Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (1 Viewer)

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Irony is Trump wants Biden drug tested before debates

 

---

[clint van damme]

Wasn’t that Lemmy’s prescription drug of choice and where the name Motörhead came from?

No idea. But the thought of him having something in common with Lemmy is funny.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

No idea. But the thought of him having something in common with Lemmy is funny.

Wasn't Lemmy quite right wing, reactionary, and liking his porn stars?

 

[David O'Day]

US election: Trump and Biden deflect key questions in TV grilling

Mr Trump declines to disavow a bizarre conspiracy, as Mr Biden ducks again on Supreme Court plans.

www.bbc.co.uk

I do like how news outlets try to pretend it is still close to egg their stories

 

[ajsccfc]

Trump's Twitter account was hacked by someone guessing the password 'maga 2020' and the lack of two step authentication. Leader of the free world

 

[skybluetony176]

Trump's Twitter account was hacked by someone guessing the password 'maga 2020' and the lack of two step authentication. Leader of the free world

I thought you were joking but then I came across this

Trump's Twitter hacked after Dutch researcher claims he guessed password – report

Victor Gevers claimed he had access to president’s account, De Volkskrant reported, but Twitter said ‘we’ve seen no evidence’

www.google.co.uk

 

[wingy]

Tanking!!

 

[David O'Day]

Looking at the state by state polling on 538 there is surely no way back for Trump now. It's got to the stage where he could even lose Georgia.

 

[David O'Day]

Democrats are likely to expand the us supreme court, all takes is a simple law and the are favoured to win back control of the senate as well

I like how the BBC are still trying to pretend it's close

 

[SkyBlueSoul]

 

[It’sabatch87]

Democrats are likely to expand the us supreme court, all takes is a simple law and the are favoured to win back control of the senate as well

I like how the BBC are still trying to pretend it's close

It’s not over until it’s over though,Look how CNN we’re joking about Trump being elected last time,Came back to bite their arse.

 

[David O'Day]

It’s not over until it’s over though,Look how CNN we’re joking about Trump being elected last time,Came back to bite their arse.

It's pretty much over, the lead is far wider, stronger, broader and in a lot more places than 2016

The polls predicted Clinton would win slightly more votes in 2016 and she did

2020 Election Forecast

Latest forecast of the 2020 presidential election between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden by Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Until it's confirmed I'm not assuming anything anymore.

I think Trump will hold a marginal lead on the night due to the large amount of mail in ballots, at which point he will attempt to claim victory and that postal ballots etc are fraudulent. Wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of votes go 'missing' or 'not arrive before the deadline' to muddy the waters. He will refuse to step down and basically call on his base to take over the streets.

 

[David O'Day]

Until it's confirmed I'm not assuming anything anymore.

I think Trump will hold a marginal lead on the night due to the large amount of mail in ballots, at which point he will attempt to claim victory and that postal ballots etc are fraudulent. Wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of votes go 'missing' or 'not arrive before the deadline' to muddy the waters. He will refuse to step down and basically call on his base to take over the streets.

That's just conspiracy theory bollocks

Biden is ahead by too much in too many states (read the 538 forecast)
Trump will stand down

It does amuse me reading all the mad shit people talk about the US election

 

[NorthernWisdom]

The fact Trump is there at all is enough reason for me not to believe anything until I see it!

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

That's just conspiracy theory bollocks

Biden is ahead by too much in too many states (read the 538 forecast)
Trump will stand down

It does amuse me reading all the mad shit people talk about the US election

IF Biden is ahead on the night it will be an annihilation once postal votes are counted. That may happen, but I'm not assuming it will.

As for Trump refusing to stand down he won't go quietly regardless - he'll be claiming for years it was rigged and some of his supporters will take it as read he's right and may well act on it. We shall have to see.

 

[ajsccfc]

Once he's gone just imagine all the pieces of shit who've supported him as part of his staff suddenly releasing their expose books about how they did everything under protest, world class grifters forever serving under their master

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Democrats are likely to expand the us supreme court, all takes is a simple law and the are favoured to win back control of the senate as well

I like how the BBC are still trying to pretend it's close

They haven't proposed doing so and they are notoriously crap at playing politics. They could have stalled the nomination of Barrett any number of ways but chose not to in order to 'get out the vote'. If the Dems expanded the supreme court you could just have each party expanding it to the point of it being meaningless.

They fucked up

 

[David O'Day]

They haven't proposed doing so and they are notoriously crap at playing politics. They could have stalled the nomination of Barrett any number of ways but chose not to in order to 'get out the vote'. If the Dems expanded the supreme court you could just have each party expanding it to the point of it being meaningless.

They fucked up

Yep not a jot about it apart from the various members of the senate and congress posting and tweeting about it.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Rather than expand it they could introduce term limits which wouldn't be perceived as badly, though would still obv attract negative press, esp from Fox and the like. Would be arguments in court about it obv as the current incumbents were sworn in on life terms. It's a significant, but not insurmountable hurdle.

 

[David O'Day]

Rather than expand it they could introduce term limits which wouldn't be perceived as badly, though would still obv attract negative press, esp from Fox and the like. Would be arguments in court about it obv as the current incumbents were sworn in on life terms. It's a significant, but not insurmountable hurdle.

It's far easier just to expand it, as I said it just takes congress to pass a law. The democrats are more likely than not to be in charge of both houses and the white house so all it takes is one member of each house to bring the bill and it's good to go.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yep not a jot about it apart from the various members of the senate and congress posting and tweeting about it.

That doesn't explain why they didn't obstruct the Barrett nomination or why Biden himself said he wouldn't do it. FDR couldn't do it even when he was at the height of his popularity. Most of all, the Republicans haven't done it either

 

[David O'Day]

That doesn't explain why they didn't obstruct the Barrett nomination or why Biden himself said he wouldn't do it. FDR couldn't do it even when he was at the height of his popularity. Most of all, the Republicans haven't done it either

FDR had opposition from the conservative south democrat senators and representatives so wouldn't of been able to get the bill through congress. Very different now as unlike the 1930s all democrats are broadly the same in political outlook.

 

[David O'Day]

This is who FDR was up against

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

FDR had opposition from the conservative south democrat senators and representatives so wouldn't of been able to get the bill through congress. Very different now as unlike the 1930s all democrats are broadly the same in political outlook.

And yet they couldn’t get Garland through under Obama and, again, didn’t try to obstruct Barrett which would have prevented the 6-3. They don’t play politics anywhere near well enough

 

[David O'Day]

And yet they couldn’t get Garland through under Obama and, again, didn’t try to obstruct Barrett which would have prevented the 6-3. They don’t play politics anywhere near well enough

They couldn't get Garland through as they didn't control the Senate.

I'll explain it again.

They are favoured to come out of the election controlling the White House, the Senate and the HoR. This means that all it would take is 1 bill to be raised and passed by both houses and the Supreme Court size is expanded.

The size of the court has changed at least 6 times in the past.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

They couldn't get Garland through as they didn't control the Senate.

I'll explain it again.

They are favoured to come out of the election controlling the White House, the Senate and the HoR. This means that all it would take is 1 bill to be raised and passed by both houses and the Supreme Court size is expanded.

The size of the court has changed at least 6 times in the past.

Same question, why would the Republicans not also do this when they had the chance?

 

[David O'Day]

Because you very rarely have times when both houses and the executive are in the same hands. It is the nuclear option but it is very easy to do if you control the 3 things needed.

 

[David O'Day]

Wow these are states trump won in 2016

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Because you very rarely have times when both houses and the executive are in the same hands. It is the nuclear option but it is very easy to do if you control the 3 things needed.

When Trump took office they did have all 3. They didn’t have the HoR this year but still got Barrett through for free because the Dems let them. It would be considerably easier to stall the nomination until Biden takes office then secure a 5-4, than to gamble on winning all 3 and trying to expand the court which sets a dangerous precedent.

McConnell showed how it should be done

 

[David O'Day]

When Trump took office they did have all 3. They didn’t have the HoR this year but still got Barrett through for free because the Dems let them. It would be considerably easier to stall the nomination until Biden takes office then secure a 5-4, than to gamble on winning all 3 and trying to expand the court which sets a dangerous precedent.

McConnell showed how it should be done

Yes and they had a 4-4 conservative to liberal balance with a empty seat so why would they?

You are claiming it takes political skill to expand the court. It doesn't it just takes a simple bill to pass congress. Sorry but it's madness that you are even arguing this.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yes and they had a 4-4 conservative to liberal balance with a empty seat so why would they?

You are claiming it takes political skill to expand the court. It doesn't it just takes a simple bill to pass congress. Sorry but it's madness that you are even arguing this.

Simple, to stack the court for years to come. If you then have both parties doing it in turn then it becomes meaningless as a branch of government. It still doesn’t explain why the Dems rolled over and allowed Barrett to be nominated despite there being just a few months of Trump left

 

[David O'Day]

Simple, to stack the court for years to come. If you then have both parties doing it in turn then it becomes meaningless as a branch of government. It still doesn’t explain why the Dems rolled over and allowed Barrett to be nominated despite there being just a few months of Trump left

Once again you are changing the goalposts

you're done here

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It's far easier just to expand it, as I said it just takes congress to pass a law. The democrats are more likely than not to be in charge of both houses and the white house so all it takes is one member of each house to bring the bill and it's good to go.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be easier, just whether it's the best way to do it politically. Dem's do that and it's going to affect their credibility and give Rep's a stick to beat them with over democracy (even though I know it's been done before). Of course you could argue about Trump having a pick weeks before an election when Obama was blocked with months to go.

You've also got to consider that long term there will inevitably another time when the Rep's have control again, so what do you think they'd do when that happens? And how could the Dem's oppose it? It eventually just becomes a farce and you need to totally rebuild the court as it's lost all credibility.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Because you very rarely have times when both houses and the executive are in the same hands. It is the nuclear option but it is very easy to do if you control the 3 things needed.

In two posts you mention how rare this is yet then point out the court has been expanded numerous times in the past. It's not a matter of if it happens but when. It becomes like our HoL where each time more and more get appointed to sway the balance until it's ridiculous.

Just cos it's potentially easy if things go as the polls expect doesn't make it the best solution. We ought to know under our current administation - take the line of least resistance rather than the correct one.