The Debates of 2020

The CNN post-debate poll was conducted by SSRS by telephone and includes interviews with 609 registered voters who watched the Oct. 7 vice presidential debate. Results among debate-watchers have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.3 percentage points. Respondents were originally interviewed Sept. 30 to Oct. 4 either by telephone or online, and indicated they planned to watch the debate and would be willing to be re-interviewed when it was over. Respondents initially reached online are members of the SSRS Opinion Panel, a nationally representative probability-based panel.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/vp-debate-coverage-fact-check-10-07-20/index.html
 
sturg33 said:
the dems need the Supreme Court in order to pass their agenda bc it always unconstitutional. Not having a liberal majority makes it impossible to grow their power the way they want.

Hence, they will pack the courts
Click to expand...


How many times has Trump lost in the Supreme Court for doing unconstitutional things? Moscow Mitch refuses to even allow a marijuana related bill from seeing the light of day despite bipartisan support for it. Quite frankly Republicans need the electoral college, gerrymandering, and voter suppression just to get the power to nominate judges. Surely you dont think the minority viewpoint should be appointing judges to lifetime positions.
 
cajunrevenge said:
How many times has Trump lost in the Supreme Court for doing unconstitutional things? Moscow Mitch refuses to even allow a marijuana related bill from seeing the light of day despite bipartisan support for it. Quite frankly Republicans need the electoral college, gerrymandering, and voter suppression just to get the power to nominate judges. Surely you dont think the minority viewpoint should be appointing judges to lifetime positions.
Click to expand...

did you catch what Kamala said about legalizing pot last night
 
Carp said:
That sort of debate doesn't benefit Trump, so of course he won't agree to it. Even if Trumptards got their wish and Joe Rogan were moderating it. Trump relies on chaos in a debate. It's the only way he comes out even in a debate, is to bring the whole event down. And if they won't have in person debates, he plays the victim card and says the whole process is rigged.
Click to expand...


I think the format should be 4 hour long debate. You have a moderator but each side gets to choose the questions to the other side. Only 1 candidates mic can be live at any point and time. When its not their turn their mics are muted. The moderators main job will be to say "ok, could you please answer the question I asked" until they answer the question. Both sides did it and it was ridiculous. They should just keep calling them out on it and be relentless until they answer the question.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I think the format should be 4 hour long debate. You have a moderator but each side gets to choose the questions to the other side. Only 1 candidates mic can be live at any point and time. When its not their turn their mics are muted. The moderators main job will be to say "ok, could you please answer the question I asked" until they answer the question. Both sides did it and it was ridiculous. They should just keep calling them out on it and be relentless until they answer the question.
Click to expand...

are adult diapers allowed in this format?
 
nsacpi said:
The CNN post-debate poll was conducted by SSRS by telephone and includes interviews with 609 registered voters who watched the Oct. 7 vice presidential debate. Results among debate-watchers have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.3 percentage points. Respondents were originally interviewed Sept. 30 to Oct. 4 either by telephone or online, and indicated they planned to watch the debate and would be willing to be re-interviewed when it was over. Respondents initially reached online are members of the SSRS Opinion Panel, a nationally representative probability-based panel.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/vp-debate-coverage-fact-check-10-07-20/index.html
Click to expand...

Weird, I saw what I said this morning. I was wrong, but you're still crazy (smile)
 
Jaw said:
Weird, I saw what I said this morning. I was wrong, but you're still crazy (smile)
Click to expand...

No, I actually am a little confused. They might have done more than one poll. But hey I appreciate the concern. Having been without adult supervision for so long, I'm glad someone is checking in on my behavior. We're good!
 
nsacpi said:
did you catch what Kamala said about legalizing pot last night
Click to expand...


Yes, I trust Kamala when it comes to legalization because she recognizes its a winning issue. However, I dont trust Joe Biden or rather I do trust Biden to be the same jackass he has been for 50 years. If Democrats get control of the Senate there is a good chance legalization will happen there. I do expect Democrats to find a way to bungle it though. Biden might very well veto it. Some Democrats might try to hold the bill hostage for reparations which will end any Republican support for it. Biden is just trying to pacify his critics when he says he supports decriminalization. Actions speak louder than words. What I dont hear from them is "we will decriminalize by executive order within 90 days of taking office" or anything specific like that. Biden is going to stall and the purposely sabotage it. I certainly will be monitoring it closely. We probably wont hear about it after he is elected until the mid term election season.
 
cajunrevenge said:
How many times has Trump lost in the Supreme Court for doing unconstitutional things? Moscow Mitch refuses to even allow a marijuana related bill from seeing the light of day despite bipartisan support for it. Quite frankly Republicans need the electoral college, gerrymandering, and voter suppression just to get the power to nominate judges. Surely you dont think the minority viewpoint should be appointing judges to lifetime positions.
Click to expand...

I'm very glad when courts strike down new laws that we don't need.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Yes, I trust Kamala when it comes to legalization because she recognizes its a winning issue. However, I dont trust Joe Biden or rather I do trust Biden to be the same jackass he has been for 50 years. If Democrats get control of the Senate there is a good chance legalization will happen there. I do expect Democrats to find a way to bungle it though. Biden might very well veto it. Some Democrats might try to hold the bill hostage for reparations which will end any Republican support for it. Biden is just trying to pacify his critics when he says he supports decriminalization. Actions speak louder than words. What I dont hear from them is "we will decriminalize by executive order within 90 days of taking office" or anything specific like that. Biden is going to stall and the purposely sabotage it. I certainly will be monitoring it closely. We probably wont hear about it after he is elected until the mid term election season.
Click to expand...

I think the time is coming. There are a lot of issues that have been political footballs for too long. Wedge issues. But I think we are moving past some of them.
 
Quite frankly Republicans need the electoral college, gerrymandering, and voter suppression just to get the power to nominate judges. Surely you dont think the minority viewpoint should be appointing judges to lifetime positions.
Click to expand...

it's the only way republicans stay in power

they are a minority view party in this country and have been setting up a system to hold power this way
 
Norman Ornstein
@NormOrnstein
·
6h
I am not sure I have seen a more powerful example of destructive false

equivalence than media criticism that Harris wouldn’t answer question about

court packing while ignoring Pence refusing to answer questions about

discussing 25th amendment with a president who has Covid.

one is real the other is a hypothetical
 
sturg33 said:
Lol this is a joke.

"Women are just as capable as men!"

"How dare that man speak at a woman during a debate! Thats so sexist and poor Kamala is such a victim!!"
Click to expand...

How do women overcome this paradox?

I'm still not sure how anything Pence did was sexist other than push back against a woman.

Are they equally as capable? Or do they need to be treated with kid gloves?

And are we back to assigning genders again?
 
striker42 said:
It's a bad take because you're writing off the issue. If it was a dead issue with no chance, why wouldn't Biden come out against it? If he says he's against court packing, he takes away something that is potentially energizing to Republicans and could serve to help unite more of the party behind Trump. If he comes out for it, he definitely inflames the issue and gets Republicans more enraged.

Why be cagey? It's not a question you've answered. It's clear that the Biden campaign has made a point of not giving an answer on court packing. If it was such a dead issue you say so and put a bullet in it. Instead they say things like "everything's on the table" which shows it's not as dead as you seem to think.

I've also apparently not been clear when talking about divided opinions. I'm not talking about 5v4 vs 8v7. I'm talking about fractured opinions. There's a misconception that whoever is writing for the court is laying out all the only opinion that is binding. That's not the case. You can have other decisions be binding if they gather a majority joining on certain issues.

Suppose you have a case that has 4 questions presented to the court with the case ultimately being about whether a law is valid. They are questions A, B, C, and D. The justice writing for the court writes an opinion ultimately concluding the law is unconstitutional. You have 8 justices sign off on the ultimate holding. However, one justice writes a concurrence saying the ultimate decision was correct but the reasoning on issue C was wrong and a different standard should be used. 5 justices sign that concurrence. Another justice writes that issue A should have been decided differently but the ultimate decision was correct. 5 justices sign off on that concurrence.

In this case, the opinion of the court would control on issues B and D and on the conclusion the law was invalid. But the first concurrence would be binding as to issue C and the second to issue A. You have to go through 3 opinions to find what the binding law is.

The more justices you have on the court, the more viewpoints you have, the more chance for fractured opinions, and even more cases where the court can't achieve a majority but only a plurality which presents another host of issues.

The court settled at 9 as it's the sweet spot of diluting the influence of any one or two judges but also keeping the number small enough that the court is able to operate.
Click to expand...

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6705&context=faculty_scholarship


perhaps " packing" the court is the wrong question
 
Last edited:
My suspicion is that Biden will not push expand the court. The senate would probably be too closely divided to get it done. However if it’s an activist conservative court and becomes deeply unpopular it could happen. I think it would require success this year and pickups in the senate midterm.

Basically he won’t push it but he doesn’t want to back himself in a corner if it becomes feasible and there is sufficient momentum in the future. For instance if they throw out the ACA and or overturn Roe vs Wade and the Democrats have a good minority after the midterms all bets are off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top