Ben Carson is a perfect example. He's easily the stupidest smart person I've ever met. He knows damn near everything about neurosurgery, but almost nothing about anything else. His commencement speech at my college was elementary school level at best.

I got a text from the Trump campaign this weekend that Biden was in the pocket of Wall Street. I LOLed on that one.

Sometimes self-preservation can have positive side effects...

GOP senators fear Trump won't step down: Carl Bernstein - New York Daily News

I would have texted them back saying that they spelled trump wrong.

I wish I had saved the text. I think it was something about Trump being Main Street.

Mitt Romney deserves props. He's gone against Trump in public.

These 8-10 nameless GOP Senators don't even have the courage of Susan Collins to say that they are "concerned" in public.

They just talk off the record and act like that's doing something. I guess it might help them sleep better at night.

If only there was something they could have done earlier this year to prevent something like this from happening?

If lie detector or alternate universe, how many would have voted to impeach now knowing how it all turned out. Obviously if Trump wins or narrowly loses and the GOP keeps the Senate, it's pretty clear that all or almost all would vote the same even if he starts World War III.

But let's say Biden does win in a landslide and takes the Senate with him. They know in advance that their party was going down in flaming defeat. And they know that it's because of their ineptitude at handling a pandemic and economic fallout. They still get their 3rd Supreme Court justice, only it's been nominated by Pence instead of Trump.

Like how many of them would have voted for impeachment knowing what they know now (even if it's completely out of self-preservation)? Cory Gardner? Susan Collins? Joni Ernst?

SI

From Trumps first stop in PA


not sure how Trumps untold number of fabrications would rank, but this has to be top 3 :D

This coming from the guy who has spent the majority of the campaign running against the Obama/Hillary ticket.

I wonder how many GOP senators would have voted for impeachment and replaced Trump if they knew then what they know now. In an alternate reality, you have to figure that a President Pence still appoints the judges, still plays up the pro-life movement (only he is sincere with it), but probably does not botch the civil rights and (I'd hope and think not as badly, but I'm not sure based on his handling of HIV in Indiana) his response to coronavirus.

I don't know how the presidential election would play out, with Trump probably going scorched earth trashing the GOP and possibly running again anyway (at least I couldn't find anything that suggests that he couldn't run again if he had been impeached and found guilty by senate). Or if he would hold that against Pence, who has been nothing but loyal and kissed his ass throughout. But, you'd have to wonder if some of these senators that seem to be sweating it now may not be in better shape without Trump driving people to vote against them (do Lindsey Grahm, Joni Ernst, Martha McSally, and Thom Tillis get hammered by the Lincoln Project for protecting Trump?) and if so many Republicans would have come out in favor of Biden.

Dola. Looks like SI beat me to the punch.

Hehehe. Fair point generally speaking, but in the case of two of the folks I was thinking of when I made that comment, that's not the case. The doctor who is acting like, in a gathering of a few hours, it's more likely that teh gay might rub off on his 8-year-old son (who of course will spend soooooo much time hanging out with his 17-year-old cousin, rather than running around with the half-dozen or so other 6-10 year old cousins who'd be present,) than that COVID-19 might spread to one or more of the 10ish over-70 folks who'd be there if it happens, is definitely a bright guy. If he cared at all about sports, he'd probably be a text simmer. (He's definitely a geeky gamer type who is still playing in his late 40s, but falls into the "so geeky he doesn't even like sports" space.)


They call them "irrational fears" for a reason, I guess. But I don't get it at all.

I'll never quite get why President Pence wasn't an acceptable alternative for GOP Senators. The dude is as dyed-in-the-wool-GOP as you can get.

While we're in alternate realities, imagine the world where the Republicans are about to retake the House and WH, primarily because the Hillary Virus has killed 60,000 Americans and caused 20% of poor people to lose their jobs.

The virus probably originated in her emails.

Depends on how far the Senate went. The Constitution allows for not just removal from office, but disqualification from being an officer of the United States going forward, but disqualification isn't automatic.

If the Senate had voted to remove him, precedent holds that they would have had to hold a separate vote to disqualify him from future office-holding.

I don't think we're getting out of our end-of-the-empire death spiral that our country is on right now. But, if we somehow do, we will look back on this virus as being fortuitous in a lot of ways.

SI

GOP Senator's were way too afraid of being primaried to ever go against Trump. Most will still be afraid to speak against him even if he loses until his popularity drops in the party. Doesn't matter if they will lose the general if they can't even win a nomination. Trump's 90% approval rate among Republicans has to crater, or he will still completely control the party.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Yeah, even if he loses big, he's going to have a good chunk of the GOP who are going to be faithful to him. You likely will have folks like Hawley try to take up the Trump mantle and try to win favor - at least for the next decade.

irrational fear scenario-
Trump breaks from the GOP after 2022, runs as an independent, causes some more fucking insane than this election in 2024 and the house reluctantly approves GOP nominee Ted Cruz by virtue of nobody getting 270 votes.

"In a powerful and moving ceremony, GOP Senators observed 12 minutes of silence to commemorate the 12 Americans who died earlier this year in a Seattle nursing home from the Coronavirus infection that originated in Wuhan, China.

"President Clinton has said that the Pandemic Response team established by President Obama 'did it's job, and did it well' and indicated that the virus could have been a lot worse without the United States' early intervention.

"But Senator Ted Cruz seemed to capture the mood of many in the room when he said 'Even one unnecessary American death is one too many.'"

Fifteen thousand Benghazis.

You know, playing with Ben's hypo:

If Trump had lost and Hillary handled COVID well but not perfectly.

Everyone would have said something like "You know, Trump had a lot of faults. But the guy is a xenophobe and a germaphobe. Whatever else he might have done, he would have freaked out so much about a virus from China that you know it never would have gotten here."

That couldn't ever happen.

Everybody hates Ted Cruz.

Heh. You ain't lyin'.

I don't know where you're living, but this IS exactly what happened in our world. Nothing else is even possible. :confused:

Oh, I know. But in the reality we're in, if the GOP stands up to Trump and at least shuts down a potential Constitutional crisis, that will be a good thing.

Because most of their constituents still supported Trump and America is highly anti-impeachment and similar remedies in general. You don't get elected the Senate and/or stay there by not doing what the electorate wants you to.

I know obscenity when I see it.

Barrett officially confirmed.

This shocks me and tells me the dems are ball-less. How can they get over run twice in 2 election cycles. Shame on them.

i no rite!

What would you have liked them to do?

Right. I mean literally every Dem voted no.

Where was their fillibuster?

You can't filibuster SCOTUS justices anymore.

It was eliminated for SCOTUS justices during the Gorsuch nomination.

Yeah. This is totally the Democrat's fault. :rolleyes:

Dems are ball less if they don't respond if they win the Senate and WH. Right now though, there's nothing they can do.

Donald—I appreciate the free publicity for Borat! I admit, I don’t find you funny either. But yet the whole world laughs at you.

I’m always looking for people to play racist buffoons, and you’ll need a job after Jan. 20. Let’s talk!https://t.co/itWnhJ8TQF

— Sacha Baron Cohen (@SachaBaronCohen) October 24, 2020

Paul Harvey explaining our world today from 1965. Great listen

PAUL HARVEY FREEDOM TO CHAINS 1965 (BEST VERSION) - YouTube

Division gets us exactly what we deserve. In this case a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS.

Well done, GOP, well done.

Trickle down may not work, but Reagan was fantastic

This. And do it immediately and point to the decision on the ACA, once that is made in the next few weeks, over and over again.

As I watched that video< i began to think. Are we products of our president? Meaning, I was 13-21 under Reagan. Imagine the people under Clinton. A different generation and a different time in politics. then think of the kids under Bush and Obama.

Does this lead to diviciveness?

And thus the nation died in a whimper of hypocrisy.

I think it has an impact. It doesn't determine anything all on its own - people make their own choices. But a lot of people are closer than we'd like to admit at swerving one way or the other on respect for others, general view of politics and society, tribalism, etc. Leadership definitely can give them a push, for good or ill. Someone to aspire to and inspire them, or someone to not become like at any cost.

Don't be absurd Izulde. When it comes to that kind of thing, the nation died a long time ago. This is just the latest in a multiple decades-long process. It's not the first, and it won't be the last indignity on the path away from the rule of law.

I'm pretty sure there's good research showing that a lot of people develop their political leanings as a response to what was happening in their HS and college years. That's why Gen X has a strong GOP lean and why the GOP is fucked due to Bush, Obama, and Trump.

Any research on how people's political leanings change as they get older?

I've never seen where Gen X had a strong GOP lean. No doubting you but do you have a link?

My google search turned this up but not an exact correlation. It seems like nearly all articles are focused on Boomers or Millennials so Gen X is staying on brand :)

That's just it, for the most part, people don't change. It's really a myth that you get more conservative as you age. I think it just appears that way as each new generation has been more socially liberal. Hippies today seem socially retrograde in comparison to the average H.S. student.

It isn't perfect, but look at the 50-64 age group in polling. That group tends to be more GOP friendly right now than any other age group outside of the Silent Generation.

That's interesting to know. I have found with myself, as I get older and wiser, I'm leaning more liberal.

Chance for Chile to forge new path in vote to scrap Pinochet-era constitution | World news | The Guardian

Note the part about Friedman. Go too right for too long and there might eventually be backlash.

Not going to lie. With my medical situation and my financial situation, I am going more liberal. Dont tell my friends.

Most of that age group is Boomers though.

My reasons for leaning more liberal mostly have nothing to do with me. I think certain people should be able to get more help. If I was worried about myself, I wouldn't lean liberal that's for sure.

All the research I've seen indicates JPhillips is correct - people just don't change much. Some do, and results are mixed on whether that's an even split or more people slide to the conservative side, but it's definitely not a big factor either way.

I've seen it in generational polling as well, but there seems to be less of that. Most of the breakdowns I've seen are age and 50-64 seems to be a common split with the next group 31-49. Neither age group is a perfect fit.

I'll see if I can find any of the generational polling.

Here's one. I should have said that with Trump it just means a smaller Biden margin.

Morning Consult Poll

The image was too big, so I went with a link.

So civility and integrity are officially dead in American politics?

I think history books will all have 10/26/20 as the beginning of the end of the American republic. I can't think of anything more egregious done by any party, ever.

So I was thinking that the Dems can safely expand the court by 1 and, due to Mitch's hypocrisy, nominate and push through Merrick Garland without much blow back at all. I think they can sell that 'since mitch went back on his word, here's where we reverse the hypocrisy with Merrick. More than that and I think the Dems could lose the middle. An even court would be interesting and Roberts probably starts aligning more with the Conservatives as he likes to play the balancing act.

If the Dems do it, they need to do it big.

Taking the political heat of expanding the Court just so you can be in a 6-4 minority instead of a 6-3 minority seems foolish.

Do it, or don't do it. But if you do it, I think the politically feasible number is 13. You justify it by that being the number of federal circuits and to "flip" the two "stolen" seats.

It's all politics, but that seems like two arguments that would at least let you go on the Sunday shows and pass the laugh test.

And while you are doing it, expand the seats on all the federal courts. May as well take the entire political hit at once.

No. I am sort of aligned with Brian Swartz's thinking that we have been going that way for a while and that this (lack of civility and integrity) is what we want from our politicians. I would also add that we do expect civility and integrity from whichever side we believe to be the opposition. Those are seen as weaknesses in the fight.

The present day Dems remind me of the classic version of the wrestling babyface.

1.They are showing up to a Bunkhouse match in their normal wrestling attire.

2. They are trying to use arm drags and fireman carrys to win the match.

3.They are demanding a restart of the match after their opponent knocks himself out on the turnbuckle that the opponent removed himself, help the opponent up, then get thrown into the same turnbuckle and loses the match.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I was far more bothered by the Garland situation than Barrett's confirmation.

As far as politics-as-you-age, I was always on the socially moderate/fiscally conservative side of "conservative," so I've gotten more liberal over the years but that's probably more a function of how society and politics/government has changed than me. I've been voting Libertarian for President for 3 elections (this year, Biden) - once I understood that both parties spend too much and it's just a matter of what they spend it on, I found less of a reason to stick with the GOP for fiscal conservatism. I also believe reasonable regulation is necessary - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I'm just too moderate for these times, I think.

And like Spleen, I am seeing more of a big picture and less worried about how things directly affect me. I would like to see some re-prioritization and efficient cost-cutting, but given where we are, we need to raise taxes and I would support that even if if hurts me personally. I'm also voting against my business interests by gambling on something like Elizabeth Warren taking over the CFPB. That would be a worst-case scenario for business.

I totally agree with this. The idea of expanding the court without taking over the majority makes no sense to me.

The question is whether you want it to be revenge or a corrective. If you make it a corrective, you balance out the two seats that Trump shouldn't have (Barrett and Gorsuch), and go up to 11. Going beyond that is revenge and raises it another tier, meaning that the next time the GOP is in power even if there's a public demand for a return to balance (not seeing that happen, but it's the only hope for a return to sanity) they will still need to add more on as a corrective of their own, and the cycle continues.

The most likely outcome is Dems do nothing but tweet.

Next is Dems ask for two, but end with zero.

Third is Dems ask for four and bargain down to two.

I don't see any way Dems get more than two.

You underestimate the Dems, JPhillips. They will do much more than tweet. They will establish a commission that will review the situation. Then, when the commission issues its recommendation, they will INSIST that it be read into the Congressional Record. That'll show the GOP.

Ah, I forgot about Gorsuch as a replacement for garland, I'm good with this and this is what I meant if I hadn't forgotten about him.

And if the roles were reversed the question would be if the Republicans will settle for adding 4 seats or will they push for 6.

Why 2 seats that Trump shouldn't have gotten? If Obama got Garland, then seems Trump should have gotten this one.

This is why, politically, the Dems can't get too in the weeds with "fair" or "right."

They just have to assert that 13 is the right number and make it happen. They could even permanently tag it to the number of Circuits to make it seem more reasonable.

At the end of the day, it is a political power play. And they need to learn from the GOP. If you are going to do it, then do it, and don't worry about trying to make it "right."

The other option is to do nothing (which is what I predict will happen).

I just don't agree with this at all. There is no bargaining with the GOP here. The Dems get it done or not. The only bargaining is with public opinion. If they shoot for 4 or more, public opinion will quickly turn against them and Dems will quickly run scared.

They're going to be too worried about trying to keep the contrast between them and GOP as the party who plays fair. Their supporters have too much invested in pushing back against "whataboutism" to force them to play defense on that issue.

If Dems got Garland and then Trump replaced Kennedy and Ginsburg, the court makeup would be 5-4 in favor of the GOP. Right now it is 6-3. 2 more justices make it 6-5, the same balance it would be if norms had been followed.

Dems will probably do nothing but after the ACA is overturned, and it will be overturned, the political opinion may shift towards reforming the courts. Dems could pass the ACA again with a public option but the current court will just strike it down again. Then they'll just have to give medicare to everyone unless that gets struck down too.

Do you really think Garland and Barrett are at all similar outside of them both happening in an election year?

The Dems should move more quickly than that. They have two years until mid-terms. If they are going to do something, they need to do it soon enough so that people will be focused on other things by 2022. For the last 12 years, the Dems have been hurt by our ultra-short attention spans. They need to start using that to their advantage.

I actually agree with this too.

If Obama got Garland than Trump should get Barret, Kennedy would not apply as that seemed normal.

Garland seems like the perfect place to start if you're going court packing because of the circumstances. However, he's not going to be nearly as reliably left as Barrett will be reliably right. If you really want to balance it out, the 11th jurist should be non-white, gay, anti-corporation, and super liberal. But we all know that's never going to happen (and it would still just be 1 vote out of 11).

SI

Even if Biden wins, are we just on a guardrail-less roller coaster for at least the next 3 months, completely dependent on governors to have the courage to re-institute restrictions - and actually enforce them this time, if necessary? Does Trump actively attempt to make the pandemic even worse on his way out (slow down aid, vaccine progress, etc.)?

JUST IN: New cases of COVID-19 are up 26% week-over-week in the U.S., while deaths have increased by 15%, according to an HHS memo obtained by @ABC News.

40 U.S. states and territories are in an upward trajectory of new infections, the memo says. https://t.co/EHimtQ3VyA

— ABC News (@ABC) October 27, 2020

Finally, the Dems figured out their migrant caravan to scare voters /s

SI

I have no doubt that Trump is going to piss all over every thing the next 3 months after he loses a landslide on Tuesday. He is going to turn it all to shit so that the Repubs can blame the Dems as Biden tries to dig out of the pile of shit.

My 9th grade Government students - Biden 61%, Trump 19%
They think their parents are voting - Biden 58%, Trump 23%

This is in a very suburban area in GA.

I'm talking about bargaining within the Dem caucus. Manchin and other moderates aren't going to agree with four, ever. I think they will water down whatever is proposed, so if the ask is four, they'll reduce it to two.

I actually think the selling point would end up being that the court's balance isn't changed.

But then, I'm cynical enough that I don't think they'll get rid of the legislative filibuster either.

I think he's going to fire Fauci, Hahn, Redfield, anybody he thinks wasn't 100% loyal.

This.

I respect those who are closer to the conservative's way of thinking than I am. However, nothing I have seen over the last 20(?) years leads me to believe that adding two judges would seen in any other way as an assault on their country.

This is a really good podcast that looks at the election from a betting standpoint. I really like it because while everyone politic are going to somewhat bleed through, it really looks at it from a purely numbers/betting standpoint.

They had a year in the first case. The second was just a couple months before the election. There's a huge difference there. You can make an argument that it's only one, but there's a line after which the next president should make the appointment. One can debate where that line should be, but unquestionably a year out is plenty of time. I think it's reasonable to say that post-conventions or something similar is an appropriate line for being too close to the election due to the needs of campaigning then, the fact that being one justice short isn't a crisis, etc.

So the irony is if the SCOTUS strikes down the ACA, then that just provides an incentive to expand Medicare to All - because Medicare has already been judged Constitutional.

I agree, and this is what I don't understand given that Dems may control it all. Four years ago the GOP could have very easily done exactly what they campaigned on, except they forgot one tiny thing - a viable replacement plan. So they did nothing. Now, they likely have the SCOTUS votes to strike ACA at the very moment the Dems are likely to take over, which should earn the GOP a double whammy - clearly being responsible for millions losing health coverage AND paving the way for a Dem administration and majority Congress to do whatever the hell they want. It makes not one damn bit of sense.

Just in time for the new conservative majority to come up with some bs reason to strike that down

SI

Regarding the Supreme Court, I think they have it backwards...screw increasing its size, reduce it by 2. With the 2 most recent appointees getting the boot.

I remain convinced that the ACA remains because Mitch McConnell wants it that way. You can't tell me that the most ruthlessly effective politician in recent memory, given a Republican Congress and WH just fumbled the ball on this. The vote failed because he wanted it to fail, probably because it's easier to run against the ACA than the come up with something better.

Unless they passed an Amendment, the way that would almost certainly work is that no one gets the boot, but when the next two justices step down, there won't be an empty spot to nominate a replacement.

I don't disagree, but it didn't help that Trump was talking about his health plan shortly after taking over, the "big beautiful" healthcare plan that was going to have pre-existing condition coverage, cheap prescriptions, better coverage than you have now, gold-plated toilet seats, etc., at less cost than anyone was paying now. It was all obviously BS the moment he said it, but that made it virtually impossible for Congress to replace ACA without coming off as doing far less than Trump had promised. Better that nothing happens than do something that falls far short of expectations Chief Loudmouth placed at an absurdly high and unattainable bar.

And now.. is Trump trying to destroy ACA at SCOTUS against McConnell's wishes? What's the strategy behind this?

Or they can kill it in the lame duck session, then yell that the Dems had no backup plan.