Majority of Americans, including many Republicans, say wait for election to replace Ginsburg - Reuters poll

[xofswen]

12 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And how many GOP voters who plan to vote for Trump wouldn't vote for him if he would set a new supreme court justice before the election? I guess about zero.

On the other hand: How many GOP voters who are now no big Trump fans would vote for him if there is no new supreme court judge before the election? I guess many would vote for Trump to make sure they get a conservative candidate after the election.

Summary: Get it done before the election to make sure Trump does not get any more votes than his fan base.

That is obviously not good but the lesser evil. 

Can it be inferred then that Trump's plan to fast track the justice' nomination and confirmation prior to Nov 3rd is a potentially flawed strategy costing him votes?

Edited September 21, 2020 by xofswen

[FlyingThai]

3 minutes ago, xofswen said:

Can it be inferred then that Trump's plan to fast track the justice' nomination and confirmation prior to Nov 3rd is a potentially flawed strategy costing him votes?

Not sure if it would actually cost him votes as in people wouldn't vote for him BUT of course there is the very real chance of people becoming complacent after a new justice is confirmed and the matter is locked in. Leaving it pending would be a bigger energizer for the base but that can be said for both sides. I tend to think seeing another justice confirmed before the election would be a major morale blow for the Democrats.

[PattayaJames]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

The unfortunate fact is Trump will whatever he can cement his mark on the office. would he honour the wishes of a dying person >> methinks not, and the fact that it is woman who has died, makes even less impact I think on POTUS, who shows no person of any gender any respect.

 

If Trump shows no respect to any gender then he shows no respect to anyone, the fact she is a woman has nothing to do with it. Shame she is not black otherwise you could throw the race card about too.

 

Trump seemed very respectful in his comments about her. Still don't let facts get in the way of your warped views.

 

Also her dying wish is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

[xofswen]

1 minute ago, FlyingThai said:

Not sure if it would actually cost him votes as in people wouldn't vote for him BUT of course there is the very real chance of people becoming complacent after a new justice is confirmed and the matter is locked in. Leaving it pending would be a bigger energizer for the base but that can be said for both sides. I tend to think seeing another justice confirmed before the election would be a major morale blow for the Democrats.

Yes, that makes good sense. Trumps SC nomination plan (strategy) then is to "erode" votes away from Biden.

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, DaftToPutRealName said:

I did give specific examples, and no, we're not off topic - it should be a very simple answer, unless that's not politically convenient for you?

Keep in mind that Biden wrote key parts of the 1994 crime bill, which prosecuted brown and black demographics at a much higher rate, and during her time as a prosecutor, Kamala specifically took a "tough on crime" stance which, again, meant that blacks and browns were prosecuted at a higher rate for non-violent crimes.

 

To be 10000% explicitly clear so you don't just do a polly and dodge the question; why do you think both Biden and Kamala are fighting against systemic racism when their actions clearly show that this is not the case, and in fact they have been paramount to the creation of said "systemic racism" across their entire careers as politicians?

Specific examples would be referencing specific laws and explaining how the authors of such laws knew in advance that these laws would disproportionately affect minorities.  You haven't done that.

 

Once again, prosecutors are supposed to prosecute those who can be proven to have broken laws.  No doubt you would be just as quick to condemn Harris if she hadn't done that.

 

BTW:  The topic is about a poll stating that the majority of Americans want to wait until after the election before replacing Ginsburg.  How is your obsession with Kamala Harris's record as a prosecutor on-topic?

Edited September 21, 2020 by heybruce

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

They advocate for Mitch McConnell to apply the rules he invents consistently.

They were against the rule in 2016, based on principle, but are now for it based on what?  What happened to their principles?  Perhaps they have none?  Maybe it's all just politics?

[SimpleMan555]

9 hours ago, Tug said:

Imo it would be the correct thing to do because of what they did to the last administration but it’s trump he is what he is

So you are saying 2 wrongs make a right?  Sorry but...Trump has nothing to do with this controversy.

It was the Republican lead Senate that blocked the 2016 Obama nomination of Merrick Garland. An action I found to be incorrect and based only on an attempt to gain political advantage.
 

In 2016, Obama fulfilled his duty as the sitting President of the USA, Trump should also fulfill his duty at the sitting President and nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsberg.
What the Senate does with the nomination is their choice and a power clearly delineated in the Constitution under the Separation of Powers.

BTW: I think both Trump and Biden are poor choices for President, and often wonder, '

Is this best the USA can offer?'

[Eric Loh]

1 minute ago, SimpleMan555 said:

BTW: I think both Trump and Biden are poor choices for President, and often wonder, '

Is this best the USA can offer?'

Poor choices indeed but Biden is still the right choice for USA. 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

They were against the rule in 2016, based on principle, but are now for it based on what?  What happened to their principles?  Perhaps they have none?  Maybe it's all just politics?

Based on the fact that when a Senate majority leader invents a rule he should apply it consistently and equally.

 

What McConnell did is ignore the Senate's constitutional responsibility when it benefited his party, and now he is ignoring the precedent he set when it benefits his party.  Reasonable people object to this.

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Poor choices indeed but Biden is still the right choice for USA. 

Is it the "right" choice? Or the lesser of two poor choices?

 

[ShindenGo]

A vote for Trump is a LITERAL VOTE for VIOLENCE

 

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued enslavement of the blacks

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued denigration of the LatinX communities

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued oppression of women in this country

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued burning of our western forests

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued burning of our cities 

A vote for Trump is a vote for racism

A vote for Trump is a vote for systemic racism

A vote for Trump is a vote for institutionalized racism 

 

Do you want to end slavery? Easy vote Joe Biden 

Do you want to end racism? Easy vote Joe Biden 
Do you want to end systemic racism? Easy vote Joe Biden 
Do you want to end institutionalized racism? Easy vote Joe Biden 
Do you want to end climate change? Easy vote Joe Biden 
Do you want to save our teacher unions? Easy vote Joe Biden 

[SimpleMan555]

8 hours ago, J Town said:

You are absolutely wrong. As I previously posted, her dying words were to wait until the election was over to choose a new justice.

Those may be her dying words, but there are contrary to both the US Constitution, and her words in 2016 regarding the death of Justice Scalia and the Obama nomination of Merrick Garland. At that time she supported Obama making the nomination as part of his constitutional duty.
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?referringSource=articleShare 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

She prosecuted people who broke the law.  She did her job.  Is that a bad thing?

If that was the entire story then no, it's not a bad thing.  But your simplistic statement purposely fails to include the whole truth.  Even MSN News, hardly a bastion of conservative thinking, had to address her checkered record with this headline:

 

Kamala Harris’ Prosecutor Record May Haunt VP Selection Process

[xofswen]

3 minutes ago, ShindenGo said:

A vote for Trump is a LITERAL VOTE for VIOLENCE

 

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued enslavement of the blacks

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued denigration of the LatinX communities

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued oppression of women in this country

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued burning of our western forests

A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued burning of our cities 

A vote for Trump is a vote for racism

A vote for Trump is a vote for systemic racism

A vote for Trump is a vote for institutionalized racism 

 

Do you want to end slavery? Easy vote Joe Biden 

Do you want to end racism? Easy vote Joe Biden 
Do you want to end systemic racism? Easy vote Joe Biden 
Do you want to end institutionalized racism? Easy vote Joe Biden 
Do you want to end climate change? Easy vote Joe Biden 
Do you want to save our teacher unions? Easy vote Joe Biden 

Lol, how many election signs are on your front yard! Got any bumper stickers?

We know who you are voting for.

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If that was the entire story then no, it's not a bad thing.  But your simplistic statement purposely fails to include the whole truth.  Even MSN News, hardly a bastion of conservative thinking, had to address her checkered record with this headline:

 

Kamala Harris’ Prosecutor Record May Haunt VP Selection Process

Trump supporters are condemning Harris because she did her job as a prosecutor.  Of course they would be condemning Harris if she didn't do her job as a prosecutor also.  It's what I expect from Trump supporters.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, checkered flag said:

That's why you can't believe polls. Most Republicans won't answer because they know the pollsters on the telephone know to much about them and don't feel safe during the cancel culture epidemic. Polls have become less than useless.

 

You do not know 'Most Republicans won't answer', you're just making things up to fit your position. Polls seem to be very useful for Trump supporters, when they show results they like.

[spidermike007]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Trumps got 4 years to replace her anyway. The Dems are a dystopian dark humor comedy at the moment.

Quite the contrary. Trump will be a distant, dystopian nightmare in a few months time. He is cascading towards the most humiliating event of his sorry lifetime, and he blindly blunders on. Nobody will touch him or his radioactive name, once he is ousted from the very white house. 

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, xofswen said:

"Any questions?"

 

Actually yes, I have a question(s) for Mrs.Harris:

 

• "You said you believed the women accusing Joe Biden of inappropriate touching. Do you believe Tara Reade? If not, why not? If so, how do you justify supporting him now"?

 

• "What is the maximum number of illegal immigrants you would allow into the country before securing the border to stop more from entering"?

 

The entire Reid episode was beyond fabricated. Anyone who thinks Biden pinned her up against a wall, in the very public halls of congress, needs to stop drinking the kool aid, and get some therapy immediately.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

They were against the rule in 2016, based on principle, but are now for it based on what?  What happened to their principles?  Perhaps they have none?  Maybe it's all just politics?

Based on the fact that when a Senate majority leader invents a rule he should apply it consistently and equally.

 

What McConnell did is ignore the Senate's constitutional responsibility when it benefited his party, and now he is ignoring the precedent he set when it benefits his party.  Reasonable people object to this.

So if you create an unprincipled rule to favour your party you should then have the principles to be consistent in applying your unprincipled rule?  Since everyone is willing to be unprincipled then maybe it's all just politics?

[SimpleMan555]

25 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Poor choices indeed but Biden is still the right choice for USA. 

Is this the same Biden that supported Obama making the 2016 SCOTUS pre-election nomination of Merrick Garland, but now opposes Trump fulfilling his presidential duties to nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsberg?

 

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So if you create an unprincipled rule to favour your party you should then have the principles to be consistent in applying your unprincipled rule?  Since everyone is willing to be unprincipled then maybe it's all just politics?

Yes, McConnell should apply the same rule to his party that he applied to Obama's party.  That isn't so difficult, is it?

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, SimpleMan555 said:

Is this the same Biden that supported Obama making the 2016 SCOTUS pre-election nomination of Merrick Garland, but now opposes Trump fulfilling his presidential duties to nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsberg?

 

Unless you are here specifically to troll, read the posts on the topic and don't repeat discredited nonsense.

[PattayaJames]

16 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Quite the contrary. Trump will be a distant, dystopian nightmare in a few months time. He is cascading towards the most humiliating event of his sorry lifetime, and he blindly blunders on. Nobody will touch him or his radioactive name, once he is ousted from the very white house. 

That''s the spirit, I am sure you were wrong about just about everything over the last 5 years. 

But don't let that deter you. C'mon man, Biden's got this for sure. LOL

Edited September 21, 2020 by PattayaJames

[checkered flag]

1 hour ago, xofswen said:

Can it be inferred then that Trump's plan to fast track the justice' nomination and confirmation prior to Nov 3rd is a potentially flawed strategy costing him votes?

I feel that it's a win win for him, so go for it. Let Harris exploit in the confirmation hearing again and do herself in.

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If that was the entire story then no, it's not a bad thing.  But your simplistic statement purposely fails to include the whole truth.  Even MSN News, hardly a bastion of conservative thinking, had to address her checkered record with this headline:

 

Kamala Harris’ Prosecutor Record May Haunt VP Selection Process

Trump supporters are condemning Harris because she did her job as a prosecutor.  Of course they would be condemning Harris if she didn't do her job as a prosecutor also.  It's what I expect from Trump supporters.

From that article:

 

"She faced questions about some of her policies and prosecutions, including an anti-truancy program that threatened parents of children who skipped school with prosecution and her handling of claims from men of color who had been wrongfully convicted of criminal charges."

 

Go right ahead and believe that the whole and only truth was that Harris simply "did her job as a prosecutor."  Nothing more to it.  

[Eric Loh]

15 minutes ago, SimpleMan555 said:

Is this the same Biden that supported Obama making the 2016 SCOTUS pre-election nomination of Merrick Garland, but now opposes Trump fulfilling his presidential duties to nominate a replacement for Justice Ginsberg?

 

Your post is mangled and thus falls under the category of fake news. 

[checkered flag]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So if you create an unprincipled rule to favour your party you should then have the principles to be consistent in applying your unprincipled rule?  Since everyone is willing to be unprincipled then maybe it's all just politics?

Sort of like Nancy not sending the impeachment papers to the Senate. 

[Sujo]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

From that article:

 

"She faced questions about some of her policies and prosecutions, including an anti-truancy program that threatened parents of children who skipped school with prosecution and her handling of claims from men of color who had been wrongfully convicted of criminal charges."

 

Go right ahead and believe that the whole and only truth was that Harris simply "did her job as a prosecutor."  Nothing more to it.  

Do u understand it is a jury that decides guilt, not a prosecutor.

[Mick501]

Sounds reasonable, but equally reasonable to require the Democrats not to whine and moan should Trump be re-elected.  But that would be akin to asking Mr Scorpion not to sting Mr Frog.

[xofswen]

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Your post is mangled and thus falls under the category of fake news. 

Not fake news, mangled post-- what is it?

I think in June 1992 and again now in Sept 2020 Biden argued the nomination and senate vote for a new SCotus should take place post election but in 2016 for the Garland selection he argued opposite, the Scotus vacancy should be filled immediately, even a few months ahead of the election.

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”