Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[SaysWho?]

What we should do if a neoconservative wants Democrats to be Republican lite because of the money they're donating.

 

[SaysWho?]

Hey Biden, can you go into Iraq again?

 

 

Needed to round out the trilogy.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Rogan wasn't a great endorsement, but Kasich is objectively worse. He actually did bad things!

[Joe]

11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Rogan wasn't a great endorsement, but Kasich is objectively worse. He actually did bad things!

 

And has the potential to get us far more voters.

[SaysWho?]

21 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Rogan wasn't a great endorsement, but Kasich is objectively worse. He actually did bad things!

 

He objectively did bad bad bad things, but if Rogan's choice wins, the Supreme Court is really fucked and everyone will wake up everyday wondering about RBG and having nightmares about it. If Kasich's choice wins, we can replace the two older liberals with younger ones. Because right now, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh aren't going anywhere for a long time barring a sudden death like Scalia. And imagine if Clarence Thomas retires on top of something terrible happening to RBG and Breyer. Seven conservatives will do bad things for ages to the point where there is no swing vote.

 

Kasich literally is saying, "What the fuck ever," despite getting two conservative SCOTUS picks and potentially 2 - 3 more if Trump wins. He could solidify control for a generation and is choosing to support the guy who will appoint justices who won't. That's a good thing which would have longer-lasting consequences.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

16 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

And has the potential to get us far more voters.

No one cares what Kasich has to say except like Brett Stephens. Don't have to give him a spot at the eDNC. No. Good. Republicans.

 

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

And imagine if Clarence Thomas retires on top of something terrible happening to RBG and Breyer.

Quote me now: if Nov 4 rolls around and it's clear there's a Biden wins and the senate will not be republican, Thomas will immediately retire. He and his wife are too active in conservative DC circles for this not to happen

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

No one cares what Kasich has to say except like Brett Stephens. Don't have to give him a spot at the eDNC. No. Good. Republicans.

 

Quote me now: if Nov 4 rolls around and it's clear there's a Biden wins and the senate will not be republican, Thomas will immediately retire. He and his wife are too active in conservative DC circles for this not to happen

 

Bah, you still don't understand why Biden is the nom.

 

Also, how does Thomas's replacement get confirmed in that scenario?

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

Bah, you still don't understand why Biden is the nom.

 

Also, how does Thomas's replacement get confirmed in that scenario?

 

It would be a gamble.  A huge one.

 

If the pandemic continues into the fall and winter, and in fact gets worse, how many Senators would actually show up to vote for a new Supreme Court nominee?  Even if you had quorum, there is not guarantee that more R's would show up than D's.  If their plan fails, come January 3rd, Trump's pick would effectively be declined.  

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, Jose said:

 

Bah, you still don't understand why Biden is the nom.

 

Also, how does Thomas's replacement get confirmed in that scenario?

I fully get that primary voters don't identify with the left wing of the party, despite actual stated positions and polling on individual issues, and wanted an actual Democrat (not independent who caucuses with them) who voters thought could beat trump. 

 

Thomas's successor would get confirmed between Nov 4 and Dec 31. Plenty of time to push a 35 year old Federalist Society goon on to the high court for life.

[Joe]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I fully get that primary voters don't identify with the left wing of the party, despite actual stated positions and polling on individual issues, and wanted an actual Democrat (not independent who caucuses with them) who voters thought could beat trump. 

 

Thomas's successor would get confirmed between Nov 4 and Dec 31. Plenty of time to push a 35 year old Federalist Society goon on to the high court for life.

 

No there wouldn't. Come on dude. You cant possibly be this unrealistic.

[Joe]

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190112/capitol-insider-john-kasich-departing-with-popularity-rare-among-exiting-governors

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

No there wouldn't. Come on dude. You cant possibly be this unrealistic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor_Supreme_Court_nomination

 

Think Mitch can't beat this timeframe by about two weeks?

 

He's done one thing well, and one thing only, and that's appoint marginally to unqualified judges to the court for life

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I mean if they'd clear all business for an RBG replacement, they can do so to ensure one seat always stays with the reactionaries. It's all they want or need!

[Joe]

As the great King George once said, "time will tell."

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Lmao

[Joe]

I dont get it. Did I miss him getting chosen for VP or something?

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

55 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

If Kasich's choice wins, we can replace the two older liberals with younger ones

You think McConnell will allow any liberal SCOTUS nomination to come to a vote? They’ll hold up the nominations until a Republican is back in the White house. Democrats taking the Senate is the only way to have a chance. But there’s the filibuster. So really Democrat’s need 60 seats in the Senate.  

[Joe]

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

You think McConnell will allow any liberal SCOTUS nomination to come to a vote? They’ll hold up the nominations until a Republican is back in the White house. Democrats taking the Senate is the only way to have a chance. But there’s the filibuster. So really Democrat’s need 60 seats in the Senate.  

 

No they don't. Did you miss the Gorsuch nom? The filibuster is out for SCOTUS picks.

[ThreePi]

IF they're going to give him the stage at the Convention then he can't just endorse Biden/slam Trump, he has to actively repudiate parts of the Republican platform that he once espoused. Trump is just one part of the larger sickness that is the Republican party. Even if its something like saying "Trump has exposed the hate and damaging affects of (anti-LGBT, worker exploitation, etc). Furthermore, since this is a virtual event and I don't trust any Republican as far as I can throw them with a live mic, it should be a vetted, prerecorded statement.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

He shouldn't be speaking at the convention, full stop. Take his endorsement, sure, but the man shouldn't be sharing a (virtual) stage with any teachers, or anyone from the pro choice movement. It's a fucking insult to the party. He shut down half of Ohio's abortion clinics and tried to disband the teachers union in Ohio and slashed billions from Ohio schools. Don't forget telling LGBT folks to "get over" discrimination. Not worth sharing the floor with him! If we don't stand for these things at minimum what the fuck is the point of the party? What is he actually bringing to the table but a fuck load of baggage?

[Joe]

He's going to making his speech about bringing honor back to the White House or something in that vein. He is not going to discuss his positions on abortion or gay marriage.

[SaysWho?]

30 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

You think McConnell will allow any liberal SCOTUS nomination to come to a vote? They’ll hold up the nominations until a Republican is back in the White house. Democrats taking the Senate is the only way to have a chance. But there’s the filibuster. So really Democrat’s need 60 seats in the Senate.  

 

He couldn't stop it under Obama (and only for a month or two did they actually have 60 seats, along with a host of conservative Democrats). And the filibuster's gone for SCOTUS. 

 

We're replacing the two of them if Biden wins and Dems take the Senate.

[CitizenVectron]

Fuck SCOTUS. Add 4 seats and pack them. Yeah, the GOP will do the same, and by 2038 SCOTUS will have 500+ seats, but who cares? The current path the US is headed down is total domination of the courts by young, far-right judges, so what is the point of allow that status quo? The GOP is going to run roughshod over any convention that stands in their way, no matter what it is. At least give the US some liberal government whenever the Democrats control the Senate or Presidency.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

So since what Kasich has done is ok and allows him a platform at the DNC so long as it's in the name of "Joe Biden it's a good dude" messaging, can we get GWB up there too? Dick Cheney? 

[MarSolo]

In the middle of a pandemic where we’ll have 200,000 dead by the end of the year, if not more, ANYONE IS BETTER THAN TRUMP.

 

Trump literally spouted that bullshit about mask wearing could be harmful during that Wallace interview.
 

Fucking Dick Cheney, a literal monster, actually wears a mask and promoted it.
 

Trump had to be FORCED to wear one for a photo at Walter Reed.
 

I don’t give a shit about Kasich’s policies right now. Yeah, he fucking blows and sucks at the same time, but all I care about it getting this fucking idiot out of office that’s literally responsible for the deaths of over 150,000 Americans because he’s brain damaged and has no idea what he’s doing.

 

Damn, I went 0.5 ort there for a second.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

He couldn't stop it under Obama (and only for a month or two did they actually have 60 seats, along with a host of conservative Democrats). And the filibuster's gone for SCOTUS. 

 

We're replacing the two of them if Biden wins and Dems take the Senate.

They didn’t stop Merrick Garland from coming to a vote? Because I’m pretty sure they did. 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

They didn’t stop Merrick Garland from coming to a vote? Because I’m pretty sure they did. 

 

I'm talking about Kagan and Sotomayor; that's why I said Democrats only had 60 seats for a short period. He stopped Garland because he led the Senate. He can't stop it from coming from a vote as Minority Leader.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

I'm talking about Kagan and Sotomayor; that's why I said Democrats only had 60 seats for a short period. He stopped Garland because he led the Senate. He can't stop it from coming from a vote as Minority Leader.

Alright so Democrat’s don’t need 60, but they better take back the Senate, otherwise there will not be a vote for a liberal SCOTUS nominee. 

[Joe]

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Alright so Democrat’s don’t need 60, but they better take back the Senate, otherwise there will not be a vote for a liberal SCOTUS nominee. 

 

If they don't take the Senate, they probably aren't taking the presidency.

[MarSolo]

I hope everyone has their travel plans ready for Election Day, because there’s gonna be A LOT of closed polling places.

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Alright so Democrat’s don’t need 60, but they better take back the Senate, otherwise there will not be a vote for a liberal SCOTUS nominee. 

 

That's what I'm saying.   Dem Senate and Biden means the RBG thread can be laid to rest.... bad choice of words. >_>

 

But I agree with Jose. I can't see a situation where Biden loses the presidency but the Democrats win in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and one other place or at least keep Alabama. So we're probably in the same situation for the next two years, which would be unfortunate to say the least.

[MarSolo]

Speaking of Mitch, why does he look like a Nazi ready to dig for the Ark in Cairo?

 

 

[PaladinSolo]

I told you guys, you nuke the filibuster, pass whatever you want with 50+1, then when you're done you make it law you need 60 votes.

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

I told you guys, you nuke the filibuster, pass whatever you want with 50+1, then when you're done you make it law you need 60 votes.

 

Good job giving Republicans ideas, McConnell reads this board  

[mclumber1]

6 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

I told you guys, you nuke the filibuster, pass whatever you want with 50+1, then when you're done you make it law you need 60 votes.

 

Would such a law be ruled constitutional?  It seems like that would be in violation of Article I language.  The reason it works right now is because it's simply a procedural rule, and the courts rarely touch Congressional rules.