Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'm sure that's the hope of many of Trump's supporters.
General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
I'm sure that's the hope of many of Trump's supporters.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
That's unnecessarily mean (again).
She just needs to lose, not go toes up.
But even the true believers among you have to admit she is not looking healthy. Something is amiss.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I may not have been referring to you. Others have painted her as the anti-Christ so it goes without saying they may want to be rid of her. After all, if she's the ring leader of an active death squad wouldn't you want to see her "pass"?
Like the skewed pictures of the DNC to support a narrative I'm not sure most have taken the health angle seriously. She may or may not have a health problem but a subset of thousands of pictures that show her disfavor ably is not evidence of a problem, IMHO.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Your argument ignores the staunch conservatives that recent Republican presidents have appointed to the court (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Alito). These justices are every bit as conservative as Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are liberal.
Your argument also takes any justice who has voted even once for anything that doesn't buy into the conservative agenda hook, line and sinker (O'Connor, Roberts) and rebrand them as liberals. These justices are solid conservatives, but only 90% of the time instead of 100% of the time like the ones identified above. Similarly, Breyer leans heavily liberal, but sometimes votes with the conservatives. By your logic, he was a Democratic mistake and should be branded as a conservative (which, I'm sure you'll agree, is absurd).
Your argument is valid with respect to three non-conservative justices (liberals Stevens and Souter, and centrist Kennedy) who have been appointed by modern Republican presidents. But all three were appointed 25+ years ago, and only one remains on the court. There is no basis to conclude that the Court's balance has been radically impacted by these mistakes, nor is there reason to think that a Republican president is doomed to repeat them.
Bottom line -- if Clinton wins, the Court could shift heavily to the left. If Trump wins, the Court could shift heavily to the right. Both of these prospects are bad for the country, imho.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Maybe. But it hasnt exactly been working perfectly with him there. People say Trump felt caged in, that his access had been restricted, plus news & feedback were being filtered (or that's how he felt). He didnt like it so he made the change.
Their timing was so dumb. Took the Milwaukee speech (which was good) off the front page the very next morning. Too many errors like this, repeated over and over.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I used to think that a Republican Senate would hold HRC from tilting the USSC too far left but now it appears there is a very real chance that the R's lose the Senate due to Trump pulling down the ticket. If that happens we may need to send the ambulance to a few members on this board for safety reasons.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Thats not true. I said Sandy was a waffler, especially later on. In her early years, she pretty much toed the line with the Chief Justice, to her credit. It was as she got older that she began to waffle (like Kennedy). This is more a statement of facts than it is opinion.
Roberts is a tremendous personal disappointment. The thought of him almost brings me to tears. Give Ann Coulter credit for that pick, she tried to warn us. But I see him more as a Brutus than a liberal. Roberts cares more about the Court itself, its history and tradition than his does any ideology. I think that mandate vote was him trying to save the Court, which he thought was at risk at that moment (incorrectly, IMO).
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Even if they hold, I think there are too many cowards there to do the right thing. If it were up to me, I would rather the Govt just shut down than let HRC have her picks. It's that important to me.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
No, there are many liberals dissatisfied with him.
But, honestly, does that even matter?
It's not real. Much bigger things going on now.
NJ, the controversy on justices doesn't center on the fact that they don't always vote with their parties. It centers on when they break with their parties. Breyer occasionally votes with conservatives, but it's usually on business and procedure issues that the liberal base doesn't care about. On social issues, he's a solid and automatic liberal vote, and Democrats haven't nominated a someone who isn't an automatic liberal vote on social issues in over 50 years. They make that a litmus test.
By contrast, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens frequently broke with their party on social issues. That's why they piss off the Right. Furthermore, that's a lot of justices in a relatively short period of time. Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 didn't even bat .500 at appointing social conservatives to the bench, which gives the Right the impression that appointing justices who align with party of social issues is less of a priority for the GOP than it is for Democrats, which is probably true.
The Roberts hatred is an exception. The hostility for him truly is mostly about one case, and I think that has more to do with the politics surrounding the decision than its merits or even ideology. He had a chance to take a piss on Obama's face, and he didn't do it. I think that's what it's really about. It reminds me of Roger Taney. The guy was Chief Justice for 28 years, but the only thing people remember him for is that he wrote the Dred Scott decision. That case will define him for eternity. At least among conservatives, the same thing is happening to Roberts with the Obamacare decision.
Personally, I'm just not that partisan, and though I disagreed with his decision, I don't think it was indefensible. That puts me outside the John Roberts Hate Club.
By contrast, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens frequently broke with their party on social issues. That's why they piss off the Right. Furthermore, that's a lot of justices in a relatively short period of time. Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 didn't even bat .500 at appointing social conservatives to the bench, which gives the Right the impression that appointing justices who align with party of social issues is less of a priority for the GOP than it is for Democrats, which is probably true.
The Roberts hatred is an exception. The hostility for him truly is mostly about one case, and I think that has more to do with the politics surrounding the decision than its merits or even ideology. He had a chance to take a piss on Obama's face, and he didn't do it. I think that's what it's really about. It reminds me of Roger Taney. The guy was Chief Justice for 28 years, but the only thing people remember him for is that he wrote the Dred Scott decision. That case will define him for eternity. At least among conservatives, the same thing is happening to Roberts with the Obamacare decision.
Personally, I'm just not that partisan, and though I disagreed with his decision, I don't think it was indefensible. That puts me outside the John Roberts Hate Club.
It could be a reason, but with the campaign shifting in direction, I think he'd be leaving anyway. I've always thought Manafort seemed shady (almost mafioso), but he's relative mainstream. There was no way he'd be able to work with Bannon, the crackpot from Breitbart.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The latest evidence of HRC's ill health appears to be the need to wear a foley catheter.
Also looks like she may be trying to conceal it with with lycra boxers as well as those constant long and baggy pantsuit boxtops
At first, it seemed another funny internet take but, once you know what to look for, it starts to show up everywhere
(click any pic one time to enlarge)
See the bulge above her left knee \/
Also looks like she may be trying to conceal it with with lycra boxers as well as those constant long and baggy pantsuit boxtops
At first, it seemed another funny internet take but, once you know what to look for, it starts to show up everywhere
(click any pic one time to enlarge)
See the bulge above her left knee \/
Last edited:
I got a robo call from Trump yesterday in Texas. I guess robo calls are relatively cheap and I didn't listen to the whole thing (promising to jail more criminals while Hillary would turn them loose) because what he talked about seemed more a state than a federal matter. I hate having my chain yanked.
Probably a knee brace.The latest evidence of HRC's ill health appears to be the need to wear a foley catheter.
Also looks like she may be trying to conceal it with with lycra boxers as well as those constant long and baggy pantsuit boxtops
At first, it seemed another funny internet take but, once you know what to look for, it starts to show up everywhere
(click any pic one time to enlarge)
See the bulge above her left knee \/
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Horns11
10,000+ Posts
The Dornsife LA Times "poll" isn't even a poll. It's a repeating questionaire/survey, like Nielsen ratings for TV. They ask a sample of the same 5000 people over and over again how they're feeling every day, and update their results at midnight.
RealClear and FiveThirtyEight don't even rate it as a poll.
RealClear and FiveThirtyEight don't even rate it as a poll.
In light of the fact that virtually every other poll shows him losing and some by pretty decisive margins, I'm going to guess that the LA Times poll is an outlier. In fact, Breitbart has him down by 5.
MC,
If you need a diversion to keep from accepting that the polls overwhelmingly favor Clinton, my token Trump supporter friend on Facebook, believes there's a significant "Bradley Effect" going on with the polling. I tell him he's going to be disappointed on Election Day, but the Bradley Effect theory does keep his spirits up in the short term.
Just FYI - I don't think it's an entirely groundless theory. If I was planning to vote for Trump, I'd be ashamed to tell people too. However, I don't think it's enough of a factor to sway a national election.
If you need a diversion to keep from accepting that the polls overwhelmingly favor Clinton, my token Trump supporter friend on Facebook, believes there's a significant "Bradley Effect" going on with the polling. I tell him he's going to be disappointed on Election Day, but the Bradley Effect theory does keep his spirits up in the short term.
Just FYI - I don't think it's an entirely groundless theory. If I was planning to vote for Trump, I'd be ashamed to tell people too. However, I don't think it's enough of a factor to sway a national election.
I35
5,000+ Posts
What's funny about what you say is true with many. But you'd think that everyone would be embarrassed to vote for Hillary knowing she is the worst candidate to ever run for office with so much corruption and lies.
One word: Brexit
Silver has said in the past that the trend of the poll is significant even if he is skeptical of the polling (survey) since they don't predict turnout by traditional methods.
Last edited:
Recent polls are between +2 to +5 for Hillary. The trend in the LA poll is legit.
White democratic men in the Midwest are lying to pollsters. How many? Dunno
If Trump supporter did not vote in last election, he is not counted in the polls as a likely voter. Also, a liar is doubly significant - subtract one from Hillary and add one for Trump. If it is Clinton +3 in Nov, Trump wins
Last edited:
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 305
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 503
- West Mall
