Well they probably will when you make it personal also and insult them. If I made that exact same statement about "moderates" you would criticize me and rightfully so. @SamFisher always had an aggressive posting style even though I agree with many of his sentiments.
This must be the republican strategy... any opposition to acb is an attack on Catholics, because, of course, democrats are anti-Catholic.
She is an empty suit. There is nothing there. She is championed because she is young, female and staunchly pro life. She is a moron, she doesn't even believe in stare decisis.... unless it pertains to a subject and ruling she likes.
Odd that 0% have No Opinion...usually polls like this have at least a small percentage in that column.
I remembered actually SamFisher and I were at one time talking about having a Kumite. It was going to take place in Might be hard to fight in there with cloth masks and social distance.
Quite a few ... independents and conservatives alike. Just like last time , many said they don't particularly like Trump but voted for him because of what the Dems might do concerning gun control , healthcare and other issues .... The idea of reshaping the SCOTUS and adding states and doing away with the EC is of even greater consequence than the things they were saying last go round. This makes no sense - its all over the news ....
We'll have to wait and see how that plays out but I would wager that if Biden doesn't bring up the subject that Trump will and Biden will have to answer for it Thing is that Biden isn't in control of adding or reducing the number of SCOTUS justices - that's on both houses of Congress while the Dems heads in both houses have made remarks on stacking the court , adding states and eliminating the EC (Pelosi & Schumer) - Nothing is off the table!. Those two are not helping their candidate with those remarks. This is going to be a really interesting election cycle ...
True. Cons will believe any scheme dreamed up by Libs, even if they don't understand it or realize that it's not unconstitutional to do it.
You mean kinda like Trump and McConnell nominating and voting on a SCOTUS appointee ? ... Adding states isn't unconstitutional .... Nor is adding justices to the high court But it is unethical for them to do it for the purposes of gaining power.
Sitting on a Scotus vacancy for 260+ days without approving or rejecting a nominee is neither Constitutional nor an ethical thing to do. It's an escalation of tit for tats, and Dems would be chumps for not even bringing it up.
Sitting on the vacancy was unethical. It wasn't unconstitutional. If it were , the Dems would have had some recourse - they didn't.
What about the President saying that he might not respect the result of election? That we should throw out the ballots? That is crazier than anything any Democrat has said the past 20 years. As an aside, I remember you telling me as long as it wasn't Bernie you'd vote against Trump...so much for that? I guess we're willing to support a fascist to own the libs.
I said countless times that I would vote for Biden unless he picked Kamala. She's the devil incarnate. I never said I was voting for Trump , I did say I would vote 3rd party. As far as the President not respecting the results of an election - That's total bullsh!t. Now challenging those mail in ballots that don't meet the criteria .... that's another matter.
He’s going to said there is wide spread ballot fraud no matter what (if he loses). Well, let me correct myself. He’s already saying that. Some of the criteria are BS. One party is for BS criteria and requirements to reduce votes. PA “naked ballot” is one of those BS criteria. https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylv...0200922-j55mxmd2ffabtkyyvjehtmj57u-story.html
There's a solution to all this crap .... get off your ass and go vote in person. You can go riot .... you can go vote. Absentee ballots have historically been for special circumstances , out of state / country , not because you don't have time.
Here's a pretty good refutation the "just let things be the way they are and hope they don't change again" surrender approach. Godfrey: But wouldn’t Republicans do the same thing the next time they’re in power? Belkin: This is perhaps the No.1 concern that’s been voiced, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A couple problems with this: The first thing is that the Court has already been stolen. If your wallet is stolen, you don’t forgo efforts to recover it just because it might be stolen again. It would probably take a generation—25 or 30 years—for the Democrats to get the majority on the Supreme Court back. If the Republicans steal the court, then the Democrats un-steal it. And if the Republicans steal it again, then the Democrats un-steal it again. It’s much better to have that zigzag than to just have unilateral surrender. For people who are worried about Republican retaliation, court expansion is the safest way to protect democracy and the safest way to de-radicalize the Republican Party. The party has become completely unmoored from facts and reality. Progressives have a fantasy that thrashing the Republicans at the ballot box can de-radicalize them. That’s not true. The only way to de-radicalize the Republican Party is [for Democrats] to come back into office after the 2020 election and do three things: kill the filibuster, pass a democracy-reform bill, and expand the Court. If you unrig the system, the GOP will have to be de-radicalized at least a bit in order to win elections, and that is what will make the courts safe from Republican retaliation. They’ll be less radical as a party. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/democrats-case-court-packing/616446/ Like I've said many times, restructuring the system is a way of making it more stable not less. An unelected, unaccountable minority has less incentive to cooperate - but that is the status quo, not where we are heading. E But if there's some evidence that we're doing fine, and the current path is sustainable - I'd love to hear it.
