Politics And Current Events

[tifosi77]

How much text is necessary?

Like if I post the below and say "guess Pete hates Ginsburg" is that sufficient?

This is the second time you've shared this tweet and I still have no idea what your underlying point is supposed to be.

[shafnutz05]

I thought there was a non political current events thread. My mistake. And I'm not thread policing. Just curious what the political aspect was.

You're right. I completely forgot about it

Thanks for reminding me, I am going to bump it.

[Kaiser]

I guess this is kind of why I don't care about Burisma as much as maybe I should. There's so much corruption and double dipping happening state-side that goes on with little care.

And it's most certainly a both sides thing, I just assume EVERYONE that has a position of certain power is making deals on the side to fatten their pockets. It's the American way.

People with money want power and influence. People with power and influence want money. These are like fundamental tenets of capitalism.

What does people wanting power and influence through political corruption have to do with capitalism?

Nothing, other than power, money, and influence dominating the entire structure of this capitalist country. probably just a coincidence though.

[Freddy Rumsen]

How much text is necessary?

Like if I post the below and say "guess Pete hates Ginsburg" is that sufficient?

This is the second time you've shared this tweet and I still have no idea what your underlying point is supposed to be.

Neither of Clinton's appointees were from a majority popular vote (and the other Buttigieg one was about him playing Pence in a debate), and of course neither would of Hillary's been from a majority popular vote.

[Freddy Rumsen]

I guess this is kind of why I don't care about Burisma as much as maybe I should. There's so much corruption and double dipping happening state-side that goes on with little care.

And it's most certainly a both sides thing, I just assume EVERYONE that has a position of certain power is making deals on the side to fatten their pockets. It's the American way.

People with money want power and influence. People with power and influence want money. These are like fundamental tenets of capitalism.

What does people wanting power and influence through political corruption have to do with capitalism?

Nothing, other than power, money, and influence dominating the entire structure of this capitalist country. probably just a coincidence though.

Is the United States unique among nations in regards to this?

I mean Ceausescu probably liked that kind of stuff.

[tifosi77]

not to mention that Kushner company people were pushing those investment visas to wealthy chinese folks almost immediately after Trump won. I mean, Trump had an ambassador make requests to the UK to have his golf course host the British Open, tried to have the G7 at his own resort?

I mean, it's like about as confusing as possible to feign outrage at Hunter Biden while the Trump and Kushner companies are just out and out operating in connection with their government roles.

It feels weird that this has to be spelled out explicitly, but I guess 2020 gotta 2020.

Being animated of Hunter Biden in the face of this living breathing ongoing alternative is like saying a hangnail on your thumb is worrying you as much the black spot on your lung in that last x-ray.

[tifosi77]

get yourself a 300 blackout 10 inch Barrel AR for your home and apply to suppress it. That's my life goal.

Honey Badger SD FTW!

[tifosi77]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-r ... 00735.html

The report delves into possible scenarios if Trump apparently loses the 2020 presidential election but doesn't concede, noting that although we're used to electors being selected based on the popular vote, "nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way." Citing Republican Party sources, The Atlantic says that Trump's campaign is "discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority."

The campaign would reportedly assert that this step was necessary due to claims of supposed voter fraud, which experts have noted is extraordinarily rare, ahead of the "safe harbor" deadline to appoint 538 electors on Dec. 8.

"Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly," The Atlantic reports. "The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires."

This kind of seems concerning, no? Basically we're heading for a scenario where if the results don't benefit the president, he's just going to ignore the vote and go this route? In regards to the "sources." It appears that they have communicated with someone in Pennsylvania about it...

Basically - here:


Certainly seems like a situation presented that if Trump loses, we're contesting and looking at everything possible to over-turn a loss. But if this is normal procedure come election time, then feel free to tell me otherwise, I don't know.

PA GOP has also apparently talked with Trump team about it:

This more than anything is why the current electoral scheme is faulty imo.

That said, I don't think there aren't enough electoral votes available from faithless electors to win the election. But the mere fact that this is being pursued as a strategy is highly uncool.

[willeyeam]

nah there's no way Trump tries to stay in office if he loses...

[Ad@m]

[tifosi77]

How much text is necessary?

Like if I post the below and say "guess Pete hates Ginsburg" is that sufficient?

This is the second time you've shared this tweet and I still have no idea what your underlying point is supposed to be.

Neither of Clinton's appointees were from a majority popular vote (and the other Buttigieg one was about him playing Pence in a debate), and of course neither would of Hillary's been from a majority popular vote.

Right.

He says 'Presidents'. Plural. He's acknowledging that. I'm still not sure what your point is.

[Morkle]

No indictments into the actual death, just indictments because of the neighbors? Yea, there gonna be more riots.

[tifosi77]

Considering how impactful a SCOTUS nomination is (or any federal judicial appointment, for that matter) I do think it's a valid concern to think we maybe should reevaluate how we do this. Whatever you think about her, RBG was in a position to influence the application and performance of US law for nearly 3 decades after appointment by a man who won an election in which 55% of ballots were cast against him.

[King Colby]

My point to Pete is who cares? This isnt the Supreme Court of California

[Troy Loney]

What does people wanting power and influence through political corruption have to do with capitalism?

I guess the argument would be how much you want distinguish between the US condition and whatever capitalism is in theory.

Was their no power and influence seeking in the Soviet or [insert communist nation here]?

Seems pretty common to human nature.

I don't disagree. I think these realities are supposed to be anathema to market capitalism, but yet are a very prominent feature to the US system.

I think the funny thing though, is how similar the Trump GOP is to something like the Soviet communist party. The way that they have purged apolitical positions and installed loyalists everywhere, places us on that path.

[tifosi77]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-r ... 00735.html

The report delves into possible scenarios if Trump apparently loses the 2020 presidential election but doesn't concede, noting that although we're used to electors being selected based on the popular vote, "nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way." Citing Republican Party sources, The Atlantic says that Trump's campaign is "discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority."

The campaign would reportedly assert that this step was necessary due to claims of supposed voter fraud, which experts have noted is extraordinarily rare, ahead of the "safe harbor" deadline to appoint 538 electors on Dec. 8.

"Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly," The Atlantic reports. "The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires."

This kind of seems concerning, no? Basically we're heading for a scenario where if the results don't benefit the president, he's just going to ignore the vote and go this route? In regards to the "sources." It appears that they have communicated with someone in Pennsylvania about it...

Basically - here:


Certainly seems like a situation presented that if Trump loses, we're contesting and looking at everything possible to over-turn a loss. But if this is normal procedure come election time, then feel free to tell me otherwise, I don't know.

PA GOP has also apparently talked with Trump team about it:

This more than anything is why the current electoral scheme is faulty imo.

That said, I don't think there aren't enough electoral votes available from faithless electors to win the election. But the mere fact that this is being pursued as a strategy is highly uncool.

Also, just to clarify this point quickly..... most states have legal ramifications for faithless electors. Be it financial penalty or criminal sanction, there's a consequence if you cast an electoral vote contrary to the popular vote. And the states where this isn't the case stack up to fewer than 200 electoral votes, over 40 of which are in states Trump has no hope of being competitive in. So that means 160+ electoral votes that could be up for grabs in this kind of scheme are in states Trump will probably win, outright. The only tossup state where it might come into play is............... Pennsylvania, which with the recent 'naked ballot' ruling is shaping up to be quite an interesting watch in November.

Good luck, lads. lol

[Morkle]

I honestly think term limits are maybe the only thing I'd discuss - but that goes for SCOTUS, Senate, HoR. I do believe progressively as a country we should get younger, or vary in direction - and it just never feels that way. Everything past that, is sour grapes.

Pelosi for instance has been around since 87, a year after my birth. I don't think that should be the case, at all. I don't believe politics should be a career, it should be a service aimed at truly improving the country for the greater good.

[tifosi77]

I don't believe in term limits for elective office. They face a potential term limit every 2, 4, or 6 years.

[Freddy Rumsen]

How much text is necessary?

Like if I post the below and say "guess Pete hates Ginsburg" is that sufficient?

This is the second time you've shared this tweet and I still have no idea what your underlying point is supposed to be.

Neither of Clinton's appointees were from a majority popular vote (and the other Buttigieg one was about him playing Pence in a debate), and of course neither would of Hillary's been from a majority popular vote.

Right.

He says 'Presidents'. Plural. He's acknowledging that. I'm still not sure what your point is.

For one there is a bizarre focus on a "national popular vote" that doesn't exist and has no actual bearing on anything.

He is also speaking about Bush 43, not Clinton. His concern is with the conservative majority.

The majority would be Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB, Roberts, and Alito.

[tifosi77]

Bush 43 won a majority in his reelect, and both of his appointments (Roberts and Alito) came in that term.

[Freddy Rumsen]

What does people wanting power and influence through political corruption have to do with capitalism?

I guess the argument would be how much you want distinguish between the US condition and whatever capitalism is in theory.

Was their no power and influence seeking in the Soviet or [insert communist nation here]?

Seems pretty common to human nature.

I don't disagree. I think these realities are supposed to be anathema to market capitalism, but yet are a very prominent feature to the US system.

I think the funny thing though, is how similar the Trump GOP is to something like the Soviet communist party. The way that they have purged apolitical positions and installed loyalists everywhere, places us on that path.

I'd recommend reading Michael Novak's book.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Bush 43 won a majority in his reelect, and both of his appointments came in that term.

We are agree on that, Buttigieg does not.

[faftorial]

I don't believe in term limits for elective office. They face a potential term limit every 2, 4, or 6 years.

[Beveridge]

I don't believe in term limits for elective office. They face a potential term limit every 2, 4, or 6 years.

Something you and Trump agree on! He could get more years!

[Freddy Rumsen]

So, this kind of changes things a little. Not justifying anything or being a truther.