State of the Race: 31 Days Left

[Patine 466]

Just now, admin_270 said:

Unemployment rate 8.4% -> 7.9%.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/september-jobs-report-coronavirus-pandemic-2020

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.

[admin_270 833]

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.

[Patine 466]

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.

[admin_270 833]

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.

[admin_270 833]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

Ignoring polls is probably not as wise this time around

I'm not saying people should ignore polls. (?)

[superezione 49]

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.

[Defiant 84]

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.

[vcczar 1,224]

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

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

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

[Mark_W 136]

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.

[vcczar 1,224]

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

[admin_270 833]

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

[Actinguy 862]

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.  

[vcczar 1,224]

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.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

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.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

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.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

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)

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

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

[Mark_W 136]

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!

[Actinguy 862]

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.

[vcczar 1,224]

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. 

[vcczar 1,224]

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. 

[Reagan04 658]

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. 

[Patine 466]

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.

[Conservative Elector 2 333]

10 hours ago, Mark_W said:

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

Hahaha no!