*Prompter Thread* (NO personal attacks, NO trolling)

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

People think repubs will negatively care about the GOP confirming a new SCOTUS in an election year?


bahahahhahahahahahhahaahahaha


that's cute.

Huh? I'm not sure where people are suggesting Republicans would care?

Republicans are a minority in this country and voting population, though. They need independents to vote for them. There's a sizeable portion of indies that do care.

Originally Posted by daveshookme

agreed.

I think I'm going to revise my statement from earlier about convicted felons having the right to vote "unless you're convicted of tax fraud, in which case you're disenfranchised until your sentence is over".

if you pay taxes, you can vote. If you don't pay taxes, you can't.

But I retain the right to amend this later once I've thought about it.

Big disagree on the bold. Taxes shouldn't be a prerequisite to vote. The unemployed, poor, homeless, etc all deserve their right to vote even if they aren't paying taxes.

[daveshookme]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I found one. A long time ago

the only one that occurred closer was when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died 27 days before the 1864 presidential election. Then-president Abraham Lincoln delayed his nomination of Salmon P. Chase until after he won reelection.

To me things aren’t precedents at least worth following until they are followed a second time. Even legal precedents are still tested by appeals courts etc. to ensure they are proper.

This is why I'm very hesitant to say the current "McConnell Rule" should still be followed.

yes, I agree with the end outcome and do NOT want the alternative. But, that's a really bad precedent to continue.

[blaise34]

Originally Posted by mthawk07

I’m in favor of term limits because we have too many politicians who spend their time running for office instead of governing. Age is irrelevant to the argument. If someone is elected to the senate at 32, I don’t want them serving until they’re 80. Get some fresh blood and new ideas in there.

Biden would turn 80 halfway through his term, if elected.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by ThatLetter

What the fuck are you even arguing rn?! Jesus.

I don’t argue.

I discuss. Thus why I never attack individuals or berate them as you have just done to me.

[daveshookme]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

Huh? I'm not sure where people are suggesting Republicans would care?

Republicans are a minority in this country and voting population, though. They need independents to vote for them. There's a sizeable portion of indies that do care.


Big disagree on the bold. Taxes shouldn't be a prerequisite to vote. The unemployed, poor, homeless, etc all deserve their right to vote even if they aren't paying taxes.

Yeah I don't mean like if you actually pay them or not. I should've phrased it better. Like you said, there's a wide range of reasons people may not pay them. If you owe them, though, and you don't pay 'em, you don't get to vote. But other than that, yes, if you're old enough to work you're old enough to vote.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by daveshookme

This is why I'm very hesitant to say the current "McConnell Rule" should still be followed.

yes, I agree with the end outcome and do NOT want the alternative. But, that's a really bad precedent to continue.

I’m sure you’ve seen this. First follower rule!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ

Worth watching again anyway

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

This must be what Mitt is talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurmond_rule

The Thurmond rule.

And BT, this explains 1988

“An informal understanding that only consensus nominees, if that, would be considered in the latter part of a presidential election year”

This gem obviously can’t be missed.

[daveshookme]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I’m sure you’ve seen this. First follower rule!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ

Worth watching again anyway

bold of you to assume that's not me

[monkeyman420]

Originally Posted by mthawk07

I’m in favor of term limits because we have too many politicians who spend their time running for office instead of governing. Age is irrelevant to the argument. If someone is elected to the senate at 32, I don’t want them serving until they’re 80. Get some fresh blood and new ideas in there.

Being a politician should not be a career. I don't think the Founders ever thought or anticipated that people would serve the public and make a career out of doing so.

[ThatLetter]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I don’t argue.

I discuss. Thus why I never attack individuals or berate them as you have just done to me.

I’m not attacking. I’m asking what you’re even arguing. I’m not alone in not understanding what you’re trying to get at. Your post was word salad. What is your point?

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by daveshookme

bold of you to assume that's not me

I think everyone thinks it’s them.

[BTBaboon]

Originally Posted by monkeyman420

I don't think the Founders ever thought or anticipated that people would serve the public and make a career out of doing so.

Some of the founders did EXACTLY that themselves...

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by ThatLetter

I’m not attacking. I’m asking what you’re even arguing. I’m not alone in not understanding what you’re trying to get at. Your post was word salad. What is your point?

My point was that if the opposing party has no issues with the nomination they can still move forward.

The precedent is when they oppose the nomination. Not when they are ok with the person. This is the difference between 2016 and 1988.

I found it after I posted it and posted it above.

In 1988, the vote was 97-0. Obvious consensus.

To the rule or precedent or understanding we are discussing:

“An informal understanding that only consensus nominees, if that, would be considered in the latter part of a presidential election year

[Roose13]

Originally Posted by blaise34

Biden would turn 80 halfway through his term, if elected.

And Trump is 74 and in worse health than the dude who will turn 80 halfway through his term.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by Roose13

And Trump is 74 and in worse health than the dude who will turn 80 halfway through his term.

You’ve seen trumps medical records?

Dish! What’s he got?

I’ve got brain ameba in my pool.

[mdel21]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I found one. A long time ago

the only one that occurred closer was when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died 27 days before the 1864 presidential election. Then-president Abraham Lincoln delayed his nomination of Salmon P. Chase until after he won reelection.

To me things aren’t precedents at least worth following until they are followed a second time. Even legal precedents are still tested by appeals courts etc. to ensure they are proper.

And a few weeks later the Civil War started. Hopefully we aren't heading toward another.

[BTBaboon]

13 Nobel Prize-winning economists endorse Biden

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-endorse-biden

“While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that Biden’s overall economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic policies of Donald Trump,” they wrote.

“Throughout the coronavirus crisis, Biden has recognized that science-based, public health solutions are critical not only to saving lives, but to any viable strategy to restore economic confidence, recovery, and jobs,” they continued. “Similarly, on issue after issue, Biden’s economic agenda will do far more than Donald Trump’s to increase the economic strength and well-being of our nation and its people.”

The letter is signed by the following economists: George Akerlof, Peter Diamond, Oliver Hart, Eric Maskin, Daniel McFadden, Roger Myerson, William Nordhaus, Edmund Phelps, Paul Romer, Robert Solow, Michael Spence, Joseph Stiglitz and Richard Thaler.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by mdel21

And a few weeks later the Civil War started. Hopefully we aren't heading toward another.

I think it’s clear we are already heading towards one.

Not inevitable yet but there is a probability on the table. 10%?

[DaveHead36]

Originally Posted by mdel21

And a few weeks later the Civil War started. Hopefully we aren't heading toward another.

1864 election was in the midst of the Civil War

[mdel21]

Originally Posted by DaveHead36

1864 election was in the midst of the Civil War

Misread it. Damn. We were a few weeks away from it ending.

[mdel21]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I think it’s clear we are already heading towards one.

Not inevitable yet but there is a probability on the table. 10%?

Disregard. Brain fart.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by DaveHead36

1864 election was in the midst of the Civil War

https://youtu.be/Hrm-rPSCIBw

[mYeAgZ55]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I think it’s clear we are already heading towards one.

Not inevitable yet but there is a probability on the table. 10%?

Less than 1%. We're not even at tin soldiers and nixon's coming a la kent state levels yet.

[kydmb99]

Just a “competitor“. Wouldn’t want to say anything mean about them.

https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1...631257600?s=21

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by mYeAgZ55

Less than 1%. We're not even at tin soldiers and nixon's coming a la kent state levels yet.

Dead in Wisconsin, Portland, LA.....

I think we passed 4 dead in Ohio, how many more?

Police are the new tin soldiers

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by kydmb99

Just a “competitor“. Wouldn’t want to say anything mean about them.

https://twitter.com/reuters/status/1...631257600?s=21

What China strategy do you favor over Biden’s?

[DaveHead36]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

https://youtu.be/Hrm-rPSCIBw

more like I just happened to be watching the Ken Burns doc the other week and remember the clashes Lincoln had with Taney.

[bbqguy1962]

Originally Posted by BTBaboon

It's a moot point, they have the votes without him (or Collins or Murkowski). There's no magical 4th Republican Senator with a spine. McCain died and there's no hidden Maverick.

It's probably a pipe dream but didn't Romney says he would vote on the merits of the nominee? Maybe he's thinking Mitch will let another Sen. vote no and then vote no himself(Is the voting alphabetical by state?). He says he's voting no now that won't be allowed to happen.

[Arby]

Originally Posted by bbqguy1962

It's probably a pipe dream but didn't Romney says he would vote on the merits of the nominee? Maybe he's thinking Mitch will let another Sen. vote no and then vote no himself(Is the voting alphabetical by state?). He says he's voting no now that won't be allowed to happen.

pipe dream, hes not voting no

[BTBaboon]

The only way they don't ram this through before the election is if McConnell truly thinks the political risk is too high. And in that case, he probably pivots to a shutdown and tries to blame the Dems for it (which is also a gamble).

But y'all better accept that a 6-3 court is coming for the time being. If you want it to be balanced, better ensure you vote for Biden and Senate Dems and work to convince and encourage others to do the same.