Presidential Election 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

regarding the tax thing, i meant it more broadly than the way you took it. if a business owner has to pay more in taxes, they are less likely to have the cash left over to expand. they are less likely to be able to employ as many people. this is simple and obvious, which apparently makes it easy to dismiss.

of course i strongly disagree with your thoughts on the courts. the idea that some judges have been hypocritical doesn't discredit the ideal. i am more concerned with the rule of law and less concerned about the immediate impact on business in this case, but you would think a general bent toward the rule of law would also favor business stability in the long run.

also, what about the points that really are not opinions (e.g., points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the final, unnumbered point)? is it your opinion that these things are not problematic?

---

All judges agree with the rule of law. That really has nothing to do with “originalism” which is just a paradigm of interpretation. As mentioned previously, segregation itself isn’t unconstitutional under “originalist” view of the 14th amendment and the bill of rights wouldn’t protect individuals from the state - only the fed either. “Originalism” if taken a priori would also overturn precedent, and precedent is critically important for predictability under the law. Without predictability, we have many more legal disputes and much more uncertainty which is bad for individual rights and business.

As far as corporate taxes go, we don’t have to be theoretical, we can look at the impact of the 2017 corporate tax cuts. Because not all corporations benefitted, you have a control group to see what the actual impact on jobs was - not much.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insight...orate-tax-cuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Of the roughly 3.5 million voters who have cast ballots in six states that provide partisan breakdowns, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by roughly 2 to 1, according to a Washington Post analysis of data in Florida, Iowa, Maine, Kentucky, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

---

According to an exit poll these voters are hardcore lib voters and were gonna vote Harris-Biden no matter what. Voting on election day or early doesn't matter for this bunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

regarding the tax thing, i meant it more broadly than the way you took it. if a business owner has to pay more in taxes, they are less likely to have the cash left over to expand. they are less likely to be able to employ as many people. this is simple and obvious, which apparently makes it easy to dismiss.

of course i strongly disagree with your thoughts on the courts. the idea that some judges have been hypocritical doesn't discredit the ideal. i am more concerned with the rule of law and less concerned about the immediate impact on business in this case, but you would think a general bent toward the rule of law would also favor business stability in the long run.

also, what about the points that really are not opinions (e.g., points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the final, unnumbered point)? is it your opinion that these things are not problematic?

---

As to your other points.

1. Opinion, and I disagree on a “relative basis.” To compare Trump’s actual corrupt dealings to being a long term politician goes nowhere with me. The length of service does not necessarily correlate to a politician’s actual practice of self dealing, and I think Joe and Donald are proof of that. Everything Donald has done has been about self-aggrandizement, often at the expense of the country.

3-6. These are guilt by association type arguments and I just don’t find them compelling, especially when you compare it to guilt by a person’s actual deeds.

I am not thrilled with Biden as a candidate. He was not my top choice - I liked Mayor Pete. I understand why Biden is the candidate. It is because none of the other candidates would turn out the critical part of the Democrat vote to beat Trump - the black vote. Certainly not Pete. Not interested in debating whether he has earned that vote or not - the primaries showed he was the one best suited to turn it out.

The pragmatist is wiling to accept his faults to end the chaos of this presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

All judges agree with the rule of law. That really has nothing to do with “originalism” which is just a paradigm of interpretation. As mentioned previously, segregation itself isn’t unconstitutional under “originalist” view of the 14th amendment and the bill of rights wouldn’t protect individuals from the state - only the fed either. “Originalism” if taken a priori would also overturn precedent, and precedent is critically important for predictability under the law. Without predictability, we have many more legal disputes and much more uncertainty which is bad for individual rights and business.


https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insight...orate-tax-cuts

---

Pretty weak argument. I guess this means you are still pushing for the precedent of "Plessy vs Ferguson" that pushed racial segregation?

Oh wait, you're a democrat...so that's exactly what you want. Well, except the equal part.

You just want your tribe to win one case (after losing hundreds of them), then point to that as the ground floor upon which all decisions should be made. Kinda like using election day as the starting point to see how many votes you need to miraculously find in the trunk of someone's car or in a closet to put you over the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow

Pretty weak argument. I guess this means you are still pushing for the precedent of "Plessy vs Ferguson" that pushed racial segregation?

Oh wait, you're a democrat...so that's exactly what you want. Well, except the equal part.

You just want your tribe to win one case (after losing hundreds of them), then point to that as the ground floor upon which all decisions should be made. Kinda like using election day as the starting point to see how many votes you need to miraculously find in the trunk of someone's car or in a closet to put you over the top.

---

Oh the camp town ladies sing their song, Doo Dah! Doo Dah!

You just nailed Goosey in all his wondrous hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow

Pretty weak argument. I guess this means you are still pushing for the precedent of "Plessy vs Ferguson" that pushed racial segregation?

Oh wait, you're a democrat...so that's exactly what you want. Well, except the equal part.

You just want your tribe to win one case (after losing hundreds of them), then point to that as the ground floor upon which all decisions should be made. Kinda like using election day as the starting point to see how many votes you need to miraculously find in the trunk of someone's car or in a closet to put you over the top.

---

What I have said before is that no judge is actually an “originalist” nor would we want them to be. Every judge has to balance various interpretive paradigms - originalism, stare decisis, textualism - against the facts and specific issues to reach outcomes that fit their idea of justice. No one is really a purist on any of those issues, and you should never trust anyone that claims to be. They are either lying or oblivious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

What I have said before is that no judge is actually an “originalist” nor would we want them to be. Every judge has to balance various interpretive paradigms - originalism, stare decisis, textualism - against the facts and specific issues to reach outcomes that fit their idea of justice. No one is really a purist on any of those issues, and you should never trust anyone that claims to be. They are either lying or oblivious.

---

Wow! lots of terms in there. Admittedly, I would have to look up some definitions to understand them in the context of this discussion. So, in a layman's viewpoint, I want judges/justices WHO WILL NOT LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH. That is what I mean when I say I want a justice who will adhere to interpreting the law, not making it. Perhaps this is an overly simplistic view. In terms of the "constitutionality" of a law, any law, I view that from the perspective of does the Constitution allow it, protect it...and NOT from a point of view of "well, the Constitution doesn't say we can't!"

Roe v. Wade....even by RBG's opinion, is a terrible law! Yes, she supported the murder of babies but correctly stated such laws needed to be made in state legislatures, not in Congress and certainly not in the Supreme Court. Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution granting a "right to healthcare" as the leftist battle cry is. There is however, the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, which is pretty clear.

In a practical sense, I think (again, a layman's view) courts should apply the law as written...even if they don't like it, and if warranted, send it back to the legislative body that passed it with the court's opinion that the way it is currently worded, should be changed. That body could disagree with the court's opinion and maintain, no, it is worded the way it should be, and then appeal to a higher court. But in no case, NEVER! should a judge make law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Wow! lots of terms in there. Admittedly, I would have to look up some definitions to understand them in the context of this discussion. So, in a layman's viewpoint, I want judges/justices WHO WILL NOT LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH. That is what I mean when I say I want a justice who will adhere to interpreting the law, not making it. Perhaps this is an overly simplistic view. In terms of the "constitutionality" of a law, any law, I view that from the perspective of does the Constitution allow it, protect it...and NOT from a point of view of "well, the Constitution doesn't say we can't!"

Roe v. Wade....even by RBG's opinion, is a terrible law! Yes, she supported the murder of babies but correctly stated such laws needed to be made in state legislatures, not in Congress and certainly not in the Supreme Court. Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution granting a "right to healthcare" as the leftist battle cry is. There is however, the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, which is pretty clear.

In a practical sense, I think (again, a layman's view) courts should apply the law as written...even if they don't like it, and if warranted, send it back to the legislative body that passed it with the court's opinion that the way it is currently worded, should be changed. That body could disagree with the court's opinion and maintain, no, it is worded the way it should be, and then appeal to a higher court. But in no case, NEVER! should a judge make law.

---

It depends.

Do you support the judges legislating from the bench when they found segregation unconstitutional?

Do you support judges legislating from the bench when they said states could not restrict free speech, such as when the courts held that California could not restrict the free exercise of religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

It depends.

Do you support the judges legislating from the bench when they found segregation unconstitutional?

Do you support judges legislating from the bench when they said states could not restrict free speech, such as when the courts held that California could not restrict the free exercise of religion?

---

Yes and yes. But in the case of California, the court sent back, or should have sent back, the law/ruling. And in that case it was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, therefore it was unconstitutional. As for the segregation ruling, I suppose that was a violation of the Right of Assembly, again unconstitutional.

In both of these cases it appears there was a clear violation of Constitutional rights and the court(s) didn't create/write new laws, they held them up to LAW of the LAND, the CONSTITUTION, and found they violated the ultimate LAW(s). These are actually textbook examples of how the courts are suppose to work. They did NOT legislate from the bench as you allege in your post. They did the opposite.

In Roe v. Wade, as RBG herself cited, the SC made law. That is NOT how the courts are suppose to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Yes and yes. But in the case of California, the court sent back, or should have sent back, the law/ruling. And in that case it was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, therefore it was unconstitutional. As for the segregation ruling, I suppose that was a violation of the Right of Assembly, again unconstitutional.

In both of these cases it appears there was a clear violation of Constitutional rights and the court(s) didn't create/write new laws, they held them up to LAW of the LAND, the CONSTITUTION, and found they violated the ultimate LAW(s). These are actually textbook examples of how the courts are suppose to work. They did NOT legislate from the bench as you allege in your post. They did the opposite.

In Roe v. Wade, as RBG herself cited, the SC made law. That is NOT how the courts are suppose to work.

---

I encourage you to reread the Constitution and the first amendment. It says “Congress..” and doesn’t mention the states. That was legislated from the bench when they invented the incorporation doctrine after the 14th Amendment.

The segregation case was a 14th amendment case not a first amendment case. When the 14th amendment was passed segregation was generally considered consistent with equal protection. It was judges that decided that separate cannot be equal decade (nearly a century) later.

Typical libs...of the Iranian emails attempting to discredit Trump. Schumer says, oh, let's not focus on which candidate is affected, we need to be concerned about our democracy. :laugh: Had the attack been targeted against Biden OMG! it would be a huge scandal.

Trump did a much better job being disciplined tonight. One unforced error for Biden regarding the oil industry.

Don’t think the debate has any real impact...which is bad for Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Trump did a much better job being disciplined tonight. One unforced error for Biden regarding the oil industry.

Don’t think the debate has any real impact...which is bad for Trump.

---

If Biden had a shot at Pennsylvania, I think that is gone now with Biden's comment on the oil industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

If Biden had a shot at Pennsylvania, I think that is gone now with Biden's comment on the oil industry.

---

We’ll see. Biden has a comfortable lead in PA.

Trump is like a 5th ranked team trying to get into the 4-team college football playoff. He needed an eye-opening, smashing victory tonight...like 42-10...to impress the playoff committee. All he got was a hard-fought 26-20 win. Assuming the polls are even close to being accurate, Trump did not move the needle far enough in the debate.

I thought the little reporterette did a credible job moderating. Much better than Chris Wallace did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

the little reporterette...

---

What a bizarre thing to say.

I should have added, "pretty." She's a pretty little reporterette. And, she did a good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I encourage you to reread the Constitution and the first amendment. It says “Congress..” and doesn’t mention the states. That was legislated from the bench when they invented the incorporation doctrine after the 14th Amendment.

The segregation case was a 14th amendment case not a first amendment case. When the 14th amendment was passed segregation was generally considered consistent with equal protection. It was judges that decided that separate cannot be equal decade (nearly a century) later.

---

Dawg80? So you are okay with courts rewriting the first amendment to say “Congress and the states” and the 14th amendment to say “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws nor permit segregation”?

Because it is the very same 14th amendment that the courts have “legislated from the bench on” in the past on to say that the First Amendment applies to the states (even though it only says Congress) and that segregation is unlawful. That same clause is the one modern courts use to find that homosexuals have the right to marry (and all other LGBQT protections) and various other expanded civil liberties that conservatives resist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Trump is like a 5th ranked team trying to get into the 4-team college football playoff. He needed an eye-opening, smashing victory tonight...like 42-10...to impress the playoff committee. All he got was a hard-fought 26-20 win. Assuming the polls are even close to being accurate, Trump did not move the needle far enough in the debate.

I thought the little reporterette did a credible job moderating. Much better than Chris Wallace did.

---

She was terrible. Her bias was obvious. She’s just another liberal bitch pretending to be a journalist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glm47

She was terrible. Her bias was obvious. She’s just another liberal bitch pretending to be a journalist.

---

:laugh:

You snowflakes are a hoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

:laugh:

You snowflakes are a hoot.

---

LOL, projecting again.

Race is tightening up. Better hold on to your vagina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glm47

LOL, projecting again.

Race is tightening up. Better hold on to your vagina.

---

I'm sorry that the Biff strategy isn't working out for you. Thoughts and prayers.

quote:

---

Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING UPDATE: President Trump has just announced that at least five additional countries want to join in a peace deal with Israel, and says Saudi Arabia is one of them. Says there will be a big signing event at the Whitehouse.

---

This is a big deal.. however this will probably be the headline on NBC..


Trump colludes with 5 Arab states in order to influence the 2020 election. 200 former intel officials back up claim with scathing letter.

-NBC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Dawg80? So you are okay with courts rewriting the first amendment to say “Congress and the states” and the 14th amendment to say “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws nor permit segregation”?

Because it is the very same 14th amendment that the courts have “legislated from the bench on” in the past on to say that the First Amendment applies to the states (even though it only says Congress) and that segregation is unlawful. That same clause is the one modern courts use to find that homosexuals have the right to marry (and all other LGBQT protections) and various other expanded civil liberties that conservatives resist.

---

No, I am not okay with the courts legislating from the bench. And this statement stands on its own merits. Now, you can cite various cases from history and say well, here's an example of a court legislating from the bench. My personal view is no such "laws" are legal and can be and should be ignored. Now, I might agree with the premise of the law and advocate for proper legislative bodies to take up the charge and properly pass laws...even if it ends up word for word as the decision handed down by a court.

I go back to Roe v. Wade and RBG's opinion on it. While I heartily disagree with murdering babies and can never support any law legalizing it, I do understand why Ruth said what she did. And, as a matter of law-making, she was 100% right. In the cited examples, California infringing on religious rights, for instance. I would hope the California state legislature would not pass any laws affecting the Freedom of Religion. But, if they did, and the Constitution has no language forbidding them from doing so, then so be it. All religious people would be better served vacating the state and leaving California to further rot in it's own evil filth.

And if states can LEGALLY pass laws protecting segregation...then so be that too. Now, that might have flown in some states back in the 1950's but wouldn't today. There would be no such state laws in existence now.

BTW, I support gays/lezzies being able to enter into a civil union, which we refer to as "marriage." When we got married, my wife and I, we had a church service, but we also had to go to the courthouse and get a license and we entered into a legal, civil contract that came with obligations and ramifications under state law. Homosexual couples should have the same right to enter into a contract. Now, I also support, under Freedom of Religion, any church denying recognition of that civil union, and doing so without any repercussions.

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, and hopefully that'll happen soon, that will not be the end of baby-murdering. The matter will simply be taken up by the states and each state legislature will decide for itself. Some states will make baby-murdering legal and others will do the right thing. That is exactly what RBG advocated for. Only...like all libs, she put her own self-serving interests ahead of the proper "rule of law." Yeah, she stated the SC should not have "made law" but she never acted to overturn it either. Hypocrite.

Obviously, and I have probably reinforced that fact, I am no Constitutional scholar. There are proper ways for society to make laws, to right wrongs, to undo injustices, and I simply want those proper ways followed. Even if I stumble and post something that is contrary to that, I can assure you it was borne from ignorance, and not a philosophical embrace of "legislating from the bench."

Ironically, the Supreme Court basically legislated from the bench in Marbury to find that they have the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional. The constitution doesn’t actually say they have that power.

So if you really want to follow originalism to the logical extreme, there shouldn’t even be originalism.

How about that?

Trump from the debate: “I know more about wind than you do.”

No truer words have ever been spoken by Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Ironically, the Supreme Court basically legislated from the bench in Marbury to find that they have the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional. The constitution doesn’t actually say they have that power.

So if you really want to follow originalism to the logical extreme, there shouldn’t even be originalism.

How about that?

---

Now, you're gonna cause me to spend time researching Constitutional history and law...

I am reading a wonderful three-volume set on the life of Napoleon. And usually spend my reading time on that. BTW, when he was just 16 and a lieutenant in the French revolutionary army, he was heading back to the barracks on a cold, rainy night and saw a woman on the street corner "plying her trade." After a brief conversation he learned she was only doing this to feed her family. He got them a hotel room, bought dinner, and spent the evening just talking with her. She was 21 and the oldest sibling. He paid her equal to a full night's "work" and sent her on her way the next morning. Years later, when he was Emperor, in 1814, and things were looking very bleak as the allies were invading France, a woman appeared at his headquarters with a dish of Chicken Marengo (a dish named for him). He recognized her and she merely said, "Merci." He knew what she meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Now, you're gonna cause me to spend time researching Constitutional history and law...

I am reading a wonderful three-volume set on the life of Napoleon. And usually spend my reading time on that. BTW, when he was just 16 and a lieutenant in the French revolutionary army, he was heading back to the barracks on a cold, rainy night and saw a woman on the street corner "plying her trade." After a brief conversation he learned she was only doing this to feed her family. He got them a hotel room, bought dinner, and spent the evening just talking with her. She was 21 and the oldest sibling. He paid her equal to a full night's "work" and sent her on her way the next morning. Years later, when he was Emperor, in 1814, and things were looking very bleak as the allies were invading France, a woman appeared at his headquarters with a dish of Chicken Marengo (a dish named for him). He recognized her and she merely said, "Merci." He knew what she meant.

---

Good story.

This is why people are upset about voter fraud and with mail in ballots..


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ts-signatures/



Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court on Friday prohibited counties from rejecting ballots if the voter’s signature doesn’t match the signature on their voter registration.



https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...25/393/4c9.gif


What could possibly go wrong with this??

Signatures never match. It's lie to say they do. In fact, matching signatures are an indicator of potential fraud.

They can only be similar, and even that is not a guarantee.

Oh, and the only real way to signatures can match is if the signature was a stamp. But then you have to initial that or do some other secondary action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuBru

Signatures never match. It's lie to say they do. In fact, matching signatures are an indicator of potential fraud.

They can only be similar, and even that is not a guarantee.

Oh, and the only real way to signatures can match is if the signature was a stamp. But then you have to initial that or do some other secondary action.

---

I agree about them being similar.. But I could sign your name and it would pass. I think common sense went out the door on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Trump from the debate: “I know more about wind than you do.”

No truer words have ever been spoken by Trump.

---

Trump knows more than Biden about air, soil, and whole bunch of other things. What's your point? And even if Biden ever knew it, he's forgotten it.

this anti-originalist stuff is too much to argue with because i don't check in often enough to keep up with the discussion, but let me just say i find the complaints weak.

for example, i'm pretty sure the brown vs. board of education decision hinged on the fact that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" which, it seems obvious, violates the actual text of the 14th amendment. it also seems obvious that states making laws abridging freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights would also run afoul of the 14th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

All judges agree with the rule of law.

---

in that case all judges do not agree on the definition of the rule of law. if i make laws without the legal authority to do so, then the law is not king.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

I should have added, "pretty." She's a pretty little reporterette. And, she did a good job.

---

Pretty is a compliment. The rest seems odd.

Senatorette? Physicianette? Virologistette?Engineerette? Diplomatette? Vice Presidentette? Weird for this day and age, and a bit personal for me.

I agree, though, the moderator did a very good job. Way better than Matthews (but he probably got a tad blindsided by the ridiculousness)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glm47

LOL, projecting again.

Race is tightening up. Better hold on to your vagina.

---

Grab em by the vagina!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

this anti-originalist stuff is too much to argue with because i don't check in often enough to keep up with the discussion, but let me just say i find the complaints weak.

for example, i'm pretty sure the brown vs. board of education decision hinged on the fact that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" which, it seems obvious, violates the actual text of the 14th amendment. it also seems obvious that states making laws abridging freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights would also run afoul of the 14th.

---

That is in fact how the SC ruled in those cases, but those were not originalist decisions.

The 14th amendment was not understood to prohibit segregation or apply the restrictions against congress in the bill of rights to the state AT THE TIME the 14th amendment was passed. Plessy was decided much earlier than Brown and it reflects the contemporary understanding of what the 14th amendment meant. It was a century later that the courts concluded that segregation can not be consistent with equal protection. In reality, there had been and continues to be an expansion of what we understand “equal protection” means under the 14th amendment.

The incorporation doctrine is also not explicit in the 14th amendment, nor was it clearly intended.

My point is “originalism” and “not legislating from the bench” are fallacies as absolute principles. Period. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, they actually are self contradictory, when applied absolutely, because the SC legislated from the bench to give itself the power of striking down laws on the basis of constitutionality in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

in that case all judges do not agree on the definition of the rule of law. if i make laws without the legal authority to do so, then the law is not king.

---

Ever heard of common law? The form of law that exists in 49 of the US states? The entire premise of that body of law is that law is created by precedent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

That is in fact how the SC ruled in those cases, but those were not originalist decisions.

The 14th amendment was not understood to prohibit segregation or apply the restrictions against congress in the bill of rights to the state AT THE TIME the 14th amendment was passed. Plessy was decided much earlier than Brown and it reflects the contemporary understanding of what the 14th amendment meant. It was a century later that the courts concluded that segregation can not be consistent with equal protection. In reality, there had been and continues to be an expansion of what we understand “equal protection” means under the 14th amendment.

The incorporation doctrine is also not explicit in the 14th amendment, nor was it clearly intended.

My point is “originalism” and “not legislating from the bench” are fallacies as absolute principles. Period. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, they actually are self contradictory, when applied absolutely, because the SC legislated from the bench to give itself the power of striking down laws on the basis of constitutionality in the first place.

---

This is the most interesting part of your comments, to me. Do you have any links that summarize the history of this, the date(s) it happened, etc...?

Admittedly, I am perplexed. On the one hand, I don't favor judges (justices) "making law from the bench." I think most intelligent/informed people support a "separation of powers" and recognize the function of the three branches of government. Yeah, it is true, liberals tend to lean on the judicial to change laws when they can't get the legislative bodies to do so. And, I think that is wrong. But, setting that aside...

The Constitution is the law of the land, we are a Republic, thankfully. There has to be an arbiter that will weigh legislative actions against the ultimate law, the Constitution, and the US Supreme Court is the most obvious body to do that. So, on the other hand...yeah, I lean to supporting the SC performing that task. Even if they violated that edict at some point granting themselves that power. It was like they...whoever the justices were who actually did it...recognized the need for it and took up the mantle. This casts me into the category of being hypocritical...well, yeah...but if this is allowed to be the only time in our history and the SC faithfully denies all other courts from legislating from the bench, then IMO it can be overlooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

This is the most interesting part of your comments, to me. Do you have any links that summarize the history of this, the date(s) it happened, etc...?

Admittedly, I am perplexed. On the one hand, I don't favor judges (justices) "making law from the bench." I think most intelligent/informed people support a "separation of powers" and recognize the function of the three branches of government. Yeah, it is true, liberals tend to lean on the judicial to change laws when they can't get the legislative bodies to do so. And, I think that is wrong. But, setting that aside...

The Constitution is the law of the land, we are a Republic, thankfully. There has to be an arbiter that will weigh legislative actions against the ultimate law, the Constitution, and the US Supreme Court is the most obvious body to do that. So, on the other hand...yeah, I lean to supporting the SC performing that task. Even if they violated that edict at some point granting themselves that power. It was like they...whoever the justices were who actually did it...recognized the need for it and took up the mantle. This casts me into the category of being hypocritical...well, yeah...but if this is allowed to be the only time in our history and the SC faithfully denies all other courts from legislating from the bench, then IMO it can be overlooked.

---

It is actually a very complex topic, but it centers around the history of Marbury vs. Madison.

My point is all of this has to be seen in the greater context of history, both preceding the Constitution (going back to the Magna Carta) and after the adoption of the Constitution. These evolutions in Constitutional law are things some take for granted, but most people appreciate that the evolution in the application of the 14th amendment have had profound positive impact on the United States, except for perhaps in the narrow case for how conservatives view Roe.

“Originalism” as an absolute principle is popular in conservative circles because (1) it is conceptually similar in some respects to biblical inerrancy, so it is a comfortable absolutist principle to apply, and (2) It is generally consistent with conservative goals of not seeing new equal protection rights created.

It is either deceitful of demonstrating a profound lack of self-awareness for a judge to promote themselves as an absolute originalist.

The counter view to the SC being the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality (the result of Marbury), is that all branches are equally bound and responsible for interpreting the constitution and holding the other branches to account. The result of the SC power grab in Marbury has undoubtedly been less focus by the executive and legislative branches in comporting their conduct with the constitution and relying on the SC to be the judge.

The Framers could have specified that the judicial branch be the ultimate determiner on the issue of constitutionality or even that they wanted the judicial branch to stop the common law tradition of creating law by judicial precedent and adopt originalism as the sole interpretative paradigm if they wanted. They didn’t.

As a history buff, the history of the Magna Carta, Marbury, and then cases developing the 14th amendment are fundamental to the rule of law and Constitutionality.

Van Jones says Trump does not get enough credit for good things he does for black communities.


https://mobile.twitter.com/tvnewshq/...13511590547456

Liberals not happy with Van.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

Van Jones says Trump does not get enough credit for good things he does for black communities.


https://mobile.twitter.com/tvnewshq/...13511590547456

Liberals not happy with Van.

---

It's amazing what can be done when you don't think it's in your interest to keep people herded together in poverty stricken neighborhoods according to their race or nationality.

Maybe we will return back to "normalcy" soon so my descendants don't have the additional competition for economic success and can enjoy a bigger slice of the pie! Of course, we will still have to deal with a lot of racial strife every 4 years, but I suppose it's worth it.

OMG, I sound like a democrat! Fortunately for me this was satire.

Ok... I really don't think this is what Joe meant to say.. I definitely did not come out right..:laugh:


https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/statu...312323073?s=01

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

Ok... I really don't think this is what Joe meant to say.. I definitely did not come out right..:laugh:


https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/statu...312323073?s=01

---

He meant what he said, they (not he) have built a fraud machine. They even sent 30,000 ballots to a heavily-dem district to have them vote in a right-leaning district. And those same 30,000 will also vote in their own district. You can't make this kind of stuff up!

Is Harris a simple barmaid like AOC?

Published 12 hours ago

Kamala Harris caught on hot mic checking rally location: 'Are we in Cleveland?'
Harris also accidentally overstated the U.S. death toll of the coronavirus, saying it had killed "over 220 million" Americans instead of 224,000

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kam...e-in-cleveland

No she allegedly has other skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tech70

No she allegedly has other skills.

---

True, her use of lying tactics is that of a high level Nazi grade much like Pelosi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tech70

No she allegedly has other skills.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS

True, her use of lying tactics is that of a high level Nazi grade much like Pelosi.

---

I don't believe those are the "other skills" tech70 was referring to.

Harris was speaking directly to people standing in a line to vote...that is a violation of federal election laws. Of course, she's a Dem, so she's allowed to break laws.

And, she wasn't sure where she was either...which city. Guess whatever sleepy Joe has is contagious.

Obviously, I have a rooting interest and a preference in the outcome of this election. But, I also have an "academic" interest in the whole "industry" of national politics. Some of the aspects that are at the forefront of this cycle are:

* national polls - was 2016 merely an anomaly or are such polls inaccurate and will continue to be? 2020 should answer that question.

* spending - Biden is out-spending Trump 2 to 1, mostly targeted TV ads. How much of an impact does that have?

* grassroots - Trump is creaming Biden at rallies and in the traditional grassroots arena. But, are well-attended rallies a true reflection of general opinion, or are they just his staunch supporters and cannot be projected out across the populace?

* political parties - will 2020 lead to a further erosion of the two major parties? The GOP has registered a good number of new voters, but it has been partially offset with a loss of registered voters elsewhere. The Dems have experienced an overall drop, but not a significant %, and it is thought some of that defection has gone to even further left parties, and some to independent or "no party" but such voters are still likely to vote "liberal."

😃 Worth posting twice.

26 Oct 2020

Trump Jumps to 48% to 47% National Lead over Biden

President Donald Trump now leads former Vice President Joe Biden nationally by a single point in the Rasmussen tracking poll.

Compared to other national polls, this is an outlier. Nevertheless, just two weeks ago, Biden held a 12 point lead in this same poll.

“The latest national telephone and online survey finds Trump edging Democrat Joe Biden 48% to 47% among Likely U.S. Voters. Three percent prefer some other candidate, while two percent remain undecided,” reports the pollster.

Last week, Biden was up three points, 49 to 46 percent.

The week prior, Biden was up eight points.


More

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...al-lead-biden/

Rush called this today saying, when the winner was obvious the polls would begin to adjust the fake numbers to prevent being embarrassed like they were in 2016.

Relax, it is just Rasmussen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Relax, it is just Rasmussen.

---

In 2018, they had the republicans at +1 to retain the house...a mere 9.5 from the actual result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

In 2018, they had the republicans at +1 to retain the house...a mere 9.5 from the actual result.

---

I think you know that's not how to judge a poll.

How many of the 10+ seats were in the margin of error? It could be that they were wrong on 10 and right on 10 others. It's not a simple as saying they missed by "a mere 9.5 from the actual result."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

I think you know that's not how to judge a poll.

How many of the 10+ seats were in the margin of error? It could be that they were wrong on 10 and right on 10 others. It's not a simple as saying they missed by "a mere 9.5 from the actual result."

---

Oh...now you want nuance!

:laugh:

I'm counting two polls that have any sort of good news for Trump nationally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Oh...now you want nuance!

:laugh:

I'm counting two polls that have any sort of good news for Trump nationally.

---

You were with Hillary in 2016 as well. It was over this time 4 years ago.:laugh:

This isn't about who you are or are not with. If the polls matter at all, this election will predictably go one way.

According to FiveThirtyEight, Trump has a 12% of winning. It is possible that Biden is the Falcons, capable of blowing a 95%+ advantage three times this season. If that is the case 12% seems incredible, amazing, best odds ever.

Arrest made in ballot box burning. Actually, there have been two such incidents. The one in Boston had 35 ballots destroyed out of 220 in the box. Not a big deal, ya might say, yeah, unless you happened to be one of those 35 people. And they all have received replacements. The bigger point is the continued problems with all this ridiculous mail-in/drop-off balloting. I guarantee it is being orchestrated to sow the seeds of doubt about the validity of the election.

The 30,000 extra ballots in Pennsylvania is outright fraud and election stealing and no way that should stand. That's the kind of thing that should get folks put behind bars, and if the DOJ/whomever doesn't...then the gloves need to come off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Relax, it is just Rasmussen.

---

I am...

Trafalgar has it leaning Trump too. Yeah, I know, relax, it's just Trafalgar. And, I am relaxed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

You were with Hillary in 2016 as well. It was over this time 4 years ago.:laugh:

---

This isn't 2016...if it doesn't tighten up significantly and very quickly, Trump's chances will be far lower this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

This isn't 2016...if it doesn't tighten up significantly and very quickly, Trump's chances will be far lower this time.

---

Based on your trusty polls or your hope that the Dems and RINOs can complete the coup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

Based on your trusty polls or your hope that the Dems and RINOs can complete the coup?

---

Beating an unpopular president isn’t a coup. Yes, based on the polls. The polling error would have to be substantially worse than it was in 2016 for Trump to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Beating an unpopular president isn’t a coup. Yes, based on the polls. The polling error would have to be substantially worse than it was in 2016 for Trump to win.

---

The error is always consistent at around 3%. The polling was off horribly in 2016 and is again this year. They refuse to be scientific with the data collections in fear of showing Trump in a positive light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

The error is always consistent at around 3%. The polling was off horribly in 2016 and is again this year. They refuse to be scientific with the data collections in fear of showing Trump in a positive light.

---

I’ve posted the link many times over the past 4 years...the polling was not off horribly on the national level. States didn’t adjust for college education. They are this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

I’ve posted the link many times over the past 4 years...the polling was not off horribly on the national level. States didn’t adjust for college education. They are this year.

---

I've seen your excuses for being so wrong it 2016.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

I've seen your excuses for being so wrong it 2016.

---

And you disagree with the polling experts based on your polling expertise?

You say the polls are off because you want them to be off.

I’m sure if Trump loses you’ll have some conspiracy theory or grand excuse. It’s actually really simple. He’s done nothing to grow his base and he’s not running against HRC this time.

Many people, who are definitely Dems, are expressing shock and surprise as they are just now learning of the Biden scandal. That's what happens when you depend on the libtard lamestream media for your "news." Some said they want to change their vote, and there has been a HUGE surge in Google searches the past couple of days on "How can I change my vote?"

62 million votes have been cast, which means there will probably be that many more and then some. Expecting there to be 150 million votes cast this cycle. Which means, with 90 million people still to vote they have time to choose Trump over Quid Pro Quo Joe!

BTW, with the lamestream media refusing to cover, and barely mention, ACB's confirmation, they missed an opportunity to further indoctrinate their ignorant followers. Instead, for many lefties and indies, the whole process passed quietly in the night. Oh well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Many people, who are definitely Dems, are expressing shock and surprise as they are just now learning of the Biden scandal. That's what happens when you depend on the libtard lamestream media for your "news." Some said they want to change their vote, and there has been a HUGE surge in Google searches the past couple of days on "How can I change my vote?"

62 million votes have been cast, which means there will probably be that many more and then some. Expecting there to be 150 million votes cast this cycle. Which means, with 90 million people still to vote they have time to choose Trump over Quid Pro Quo Joe!

BTW, with the lamestream media refusing to cover, and barely mention, ACB's confirmation, they missed an opportunity to further indoctrinate their ignorant followers. Instead, for many lefties and indies, the whole process passed quietly in the night. Oh well...

---

New York Post is misleading you.

For S&Gs, I just did a comparison trend search of “can I change my vote” against the rapper “Lil Pump”.

https://trends.google.com/trends/exp...ge%20my%20vote

On a daily basis, nearly 20 times more people are interested in learning about Lil Pump compared to changing their vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

And you disagree with the polling experts based on your polling expertise?

You say the polls are off because you want them to be off.

I’m sure if Trump loses you’ll have some conspiracy theory or grand excuse. It’s actually really simple. He’s done nothing to grow his base and he’s not running against HRC this time.

---

They were wrong in 2016. Period. They may be experts, but they let their politics sway their work like so many other haters.

I believe the polls are way off again this year.

If Trump loses, the polls will have been correct for a change.

You are wrong about his base growing. It has, but if the pollsters refuse to be scientific in their polling the polls won't show it. HRC is/was a much stronger candidate than Biden and you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

They were wrong in 2016. Period. They may be experts, but they let their politics sway their work like so many other haters.

I believe the polls are way off again this year.

If Trump loses, the polls will have been correct for a change.

You are wrong about his base growing. It has, but if the pollsters refuse to be scientific in their polling the polls won't show it. HRC is/was a much stronger candidate than Biden and you know it.

---

It wasn’t their politics that hurt the pollsters, but the huge margin of error in state polls relative to national polls (state pollsters just aren’t as good as the national ones) and the fact the demographic modeling, particularly in modeling the turn out of uneducated white voters, was not a good fit for what happened in 2016.

But even then the pollsters were giving Trump a better chance then than they are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

HRC is/was a much stronger candidate than Biden and you know it.

---

No, I don't know that at all. I said at the time that Biden would've faired better than HRC. I'm afraid Rush and Moon are fooling you. That would explain why you refuse to believe the polls. In 2016, voters who disliked both Clinton and Trump broke to Trump. That's not happening this year. HRC was one of the least popular nominees ever...frankly, it's the only way Trump won. He's not so lucky this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

No, I don't know that at all. I said at the time that Biden would've faired better than HRC. I'm afraid Rush and Moon are fooling you. That would explain why you refuse to believe the polls. In 2016, voters who disliked both Clinton and Trump broke to Trump. That's not happening this year. HRC was one of the least popular nominees ever...frankly, it's the only way Trump won. He's not so lucky this time.

---

That is mostly true pertaining to 2016. There was a HUGE anti-Killary vote. I have posted many times Biden would have beaten Trump in '16. And, he might in 2020. But, the landscape has changed some too. There are many of us who pushed the button for Trump in '16 mostly because he wasn't Killary. But, Trump has proven to be a much better POTUS than any of us expected. I voted FOR Trump this go-around and would have no matter who the Dems had put up.

It is fair to say there is an anti-Trump factor. Yeah, true, but most of that is from the Left and might manifest with Biden garnering some of the votes Killary didn't get, from the Left, and the small % of petty, self-righteous, spoiled brats who fancy themselves "conservative" and are jealous of Trump's success. But, they didn't vote for Trump in '16 either, so that is a wash.

Trump's path to victory is through Pennsylvania. The USA Today poll they just discussed on Fox News showed almost no movement in PA after the debate...that's pretty shocking. Biden's lead there is outside the margin of error, but just barely. IF Trump can claw back in PA, I think he'll win. If not, he's toast. There is a path for Biden without PA, but it's very precarious. There is no path for Trump without PA...well, it's something like 2%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Trump's path to victory is through Pennsylvania. The USA Today poll they just discussed on Fox News showed almost no movement in PA after the debate...that's pretty shocking. Biden's lead there is outside the margin of error, but just barely. IF Trump can claw back in PA, I think he'll win. If not, he's toast. There is a path for Biden without PA, but it's very precarious. There is no path for Trump without PA...well, it's something like 2%.

---

FOX did an analysis last week, as I posted, and they said Pennsylvania is the key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

No, I don't know that at all. I said at the time that Biden would've faired better than HRC.

---

If you can watch Biden and not realize he is totally not there, your orange man hate has taken over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

It wasn’t their politics that hurt the pollsters, but the huge margin of error in state polls relative to national polls (state pollsters just aren’t as good as the national ones) and the fact the demographic modeling, particularly in modeling the turn out of uneducated white voters, was not a good fit for what happened in 2016.

But even then the pollsters were giving Trump a better chance then than they are now.

---

LOL at the "uneducated white voters" slap. That's voters w/out a college degree, which means nothing. You are such an elitist...the perfect white apologist democrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

If you can watch Biden and not realize he is totally not there, your orange man hate has taken over.

---

:laugh:

He way over performed Trump's caricature of him in the debates and on the stump. Regardless, don't you think it's possible that "totally not there" Biden is STILL a stronger candidate than HRC? That's certainly what the polls show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

:laugh:

He way over performed Trump's caricature of him in the debates and on the stump. Regardless, don't you think it's possible that "totally not there" Biden is STILL a stronger candidate than HRC? That's certainly what the polls show.

---

proof that the polls are not scientific, but biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

proof that the polls are not scientific, but biased.

---

What do you mean? What is your issue with the current polling science?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

What do you mean? What is your issue with the current polling science?

---

I’ve already told you...they are not using random samples. They are using selective sampling. The only difference between now and 2016 is the increased “non-educated” white male factor. They are still way low on black, Hispanic, and female Trump voters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

I’ve already told you...they are not using random samples. They are using selective sampling. The only difference between now and 2016 is the increased “non-educated” white male factor. They are still way low on black, Hispanic, and female Trump voters

---

How do you think they're selecting? Random samples wouldn't be predictive unless they mirrored the demographics of the state.

Most of those pollsters are trying to pump up Biden's numbers to make him look electable to get people to vote for him. Their numbers are overinflated toward Biden just like last year's for Clinton. Trafalgar's numbers are the only ones you can trust and he has Trump winning every swing state except Minnesota and he's tied in Minnesota.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DONW

Most of those pollsters are trying to pump up Biden's numbers to make him look electable to get people to vote for him. Their numbers are overinflated toward Biden just like last year's for Clinton. Trafalgar's numbers are the only ones you can trust and he has Trump winning every swing state except Minnesota and he's tied in Minnesota.

---

I've heard of a half dozen of people who have been polled for the first time in their lives. All of them are huge Trump supporters, but they told the pollsters that they are voting Biden.. This could be very similar to what happened in 2016.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DONW

Most of those pollsters are trying to pump up Biden's numbers to make him look electable to get people to vote for him. Their numbers are overinflated toward Biden just like last year's for Clinton. Trafalgar's numbers are the only ones you can trust and he has Trump winning every swing state except Minnesota and he's tied in Minnesota.

---

I like Trafalgar's methodology and think it is more accurate than most of the polls, and as accurate as any other...but, it too uses assumptions. They all do. You can plug in whatever assumptions you want and then weight them however you wish. Overall, I think they do as well as anyone.

It will be very interesting to measure how well the polls did this go-around. Of course, there is one additional factor which will mostly go unmeasured as I doubt any poll has this built in...the amount of cheating. We'll have recorded numbers (albeit some % will be fake, contrived) to compare to the polls. I don't how much that might skew the results, but it is a factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

All of them are huge Trump supporters, but they told the pollsters that they are voting Biden.

---

Why?

Exactly what Trump has stated.

Published 1 hour ago
Ilhan Omar mobilizing progressives to push Biden further left
Congresswoman says 'a cohort of progressives' will try to influence Biden if he's elected president

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS

Exactly what Trump has stated. Biden is a puppet of the Squad, Russia and China.

Published 1 hour ago
Ilhan Omar mobilizing progressives to push Biden further left
Congresswoman says 'a cohort of progressives' will try to influence Biden if he's elected president

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilh...ves-biden-left

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilh...ves-biden-left

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS

Exactly what Trump has stated.

Published 1 hour ago
Ilhan Omar mobilizing progressives to push Biden further left
Congresswoman says 'a cohort of progressives' will try to influence Biden if he's elected president

---

Duh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DONW

Most of those pollsters are trying to pump up Biden's numbers to make him look electable to get people to vote for him. Their numbers are overinflated toward Biden just like last year's for Clinton. Trafalgar's numbers are the only ones you can trust and he has Trump winning every swing state except Minnesota and he's tied in Minnesota.

---

Many in democratic party are saying that Biden is going to win in a landslide.. Other top democratic party members are saying that it could take days, or several weeks to determine the winner of the election. These two statements do not align.. So who is telling the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

Why?

---

Just to screw with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

Why?

---

Probably because people don't feel safe stating publicly that they support President Trump for fear of having property damaged. It has been well documented that people with Trump stickers on vehicles have had them damaged and vandalized. You also have a former Clinton Labor Secretary calling for Truth and Reconciliation Comissions if Biden wins to punish all Trump supporters. He is not alone in that thinking as other Cable News Hosts and "expert" panelist have echoed these statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

Probably because people don't feel safe stating publicly that they support President Trump for fear of having property damaged. It has been well documented that people with Trump stickers on vehicles have had them damaged and vandalized. You also have a former Clinton Labor Secretary calling for Truth and Reconciliation Comissions if Biden wins to punish all Trump supporters. He is not alone in that thinking as other Cable News Hosts and "expert" panelist have echoed these statements.

---

Doesn't seem like something to fear from a pollster. But I guess you don't always know who you're talking to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

Probably because people don't feel safe stating publicly that they support President Trump for fear of having property damaged.

---

Seriously? Y’all used to call the lefties snowflakes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Seriously? Y’all used to call the lefties snowflakes!

---

That's not melting.. that's just not wanting to have personal property damaged by left wing lunatics.. Having a former Labor Secretary calling for formal commissions to punish Trump supporters sounds like something straight out of Nazi germany. Yet they are openly saying things like this.. Care to comment on this??

This is why I do not believe the pollsters especially when they say Florida is going to Biden.. This is the line for people to get in to a rally held today in Sarasota by Ivanka.. Not even President Trump


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...IMG_6010-1.jpg


Link to video is here... https://twitter.com/PamBondi/status/1321143363240927239

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

This is why I do not believe the pollsters especially when they say Florida is going to Biden.. This is the line for people to get in to a rally held today in Sarasota by Ivanka.. Not even President Trump


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-...IMG_6010-1.jpg




Link to video is here... https://twitter.com/PamBondi/status/1321143363240927239

---

What a bunch of deplorable, uneducated white guys...The guy with the American Flag is probably a Harris/Biden voter:laugh:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

That's not melting.. that's just not wanting to have personal property damaged by left wing lunatics.. Having a former Labor Secretary calling for formal commissions to punish Trump supporters sounds like something straight out of Nazi germany. Yet they are openly saying things like this.. Care to comment on this??

---

Yeah...that’s dumb. And frankly, no more likely than an elected official who posts on this board who wants robotic machine guns on the border to execute illegals.

To saddle pollsters with the stupid statement of someone who has no power seems beyond ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Yeah...that’s dumb. And frankly, no more likely than an elected official who posts on this board who wants robotic machine guns on the border to execute illegals.

To saddle pollsters with the stupid statement of someone who has no power seems beyond ridiculous.

---

But do you think there is a difference between someone posting something about robotic machine guns on the border on BBB vs tweeting about it with thousands of followers and having those sentiments echoed on MSNBC, and other major cable news outlets by "democratic strategists" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

But do you think there is a difference between someone posting something about robotic machine guns on the border on BBB vs tweeting about it with thousands of followers and having those sentiments echoed on MSNBC, and other major cable news outlets by "democratic strategists" ?

---

Not in regards to the likelihood of it happening. And, let’s not act like the left is the only side playing this game.

More than likely, you became aware of this because some conservative talked about it and, thus, gave it a FAR greater audience than it had before.