| Trump 09:43 - Oct 27 with 155673 views | Hooparoo |
An Australian professor of Data Analytics from Griffith University who predicted Trump’s first win, the Australian Federal Election(when all the polls said the opposite) and Brexit has called it - Trump will be re-elected for another 4 years. You heard it here first. | |
| |  |
| Trump on 16:22 - Oct 28 with 3432 views | Konk |
I think the Democrats thing with ACB in the Supreme Court was the absolute pi ss take over not even giving Merrick Garland a hearing, something like 270 days before the 2016 election, citing the fact that it was an election year. Their argument being that the people should be allowed to influence the decision via the election, with the next President getting his/her pick. There are loads of GOP Senators on film/Twitter/in print at the time, stating that they would oppose a Republican President trying to install a Supreme Court justice in the same circumstances in 2020. The hypocrisy is breath-taking. | |
| Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts |
| |
| Trump on 16:28 - Oct 28 with 3413 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Well said, Konk.
His work assisting Israel breach numerous U.N. resolutions in their illegal annexation of Palestine is absolutely criminal in my opinion. | |
| |
| Trump on 16:30 - Oct 28 with 3403 views | BrianMcCarthy |
I disagree Clive, as per my reply to Konk's post.
No rant, no offence. We just see this one differently. | |
| |
| Trump on 16:31 - Oct 28 with 3396 views | BrianMcCarthy |
"...but it is equal hypocrisy from the Democrats who were arguing the opposite then to what they are arguing now."
That's my recollection too, Clive. | |
| |
| Trump on 17:09 - Oct 28 with 3305 views | Juzzie |
Calm down? Give it a rest.
I wasn't being hyper. Just a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment trying to describe a man who is obviously a control freak.
And by the way, did I say he had gone marching into other countries? No, I said he was akin to the kind of Dictator that his predecessors had gone in to oust.
[Post edited 28 Oct 2020 17:11]
| | | |
| Trump on 17:16 - Oct 28 with 3292 views | Konk |
2016 - GOP refuse Merrick Garland a hearing because it's an Election year - he's nominated 237 days before the election (I was wrong earlier, saying 270 days or something). Loads of prominent GOP Senators go on record stating that they would similarly oppose a Republican President nominating/installing a Supreme Court Justice in 2020 or future election years. GOP control the Senate, so the position remains vacant for the remainder of Obama's presidency.
2020 - RBG dies after Early voting has already begun, GOP rush to nominate ACB, and she is appointed to the Supreme Court just over a week before the election. The GOP justify this by saying the Supreme Court may be required to rule on Election results, so can't have a potential 4-4 split. This strangely, wasn't a concern for the GOP in 2016.
The GOP set a precedent in 2016 - the Dems have pointed to that precedent in 2020 and argued that the vacancy should have remained, to be filled by either Trump or Biden after the election. The Dem position re leaving vacancies open in an election year is simply asking that the GOP stick to the precedent they set just four years ago.
Given the Dems are asking that the GOP follow their own, 4 year old precedent, how is the Dem position in 2020 hypocrisy? | |
| Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts |
| |
| Trump on 17:41 - Oct 28 with 3252 views | R_from_afar |
...and that's without even mentioning Iran. Trying to stop a large nation selling the one commodity - oil - on which its economy depends does not make for a safer world. | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Trump on 18:30 - Oct 28 with 3204 views | GaryT |
The Democratic argument is that Lindsey Graham said he would not confirm a judge to the Supreme Court if a position became available in the final year of a presidency and to use his words against him should he do so. By ramming through ACB, he's lowered the bar to the floor and nothing he says from this day forward means jack shit.
The lines have now been drawn in the sand and Trump/Graham and McConnell have made it clear that anything goes. If Biden doesn't win by a huge margin, The USA is in big trouble. [Post edited 28 Oct 2020 18:35]
| | | |
| Trump on 19:07 - Oct 28 with 3154 views | traininvain |
Conversely, if Biden does win and the Dems take the senate then he’ll be under immediate pressure from the likes of AOC to ‘rebalance‘ the Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges.
And Republicans would only have themselves to blame for lowering the bar. | | | |
| Trump on 20:32 - Oct 28 with 3099 views | qprd |
Lol. Do you really take this at face value?
This is totally unprecedented. There is no case that falls into this fact pattern in the entire history of Supreme Court confirmations.
The Republicans are trying to defend their inconsistency by citing some irrelevant distinguishing factor (that has never been the basis for prior confirmation processes). Mitch McConnell intiially argued that the Republicans should proceed with the nomination b/c they were given a mandate by the American people in the 2018 election (i.e., they held a 51-49 majority after the midterms, in which only 1/3 of Senate seats were up for re-election).... ignoring the irony that if they were interested in a "mandate", they'd wait until the election literally a month later.... if not this nonsensical argument from grassley, they might argue that this is the precedent in years where there are pandemics or when QPR is in the championship or leapyears. they were clearly looking for some distinguishing factor.
Its genuinely quite disturbing to me that any one could buy such absolute nonsense. Either you're (i) misinformed, or (ii) so gullible and dogmatic that you'll accept anything your side says as the truth.
If you want to say its a power grab, and that the republicans are doing it because they can and they're in power, that's perfectly valid. If you want to say that the Democrats might've done the same thing if in this situation, again fine.
But when people believe statements like these, it shows that they've shut off their brains. | | | |
| Trump on 21:05 - Oct 28 with 3037 views | larsricchi |
To be fair, Clive, as someone who lives in Iowa, the second I saw a link to Grassley's website, it was so close to an automatic user block for me. 
Rather, I need to ask myself why I'm reading political threads on the website where I go to escape from the nonstop noise! | | | |
| Trump on 21:10 - Oct 28 with 3032 views | itsbiga |
No one knows what he offered to get these deals done. Think about it. A political win for Trump comes at a huge cost somewhere. He's basically done a deal with The Saudis and Netanyahu etc... Those dudes would rob him blind. For Trump he wouldn't care what the cost is to the USA only himself. | |
| |
| Trump on 21:19 - Oct 28 with 3013 views | Match82 |
Supreme court needs an overhaul. Putting extra left leaning judges on their is creating a terrifying precedent. Used to be that judges were appointed based on agreement from both sides and considered thought for the nomination. These days it's about getting the most far right or far left justice in there that you can, as well as making them as young as possible because they serve for life. It's a political game, again. So change it. Let the Democrats elect 5, the Republicans elect 5 and have 5 legitimate swing judges who are appointed by both parties. I accept that there are still potential issues with those middle 5 but they should at least have a history of bi partisan rulings.
What's the point of having a panel of justices where you know before a case even comes up how 90% of them are going to rule? | | | |
| Trump on 22:15 - Oct 28 with 2972 views | bosh67 |
Trump is playing the David Koresh playbook. Portray yourself as a God and cult leader and get your subjects to pledge allegiance and/or die for you. It's playing out in front of our eyes and Trump has a lot of cult followers. So many that I expect him to win. | |
| |
| Trump on 22:56 - Oct 28 with 2928 views | qprd |
reading comprehension... i didnt make the mandate argument. i said that the argument that mitch mcconnell made is ironic (considering he cited a mandate on the back of a senate election in which 1/3 of seats were up for election)
I disagree with this part, the president has a mandate up to the next election. Saying it's near the next election, so the mandate doesn't count anymore is nonsense.
if thats the case, can you say that the republicans were wrong in 2016 on merrick garland? | | | |
| Trump on 23:21 - Oct 28 with 2904 views | timcocking |
The democrats have certainly been doing anything in their power to make anybody with even a modicum of sense to vote against them. It's an unfortunate choice, Trump or the looney left wing racist party. Sweet Jesus talk about a lose-lose. | | | |
| Trump on 13:03 - Oct 29 with 2742 views | Juzzie |
With all the s**t going on in the world, maybe they don't actually want to be having to deal with it!
[Post edited 29 Oct 2020 13:04]
| | | |
| Trump on 16:59 - Oct 29 with 2644 views | robith |
you really need to broaden your mind if you think the Democrats are left wing | | | |
| Trump on 17:23 - Oct 29 with 2626 views | DavieQPR |
Does anybody actually think that Biden will last more than 6 months before Harris takes over. She couldn't get the Democrats vote the legitimate way so they are pushing her through the back door. | | | |
| Trump on 17:32 - Oct 29 with 3321 views | rrrspricey |
Are you seriously saying that Trump/republicans aren't racist???? | | | |
| Trump on 17:34 - Oct 29 with 3277 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
It's not just limited to one party | |
| |
| Trump on 10:14 - Oct 30 with 3159 views | robith |
If anyone wants a betting angle Trump polls 15% up on "on the day" voters, Biden 53% up on mail in ballots etc.
Likely early counts will skew Trump, so Biden will drift - then back him before he comes in as the later votes are counted.
Will take your mind off the fact Trump will definitely use this to try and launch some kind of coup d'etat | | | |
| Trump on 12:28 - Oct 30 with 3085 views | Match82 |
To add a twist to that though, some mail in ballots will be counted early (counting has already begun) so you'll get an early read on election day before the in person numbers are counted. It's state by state but florida, arguably the biggest state realistically "up for grabs" is one of them that starts counting early. | | | |
| Trump on 12:39 - Oct 30 with 3071 views | BrianMcCarthy |
And Michigan and Wisconsin will accept ballots posted before election day for three days afterwards though their Supreme Courts may overrule this AFTER the election! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
