• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

My thought 4 years ago was that the sitting president should nominate the justices. Before Mitch pulled his crap move last time I would have expected the president to nominate some people and the senate to vote or not by the end of the year. If the senate couldn't agree on someone then I guess the next president would nominate some people. The difference between this time and last time is the amount of time the senate has to vote. I could reasonably see one party stalling for a couple months. Last time they stalled for what a year or more? Plus it should be something that is forced to a vote. If the vote is no than so be it. This is what disgusts me about politics, it has become a winner take all deal with no compromise.
 
Obama summarized the issue perfectly. It is not hypocrisy.

"Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.

A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard."
 
michaelskis said:
I keep seeing 45 days... and your right, that is the number of days until the election. Unfortunately, even if Trump loses in 45 days, he is still in office for 120 more days from today.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you felt the need to correct me even though what I wrote was completely accurate. For what it's worth, Scalia died in February 2016, so that would have been almost 11 months before a new president would have been sworn in.

michaelskis said:
But let me ask you this... if Garland was appointed 4 years ago, would the left be raising a fuss about this now? I think they would because politics are what they are. To assume that either side is capable of doing the right thing is itself ridiculous.

I agree that it is acceptable to be angry about the principle of the situation. But I think it is hypocrisy to demand the same thing that you were opposed to 4 years ago.
Click to expand...

Again, why are we applying the "right" thing only when it happens to be convenient for one political ideology. If Garland was able to receive a vote, and Obama was able to secure a supreme court nomination that he was supposed to have received, then the story is different. But that isn't what happened; Mitch and the GOP are the ones that moved the goalpost, and its significance will impact the US legal system for generations.
 
Last edited:
MD Planner said:
Lindsey Graham is in my fair city today with the governor to announce a transportation project and some significant industrial development. I should be there. Alas, I'm out of town. :smirk:
Click to expand...
Consider your being out of town a blessing in disguise.

If you were there, you'd likely be stuck having your photo taken with Graham, the governor, whomever... You might be interviewed on local radio, TV, social media... Whether or not you want it, the public would take notice and align you with specific partisan politics.

Your not being there=> You can keep being thought of as the "non-partisan" or "bipartisan" city planner that you are.
 
dw914er said:
I have no idea why you felt the need to correct me even though what I wrote was completely accurate. For what it's worth, Scalia died in February 2016, so that would have been almost 11 months before a new president would have been sworn in.
Click to expand...
And who was in office... President Obama. Who should have been able to move forward with the SCOTUS appointment... President Obama. My point is the time until the election is irrelevant. A president is in office until they are not in office.

dw914er said:
Again, why are we applying the "right" thing only when it happens to be convenient for one political ideology. If Garland was able to receive a vote, and Obama was able to secure a supreme court nomination that he was supposed to have received, then the story is different. But that isn't what happened; Mitch and the GOP are the ones that moved the goalpost, and its significance will impact the US legal system for generations.
Click to expand...
I am not applying the "right thing" only when it is convenient. I am saying that the GOP f-ed up 4 years ago when they pulled this crap. I even said as much back then when I said that it is wrong for politics to be part of this and that this branch was intended to be above that. You are 100% spot on that they are moving the goal posts... but they should not have had a say in the location of the goal posts 4 years ago either.

Let me ask you, do you want the GOP to do exactly what it sounds like you were opposed to 4 years ago... and if so, how is this not hypocritical?
 
michaelskis said:
Let me ask you, do you want the GOP to do exactly what it sounds like you were opposed to 4 years ago... and if so, how is this not hypocritical?
Click to expand...

The idea was posted above:

A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.
 
dw914er said:
The idea was posted above:

A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.
Click to expand...
See, I think this is where we differ. Doing the wrong thing consistency is still doing the wrong thing. It does not make future instances right.
 
michaelskis said:
See, I think this is where we differ. Doing the wrong thing consistency is still doing the wrong thing. It does not make future instances right.
Click to expand...

Okay.... But in your way, we unfairly stack the court in one direction and impact the rule of law for generations. Do you think this is appropriate? Should liberals just accept that the GOP screwed them over and not be upset? Should one party pick and choose how to do things unfairly with impunity?

The only way your ideology works is if Trump picks a liberal judge to correct the wrong. But that's not what is going to happen. Hell, the GOP already has enough votes to approve the judge for the highest court in the US, and they don't even know who it is or their qualifications (or care, as long as it is in lock step with their agenda).
 
The problem is there is no accountability for the senate anymore. Back in Obama's term he did his job, but the senate decided they didn't want to vote. That's petty politics and they knew it, but they masked it by saying it's an election year. This time the president is doing his job, but because the senate agrees with his choice they will hold a vote ASAP. They know they are being super hypocritical because we're in an election year, but they don't care. The rules didn't actually change, but they are making arbitrary hurdles for calling a vote. Some don't even bother and just say it's because we have a GOP president. Will any of these senators be held to any standard?
 
Bitch McConnell's justification is that in 2016 the WH & Senate were run by 2 different parties, whereas today both the WH & Senate are the same party. Also that the 2018 midterm election the Rs held the Senate majority (with illegal gerrymandered districts) and that addresses the will of the people.

They're all full of shite!!!



If this is forced through, I think it will be interesting to see what happens in some of the close Senate races. However in many cases people have already decided who they will vote for and it'll be too late for the mail-in absentee ballots.
 
dw914er said:
Okay.... But in your way, we unfairly stack the court in one direction and impact the rule of law for generations. Do you think this is appropriate? Should liberals just accept that the GOP screwed them over and not be upset? Should one party pick and choose how to do things unfairly with impunity?

The only way your ideology works is if Trump picks a liberal judge to correct the wrong. But that's not what is going to happen. Hell, the GOP already has enough votes to approve the judge for the highest court in the US, and they don't even know who it is or their qualifications (or care, as long as it is in lock step with their agenda).
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that is right either. As I noted multiple times, Obama's pick should have been appointed. It was wrong when the appointment was delayed for years ago, and it is still wrong today.
 
Planit said:
Bitch McConnell's justification is that in 2016 the WH & Senate were run by 2 different parties, whereas today both the WH & Senate are the same party. Also that the 2018 midterm election the Rs held the Senate majority (with illegal gerrymandered districts) and that addresses the will of the people.
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering has NOTHING to do with the Senate...

As to your other point, we are now hurtling towards a world where a Senate majority of the opposite party of the President can just not confirm ANY of the nominations for any office if they so choose. This is the precedent that has been set by the GOP and it's bullsh*t.
 
dw914er said:
Okay... so how do you propose it is resolved?
Click to expand...
The Senate needs to do their job and properly vet any nominee that the President nominates for appointment to determine of they can properly review the facts based on the law and not take personal opinion into consideration. If they present a presumptive bias with a foundation in political or personal opinion, then they senate should say, next. If the person moving forward has demonstrated that they can take the facts of a case into consideration, then they should move forward and be appointment.

The as I indicated 4 years ago intent of the supreme court is to be above pollical squabbling. In Federalist 78 Hamilton States:
Alexander Hamilton said:
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.
Click to expand...
 
Planit said:
Also that the 2018 midterm election the Rs held the Senate majority (with illegal gerrymandered districts)
Click to expand...

Um...state lines ain't illegally gerrymandered (unless you're talking about the couple of state lines that aren't where they should be)...
 
Bubba said:
Um...state lines ain't illegally gerrymandered (unless you're talking about the couple of state lines that aren't where they should be)...
Click to expand...

Three words... The Toledo War. Ohio won the battle, but Michigan won the war... (has nothing to do with elections, but is a good reason to hate Ohio)
 
Last edited:
I lean right but officially registered as an independent. It was a dick move by the Senate in 2016 and a dick move by the Dems in 2020. The sitting president has the duty to appoint and senate confirm. Funny (not really) how the story changes based on which party gets to pick the SCOTUS replacement. Even Ginsberg in a July 2016 NYT article stated that the president does not stop being a president in their last year of office. If she happened to pass away on the Monday before the election, then I think you can make a case that whoever is elected on Tuesday makes the pick. While I did not agree with Ginsberg on all, I think she was a valuable SCOTUS asset the type of individual that will be hard to replace.
 
Hink said:
I agree with everything you noted, but specifically this. FAFSA is one of the most backwards systems. If I am going to college, I should be required to based what I can and cannot get on myself, not my parents. My parents are not, and should not, be required to support me through college. If they can, great. If they can't, great. It should be based on the kids, not the family. I understand that we want to prioritize families who have no options and the parents that "could" be paying, "should" be paying so those kids do have options. My problem is exactly what you stated, which is the formula is broken and the expectations on families is unfair. I would much rather see a system that prioritizes providing low interest rates for everyone who takes debt, and one servicer of that debt that is government backed.

Then after that part, provide additional incentives to remove that debt after the fact (but have clear guidelines before taking the debt) - like working in a state, in government or other public service, etc. If you have one servicer and one set of rules, the forgiveness issue is much easier and doesn't get clusterf@#ked like our current system. Or maybe not as badly? ;)
Click to expand...

I think there are a few things that could easily retool the federal student loan system and repayment:

  1. Federal student loan interest rates should be pegged at a long term treasury note rate (10, 20, 30 years). Current and past rates are usurious in comparison to and higher than mortgage rates.
  2. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness system for federal loans is a joke how it is currently administered. Make people wait 10 years for loan forgiveness only for them to find out they were in the wrong repayment plan or their job was reclassified and no longer eligible for forgiveness. I'd propose that for each year of qualified Public Service that 10% of the original student loan balance be forgiven annually. That way nobody is held hostage in a job or job type for 10 entire years before forgiveness, but still derives some benefit of being a public servant.
  3. Student loan interest deduction on tax returns should be uncapped for all filers regardless of income. It's currently capped at $2,500 and phases out for higher earners which penalizes joint filers and filers with advanced degrees which often come with higher debt. This is an "above the line" item on the return which reduces adjusted gross income.
  4. Just as there is an American Opportunity Tax Credit for higher education tuition & expenses that can be taken for 4 years, there should be an additional tax credit of $2,500 for student loan principal repayment. If you manage to clear through the interest owed on loans and can chip away at the principal balance then you should receive a dollar for dollar tax credit against the income tax you owe. This is a "below the line" item on the return which reduces the amount of tax owed. It should not be refundable, only reduce your tax liability to $0.
 
I actually have a little more faith in the Supreme Court than a lot of people. Look at Roberts, most thought he would behave much differently than he has. These are some of the smartest people around, all of them. They have fascinating dialogue and debate. One of the great things is that once appointed by ANY president, they don't "owe" shit to anybody. They're in. That's it. Game over. So influence is virtually non-existent. Sure you're not going to agree with every decision, that's ok. The Court is still the most trusted part of our government. I'm ok with intellectual, educated people having reasonable deliberations and coming up with a decision.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
While I did not agree with Ginsberg on all, I think she was a valuable SCOTUS asset the type of individual that will be hard to replace.
Click to expand...

MD Planner said:
I actually have a little more faith in the Supreme Court than a lot of people. Look at Roberts, most thought he would behave much differently than he has. These are some of the smartest people around, all of them. They have fascinating dialogue and debate. One of the great things is that once appointed by ANY president, they don't "owe" shit to anybody. They're in. That's it. Game over. So influence is virtually non-existent. Sure you're not going to agree with every decision, that's ok. The Court is still the most trusted part of our government. I'm ok with intellectual, educated people having reasonable deliberations and coming up with a decision.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of talk about Amy Coney Barrett being the recommendation from Trump. What are every one's thoughts on this choice?
 
michaelskis said:
There is a lot of talk about Amy Coney Barrett being the recommendation from Trump. What are every one's thoughts on this choice?
Click to expand...
She is a bit too religious for the Court IMO. The court needs to be factual, not spiritual. It isn't about your morals, it is about your ability to interpret the laws. If you are a one policy republican voter, which it seems there are a lot these days, she will be on your side of abortion. Otherwise, I am not sure why a Democrat would support her.

When Trump went with the "constitutionalist" Gorsuch, he wanted someone who would read the laws and interpret their meaning, not allow for flexibility. This pick would certainly be the opposite of that, as she has time and time again stated her beliefs in her opinions, not a strict interpretation.

In the end it doesn't matter who he picks, because it won't be someone who is equal to RGB, it will be someone likely a huge jump ideologically from her. I think the Senate is pretty broken. I look forward to seeing how much more broken it will get if the Democrats win all three branches and put the pain on the Republicans for lying through their teeth.
 
I was always taught when you have the hammer you need to swing it. Right now the R's have it. The D's would be doing exactly the same thing. That's politics. It's always been this way and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know history. It's always been a dirty, dirty business. Yes it's been a little more veiled in the past but really there is nothing new going on.
 
kjel said:
I think there are a few things that could easily retool the federal student loan system and repayment:

  1. Federal student loan interest rates should be pegged at a long term treasury note rate (10, 20, 30 years). Current and past rates are usurious in comparison to and higher than mortgage rates.
  2. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness system for federal loans is a joke how it is currently administered. Make people wait 10 years for loan forgiveness only for them to find out they were in the wrong repayment plan or their job was reclassified and no longer eligible for forgiveness. I'd propose that for each year of qualified Public Service that 10% of the original student loan balance be forgiven annually. That way nobody is held hostage in a job or job type for 10 entire years before forgiveness, but still derives some benefit of being a public servant...
  3. Student loan interest deduction on tax returns should be uncapped for all filers regardless of income. It's currently capped at $2,500 and phases out for higher earners which penalizes joint filers and filers with advanced degrees which often come with higher debt. This is an "above the line" item on the return which reduces adjusted gross income.
  4. Just as there is an American Opportunity Tax Credit for higher education tuition & expenses that can be taken for 4 years, there should be an additional tax credit of $2,500 for student loan principal repayment. If you manage to clear through the interest owed on loans and can chip away at the principal balance then you should receive a dollar for dollar tax credit against the income tax you owe. This is a "below the line" item on the return which reduces the amount of tax owed. It should not be refundable, only reduce your tax liability to $0.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of your points here, except I will say that the PSLF worked for me and I've had tens of thousands of dollars in student loans forgiven and am on track to have the remaining portion of my loans forgiven this coming winter. There were some hiccups along the way, and I will agree that there have been some problems with the administration of the program, but once you work through the issue with somebody at the Ed Dept, they rectify the situation, credit you with the appropriate number of payments, and pay you back (with interest) if you've overpaid.

From the start of the program, the Ed Dept always recommended borrowers certify their payments with them and their employers every year to make sure they are in the right payment program and are in an eligible job. Almost all of the reports I've heard of people being told they were not eligible were people who waited until 8 or 9 years into the program before submitting their certification for the first time.

All that aside, having 10% of the original principal forgiven each year is a fantastic idea as it would allow people who leave the public sector after a few years (voluntarily or otherwise) to still derive some benefit from the program. In my situation, I turned down a job in the private sector about 2 years ago and the thought of losing out on the tens of thousands of dollars in loan forgiveness I was about to receive less than a year later did play into my decision. If I had already had ~80% of my original principal forgiven I may have very well made a different decision.

____


Others in this thread (and elsewhere) have said government-backed student loans shouldn't be forgiven because they already paid their money back so why should current or future borrowers get a benefit they didn't get themselves. Please. :r: That's a horrible argument. If we as a society are in a situation where we can make a policy change to improve the lives and economic outcomes of others, even though we might not be eligible for that particular benefit ourselves, we should definitely make that change.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Others in this thread (and elsewhere) have said government-backed student loans shouldn't be forgiven because they already paid their money back so why should current or future borrowers get a benefit they didn't get themselves. Please. :r: That's a horrible argument. If we as a society are in a situation where we can make a policy change to improve the lives and economic outcomes of others, even though we might not be eligible for that particular benefit ourselves, we should definitely make that change.
Click to expand...
With my wife, we paid back over $300k in student loans between the two of us. My argument isn't that we paid, and so everyone else should too. My argument is that if you want something, you have to have skin in the game. I would much prefer to see a forgiveness program that is more robust and fair to those who deserve it, than just giving people money for no clear rational reason. If I decided to quit college halfway through and not get a degree, that would have been my risk. I am accountable for that.

Forgiveness for medical debt, etc. I support. Most of that debt is accumulated through no fault of someone. It isn't a choice. College is not a right. College isn't for everyone. We shouldn't push people to go to college if they don't want to. We should support those who take the risk because they want the reward, but I would challenge the concept that we should just forgive the loans already given, when people knew the risk and expectation on them when they took that money.

(Again, not saying you were talking about me, but just sharing my thoughts as someone who is debt free now ;))
 
Kjel has some very sensible suggestions. So of course that means they'll never happen. :r:

Sorry, but put me in the "you borrowed it, you owe it" camp. Nobody held a gun to somebody's head to get them to get a student loan. Now I'm all for doing something about the predatory lending but I'm continually astounded at the amounts some of these people owe. 80K for a degree in French Literature and you can't find a job doing what you want? Shocker. There are always exceptions and circumstances that should be examined in particular cases but just forgiving loans outright sends a horrible message about self-responsibility which this nation is already sorely lacking.
 
MD Planner said:
Kjel has some very sensible suggestions. So of course that means they'll never happen. :r:

Sorry, but put me in the "you borrowed it, you owe it" camp. Nobody held a gun to somebody's head to get them to get a student loan. Now I'm all for doing something about the predatory lending but I'm continually astounded at the amounts some of these people owe. 80K for a degree in French Literature and you can't find a job doing what you want? Shocker. There are always exceptions and circumstances that should be examined in particular cases but just forgiving loans outright sends a horrible message about self-responsibility which this nation is already sorely lacking.
Click to expand...

Lion's share of my student loan debt is from graduate school, but I knew what I was signing up for. I was a single mom and qualified for more loans than a typical college age student with parental support. To some degree you borrow to live because it's impossible to both work full time, be a single parent, and be enrolled 3/4 or full time. It adds up quickly, especially unsubsidized loans which accrue interest while in school (I don't think there should be unsubsidized loans). Federal student loan debt is forgiven after 25 years of repayment on an income based repayment plan if one does not go the public service route.

One other way to potentially repay student loans is a pre-tax payroll deduction of say 6.2% (same rate as Social Security tax) which automates collection of payment for the government, reduces taxable income for the borrower, and services the debt faster.
 
Hink said:
She is a bit too religious for the Court IMO. The court needs to be factual, not spiritual. It isn't about your morals, it is about your ability to interpret the laws. If you are a one policy republican voter, which it seems there are a lot these days, she will be on your side of abortion. Otherwise, I am not sure why a Democrat would support her.
Click to expand...
I am curious if she has ruled this way or if you are just classifying it this way because she is catholic? I ask because the limited googling of her past cases seemed that she did not always vote as you would expect. For example she once commented “The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand.” and “The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”
 
michaelskis said:
I am curious if she has ruled this way or if you are just classifying it this way because she is catholic? I ask because the limited googling of her past cases seemed that she did not always vote as you would expect. For example she once commented “The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand.” and “The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”
Click to expand...
She wrote a law review called "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases". I mean that kinda brings her Catholicism into the fray. In an explanation of it (I have no interest in read it, so I read a summary):

"It explored the effect of the Catholic Church’s teachings on the death penalty on federal judges, and it used the church’s teachings on abortion and euthanasia as a comparison point, describing the prohibitions on abortion and euthanasia as “absolute” because they “take away innocent life.”

Absolute is kinda tricky when you are a judge and the law doesn't come even close to saying that.

She stated that she wouldn't order the death penalty. Even though that is the law.

In 2019, Barrett indicated that she wanted the full 7th Circuit to hear a challenge to an Indiana law requiring young women to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion after a three-judge panel ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

I mean... it is kinda clear that is uses religion instead of law as her basis. Which again, is her right. But SC judges should at least be a bit more clear in their separation in my mind.

Again it won't matter. The Republicans are a two policy party (GUN RIGHTS! and ABORTION!) when it comes to the SC. She checks both boxes, so she is likely going to get on the bench. I doubt she is as bad as others, so I am sure that it will all calm down after she is a justice for a while (I mean look at Kavanaugh). It just again shows how broken our system is, when the two parties can't even get one person from the other side to vote for what they want to do.
 
Hink said:
She wrote a law review called "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases". I mean that kinda brings her Catholicism into the fray. In an explanation of it (I have no interest in read it, so I read a summary):
Click to expand...
I did not see that one, but yea. that does sound like an indicator.
 
Hink said:
She wrote a law review called "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases". I mean that kinda brings her Catholicism into the fray. In an explanation of it (I have no interest in read it, so I read a summary):

"It explored the effect of the Catholic Church’s teachings on the death penalty on federal judges, and it used the church’s teachings on abortion and euthanasia as a comparison point, describing the prohibitions on abortion and euthanasia as “absolute” because they “take away innocent life.”

Absolute is kinda tricky when you are a judge and the law doesn't come even close to saying that.

She stated that she wouldn't order the death penalty. Even though that is the law.

In 2019, Barrett indicated that she wanted the full 7th Circuit to hear a challenge to an Indiana law requiring young women to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion after a three-judge panel ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

I mean... it is kinda clear that is uses religion instead of law as her basis. Which again, is her right. But SC judges should at least be a bit more clear in their separation in my mind.

Again it won't matter. The Republicans are a two policy party (GUN RIGHTS! and ABORTION!) when it comes to the SC. She checks both boxes, so she is likely going to get on the bench. I doubt she is as bad as others, so I am sure that it will all calm down after she is a justice for a while (I mean look at Kavanaugh). It just again shows how broken our system is, when the two parties can't even get one person from the other side to vote for what they want to do.
Click to expand...

Here's a recap of the history of confirmation votes each Supreme Court Justice received at their confirmation hearings. It seems that for the most part of the 20th century and well into the 21st century there has been frequent bipartisan support for SCOTUS nominees. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
 
MD Planner said:
I actually have a little more faith in the Supreme Court than a lot of people. Look at Roberts, most thought he would behave much differently than he has. These are some of the smartest people around, all of them. They have fascinating dialogue and debate. One of the great things is that once appointed by ANY president, they don't "owe" shit to anybody. They're in. That's it. Game over. So influence is virtually non-existent. Sure you're not going to agree with every decision, that's ok. The Court is still the most trusted part of our government. I'm ok with intellectual, educated people having reasonable deliberations and coming up with a decision.
Click to expand...

I would generally agree, but it seems that this process has become much more partisan (Ginsburg was 96-3-1). The GOP is already ready to vote in the nominee, and they don't even know who it is. I guess my worry is that they'll vote simply to "own the libs" rather than take the due care needed to vet the nominee, and certainly, both parties are so partisan that it'll be a vote along party lines.
 
STOP THE PRESSES! The POTUS in a completely unanticipated move has announced he will accept the results of a free and fair election in November.
The fact that the President of the US can make news headlines with this announcement stands as stark testimony to how far this country has fallen the past 4 years.

Pro tip: experienced Trump watchdogs already know he'll announce after losing in November that "the elections weren't free and fair":explodinghead:
 
Maister said:
STOP THE PRESSES! The POTUS in a completely unanticipated move has announced he will accept the results of a free and fair election in November.
The fact that the President of the US can make news headlines with this announcement stands as stark testimony to how far this country has fallen the past 4 years.

Pro tip: experienced Trump watchdogs already know he'll announce after losing in November that "the elections weren't free and fair":explodinghead:
Click to expand...


Wait - White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said this. She's been know to fib too.
 
We need a little levity in this thread:

Rick for Prez.jpg
 
Today's fun fact: Starting in 1992, in seven presidential elections, Republicans have won the popular vote just once.
 
Well. This is unfortunate. I mean, it's obviously being taken very seriously, but also, it's going to provide plenty of fodder for the reliability of the election outcome. And it's also being handled very differently than has been advised by the Justice Department.

www.npr.org

Feds, In Unusual Statement, Announce They're Investigating A Few Discarded Ballots

Federal authorities say they've been asked to look into the discovery of some mailed ballots in Pennsylvania, an announcement that has appalled former Justice Department officials and voting experts.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
 
So tax returns weren't exactly what the President said they were. He lied about it... like everyone on earth knew he did. I imagine Joe is going to use that for some attack ads and some questions at the debate tomorrow.
 
Hink said:
So tax returns weren't exactly what the President said they were. He lied about it... like everyone on earth knew he did. I imagine Joe is going to use that for some attack ads and some questions at the debate tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I don't see it moving the needle at all, really. Those of us who understood he is a conman were already convinced his tax returns would show enormous losses instead of big profits. Those who support his white nationalist platform simply don't care that he lies about virtually anything, including taxes, and will contentedly dismiss it as 'fake news' with no further thought given to the matter. Anyone who's studied Trump's previous business operations and half dozen or so bankruptcies already knows this is his MO. He has continued his policy on the Federal level and the government now faces the worst debt/GDP ratio since WW2. No one should be surprised by any of this.
In financial terms, more important to me is the question of who has been bankrolling his failing businesses. Presumably he's been kept afloat by Deutsche Bank, a Russian-owned institution, and owes them tens of millions. This would explain his otherwise incomprehensible actions/policy towards Russia and why he has not lifted a finger to stop their concerted and sophisticated interference in our elections.
 
Please look at the various news coverage on today's websites:
CNN
Fox
BBC
WSJ

Not surprisingly, its completely different...
 
The 60 Minutes piece last night on awarding contracts for the Border Wall are all you need to know about how the President has no idea that government cannot be run like he runs a business.
 
Drinking game rule

Anytime Bidden mentions Obama, COVID, "If I'm elected president I will..."
Anytime Trump mentions Hillary, the wall, economy, fair elections, how great he did something that he really didn't do, tells a lie that is an obvious lie.

You should be trashed within minutes.
 
MD Planner said:
The 60 Minutes piece last night on awarding contracts for the Border Wall are all you need to know about how the President has no idea that government cannot be run like he runs a business.
Click to expand...

Buddy Cianci of Providence RI was a guest of the Federal Penitentiary System for some years for doing the very same thing, so yeah
 
Back
Top