5 minutes ago, LiamB80 said:

Who cares what a poll says. I care what the constitution says.

 

Does the constitution say anything about a President having a defined time frame to nominate a candidate?

 

It's not about whether he's got the right to nominate, but rather if it's right.

48 minutes ago, Gandtee said:

 

But isn't it immoral to use unfair means to get what you want? Why not wait until after the election to see what the people want?

 

What unfair means? 

 

All the sudden we're concerned about what's fair and what's not? 

 

All of the sudden we want to wait until after the election to see what the people want? 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Does the constitution say anything about a President having a defined time frame to nominate a candidate?

 

It's not about whether he's got the right to nominate, but rather if it's right.

 

If the people don't like it, they can say so when they vote. 

 

Not to worry, assuming Trump loses the Presidency (as all the polling indicates he will) and the right loses the Senate, the left will (as they have been promising) increase the number of justices to 12 or 15. They might not even need the Senate with all the weak Republican Senators we have. 

 

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Not true. It has been proven on this board time and again that the looters and rioters associated with the peaceful protests in the US are white-supremist Christion right-wing extremists...

Those damn Amish have been burning Wendy's since 1699! Bastwards

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What unfair means? 

 

All the sudden we're concerned about what's fair and what's not? 

 

All of the sudden we want to wait until after the election to see what the people want? 

 

 

All of a sudden since 2016.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Bringing up 'issues' covered in any Introduction to Statistics 101 is hardly much of a point.

Granted, it might serve for certain segments of voters and posters.

 

A lot of people put stock in such polls, and polls can be used to shape public opinion so yes, I'm guessing the segment of voters and posters that care about how reliable a poll is would be interested. 

 

The most important thing I learned in statistics was to not to trust polls. 

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

If the people don't like it, they can say so when they vote. 

 

Not to worry, assuming Trump loses the Presidency (as all the polling indicates he will) and the right loses the Senate, the left will (as they have been promising) increase the number of justices to 12 or 15. They might not even need the Senate with all the weak Republican Senators we have. 

 

 

They can vote, but they can't vote her out. She'll be around for at least 25-30 years.

That you treat extending the SC as a given, possible or easy is ridiculous. I'm not even sure all Democrats are up for that. As for making it "the left", instead of Democrats  - nonsense, of course.

 

You can't address the point made, that's all.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

A lot of people put stock in such polls, and polls can be used to shape public opinion so yes, I'm guessing the segment of voters and posters that care about how reliable a poll is would be interested. 

 

The most important thing I learned in statistics was to not to trust polls. 

 

That's got absolutely nothing to do with the bogus complaint I replied to, or to my reply. You're just deflecting.

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

All of a sudden since 2016.

 

Yes exactly. Prior to Trump being elected no one was concerned about what's fair and what's not and no one wanted to wait until after the election to see what the people wanted.

 

Wow, finally a little common ground, that's encouraging!

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's got absolutely nothing to do with the bogus complaint I replied to, or to my reply. You're just deflecting.

 

You can't address the point made, that's all.

 

What's wrong with pointing out the size and make-up of a poll's sample set? 

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Yes exactly. Prior to Trump being elected no one was concerned about what's fair and what's not and no one wanted to wait until after the election to see what the people wanted.

 

Wow, finally a little common ground, that's encouraging!

Wrong, it was prior to trumps election, the repubs wanted to wait until after the election.

 

i suggest you do some reading before posting untruths.

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

They can vote, but they can't vote her out. She'll be around for at least 25-30 years.

That you treat extending the SC as a given, possible or easy is ridiculous. I'm not even sure all Democrats are up for that. As for making it "the left", instead of Democrats  - nonsense, of course.

 

You can't address the point made, that's all.

 

As I understand it, the point you made was that the President has the right to nominate regardless of the time frame. You also went on to say the issue is not whether the President has the right to nominate, but rather if it's right for him to so do. 

 

I agree with you.

11 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Wrong, it was prior to trumps election, the repubs wanted to wait until after the election.

 

i suggest you do some reading before posting untruths.

 

Okay, so before Trump's election the right wanted to wait and the left wanted not to wait. This time, the left wants to wait and the right doesn't, correct?

 

So if I understand correctly, it seems the right is letting the left do what it wanted all along, yes? 

 

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You can't address the point made, that's all.

 

What's wrong with pointing out the size and make-up of a poll's sample set? 

Nothing wrong with it, it just shows you don't understand.

Just now, stevenl said:

Nothing wrong with it, it just shows you don't understand.

What is it I don't understand? Would you please explain it such that I can understand?

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Okay, so before Trump's election the right wanted to wait and the left wanted not to wait. This time, the left wants to wait and the right doesn't, correct?

 

So if I understand correctly, it seems the right is letting the left do what it wanted all along, yes? 

 

 

 

 

The dems wanted to follow the precedent, the repubs refused and set a new precedent.

 

now the dems again want to follow the precedent that the repubs set. The repubs are refusing to follow their own precedent.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What is it I don't understand? Would you please explain it such that I can understand?

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polling-and-public-opinion/polling-fundamentals

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polling-and-public-opinion/polling-fundamentals

 

You guys crack me up. If you don't know just say you don't know. You claim I don't understand, yet when I ask what it is I don't understand you can't answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You can't address the point made, that's all.

 

What's wrong with pointing out the size and make-up of a poll's sample set? 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

A lot of people put stock in such polls, and polls can be used to shape public opinion so yes, I'm guessing the segment of voters and posters that care about how reliable a poll is would be interested. 

 

The most important thing I learned in statistics was to not to trust polls. 

Well, if that's what you claimed you learned was not to trust polls, that means you also learned not to trust statistics. Given that modern science and business depend on statistics, I don't know where that leaves you. Maybe you should take statistics 101 again?. Try to master such concepts as margin of error. 

In the current case in question, the problem for you seems to be that unequal numbers of democrats and republicans were polled.

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You guys crack me up. If you don't know just say you don't know. You claim I don't understand, yet when I ask what it is I don't understand you can't answer.

Just read and learn.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

The dems wanted to follow the precedent, the repubs refused and set a new precedent.

 

now the dems again want to follow the precedent that the repubs set. The repubs are refusing to follow their own precedent.

 

So the precedent was that the President should be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of their second term, and the right changed that precedent and said no, the President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of their second term, whereupon the left accepted the new precedent set by the right and agreed the President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of their second term. Is all that correct? 

 

If so, how is it the right is not abiding by the (apparently) new precedent they set? 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

So the precedent was that the President should be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of their second term, and the right changed that precedent and said no, the President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of their second term, whereupon the left accepted the new precedent set by the right and agreed the President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of their second term. Is all that correct? 

 

If so, how is it the right is not abiding by the (apparently) new precedent they set? 

Untrue. What McConnel said was that a President should nominate a candidate in the last year of his term.

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Just read and learn.

That's what I thought, thanks.

 

 

12 minutes ago, rebekkahr said:

Untrue. What McConnel said was that a President should nominate a candidate in the last year of his term.

That aint what he said when Obama made a nomination moths out, changed his tune for current POTUS and weeks before election

 

10 minutes ago, rebekkahr said:

Well, if that's what you claimed you learned was not to trust polls, that means you also learned not to trust statistics. Given that modern science and business depend on statistics, I don't know where that leaves you. Maybe you should take statistics 101 again?. Try to master such concepts as margin of error. 

In the current case in question, the problem for you seems to be that unequal numbers of democrats and republicans were polled.

 

That is ridiculous, It means nothing of the sort. But I may have overstated. I do trust polls to support whatever position they are designed to support.

 

I do not have a problem with the "...current case in question...", my concern was not not with the results of the poll, but rather with the (apparent) desire to shut down the discussion about the data. 

 

 

 

On 9/21/2020 at 11:27 AM, pmarlin said:

and this poll had a different outcome.

 

https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/most-americans-want-senate-to-move-on-supreme-court-decision-poll/

But it was a hypothetical poll taken before Ginsberg's death. When confronted by reality, the polls show Americans have quite a different opinion.

3 minutes ago, rebekkahr said:

But it was a hypothetical poll taken before Ginsberg's death. When confronted by reality, the polls show Americans have quite a different opinion.

 

At least something over half of the 837 people they asked do.

 

So do you think they asked the same people and they changed their minds or do you think they asked different people? 

39 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

So the precedent was that the President should be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of their second term, and the right changed that precedent and said no, the President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of their second term, whereupon the left accepted the new precedent set by the right and agreed the President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of their second term. Is all that correct? 

 

If so, how is it the right is not abiding by the (apparently) new precedent they set? 

Yawn. Mcconnell and the rest said  no nomination will be considered in the last year of his term.

 

The dems had no choice.

 

Now not only are they pushing it thru in an election year, but the election has already started. People have voted, the election has begun.

 

Would be nice if you checked yourself instead of wasting time.

 

lyndsay graham even told u to hold his words against him. I suggest u do so.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

That is ridiculous, It means nothing of the sort. But I may have overstated. I do trust polls to support whatever position they are designed to support.

 

I do not have a problem with the "...current case in question...", my concern was not not with the results of the poll, but rather with the (apparent) desire to shut down the discussion about the data. 

 

 

 

Right. Because pollsters don't care about their reputation? 

Anyway, the original point raised by someone was that there were more democrats polled than republicans.

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Yawn. Mcconnell and the rest said  no nomination will be considered in the last year of his term.

 

The dems had no choice.

 

Now not only are they pushing it thru in an election year, but the election has already started. People have voted, the election has begun.

 

Would be nice if you checked yourself instead of wasting time.

 

Last year of his second term. In any event, the dems still have no choice, and they might have a choice after the election, that's why they are pushing it through now.

 

Is that not clear to everyone? It's clear to me.