Jump to content

U.S. Politics: By Gawd King, That's Joe Biden's Music!!!!


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

Scot, I assume you are only polite on this board because otherwise you would get banned?

When the police aren't looking, do you drive on the wrong side of the road?

Your chances of being caught pirating movies are infinitesmal, so I assume you do it?

The threat of force being necessary for laws to work, and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know early and it's just one poll, but Quinnipiac is a good pollster, and they estimate Biden is ahead of Trump by 11 points

Quote

In head to head matchups with President Trump among registered voters, Biden gets support from more than half of registered voters against the incumbent president, while Sanders does not. Biden leads Trump 52 - 41 percent, and Sanders leads Trump 49 - 42 percent.

The poll also finds Biden up 19 points on Bernie Sanders nationally.  So it's a pretty great poll for Biden all around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Proudfeet said:

FATCA works for the US because they can bully people with their financial strength. It's reciprocal in theory, but really how many other countries tax their citizens for income earned outside their country?

The US joins Myanmar, Eritrea, and Hungary in this policy. 

 

Quote

Other countries have to satisfy the US requirements, but does the US do it for the other countries?

So far as I'm aware, the IRS and Tgreasury does not provide information to Myanmar, Eritrea, or Hungary on income their citizens make within the U.S. It also fails to uphold reporting with most countries in which it has signed tax treaties -- seen many complaints from Swedish and other European tax authorities that the U.S. expects FATCA to be adhered to but won't reciprocate with agreed to information sharing unless they jump through hoops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump may be trying to downplay the coronavirus right now, but just wait till he realises he could use it as an excuse to declare a state of emergency and cancel the November election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Darryk said:

Trump may be trying to downplay the coronavirus right now, but just wait till he realises he could use it as an excuse to declare a state of emergency and cancel the November election.

The emergency powers of the executive do not include (PDF from the Congressional Research Service) postponing or cancelling elections:

Quote

Under a variety of possible scenarios that could arise as a result of a terrorist attack before or during an election, either the Congress or the states might pass legislation which would affect the timing of these elections. The suggestion has been made, however, that the Executive Branch might have some role in determining whether an election is to occur or whether it can be cancelled. While the Executive Branch does not currently have this power, it appears that Congress may be able to delegate this power to the Executive Branch by enacting a statute.

There's no way in hell Congress and the Senate delegate such power, so it won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

The emergency powers of the executive do not include (PDF from the Congressional Research Service) postponing or cancelling elections:

There's no way in hell Congress and the Senate delegate such power, so it won't happen.

I know but that won't stop him from trying!

As far as I know the US Constitution is actually vary vague on what emergency powers it grants the Executive, almost as if the framers didn't really want to include anything about emergency powers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Darryk said:

I know but that won't stop him from trying!

There's really nothing he can do. Well, besides spout masses of disinformation, I suppose. I do believe he can appropriate the emergency broadcast system, for example, and try to mislead people. But... there'd be a huge cost to that, I think. Pretty sure not even FOX News would go along with that...

I really doubt it'll happen, in any case. Pretty sure he'll be going into election day convinced he's going to win because no one around him will be willing to tell him otherwise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darryk said:

I know but that won't stop him from trying!

As far as I know the US Constitution is actually vary vague on what emergency powers it grants the Executive, almost as if the framers didn't really want to include anything about emergency powers.

 

The constitution does not specify anything, actually, though there's a long history of it - and it was eventually formalized in the National Emergencies Act. That said, the emergency powers are specifically not about things like natural disasters or epidemics; those are a lot more broad. 

That all being said, @Ran is right - the POTUS does not have that power, and it would require an act of congress to get it. I am less sure that congress would not grant this depending on how bad it was in November. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kalbear said:

That all being said, @Ran is right - the POTUS does not have that power, and it would require an act of congress to get it. I am less sure that congress would not grant this depending on how bad it was in November. 

You think that House Democrats are going to vote to allow the President to unilaterally suspend elections?  Do you have some new evidence that Nancy Pelosi is in fact a gullible fool?  Because nothing about her career indicates that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Scot, I assume you are only polite on this board because otherwise you would get banned?

When the police aren't looking, do you drive on the wrong side of the road?

Your chances of being caught pirating movies are infinitesmal, so I assume you do it?

The threat of force being necessary for laws to work, and all.

No.  Nevertheless, if you sincerely believe force is not necessary for taxation convince your municipality or nation to eliminate the element of force from taxation and we can see what happens.

I’m not claiming there aren’t people who willingly pay.  I’mm pointing out that there are many who would not if not required.  Our point of disagreement would seem to be who is in the majority of those two groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

That all being said, @Ran is right - the POTUS does not have that power, and it would require an act of congress to get it. I am less sure that congress would not grant this depending on how bad it was in November. 

Per the CRS, I think the suggestion that states and Congress can legislate to affect the elections without including the Executive other than to enforce whatever they decide is what would happen -- the President wouldn't be granted any power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maithanet said:

You think that House Democrats are going to vote to allow the President to unilaterally suspend elections?  Do you have some new evidence that Nancy Pelosi is in fact a gullible fool?  Because nothing about her career indicates that. 

Again, I said that I don't know how bad it'll be. If polling indicates people are terrified of going out to vote, especially older people who are the most at-risk, I think that Pelosi wouldn't be able to control her caucus - especially if the alternative was millions of old people choosing not to vote at all. 

And that's the real rub here - Trump doesn't have to declare an emergency and postpone or cancel the election. He can simply tell his supporters that there is no danger, and Dems will be telling their supporters that there is one, and let human nature take its course. Put out a lot of negative ads targeting democrats on facebook about the dangers of polling places, the risk of viruses, and just win that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Again, I said that I don't know how bad it'll be. If polling indicates people are terrified of going out to vote, especially older people who are the most at-risk, I think that Pelosi wouldn't be able to control her caucus - especially if the alternative was millions of old people choosing not to vote at all. 

And that's the real rub here - Trump doesn't have to declare an emergency and postpone or cancel the election. He can simply tell his supporters that there is no danger, and Dems will be telling their supporters that there is one, and let human nature take its course. Put out a lot of negative ads targeting democrats on facebook about the dangers of polling places, the risk of viruses, and just win that way. 

I find your unilateral disarmament scenario fantastical.  In addition, if there is one party that would be particularly vulnerable to everyone over 60 staying home, it is the Republicans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the KARMA! And I love that he's trying to say that he wore the gas mask because he was concerned about the virus and not at all mocking other people's fear of the virus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I find your unilateral disarmament scenario fantastical.  In addition, if there is one party that would be particularly vulnerable to everyone over 60 staying home, it is the Republicans. 

Right now older voters are absolutely deciding things for Dems. But you're probably right.

That said, @Darryk appears to be more right than he knew. While you can't cancel the election, you can do things like arbitrarily close down polling places, confiscate polling equipment, post police or military at polling sites, demand official identification at sites regardless of state and local rules. That sort of thing. There's a whole lot that the fed could do to disrupt elections without any congressional requirement, and most of it requires only a state of emergency to be declared. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

You remain tragically convinced that facts, rationality, real information, truth have any bearing on the matter. Whereas, with the quoted final paragraph of the article about the current and potential effects the virus will / can have on the campaigns and elections, it proves that none of this any convincing power whatsoever.

 

I wouldn’t extrapolate too much from one retired person’s opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...