U.S. Elections: Apocalypse upon the horizon

[The Anti-Targ]

7 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Thought I had that joke on lock down, but Starkess swooped in with stupid facts and truths.

You know what they say about the art of good comedy?

[The Anti-Targ]

Timing

[mormont]

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And I really wish the Republicans had a true conservative, values based candidate who could pull the votes needed to win an election in the current political climate. I still don't understand why they don't, especially after 8 years of Obama.

Because of 8 years of Obama. 8 years of hysterically frothing about Obama and insisting in the face of the evidence that he wasn't a popular, successful President has left the Republican party unable to persuade its own supporters of where they need to be to win an election.

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

Because of 8 years of Obama. 8 years of hysterically frothing about Obama and insisting in the face of the evidence that he wasn't a popular, successful President has left the Republican party unable to persuade its own supporters of where they need to be to win an election.

I thought it'd at least take a few minutes after it was decided before we got the 'if only a true conservative would appear' talk.

[butterbumps!]

8 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Trump won't be able to get his personal stooges into the Supreme Court.  He could certainly nominate them, but Congress would reject these nominations.  Bush essentially tried to do this when he nominated Harriet Miers, and her nomination was strongly opposed by his own party.

Trump has released a few lists of potential Supreme Court justice nominations, and most conservatives appear satisfied with latest lists.  If Trump somehow gets elected, if he wants to be re-elected, he's going to have to nominate conservative justices.  I think it's more likely than not that he'd nominate people from these lists.  I find it hard to believe that he's going to nominate liberal justices.  I think he might try nominating his own stooges, but I think he'd fail to get them on the Court.

If the nomination of conservative SC justices is the number one priority for a voter and that voter can look past all Trump's many faults, then it probably makes sense for that voter to vote Trump.  Certainly, Clinton is not going to nominate a conservative justice.  Johnson might nominate conservative justices (I don't really know), but as posters on this board have argued over and over, a vote for Johnson, who has no chance to win, would actually help that voter's least favored candidate, Clinton, win.  Therefore, if this single issue overrides all other concerns for that voter, then it would be rational to vote for Trump.

I know the arrangement Trump made with the establishment.

But given Trump's historic record of going back on promises and contracts, combined with his obsession with making the law work for him, love of big government when he's at the helm, lack of respect and understanding for the Constitution, and his love of giving the middle finger to the establishment leaders, why, why, why believe that Trump will follow through on this issue?  Or make establishment figures part of his regime at all?  Because so many have been part of his campaign?

And he's not even pro-gun!    He has not been consistent about guns.  Why put faith into a knowingly incompetent fool who has only ever cared about law in so far as it gets him more material wealth and power for the vague promise he's going to deliver on establishment preferences like this???  I get that Clinton is probably personally anti-gun more consistently than Trump, but at least she, unlike Trump, understands Constitutional rights.

 

ETA:  @ serscott

I'm with you.  I've never found him anything but a cloying pissant.

[The BlackBear]

8 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I recently read that a newspaper that had endorsed the Republican nominee for the last 100 years is now endorsing Clinton.  Things are starting to look better for Clinton again.  The media has been pummeling Trump pretty hard since the debate.

The Arizona Republic, and the Cincinnati Enquirer have both endorsed Clinton.

Quote

The Arizona Republic joins other major papers with conservative editorial boards in endorsing Clinton or declining to endorse Trump. The Cincinnati Enquirer and Dallas Morning News are two other notable examples, with the Enquirer endorsing a Democrat for the first time in 100 years. The New Hampshire Union Leader, for the first time in 100 years, did not back Republican nominee Trump, opting instead to endorse Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/arizona-republic-endorses-hillary-clinton/index.html

 

[Lord of Rhinos]

6 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Trump has signaled his loathing of journalists and wishes there were some more expedient way to shut them up if he doesn't like what they write. Think a Republican Congress would stop him from getting those kinds of judges?

Umm....I don't think you have any idea how the Supreme Court works.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

22 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Umm....I don't think you have any idea how the Supreme Court works.

And right now Congress is doing its best to make sure that the Supreme Court doesn't work. 

[Lord of Rhinos]

47 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I know the arrangement Trump made with the establishment.

But given Trump's historic record of going back on promises and contracts, combined with his obsession with making the law work for him, love of big government when he's at the helm, lack of respect and understanding for the Constitution, and his love of giving the middle finger to the establishment leaders, why, why, why believe that Trump will follow through on this issue?  Or make establishment figures part of his regime at all?  Because so many have been part of his campaign?

And he's not even pro-gun!    He has not been consistent about guns.  Why put faith into a knowingly incompetent fool who has only ever cared about law in so far as it gets him more material wealth and power for the vague promise he's going to deliver on establishment preferences like this???  I get that Clinton is probably personally anti-gun more consistently than Trump, but at least she, unlike Trump, understands Constitutional rights.

 

ETA:  @ serscott

I'm with you.  I've never found him anything but a cloying pissant.

Trump's already released the names of 12 judges that are on his short list for SC vacancies.  They're all currently sitting judges in state supreme courts or federal appeals courts.  I assure you that Trump did not come up with this list, he's far to lazy to do the necessary work.

 

If Trump nominates someone the rightwing doesn't have confidence in they'll kick the shit out of Trump and reject the nominee.  The rightwing takes Supreme Court nominations very seriously.  Just look at Harriet Miers nomination during Dubya's administration to see what happens when the president tries to get a toady on the Court.

Just now, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

And right now Congress is doing its best to make sure that the Supreme Court doesn't work. 

Ba-ding. 

To be serious, the Supreme Court can perform its duties just fine with 8 Justices.  Only problem is the lack of tie breaking vote.

[mormont]

I get bumps' point, though. The 'I'm voting Trump because of the Supreme Court' rationale depends on a business-as-usual political quid pro quo: I lend you my vote and you deliver on the stuff I want. But Trump isn't reliable. (I nearly said 'in that respect', and then I thought 'apart from relying on him to be a jerk, in what other ways is he reliable?)

He'll probably deliver a SC justice the right will like. But he won't definitely do it.

On the other hand, since Clinton will definitely deliver one they don't like...

[butterbumps!]

24 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Trump's already released the names of 12 judges that are on his short list for SC vacancies.  They're all currently sitting judges in state supreme courts or federal appeals courts.  I assure you that Trump did not come up with this list, he's far to lazy to do the necessary work.

 

If Trump nominates someone the rightwing doesn't have confidence in they'll kick the shit out of Trump and reject the nominee.  The rightwing takes Supreme Court nominations very seriously.  Just look at Harriet Miers nomination during Dubya's administration to see what happens when the president tries to get a toady on the Court.

I know what the current arrangement is.  And it is totally non-binding.    There is nothing to stop him, once elected, from discarding that list and putting forward different nominations.  And, frankly, with Trump, this is a move that should be totally expected.

And sure.  They can reject his inevitable cronies.   And you don't think Trump will play what he considers a strong negotiation with them, threatening to veto everything until they see things his way?

I'm trying to say that this is a REALLY big gamble for non-Trumpkin Republicans looking for Supreme Court nominations that will uphold their values.  Is it truly worth putting this guy in power for something that's not a sure bet?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

I know the arrangement Trump made with the establishment.

But given Trump's historic record of going back on promises and contracts, combined with his obsession with making the law work for him, love of big government when he's at the helm, lack of respect and understanding for the Constitution, and his love of giving the middle finger to the establishment leaders, why, why, why believe that Trump will follow through on this issue?  Or make establishment figures part of his regime at all?  Because so many have been part of his campaign?

And he's not even pro-gun!    He has not been consistent about guns.  Why put faith into a knowingly incompetent fool who has only ever cared about law in so far as it gets him more material wealth and power for the vague promise he's going to deliver on establishment preferences like this???  I get that Clinton is probably personally anti-gun more consistently than Trump, but at least she, unlike Trump, understands Constitutional rights.

 

ETA:  @ serscott

I'm with you.  I've never found him anything but a cloying pissant.

I've raised the point about the SCOTUS and Trump's less than inspiring record on which to discuss judicial nominees with some of his supporters on Facebook.  The response is handwaving dismissals.

LoR,

Butterbumps makes an excellent point.  What binds Trump to that list?  How do you know he will not "play hardball" and veto everything coming from Congress until his nominee gets chosen?  Trump likes to play that way.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Butterbumps makes an excellent point.  What binds Trump to that list?  How do you know he will not "play hardball" and veto everything coming from Congress until his nominee gets chosen?  Trump likes to play that way.

Yep. And I could easily see him auctioning the seats off. Say in exchange for legislation he wants. The right cares about the seats more than Trump himself does. Which puts the whip in his hand. It's not the end of the world for Trump if a justice doesn't get seated at all. 

[Fez]

And imagine the fun that could happen if Trump wins but Democrats retake the Senate anyway? You don't think Trump would make some sort of deal with Democrats for whatever reasons Trump has? There could easily be a liberal justice ending up on the court who base Republicans loving them who are true Trump believers like just because Trump nominated them.

[OldGimletEye]

52 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I'm trying to say that this is a REALLY big gamble for non-Trumpkin Republicans looking for Supreme Court nominations that will uphold their values.  Is it truly worth putting this guy in power for something that's not a sure bet?

Given the clowns he's got on his economic team, the clowns he's got for foreign policy, the clown he's about to appoint for his EPA transition team, he'd reliably pick clowns for the Supreme Court.

[DanteGabriel]

2 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Umm....I don't think you have any idea how the Supreme Court works.

Well I'm pretty sure that's at least where laws get chiseled onto those nice stone tablets that these Southern judges want to put in front of courthouses everywhere, right?

My comment wasn't just about the Supreme Court, but the large number of federal judgeships a President will have to fill. Some have been vacant for years under Obama, and with a Republican Senate (which I think is likely if Trump actually wins) will helpfully pack those courts with judges who are... more lenient on states and businesses and rich bastards who want to restrict journalists or sue news organizations out of existence (as Trump's enthusiastic backer Peter Thiel has done).

But pray explain how my comment betrayed a lack of understanding of how the Supreme Court works?

[The Marquis de Leech]

27 minutes ago, Fez said:

And imagine the fun that could happen if Trump wins but Democrats retake the Senate anyway? You don't think Trump would make some sort of deal with Democrats for whatever reasons Trump has? There could easily be a liberal justice ending up on the court who base Republicans loving them who are true Trump believers like just because Trump nominated them.

I think it's unlikely you'd see a 51-49 Democratic Senate in a Trump wins scenario. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Anyway, post-debate polling has been good for Clinton so far - Florida + 4, New Hampshire +7, Virginia +6, Pennsylvania +6, North Carolina +2, Florida +2, and Colorado +6.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

 

If Trump nominates someone the rightwing doesn't have confidence in they'll kick the shit out of Trump and reject the nominee.  The rightwing takes Supreme Court nominations very seriously.  Just look at Harriet Miers nomination during Dubya's administration to see what happens when the president tries to get a toady on the Court.

Yes but every fight between Trump and the Republican Establishment or True Conservatives has ended with him gloating and them cucking themselves.

[OldGimletEye]

5 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I thought it'd at least take a few minutes after it was decided before we got the 'if only a true conservative would appear' talk.

Yes, yes, if only "the true conservative" or a purple squirrel would just make an appearance, all would be well.

Dubya's presidency was a disaster because he wasn't a "true conservative".

John McCain lost because he wasn't a "true conservative". Romney lost because he wasn't a "true conservative".

If only we could find us a "true conservative".

Trump's likely to be a disaster because he's not a "true conservative".

Maybe one day, perhaps when Brigadoon rises out of the mist, the mythical "true conservative" who can win an election will appear.

[Fez]

10 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I think it's unlikely you'd see a 51-49 Democratic Senate in a Trump wins scenario. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Anyway, post-debate polling has been good for Clinton so far - Florida + 4, New Hampshire +7, Virginia +6, Pennsylvania +6, North Carolina +2, Florida +2, and Colorado +6.

Wisconsin and Illinois look like automatic pickups, and Bayh appears likely to win Indiana independent ofilm anything going on at the presidential level. Beyond that, it's entirely possible that Clinton loses the election but wins New Hampshire and Pennsylvania to send those over the finish line as well. North Carolina too; although if Clinton wins North Carolina it's a very hard time make a plausible map where Trump won.