so long as there is a minimum of 9 Justices. If the court would be below the minimum, then the president can elevate a Chief Justice from a lower court. Something like that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

Yeah, seems like you picked the wrong option @Conservative Elector 2

Lol I read it three time or so to get it right and I understood it this way:

 "There is a great deal of justification

(for violence to further political goals) NO

OR 

(to protest the 2020 election if my candidate loses, !especially if it is a controversial election!). YES

May be a language barrier though.

Anyway, I explained what I favor and I also think the Supreme Court should be ask if the outcome is controversial. It's not a foregone conclusion that the justices are ruling in favor of Trump because Roberts, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch decided differently in the Trump tax case as well. I believe in points of fairness a SC decision could take out a lot of pressure when it comes to an election controversy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Yes, that is the obvious flaw in a stupid plan.  Much like making Washington DC a state -- Republicans can declare that there are now 23 Dakotas.  

Yeah, I wouldn't support this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay @vcczar and @Mark_W I get now what you are referring to. It's the first answer

(yeah it has been a busy week, my concentration level is going down obviously)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am wondering if that vote adds to my negative reputation on the forum, when someone reads ''There is a great deal of justification for violence'' and seeing my account when expanding the vote section hahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Now I am wondering if that vote adds to my negative reputation on the forum, when someone reads ''There is a great deal of justification for violence'' and seeing my account when expanding the vote section hahaha

If you're worried about your reputation I'd change your username and avatar pronto!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Theoretically nothing, unless the court packing legislation is written in a way that requires the bill to be repealed and then replaced or something that might make it more of a process to get rid of it. 

However, there's court packing and then there's court expanding. 

1) Court packing is creating X number of seats to be filled by the incumbent president.

2) Court expansion is creating a set number of seats to be filled gradually over the course of time. Say something like, 4 new seats with of the new justices being filled every two years. Basically, this delays the impact. The incumbent might get 2 of the 4 justices. He'll get all 4 if reelected or the opposing party will get 2 new justices. 

FDR's "court packing" was rather unique. A president is allowed to add a new SC justice once any incumbent justice hits the age of 70. It limited the President to only 6 appointments, but it had no limit to the number of total justices. Therefore, if you had 6 of 9 justices hit 70 during your term, you'd appoint 6 justices and have 15 justices. Theoretically, if 6 of these hit 70, the court could be at 21 justices, assuming none died. 

I like the idea of more SC Justices. I think every new president should be allowed to appoint 1 SC Justice to the court on taking office. If a justice resigns or dies, then the seat is just eliminated, so long as there is a minimum of 9 Justices. If the court would be below the minimum, then the president can elevate a Chief Justice from a lower court. Something like that.

I would just keep nominating judges who are 69.5 years old.

Its the “wishing for more wishes” of Supreme Court appointments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I would just keep nominating judges who are 69.5 years old.

Its the “wishing for more wishes” of Supreme Court appointments.

Yeah, but you'd still be limited to 6 justices. Good strategy if it looks like you won't get your six. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I am a notoriously picky eater, generally preferring my food to be as bland as possible.  I've been to seventeen countries and lived on three continents, but I tend to get my meals at their local McDonalds.  

I did discover that I REALLY like shredded beef chimichangas when I lived in California -- that's probably the most "foreign" my palate got -- but once I moved to PA, MD, and now OH, it's just not the same.

I have a lot of Italian heritage, and eat a ton of pasta -- but I'm sure a true Italian would roll their eyes at my version of their cuisine. 

Why do you think you’re so uniquely picky? I know of only one other person that is picky in the same way. Also Italian heritage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Yes, that is the obvious flaw in a stupid plan.  Much like making Washington DC a state -- Republicans can declare that there are now 23 Dakotas.  

@Conservative Elector 2 @admin_270 and anyone else who was involved in this convo.

Actually, they couldn't. Article IV, Section 3 expressly prohibits making new states by dividing up old states. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

@Conservative Elector 2 @admin_270 and anyone else who was involved in this convo.

Actually, they couldn't. Article IV, Section 3 expressly prohibits making new states by dividing up old states. 

Theoretically, by the common viewpoint in Congress at the time - and quite defensible by simple legal logic - the eleven Confederate States could have, between 1865 to 1868, been broken up, merged, had their borders completely changed, renamed, made into a single State, made into territories instead of States, sold to the British Empire, or never even readmitted - by the their theory of many Radical Republicans that the Confederate States had "willingly revoked Statehood and went into treasonous insurgency," or had, "commit State suicide and were conquered Provinces after the surrender after the Battle of Appotomatix Court," and could be readmitted to the Union under any conditions - including, theoretically, those above (though they were never done) - or even not at all. Constitutionally, no such potential opportunity, even theoretically, has ever presented itself in U.S. history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark_W said:

If you're worried about your reputation I'd change your username and avatar pronto!

Hahaha no! 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...