Jump to content

U.S. Politics


Recommended Posts

I guess it will be either ram a new appointee and potentially loose by more. ie drive the backlash Dem vote. Or dangle a Trump re-election to get folk out to vote. Trump 2nd term. A fine balancing act as to where the Republicans see their chances. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Withnail said:

I guess it will be either ram a new appointee and potentially loose by more. ie drive the backlash Dem vote. Or dangle a Trump re-election to get folk out to vote. Trump 2nd term. A fine balancing act as to where the Republicans see their chances. 

They will do the former, because the latter - an uncertain shot a presidential term with an unpopular doofus in charge - is worth a hell of a lot less than the baked-in decades-long dominance of the court they are about to take.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

They will do the former, because the latter - an uncertain shot a presidential term with an unpopular doofus in charge - is worth a hell of a lot less than the baked-in decades-long dominance of the court they are about to take.

I guess it is how much Trump backs himself. He wants a second term. That means folk love him. So if he thinks he has a chance of a second term and therefore not going to jail for, well, everything, he will do what ever the f*$k he wants. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brumerican said:

Of course.

Obvious next move is obvious.

Image

This going to be ugly. And it will obviously dominante the election over the next month. CNN en Fox will have something to talk about with many pundits. 
Kavanaugh appointment was entertaining though, i seem to recall the man likes beer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a system where anything is a lifetime appointment, nevermind something as important as a Supreme Court, and then having those judges politically nominated is asking for trouble.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

They will do the former, because the latter - an uncertain shot a presidential term with an unpopular doofus in charge - is worth a hell of a lot less than the baked-in decades-long dominance of the court they are about to take.

Might it also be where Trump sees his best 'deal'?

Maybe pushing forward with a new conservative pick before the election (and sod the consequences for a second term for him) might be seen as a good thing for Trump if he can extract assurances and obligations from the Republican party for the political futures of his kids (and any other deals for himself personallly in to the bargain)?

If he makes it another ten years, can be lauded as the President who was there when they gained this ascendancy in the Supreme Court and gets to see one or more of the sprogs taking elected political office then he might well judge that as a very good deal.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Might it also be where Trump sees his best 'deal'?

Maybe pushing forward with a new conservative pick before the election (and sod the consequences for a second term for him) might be seen as a good thing for Trump if he can extract assurances and obligations from the Republican party for the political futures of his kids (and any other deals for himself personallly in to the bargain)?

If he makes it another ten years, can be lauded as the President who was there when they gained this ascendancy in the Supreme Court and gets to see one or more of the sprogs taking elected political office then he might well judge that as a very good deal.

If Trump loses his kids have no future. All of them have unsealed indictments at State level in New York.

He HAS to win by any means so the next 5 weeks are going to be insane.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

If Trump loses his kids have no future. All of them have unsealed indictments at State level in New York.

He HAS to win by any means so the next 5 weeks are going to be insane.

Fair enough. It was just early morning musings. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, snowychap said:

Fair enough. It was just early morning musings. :)

You seen the cards today ? A 7th place , A 6th place , some 5ths and a bunch of 4ths ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

Yerp. Good day for low stake big reward stuff.

Ah, no.

I've largely stayed away from the nags since Cheltenham. I wouldn't be doing much more than wild stabs in the dark.

Come to think of it, that may be better than trying to imagine I have some knowledge!

May take a look, ta. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, snowychap said:

Ah, no.

I've largely stayed away from the nags since Cheltenham. I wouldn't be doing much more than wild stabs in the dark.

Come to think of it, that may be better than trying to imagine I have some knowledge!

May take a look, ta. :)

Ha me neither on principle. Just thought you'd be interested. I only bet on NFL these days.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Might it also be where Trump sees his best 'deal'?

Maybe pushing forward with a new conservative pick before the election (and sod the consequences for a second term for him) might be seen as a good thing for Trump if he can extract assurances and obligations from the Republican party for the political futures of his kids (and any other deals for himself personallly in to the bargain)?

If he makes it another ten years, can be lauded as the President who was there when they gained this ascendancy in the Supreme Court and gets to see one or more of the sprogs taking elected political office then he might well judge that as a very good deal.

It's an interesting thought, but in the end I think Trump will be somewhat secondary to this process, which is driven by the Senate Majority leader. Trump will choose from two or three options on his desk, but it's McConnell that gets to ram the process through the Senate. The only real question is whether is whether he does so before the election, or waits until the lame-duck session, but one way or another I am extremely confident there will be a rock-ribbed christian fundamentalist freakazoid in place by the time Biden takes office.

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Liberals never learn. Being burned over and over again, maybe it's like a kink or something?

 

Er, from what I understand the Republicans control the house that endorses or not the President’s pick. When a similar situation occurred under Obama, the same Republican house said “too close to an election”. So the Dem’s pretty much only can use that argument of precedent and principle.

in other words the charge you make doesn’t stack up, does it? Or am I missing something with my very limited understanding of how the system works over there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â