2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

RobertKK wrote: »

Supreme court justice Ginsburg says she regrets criticising Trump.

It was a very stupid move by her, and the fact that Bill Clinton appointed her raises many questions about her and her motives.
Trump was right to ask her to resign for what she did, it was highly unprofessional and it was directly interfering in the democratic process.

If she really did regret what she said, she would have resigned. Wrong on so many levels what she did.

I think her recent actions will cause her to retire in the near future. Regardless if Trump wins or not, she will be asked to recuse herself from any case involving something Trump campaigned on. Her unhinged assault on Trump has now destroyed her legacy on the bench, IMO. And when she moves to New Zealand (which she has hinted she would do if Trump wins), she should be very comfortable with her questionable rulings on the bench... because they don’t even have a constitution.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

I think her recent actions will cause her to retire in the near future.

SHe's already said she'll retire in the next term.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and it's not like Alito has ever hidden his contempt for Obama.

Why? Just because he shook his head and mouthed “Not True” when Obama misrepresented a SCOTUS ruling during a State of the Union Address? And you think that compares to what Notorious RBG did?

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Why? Just because he shook his head and mouthed “Not True” when Obama misrepresented a SCOTUS ruling during a State of the Union Address?

Scalia usually didnt even show up for the State of The Union Addresses. A huge show of disrespect.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Why? Just because he shook his head and mouthed “Not True” when Obama misrepresented a SCOTUS ruling during a State of the Union Address? And you think that compares to what Notorious RBG did?

I was thinking more of the speech where he tacitly described Obama's re-election as "a moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril."

As for her recusing herself because she's expressed an opinion: come on. You know that's not how the Supreme Court works. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump didn't know it - he doesn't seem to know much of anything about how any branch of government works - but I would expect any seasoned observer of the American political scene to understand that judges only recuse themselves if they have a material conflict of interest, not if they have an opinion.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was thinking more of the speech where he tacitly described Obama's re-election as "a moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril."

As for her recusing herself because she's expressed an opinion: come on. You know that's not how the Supreme Court works. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump didn't know it - he doesn't seem to know much of anything about how any branch of government works - but I would expect any seasoned observer of the American political scene to understand that judges only recuse themselves if they have a material conflict of interest, not if they have an opinion.

You’re referring to when he defended the SCOTUS’s ruling on Citizen United, where he lamented the First Amendment had only protected certain privileged collective voices like Newspapers and Unions?

And, come on, you know there is no basis for asking a judge to recuse themselves based on how we think they feel... but there is a basis when they verbally make their intentions clear beforehand.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

You’re referring to when he defended the SCOTUS’s ruling on Citizen United, where he lamented the First Amendment had only protected certain privileged collective voices like Newspapers and Unions?

I must have missed this, can you expand on how he was defending Obama or provide a transcript? Because "a moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril" doesn't sound like a particularly strong defense of someone.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

You’re referring to when he defended the SCOTUS’s ruling on Citizen United, where he lamented the First Amendment had only protected certain privileged collective voices like Newspapers and Unions?

Nope. I'm talking about his keynote address to the Federalist Society.

Just so we're clear: are you trying to argue that Alito doesn't despise Obama?

And, come on, you know there is no basis for asking a judge to recuse themselves based on how we think they feel... but there is a basis when they verbally make their intentions clear beforehand.

I guess I gave you too much credit. She didn't make any intentions clear; she expressed an opinion of a candidate.

If you believe that she is incapable of separating her views on legal cases from her opinion of presidential candidates - and, worse, that she would have been capable of so doing had she not expressed her views publicly - you'll find yourself largely alone in that view.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. I'm talking about his keynote address to the Federalist Society.

So was I. I guess we have different takes on the speech.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/alito-takes-on-critics-of-citizens-united/

Just so we're clear: are you trying to argue that Alito doesn't despise Obama?

No, he probably does despise Obama, but unlike RGB we don’t really know for sure, and can’t form a basis on which to petition him to recuse himself from legal matters argued on behalf of the President.

I guess I gave you too much credit. She didn't make any intentions clear; she expressed an opinion of a candidate.

If you believe that she is incapable of separating her views on legal cases from her opinion of presidential candidates - and, worse, that she would have been capable of so doing had she not expressed her views publicly - you'll find yourself largely alone in that view.

Even the liberal New York Times wrote a piece entitled...
Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

From the NYT piece…

As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?

Apparently even many on the Left feel she is “incapable of separating her views on legal cases from her opinion of presidential candidates.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/donald-trump-is-right-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html?_r=0

Doesn't sound to me like the cheese stands alone.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Scalia usually didnt even show up for the State of The Union Addresses. A huge show of disrespect.

I personally don't think any of the justices should show up for any State of the Union Addresses given by any President. I know they usually don't clap for any statements made, but I think they should not be there in the first place. They should appear separate from what has become little more than just another political speech given by the President these days.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

I must have missed this, can you expand on how he was defending Obama or provide a transcript? Because "a moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril" doesn't sound like a particularly strong defense of someone.

I think you misunderstood. He wasn't defending Obama. And the "a moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril" comment was something he quoted from Charles A Reich's book (who was also his constitutional law professor at Yale) "The Greening of America" in regards to a frightening picture of a disintegrating society. I believe few here in the states would argue against the fact that we have witnessed a disintegrating society in recent years.

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately every one of those maps has him winning Ohio while 4/5 have him winning Florida. Also 4/5 have him winning Wisconsin which no Republican has done since Reagan. Also every single one has him winning Virginia. Also every single one has him winning both Utah and Arizona. Those 5/5 states (Ohio, Virginia, Utah, Arizona) add up to 48 delegates or a swing of 96. Never mind the 4/5s (Florida and Wisconsin) which add to 39.

Trump is currently ahead in the polls in Florida. A couple of recent polls put Trump and Clinton in a 39%-39% dead heat in Ohio. I think a lot of how Ohio goes depends on Governor John Kasich, who is still mighty pissed with Trump. But nothing heals wounds in politics faster than a big fat juicy government appointment... Just ask Hillary. With his temperament and demeanor I could see Kasich as the next Secretary of State. I could see Trump winning Wisconsin (look at what Scott Walker did), Utah and Arizona. Virginia might be a problem especially if Clinton picks Tim Kaine as her running mate.

Its dead Jim

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Republicans are also including opposition to gay marriage in their party platform. They're going to work to redefine marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Does this mean previous same sex marriages will be annulled?

Thats really going to help them in a Red but socially liberal state like Wisconsin. Its also one more divisive issue that it would seem wise for them to just shut up about at this point.

I think they also put in that they support conversion therapy for gay people. Cant say Im surprised that they think those things, just surprised that they would actually put it on paper.

RobertKK

CNN last night were showing the polls and how Trump has to swing three states to be President - Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

They stated one major problem Hillary Clinton has is her honesty ratings.
37% of polled people said they believe she is honest, 50% believe Trump is honest.

Amerika

RobertKK wrote: »

CNN last night were showing the polls and how Trump has to swing three states to be President - Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

They stated one major problem Hillary Clinton has is her honesty ratings.
37% of polled people said they believe she is honest, 50% believe Trump is honest.

The FBI still won’t comment to the questions if there is an investigation going on into possible pay-to-play schemes regarding the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation dealings, especially while she was SoS, will haunt her integrity and hurt her honesty factor throughout the election, IMO.

Comely's statement regarding her handling of her basement email server and probable hacking by enemies of classified and top secret information, pretty much labeled her as unqualified to be President.

HensVassal

sanders was and is a complete fake. Look at his voting record. He was stuffed in there to gauge the mood of what Joe public might want. To even place any truck in this farce is to drop to one knee and bet money on a WWF wrestling match. People yammering about caucuses this and primaries that are laughable.
The US elections are the biggest farce since talk shows became de rigeur.

Billy86

HensVassal wrote: »

sanders was and is a complete fake. Look at his voting record. He was stuffed in there to gauge the mood of what Joe public might want. To even place any truck in this farce is to drop to one knee and bet money on a WWF wrestling match. People yammering about caucuses this and primaries that are laughable.
The US elections are the biggest farce since talk shows became de rigeur.

Please expand. I don't mean to say you're being dishonest, but I hadn't heard much of him before the primary cycle, so would appreciate if you could expand on your comment.

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

Florida, Utah and Arizona will be interesting to watch.

Florida is a big question mark. The republican governor is unpopular. They have a large hispanic population and also a large retiree population who will be paying close attention to trumps plans for privatizing social security. (Retirees dont like the idea of tying their pensions to the stock market).

Florida will be blue by 4-5%. The Dems have won it the last 2 times and all the stuff you mentioned favours Clinton.

And Utah. Will Mitt romneys campaign against trump swing the state to blue? Its highly unlikely but Mormons are a close knit bunch and I expect the mitt vs donald feud is getting a lot more press in Utah than outside it. trump is certainly going to have to put in some time/money to keep utah red.

Utah will just about stay red, though amazing that there's any chance it could be in play.

Amerika wrote: »

Trump is currently ahead in the polls in Florida. A couple of recent polls put Trump and Clinton in a 39%-39% dead heat in Ohio. I think a lot of how Ohio goes depends on Governor John Kasich, who is still mighty pissed with Trump. But nothing heals wounds in politics faster than a big fat juicy government appointment... Just ask Hillary. With his temperament and demeanor I could see Kasich as the next Secretary of State. I could see Trump winning Wisconsin (look at what Scott Walker did), Utah and Arizona. Virginia might be a problem especially if Clinton picks Tim Kaine as her running mate.

Seems like Quinnipac are going down the Rasmussen road.

PopePalpatine

Deleted User wrote: »

Utah will just about stay red, though amazing that there's any chance it could be in play.

Do you see any chance of it declaring for Gary Johnson? Granted, it's a socially conservative state which won't like Johnson's pro-choice, pro-marriage equality stances.

InTheTrees

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Do you see any chance of it declaring for Gary Johnson? Granted, it's a socially conservative state which won't like Johnson's pro-choice, pro-marriage equality stances.

Apparently Mike Pense, Trumps likely VP pick, doesnt believe in evolution so that should help him in utah.

Black Swan

InTheTrees wrote: »

In an interesting move Trump as give a speaking slot at the convention to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Bondi is the attorney general who dropped the Trump University case in Florida after personally soliciting a $25,000 campaign donation from him.

An interesting decision by the trump campaign, so we can expect the Trump University story to take on new legs.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/presumptive-republican-nominee-cant-shake-trump-u-controversy

Indeed, the coincidental or alleged $25,000 reelection bribe by Trump of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to not charge Donald Trump with alleged Fraud in Florida should draw more attention given that Trump continues to reward Bondi with a speaking slot during the RNC. Why is the so-called left leaning news media not all over this issue, beating the (alleged) corruption drums about Donald Trump? Why not? Because the media is not left leaning in general, rather the news media is a business that is capitalistic profit-driven, and profits dictate what they print or air, and Trump University is old and not "news," and it takes "news" to drive ratings higher, which attracts advertisers and associated profits. I always laugh when someone proclaims that the news media is left-leaning, because left-leaning profit-driven capitalism seems so paradoxical and oxymoronic.

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

Indeed, the coincidental or alleged $25,000 reelection bribe by Trump of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to not charge Donald Trump with alleged Fraud in Florida should draw more attention given that Trump continues to reward Bondi with a speaking slot during the RNC. Why is the so-called left leaning news media not all over this issue, beating the (alleged) corruption drums about Donald Trump? Why not? Because the media is not left leaning in general, rather the news media is a business that is capitalistic profit-driven, and profits dictate what they print or air, and Trump University is old and not "news," and it takes "news" to drive ratings higher, which attracts advertisers and associated profits. I always laugh when someone proclaims that the news media is left-leaning, because left-leaning profit-driven capitalism seems so paradoxical and oxymoronic.

So does 'Godless Muslim Communazi' to be fair, but those are the depths of paranoia that large chunks of the Republican voter base are in.

You could tell plenty that you saw Rachel Maddow eating a baby live on TV and they would be on Twitter, forums, etc about it within minutes without even the slightest fact check.

It's why that party is fragmenting so much, many in it are ideologically and spiritually broken.

Black Swan

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously? How close do you think it's gonna be?

Nail-biting close between Clinton and Trump 8 November 2016 would be my guess, provided that Hillary Clinton does not pick Sanders or Warren as her VP running mate. If she picked either one, it would unify both sides of the larger Democratic party, and draw in many of the Sanders independents for a complete and total landslide election in favour of Clinton-Sanders or Clinton-Warren tickets. Of course there would have to be some concessions by Hillary to woo the other half plus independents, but politics has been called the art of compromise.

But Hillary is not that smart and will probably pick some governor of a state she wants to swing in her favour, for the same reasons Indiana Govenor Mike Pence will probably be Donald Trump's VP pick.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Do you see any chance of it declaring for Gary Johnson? Granted, it's a socially conservative state which won't like Johnson's pro-choice, pro-marriage equality stances.

Nah. People have a romantic notion about 3rd party candidates but even at the state level all they can do is act as spoilers. '92 was Perot and with 18% nationwide he couldn't win a state. It's 48 years since a third-party candidate won an elector, at the next election it will have been 52 years.
As far as spoilers go, there'll be basically none for Hillary, Trump may drop a couple of points in some states but that'll be it.

Black Swan

Black Swan wrote: »

Nail-biting close between Clinton and Trump 8 November 2016 would be my guess, provided that Hillary Clinton does not pick Sanders or Warren as her VP running mate. If she picked either one, it would unify both sides of the larger Democratic party, and draw in many of the Sanders independents for a complete and total landslide election in favour of Clinton-Sanders or Clinton-Warren tickets. Of course there would have to be some concessions by Hillary to woo the other half plus independents, but politics has been called the art of compromise.

But Hillary is not that smart and will probably pick some governor of a state she wants to swing in her favour, and it will be a nail-biting close election November. For the same reasons Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is Donald Trump's VP pick.

I really don't see that happening. But sure that's the way the news goes!

Suryavarman

It's official. Pence is Trump's VP pick:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/753965070003109888

Akrasia

Doubling down on the ignorant redneck vote

Anti immigrant, anti abortion, anti science, anti gay, anti drugs, pro oil, anti environment, pro gun

http://www.ontheissues.org/IN/Mike_Pence.htm

Its dead Jim

It's an odd choice. I guess he knew that it was impossible to pick someone to draw in those groups anyway so might as well make the domionists happy.

InTheTrees

Akrasia wrote: »

http://www.ontheissues.org/IN/Mike_Pence.htm

Wow. One of the truly creepy right win religious nuts.

He tried to introduce a law forcing women who want an abortion to undergo an ultrasound.

This is also someone who doesnt even want women to have birth control.

Suryavarman

Interesting fact from Matt Yglesias:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/754034269299863552