Author Topic: How to save the country  (Read 652 times)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #50 on: October 17, 2020, 01:04:00 PM »
BLM supporters and anarchists among a few other things.
Do BLM supporters (especially in Michigan) normally fly confederate flags?  Really?  That seems like  stretch.  Also, taking on the moniker "Boogaloo Bunyan" really argues against them supporting BLM.

Noel, feel free to do your own homework.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #51 on: October 17, 2020, 01:20:36 PM »
You've been told before that the boogaloo boys span both sides of the spectrum.

People don't neatly line up in tidy little compartments like many would like them to.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #52 on: October 17, 2020, 05:23:05 PM »
You've been told before that the boogaloo boys span both sides of the spectrum.
The Boogaloo movement is primarily far right, with roots in white supremacy, and is loosely organized, as you've been told before :)

Sure, there have been some groups claiming to be both Boogaloo and who decry racism, but those are simply atypical offshoots.  But yes, there are definitely different flavours of Boogaloo.

I note you didn't address how that Confederate flag in Michigan could be considered in any way BLM-supportive, though - that particular piece of evidence strongly suggests these particular Boogaloo tools do hold an anti-BLM position, but maybe you disagree that flying a confederate flag in Michigan suggests anti-black tendencies.


wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #53 on: October 17, 2020, 10:55:30 PM »
I live in Michigan, and no one flies Confederate flags. Maybe one in 10,000 goof balls may act crazy - but they are not worth noticing.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2020, 12:45:08 AM »
You've been told before that the boogaloo boys span both sides of the spectrum.
The Boogaloo movement is primarily far right, with roots in white supremacy, and is loosely organized, as you've been told before :)

Sure, there have been some groups claiming to be both Boogaloo and who decry racism, but those are simply atypical offshoots.  But yes, there are definitely different flavours of Boogaloo.

The Boogaloo movement is primarily anti-authoritarian aka Libertarian. Where even most examples of the political axis that aren't 3 dimensional have them on their own axis entirely relative to Democrats and Republicans. (It just happens that most Libertarians also share another different axis with a great many Republicans and Conservatives)

Quote
I note you didn't address how that Confederate flag in Michigan could be considered in any way BLM-supportive, though - that particular piece of evidence strongly suggests these particular Boogaloo tools do hold an anti-BLM position, but maybe you disagree that flying a confederate flag in Michigan suggests anti-black tendencies.

I honestly haven't been bothered to /care about what the crazies in Michigan are up to and I've been it second/third hand, so I simply don't know enough about the specifics of that group to explain what could be going on with the confederate flag. Except while in the Military I has known people in the past who loved their confederate flags, and weren't racist at all near as I could tell(but they also were from the South). So jumping to racist upon seeing someone using that flag isn't something I'm inclined to do because experience has shown me differently.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2020, 07:55:25 AM »
Donald,

“I note you didn't address how that Confederate flag in Michigan could be considered in any way BLM-supportive... “

Have you also noted that you have not addressed some of your more exaggerated claims regarding alleged Senate Republican obstruction of Barry’s appellate judicial nominations as a supposed justification for Harry’s introduction of the “nuclear option“, your misdirected strategy to “save America” through equivocal definitional shell-games, or your anemic assertions of inconsistent application of textualist/originalist jurisprudence by Scalia, and by anticipatory extension ACB?

All in all, I would call out your focus on the Boogaloo movement, and Confederate flag use, as a diversionary canard to your topical thesis.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #56 on: October 18, 2020, 10:12:06 AM »
your anemic assertions of inconsistent application of textualist/originalist jurisprudence by Scalia,

You didn't respond to the example of such that I gave you, noel.

How does the "Equal Protection Clause" somehow allow DOMA or laws against homosexual sodomy, but it also somehow bans state restrictions on interracial marriage?

https://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/10/25/scalia-on-loving-v-virginia-1

Quote
Finally, I turn to petitioners' equal-protection challenge, which no Member of the Court save Justice O'Connor, ante, at 1 (opinion concurring in judgment), embraces: On its face §21.06(a) applies equally to all persons. Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex. To be sure, §21.06 does distinguish between the sexes insofar as concerns the partner with whom the sexual acts are performed: men can violate the law only with other men, and women only with other women. But this cannot itself be a denial of equal protection, since it is precisely the same distinction regarding partner that is drawn in state laws prohibiting marriage with someone of the same sex while permitting marriage with someone of the opposite sex.
The objection is made, however, that the antimiscegenation laws invalidated in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 8 (1967), similarly were applicable to whites and blacks alike, and only distinguished between the races insofar as the partner was concerned. In Loving, however, we correctly applied heightened scrutiny, rather than the usual rational-basis review, because the Virginia statute was "designed to maintain White Supremacy." Id., at 6, 11. A racially discriminatory purpose is always sufficient to subject a law to strict scrutiny, even a facially neutral law that makes no mention of race. No purpose to discriminate against men or women as a class can be gleaned from the Texas law, so rational-basis review applies. That review is readily satisfied here by the same rational basis that satisfied it in Bowers-society's belief that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," 478 U.S., at 196.

Quote
This type of reasoning is quite odd, especially coming from a Justice who roundly criticizes the use of the purpose prong in the Lemon test. Suddenly here, purpose means everything. But even if that was true, any reasonable person would recognize that laws which imprison homosexuals for engaging in anal intercourse while not punishing heterosexuals for the same action (the Texas law specifically targeted only sodomy between those of the same sex, not between those of different sexes) has both the purpose and genuine effect of maintaining "heterosexual supremacy" in the same manner that miscegenation laws were designed to maintain white supremacy.
Quote
in regard to miscegenation laws you also had the direct testimony of the men who framed the 14th amendment that the amendment was not intended to overturn such laws. Given that, it is hard to conceive of how Scalia could have voted with the majority in Loving even under heightened scrutiny given his vociferous arguing that it is the original meaning and application of the constitutional text that must determine its meaning. Thus, his accusations of inconsistency on the part of the majority, while they may be true, ring hollow coming from him.

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #57 on: October 18, 2020, 10:56:30 AM »
Aris,

You are stepping in for Donald?

“How does the "Equal Protection Clause" somehow allow DOMA or laws against homosexual sodomy, but it also somehow bans state restrictions on interracial marriage?”

Per your link. :

“This is precisely the argument that was made by the state of Virginia with respect to race in Loving: blacks and whites were equally forbidden from marrying someone of a different race.”

“... men and women were equally forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex.”

This is a straw-man misrepresentation of Scalia’s reasoning. He referred to the reconstruction amendments (13, 14, 15), which as a body dealt with the general classe of race/national origin, not bodily orifice preferences. :

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (14th amendment)

Justice O'Connor was not an originalist, as is clear by her conflation of miscegenation laws with aberrant sexuality.

Do you think that Donald is incapable of defending constitutional application of provisions relevant to his stated concerns of preserving the ACA, and Roe, ie. , the commerce clause, and the elusive “privacy” right?

« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 11:03:38 AM by noel c. »

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #58 on: October 18, 2020, 11:12:45 AM »
Aris,

You are stepping in for Donald?


This is a public forum and a public discussion. I'm not "stepping in" for anyone, nor speaking for anyone but if you wanted a private discussion, you should be PMing each other.

As long as it's a public discussion, we can interject.

Quote
“How does the "Equal Protection Clause" somehow allow DOMA or laws against homosexual sodomy, but it also somehow bans state restrictions on interracial marriage?”

Per your link. :

“This is precisely the argument that was made by the state of Virginia with respect to race in Loving: blacks and whites were equally forbidden from marrying someone of a different race.”

“... men and women were equally forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex.”

This is a straw-man misrepresentation of Scalia’s reasoning. He referred to the reconstruction amendments (13, 14, 15), which as a body dealt with the general classe of race/national origin, not bodily orifice preferences. :

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (14th amendment)

Justice O'Connor was not an originalist, as is clear by her conflation of miscegenation laws with aberrant sexuality.

So, somehow though the writers of Amendments 13, 14 and 15 (passed in 1870) made it clear that they were not striking down "miscegenation laws" (if they had, it wouldn't have taken a whole *censored*ing century until they were actually struck down), you're claiming that those amendments somehow did manage to strike down miscegenation down -- but nobody noticed until 1967, nearly a century later.

How "originalist" of you. /s

And "laws about aberrant sexuality" being different to laws about miscegenation? You are arguing that wanting to have sex with people of other race isn't "aberrant sexuality"? How very progressive of you, but am afraid again not very originalist or textualist or constitutionalist or whatever else you may want to call it.

As a funny aside, when I had my (now late) Greek mother watch some episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer back in the early 2000s, she seemed more taken back with Xander being willing to date a black woman in... season 7 I think it was, than with the Willow-Tara lesbian relationship. Sure gay relationships happen, but interracial relationships, who would ever do that? /s (also note that by that point Xander had also been in a relationship with a demon, and Buffy with vampires, and the lesbian relationship was a thing since season 5, but white people dating black people... well that took until season 7)

Quote
Do you think that Donald is incapable of defending constitutional application of provisions relevant to his stated issues of the ACA, and Roe, ie. , the commerce clause, and the elusive “privacy” right?
I'm not familiar at all with any of those decisons and their reasonings, so I don't comment on any of those one way or another.

You seem to have a real problem with this not actually being a private discussion between you and Donald, do you?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 11:18:54 AM by Aris Katsaris »

noel c.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #59 on: October 18, 2020, 11:37:43 AM »
Aris,

“So, somehow though the writers of Amendments 13, 14 and 15 (passed in 1869) made it clear that they were not striking down "miscegenetion laws" (if they had, it wouldn't have taken a whole *censored*ing century until they were actually struck down), you're claiming that those amendment somehow did manage to strike down miscegeneration down -- but nobody noticed until 1969, a century later.“

The reconstruction amendments would have been understood by any reasonable person, of that period, as referring to unequal racial application of the law. The logic imbedded in that understanding inevitably applies to the dismantling of miscegenation laws.

And laws about ‘aberrant sexuality’ being different to laws about miscegeneration? You are arguing that wanting to have sex with people of other race isn't "aberrant sexuality"?

Correct.
 
“How very progressive of you, but am afraid again not very originalist or textualist or constitutionalist or whatever else you may want to call it.“

Clarence Thomas would strongly disagree with you.

“As a funny aside, when I had my (now late) Greek mother watch some episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer back in the early 2000s, she seemed more taken back with Xander being willing to date a black woman in... season 7 I think it was, than with the Willow-Tara lesbian relationship. Sure gay relationships happen, but interracial relationships, who would ever do that? /s (also note that by that point Xander had also been in a relationship with a demon, and Buffy with vampires, and the lesbian relationship was a thing since season 5, but white people dating black people... well that took until season 7)“

Not being a fan of Buffy, I can only relate vicariously, but yes, people can be funny.

“I'm not familiar at all with any of those and those decisions, so I don't comment on any of those.“

Wise, and I did acknowledge that the possibility of tangential discussion was likely when I took this detour.

“You seem to have a real problem with this not actually being a private discussion between you and Donald, do you?“

I do not have a problem discussing Scalia’s judicial philosophy with you Aris, but Donald’s thread was focused upon “saving the country”, presumably from repeal, or modification of a few pet laws. His specific references were to the ACA, and Roe v. Wade. I am fine going on about sodomy if you prefer, but it is unlikely to come before ACB.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 11:42:42 AM by noel c. »


JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2020, 03:19:20 PM »
JoshuaD, are you saying there isn't a right to privacy? Because if a right exists, the Constitution guarantees it.

We do not have a natural right to murder our children. Any line of reasoning which tries to conclude that is wrong. Our children have a right to life.

We have a right to a good government. A good government is not overly intrusive. I would not render this as a fundamental "right to privacy", and stretching that to a right to murder our children is absurd, but I obviously agree there are limits to when and how the government can poke its nose in our business.

Finally, the ninth amendment is not a blank check. It recognizes that a finite list of rights could be construed to narrowly limit people's rights, which was potentially dangerous. It doesn't mean anything you make up and call a right is enshrined and protected in the Constitution.


JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2020, 03:21:36 PM »
Scalia's greatest success was in convincing conservatives - and maybe even himself - that he was consistent in his commitment to originalism and textualism, whereas he was simply not immune to ignoring his own philosophy when it was convenient to justify conservative results.  I doubt Barrett will be either.  She is also human, after all.

It really doesn't matter if he succeeded in applying his methodology perfectly.  It would be good if it did, but if he failed at times, it doesn't undermine the credibility of Originalism.

I believe in Algebra.  I believe that with Algebra, we'll build much better cars, roads, buildings, airplanes, computers, games, and everything else in the world.

Sometimes I mess up when I do Algebra. I forget a rule or I rush ahead, and my reasoning fails. And I get a bad conclusion.

It doesn't mean Algebra is bad. It means that I screwed up.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2020, 03:32:49 PM »
I realize that this may lead to a discursive tangent, but would you deign to cite any specifics regarding Scalia’s violation of principled jurisprudence?

One thing I remember, without having studied Scalia at length:

He claimed interracial marriages were protected by the "Equal Protection Clause", but he somehow failed to see that the exact same protections apply to same-sex marriages. By his support of DOMA, if he were to be consistent, he should have also conceded that Congress can indeed pass laws that refuse to recognize interracial marriage, or which give to the states the power to refuse to recognize such marriages from other states. He didn't have the balls to do that, of course.

Black men are fundamentally the same as white men. There are some accidental differences (such as the color of their skin) but they are essentially the same thing.

Therefore, according to the Equal Protection Clause, both men should be afforded the same rights. If a white man can marry a particular woman, then a black man should be able to marry that same particular woman.

A man has the legal right to marry a woman. Nothing about that right suggests that he should have the power to marry a man. It is a completely different thing.

The idea that the Equal Protection Clause extends marriage to any relationship we might want to recognize is contrary to reason. Scalia didn't get this one wrong; the court did.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2020, 03:39:23 PM by JoshuaD »

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2020, 03:38:04 PM »
Joshua, I think you're missing the point - if the democrats take both the Senate and the presidency, the current rules would allow them to actually pack the courts if they so choose (not what was described in the 2 options mentioned).  That would continue the path of self destruction that the country currently finds itself on.

I'm not sure what gave you the impression I missed that point; I did not.  I am aware that the Constitution allows for the expansion of the Supreme Court. I did not say, in my original post, that packing the court would be unconstitutional; I said that it would be destructive and wrong.

The majority of the country disagrees with you on a number of points - strongly.  It doesn't mean they're correct; but it does mean there is a real risk that they will want to get their way, and will have the means to do so in such a way as to burn whatever bridges remain.

Yes, if people decide to do that, no rules will keep our country together.  I think people are doing that, and I think it is bad. There is not a procedural solution to this problem.

As to shortsighted near term gain, that accusation can be spread widely; it was short term gain that led to filibustering hundreds a judicial appointments, as was removing the filibuster for non-SCOTUS confirmations, as was refusing to confirm all Obama judicial appointments, as was removing the filibuster for SCOTUS confirmations, as was refusing to consider Garland whatsoever, as was how the investigation of Kavanaugh went down, as is the current rushed confirmation  of Barrett.  Each of those followed the rules, and each was an escalation.

Judges who believe in the Living Constitution are a threat to our country. With their over-reaching ruling, they undermine the bedrock of our society.  I support aggressive legal action to keep them from getting appointed.

I would not support filibusters to ensure that a judge agrees with me on the morality of a particular provincial question. Good people of conscience can disagree. I do support preventing judges who will abuse their power from getting into power.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2020, 03:40:17 PM by JoshuaD »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #65 on: October 19, 2020, 03:42:29 PM »
What does 'believe in the Living Constitution' mean?

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #66 on: October 19, 2020, 03:52:28 PM »
Judges who believe that the ideas of the Living Constitution are a good way to interpret law and make court decisions.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #67 on: October 19, 2020, 04:02:01 PM »
Do the Judges who believe in a  'static constitution' (I assume being the opposite of a living constitution) believe that no interpretation is required.

Language is a tricky thing.

Tried to read through Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics and the one thing got from it is that communicating ideas and intent is extremely difficult.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #68 on: October 19, 2020, 04:38:39 PM »
Do the Judges who believe in a  'static constitution' (I assume being the opposite of a living constitution) believe that no interpretation is required.

No, they believe interpretation is required.  A judge must judge, a computer can't do it. 

Scalia outlines his view in A Matter of Interpretation, which is very approachable and answers these questions. He also invited a few scholars who disagree with him to write opposing views, and included those views in the back of the book.

I'm not saying you have to adhere to exactly Scalia's originalism to be a valid judge.  Clarence Thomas is more of a textualist and I have no objection to that. They disagreed sometimes. It's fine. Judges can have differing methodology and can sometimes disagree on the rulings. They just can't legislate.

Language is a tricky thing.

Tried to read through Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics and the one thing got from it is that communicating ideas and intent is extremely difficult.

I think that Aristotle did a great job of thinking, and therefore a great job of communicating. I think many philosophers who followed him tried to narrow the scope of what we can know in order to feel a sense of greater certainty or verification than we can have. In doing that, they slowly tore down the good structures of reason and knowledge that make communication possible. Language is tricky, but it gets a lot less tricky when you have good philosophical structures, and Aristotle had great structures.

I would suggest that a book that starts with the premise of non-Aristotelian thought, starts with the idea that we have to communicate with our access to knowledge and reason severely curtailed. It's like trying to fight with both hands behind your back, or talk with our ears stuffed and our mouths gagged. Of course this book will illustrate that it's hard to communicate; that's not the fault of words or reason, it's the fault of the dubious premise of the book.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2020, 04:46:13 PM by JoshuaD »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #69 on: October 19, 2020, 11:25:51 PM »
...many philosophers who followed him tried to narrow the scope of what we can know in order to feel a sense of greater certainty or verification than we can have. In doing that, they slowly tore down the good structures of reason and knowledge that make communication possible.

But at that time Erasmus was considered the last bright mind that knew everything. After him, science and knowledge accelerated to an unknowable point, beyond one man's ken. It may be the philosophers didn't limit their scope - it was that the scope outdistanced them.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #70 on: October 20, 2020, 03:44:06 PM »
It's currently looking like democrats will take the House and the Presidency. The Senate will be closer, but if the democrats win the presidency they are likely to be in control of the Senate as well. The question now is will they show restraint in the rules or eliminate the filibuster to push through policy objectives. I hope they don't pack the court, I don't like that idea. I do support term limits, but not just adding justices. Because once that can of worms is opened it will lead to escalation each time one party holds both chambers and the presidency and that's a bad road to go down.

It may be time for the filibuster to go, just from a practical standpoint. I wish that weren't the case. But the courts and executive keep getting more power because the legislative branch is broken and ineffective. We've entered an era of politics were getting 10 defectors from the other party, even with legislation that is middle of the road has become almost impossible. Personally I hope the democrats aren't the ones who finish blowing up the Senate, I like the idea of how the Senate works better than the House, but our representatives haven't lived up to the ideals that allow their branch of government to function if it gives the other side "a win." So we haven't addressed lots of problems with solutions from either side of the isle. Nothing from the legislature on immigration, nothing on climate, and almost nothing to improve/modify the ACA since it was passed. Long term we may be better off as a nation if the party we elect can actually implement change, even when that change is something I disagree with. Because I do understand that if the filibuster goes at some point its demise will result in a policy I disapprove of. And I realize that the Senate composition favors Republicans so they are likely to retake it at some point. All that said, maybe at some point its better to have solutions I disagree with than no solutions at all.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #71 on: October 20, 2020, 03:48:49 PM »
My concern in the scenario where the Democrats take the House, Senate, and White House, they will instigate a Civil War before the 2022 election as they make moves with their "electoral mandate" which moves red states into a mode of defiance where the Democrats make the fighting turn hot.

Of course, this ignores AntiFa's agitators that are signaling they have intention to stop if Biden wins election, in which case they may force "the rebellion" from the other side when the Democrats try to use the levers of Federal Power to stop Red States/Red Counties from doing anything to stop rioters on their own turf.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #72 on: October 22, 2020, 12:11:06 PM »
My concern in the scenario where the Democrats take the House, Senate, and White House, they will instigate a Civil War before the 2022 election as they make moves with their "electoral mandate" which moves red states into a mode of defiance where the Democrats make the fighting turn hot.

Of course, this ignores AntiFa's agitators that are signaling they have intention to stop if Biden wins election, in which case they may force "the rebellion" from the other side when the Democrats try to use the levers of Federal Power to stop Red States/Red Counties from doing anything to stop rioters on their own turf.

Yes, if the Democrats sweep. However; I tend to go with the real polls that have been proved accurate that says Trump should win by a 91% probability of a landslide. If that happens, the down-ballot will win with him and the GOP may take back the House as well as the Senate. If that happens, the Democrats face annihilation of their power, and their current leaders will be rudely dismissed. In this reality, AntiFa and BLM and any other Left-wing militant arm of the Democrat Party will only have refuge from Blue State Governors and Mayors. As Trump proved earlier, the Feds can end the rioting and looting within hours. Once that is done, how much threat can those Blue power brokers pose? Remember the power the Fed has over these Blue leaders is the money train. These Blue leaders over-promised benefits to Union retirees and cannot meet their commitments. In this scenario, Trump will have all the Trump cards, and those Blue leaders will have to deal or resign.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2020, 12:13:52 PM by wmLambert »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #73 on: October 22, 2020, 12:17:28 PM »
However; I tend to go with the real polls that have been proved accurate that says Trump should win by a 91% probability of a landslide.

Define landslide.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #74 on: October 22, 2020, 12:19:46 PM »
Also "proved", "accurate", and "real"

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #75 on: October 22, 2020, 01:27:29 PM »
...Define landslide.

Quote
...Also "proved", "accurate", and "real"

No. Apologize first and stop deflecting. Joe is dirty and so is anyone who allows him to try to skate. Helmut Northrop said "Landslide." Facts are facts. Judges rule on the ramifications of what those facts have proved. You are arguing about Joe's crimes - not any unverified facts. Stop for a moment and realize just who Joe is capable of being blackmailed by.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #76 on: October 22, 2020, 01:47:28 PM »
Would you say Trump won in a "landslide" in 2016?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #77 on: October 22, 2020, 02:29:02 PM »
No. Apologize first and stop deflecting. Trump is dirty and so is anyone who allows him to try to skate. 
 Stop for a moment and realize just who Trump is capable of being blackmailed by.

I'm enjoying the hypocrisy of how you define your terms. Changing them to fit your apologist narrative.  You have no credibility.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #78 on: October 22, 2020, 02:30:40 PM »
Oh, you mean the Emperor's New Polls, set up by his sycophants to feed his ego?

Or are these "real polls" published along with their methodology?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: How to save the country
« Reply #79 on: October 22, 2020, 04:38:32 PM »
Oh, you mean the Emperor's New Polls, set up by his sycophants to feed his ego?

Or are these "real polls" published along with their methodology?

You would think... except, this: What Republican internal polling can actually tell us:

Quote
I looked at more than a dozen of these partisan polls released to the public from House and Senate races since the major party conventions in August. These partisan polls are notoriously unreliable, and none of them meet CNN standards for reporting.

The reason is simple: Partisans don’t want to release polls that are bad for their side. That means the polls sponsored by a party, candidate or partisan organization tend to be biased in favor of the side releasing the poll.

That’s why it was amazing to find that on average, Trump was doing 5 points worse than he did in 2016 in the states and districts in released Republican and conservative polls.