• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Presidential Debate #1

Page 36 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,017
2,901
136
After seeing videos of 3 hour long lines at early voting polls yesterday in VA, I just requested mail in ballot here in MD.
I got one coming too (signed up in primaries), but now IDK if I can trust it won't get tossed out for bs reasons.

I looked up how to cancel, but it's a pain.

F Trump and the GOP for trying to destroy democracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: purbeast0

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,437
1,813
126
And those compelling arguments are... what, exactly? Too much whining from the GOP, or what? It's a "what about" discussion that doesn't belong in this thread, anyway.
It’s a legitimate scenario that is front and center given the untimely and unfortunate passing of RBG, and a good moderator would press both candidates to assert unambiguous positions on where they stand in the handling of SCOTUS.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
It’s a legitimate scenario that is front and center given the untimely and unfortunate passing of RBG, and a good moderator would press both candidates to assert unambiguous positions on where they stand in the handling of SCOTUS.
You offered that compelling arguments have been made to not expand the court w/o explaining them. You still haven't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,281
3,498
136
Someone doesn't want to change the debate rules, imagine that. Trial balloons being flown.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,598
471
126
Why bother indulging these people? Do they deserve your friendship? Prevaricators with unsupportable personal agendas. If you make it plain that you abhor those tendencies they'll be forced to wonder why. If they haven't the honesty and imagination to realize, why are you investing yourself if maintaining "friendship" with them?
Well, I think there's a difference between people that have inherent character flaws that they normally try to hide (e.g. a closeted bigot) compared to someone that tends to succumb to FUD. Given some of the remarks that I've heard, the aforementioned friends are the latter. These same people do express belief in some left-leaning ideals like climate change, and believe that we should do something. Albeit, on the same front, they tend to gobble up the Fox-esque FUD that you'd hear about things like the Green New Deal and AOC. I'm pretty sure I've heard remarks about how AOC doesn't want us to eat beef or drive cars, which is how some right-leaning networks spun remarks about greenhouse gasses emitted by livestock and cars.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: DarthKyrie

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,067
6,050
136
...But if you can't tell by now - THAT is why Trump was elected to begin with.

They got tired of 20+ years of electing establishment plutocrats and simply said "Eh, fuck it - maybe he change something. God knows voting for the same thing won't"




But... you know... those who don't learn form the past are damned to repeat it... so keep on chugging along with the self-ignorance.
It's been 40+ years and if they would just dig a tiny bit they would realize by now that every single bad idea comes from Republicans and that Democrats have had very little influence on any federal policy since 1980 with the only exception being the ACA.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,062
2,553
126
Well, I think there's a difference between people that have inherent character flaws that they normally try to hide (e.g. a closeted bigot) compared to someone that tends to succumb to FUD. Given some of the remarks that I've heard, the aforementioned friends are the latter. These same people do express belief in some left-leaning ideals like climate change, and believe that we should do something. Albeit, on the same front, they tend to gobble up the Fox-esque FUD that you'd hear about things like the Green New Deal and AOC. I'm pretty sure I've heard remarks about how AOC doesn't want us to eat beef or drive cars, which is how some right-leaning networks spun remarks about greenhouse gasses emitted by livestock and cars.
I won't say it's by intention but I have shed a lot of friends in my life. I don't have any now who would watch Fox News, let me tell you. And anyone who gobbles up hate conspiracy BS about cows and cars being denigrated unfairly, I have no time for. You face the music or I don't wanna know you. And yes, I have a car in my driveway and beef in my freezer. Both seem to keep just fine sitting where they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,437
1,813
126
You offered that compelling arguments have been made to not expand the court w/o explaining them. You still haven't.
I have in other threads on the topic, and a quick Google search yields numerous articles that caution why court stacking is a bad idea.

The judiciary is meant to be the neutral arbitrators of Constitutionality. Judicial appointments should be a relatively uninteresting function of government. Instead, both parties perceive the judiciary as their partisan Maginot line to protect their legislative achievements. Who fired the first shot in politicizing the judiciary? Who cares. In my lifetime, there’s been a series of escalations. Democrats attacked the character of Bork, to the extent that the term “borked” exists in the Webster dictionary as a form of political defamation. Democrats also obstructed Bush’s appellate court appointments because Republicans have had better success in building a pipeline of judges to SCOTUS.

In retaliation, the GOP in turn escalated the use of the filibuster to obstruct Obama judicial appointments and took the unprecedented step of blocking a SCOTUS nomination.

In your mind, I am sure it is acceptable for the Democrats to further escalate by packing the court. This short sighted strategy of course assumes that the GOP will never be in a position again to respond in kind.

Mitch and Reid broke the Senate together. I accept that you will never acknowledge this.
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,925
8,397
136
So I read 75% of the over talking/talking over the speaker out of turn was done by the President.
While I like the idea of the mic being cut off (or better music plays over it), Chris Wallace said that would likely be ineffective or worse misleading.
Imagine being close to me, I am going to be as unruly as possible. Even if my mic is muted your mic could still pick me up or worse I distract your speaking and you end up looking like a moron.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,062
2,553
126
So I read 75% of the over talking/talking over the speaker out of turn was done by the President.
While I like the idea of the mic being cut off (or better music plays over it), Chris Wallace said that would likely be ineffective or worse misleading.
Imagine being close to me, I am going to be as unruly as possible. Even if my mic is muted your mic could still pick me up or worse I distract your speaking and you end up looking like a moron.
I think they could deal with the guy trying to talk over the other effectively using technology. Turning off a mic is the simplest solution and if they are far enough apart, that's gonna be pretty effective. They could step up their game by doing noise cancellation in the audio feed, so what the millions watching hear contains NOTHING said by the candidate speaking out of turn. There would still be the issue of the candidate speaking having to hear the other guy shouting at him. Even that could be handled by providing both candidates headphones, either sound blocking ("isolating") or noise cancelling.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,915
1,206
136
I have in other threads on the topic, and a quick Google search yields numerous articles that caution why court stacking is a bad idea.

The judiciary is meant to be the neutral arbitrators of Constitutionality. Judicial appointments should be a relatively uninteresting function of government. Instead, both parties perceive the judiciary as their partisan Maginot line to protect their legislative achievements. Who fired the first shot in politicizing the judiciary? Who cares. In my lifetime, there’s been a series of escalations. Democrats attacked the character of Bork, to the extent that the term “borked” exists in the Webster dictionary as a form of political defamation. Democrats also obstructed Bush’s appellate court appointments because Republicans have had better success in building a pipeline of judges to SCOTUS.

In retaliation, the GOP in turn escalated the use of the filibuster to obstruct Obama judicial appointments and took the unprecedented step of blocking a SCOTUS nomination.

In your mind, I am sure it is acceptable for the Democrats to further escalate by packing the court. This short sighted strategy of course assumes that the GOP will never be in a position again to respond in kind.

Mitch and Reid broke the Senate together. I accept that you will never acknowledge this.
One. Judiciary has not been a neutral arbitrator for a long long time. The only reason it's been somewhat neutral over the past 40 years is because for the most part the ideological split has been 5-4 given possibility that majority judge may side with minority party. When Trump's appointment goes through the balance will be 6-3 and all 3 of his appointments are young and ideologically all the way to the right, there is very little chance that any of them will rule in favor of democratic policies. Trump with Mitch's help will have permanently shifted SCOTUS to hard right.

Two. Stop with the Bork bullshit. Bork was a horrible horrible candidate who played an instrumental role in Saturday Night Massacre, and not for the good side. He was unqualified to sit on SCOTUS, and if you look at confirmation record 6 out of 46 Republican Senators voted not to confirm Bork too. Additionally, Reagan's next nomination, justice Kennedy sailed through with unanimous approval. So stop implying that Democrats objected to Bork on ideological grounds and not because he was a terrible candidate.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,437
1,813
126
Cut off the mic if they speak over their allotted time, impose penalties if they refuse to honor said allocations OR if they fail to directly answer the question as posed. In all honesty, some questions should be simple yes/no.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,437
1,813
126
One. Judiciary has not been a neutral arbitrator for a long long time. The only reason it's been somewhat neutral over the past 40 years is because for the most part the ideological split has been 5-4 given possibility that majority judge may side with minority party. When Trump's appointment goes through the balance will be 6-3 and all 3 of his appointments are young and ideologically all the way to the right, there is very little chance that any of them will rule in favor of democratic policies. Trump with Mitch's help will have permanently shifted SCOTUS to hard right.

Two. Stop with the Bork bullshit. Bork was a horrible horrible candidate who played an instrumental role in Saturday Night Massacre, and not for the good side. He was unqualified to sit on SCOTUS, and if you look at confirmation record 6 out of 46 Republican Senators voted not to confirm Bork too. Additionally, Reagan's next nomination, justice Kennedy sailed through with unanimous approval. So stop implying that Democrats objected to Bork on ideological grounds and not because he was a terrible candidate.
The bork bullshit is because Kennedy took the unprecedented step of taking the character assassination of a judicial appointment into the public domain. His tactic was beneath what’s expected of the Senate. This is why we have confirmation hearings.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,915
1,206
136
The bork bullshit is because Kennedy took the unprecedented step of taking the character assassination of a judicial appointment into the public domain. His tactic was beneath what’s expected of the Senate. This is why we have confirmation hearings.
So you're saying that the Robert Bork who at the direction of Richard Nixon fired special investigator Archibald Cox investigating Nixon's corruption is suited to sit on the Supreme Court?

Bullshit.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,212
8,054
136
I have in other threads on the topic, and a quick Google search yields numerous articles that caution why court stacking is a bad idea.

The judiciary is meant to be the neutral arbitrators of Constitutionality. Judicial appointments should be a relatively uninteresting function of government. Instead, both parties perceive the judiciary as their partisan Maginot line to protect their legislative achievements. Who fired the first shot in politicizing the judiciary? Who cares. In my lifetime, there’s been a series of escalations. Democrats attacked the character of Bork, to the extent that the term “borked” exists in the Webster dictionary as a form of political defamation. Democrats also obstructed Bush’s appellate court appointments because Republicans have had better success in building a pipeline of judges to SCOTUS.

In retaliation, the GOP in turn escalated the use of the filibuster to obstruct Obama judicial appointments and took the unprecedented step of blocking a SCOTUS nomination.

In your mind, I am sure it is acceptable for the Democrats to further escalate by packing the court. This short sighted strategy of course assumes that the GOP will never be in a position again to respond in kind.

Mitch and Reid broke the Senate together. I accept that you will never acknowledge this.
So declining to approve of a Supreme Court nomination is what started this? You say this despite the fact that less than 20 years earlier (as in two presidents prior) Nixon had two nominations rejected and there were five rejections prior to that after the civil war.

For someone who claims to be outside the echo chamber you sure do seem real good at repeating gop talking points.

You are a perfect example of why “both side” bitches are intellectually lazy. Instead of relying on actual facts, you relied on your feels, which relied on bs talking points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,212
8,054
136
The bork bullshit is because Kennedy took the unprecedented step of taking the character assassination of a judicial appointment into the public domain. His tactic was beneath what’s expected of the Senate. This is why we have confirmation hearings.
More ignorance from you. You could show just a tiny bit of decency and at least fact check your feels. Your “character assasination” (another gop talking point), was not unprecedented as pointing out ones questionable actions isn’t beyond the pale. That would be like claiming that bringing up the fact that trump lies all the time is unfair. That would be incredibly stupid.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,225
3,169
126
The problem with just cutting the mic off is that when Trump won't shut the fuck up, Biden, Wallace, and everyone else in the room will still hear him talk. Just us at home won't. And it will still have an effect on Biden for sure.

They basically need him in a sound proof box so when his mic is off no one can hear his fat ass blabbing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,212
8,054
136
So you're saying that the Robert Bork who at the direction of Richard Nixon fired special investigator Archibald Cox investigating Nixon's corruption is suited to sit on the Supreme Court?

Bullshit.
Not to mention that Reagan’s next nomination was confirmed. Malintent not found.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

MrSquished

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
7,613
2,505
136
Election night, thanks to Democrat bias with mail in voting, Trump will win.
Then will be the fight over counting / not counting ballots as they arrive AFTER election day.
It will be a fight to "steal" the election from Trump.
And that fight is where America is in serious jeopardy.

Trump will violate the rule of law. Fox News will push it. And the "real Republicans" will dither and wonder how many more Judges they can take.
This is my concern as well. Russian State Media conceded that Trump lost the debate but America is lost because Trump has sown so much division and propaganda it doesn't even matter who actually wins, the lopsided SC will give the election to him. Also they called him Putin's Piglet https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-media-calls-trump-putins-piglet-admits-he-lost-the-debate
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY