He would need the house in order to do so.

Nvm. Looked it up.

Interestingly enough we haven't taken that tack when Trump gives one of his BS non-answers. When you make winning the top priority, there's literally nothing you can't justify.

Biden not giving a better answer isn't remotely close to changing how I vote, he'd have to do something horrific for that to even be a consideration. I'm not going to decide I don't want someone to answer a question because the answer would hurt them though. That's just bad for public discourse.

I do think you need to factor in frequency. Trump evades answering (and lies) a ton of stuff. I do believe there are times when evading or not answering a question is justified (national security, political necessity etc.) but Trump does it much more often than anyone else I can remember and does it on frivolous, no-brainer (to you and me) and unnecessary things.

Biden is much more selective on his BS non-answers.

It reminds me of the 2016 line: "Hillary lies like a politician, Trump likes like a five year old"

SI

Biden lies the way a normal politician lies. In a different time, maybe I care. But given the nihilistic fuckery that is the GOP at this point, I'm not willing to spend much time on a pretty trivial lie, not when democracy itself is at stake.

I agree with this except for the part that I wasn't comparing Trump and Biden. There's no question Trump does this more, and worse, etc. I'm just saying I'm not willing consider it less wrong when Biden (far less frequently) does something that I think is wrong when Trump does it.

It's not about thinking this isn't that important in the grand scheme of things - I agree with JPhillips there. When a number of people are not just putting up with it but fully supporting the decision not to answer the question though, that's something else entirely.

Your both sides-ism is tiring as fuck , just thought you should know

For two years, he had it. If "stacking the Supreme Court" was a fever dream in his tiny little mind, he had the ability.

i'm sorry haven't you been watching the news sine 2016

I don't know how you define "putting up" vs "fully supporting", I can see my previous response (below) arguably in either definition TBH.

Quote:

I'm okay with Biden not giving a straight answer on this. But the answers in his first debate and Kamala's VP debate was just to ignore it. He's gotten better now with the not-for-it-but-we'll-see. I'm also okay with SCOTUS nominees being evasive on some questions like Roe vs Wade.

Both Trump and Biden do it (and in general, Dems & Reps ... and of course, SCOTUS nominees). The scale, frequency, and "intent" factors in quite a bit IMO.

If I was employing both sides-ism, I'd be constantly saying they're both equally guilty. I don't and am not saying that. What I am employing is criticism of consistent hypocrisy.

I'm surprised that you think I was talking about what you said; you hadn't even posted when I jumped into the discussion here. I don't see how 'I'm okay with' is anything other than supporting though. I also think intent is irrelevant because it can't be determined, as ever. I initially replied to other posters:




This btw is what actual both-sidesism or whataboutism actually looks like. Note the difference between this and what I've said ought to be a universal expectation of public servants.


And after you posted:


I don't know how to read any of those in a way that isn't fully supporting the decision not to give a straight answer to the question.

Since you seem to have the ability to read Biden's mind and know what course of action he would take if elected, what is it? I seriously doubt Mr Norms and Institutions is going to do much of anything. I'm guessing you assume the opposite?

I don't know what's on Biden's mind and I have no idea why you would infer that I think I do. He did say that once he's announced what he's going to do on that front it would be the top headline in every paper, which would seem to suggest that he does plan on packing to some degree, but nothing I've said in this conversation has anything to do with what Biden actually specifically intends to do. It has to do only with him not answering the questions about it now, during the campaign.

You're stating that his answer is a lie. Therefore you must be assuming he has an answer to the question he's hiding. I think it's more likely he doesn't know how they will handle the situation if elected.

That's just not true. I have not stated once that Biden has lied on this issue. I have said twice that what I'm talking about is Biden not answering the question:

Truth be told, I didn't really care about politics until Ukraine impeachment talk started.

I've always thought all politicians are liars and cheats, so I just never paid attention to it.

I would love to know how it's hypocritical to support a guy saying "I don't have a good answer to that, I'm not going to answer that now" to one question versus being critical of someone who has literally no policy ideas or discussion of any sort. I'm sure you've got great reasoning for it. Or at least you think you do

The way you've described it here wouldn't necessarily be hypocritical. It's also not the situation we have, on either count.

I like that the Trump team's attack on Biden is that he's Mr. Rogers. They have literally no idea that most people really like Fred Rogers.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/52...-biden-to-icon

As for “packing the courts”, if I’m the Dems I wait until the vote happens to end the ACA assuming it occurs it the not too distant future. Stopping this vote is from happening is obviously not going to happen at this point so might as well use that as the “final straw” to add two judges.

From a strategy standpoint that to me makes the most sense in how to play it out.

Looks like Ben Sasse is the first Senator to completely jump off the Trump train and start preparing for a Trump-less GOP.

Unsurprising, but also infuriating. It has always been clear to those who paid attention to Sasse that he was *deeply* anti-Trump for what I'd consider to be all the right reasons. I don't really fault the poorly educated for being duped by a media blitz and a con man, but Sasse *ABSOLUTELY* knew better, and clearly articulated it on multiple occasions.

Then he bowed the knee and kissed Trump's ring for 3.75 years, and now that it's clear to him that Trump is on the way out, he's trying to reclaim the moral high ground. No. No. NO.

Yup. He's just showing us that he has a sense of timing here.

I don't know if it would have changed much, but a smart, consistent, GOP anti-Trump voice inside the Senate might have had things come out pretty differently over the last 3 years.

i.e. not a Susan Collins "I'm troubled," but a guy just constantly saying that Trump isn't qualified to be President and the right thing to do for the country and the party is to get rid of him.

How many GOPers were close to voting for impeachment but just didn't have a leader? I have no idea. Maybe it would have been just him and Romney.

Or maybe Dems like me would be worried that Pence is currently leading Biden by 3 points in the 538 tipping point state.

We're going to see so much of that over the next decade. They're all going to loudly pretend it didn't happen but secretly be glad it did because they got their tax cuts and their loaded conservative judiciary, never mind the kids in cages, pandemic, or destroyed political norms paving the way to fascism.

SI

This.

Although if the next President is from the GOP I'd rather it be Sasse than Hawley or Cotton or Don Jr.

Cotton is the scariest Presidential hopeful. He's exactly the person Trump supporters want Trump to be.

As any sane left-leaning person would. Sasse isn't a monster; he's a coward. :p

Like they all rallied around Amash in the House?

Sasse was scared of being primaried like Flake and Corker. No respect for all these rats who said nothing for years are now going to jump ship and pretend they never supported Trump. It'll be like how they all said we shouldn't appoint a supreme court justice in an election year.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/10/16/m...mpression=true

Looks like even when you take all 3 NBC channels and compared it to just ABC, Biden outdrew Trump in the town halls. Apparently even ABC staffers were shocked by this. Great news for Biden (and doubly so because there were rumors Trump was going to use higher ratings head to head as a reason the election results were rigged)

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

already hearing Trump apologist say it was because he went up against Tucker Carlson.

What a world we live in.

So Tucker Carlson should run for President?

Don't laugh. 2024, man...

SI

There are some who think he should (God help us)

Calling it now... trump forms his 2024 election committee and intent to run immediately after the election (or inauguration. )

Win or lose in November?

This. They had one, and effectively kicked him to the curb. Amash is everything the Republicans largely pretend to be about and at times in the past actually have been.

Maybe....both?

I sportsdigs called this like 2 years ago. Easy way to wash money and claim political persecution if he gets audited.

Plus he can continue to put on rallies and get the kind of ego stroking he needs.

I'm thinking a new season of the Apprentice where everybody has to call him "Mr. President."

(Disclosure: I watched and enjoyed that show in the early seasons. I don't admit this to people I know).

Re: polling - there's an interesting effect that I'm not sure how to explain, but in polls with Jorgensen (or others) involved Trump does significantly better, 4-5 points and enough to flip a bunch of state polls that are otherwise pretty blue to red sometimes.

I don't know if this is "anybody but Trump" or "shy Trump voters who don't want to say Trump" or just "Libertarian/Green voters sure as hell aren't coming from Trump's base" or something else, but yeah. It's an interesting subnote in some of polling in battleground states.

I loved that show early on. Heck, even some of the Celebrity Apprentice seasons were fun, usually in a "train wreck" sort of way. I always thought the the worst part of the show was Trump. He was never consistent, and often contradicted himself. When his early assistants that were with him at the judges table started getting attention, he kicked them off the show. Later, he started having his kids help, and Eric and Don jr. proved themselves to be pretty dumb (Ivanka was ok.).

Third parties always over perform in polling when compared to actual election results. People don't have to worry about "throwing away their vote" when voting for a 3rd party in an ultimately meaningless poll.

We all have guilty TV show pleasures and I hope that's not held against us too much.

That said, I have yet to vote for Bob Barker for President.

SI

Did my early vote today.

I didn't go when it first opened at 8 but went at 10. I was literally the only one voting and in and out in 10 min. Poll worker said it was much busier when it first opened at 8.

Filled out form, had my id checked and given a card, went to voting booth, pushed the buttons, printed out the completed ballot, had it scanned and poll worker pointed that the # would increment, got my sticker and left.

Everyone wearing masks, blue strips on the ground (but less than 6ft apart). Maybe it was me not looking hard enough but I did not see hand sanitizers bottle, and should have looked behind me to see if they wiped the voting touchscreen after I left.

Biggest problem was googlemaps took me to the wrong place, it was the next right.

I didn't know what thread to use, but...

“An analysis of the Georgia primary found that the average wait time after 7 p.m. across Georgia was 51 minutes in polling places that were 90% or more nonwhite, but only 6 minutes in polling places that were 90% white.” https://t.co/JRG0blyy6H

— Errin Haines ���������� (@emarvelous) October 17, 2020

I hate stuff like this so much. I try to moderate myself, but not on this stuff. It's awful.