US Election

Never done that. That might surprise some, but I was always into the booze and smokes, but never coke. Think I'd seen the state of a few people in my late teens, and along with alcohol abuse and gambling addiction, in later life, it steered my conscience on the right path. Which is quite good in someways, because I believe I would have got addicted if I had taken the path of others, so quite pleased with myself. Booze is probably my greatest weakness if I had to name one, but I control that by purposely not drinking at home, or very rarely drinking at home, I should say. The main one to get out the house is spirits, at least with beer, quantity of fluid is a bit of a restrictor.

Yes @luvgonzo ...

please log in to view this image

 

that gif always reminds me of this....

 

So how does this play out?

Looks like Trump is poised to stick Barrett in as the next Supreme Court justice meaning there will be a top heavy 6-3 'conservative' majority where at least 3 of the justices owe their selection to him.

On 3rd Nov near enough all of Trump's voters will turn out in person and cast their vote. It seems that most of Biden's voters will be using postal voting to avoid the risk of coronavirus as millions will be queuing to vote.

The problem here is that whilst Biden may very well end up winning the election, he won't know it for at least a month while those postal votes get counted.

In the meantime, on 4th Nov Trump can claim the postal votes are tampered, fraudulent, fixed etc. whilst claiming victory on the votes actually counted.

At this impasse, what happens is the decision goes to... the Supreme Court who with the top heavy conservative majority will very likely come down in favour of Trump. In effect stealing the election.

If this was the other way round and the Democrats were pulling this stunt I have little doubt there would be something akin to civil war. But seeing as it's going to be the democrats getting screwed, who knows. Either way I think this is going to lead to some unprecedented dark times in the U.S.

 

These are supreme court justices. They make their arguments based on the evidence before them and the arguments put to them, not on their personal preference for the politics of the candidates.

Its also possible the Supreme Court would choose not to be involved in the process as its a purely political one.

There’s a good article on the potential problems here and the make-up of the Supreme Court doesnt appear to be one of them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ying-inadequacy-american-election-law/616072/

 

Seems to me that the easiest solution would be to send Nurse Mildred Ratched to The Whitehouse to help relieve President Trump of his quite obvious Asiatic Haemorrhoids ... job done

 

Interesting article but it only gives a cursory nod towards the Supreme Court scenario. My initial reaction to the first line of your post is that it's naïve. There are justices on that Supreme Court who have actively expressed their desire to repeal abortion, and others who have openly said they want to get rid of Obamacare. Personal politics does influence them it seems. But you could be right and they may look at it objectively. I guess the only way to really know is to see how they have voted (during and before being on the Supreme Court) in the past to get a better idea.

 

Think the reason they only give a cursory nod towards the Supreme Court is that its unlikely that Supreme Court would rule on such an issue. Of course a judge's personal beliefs come into play on judgements that they pass. A more conservative judge is more likely to be against abortion but they are not ruling on their view of abortion but on their interpretation of what federal law and ultimately the constitution's view of abortion is. Any change to the laws on say abortion would have to be passed by Congress and Senate. Only then would the Supreme Court look over this to determine whether it is constitutional or not. The arguments against Medicare, which the Supreme Court overruled, were that it was unconstitutional to penalise (tax) somebody for not having health insurance. They ruled that the constitution allowed this.

 

Whatever a judge’s political persuasion, you would expect them to have respect for the law, and for the institutions of their country. To consciously collude with an attempt to undermine the constitution would be a betrayal of the Rule of Law, something that should be unthinkable for a judge (though clearly not for a politician).

Maybe I am being a little naive, but I would expect any lawyer in an established democracy to recognise John Locke’s assertion that “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.”

 

I think the issue of the SC judge replacement is more about the rank hypocrisy of the Republicans than anything else tbh. The exact same thing happened in 2016, only earlier in the election year, and they insisted that in an election year it would be wrong for a new judge to be appointed and it should be held off until after the election, as these are life long positions.

Ultimately SC judges can only pass judgement on issues surrounding the actual law, and I agree with Archers comment here, as whilst it can’t be a negative for the Republicans, neither is it a guarantee of a view being reached that upends the entire US democratic system, and installs Trump as de facto Dictator.

Trumps is ****ting bricks, his finances have now been laid bare and his myth exposed. He’s not a billionaire, he’s a fake Brand, a failed businessman who portrayed himself as a huge success in a TV show. He sold himself as a brand and put his name on buildings paid for by largely foreign money of somewhat dubious source. His personal debts become due in the next couple of years and he’s personally on the hook for £330m.

He’s also now been exposed a tax cheat, the man who told the nation what a huge success he was, paid less in income tax than the woman who cleans his bathroom. Not a good look.

The Ch4 revelations last night about how he used Cambridge Analytica to help fiddle the 2016 election is a further kick in the bollocks for his campaign.

Of course his hardcore will remain fiercely loyal, as they’re fully brain washed, but his hardcore aren’t the people who’ll hold sway in this election. He’s trying to cheat again, and if that fails he cry foul, accusing the Democrats of exactly what he’s been trying to achieve, as is his standard MO.

He knows the minute he’s out of office he’s ****ed, as the entire cabal of liars and cheats will be exposed, so the next few months will be box office. You have to wonder just how far they’ll go in their attempts to defraud the electorate, my guess is as far as is needed, the question is, will he and they get away with it?

 

Its America so anything can happen !
How many Press secretaries, security advisors, Chiefs of staff etc has he been through .
Like you say the cabal of lies is huge and the reason his staff find it hard to stomach for more than a few months .

 

It won’t, but every American should be worried about the revelations in respect to his private and business financial woes. His position as the US president must be compromised by both his debt and previous bankruptcies.

 

It's nice to think that these justices work in a clinically forensic frame of thought, but there is a reason why justices on the Supreme Court are considered 'conservative' or 'liberal' and also why Presidents choose the ones they believe will shape the future legislature to match their party political ideology. I find it hard to ignore that, especially given this is the widely held belief of the Supreme Court historically.

The balance on the Supreme Court was a slim 5-4 conservative majority. This tended to work because John Roberts (a conservative from Bush's era) has tended to act as a swing voter, occasionally voting with the liberals. The fact is, this sometimes led them to broker compromise positions on ideological issues, or to avoid taking up certain matters altogether if they weren’t sure whether all of their colleagues would vote along ideological lines. That's the reality on the ground.

In the recent Obamacare vote by the Supreme Court, the vote went once again 5-4 with the liberals voting one way and the conservatives the other, with Roberts siding with the liberals. There has only ever been a thin veneer of non-partisanship tbph but even that will be blown away by a 6-3 conservative majority. Especially given the very polarised way politics is being played out and spreading to all aspects of public office.

Btw we can also see that influencing our politics too. Trump nominating Supreme Court Justices to suit his agenda. Over here we now have Boris nominating Paul Dacre to run the broadcast regulator Ofcom and Lord Moore for chairman of the BBC - both openly hardline critics of the Beeb.

 

A debacle of a debate, that’ll be defined by Trump refusing to condemn white supremacists and instead telling the Proud boys to ‘stand by’. A comment that’s already been taken by them as an endorsement to take action.

America is heading towards civil war.

 

The FBI has classified them as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism

 

Just an average American, buddy. Mom’s apple pie, Church on Sunday, and a small arsenal stashed under the trailer.

 

While us Brits were stockpiling bog rolls, the Sherman’s were queuing round the block for guns and ammo.

I can’t see this ending well.