US Politics

[Noeller]

Man, Dave told me Colin was in here defending Trump, but I had to come and actually see it for myself. Amazing...

[bustamente]

Voting lineups all have to do with who run the state, for Republican run states early voters are usually Democrats so why make it easy.

[Colin Unger]

On 2020-10-13 at 10:52 AM, Wideleft said:

I beg to differ.

By 

Lena H. Sun

May 10, 2018 at 3:32 p.m. CD

 

The top White House official responsible for leading the U.S. response in the event of a deadly pandemic has left the administration, and the global health security team he oversaw has been disbanded under a reorganization by national security adviser John Bolton.

The abrupt departure of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer from the National Security Council means no senior administration official is now focused solely on global health security. Ziemer’s departure, along with the breakup of his team, comes at a time when many experts say the country is already underprepared for the increasing risks of a pandemic or bioterrorism attack.

Ziemer’s last day was Tuesday, the same day a new Ebola outbreak was declared in Congo. He is not being replaced.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/10/top-white-house-official-in-charge-of-pandemic-response-exits-abruptly/

Hadn't heard of this one.  This certainly seems worth exploring to determine what would have been different had this team still existed.  

[Mr Dee]

19 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Man, Dave told me Colin was in here defending Trump, but I had to come and actually see it for myself. Amazing...

Yes, it’s true and,
Since there is no defence of a man like that I will no longer engage in the foolish back and forth banter with someone who holds a high regard for a man who has no regard for anyone but himself. 

[do or die]

At this stage, it would only be fair, to turn this discussion around......to perhaps dwelling on some of Donald Trump more positive qualities. 
However, I will have to let people more able than myself.......provide those.

https://www.keepamericagreatcommittee.com/

[Brandon]

44 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

What’s the longest you have ever waited to vote. Since I have lived in mostly rural areas I usually just walked in and voted. Even the few times I voted in Winnipeg I was in and out in 15 min. 

In town it was probably 45 minutes and that was because it was dead smack during dinner time after all the working folks got home had dinner and went to vote.    During the previous election for mayor I waited 5 - 10 minutes if that as we were allowed to leave work early to go vote (so approx 15:00).  

[17to85]

It always amazes me the way that people are always having to explain what Trump actually meant to say and still praise him for telling it like it is. 

Conservatives in a nutshell really. They hate when the quiet part is said out loud.

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Colin Unger said:

Additionally, these types of questions could be construed as injecting current politics into a supreme court nomination hearing. I could see a nominee not wanting to inject themselves into politics.  Politics should not be their role. 

Ok, but what makes this lady a candidate that the republicans are so desperate to seat other than her politics? 

You want politics out of the process? I completely agree however this candidate is 100% a political one so stop trying to pretend it is the democrats injecting politics into it. It is all on the republicans (specifically Trump who nominated her)

[Colin Unger]

17 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Ok, but what makes this lady a candidate that the republicans are so desperate to seat other than her politics? 

You want politics out of the process? I completely agree however this candidate is 100% a political one so stop trying to pretend it is the democrats injecting politics into it. It is all on the republicans (specifically Trump who nominated her)

The process of choosing Supreme Court justices has become more partisan since the Obama Administration changed the rules to allow for a simple majority in the senate in order to approve a Supreme Court pick. You might be surprised though that often these picks don’t end up voting the way that the president who chose them is hoping.  The Republicans hope to choose justices that will not create new law when voting them in.  The Democrats hope to put in picks who will make rulings that will create new law so that they don’t have to. 
 

I could be wrong but I think that there are very few Supreme Court nominees in the past who have weighed in on current politics. Not sure why she should be expected to. 

[Colin Unger]

57 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Yes, it’s true and,
Since there is no defence of a man like that I will no longer engage in the foolish back and forth banter with someone who holds a high regard for a man who has no regard for anyone but himself. 

That’s somewhat disingenuous.  Just because I think that some of the most outlandish attacks on Trump haven’t been vetted doesn’t mean that I hold him in high regard. 
 

There were multiple democrats running in the primaries who I thought would present a large improvement over Donald Trump. But just like last time they ended up stacking the deck against these candidates and nominated one of the few candidates who would be worse than even Trump who has only produced a few positive outcomes during his presidency. 

[17to85]

10 minutes ago, Colin Unger said:

The process of choosing Supreme Court justices has become more partisan since the Obama Administration changed the rules to allow for a simple majority in the senate in order to approve a Supreme Court pick. You might be surprised though that often these picks don’t end up voting the way that the president who chose them is hoping.  The Republicans hope to choose justices that will not create new law when voting them in.  The Democrats hope to put in picks who will make rulings that will create new law so that they don’t have to. 
 

I could be wrong but I think that there are very few Supreme Court nominees in the past who have weighed in on current politics. Not sure why she should be expected to. 

More whataboutism... and of course it is wrong. Change to a simple majority was done in response to republican shenanigans. And your drivel about republicans not wanting judges to create laws while democrats want them to create laws is hogwash anyway.

Republicans want judges who will strike down laws they don't like plain and simple. Democrats want judges who will rule on laws with impartiality, as it is supposed to be. The right wants to take away rights and it is the courts who are supposed to prevent that. Which is why republicans are desperate to appoint judges who dont believe in these rights.

[Colin Unger]

10 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

More whataboutism... and of course it is wrong. Change to a simple majority was done in response to republican shenanigans. And your drivel about republicans not wanting judges to create laws while democrats want them to create laws is hogwash anyway.

Republicans want judges who will strike down laws they don't like plain and simple. Democrats want judges who will rule on laws with impartiality, as it is supposed to be. The right wants to take away rights and it is the courts who are supposed to prevent that. Which is why republicans are desperate to appoint judges who dont believe in these rights.

When it comes to political parties there is always shenanigans on both sides.  The fact remains that the process became partisan when the democrats changed the laws to require only a simple majority. I don’t think anyone can envision a scenario now where this process won’t be completely partisan. 
 

You don’t think the democrats would want Supreme Court justices who would want to remove people’s rights to bare arms? 
 

To further back my statement Roe V Wade is an example of where democratic appointed justices made a ruling that created new law.
 

BTW. I’m in favor of a women’s right to choose and I’m in favor of stricter gun control. But that’s outside of the larger point. 

[17to85]

No I dont think democrats want the court to strike down the 2nd amendment at all. That is whataboutism. Both sides are not the same and trying to imply that is just being willfully ignorant. Roe v. Wade wasn't the court making a new law, it was about saying that laws that restrict a womans rights were unconstitutional, and it struck down laws that infringed upon those rights. 

That is what the court is supposed to do. Uphold the constitution. Just because the minority that is the right wing don't like people having rights doesnt mean they are right. There are far more progressives than there are regressives, but the regressives have gerrymandered their way into having a disproportional amount of power.

That isn't even getting into these nonsensical originalists who want to interpret the constitution as it was when it was written. The writers knew that it needed to be a living document that evolved with the times. That is why there was a process for amending it.

[JCon]

2 hours ago, Colin Unger said:

Yeah same.  Probably 15 minutes and done.  I can assure you I wouldn't wait 10-11 hours to vote. One vote is meaningless anyways. Even if my one vote would decide an election I'm not convinced id wait 11 hours given there's very little true difference between large tent parties lol

That's what the GOP wants - people to say that it's not worth waiting. That's voter suppression, the way the GOP maintains power. 

[HardCoreBlue]

16 minutes ago, JCon said:

That's what the GOP wants - people to say that it's not worth waiting. That's voter suppression, the way the GOP maintains power. 

Exactly convenience sells inconvenience  doesn’t. 

[TrueBlue4ever]

3 hours ago, Colin Unger said:

There have been times when he's failed to condemn White Supremacists upon request. However, that is because he's insulted by the request. Why does he have to constantly be asked that question when he's condemned White Supremacists so many time. I view it more as an ego thing where he's not going to be a puppet to every request the media makes of him. Especially when he's already done it so many times. Its really laughable and also a lie at this point when people like Joe Biden suggest that Trump to this day has yet to condemn white supremacists. 

The statement where he said there there were good people on both sides he was talking about protesters who were against tearing down statues who had showed up. Not the neo-nazis. 

 

 

I’m not going to even try and debate your point about him refusing to do so because it’s insulting , you are beyond convincing otherwise on this issue and in my opinion that reasoning is ludicrous. But please, justify his “shithole countries” comment without using the words xenophobia or locker room talk, and then justify his Obama birther nonsense. I would be fascinated by the spin doctoring there, much like being enthralled driving past a car crash.

 

3 hours ago, Colin Unger said:

Hadn't heard of this one.  This certainly seems worth exploring to determine what would have been different had this team still existed.  

Really, you are honestly saying you had never heard of Trump disbanding Obama’s pandemic response team? Either you are dodging the issue knowing you can’t defend your position in the face of this counter-argument, or you are massively uninformed given how often it has been brought up in pretty much Every mainstream media outlet. And if it genuinely the latter, then you have just lost your footing on every other argument you have made, since you would have to admit to being equally uninformed on tons of other Trump issues. 

[TrueBlue4ever]

5 hours ago, Colin Unger said:

The process of choosing Supreme Court justices has become more partisan since the Obama Administration changed the rules to allow for a simple majority in the senate in order to approve a Supreme Court pick. You might be surprised though that often these picks don’t end up voting the way that the president who chose them is hoping.  The Republicans hope to choose justices that will not create new law when voting them in.  The Democrats hope to put in picks who will make rulings that will create new law so that they don’t have to. 
 

I could be wrong but I think that there are very few Supreme Court nominees in the past who have weighed in on current politics. Not sure why she should be expected to. 

You are. 

1) It was the senate, which was Democrat held, and not the Obama administration, that used the nuclear option. Different branches of Government

2) Harry Reid changed the rules for filibustering to simple majority, but deliberately not the Supreme Court appointment. The filibuster was being abused by Republicans to block all of Obama’s appointments for lower court judges and cabinet positions. The Dems specifically left the Supreme Court pick at a 60 vote threshold. It was Mitch McConnell in 2017 who used the nuclear option to change the SCOTUS threshold to simple majority, expanding what the Dems had done but clearly changing the game himself in this aspect. 

3) Maybe they don’t voice their opinions at the confirmation hearing itself (although Kavanagh cited a radical liberal Clinton conspiracy at his hearing and vowed payback - nice impartiality there Judge) because it would be suicide, but many Judges are pretty overt in their political leanings well before they are appointed. And the high court decided an election in 2000, so to say the court doesn’t weigh in on politics is patently false. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by TrueBlue4ever

[do or die]

For that matter, as far as politics with the Supreme Court.......you can go back to the late 1930's, when FDR, tried his hand at court stacking.   It backfired, and the Dems took a beating in the Mid tern Election, that followed.   

Sure, the GOP can legally appoint some one to the Court, right now.  

But I well remember Graham, McConnell, and others... screaming to the rooftops, that Obama was a dictator and destroying democracy by attempting to nominate Garland, a year before an election............then turning around, and jamming this nomination through - 40 days before an election.  

Pretty well the height of hypocrisy, which has become a trademark of this current version of the GOP.

[Colin Unger]

16 minutes ago, do or die said:

For that matter, as far as politics with the Supreme Court.......you can go back to the late 1930's, when FDR, tried his hand at court stacking.   It backfired, and the Dems took a beating in the Mid tern Election, that followed.   

Sure, the GOP can legally appoint some one to the Court, right now.  

But I well remember Graham, McConnell, and others... screaming to the rooftops, that Obama was a dictator and destroying democracy by attempting to nominate Garland, a year before an election............then turning around, and jamming this nomination through - 40 days before an election.  

Pretty well the height of hypocrisy, which has become a trademark of this current version of the GOP.

There is definitely hypocrisy on in this regard on both sides.  Both sides are saying the opposite as to what they said when the roles were reversed. Classic politicians. 

[Colin Unger]

32 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

You are. 

1) It was the senate, which was Democrat held, and not the Obama administration, that used the nuclear option. Different beaches of Government

2) Harry Reid changed the rules for filibustering to simple majority, but deliberately not the Supreme Court appointment. The filibuster was being abused by Republicans to block all of Obama’s appointments for lower court judges and cabinet positions. The Dems specifically left the Supreme Court pick at a 60 vote threshold. It was Mitch McConnell in 2017 who used the nuclear option to change the SCOTUS threshold to simple majority, expanding what the Dems had done but clearly changing the game himself in this aspect. 

3) Maybe they don’t voice their opinions at the confirmation hearing itself (although Kavanagh cited a radical liberal Clinton conspiracy at his hearing and vowed payback - nice impartiality there Judge) because it would be suicide, but many Judges are pretty overt in their political leanings well before they are appointed. And the high court decided an election in 2000, so to say the court doesn’t weigh in on politics is patently false. 

I've looked into it and you appear to be mostly correct.  Certainly more correct than I was.  The Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. And then Harry Reid extended it to the Supreme Court as a response. I believe that the filibuster is still in place because I have heard talk that the democrats may be planning to remove the filibuster in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

 

I had almost completely forgotten about Kavanaugh.  However, I think we can all agree that he was foolish and unwise to have made these comments?  My point was that customarily  the supreme court nominee doesn't weight in on current politics and that there is good reason for that. It would not reflect well on them to do so.  

[FrostyWinnipeg]

5 hours ago, Jpan85 said:

What’s the longest you have ever waited to vote. Since I have lived in mostly rural areas I usually just walked in and voted. Even the few times I voted in Winnipeg I was in and out in 15 min. 

Regular election - Longest was 1hr for Fed election last year. Overcrowded school gym and it was a split poll which normally is 1 big poll split down the middle. But it was not middle of # of voters, it was split A-L and M-Z. 66% were in the M-Z 😮

Advanced election - longest was 1-2 hrs. It was first day so people were just learning the ropes, first and last days are the busiest since people only see those dates on card and they only gave us 1 table for the entire area.

Advanced last year they doubled up on everything including 6 registration and with the storm we were only busy for couple hours the four days.

 

[Colin Unger]

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

I’m not going to even try and debate your point about him refusing to do so because it’s insulting , you are beyond convincing otherwise on this issue and in my opinion that reasoning is ludicrous. But please, justify his “shithole countries” comment without using the words xenophobia or locker room talk, and then justify his Obama birther nonsense. I would be fascinated by the spin doctoring there, much like being enthralled driving past a car crash.

 

Really, you are honestly saying you had never heard of Trump disbanding Obama’s pandemic response team? Either you are dodging the issue knowing you can’t defend your position in the face of this counter-argument, or you are massively uninformed given how often it has been brought up in pretty much Every mainstream media outlet. And if it genuinely the latter, then you have just lost your footing on every other argument you have made, since you would have to admit to being equally uninformed on tons of other Trump issues. 

I can honestly tell you that I do not watch the mainstream media anymore. After those whole Russiagate misinformation media failure I decided to stop watching it because I didn't want to continue to be misinformed.

The whole "shithole countries" thing would be an example of xenophobia if he indeed said that. I'm well aware the Trump is xenophobic.  Its the kind of thing I could see him saying but witnesses are split on whether he said it or not.

In terms of birtherism.  Trump was wrong to get involved with the movement. He probably had a more credible case to make when he started the Ted Cruz birther movement. 

 

 

 

 

[do or die]

19 minutes ago, Colin Unger said:

I can honestly tell you that I do not watch the mainstream media anymore. After those whole Russiagate misinformation media failure I decided to stop watching it because I didn't want to continue to be misinformed.

The whole "shithole countries" thing would be an example of xenophobia if he indeed said that. I'm well aware the Trump is xenophobic.  Its the kind of thing I could see him saying but witnesses are split on whether he said it or not.

In terms of birtherism.  Trump was wrong to get involved with the movement. He probably had a more credible case to make when he started the Ted Cruz birther movement. 

 

 

 

 

Well, not like these are just some isolated incidents....

Just in the last couple weeks....

Trump calls Harris a "monster," suggested Gold Star families may have infected him with covid-19, amplified a conspiracy theory questioning Osama bin Laden's death, openly denigrated his own AG Barr,  attacked Fauchi, after using him in a phony endorsement ad, pulled out of a Presidential debate, called off talks for a stimulus package and restarted the talks calling for more spending than his party had embraced, and tweeted a doctored image of Biden in a nursing home with other elderly residents.

Stable genius....for sure

[SpeedFlex27]

53 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Regular election - Longest was 1hr for Fed election last year. Overcrowded school gym and it was a split poll which normally is 1 big poll split down the middle. But it was not middle of # of voters, it was split A-L and M-Z. 66% were in the M-Z 😮

Advanced election - longest was 1-2 hrs. It was first day so people were just learning the ropes, first and last days are the busiest since people only see those dates on card and they only gave us 1 table for the entire area.

Advanced last year they doubled up on everything including 6 registration and with the storm we were only busy for couple hours the four days.

 

 

My wife & I stood two hours in line during the 2017 Mayorality & Civic elections in Calgary. While standing in line, we all thought it was due to a record turnout. Nope, the City of Calgary didn't deliver enough ballots to the polling stations. They ran out & more ballots had to be shipped to these polling stations  by couriers which took hours. I read that some City employees were also ddeliveing ballots to polling stations using their own vehicles to speed up the process. Some polling stations even closed their doors at 8 pm with people who had been standing in line since dinner time because of the long delays & never voted which spartked outrage. There was supposed to be an investigation into what happened but nothing ever happened. All we got from the City was, "Oops, Sorry!"

Canadians get very complacent thinking our voting system can't ever screw up. We see the problems with mail in ballots in the US & we think "Not Here".  However, after experiencing what happened here in a simple civic election in Calgary, it's evident that voter fraud & interruptions can happen here as well. Voter interference & voter rigging can occur in Canada as well.

Edited October 15, 2020 by SpeedFlex27

[Colin Unger]

 

6 minutes ago, do or die said:

Well, not like these are just some isolated incidents....

Just in the last couple weeks....

Trump calls Harris a "monster," suggested Gold Star families may have infected him with covid-19, amplified a conspiracy theory questioning Osama bin Laden's death, openly denigrated his own AG Barr,  attacked Fauchi, after using him in a phony endorsement ad, pulled out of a Presidential debate, called off talks for a stimulus package and restarted the talks calling for more spending than his party had embraced, and tweeted a doctored image of Biden in a nursing home with other elderly residents.

Stable genius....for sure

I agree with everything you’ve said here.  I’ve never intended to suggest that Trump isn’t a gong show. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Colin Unger