The evidence gathered in a short time against Biden is already greater than the evidence gathered in 4 years against Trump.

Posted by all3 on 10/24/2020 8:20:00 PM (view original):
The evidence gathered in a short time against Biden is already greater than the evidence gathered in 4 years against Trump.

At this rate you’re gonna have a mental breakdown one day

Posted by Uofa2 on 10/24/2020 8:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 10/24/2020 8:20:00 PM (view original):
The evidence gathered in a short time against Biden is already greater than the evidence gathered in 4 years against Trump.

At this rate you’re gonna have a mental breakdown one day

Among other things, does he think that this is the first time Biden has been in the public consciousness?

Posted by tangplay on 10/22/2020 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/22/2020 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/22/2020 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/22/2020 4:14:00 PM (view original):
I agree with all of that. I still don't think you can call the court "illegitimate." I also don't think there's anything you can do to reverse the problem that isn't far less legitimate than what's happened so far.

I don't disagree that a response would push the court further into partisan territory. The issue is that we're already there.

Look at this from the perspective of the Democrats. They're tried to maintain the legitimacy of the court. In their view, the Republicans ended that with Garland. They've cemented it with ACB. If they try to go back to status quo and cool things down, the Republicans will only exploit that further. They don't care, so why should the Democrats hurt themselves to save an institution that's already gone?

It's a tough situation that I (and the Democratic Party) wish we weren't in. Blame Mitch McConnell.

You're always asking for solutions. What's your solution?

Sure. I just said that I'm uncomfortable with court packing, so I probably wouldn't do that. I would give statehood to DC (if it's realistic) and Puerto Rico (if they want it). I would pass term limits on the court. More importantly, I would also pursue policies that encourage voter participation. Passing the John Lewis act is a good start. Felons should be able to vote. I'm definitely open to other ideas as well. I don't really care about norms post-Trump, tbh. I don't think the Democrats will ever go anywhere without stooping to the level of the Republicans.

Of course, none of this really matters. The Democrats are cowardly and ineffective. I guarantee that they will not take advantage of even a Democratic Senate, House, and Presidency.

I could get on board with term limits for the courts and for Congress, but you can't "pass" them. At least not for federal justices. Technically the Constitution doesn't provide for unlimited terms for Congresspersons. When we created term limits for the POTUS it was done via Constitutional amendment, but one could conceivably pass it through Congress and at least see what the court says. But the SCOTUS are Constitutionally guaranteed lifetime appointments. It's pretty unlikely enough of the red states will ratify an amendment changing that, so I think this - while at least an idea worth discussing - is also a dead end.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/24/2020 10:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/22/2020 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/22/2020 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/22/2020 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/22/2020 4:14:00 PM (view original):
I agree with all of that. I still don't think you can call the court "illegitimate." I also don't think there's anything you can do to reverse the problem that isn't far less legitimate than what's happened so far.

I don't disagree that a response would push the court further into partisan territory. The issue is that we're already there.

Look at this from the perspective of the Democrats. They're tried to maintain the legitimacy of the court. In their view, the Republicans ended that with Garland. They've cemented it with ACB. If they try to go back to status quo and cool things down, the Republicans will only exploit that further. They don't care, so why should the Democrats hurt themselves to save an institution that's already gone?

It's a tough situation that I (and the Democratic Party) wish we weren't in. Blame Mitch McConnell.

You're always asking for solutions. What's your solution?

Sure. I just said that I'm uncomfortable with court packing, so I probably wouldn't do that. I would give statehood to DC (if it's realistic) and Puerto Rico (if they want it). I would pass term limits on the court. More importantly, I would also pursue policies that encourage voter participation. Passing the John Lewis act is a good start. Felons should be able to vote. I'm definitely open to other ideas as well. I don't really care about norms post-Trump, tbh. I don't think the Democrats will ever go anywhere without stooping to the level of the Republicans.

Of course, none of this really matters. The Democrats are cowardly and ineffective. I guarantee that they will not take advantage of even a Democratic Senate, House, and Presidency.

I could get on board with term limits for the courts and for Congress, but you can't "pass" them. At least not for federal justices. Technically the Constitution doesn't provide for unlimited terms for Congresspersons. When we created term limits for the POTUS it was done via Constitutional amendment, but one could conceivably pass it through Congress and at least see what the court says. But the SCOTUS are Constitutionally guaranteed lifetime appointments. It's pretty unlikely enough of the red states will ratify an amendment changing that, so I think this - while at least an idea worth discussing - is also a dead end.

That's fair. I'll just stand by the idea that *something* has to be done. I'm open to more ideas. Like I said, though, this conversation really doesn't matter practically because the Democrats are too cowardly to actually try any of this.

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/24/2020 10:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/22/2020 6:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/22/2020 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 10/22/2020 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/22/2020 4:14:00 PM (view original):
I agree with all of that. I still don't think you can call the court "illegitimate." I also don't think there's anything you can do to reverse the problem that isn't far less legitimate than what's happened so far.

I don't disagree that a response would push the court further into partisan territory. The issue is that we're already there.

Look at this from the perspective of the Democrats. They're tried to maintain the legitimacy of the court. In their view, the Republicans ended that with Garland. They've cemented it with ACB. If they try to go back to status quo and cool things down, the Republicans will only exploit that further. They don't care, so why should the Democrats hurt themselves to save an institution that's already gone?

It's a tough situation that I (and the Democratic Party) wish we weren't in. Blame Mitch McConnell.

You're always asking for solutions. What's your solution?

Sure. I just said that I'm uncomfortable with court packing, so I probably wouldn't do that. I would give statehood to DC (if it's realistic) and Puerto Rico (if they want it). I would pass term limits on the court. More importantly, I would also pursue policies that encourage voter participation. Passing the John Lewis act is a good start. Felons should be able to vote. I'm definitely open to other ideas as well. I don't really care about norms post-Trump, tbh. I don't think the Democrats will ever go anywhere without stooping to the level of the Republicans.

Of course, none of this really matters. The Democrats are cowardly and ineffective. I guarantee that they will not take advantage of even a Democratic Senate, House, and Presidency.

I could get on board with term limits for the courts and for Congress, but you can't "pass" them. At least not for federal justices. Technically the Constitution doesn't provide for unlimited terms for Congresspersons. When we created term limits for the POTUS it was done via Constitutional amendment, but one could conceivably pass it through Congress and at least see what the court says. But the SCOTUS are Constitutionally guaranteed lifetime appointments. It's pretty unlikely enough of the red states will ratify an amendment changing that, so I think this - while at least an idea worth discussing - is also a dead end.

You constitutionally could run a system where federal judges get promoted and Supreme Court judges get demoted.

Here's a name bags - Tony Bobulinski said in a news conference before Thursday’s presidential debate that Hunter Biden consulted with his father about a venture with now-bankrupt Chinese oil company CEFC China Energy. Bobulinksi was also reportedly a partner alongside Hunter and Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden.

McConnell, just after the Senate votes to limit debate on Amy Coney Barrett: "A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come."

haha oh yeah?

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) speaking on the Senate floor tonight: "I don't want to pack the court. I don't want to change the number. I don't want to have to do that, but if all of this rule-breaking is taking place, what does the majority expect? What do they expect?"

Most people would expect elected officials to do their jobs, and represent the MAJORITY of the American people.
That shouldn't even be a question.

bags - skiing is fun

big smile


don i know it








but it seems to me



he's reppin someone else

Posted by all3 on 10/26/2020 11:32:00 AM (view original):
Most people would expect elected officials to do their jobs, and represent the MAJORITY of the American people.
That shouldn't even be a question.

bags - skiing is fun

do their jobs? you mean like tell the public that they supposedly represent how serious the covid19 virus is instead of lying to prevent a panic, and contributing to hundreds of thousands of deaths? (Notice I said contributing, not causing)

If your concern is public perception of election rigging, it seems bizarre to worry about the optics of the “result” changing after midnight on election night, but not about the optics of... thousands of ballots being thrown out because USPS delivered them late.

Again, want to be sure your vote gets counted, then get off your lazy *ss and go cast it at the polls.
Why should Government incur all the extra costs associated with all these lazy people?

PS - I guess your last post was somehow related to the stated topic too, huh?

All3 openly advocating for making it more difficult to vote.