DevoHusker

It is not confusing at all. I excuse nothing. I call out McConnell and Trump. I link that Obama appointed roughly 40% of the current, sitting judges, and ask why it wasn't a problem until the recent 24% of judges lean right. Clear as a ding, dong bell.

I mentioned the Turtle's hand in this in my reply. McConnell is more at center of this maelstrom than Trump if you ask me.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/15/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/ Obama is responsible for 39% of the current, sitting judges. Did any of you complain about the "changing judiciary" then? If Ds didn't want a conservative leaning federal court system, they should have made that percentage even higher before Obama left office. It wasn't a pressing concern for them then, because they were absolutely certain that HRC was going to win. Suddenly, after Trump and the Turtle take advance of the opportunity to fill 200 seats, it becomes an issue.

If you dig a little deeper, you will see that they were asked (prior to this clip) to move all their items to an area outside the restricted Polling Place zone. They failed to do so. This was the action to make sure they adhered to statute. Their property was returned later. And, if you pay close attention, it was not simply "handing out PPE". There are fliers and pamphlets on the table as well, in violation of voting standards.

"Live Look-in at Knapplc"

Thanks. Much more eloquent than my attempt.

Packing is not stacking. Rs may have stacked, but have not packed. Ds want to pack and stack.

So, supposition and conjecture. Sounds like a sound foundation. My point was that even with 15 of the last 19 Justices being supposedly very "Conservative", the court has managed to pass some pretty supposedly "Liberal" actions like the 4 or 5 cases I referenced. Roberts, in particular, seems to not be pinned down by his "staunchly conservative Republican" views. Perhaps ACB will see things from the center, and not from a far right point of view. I don't like the idea of just adding Justices, whether "packing" for the left or the right. The next time the Rs are in power after this, and able to make changes, would they move the number to 17? 21? When does it stop. I would rather see term limits of some sort worked out, but leave the number at 9.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/health/covid-deaths.html Universal mask use could prevent nearly 130,000 deaths from Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, in the United States through next spring, scientists reported on Friday. The findings follow an assertion by Dr. Scott W. Atlas, the president’s science adviser, that masks are ineffective, in a tweet later taken down by Twitter for spreading misinformation. On Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidance recommending mask use in public settings, including public transportation. A surge of infections, driven in part by neglect of safety precautions, has begun to overwhelm hospitals in much of the nation. More than 75,000 new cases were reported in the United States on Thursday, the second-highest daily total nationwide since the pandemic began. Eight states set single-day case records. These numbers are likely to continue through the fall and winter, with a steady rise in cases and deaths until January and staying high after that point, said Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington and lead author of the report.

And yet we still have legal abortions, same-sex marriage, the Affordable Care Act, DACA etc. All of which I personally support, as do you. Why do you feel they need to add 4 more Justices? https://theconversation.com/its-still-a-conservative-supreme-court-even-after-recent-liberal-decisions-heres-why-144477

Thanks!

If we should win, let it be by the Code

Man...these last 2 predictions sure deflated my balloon

According to some around here, Facebook users can't possibly have a logical opinion, and will only provide answers like "MAGA-Duh"

Biden made a gaff here. He was obviously meaning to say "the portion about marijuana" but instead said cocaine. He was talking about no prison time for low level drug offenses. But, Trump's eyes in response is hilarious.

I thought the tone throughout was much better, but both of them dodged any substantive questions or provided word salad answers. However, based on the final question alone, Biden won the debate. His answer to the moderator's final question was outstanding, and Trump figuratively spit up on himself during his reply.

I agree, and it is easy to stay now 47 months later. But, at that time, it was not so easy to see.

Thanks for your view, which of course comes from the viewpoint of someone who backed Clinton, despite all her known flaws and connections/connotations. What beggars belief is that lots of folks were so pretentious in denying that there could be over 60 million folks that would never vote for Clinton or the Democrat political machine that fomented 8 years of talking down to "the deplorables" that didn't support Obama, so ergo, Hillary, when she was the worst candidate the Dems could have chosen to succeed Obama. When given the chance between "hell no absolutely not" and "seems douchey, but not a lifelong politician" you are surprised at how it turns out? As you say, here we are.

The disbelief that 63 million votes could be cast for Trump is one of the direct reasons he was elected. I don't think the Electoral College is skewed for Republicans. It is skewed toward less densely populated/represented States, however that could have been either party if the Rust Belt and Midwest had, for some reason, identified as Democrats many years ago. I am one that thinks it is time for a change to "one person/one vote" as the Framers were sentient for their time, but that time has probably gone the way of the Model T. But, that was the system in place in 2016.

Exactly!

Not trying to poke, but can you cite where you get "over 70%"? I can see if it is qualified as "portions" of the GND, or "of registered Dems", but I find it hard to believe that figure on the whole.

...Sounds eerily similar to the reaction from the left in 2016. Insert "Clinton" for Trump and it reads 100%

Ari must have been up against the Twitter 140 cap. In theSenate Judiciary Committeecommawhere GOP represents 9 million fewer Americans than Demscommaconfirmingtheirthird SCOTUS justice forapresident who lostthepopular vote by 3 millioncomma just 12 days before Nov 3election commawhen 45 million people already votedearly commaafter blocking Merrick Garland for 237 daysback in 2016.

Hell, I had to read it 4 times