The Republican Primary is going to be insane.

[mspart]

So you are of the opinion that Trump controls the Rs?    This the great hope of the Ds for sure.   You guys should be ecstatic that he is running and not complain about it.   But I don't share that opinion.   I think when the tangibles and intangibles are compared, Trump loses a lot of luster that he once had.

Is he influential?  Yes.   Able to control GOP fundraising?  I don't think so.   Trump is old news.   Just like Biden is.   Neither should prevail in 2024.  

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

5 minutes ago, mspart said:

So you are of the opinion that Trump controls the Rs?    This the great hope of the Ds for sure.   You guys should be ecstatic that he is running and not complain about it.   But I don't share that opinion.   I think when the tangibles and intangibles are compared, Trump loses a lot of luster that he once had.

Is he influential?  Yes.   Able to control GOP fundraising?  I don't think so.   Trump is old news.   Just like Biden is.   Neither should prevail in 2024.  

mspart

He has filled roles up and down the GOP with his handpicked people.

It's going to be a fight.

[jross]

Trump will win the R primaries, get 100M votes in the general election, and still lose to Biden.

[Mike Parrish]

8 minutes ago, jross said:

Trump will win the R primaries, get 100M votes in the general election, and still lose to Biden.

Since we're making predictions:
* Trump will get indicted multiple times in addition to damaging civil suits
* The GOP will try to distance themselves from him
* Trump will try to go third party, calling the GOP RINOs and disloyal
* Half of Trump's base will just stay home
* Biden is reelected in an historic landslide
* Dems take back the house and expand the senate majority

[Plasmodium]

10 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Since we're making predictions:
* Trump will get indicted multiple times in addition to damaging civil suits
* The GOP will try to distance themselves from him
* Trump will try to go third party, calling the GOP RINOs and disloyal
* Half of Trump's base will just stay home
* Biden is reelected in an historic landslide
* Dems take back the house and expand the senate majority

Don't forget to pack the court and reverse some decisions.

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

Don't forget to pack the court and reverse some decisions.

Insh'Allah!

[Plasmodium]

23 minutes ago, jross said:

Trump will win the R primaries, get 100M votes in the general election, and still lose to Biden.

100M, 200M.  Whatever it takes.  Digital and dead votes are EZ!

[mspart]

36 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Since we're making predictions:
* Trump will get indicted multiple times in addition to damaging civil suits  This may happen but I don't think so. 
* The GOP will try to distance themselves from him   I know I wish they would
* Trump will try to go third party, calling the GOP RINOs and disloyal    He probably will as we discussed before
* Half of Trump's base will just stay home  I don't think this is true, they will turn out, if not for Trump for other Rs..
* Biden is reelected in an historic landslide  I'm not sure that Biden getting the nomination is such a sure thing.   But  maybe so, but no landslide.   Ds will generally be disappointed in the choice they have and sit out. 
* Dems take back the house and expand the senate majority   This may happen, it depends on what direction the country takes under mostly D leadership. 

24 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Don't forget to pack the court and reverse some decisions.   I really don't think you want this.   It will make a joke of the Supreme Court.   When Rs get the majority, they will just increase it more and add more justices.   When will it end?  It won't.   I think this is overall a bad idea.  It was fine when it worked for you but not when it doesn't so you cry and have a fit and want to change the rules.   Better get rid of that dude from WV. 

Just some general comments.   Again, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it and it might not be to your liking in the long run.  This is the problem with short term thinking. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

The court has already been packed.

We're rebalancing it.

[mspart]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

The court has already been packed.

We're rebalancing it.

The court is no more packed than the rules allow.   You are rebalancing it?  That is an ignorant statement.   Let us all know when it was balanced before now.   Please, that would be rich.   With 9 on the bench, it is never balanced.   When did you complain about the makeup of the court before Trump's administration?   That would be interesting.  

mspart

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

The court is no more packed than the rules allow.   You are rebalancing it?  That is an ignorant statement.   Let us all know when it was balanced before now.   Please, that would be rich.   With 9 on the bench, it is never balanced.   When did you complain about the makeup of the court before Trump's administration?   That would be interesting.  

mspart

McConnell packed the court, 2016-2017.

[VakAttack]

5 hours ago, mspart said:

The court is no more packed than the rules allow. 

mspart

...is it your opinion that changing the number of Supreme Court Justices is somehow illegal?  Because I have some news for you about the history of that body.

[Bigbrog]

Packing the court is just an extension of poor losers...geeze people get real.  

By the way, I think Trump's "followers" is extremely low at this point and if the R's put out the right candidate I feel like they have a chance against Biden...a lot of my D friends do not like Biden or want him to run again.  Here's to hoping both the R's and D's put out high quality candidates as opposed to Biden and Drump!!

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Packing the court is just an extension of poor losers...geeze people get real.  

By the way, I think Trump's "followers" is extremely low at this point and if the R's put out the right candidate I feel like they have a chance against Biden...a lot of my D friends do not like Biden or want him to run again.  Here's to hoping both the R's and D's put out high quality candidates as opposed to Biden and Drump!!

All the polling says that you're wrong about this.

 

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Packing the court is just an extension of poor losers...geeze people get real.  

By the way, I think Trump's "followers" is extremely low at this point and if the R's put out the right candidate I feel like they have a chance against Biden...a lot of my D friends do not like Biden or want him to run again.  Here's to hoping both the R's and D's put out high quality candidates as opposed to Biden and Drump!!

In fact, Trump's lead is widening.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_032123_2/

[Bigbrog]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

All the polling says that you're wrong about this.

 

Come on Mike...you are better than this...poles mean nothing....hasn't that been established the last two election cycles...not to mention Desantis hasn't even announced he is running.  Doesn't matter, I stated my opinion and that doesn't change.  Like I said, my only hope is we are voting for someone other than Trump or Biden.

[Mike Parrish]

7 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Come on Mike...you are better than this...poles mean nothing....hasn't that been established the last two election cycles...not to mention Desantis hasn't even announced he is running.  Doesn't matter, I stated my opinion and that doesn't change.  Like I said, my only hope is we are voting for someone other than Trump or Biden.

The polls do mean something.

They will tell donors which candidates are valid and will become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Biden's running and I'll enthusiastically vote for him.
Trump's also running and thinking he won't win the GOP primary is a losing bet at this point.

[Bigbrog]

33 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

The polls do mean something.

They will tell donors which candidates are valid and will become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Biden's running and I'll enthusiastically vote for him.
Trump's also running and thinking he won't win the GOP primary is a losing bet at this point.

Okay if you say so...

[Nailbender]

55 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

The polls do mean something.

They will tell donors which candidates are valid and will become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Biden's running and I'll enthusiastically vote for him.
Trump's also running and thinking he won't win the GOP primary is a losing bet at this point.

Is there something specific about Biden that has you enthusiastically voting for him, besides that he is not Trump?

 

 

Also, which polls mean something? All of them?

[mspart]

20 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

McConnell packed the court, 2016-2017.

Again, that is an ignorant and pathetic statement void of understanding and logic.  

There were 9 justices.   There are now 9 justices.   Packing the court means to increase the amount of justices so you can get the majority in the vernacular of today.   That didn't happen in 2016-2017.   Even you can't pretend that happened.   McConnell didn't manufacture vacancies on the court, they all lined up to make that happen.   He took advantage of the opportunity the same Schumer would have had he had the ability.  And don't even try to tell me that is an untrue statement.   You are asking Schumer to do something far worse.   To increase to 15, pack those additional 6 with liberal judges so there is a vast liberal majority on the court.   Don't even try to deny this.   McConnell used circumstances presented to him to his favor, the same Chucky would if he had had that opportunity.  McConnell did not try to make a change to the number of justices.  But that is what you are advocating inshallah. 

If you guys want to pack the court with more justices so you can choose who they will be, guess what will happen when an R senate and R President come?   And then the SCOTUS just gets bigger and bigger until it becomes meaningless.   And maybe that is really where you want to go with this.  Because as sure as Lee lost in the semi finals, that will happen. 

mspart

[mspart]

16 hours ago, VakAttack said:

...is it your opinion that changing the number of Supreme Court Justices is somehow illegal?  Because I have some news for you about the history of that body.

No, I don't think that is illegal.   According to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1.  The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  I think it is unnecessary and not fruitful to increase the number.   What's to stop it from becoming a 50 justice panel, or 1000 justice panel when certain political parties feel put upon?   It loses credibility as an institution at that point.  I'm sure you think it already has but adding justices is not the answer to that issue. 

Somehow you guys think that a liberal court is just great.   You've always had one so you don't know any different.  But you think a conservative court is and should be illegal.  You are the guys that are unreasonable here.   Conservatives have been waiting for decades for the opportunity now present and you guys figured it would never happen.   Now you are panicking.   Classic case of giving crap and telling the recipient to be grateful, but not taking it.  

mspart

[Plasmodium]

7 minutes ago, mspart said:

Again, that is an ignorant and pathetic statement void of understanding and logic.  

There were 9 justices.   There are now 9 justices.   Packing the court means to increase the amount of justices so you can get the majority in the vernacular of today.   That didn't happen in 2016-2017.   Even you can't pretend that happened.   McConnell didn't manufacture vacancies on the court, they all lined up to make that happen.   He took advantage of the opportunity the same Schumer would have had he had the ability.  And don't even try to tell me that is an untrue statement.   You are asking Schumer to do something far worse.   To increase to 15, pack those additional 6 with liberal judges so there is a vast liberal majority on the court.   Don't even try to deny this.   McConnell used circumstances presented to him to his favor, the same Chucky would if he had had that opportunity.  McConnell did not try to make a change to the number of justices.  But that is what you are advocating inshallah. 

If you guys want to pack the court with more justices so you can choose who they will be, guess what will happen when an R senate and R President come?   And then the SCOTUS just gets bigger and bigger until it becomes meaningless.   And maybe that is really where you want to go with this.  Because as sure as Lee lost in the semi finals, that will happen. 

mspart

Definition of court packing is about composition more than number.  The point is to control the outcome of decisions.   It is right there in the definition.    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/court-packing.   This is not the way it was done in the past.  Clarence Thomas was appointed by Bush and confirmed by a Democrat majority Senate.  Mitchell, the Senate majority leader at that time was a rube, correct?  Clinton won in 92 and he was still majority leader.

My hope is Chuck Schumer goes out to pasture.  However, if an opportunity arises to pack the court I don't expect it to happen, I demand it.

[mspart]

How will you pack the court without adding justices?   I don't believe your argument because that argument is not your position on the matter. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

How will you pack the court without adding justices?   I don't believe your argument because that argument is not your position on the matter. 

mspart

It's in the definition
 

Quote

the practice of changing the number or composition of judges on a court, making it more favorable to particular goals or ideologies, and typically involving an increase in the number of seats on the court

 

[Plasmodium]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

How will you pack the court without adding justices?   I don't believe your argument because that argument is not your position on the matter. 

mspart

Wait for a favorable president.