2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Onions

You are on the right track, a candidate needs to be relatable. GWB beat both Gore and Kerry because he was more relatable. Both those guys were/are stiffs.

Obama won because he was relatable. He spoke to people very well. McCain was a very weak candidate. Romney got close, but on the signature issue of Healthcare, his plan was basically Obama's plan. That and he folded in the last 2 debates. Neither Mccain or Romney were fighters.

I'll say this much, they got dealt a raw hand.

Statically, there has never been a higher percentage of blacks vote democrat than when Obama ran.
Ironically blacks identify as democrat at some of the lowest levels in history. This was by PEW by the way.

This leads me to believe either blacks weren't what they claimed to be or they related to Obama more.

I do believe identity politics is a lot stronger than people believe. Same with relatability.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

And to think the moderator was convinced that Pence spoke more.

He talked well over he allotted answer time repeatedly.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

He talked well over he allotted answer time repeatedly.

Just making a comment about the unofficial time that was shared and the moderator mentioned it a couple times. No need to attack was just making a comment

[jdandns]

The main thing is the mute button, especially now that Trump is 'roided out in addition to whatever he was on last time.
There's no way the President will keep quiet for even 10 seconds.
The debate committee can hit up "Pardon The Interruption" people and borrow theirs.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by jdandns

The main thing is the mute button, especially now that Trump is 'roided out in addition to whatever he was on last time.
There's no way the President will keep quiet for even 10 seconds.
The debate committee can hit up "Pardon The Interruption" people and borrow theirs.

I will agree that there needs to be a mute button but not just for Trump

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by mike1498

This is a bad argument. I think we both know Mccain and Romney would've shredded Clinton. She lost cause she was viewed by the public as more corrupt than Trump.

Hillary was a weak candidate who lost to Obama in the '08 primary and would've likely lost to Bernie in a fair 2016 primary.

Conversely Trump would've been shredded by Obama in the general.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

I will agree that there needs to be a mute button but not just for Trump

Yes, on Biden as well, absolutely.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Hillary was a weak candidate who lost to Obama in the '08 primary and would've likely lost to Bernie in a fair 2016 primary.

Conversely Trump would've been shredded by Obama in the general.

Agreed. If Hillary didn't run against Trump nobody would've believed the polling she had.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Yes, on Biden as well, absolutely.

Well write this down we actually agree on something. Lol

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

Just making a comment about the unofficial time that was shared and the moderator mentioned it a couple times. No need to attack was just making a comment

What attack? I made a simple comment in rebuttal

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

What attack? I made a simple comment in rebuttal

I only made a comment and you come with rebuttal and that wasnt my point. My point was that clock said Harris actually talked more. I just found it ironic. Your rebuttal was pointless in my mind so took it as an attack type comment

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

I only made a comment and you come with rebuttal and that wasnt my point. My point was that clock said Harris actually talked more. I just found it ironic. Your rebuttal was pointless in my mind so took it as an attack type comment

The moderator was convinced that Pence repeatedly talked well over his allotted response time, which is true.

Maybe your mind missed the relevance of my post.
That was a gentle attack btw.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by jdandns

The continually shrinking minority of Republicans are nevertheless looking at having 6 out of 9 judges on the High Court. It's beyond absurd, and a reckoning on that coming due to the sheer majority of people who don't want that.

I know you know better than this.

The Supreme Court is not intended to reflect majoritarian sentiments. It's purpose is to faithfully interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution ceases to reflect or address reality for the vast majority of Americans, we have an amendment process. And once amended to something more in line with majoritarian sentiment, then the Court carries on.

But you've got to knock off this "reckoning" talk. You are quite literally striking at the foundation of our nation.

[mike1498]

I think voters are starting to vote for whoever screams the loudest.

If the small sample size of republicans said Romney and Mccain wouldn't have won against Clinton because they were "boring fiscal conservatives" is that why we elected Trump?

And no the left isn't off the hook. Although Biden may not be loud, Kamala is just as loud as Trump. Why else would Biden choose someone that has very little in common with his agenda? People will say to get the minority vote, which may be true, but there's tons of qualified minorities. He wanted someone that got a hot start because she kept saying she wanted to prosecute Trump.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

I know you know better than this.

The Supreme Court is not intended to reflect majoritarian sentiments. It's purpose is to faithfully interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution ceases to reflect or address reality for the vast majority of Americans, we have an amendment process. And once amended to something more in line with majoritarian sentiment, then the Court carries on.

But you've got to knock off this "reckoning" talk. You are quite literally striking at the foundation of our nation.

That ship sailed a long time ago when these appointments became nakedly political with numerous de facto litmus tests to "pass" before a candidate for the Supreme Court is even considered for appointment.

The reckoning I referred to is legislation on behalf of their constituents by those who represent them. If the Court veers too far one way or the other, laws can be made to correct that overreach, which is the very fabric of our democracy.

[Chris Lyle]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

The moderator was convinced that Pence repeatedly talked well over his allotted response time, which is true.

Maybe your mind missed the relevance of my post.
That was a gentle attack btw.

She said at one point that he was talking more than Harris. I just found it funny that in the end Harris had more time thats it. Sorry i was amused by that. I was never talking about the over the time stuff

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

I know you know better than this.

The Supreme Court is not intended to reflect majoritarian sentiments. It's purpose is to faithfully interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution ceases to reflect or address reality for the vast majority of Americans, we have an amendment process. And once amended to something more in line with majoritarian sentiment, then the Court carries on.

But you've got to knock off this "reckoning" talk. You are quite literally striking at the foundation of our nation.

Trumps 3 Supreme Court nominees were each the most qualified candidate for the position at the time of nomination and coincidentally all relatively young and conservative?

Is that your stance?

[Ty Hope]

Originally Posted by jdandns

That ship sailed a long time ago when these appointments became nakedly political with numerous de facto litmus tests to "pass" before a candidate for the Supreme Court is even considered for appointment.

The reckoning I referred to is legislation on behalf of their constituents by those who represent them. If the Court veers too far one way or the other, laws can be made to correct that overreach, which is the very fabric of our democracy.

If the roles were reversed, the dems wouldn't hesitate to appoint justices in their favor. Only difference is that the media would defend them. To think otherwise is foolish.

[mike1498]

And for people who are saying that Trump was the "strongest" candidate in 2016, why was polling so off?

I believe it was the silent majority as well.

The difference was they could've been silent because they held their noses while voting. They were embarrassed that the election came down to this and they didn't want to have to explain why they voted economy over the more presentable candidate (which is understandable).

The more I think about it, I don't know how "wrong" the polls were verse how many people were actually too embarrassed to say they chose him over Hillary.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by jdandns

The reckoning I referred to is legislation on behalf of their constituents by those who represent them. If the Court veers too far one way or the other, laws can be made to correct that overreach, which is the very fabric of our democracy.

Wait, what?

Constitutional amendments and impeachment are the two checks Congress has on the Supreme Court.

They can't bind justices with new legislation because every law is subject to judicial review.

What are you referring to?

[Onions]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I think voters are starting to vote for whoever screams the loudest.

If the small sample size of republicans said Romney and Mccain wouldn't have won against Clinton because they were "boring fiscal conservatives" is that why we elected Trump?

And no the left isn't off the hook. Although Biden may not be loud, Kamala is just as loud as Trump. Why else would Biden choose someone that has very little in common with his agenda? People will say to get the minority vote, which may be true, but there's tons of qualified minorities. He wanted someone that got a hot start because she kept saying she wanted to prosecute Trump.

It's not a loud thing, it's a "I am willing to stand for what I believe" thing. Mccain was a "maverick" adored by the media until he ran for President. Then he wilted. They crushed him, made him out to be a racist (sound familiar?). Romney came in and he was crushed as a misogynist (binders of women) and an out of touch elitist who didn't pay his taxes (again, familiar?) Both were unable to shake what the media painted them as. Trump overcame that because he was willing to fight what the media tried to make him out to be. He doesn't play by the "rules". Republicans are supposed to just sit back and take whatever the media paints them as. Thankfully he is not willing to accept it.

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by Ty Hope

If the roles were reversed, the dems wouldn't hesitate to appoint justices in their favor. Only difference is that the media would defend them. To think otherwise is foolish.

I mean, it's hard to say. Democrats have a hard enough time taking the office of President when they win the popular vote. If a Democrat was ever in there despite having lost by, say, 3 millions votes, I think they'd be a little more humble.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by Onions

It's not a loud thing, it's a "I am willing to stand for what I believe" thing. Mccain was a "maverick" adored by the media until he ran for President. Then he wilted. They crushed him, made him out to be a racist (sound familiar?). Romney came in and he was crushed as a misogynist (binders of women) and an out of touch elitist who didn't pay his taxes (again, familiar?) Both were unable to shake what the media painted them as. Trump overcame that because he was willing to fight what the media tried to make him out to be. He doesn't play by the "rules". Republicans are supposed to just sit back and take whatever the media paints them as. Thankfully he is not willing to accept it.

I'm still convinced that the black community in general was able to relate to Obama. Is it odd that blacks identified as democrats at some of the lowest levels but Obama won the highest black vote percentage ever?

[Onions]

Originally Posted by mike1498

And for people who are saying that Trump was the "strongest" candidate in 2016, why was polling so off?

I believe it was the silent majority as well.

The difference was they could've been silent because they held their noses while voting. They were embarrassed that the election came down to this and they didn't want to have to explain why they voted economy over the more presentable candidate (which is understandable).

The more I think about it, I don't know how "wrong" the polls were verse how many people were actually too embarrassed to say they chose him over Hillary.

I was not embarrassed at all. I was apprehensive of Trump, but after the last 4 years, I am more than willing to say I am a Trump voter. He has more than earned it. There is no way I would vote for a CCP bag man. None.

Trump is the only guy willing to fight against what killed middle America. Biden fought FOR what killed it.

[Ty Hope]

Originally Posted by jdandns

I mean, it's hard to say. Democrats have a hard enough time taking the office of President when they win the popular vote. If a Democrat was ever in there despite having lost by, say, 3 millions votes, I think they'd be a little more humble.

I strongly doubt that but that is my opinion. They would, as the republicans are doing, choose who they want and be completely within their rights to do so. But the media would overwhelmingly back them if the right complained.