US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[dimsum]

I'm sure you do.

Remind me which side did this:



Those saying “Trump’s a known quantity” (as if that is a good thing) also know what his responses were, and the blame he tried to shift to others, for things on his watch.

So yeah, he’s a known quantity. People can’t say that he’s the wildcard not influenced by “the establishment” anymore. And he had 4 years as POTUS, and now 4 years afterwards, to show us what he really is like.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Like clockwork.

 

[PuckChaser]

Since everyone seems to occasionally forget the rules, I've binned numerous posts name calling politicians and edited a quote since the post was well constructed and didn't want to lose it. We're 2 weeks out folks, let's not let emotion ruin this thread pre 5 November.

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Remius]

Like clockwork.

It’s uncomfortable I get it but he isn’t wrong.

I don’t see it as an “equality” of feces. Just different piles. Trump just has a bigger one.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It’s uncomfortable I get it but he isn’t wrong.

I don’t see it as an “equality” of feces. Just different piles. Trump just has a bigger one.

I'm sure you do.

 

[Remius]

I'm sure you do.

Like clockwork.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Like clockwork.

When I was an umpire I was taught consistency is everything

 

[Remius]

When I was an umpire I was taught consistency is everything

When I was a cook volunteering at a scout camp it was the same thing for certain sauces.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So yeah, he’s a known quantity. People can’t say that he’s the wildcard not influenced by “the establishment” anymore. And he had 4 years as POTUS, and now 4 years afterwards, to show us what he really is like.

Yes; I've noticed how the political establishments of both parties and the cores of all the executive agencies of government united solidly behind him.

 

[dimsum]

Yes; I've noticed how the political establishments of both parties and the cores of all the executive agencies of government united solidly behind him.

Charitably, that is the “checks and balances” part of the US Govt.

Until he started sacking the heads of those agencies.

 

[dimsum]

I’m torn whether this is a tone-deaf “own goal”, or a troll post that…somehow is also an own goal.

I’d like to think that a large chunk of the GOP wouldn’t like their POTUS candidate referred to as “Hitler”. Even if she was joking, I’m guessing that some of them would be thinking “wait…so if the person I’m supporting is Hitler…”

Or, she will be called out as a Democrat plant, which would be frankly hilarious.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Charitably, that is the “checks and balances” part of the US Govt.

Until he started sacking the heads of those agencies.

He can sack almost anyone appointed. He probably can't sack regular employees, which is why he did the Schedule F thing, and is therefore likely to do it again. But that will be subject to legal challenges and legislative changes, and he doesn't control any courts or Congress the way some people think he does. The "checks-and-balances" are mainly Congress and courts. Trump isn't proposing to pack the USSC or sign legislation cleverly drafted to eject the senior Republican-appointed members or to use the impeachment power against one or more justices. He can't force the Senate to change its rules. He can't evict members of Congress.

It will be the usual executive-Congress-courts dance.

"But this is a really bad thing!". So it always seems to the parties opposed, for several executive actions taken by presidents of both parties.

A president reasonably ought be able to remove any person obstructing the president's authority on the basis of policy disagreement or personality.

We've seen how vindictive some past administrations have been towards people like whistleblowers and inconvenient journalists, so it would be a waste of time trying to one-side-only this problem. It isn't necessary to have the power to fire people in order to abuse authority.

 

[Remius]

View attachment 88641

I’m torn whether this is a tone-deaf “own goal”, or a troll post that…somehow is also an own goal.

I’d like to think that a large chunk of the GOP wouldn’t like their POTUS candidate referred to as “Hitler”. Even if she was joking, I’m guessing that some of them would be thinking “wait…so if the person I’m supporting is Hitler…”

Or, she will be called out as a Democrat plant, which would be frankly hilarious.

I’m going with Troll post.

But she is “weird” as per Waltz’s definition of weird.

 

[RangerRay]

Shitty? Yes.

Equally shitty? That’s where I start questioning it.

To paraphrase what PJ O’Rourke said about Hillary Clinton, she’s shitty…but within normal parameters.

 

[QV]

If the momentum continues my guess is Senate 55-45 for the Rs and Trump with over 300 EC votes. Naturally of course if counting stations are shut down early, kicking everyone out, and then magically by sunrise discovering 300,000 more ballots for Harris in key swing districts, my prediction would be invalid.

 

[dimsum]

If the momentum continues my guess is Senate 55-45 for the Rs and Trump with over 300 EC votes.

Based on…?

Naturally of course if counting stations are shut down early, kicking everyone out, and then magically by sunrise discovering 300,000 more ballots for Harris in key swing districts, my prediction would be invalid.

I mean, it’s not like they haven’t seen GOP folks being convicted for ballot shenanigans….

Oh wait.

 

[dimsum]

Trump isn't proposing to pack the USSC

He named 3 of the 6 (out of a total of 9) conservative judges to the USSC. I’m not sure what your definition of “pack the USSC” is, but having a 2/3 majority on one side isn’t exactly unbiased to me.

It was a stunning display of the conservative justices’ power, less than two years after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave former President Donald Trump the chance to appoint a third justice, leaving the court’s Republican appointees with a six-justice supermajority. This was the first full term with all three of Trump’s appointees on the court, and at the beginning of the term, we weren’t sure whether they would move incrementally to the right — a tack that Chief Justice John Roberts prefers — or take a more aggressive approach.

Just How Sharp Was The Supreme Court’s Rightward Turn This Term?

Conservatives got what they wanted from this year’s Supreme Court term — and then some. In a flurry of decisions released at the end of June, the court’s …

fivethirtyeight.com

 

[KevinB]

If the momentum continues my guess is Senate 55-45 for the Rs and Trump with over 300 EC votes. Naturally of course if counting stations are shut down early, kicking everyone out, and then magically by sunrise discovering 300,000 more ballots for Harris in key swing districts, my prediction would be invalid.

Tell me you have zero understanding of US politics without saying you have zero understanding of US Politics.

 

[dimsum]

“Alright everyone, let’s rev up the caravan again!”

 

[QV]

He named 3 of the 6 (out of a total of 9) conservative judges to the USSC. I’m not sure what your definition of “pack the USSC” is, but having a 2/3 majority on one side isn’t exactly unbiased to me.

Just How Sharp Was The Supreme Court’s Rightward Turn This Term?

Conservatives got what they wanted from this year’s Supreme Court term — and then some. In a flurry of decisions released at the end of June, the court’s …

fivethirtyeight.com

You're going to have look up what DNC court packing means to follow that point of discussion. (Biden has suggested changing SCOTUS from 9 to 15 justices IIRC)

Tell me you have zero understanding of US politics without saying you have zero understanding of US Politics.

It's just a prediction Kevin, but let's come back to this when it's all said and done.