Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[Val Keating]

Val Keating mysterious piles of bricks showing up in US cities overnight again

No shit?

 

[EDFL follower]

538 modelled the results if the polls are as off as last time and Biden still wins comfortably. This would be a bigger upset if Trump wins.

Not according to the bookies

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Not according to the bookies

???? Bookies have Trump around $2.35

 

[Val Keating]

It’s a bit silly but made me laugh

 

[B4Bear]

I heard a political scientist the other day say the best thing Australia could do to assist democracy in the United States would be assist them to set up a Federal equivalent to the AEC.
We tend to take for granted how smoothly elections run in this country, from polling day to the relative drama-free way in which the HCA sits as the Court of Disputed Returns to resolve any legal/technical issues about the legitimacy of candidates or results.
I don't know if it's the absolute best system in the world, but it's pretty damn functional and effective.

Absolutely this.

It will never happen because each state has their own laws for elections. With their pathological need for states rights, they will never cede power to an unelected federal body.

And that is doubly so if that body was to get rid of the rampant gerrymandering in most states.

Although this being a 'ten year election', it means that the electoral boundaries are up for re-drawing across the country, so if it is a blue wave as many are predicting; it might just put the GOP on the back foot for the foreseeable future.

The GOP has not won a majority of the popular vote in decades, this might be the chance to consign them to the sidelines.

 

[Hojuman]

Absolutely this.

It will never happen because each state has their own laws for elections. With their pathological need for states rights, they will never cede power to an unelected federal body.

And that is doubly so if that body was to get rid of the rampant gerrymandering in most states.

Although this being a 'ten year election', it means that the electoral boundaries are up for re-drawing across the country, so if it is a blue wave as many are predicting; it might just put the GOP on the back foot for the foreseeable future.

The GOP has not won a majority of the popular vote in decades, this might be the chance to consign them to the sidelines.

Can you imagine Aus with 52 states ?

Gave me the irrit's a bit during this pandemic the constant referral by state premiers going on about keeping Qld'landers and New South Welshman safe.

How about we keep " everybody " safe.

 

[B4Bear]

Can you imagine Aus with 52 states ?

Gave me the irrit's a bit during this pandemic the constant referral by state premiers going on about keeping Qld'landers and New South Welshman safe.

How about we keep " everybody " safe.

To the credit of the premiers, that is what we ended up with. I get the feeling the federal government would have forced the borders open if they had been allowed to, and left the states to pick up the pieces.

Remember they were originally in on the High Court challenge by Palmer to force WA to open their borders, only bad optics made them pull out.

 

[Hojuman]

To the credit of the premiers, that is what we ended up with. I get the feeling the federal government would have forced the borders open if they had been allowed to, and left the states to pick up the pieces.

Remember they were originally in on the High Court challenge by Palmer to force WA to open their borders, only bad optics made them pull out.

Best thing is even after the chest beating and preening in this country we can sit down and say " o.k. you got the keys, you have made the decision " Then we move on.

 

[B4Bear]

Biden Is Projected To Be The President-Elect. Here’s How It All Went Down.

Live election results and coverage of the 2020 presidential election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and the race for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

fivethirtyeight.com

• Amendment #1 in Virginia, which would set up a bipartisan redistricting commission.

Not much but it is a start I guess.

 

[Only Forwards]

so if it is a blue wave as many are predicting

If a Blue wave occurs and the Democrats own the Whitehouse, The house of Representatives and the Senate I think the US will see some big changes to how things are run.

- Changes to the electoral college system that weights Rural voters as more important.
- redrawing of electoral lines
- reduction in gerrymandering
- term limits introduced to SCOTUS
- expansion of SCOTUS to have more judges

Combined with the undoing of a bunch of the shit Trump has done. I expect that the first 2 years of a Biden presidency will be spent un-doing a lot of what Trump has done. Prior to Biden standing down and allowing Harris to take over.

I think typically an incumbent is a lot harder to unseat in an election, rather than what a end of term 2 new candidates is to win.

If the Democrats win this in a blue wave which has them having that level of control they will look to set themselves for the next decade. Biden 2 years, Harris 2 years, Harris 2 terms. 12 years of presidency which would seek to drastically alter the way the country is represented.

Americans try to hold themselves up as some bastion of freedom. Right now they are not that, they are a garbage bin on fire.

 

[Mr_Nyah]

If a Blue wave occurs and the Democrats own the Whitehouse, The house of Representatives and the Senate I think the US will see some big changes to how things are run.

- Changes to the electoral college system that weights Rural voters as more important.
- redrawing of electoral lines
- reduction in gerrymandering
- term limits introduced to SCOTUS
- expansion of SCOTUS to have more judges

Combined with the undoing of a bunch of the sh*t Trump has done. I expect that the first 2 years of a Biden presidency will be spent un-doing a lot of what Trump has done. Prior to Biden standing down and allowing Harris to take over.

I think typically an incumbent is a lot harder to unseat in an election, rather than what a end of term 2 new candidates is to win.

If the Democrats win this in a blue wave which has them having that level of control they will look to set themselves for the next decade. Biden 2 years, Harris 2 years, Harris 2 terms. 12 years of presidency which would seek to drastically alter the way the country is represented.

Americans try to hold themselves up as some bastion of freedom. Right now they are not that, they are a garbage bin on fire.

Is it only me that sees problems with this? If every party that wins is allowed to just come in and make whatever changes they like to how the system runs, won't that cause problems? Won't it just become a tit for tat after every election? Eg the SCOTUS stuff you mention, that seems like if/when Biden wins and he decides to stack the court, then the next time the Republicans win won't they just do the same thing until they have the advantage?

I think there are legitimate changes that need to happen with the systems in the US, but both parties need to be clear that they are doing something from a bipartisan perspective, not just rigging the system to suit their desires.

 

[Only Forwards]

Is it only me that sees problems with this? If every party that wins is allowed to just come in and make whatever changes they like to how the system runs, won't that cause problems? Won't it just become a tit for tat after every election? Eg the SCOTUS stuff you mention, that seems like if/when Biden wins and he decides to stack the court, then the next time the Republicans win won't they just do the same thing until they have the advantage?

I think there are legitimate changes that need to happen with the systems in the US, but both parties need to be clear that they are doing something from a bipartisan perspective, not just rigging the system to suit their desires.

You understand the Mitch McConnell has been doing this with not only SCOTUS but with lower courts as well. McConnell has in the 4 years of the Trump Presidency has appointed more judges than in the W, or Obama 2 term presidencies.

They have stacked courts with conservative white male judges and done so at a rate that is faster than ever before.

So you can pretty much bet that on the back of that, if the Democrats take power they will look to reform the way things are done. Starting with Term limits and the expansion of SCOTUS.

I mean look at the hypocrisy we have just witnessed with the current administration. A SCOTUS judge died in the final year of the Obama administration and they did not push through a judge because a president shouldn't be able to appoint a judge if they're outgoing. This IS EXACTLY what has just happened with Bader Ginsberg's replacement. McConnell stating openly "leave no vacancy behind".

my opinion from the otherside of the world with no horses in the race whatsoever is that their system is broken to the point of needing major reform. Reform that is not going to happen in the current status quo. I also don't think we are likely to see anything bipartisan in terms of action. Neither Party care for the other, but surely within a democracy you'd kinda want the ones who aren't actively seeking to suppress votes and intimidate voters to be the ones who hold the pen.

 

[DesertRoo]

If a Blue wave occurs and the Democrats own the Whitehouse, The house of Representatives and the Senate I think the US will see some big changes to how things are run.

- Changes to the electoral college system that weights Rural voters as more important.
- redrawing of electoral lines
- reduction in gerrymandering
- term limits introduced to SCOTUS
- expansion of SCOTUS to have more judges

Combined with the undoing of a bunch of the sh*t Trump has done. I expect that the first 2 years of a Biden presidency will be spent un-doing a lot of what Trump has done. Prior to Biden standing down and allowing Harris to take over.

I think typically an incumbent is a lot harder to unseat in an election, rather than what a end of term 2 new candidates is to win.

If the Democrats win this in a blue wave which has them having that level of control they will look to set themselves for the next decade. Biden 2 years, Harris 2 years, Harris 2 terms. 12 years of presidency which would seek to drastically alter the way the country is represented.

Americans try to hold themselves up as some bastion of freedom. Right now they are not that, they are a garbage bin on fire.

Just like when Obama had both house, senate and Holder was DOJ.
Holder bailed out the banks and gave wallstreet a slap on the wrist, while his name was still on his desk at Covington & Burling.

People make out there’s a massive partisan divide at the top.. there isn’t, that’s for the plebs yelling at clouds in the street.
Whoever gets elected is pushing through security reform and not the type you’re hoping for...

Do you really think Kamala Harris with her record as a DA is going for any sort of progressive agenda?

 

[Only Forwards]

Just like when Obama had both house, senate and Holder was DOJ.
Holder bailed out the banks and gave wallstreet a slap on the wrist, while his name was still on his desk at Covington & Burling.

People make out there’s a massive partisan divide at the top.. there isn’t that’s for the plebs yelling in the street.
Whoever gets elected is pushing through security reform and not the type you’re hoping for...

Do you really think Kamala Harris with her record as a DA is going for any sort of progressive agenda?

The partisan divide is in how to prevent the other from getting power. Which is exactly why the Democrats will look to change how things are done. Because as pointed out earlier, the popular vote tends to go to them. so they will want to draw the line as close as they can to having that being where things are decided.

The Dems want nothing to do with progressive candidates. they stacked the deck twice against Sanders. I mean the Democrats talk about Healthcare, healthcare, healthcare, yet in the middle of a pandemic Biden ain't going anywhere near medicare for all. If they ain't going to do that now, they (The dem establishment) ain't ever going to do it.

During the primaries this year I was reading that some progressives saw a further 4 more years of Trump as a quicker point to having a progressive in the white house. If it is harder to unseat an incumbent and Biden hands to Harris part way through his first term, and she is reelected for a full 2 terms, it puts the chance to even run a progressive out to attempt a run at the presidency to 2032.

 

[Mr_Nyah]

You understand the Mitch McConnell has been doing this with not only SCOTUS but with lower courts as well. McConnell has in the 4 years of the Trump Presidency has appointed more judges than in the W, or Obama 2 term presidencies.

They have stacked courts with conservative white male judges and done so at a rate that is faster than ever before.

So you can pretty much bet that on the back of that, if the Democrats take power they will look to reform the way things are done. Starting with Term limits and the expansion of SCOTUS.

I mean look at the hypocrisy we have just witnessed with the current administration. A SCOTUS judge died in the final year of the Obama administration and they did not push through a judge because a president shouldn't be able to appoint a judge if they're outgoing. This IS EXACTLY what has just happened with Bader Ginsberg's replacement. McConnell stating openly "leave no vacancy behind".

my opinion from the otherside of the world with no horses in the race whatsoever is that their system is broken to the point of needing major reform. Reform that is not going to happen in the current status quo. I also don't think we are likely to see anything bipartisan in terms of action. Neither Party care for the other, but surely within a democracy you'd kinda want the ones who aren't actively seeking to suppress votes and intimidate voters to be the ones who hold the pen.

I'm not sure why the fact that the judges are white or male matters. I agree they've been adding conservative judges as much as possible, but isn't that what you'd expect? In the same way the Democrats would add liberal or progressive judges?

You understand that Obama nominated a candidate in his last year of Presidency don't you? The issue was that they couldn't get him approved because they didn't have control of the Senate. So your comment that they didn't push a judge through out of some sort of scout's honor is just plain wrong.

 

[B4Bear]

I'm not sure why the fact that the judges are white or male matters. I agree they've been adding conservative judges as much as possible, but isn't that what you'd expect? In the same way the Democrats would add liberal or progressive judges?

You understand that Obama nominated a candidate in his last year of Presidency don't you? The issue was that they couldn't get him approved because they didn't have control of the Senate. So your comment that they didn't push a judge through out of some sort of scout's honor is just plain wrong.

They were blocked by the GOP from appointing a judge.

Any way you cut it, it was wrong and unconstitutional. The right are going to howl when they expand the court and give statehood to DC and PR. Giving them 4 more senators that will lean left.

 

[Mr_Nyah]

They were blocked by the GOP from appointing a judge.

Any way you cut it, it was wrong and unconstitutional. The right are going to howl when they expand the court and give statehood to DC and PR. Giving them 4 more senators that will lean left.

So just to clarify: it was wrong and unconstitutional for the Republicans to block Obama's candidate. It was also wrong and unconstitutional for the Republicans to put their own candidate through in the same circumstances. Got it thanks.

Do you understand what "unconstitutional" means? You might think it's wrong, you might not like it - that's your prerogative. It certainly wasn't "unconstitutional".

 

[Only Forwards]

I agree they've been adding conservative judges as much as possible, but isn't that what you'd expect? In the same way the Democrats would add liberal or progressive judges?

Which is exactly the point. A blue wave happens and they will be looking to alter things into their favor, if they have the Whitehouse, the Senate, and the House of reps and can push through change that will allow for things like term limits and the expansion of SCOTUS then I expect that is exactly what they will do.

Which could only be tit for tat as you raised earlier if in the future the Republicans have the control of those 3 arms of government.

You understand that Obama nominated a candidate in his last year of Presidency don't you? The issue was that they couldn't get him approved because they didn't have control of the Senate. So your comment that they didn't push a judge through out of some sort of scout's honor is just plain wrong.

They actively blocked the confirmation by not holding the required meetings.

Mitch McConnell has a hard on for appointing conservative judges. taking delight in blocking Merrick Garland.

You can see the hipocrasy though right?

in 2016
" a president shouldn't be able to appoint a judge in an election year"

in 2020
" Push this Judge through ASAP because we're in an election year"

If a blue wave occurs, which was my first point, the Democrats are going to look to shift the goal posts as much as they can on as many things as they can as quickly as they can to their favour in so far as the constitution will allow them to do.

 

[Mr_Nyah]

Which is exactly the point. A blue wave happens and they will be looking to alter things into their favor, if they have the Whitehouse, the Senate, and the House of reps and can push through change that will allow for things like term limits and the expansion of SCOTUS then I expect that is exactly what they will do.

Which could only be tit for tat as you raised earlier if in the future the Republicans have the control of those 3 arms of government.




They actively blocked the confirmation by not holding the required meetings.

Mitch McConnell has a hard on for appointing conservative judges. taking delight in clocking Merrick Garland.

You can see the hipocrasy though right?

in 2016
" a president shouldn't be able to appoint a judge in an election year"

in 2020
" Push this Judge through ASAP because we're in an election year"

If a blue wave which was my first point the Democrats are going to look to shift the goal posts as much as they can on as many things as they can as quickly as they can in so far as the constitution will allow them to do.

I absolutely can see the hypocrisy, and I don't like it. Don't mistake me pointing it out for me liking it. I (admittedly naively) would hope that in some things there should be an agreement to be bipartisan. I think allowing Supreme Court judges to be nominated by the party in power should be one of them. If you are still in your 4 years, whether there are 4 years left or 4 days left, you are still in your allocated term, you should be allowed to appoint your candidate. Obama should have been allowed to appoint his candidate. I do not support the Republicans blocking him from doing so.

Can you see the Democrat's hypocrisy? In 1992, with a Republican president, the Democrats argued that they should wait to appoint a candidate until after the election. In 2016 they argued they shouldn't have to wait, but should be allowed to appoint their candidate. In 2020, the Democrats are arguing that the Republicans should wait to appoint a candidate.

It's all partisan crap to me. They're all hypocrites, and none of them are interested in governing for the people. I just find it interesting watching both parties try and take the moral high ground when they're both as bad as each other.

 

[B4Bear]

So just to clarify: it was wrong and unconstitutional for the Republicans to block Obama's candidate. It was also wrong and unconstitutional for the Republicans to put their own candidate through in the same circumstances. Got it thanks.

Do you understand what "unconstitutional" means? You might think it's wrong, you might not like it - that's your prerogative. It certainly wasn't "unconstitutional".

So when one side does it, it is okay, but not the other.

Nowhere does it say in their constitution that the Senate has the right to block like they did in Obama’s last year, nowhere. Hence it is unconstitutional to do so, he was not even given a hearing.

I never said it was unconstitutional to ram through their choice this year, so stop misquoting me to score a point. It was however hypocritical and will have ramifications down the road when the Democrats go full nuclear and ignore the GOP on everything if they get a the house, senate and executive.

 

[Mr_Nyah]

So when one side does it, it is okay, but not the other.

Nowhere does it say in their constitution that the Senate has the right to block like they did in Obama’s last year, nowhere. Hence it is unconstitutional to do so, he was not even given a hearing.

I never said it was unconstitutional to ram through their choice this year, so stop misquoting me to score a point. It was however hypocritical and will have ramifications down the road when the Democrats go full nuclear and ignore the GOP on everything if they get a the house, senate and executive.

I agree this is your take on things, well summarised

 

[DesertRoo]

So when one side does it, it is okay, but not the other.

Nowhere does it say in their constitution that the Senate has the right to block like they did in Obama’s last year, nowhere. Hence it is unconstitutional to do so, he was not even given a hearing.

I never said it was unconstitutional to ram through their choice this year, so stop misquoting me to score a point. It was however hypocritical and will have ramifications down the road when the Democrats go full nuclear and ignore the GOP on everything if they get a the house, senate and executive.

Theres a line between illegal and morally wrong..
I don’t think anyone’s arguing it’s not morally wrong but to be unconstitutional in America, means illegal, I don’t think what they did was illegal.

 

[Mr_Nyah]

Theres a line between illegal and morally wrong..
I don’t think anyone’s arguing it’s morally wrong but to be unconstitutional in America, means illegal, I don’t think what they did was illegal.

I was glib to B4B, he probably didn't deserve that - if you're reading, sorry mate. I couldn't miss the chance for a cheap shot and that was wrong.

My view is that it is morally wrong for them to have blocked Obama's candidate, as I mentioned in my response to OF. It wasn't, however, "unconstitutional". If it were "unconstitutional", the Democrats would have taken it to court and won. The Republicans owned the majority in the Senate, and used that power to block Obama's candidate. Again, this is morally wrong, but not "unconstitutional".

 

[DesertRoo]

Interesting from a media point of view Australia currently broadcasting

7 broadcasting CNN
9 broadcasting CNN
10 broadcasting CBS

diversification of foreign news is pretty bad here..

 

[Caracas]

Interesting from a media point of view Australia currently broadcasting

7 broadcasting CNN
9 broadcasting CNN
10 broadcasting CBS

diversification of foreign news is pretty bad here..

I’ve switched across to Fox from time to time. The thing is that when they stick to just dealing with the facts as they arrive, they’re very good. However, they can’t go more than 10 minutes without an out and out pro-Trump conspiracy rant. It’s a shame really. At that stage, it becomes unwatchable. I can’t believe there would be any mileage in any of CH 7/9/10 running with Fox full bore. It’s obvious CNN want Biden to win but, at least, they make an effort at being balanced - however transparent it may be. Up until 6pm, I watched ABC and considered it the best of the lot. However, once they switched to Planet America, I couldn’t hack it. The guys on Fox and CNN who are running they boards are very good.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app