And, eventually, 110%+ in key Dem precincts.Originally Posted by saltydawg
|
|
|
|
|
And, eventually, 110%+ in key Dem precincts.
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.
That might be good for the crook and mafia Biden family. The breaking news on Joe’s lying and potential $$ under the table isn’t getting reported by the commie mainstream media. Plus Russia, Iran and China are trying to push the communist Biden and Harris over the top. Russia, China and Iran hate America prospering economically under Trump’s ADM and hammering them on the foreign policy and trade front, and America becoming the world’s #1 producer of oil and gas.
Ratcliffe: Iran and Russia Have Obtained Voter Info, Iran Has Tried to ‘Damage President Trump’
During a press conference on Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe stated that Iran and Russia have obtained voter registration information that can be used “to attempt to communicate false information to registered voters that they hope will cause confusion, sow chaos, and undermine your confidence in American democracy.” He also stated that Iran has sent “spoofed emails designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump.” And has pushed content that makes untrue claims about people casting fraudulent ballots. Ratcliffe also said that while they have not seen the same actions being taken by Russia, they have obtained voter information like they did in 2016.
Ratcliffe said, “We would like to alert the public that we have identified that two foreign actors, Iran and Russia, have taken specific actions to influence public opinion relating to our elections. First, we have confirmed that some voter registration information has been obtained by Iran, and separately by Russia. This data can be used by foreign actors to attempt to communicate false information to registered voters that they hope will cause confusion, sow chaos, and undermine your confidence in American democracy. To that end, we have already seen Iran sending spoofed emails designed to intimidate voters, incite social unrest, and damage President Trump. … Additionally, Iran is distributing other content to include a video that implies that individuals could cast fraudulent ballots, even from overseas. This video and any claims about such allegedly fraudulent ballots are not true. These actions are desperate attempts by desperate adversaries. Even if the adversaries pursue further attempts to intimidate or attempt to undermine voter confidence, know that our election systems are resilient and you can be confident your votes are secure.”
More
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...esident-trump/
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?
Hmmm...perhaps they aren't as tribal as you are? We can hope.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote