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

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,130
13,070
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.
None of which you'd care to link, for some reason.

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.
That's diversion, obfuscation & revisionist history. Bork is a right wing dog whistle, considering it happened 21 years before Obama was elected, 12 fucking years ago.

I'm glad you've recognized McConnell's blatant & repeated malfeasance, however, and how it will warp jurisprudence for decades to come. There is no remedy for that other than expanding the court & you know it full well.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,432
1,808
126
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.
Trump does lie all the time, so its fair game to point that out. Doesn’t change the fact that “borked” is a recognized term for political character assassination. My feelings are irrelevant as it relates to observable truth.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,432
1,808
126
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.
I relied on historical fact and opinions written well outside the GOP sphere. I mostly read the Atlantic, the New Yorker, Politico and the NY Times.

You are welcome to disagree with my interpretation, and I certainly don’t feel compelled to call you a bitch when you do. That is an emotional response, not a logical one.
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,327
1,343
136
They’re both in the kitchen. I’ll make some tea.
Just because there is a term like “borked” in the modern lexicon, does not reflect the facts of the situation. If there was truly resistance to the nomination, the Kennedy nomination would have the same battle. Just because Nixon thought he could push through whomever he wanted, is the “facts” you resist. The method may have been one you and I may not have used, but it does not impact the “facts” on why Bork was such a bad nomination.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,043
2,546
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.
Well, Biden's mic will be on and that could go not only to the TV feed but to the PA in the facility, pretty much drowning out Trump's whatever if Trump's mic is off. Additionally, it's possible to have either or both candidates wear sound isolating headphones/earbuds, that block out ambient sound, and if those are noise cancelling they could be configured to only be so while the candidate is talking, i.e. when it's their turn. It's doable. Lots of doable stuff isn't done but it's not an insurmountable problem, is what I'm saying. The important thing is that the candidates can hear the moderator and hear their opponent when appropriate. If it's candidate X's turn to speak and enjoy silence from their opponent, that's doable. Additionally, the flack can be blocked from the TV feed, and that would be quite appropriate. Candidate X can blather, but nobody would hear him, even the people in the facility if the mic-ed candidate's feed goes through the PA system.
 
Last edited:

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
15,872
3,449
136
Trump just tweeted he doesn't want any rule changes because he thinks he won.
“Why would I allow the Debate Commission to change the rules for the second and third Debates when I easily won last time?” Trump said Thursday on Twitter.
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,059
435
126
Fivethirtyeight has boosted Biden victory odds to 80%.
The post debate polling came out today and Biden made gains.

Yesterday 538 ran an article about time running out for Trump and if the election were held yesterday he only had a 9% chance of winning. Their odd for on Election Day have it built in him improving. I’m not sure he will actually improve. His only really chance is voter suppression or there is a polling error four to five times bigger than 2016.

Statistically Biden is as likely to knock door of 400 electoral votes and Trump is to win. Either can but they are no where near the likely outcome.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,059
435
126
Which is good, but we've all played X-Com, so we know just how much of a guarantee that isn't.
If the election were held today Trump would be at a 9% chance of winning according to 538.

The 538 projection is based on Election Day and it presumes he will improve. Every day he doesn’t improve he’s changes on Election Day will go day some. The presumption he will improve some may not come true. If he doesn’t improve his election chances are in the single digits.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
7,168
2,347
136
Trump does lie all the time, so its fair game to point that out. Doesn’t change the fact that “borked” is a recognized term for political character assassination. My feelings are irrelevant as it relates to observable truth.
I was around for those hearings and the opposition was legit. It's not "character assassination" when you are pointing out Borks published and legal history of hostility towards civil rights, LGBT and being a general prick of man.
If you are fine with a supreme court justice who believes Freedom of Speech is only protected when its political speech and all other speech is not observed...then he's your guy
If you believe the Civil rights act is bullshit...then he's your guy.
If you want someone who is willing to act in an unethical manner on befalf of the president then he's your guy.
The only people morning the loss of Bork are those who are pissed off about black, gays and non-evangeilcal people daring to open their motuhs when Jesus is speaking.

A basic review of Supreme Court nominations, failed and successful would probably be useful for you.
 

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
21,684
200
106
Well, Biden's mic will be on and that could go not only to the TV feed but to the PA in the facility, pretty much drowning out Trump's whatever if Trump's mic is off. Additionally, it's possible to have either or both candidates wear sound isolating headphones/earbuds, that block out ambient sound, and if those are noise cancelling they could be configured to only be so while the candidate is talking, i.e. when it's their turn. It's doable. Lots of doable stuff isn't done but it's not an insurmountable problem, is what I'm saying. The important thing is that the candidates can hear the moderator and hear their opponent when appropriate. If it's candidate X's turn to speak and enjoy silence from their opponent, that's doable. Additionally, the flack can be blocked from the TV feed, and that would be quite appropriate. Candidate X can blather, but nobody would hear him, even the people in the facility if the mic-ed candidate's feed goes through the PA system.
I normally would agree, but Trump will Trump so leave it as it is. While I don't think Trump being Trump in the 1st debate probably made any of his fanbase jump ship. Him being obnoxious, yelling and acting like a spoiled toddler doubtfully won him over any undecided. Since nothing Biden could say would make Trump supports become Biden supports. Ultimately what Joe says doesn't matter, just let Trump continue to stick his foot in his mouth and lose even more of the undecided voters.

Trump said he believes he won, I think somehow he could actually believe this. I want the next debate to be a mirror of this one, it'll only make him look shittier. And he'll once again proclaim "I WON AGAIN!" I wonder if anyone in his staff has the balls to tell him he lost badly? And if they did would he ever believe it. He's an egomaniac on a level which I've never seen.
 

MrSquished

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
7,559
2,448
136
They are literal trash. All of them. At this point anybody who votes for Trump to me is also trash.

I don't care what they do. Nazis in the 30's had families. Fascists walked their dogs and pet them. KKK members baked pies and shared with neighbors. Stalinists bought each other shots at the bar and gregariously told stories. Whatever.

Still fundamentally they were trash humans.
 

ewdotson

Senior member
Oct 30, 2011
999
901
136
If the election were held today Trump would be at a 9% chance of winning according to 538.

The 538 projection is based on Election Day and it presumes he will improve. Every day he doesn’t improve he’s changes on Election Day will go day some. The presumption he will improve some may not come true. If he doesn’t improve his election chances are in the single digits.
Oh, I know! And I've been arguing for months now that while complacency is bad, so is cynical fatalism.
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,898
8,371
136
They are literal trash. All of them. At this point anybody who votes for Trump to me is also trash.

I don't care what they do. Nazis in the 30's had families. Fascists walked their dogs and pet them. KKK members baked pies and shared with neighbors. Stalinists bought each other shots at the bar and gregariously told stories. Whatever.

Still fundamentally they were trash humans.
I maintain Tiffany is not. While I am all bit certain she is a pampered rich kid, she is smart enough to keep her mouth shut. Plus she doesn’t engage in pampered rich kid stuff as in she doesn’t perpetually post shit on Instagram and stuff, so I may be wrong in the pampered rich kid thing.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,043
2,546
126
Or bail out.
They won't bail out. They need a flip of the script. They're brainstorming, trying to get some angle, some wedge into Biden's armor. Trump's personal instinct is to try to get under his opponent's skin. He's been doing this since he threw his hat in the ring in 2016. He isn't going to stop. Any chance he gets he's on attack. People noticed he's got no plans for the country. Maybe he'll throw some meat on that fire in the next debates.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,243
3,474
136
They won't bail out. They need a flip of the script. They're brainstorming, trying to get some angle, some wedge into Biden's armor. Trump's personal instinct is to try to get under his opponent's skin. He's been doing this since he threw his hat in the ring in 2016. He isn't going to stop. Any chance he gets he's on attack. People noticed he's got no plans for the country. Maybe he'll throw some meat on that fire in the next debates.
But if the rules basically disable his "style" that, being a bully, then he can't participate.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,243
3,474
136
They won't bail out. They need a flip of the script. They're brainstorming, trying to get some angle, some wedge into Biden's armor. Trump's personal instinct is to try to get under his opponent's skin. He's been doing this since he threw his hat in the ring in 2016. He isn't going to stop. Any chance he gets he's on attack. People noticed he's got no plans for the country. Maybe he'll throw some meat on that fire in the next debates.
But if the rules basically disable his "style" that, being a bully, then he can't participate.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,199
8,044
136
I was around for those hearings and the opposition was legit. It's not "character assassination" when you are pointing out Borks published and legal history of hostility towards civil rights, LGBT and being a general prick of man.
If you are fine with a supreme court justice who believes Freedom of Speech is only protected when its political speech and all other speech is not observed...then he's your guy
If you believe the Civil rights act is bullshit...then he's your guy.
If you want someone who is willing to act in an unethical manner on befalf of the president then he's your guy.
The only people morning the loss of Bork are those who are pissed off about black, gays and non-evangeilcal people daring to open their motuhs when Jesus is speaking.

A basic review of Supreme Court nominations, failed and successful would probably be useful for you.
Apparently to Starbuck, in order to call into question the reasoning for such a nomination all one has to do is to come up with a meme that sticks. Disregard the fact that the vote was not partisan with several people on both sides of the isle voting for or against Bork.

Starbucks level of stupidity basically allows someone like trump, who calls the media “fake news”, to be a legitimate claim because it’s achieved meme status. That’s just fucking dumb beyond belief.

Here are some contemporary reporting at the time:


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ASK THE COMMUNITY