Trump says he will name Supreme Court replacement for Ginsburg by Saturday

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, Smigel said:

I think you will find that in 2016 when judge scalia died and Obama wanted to place his pick on the SC, 

Obviously the white House under Obama was held by Democrats. 

The Senate was held by republicans, seems to me that the republicans blocked the appointment.

Ironically in 2016 both Obama and Biden contended and argued that constitutionally the president Should be allowed to fill the vacancy on the SC. 

Trump is merely doing his job efficiently and filling a vacancy as he is constitutionally required to do.

Hope that helps. 

 

 

Filling a Supreme Court vacancy ten months before an election is very different from filling a vacancy less than six weeks before an election.  Of course Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and numerous other prominent Republicans are on record as opposing filling the vacancy at any time during an election year.

 

The Constitution allows the President fill Supreme Court vacancies and he is expected to do so, however there is no timeline.  No Supreme Court Justice has been confirmed within nine months of a Presidential election in the last 100 years, possibly ever.

[riclag]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Filling a Supreme Court vacancy ten months before an election is very different from filling a vacancy less than six weeks before an election.  Of course Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and numerous other prominent Republicans are on record as opposing filling the vacancy at any time during an election year.

 

The Constitution allows the President fill Supreme Court vacancies and he is expected to do so, however there is no timeline.  No Supreme Court Justice has been confirmed within nine months of a Presidential election in the last 100 years, possibly ever.

Graham changed his mind

https://politicalwire.com/2020/09/21/graham-says-he-changed-his-mind-on-confirming-justices/

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

Graham changed his mind

https://politicalwire.com/2020/09/21/graham-says-he-changed-his-mind-on-confirming-justices/

Illustrating what a colossal hypocrite he is.   https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/lindsey-graham-backpedals-after-saying-use-my-words-against-me-on-supreme-court-vacancies/ar-BB19dj0Y

[Morch]

6 hours ago, nattaya09 said:

I'm highly skeptical that the woman is laying on her deathbed surrounded by family and her last thoughts are about presidential appointments. It does help the media narrative though

 

I'm highly skeptical that your doubts carry more weight than her family's. I get it some people have a hard time accepting others may have different priorities, not all of which revolve around the Me First and the Gimme Gimme attitude.

[Smigel]

4 hours ago, polpott said:

Do you expect anyone to believe that nonsense? Really? The constitution says nothing about filling it with indecent haste, which it normally isn't. You've really got it bad.

If you really can't see the opportunity for the president and the republicans to stack the SC with another Conservative. 

Then it's your own blind hatred of Trump, that stops you believing that the Dems would have done anything differently had the opportunity arisen. 

The funny thing is, this situation arises because ginsberg refused or neglected to retire during the Obama administration. Thereby disallowing Obama the opportunity of placing a younger candidate on the SC. 

I suspect the arrogance of the Dems came into play a little there, in that they couldn't see in any way that Trump would win in 2016.

Whats that saying, oh yeah, 

"elections have consequences". 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, Smigel said:

If you really can't see the opportunity for the president and the republicans to stack the SC with another Conservative. 

Then it's your own blind hatred of Trump, that stops you believing that the Dems would have done anything differently had the opportunity arisen. 

The funny thing is, this situation arises because ginsberg refused or neglected to retire during the Obama administration. Thereby disallowing Obama the opportunity of placing a younger candidate on the SC. 

I suspect the arrogance of the Dems came into play a little there, in that they couldn't see in any way that Trump would win in 2016.

Whats that saying, oh yeah, 

"elections have consequences". 

 

 

 

 

 

Why should she have retired earlier. She never said she wanted a dem to replace her.

 

she only said it should be done after the election, which is already under way, people have already voted. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Sujo

[polpott]

46 minutes ago, Smigel said:

If you really can't see the opportunity for the president and the republicans to stack the SC with another Conservative. 

Then it's your own blind hatred of Trump, that stops you believing that the Dems would have done anything differently had the opportunity arisen. 

The funny thing is, this situation arises because ginsberg refused or neglected to retire during the Obama administration. Thereby disallowing Obama the opportunity of placing a younger candidate on the SC. 

I suspect the arrogance of the Dems came into play a little there, in that they couldn't see in any way that Trump would win in 2016.

Whats that saying, oh yeah, 

"elections have consequences". 

 

 

 

 

 

And I presume that its because "elections have consequences" that Trump is desperate to appoint his nominee before Biden takes the White House and the Dems take the senate in January despite the latest announcement from the FBI that Comrade Putin is going four square behind Trump and using any means at his disposal to rig the election in favour of Trump.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by polpott

[earlinclaifornia]

17 hours ago, BobBKK said:

To be honest Eric i think he has a lead amongst those that are willing to SAY. Most Trump voters are too scared of the backlash. I do believe, however, that Biden may well take it due to Covid and his being kept out of the way, not taking questions etc. I think Biden had no chance prior to Covid. It will be very interesting and Im staying up all night to watch it.

Do you honestly think of shy when you make claim to "Trump voters are too scared of the backlash"? I have read that is mistaken and agree they are in no way shy. Please if you think you have proof I love to rebut you with my own links. Anytime a supporter admits he may lose is just them being honest.

[earlinclaifornia]

2 hours ago, polpott said:

And I presume that its because "elections have consequences" that Trump is desperate to appoint his nominee before Biden takes the White House and the Dems take the senate in January despite the latest announcement from the FBI that Comrade Putin is going four square behind Trump and using any means at his disposal to rig the election in favour of Trump.

 

 

It is truly accurate elections have consequences and make me wonder why trump is to not playing this smarter. Once this is played he has no real leverage or reason to have any reelection support. He is spent and they are exhausted.

[Smigel]

6 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

It is truly accurate elections have consequences and make me wonder why trump is to not playing this smarter. Once this is played he has no real leverage or reason to have any reelection support. He is spent and they are exhausted.

Please explain how he could play it smarter. 

He is already taking the opportunity that has presented itself, by installing another Conservative on the SC. 

The Dems made a mistake in 2016 by not pushing for RBG to retire in her early to mid eighties, they arrogantly believed Clinton was a shoe in. There is no way Trump will pass this opportunity up, and why should he.? 

There is also the threat of the 600 or so lawyers the Dems have recruited to tie up this election in litigation, just in case they don't quite pull off their election fraud. 

A 6-3 majority on the SC will be vital. 

As for having no re election support, are you serious? 

I suggest you take a look at the support he's getting at his rallies. 

Do they look like they're not turning out to vote to you.? 

I guess you're going to have to burn it all down.! 

Good luck with that. 

[Smigel]

8 hours ago, polpott said:

And I presume that its because "elections have consequences" that Trump is desperate to appoint his nominee before Biden takes the White House and the Dems take the senate in January despite the latest announcement from the FBI that Comrade Putin is going four square behind Trump and using any means at his disposal to rig the election in favour of Trump.

 

 

Oh gawd, you still banging that drum.? 

It's been four years, and you still can't make anything stick, change the record you've long since past the boring threshold. 

I'm looking forward to Pelosi carrying out her threat to impeach Trump every day if she has too. 

Should convert into thousands of more votes for Trump from the undecideds.

[polpott]

14 minutes ago, Smigel said:

Oh gawd, you still banging that drum.? 

Its not me banging the drum, its the FBI.

[earlinclaifornia]

11 hours ago, Smigel said:

Please explain how he could play it smarter. 

He is already taking the opportunity that has presented itself, by installing another Conservative on the SC. 

The Dems made a mistake in 2016 by not pushing for RBG to retire in her early to mid eighties, they arrogantly believed Clinton was a shoe in. There is no way Trump will pass this opportunity up, and why should he.? 

There is also the threat of the 600 or so lawyers the Dems have recruited to tie up this election in litigation, just in case they don't quite pull off their election fraud. 

A 6-3 majority on the SC will be vital. 

As for having no re election support, are you serious? 

I suggest you take a look at the support he's getting at his rallies. 

Do they look like they're not turning out to vote to you.? 

I guess you're going to have to burn it all down.! 

Good luck with that. 

Apparently this all is a bit over you head I think. Now that he will have the SC completed, he has accomplished the task. Are you believing that he will garner a "thank you" vote? Hardly, deal is done, bye-bye.

[herfiehandbag]

Whatever the constitutional arguments, Mr Trump's enthusiasm to move quickly on filling the vacancy in the Supreme Court is completely understandable. If he loses the Presidency in November he could well be facing some quite serious tax and fraud allegations. The Republicans may also lose control of the Senate. He needs to ensure a solid " conservative majority" in case (before) that may happen. He may find himself in front of that court!

[Smigel]

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Apparently this all is a bit over you head I think. Now that he will have the SC completed, he has accomplished the task. Are you believing that he will garner a "thank you" vote? Hardly, deal is done, bye-bye.

I think there are 3 possible scenarios here. 

1) I am as you suggest thick as mince. 

2) English is not your first language. 

3) You are in fact Joe Biden commenting under a pseudonym. 

The reason I say this is because your post is utter jibberish. 

Are you inferring that Trumps sole purpose of running for president in 2016 was because he knew back then that he would get the opportunity to nominate 3 candidates for the SC. 

That the reason why people voted for him was because they wanted 3 Conservative leaning justices on the SC, and if Trump completes that task before the election then they don't need to vote for him. 

I look forward to your reply, if only to confirm its not scenario 1).

[earlinclaifornia]

7 hours ago, Smigel said:

I think there are 3 possible scenarios here. 

1) I am as you suggest thick as mince. 

2) English is not your first language. 

3) You are in fact Joe Biden commenting under a pseudonym. 

The reason I say this is because your post is utter jibberish. 

Are you inferring that Trumps sole purpose of running for president in 2016 was because he knew back then that he would get the opportunity to nominate 3 candidates for the SC. 

That the reason why people voted for him was because they wanted 3 Conservative leaning justices on the SC, and if Trump completes that task before the election then they don't need to vote for him. 

I look forward to your reply, if only to confirm its not scenario 1).

66% Republicans in 2016 thought the SC was a most important reason voting. If he uses as a bargaining chip before his election instead of waiting he blows his wad.

[Masterton]

On 9/22/2020 at 5:02 AM, Eric Loh said:

He lost but the electoral college gave him the win. In short, most people didn't want him. 

 

Newsflash - the electoral college gave every US president "the win". That's how the system works. The so-called popular vote is meaningless. It is amazing to me how regularly this dead horse is wheeled out to be beaten again and again. Your side lost in 2016, just get over it and move on already. Stop whining about the popular vote and nominate a candidate who knows how to campaign properly next time.

 

 

On 9/22/2020 at 5:10 AM, polpott said:

That doesn't escape the fact that more people voted for Clinton than Trump. Hence, the majority didn't want him.

 

Well it depends how you look at it. By droning on and on about the "popular vote" (no such thing in US elections), you are essentially advocating for mob rule. What you are actually saying is that the populous liberal Democrat strongholds of California and New York should dictate the outcome of the whole country's election. In other words, presidential candidates should not even bother campaigning or bothering with the other 48 states because their votes literally would not matter.

 

Furthermore, in 2016 Clinton won California (a Democrat stronghold and the most populous state in the USA) by approx 4m+ votes. However she only won your beloved "popular vote" by approx 2.8m votes. So to put things into perspective and to hammer home the original point, if California was removed from the equation, then Trump would've won the meaningless "popular vote" in the remaining 49 states. Furthermore, Trump won 2600 counties compared to Clinton's 500, funny how this is rarely mentioned.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

Newsflash - the electoral college gave every US president "the win". That's how the system works. The so-called popular vote is meaningless. It is amazing to me how regularly this dead horse is wheeled out to be beaten again and again. Your side lost in 2016, just get over it and move on already. Stop whining about the popular vote and nominate a candidate who knows how to campaign properly next time.

 

 

 

Well it depends how you look at it. By droning on and on about the "popular vote" (no such thing in US elections), you are essentially advocating for mob rule. What you are actually saying is that the populous liberal Democrat strongholds of California and New York should dictate the outcome of the whole country's election. In other words, presidential candidates should not even bother campaigning or bothering with the other 48 states because their votes literally would not matter.

 

Furthermore, in 2016 Clinton won California (a Democrat stronghold and the most populous state in the USA) by approx 4m+ votes. However she only won your beloved "popular vote" by approx 2.8m votes. So to put things into perspective and to hammer home the original point, if California was removed from the equation, then Trump would've won the meaningless "popular vote" in the remaining 49 states. Furthermore, Trump won 2600 counties compared to Clinton's 500, funny how this is rarely mentioned.

 

If the popular vote was meaningless (and I agree that it plays no part in the election system) then Trump supporters wouldn't go so often about 'the majority of Americans', 'the silent majority' and so on. As they do, it seems that they agree winning more votes carries some weight, regardless of real effects on the outcome.

 

If bringing up the popular vote is nonsense, then 'if California was removed from the equation' certainly is.

[polpott]

2 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

Newsflash - the electoral college gave every US president "the win". That's how the system works. The so-called popular vote is meaningless. It is amazing to me how regularly this dead horse is wheeled out to be beaten again and again. Your side lost in 2016, just get over it and move on already. Stop whining about the popular vote and nominate a candidate who knows how to campaign properly next time.

 

 

 

Well it depends how you look at it. By droning on and on about the "popular vote" (no such thing in US elections), you are essentially advocating for mob rule. What you are actually saying is that the populous liberal Democrat strongholds of California and New York should dictate the outcome of the whole country's election. In other words, presidential candidates should not even bother campaigning or bothering with the other 48 states because their votes literally would not matter.

 

Furthermore, in 2016 Clinton won California (a Democrat stronghold and the most populous state in the USA) by approx 4m+ votes. However she only won your beloved "popular vote" by approx 2.8m votes. So to put things into perspective and to hammer home the original point, if California was removed from the equation, then Trump would've won the meaningless "popular vote" in the remaining 49 states. Furthermore, Trump won 2600 counties compared to Clinton's 500, funny how this is rarely mentioned.

You failed to miss the point of my post, deliberately I'd guess. Nothing to do with the electoral college, nothing to do with who won the election, I was simply replying to a poster who claimed that Trump supporters were the "silent majority". This is not, never was and never will be true as indicated at the last election by a truly awful candidate who had more support than Trump. ie more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

[Masterton]

On 9/22/2020 at 6:37 AM, Eric Loh said:

Question. If POTUS can't unite the country and stop the civil unrest under his watch, what chance next 4 years. 

 

You mean the civil unrest orchestrated, carried out, and supported by Democrat party activists? The unrest has nothing to do with Trump, you really need to stop watching CNN...

 

 

On 9/22/2020 at 9:28 AM, polpott said:

Legal right but certainly not moral right. But hey, he has no morals so that's OK then.

 

Since when does when a supreme court justice is nominated have anything to do with morals ?? The supreme court can not effectively function with 8 justices, it is in the nation's best interest to nominate and appoint a replacement as soon as possible in order to get on with the ruling on the backlog of cases. 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 12:03 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Sometimes I think Trump was born under a lucky star.

Winning by a few votes in the key states.

Inheriting a good and growing economy from Obama. You could argue his tax cuts for the rich, and ridding of some regulations, helped but the already growing economy was to his advantage and his tax policy has probably just lead to higher debt. 

The way he seems to be able to avoid getting in serious trouble while those around him fall by the wayside.

And now when the country is mainly focused on his poor efforts on Coronavirus this Supreme court thing falls into his lap.

I can't see him winning still but who knows what's next. I just hope this issue energises democrats more than republicans.

 

Trump did not win because he was "lucky". He figured out a strategy to win and he won. It is not relevant by how many votes he won by, a "few" or otherwise, or whether they were "key states" or not. Only that he won. Amazing how after 4 years the majority of Clinton supporters still can not handle the fact that their candidate lost and choose to come up with all kinds of excuses as to why Trump won instead of why Clinton lost.

 

And the rest of your post is just repetition of fake news media talking points which gain you zero credibility. Where do we start ? "Tax cuts for the rich" (he cut taxes for all people, not only the rich), "avoiding getting into serious trouble" (because he did not do what he was accused of), "poor efforts on Coronavirus" (total nonsense, the majority of deaths took place in Democrat run states where Trump had no say in the policies). And the "Supreme court thing" did not "fall into his lap", Ginsberg should have stepped down years ago, she has been in ill health for some time. The Democrats have been propping her up in a Weekend At Bernies style farce for a long time now hoping to wait out the Trump term. I agree somewhat with what a previous poster alluded to, that she should have stepped down in Obama's 2nd term if she was that worried about being replaced by a Republican president. Just more Democrat arrogance thinking they were going to be in control of everything.

 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 12:04 AM, shdmn said:

What's it like supporting a president that literally hates you?  His exact words were that he thinks his supporters are "disgusting".  And if you were ever in the military he also thinks you are a "loser" and a "sucker".

 

Please kindly supply the video/audio of him making these remarks? This is just more Democrat fake news BS designed to besmirch the president for political gain. Every person with him at the time he supposedly made the remarks about the military has debunked that, yet people like you and the dummy you're supporting for president keep repeating them. Yet we have to get lectured on morals.... Wow.

[Silencer]

This is the real issue most Americans should be concerned about; making the SC a political arm of government. Whether you lean liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, it is good to have a balanced court. This ensures that political decisions, or very controversial/heated/passionate issues, are weighed solely on their legal merits, not the political party you belong to (we have the WH and Congress for that). It is the last refuge of "usually" reasoned response to a variety of potential constitutional or societal issues. A balanced court, with the occasional swing vote, moderates the decisions if left just to the most ideological justices. Citizens should want a divided, non-political, court to counter any really crazy ideas advocated by Congress or a President.

 

Fun fact: The US constitution does not dictate the decisions/orders of the court must be followed. Rather, it only says the court should provide their opinions on the constitutionality of laws that are presented to them. At times, its decisions have been ignored.

[Masterton]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If the popular vote was meaningless (and I agree that it plays no part in the election system) then Trump supporters wouldn't go so often about 'the majority of Americans', 'the silent majority' and so on. As they do, it seems that they agree winning more votes carries some weight, regardless of real effects on the outcome.

 

If bringing up the popular vote is nonsense, then 'if California was removed from the equation' certainly is.

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think in these instances what those people are referring to when they talk about the silent majority are the people who don't talk openly about their political beliefs, the people who are not honest to pollsters when they are asked who they will vote for, and particularly those who didn't vote in the last election. As I recall, there was a fairly low turnout in the 2016 election. A lot of people who were not thrilled about voting for Trump may come out now and vote for him for whatever reason.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, polpott said:

You failed to miss the point of my post, deliberately I'd guess. Nothing to do with the electoral college, nothing to do with who won the election, I was simply replying to a poster who claimed that Trump supporters were the "silent majority". This is not, never was and never will be true as indicated at the last election by a truly awful candidate who had more support than Trump. ie more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

 

Apologies if you believe the "point was missed", however the thread was an ongoing one which evolved from the old chestnut of Clinton winning the popular vote and it always seems to circle back to that. Just because more people voted for Clinton doesn't necessarily mean that she is more popular than Trump, it just means that more people cam out and voted for her in California. But I digress, see my above point for what in my view people refer to as the "silent majority".

[polpott]

6 minutes ago, Masterton said:

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think in these instances what those people are referring to when they talk about the silent majority are the people who don't talk openly about their political beliefs, the people who are not honest to pollsters when they are asked who they will vote for, and particularly those who didn't vote in the last election. As I recall, there was a fairly low turnout in the 2016 election. A lot of people who were not thrilled about voting for Trump may come out now and vote for him for whatever reason.

I'm afraid the opposite is true. A low turnout benefits the Republican party. A high turnout is predicted for this election which should swing the way of Democrats.

 

If people weren't thrilled about voting for Trump last time, they're going to be a lot less thrilled after 4 years under his presidency.

[Masterton]

12 minutes ago, Silencer said:

This is the real issue most Americans should be concerned about; making the SC a political arm of government. Whether you lean liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, it is good to have a balanced court. This ensures that political decisions, or very controversial/heated/passionate issues, are weighed solely on their legal merits, not the political party you belong to (we have the WH and Congress for that). It is the last refuge of "usually" reasoned response to a variety of potential constitutional or societal issues. A balanced court, with the occasional swing vote, moderates the decisions if left just to the most ideological justices. Citizens should want a divided, non-political, court to counter any really crazy ideas advocated by Congress or a President.

 

Fun fact: The US constitution does not dictate the decisions/orders of the court must be followed. Rather, it only says the court should provide their opinions on the constitutionality of laws that are presented to them. At times, its decisions have been ignored.

 

Good points. To which I will add that that all judges, supreme court or otherwise, should be making decisions and rulings based on law and the constitution. Just because certain justices are appointed by Republican or Democrat presidents does not make them so, this is a common false talking point when the SC is referred to as 5-4 Republican or whatever. It seems to me that in the past Democrats have appointed far left judges such as the recently deceased RBG, whereas Republicans have often nominated quite centrist justices, such as Roberts who has made some bizarre rulings lately siding with the leftist justices, and can not really be referred to as a "conservative" or a Republican". In my opinion however, it has been Democrat appointed justices that have frequently made rulings that are not in line with constitutional law and commentators refer to this as legislating from the bench which is NOT their job or purpose. In some cases the SC has overstepped it's bounds in these instances. 

[Masterton]

6 minutes ago, polpott said:

I'm afraid the opposite is true. A low turnout benefits the Republican party. A high turnout is predicted for this election which should swing the way of Democrats.

 

If people weren't thrilled about voting for Trump last time, they're going to be a lot less thrilled after 4 years under his presidency.

 

No, your opinion is that the opposite is true. A lot of people in the USA are happy with Trump's achievements in office and will vote for him. A lot of people who voted Democrat previously will also be voting for Trump this time. Most of the inane garbage spouted by people who oppose Trump (including here on TVF) is just fake Democrat talking points with very little basis in fact, and it is made worse by their advocates in the media who deliberately don't report about the stuff he has actually accomplished. If more people were actually informed by the media, rather than dis-informed/misinformed, then things would be a lot different. I am not making any predictions about the outcome of the election, but let's hope it does not swing the way of the Democrats or you kiss America as you know it goodbye.

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

You mean the civil unrest orchestrated, carried out, and supported by Democrat party activists? The unrest has nothing to do with Trump, you really need to stop watching CNN...

 

 

 

Since when does when a supreme court justice is nominated have anything to do with morals ?? The supreme court can not effectively function with 8 justices, it is in the nation's best interest to nominate and appoint a replacement as soon as possible in order to get on with the ruling on the backlog of cases. 

 

 

Trump did not win because he was "lucky". He figured out a strategy to win and he won. It is not relevant by how many votes he won by, a "few" or otherwise, or whether they were "key states" or not. Only that he won. Amazing how after 4 years the majority of Clinton supporters still can not handle the fact that their candidate lost and choose to come up with all kinds of excuses as to why Trump won instead of why Clinton lost.

 

And the rest of your post is just repetition of fake news media talking points which gain you zero credibility. Where do we start ? "Tax cuts for the rich" (he cut taxes for all people, not only the rich), "avoiding getting into serious trouble" (because he did not do what he was accused of), "poor efforts on Coronavirus" (total nonsense, the majority of deaths took place in Democrat run states where Trump had no say in the policies). And the "Supreme court thing" did not "fall into his lap", Ginsberg should have stepped down years ago, she has been in ill health for some time. The Democrats have been propping her up in a Weekend At Bernies style farce for a long time now hoping to wait out the Trump term. I agree somewhat with what a previous poster alluded to, that she should have stepped down in Obama's 2nd term if she was that worried about being replaced by a Republican president. Just more Democrat arrogance thinking they were going to be in control of everything.

 

 

 

Please kindly supply the video/audio of him making these remarks? This is just more Democrat fake news BS designed to besmirch the president for political gain. Every person with him at the time he supposedly made the remarks about the military has debunked that, yet people like you and the dummy you're supporting for president keep repeating them. Yet we have to get lectured on morals.... Wow.

 

The Democratic Party is not orchestrating or organizing and supporting the riots. That you push such lies as fact and truth doesn't make them so. And no, it doesn't make a difference if you hide behind 'activists' - your intention is all too clear.

 

The SC can effectively function with 8 justices. For starters, having 8 justices doesn't imply a 4-4 tie on each and every ruling. Then, there the fact that most nomination and confirmation processes take weeks if not months - during this time, the SC operates as usual. If you have trouble with that, consider the last time Republicans refused to discuss the nomination proposed by Obama. Lastly - there is a legal course of action for cases involving a tie in the SC. In such cases the lower court's ruling stands.

 

What you call 'repetition of fake news media' is nothing of the sort. Granted, there could be differing views on some of the issues, but much of what was listed is fact. Not them alternative facts Trump supporters like, but the real deal. That you shout 'fake news' without nothing much to support this by your opinion and bias does not chage fact and reality.

 

As for Trump remarks, and you repeated 'fake news' claims - his making the comments was not actually 'debunked' in the manner you claim. There was talk about a list of named people who deny it, but as far as I recall, no such list was presented (at least not on this forum).

 

 

[Morch]

48 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think in these instances what those people are referring to when they talk about the silent majority are the people who don't talk openly about their political beliefs, the people who are not honest to pollsters when they are asked who they will vote for, and particularly those who didn't vote in the last election. As I recall, there was a fairly low turnout in the 2016 election. A lot of people who were not thrilled about voting for Trump may come out now and vote for him for whatever reason.

 

 

 

 

Apologies if you believe the "point was missed", however the thread was an ongoing one which evolved from the old chestnut of Clinton winning the popular vote and it always seems to circle back to that. Just because more people voted for Clinton doesn't necessarily mean that she is more popular than Trump, it just means that more people cam out and voted for her in California. But I digress, see my above point for what in my view people refer to as the "silent majority".

 

More people voted for Clinton means exactly that she won the popular vote. You want to claim she was not more popular? How you going to prove that? Counting people who might not have voted by prefer Trump? Good luck with this nonsense.

 

There is no 'silent majority'. Trump did not win a majority in 2016. Republicans lost the elections in 2018. Your spins and unsupported notions about people not coming out to vote but still preferring Trump are not an reliable (or even acceptable) explanation.

 

A low turnout is usually seen as beneficial for the Republicans, a high turnout favoring the Democrats. In your alternate reality, this is somehow reversed.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

No, your opinion is that the opposite is true. A lot of people in the USA are happy with Trump's achievements in office and will vote for him. A lot of people who voted Democrat previously will also be voting for Trump this time. Most of the inane garbage spouted by people who oppose Trump (including here on TVF) is just fake Democrat talking points with very little basis in fact, and it is made worse by their advocates in the media who deliberately don't report about the stuff he has actually accomplished. If more people were actually informed by the media, rather than dis-informed/misinformed, then things would be a lot different. I am not making any predictions about the outcome of the election, but let's hope it does not swing the way of the Democrats or you kiss America as you know it goodbye.

 

You cannot support on demonstrate your points regarding voting trends. That you say so means little.

Much of what's said about Trump by critics (even here on TVF) is supported by facts, not least of them being Trump's own words. Whining about the media when the President got practically free access to go on Fox is lame. You could, at the very least, realize that your last line echos the other side's sentiments in reverse.

 

 

[Smigel]

3 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

66% Republicans in 2016 thought the SC was a most important reason voting. If he uses as a bargaining chip before his election instead of waiting he blows his wad.

So 66% of Republicans in 2016 thought that a republican president nomination for the vacant seat on the SC, was the most important reason voting republican in that election. 

That certainly does Not mean that those 66% of republican voters are single issue voters and they are not going to bother voting in this election because Trump has already had 2 nominations. 

If that's the extent of your conviction for a Biden victory, I think you are seriously deluded. 

Look you are obviously an American citizen living in America, so I wouldn't presume to tell you what's going on in your own country, but I refuse to believe your contention that if Trump and the senate go ahead with filling this vacancy, then republican voters will not bother to turn out, 

Sorry, but that to me is a ludicrous suggestion, particularly in this election, where there are many highly emotive and contentious issues at stake. 

 

[Masterton]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The Democratic Party is not orchestrating or organizing and supporting the riots. That you push such lies as fact and truth doesn't make them so. And no, it doesn't make a difference if you hide behind 'activists' - your intention is all too clear.

 

The SC can effectively function with 8 justices. For starters, having 8 justices doesn't imply a 4-4 tie on each and every ruling. Then, there the fact that most nomination and confirmation processes take weeks if not months - during this time, the SC operates as usual. If you have trouble with that, consider the last time Republicans refused to discuss the nomination proposed by Obama. Lastly - there is a legal course of action for cases involving a tie in the SC. In such cases the lower court's ruling stands.

 

What you call 'repetition of fake news media' is nothing of the sort. Granted, there could be differing views on some of the issues, but much of what was listed is fact. Not them alternative facts Trump supporters like, but the real deal. That you shout 'fake news' without nothing much to support this by your opinion and bias does not chage fact and reality.

 

Yes, the people who are behind the "civil unrest" (aka riots, looting, violent protests, murders etc) are political activists who support the Democrat party. These are not Trump supporters. This is not even up for debate. 

 

You are intentionally oversimplifying the SC issue. The reason why Republicans "refused to discuss" Obama's nomination had to do with it being a divided government. The senate are in no way obligated to appoint an SC nomination nominated by an opposing party's president.

 

Incorrect, the relentless <deleted> hysterically spouted by the mainstream news media is not "differing views". You live in a fantasy world if you think that is the case. It is mostly lies and fake stories, either made up or spun in a way to appear vastly different to the reality. Look at the list of stories that the media have got wrong. I suppose you still believe in the Russian Collusion hoax too right? Of course you do.... If you want to learn about "fact and reality", I suggest you stop blindly buying into the Democrat propaganda spoonfed to you by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, NY Times and WP etc. 

 

You're grasping at straws here. Nobody has confirmed the false story that Trump said what the media accused him of. No recording exists, no witnesses exist. Any sane rational person would realize it is a fake story but as usual there are people whose irrational hatred of President Trump makes them believe things simply because they want them to be true.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More people voted for Clinton means exactly that she won the popular vote. You want to claim she was not more popular? How you going to prove that? Counting people who might not have voted by prefer Trump? Good luck with this nonsense.

 

There is no 'silent majority'. Trump did not win a majority in 2016. Republicans lost the elections in 2018. Your spins and unsupported notions about people not coming out to vote but still preferring Trump are not an reliable (or even acceptable) explanation.

 

A low turnout is usually seen as beneficial for the Republicans, a high turnout favoring the Democrats. In your alternate reality, this is somehow reversed.

 

You're losing the plot here. Being deliberately obtuse and trying to talk in circles will not win you the argument. Try to keep up with the topic at hand, why don't you ?? You are conflating different issues and babbling on about Clinton winning the popular vote (no such thing exists to win). The silent majority being discussed in this context is not about the 2016 election. Trump won a majority of electoral college votes. And you keep going on about how the Republicans "lost the election in 2018", that is only partly true. Whilst they lost the House by a relatively narrow margin, they won the Senate and gained a few senate seats. Or perhaps I watched an alternative election to you ??

Edited September 24, 2020 by Masterton