US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

StringerBell

I like how the Church of Satan or maybe its the Satanic Temple? go about those things tbh, the Baphomet statue one a while back was quite a good case in point.

VinLieger

Brian? wrote: »

I seem to remember a legal challenge is ready to go. There’s an objection to the words “In God we Trust”, it infringes On the separation of church and state.

The satanic church wants to add Satan to the flag as well, in the name of fairness. They are pure mischief.

They are top level trolls but also they do some great work aginst the insidious attempts to force religion into state institutions and remove the seperations between church and statestate.

Brian?

everlast75 wrote: »

If he does not have the power to tell the states to do something about the pandemic, why is it the GOP ran states are echoing his stance on COVID?

Whilst he doesn't officially have the power to tell them what to do, it's clear to me that he has it anyway

That’s exactly it. He can’t officially tell them what to do, but he has a massive soft influence on the policies they pursue.

My main point was that his speech was lies and half truths again. “There won’t be a lockdown under this administration” is technically correct, because they can’t order one even if they wanted to.

Brian?

VinLieger wrote: »

They are top level trolls but also they do some great work aginst the insidious attempts to force religion into state institutions and remove the seperations between church and statestate.

I am completely onboard with their methods and philosophy. They aren’t actually satanises in fairness.

I particularly enjoyed their statue they parked on the Oklahoma legislature beside the 10 commandments.

moon2

Brian? wrote: »

That’s exactly it. He can’t officially tell them what to do, but he has a massive soft influence on the policies they pursue.

My main point was that his speech was lies and half truths again. “There won’t be a lockdown under this administration” is technically correct, because they can’t order one even if they wanted to.

I think you read too much into it. He simply meant that he, personally, would never advocate for a lockdown.

Indivodual states have already locked down under his administration so your interpretation of his statement wouldn't make sense.

Brian?

moon2 wrote: »

I think you read too much into it. He simply meant that he, personally, would never advocate for a lockdown.

Indivodual states have already locked down under his administration so your interpretation of his statement wouldn't make sense.

I think my interpretation is pretty bang on. He's a blow hard who likes to play the strong man. His first priority is always to blow his own trumpet.

moon2

Brian? wrote: »

I think my interpretation is pretty bang on.

Brian? wrote:

There won’t be a lockdown under this administration” is technically correct, because they can’t order one even if they wanted to.

There's nothing technically correct about that particular statement. It's a lie.

There have been lockdowns under his administration, ones which his administration has not supported. There can still be further lockdowns under his administration, and he'll also not support those.

If he were pro-lockdown (i.e if he were focused on reducing mortality rather than minimising very short term fluctuations in the stock market), then I can only imagine there would have been more acceptence of this measure and more states would've adopted it.

Trump is against most measures which would curtail the spread for some inexplicable reason. This is why america has experienced one of the worst mortality rates in the world.

Edit: after rereading the past few posts I think I overly focused on this particular line and we're actually in broad agreement

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

I seem to remember a legal challenge is ready to go. There’s an objection to the words “In God we Trust”, it infringes On the separation of church and state.

The satanic church wants to add Satan to the flag as well, in the name of fairness. They are pure mischief.

SCOTUS declined to hear this subject thus far, most recently in 2019, but numerous such cases have reached the various Circuit Courts of Appeal. They universally have ruled that the verbiage can stand.

At this stage, a US Presidential Election 2020 thread is being brought down a rabbit hole. It's all very academically interesting, but really its not adding a whole lot to the question of how the Election process is playing out. And I'm not having a pop at you; many of us have taken steps down the rabbit hole along with you.

That's fair, but it was started by the question of how to deal with the increasing factiousness of the US as a larger political body with respect to the range of policy proposals and their appeal to the various voters.

amandstu

moon2 wrote: »

Trump is against most measures which would curtail the spread for some inexplicable reason.

Picking a winning side? (He almost managed it. Would you call that evil genius? Whatever it takes)

eire4

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Fair comment in terms of the photo.

However, and I am truly in awe of this fact, the flag you mention has been retired as the State flag since June of this year.

The new flag, a much more beautiful symbol of Statehood is described here:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mississippi&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj30cmWnoHtAhVSXMAKHZ-qCjMQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw170R7u51Egl_CTST-oUtvO

All it needs is State legislature passing it into law.

Frankly, that simple move fills me with hope! In times of despair, this should fill us with so much joy, and gratitude for/to those who

1. fought so long to make it happen, and
2. those on the other side who finally relented.

Mississippi Abú!!!

Thanks for that correction. I was not aware that Mississippi had finally replaced their racists state flag with a modern non racist one. Pity they had to impose religion on the new one but a step forward so that at least is a positive.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

I seem to remember a legal challenge is ready to go. There’s an objection to the words “In God we Trust”, it infringes On the separation of church and state.

The satanic church wants to add Satan to the flag as well, in the name of fairness. They are pure mischief.

They maybe but there is no way religion in such a blatant fashion should be on the state flag. On this one they are not creating mischief they IMHO are simply correct.

Headshot

Idiotic Trump supporters taking part in Rallies in DC today

It's puzzling thing that people can be this dumb

demfad

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ireland is little more sovereign than Texas is, with the one exception of foreign relations which are expressly forbidden to Texas. Both have their own Constitutions, Legislatures, legal systems, police forces, militaries, government departments, education systems, budget, tax revenues, etc, and both are subservient to a higher political body. Or do I miss the point of the Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution?

Every country is subservient to International higher bodies including the United States of America. The difference with States like Texas or Countries like Wales, Scotland is that the "higher body" is a NATIONAL one in which the State is fully integrated.
Ireland, The US etc. are subservient to International bodies and International Laws. As I remember the US military swears allegience to the US constitution. Who does this Texas military you mentioned swear allegience to?

Good to see over estimation of the numbers attending trump events hasn't changed in 4yrs.

https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1327646530103369728?s=19

Inquitus

DubInMeath wrote: »

Good to see over estimation of the numbers attending trump events hasn't changed in 4yrs.

https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1327646530103369728?s=19

There's a few thousand at most, she has clearly drunk more of the MAGA Koolaid, lots more. She is happy to go down with the ship and leave with any credibility she might have had destroyed!

Brussels Sprout

Inquitus wrote: »

There's a few thousand at most, she has clearly drunk more of the MAGA Koolaid, lots more. She is happy to go down with the ship and leave with any credibility she might have had destroyed!

She's interviewing for a role on Trump TV. Only thing that makes any sense.

pixelburp

Inquitus wrote: »

There's a few thousand at most, she has clearly drunk more of the MAGA Koolaid, lots more. She is happy to go down with the ship and leave with any credibility she might have had destroyed!

Don't forget there's an entire industry of conservative think tanks, "institutes", charities, universities and so on. McEnany will not starve for a lack of jobs, she'll find herself in a cushy number trotting out scaremongering in some deep Red neck of the country.

Manic Moran

demfad wrote: »

Every country is subservient to International higher bodies including the United States of America. The difference with States like Texas or Countries like Wales, Scotland is that the "higher body" is a NATIONAL one in which the State is fully integrated.
Ireland, The US etc. are subservient to International bodies and International Laws. As I remember the US military swears allegience to the US constitution. Who does this Texas military you mentioned swear allegience to?

Texas Government Code Chapter 431.
"I, ________________________, do solemnly swear that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the State of Texas and to the
United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and
faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever, and that I will
obey the orders of the governor of Texas, and the orders of the
officers appointed over me, according to the laws, rules, and
articles for the government of the military forces of the State of
Texas."

The US does not accept that it is subserviant to any higher bodies than the US. This has been settled in the US Supreme Court, it merely chooses to comply with the agreements it makes.

Again, the bottom line is that there is almost nothing in terms of policy which a State cannot do that any other independent nation can, from healthcare to education, should it choose to do so. And there are various things that the higher body (US federal government) are specifically prohibited from doing at the State level, which is a restriction most national governments don't have.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Texas Government Code Chapter 431.
"I, ________________________, do solemnly swear that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the State of Texas and to the
United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and
faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever, and that I will
obey the orders of the governor of Texas, and the orders of the
officers appointed over me, according to the laws, rules, and
articles for the government of the military forces of the State of
Texas."

The US does not accept that it is subserviant to any higher bodies than the US. This has been settled in the US Supreme Court, it merely chooses to comply with the agreements it makes.

Again, the bottom line is that there is almost nothing in terms of policy which a State cannot do that any other independent nation can, from healthcare to education, should it choose to do so. And there are various things that the higher body (US federal government) are specifically prohibited from doing at the State level, which is a restriction most national governments don't have.

So no federal laws can kick in within states then . ? As this is the picture you are painting. You are making out that stated are effectively countries seperate completely and with their own personal military.

And Ireland is like let's say Nevada for example. Rather than Ireland being a country it's subservient to the EU .


Intriguing.

Brussels Sprout

For my sins I had a look at NewsMax TV earlier. They have a ticker at the bottom of the screen that shows all of the close swing states in both the Presidential election and the Senate. A couple of things I noticed:

1. They have not called the Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada or Wisconsin races for President. An abundance of caution you ask? Well no, because they have called North Carolina for Trump which has a closer margin then Nevada. the overall effect of this is that in NewsMax land Biden is not the projected winner.
2. They have the Georgia Senate race result displayed as: Purdue 50% Ossoff 48%. This is subtle since they have basically just rounded up Purdue's actual result of 49.7%. There's a big difference psychologically though between those 2 numbers and makes it look like Purdue has already won a majority of the vote.
3. In the Senate Races they show the name of candidate who is leading first. However in the Presidential election races Trump's name is always shown first, even in the states where he's several % behind.

jamule

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

For my sins I had a look at NewsMax TV earlier. They have a ticker at the bottom of the screen that shows all of the close swing states in both the Presidential election and the Senate. A couple of things I noticed:

1. They have not called the Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada or Wisconsin races for President. An abundance of caution you ask? Well no, because they have called North Carolina for Trump which has a closer margin then Nevada. the overall effect of this is that in NewsMax land Biden is not the projected winner.
2. They have the Georgia Senate race result displayed as: Purdue 50% Ossoff 48%. This is subtle since they have basically just rounded up Purdue's actual result of 49.7%. There's a big difference psychologically though between those 2 numbers and makes it look like Purdue has already won a majority of the vote.
3. In the Senate Races they show the name of candidate who is leading first. However in the Presidential election races Trump's name is always shown first, even in the states where he's several % behind.

well done, thats great work, v brave. wouldn't have it jn me to click on it

fly_agaric

listermint wrote: »

And Ireland is like let's say Nevada for example. Rather than Ireland being a country it's subservient to the EU .


Intriguing.

Well it is the Brexiter conception of the EU. A federation ("EUSSR") run out of Brussels or Berlin (whichever is the target of the 2 minutes hate) where the "states" have lost their national sovereignty.
Suppose the new look US conservatives/republicans have now fully absorbed these beliefs from their UK pals (& media) by osmosis.

jill_valentine

eire4 wrote: »

Thanks for that correction. I was not aware that Mississippi had finally replaced their racists state flag with a modern non racist one. Pity they had to impose religion on the new one but a step forward so that at least is a positive.

It is, but I have to say it is a particularly lovely flag otherwise.

Tired Gardener

Just seen the Trump supporters march, quite worrying that such a large gathering went ahead during a pandemic of a highly contiguous virus. Not the best move.

I do get the feeling that Trump will leave as much chaos and civil unrest as he possibly can. If he is going to run again in 2024, he may see it advantageous to let Biden inherite as much damage as he (Trump) can muster.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does a false flag to get his more fanatical followers into action on a large scale.

Biden, sadly could be about to face one of the most difficult transactions of administration. We may not be clear of Trump's disaster just yet.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

So no federal laws can kick in within states then . ? As this is the picture you are painting. You are making out that stated are effectively countries seperate completely and with their own personal military.

And Ireland is like let's say Nevada for example. Rather than Ireland being a country it's subservient to the EU .


Intriguing.

Pretty much, though I never said Ireland wasn't a country. I am taking that you're attempting to be satirical, but you're pretty much correct about Nevada.

There are very few domestic policies which can be enacted by Ireland which cannot be enacted by Nevada with full force of law completely independent to what happens elsewhere in the Union, no other State has any legal rights or jurisdiction within the borders of Nevada. And the Feds have very specific limits on what they can or cannot do. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the fifty states are sovereign entities, most recently in 2018 (Gamble v United States), and retain sovereign immunities in Federal courts (see Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida). The State and the Union are two separate jurisdictions, which happen to geographically overlap, it's why State courts cannot prosecute Federal crimes and federal courts cannot prosecute state crimes, it is also why the Fifth Amendment protections in the US constitution against double jeopardy does not apply to a single act prosecuted by both State and Federal judicial systems. See also Printz v United States: The US Government cannot force a State agency to enforce Federal laws (The States can choose to do so, but the US government has no authority to order them to). Printz was a gun control case, but these days the distinction is most public with reference to immigration and 'sanctuary cities'. After all, if California and San Francisco were subject to the control of D.C., they would not be able to make such a declaration, right? Sanctuary cities did not make SCOTUS, they didn't take the case and let the Ninth Circuit holding in US v California (2019) stand, which also relied on Printz, saying "the federal government was free to expect as much as it wanted, but it could not require California’s cooperation without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment"

Again, the bottom line here actually relevant to this thread is that the politicians can enact pretty much any subject of their policy agendas, from healthcare to police reform to pollution control at the State level, without caring about whether people in other States object to them or not.

MJohnston

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, the bottom line here actually relevant to this thread is that the politicians can enact pretty much any subject of their policy agendas, from healthcare to police reform to pollution control at the State level, without caring about whether people in other States object to them or not.

Hmm no. For the most recent example of this not being true, take a look at the legal hurdles California has faced trying to enact more drastic emissions standards than the country as a whole.

prawnsambo

MJohnston wrote: »

Hmm no. For the most recent example of this not being true, take a look at the legal hurdles California has faced trying to enact more drastic emissions standards than the country as a whole.

Also states can't enact laws that are contrary to the US constitution. So they can have their own laws and constitutions, but always subservient to the US constitution and federal law/decisions by SCOTUS. ANd of course there are federal taxes and federal subsidies. Which are enormous in some cases.

Windmill100000

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Just seen the Trump supporters march, quite worrying that such a large gathering went ahead during a pandemic of a highly contiguous virus. Not the best move.

I do get the feeling that Trump will leave as much chaos and civil unrest as he possibly can. If he is going to run again in 2024, he may see it advantageous to let Biden inherite as much damage as he (Trump) can muster.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does a false flag to get his more fanatical followers into action on a large scale.

Biden, sadly could be about to face one of the most difficult transactions of administration. We may not be clear of Trump's disaster just yet.

It wouldn't be in his best interests to do that. It will be highlighted at every opportunity and look terrible.

looksee

Windmill100000 wrote: »

It wouldn't be in his best interests to do that. It will be highlighted at every opportunity and look terrible.

It doesn't seem to matter what he does or how bad it looks, his followers will support him anyway. In fact what many of us see as 'bad' his followers see as 'strong' or 'owning the libs' or other nonsense ideas.

Windmill100000

looksee wrote: »

It doesn't seem to matter what he does or how bad it looks, his followers will support him anyway. In fact what many of us see as 'bad' his followers see as 'strong' or 'owning the libs' or other nonsense ideas.

Not everyone that voted for him believes every word he says is Gospel. It's those that he will need and it's those that he will lose.