Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (15 Viewers)

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 28, 2020

David O'Day said:
Yes and they had a 4-4 conservative to liberal balance with a empty seat so why would they?

You are claiming it takes political skill to expand the court. It doesn't it just takes a simple bill to pass congress. Sorry but it's madness that you are even arguing this.

Simple does not equate to best practice. If someone you know gets done over by someone the correct thing to do is to inform the police and attempt to get justice in the courts. The easiest thing to do is get a group of people together and take retribution. Or is that gang warfare that makes people feel unsafe, turns areas into places to avoid and result in their decline?

Expanding the court may possible be easier but it'd just entrench each side further into their sides until the system, which is already struggling, fails entirely.

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 28, 2020

David O'Day said:
Once again you are changing the goalposts

you're done here

Or to be more precise when you get mistaken you accuse others of changing the goalposts. The GOP have chosen to add 3 justices to the court in one term rather than to expand and properly stack it. The Democrats didn't try to block Barrett in the way that Garland was blocked but you think they will take the more bold option of expanding the court which hasn't been done in 150 years. Obama and Biden didn't do it even with a majority in the HoR and a super majority in the Senate.

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 28, 2020

Trump churning these out all the time

It’sabatch87 · Oct 28, 2020

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Trump churning these out all the time

Does he know what day it is? If that’s the best the democrats have?
If he becomes president will he last the four years I’ve seen him dither forget words as well.

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 28, 2020

It’sabatch87 said:
Does he know what day it is? If that’s the best the democrats have?
If he becomes president will he last the four years I’ve seen him dither forget words as well.

It isn't but they rigged the primary in Dementia Joe's favour-a candidate who Obama privately suggested not run

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 29, 2020

David O'Day · Oct 29, 2020

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Or to be more precise when you get mistaken you accuse others of changing the goalposts. The GOP have chosen to add 3 justices to the court in one term rather than to expand and properly stack it. The Democrats didn't try to block Barrett in the way that Garland was blocked but you think they will take the more bold option of expanding the court which hasn't been done in 150 years. Obama and Biden didn't do it even with a majority in the HoR and a super majority in the Senate.

I said it was easy to do, you started talking fucking rubbish once again.

all it takes is a law to be passed so stop fucking lying and making a state of yourself. You did this about the football as well and even Clint laughed at you.

David O'Day · Oct 29, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Simple does not equate to best practice. If someone you know gets done over by someone the correct thing to do is to inform the police and attempt to get justice in the courts. The easiest thing to do is get a group of people together and take retribution. Or is that gang warfare that makes people feel unsafe, turns areas into places to avoid and result in their decline?

Expanding the court may possible be easier but it'd just entrench each side further into their sides until the system, which is already struggling, fails entirely.

Oncde again someone going for the the strawman argument

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 29, 2020

David O'Day said:
I said it was easy to do, you started talking fucking rubbish once again.

all it takes is a law to be passed so stop fucking lying and making a state of yourself. You did this about the football as well and even Clint laughed at you.

You mean on the football where you denied saying something you blatantly did? Or the football where Clint and possibly you are the only ones who disagree?

The SC hasn’t had the numbers changed in 150 years despite both parties having had the chance. Just because they can doesn’t mean they will, because the other side can just keep adding more the next time they get in and we end up with a HoL scenario. Their best bet was obviously to obstruct Barrett and they didn’t do it purely to boost turnout for the election.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 29, 2020

David O'Day said:
Oncde again someone going for the the strawman argument

Principle stands though. Is the easiest thing to do necessarily the best? Yes or no?

For example the Rep's could have expanded the supreme court further during Trump's term to weight it even more in their favour. They didn't. It's now 6-3 instead of 4-5 because of a mix of good fortune in having two liberal justice's die in short succession allowing them to replace them with much younger conservative ones, being able to block Obama's pick due to Senate control and shit tactics from the Dem's who didn't try half as hard to block Barrett as they did Kavanaugh when just a bit of that resolve would put off the confirmation until after the election.

Why did they leave it to chance when they could've taken an easy route of expansion? Or do you think it'd be better for it to be like the HoL with loads of new Lords appointed every term, esp after a transition of power, to swing control back in their hands and you end up with 800 members and growing.

Sky Blue Pete · Oct 29, 2020

Love trump and his team saying the virus is coming under control as infections and deaths are spiking lol

David O'Day · Oct 29, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Principle stands though. Is the easiest thing to do necessarily the best? Yes or no?

For example the Rep's could have expanded the supreme court further during Trump's term to weight it even more in their favour. They didn't. It's now 6-3 instead of 4-5 because of a mix of good fortune in having two liberal justice's die in short succession allowing them to replace them with much younger conservative ones, being able to block Obama's pick due to Senate control and shit tactics from the Dem's who didn't try half as hard to block Barrett as they did Kavanaugh when just a bit of that resolve would put off the confirmation until after the election.

Why did they leave it to chance when they could've taken an easy route of expansion? Or do you think it'd be better for it to be like the HoL with loads of new Lords appointed every term, esp after a transition of power, to swing control back in their hands and you end up with 800 members and growing.

That wasn't the the question was it, as I said all it requires is a simple bill to pass congress.

You and BSB can take you frankly bullshit strawmen and get to fuck.

David O'Day · Oct 29, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Principle stands though. Is the easiest thing to do necessarily the best? Yes or no?

For example the Rep's could have expanded the supreme court further during Trump's term to weight it even more in their favour. They didn't. It's now 6-3 instead of 4-5 because of a mix of good fortune in having two liberal justice's die in short succession allowing them to replace them with much younger conservative ones, being able to block Obama's pick due to Senate control and shit tactics from the Dem's who didn't try half as hard to block Barrett as they did Kavanaugh when just a bit of that resolve would put off the confirmation until after the election.

Why did they leave it to chance when they could've taken an easy route of expansion? Or do you think it'd be better for it to be like the HoL with loads of new Lords appointed every term, esp after a transition of power, to swing control back in their hands and you end up with 800 members and growing.

also only 1 liberal justice died. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh replaced Scalia and Kennedy 2 conservative judges. So might want to get those basic facts right.

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 29, 2020

David O'Day said:
That wasn't the the question was it, as I said all it requires is a simple bill to pass congress.

You and BSB can take you frankly bullshit strawmen and get to fuck.

Nobody said they couldn't, the question was whether they would. The point stands they could have bagged a 5-4 by obstructing Barrett's nomination and they didn't. It's also a fact that it hasn't been expanded in 150 years and with good reason because it sets a precedent that undermines the point of having the court. The Republicans who are much better at playing the system decided not to expand and pack it when they had the chance, not just now but under Dubya as well-what makes you think Dementia Joe will?

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 30, 2020

David O'Day said:
That wasn't the the question was it, as I said all it requires is a simple bill to pass congress.

You and BSB can take you frankly bullshit strawmen and get to fuck.

'The easiest thing to do is expand the Supreme Court as it only requires a bill to pass Congress' and isn't a question, it's a statement. Neither of us have argued that point.

What we have done is taken that statement and attached the question "is it the RIGHT course of action?" This is one you've refused to engage with.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 30, 2020

David O'Day said:
also only 1 liberal justice died. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh replaced Scalia and Kennedy 2 conservative judges. So might want to get those basic facts right.

You're right on that. Apologies.

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 30, 2020

Switching to the election itself I reckon Trump’s absolute best case is 279 electoral votes, assuming he wins everywhere he is polling ahead or behind within margin of error. Biden gets over 400 under the same conditions

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 30, 2020

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Switching to the election itself I reckon Trump’s absolute best case is 279 electoral votes, assuming he wins everywhere he is polling ahead or behind within margin of error. Biden gets over 400 under the same conditions

I won't believe it until I see it!

tbf, Trump won't believe it after he sees it...

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 30, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
I won't believe it until I see it!

tbf, Trump won't believe it after he sees it...

I did say that was the most optimistic picture for him. Biden could have a shocker but as long as he wins any of the states Hillary blew last time he’s safe. Personally I think it’s more likely Biden hits 400 than Trump wins

Sky Blue Pete · Oct 30, 2020

Another day of 1000+ deaths and over 100000 infections. Looks like cnn are correct Donald. It’s gonna lose him the election

Brighton Sky Blue · Oct 30, 2020

Sky Blue Pete said:
Another day of 1000+ deaths and over 100000 infections. Looks like cnn are correct Donald. It’s gonna lose him the election

That and years of failing to do what he said he would in 2016. People in the mid West voted for him because he said he would shake up the establishment, he's governed basically as a pure neocon

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Oct 31, 2020

David O'Day said:
That wasn't the the question was it, as I said all it requires is a simple bill to pass congress.

You and BSB can take you frankly bullshit strawmen and get to fuck.

14 minutes in.

tisza · Nov 1, 2020

Watching the Vikings game on US Fox. The low tone of political adverts always amazes me.

fernandopartridge · Nov 1, 2020

Brighton Sky Blue said:
That and years of failing to do what he said he would in 2016. People in the mid West voted for him because he said he would shake up the establishment, he's governed basically as a pure neocon

Well pure neocon politics is what has created people like him after all

ajsccfc · Nov 2, 2020

A load of vehicle surrounded a Biden bus and forced it to stop on the highway with the police having to intervene. His response

The next Kyle Rittenhouse will be reading that and tooling up. Win or lose the election, someone stop him tweeting.

shmmeee · Nov 2, 2020

ajsccfc said:
A load of vehicle surrounded a Biden bus and forced it to stop on the highway with the police having to intervene. His response

The next Kyle Rittenhouse will be reading that and tooling up. Win or lose the election, someone stop him tweeting.

The day hes no longer president he gets banned off Twitter I’ll put money on it.

tisza · Nov 2, 2020

shmmeee said:
The day hes no longer president he gets banned off Twitter I’ll put money on it.

2nd day His tax records released
3rd day Knives will be out from senior Republicans
4th day Banks will be wanting their money back
5th day the sexual-related court cases will suddenly make progress

And so ...going to be a busy week for Donald

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 2, 2020

Not quite what I was after, but hey...

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 2, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
Not quite what I was after, but hey...

That’s weirdly hypnotic

Grendel · Nov 2, 2020

tisza said:
2nd day His tax records released
3rd day Knives will be out from senior Republicans
4th day Banks will be wanting their money back
5th day the sexual-related court cases will suddenly make progress

And so ...going to be a busy week for Donald

I don’t think be will go that easily

tisza · Nov 2, 2020

Grendel said:
I don’t think be will go that easily

nope that they'll have to drag him out kicking and screaming out of the White House like a child having a tantrum in a toy shop.

shmmeee · Nov 2, 2020

tisza said:
nope that they'll have to drag him out kicking and screaming out of the White House like a child having a tantrum in a toy shop.

His only hope is the Supreme Court wins it for him, but I think that’s a massive long shot. If he’s officially lost the machinery of the state will remove him. At worst he’ll sulk and refuse to do the handover.

clint van damme · Nov 2, 2020

Grendel said:
I don’t think be will go that easily

He will if he gets immunity from prosecution, apparently Biden would give him it but there are people who need to buy in to it who aren't having it at all.
I think if he loses it would be better for everyone if he got it and went quietly. He wouldn't be the first.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 2, 2020

clint van damme said:
He will if he gets immunity from prosecution, apparently Biden would give him it but there are people who need to buy in to it who aren't having it at all.
I think if he loses it would be better for everyone if he got it and went quietly. He wouldn't be the first.

Like it or not, even if he were prosecuted, even if he were found guilty on something, there'd still be a certain minority who'd see that as proof the establishment were out to get him.

That could be, potentially, quite dangerous years down the line, when the next Trump pops up. This one's relatively benign...

Grendel · Nov 2, 2020

clint van damme said:
He will if he gets immunity from prosecution, apparently Biden would give him it but there are people who need to buy in to it who aren't having it at all.
I think if he loses it would be better for everyone if he got it and went quietly. He wouldn't be the first.

He won’t get prosecuted there is zero chance

Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (15 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency