Election 2020 - Page 267 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By colliric
#15131298
The USC Daybreak Poll changed their methodology significantly in 2018 and this election, when they were the only poll in 2016 to predict a Trump victory.

Changed it, even though it apparently wasn't broken.
By Doug64
#15131299
Random American wrote:There are ways to encourage states to do it, like how the federal government encouraged states to raise the drinking age to 21.

Yes, and I’m opposed to that abuse of Congress’s tax and spend authority as well. IMHO, if Congress isn’t authorized to regulate something it isn’t authorized to spend money on it, either.
User avatar
By Random American
#15131301
Doug64 wrote:Yes, and I’m opposed to that abuse of Congress’s tax and spend authority as well. IMHO, if Congress isn’t authorized to regulate something it isn’t authorized to spend money on it, either.

Well, I don't agree. Plus, we had a political party that was for public infrastructure spending, called the Federalist Party. Congress' power isn't a limited as you think it is.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


I would consider this part of protecting the "general welfare" of the United States, so I do think congress does have the sweeping powers to do this.
By Doug64
#15131305
Random American wrote:Well, I don't agree. Plus, we had a political party that was for public infrastructure spending, called the Federalist Party. Congress' power isn't a limited as you think it is.

Yes, such Federalists as Hamilton argued for an expansive interpretation of the General Welfare clause, despite the fact that a clause authorizing spending on internal improvements was rejected by the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson and Madison broke away from the Federalist Party in part because of opposition to that expansive interpretation, and we all know how that contest turned out. in his 1806 State of the Union address Jefferson called for a constitutional amendment to permit spending on internal improvements, but Congress ignored him.

I would consider this part of protecting the "general welfare" of the United States, so I do think congress does have the sweeping powers to do this.

From the Articles of Confederation: "All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled ..." Do you believe anyone at the time thought the Continental Congress was authorized by that to incur expenses for anything that it believed to be of benefit to the united States, or only for those areas that it was authorized to act by the Articles? There's another problem with placing the Congress's spending authority in the General Welfare clause--if that's the case, the only funds Congress is authorized to spend are those raised through "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." Where is Congress authorized to spend funds raised by borrowing (I.8.2) or the sale of lands? Better to look to the Necessary and Proper and Territories clauses, in which case the "common Defence and general Welfare" clause properly becomes the limitation it should be rather than a blanket permission that renders many of the rest of the enumerated powers pretty much superfluous.
By Pants-of-dog
#15131306
@Doug64

Can you please provide an example of these attempts to force states to count invalid mail-in ballots? Thank you.
User avatar
By Random American
#15131307
Doug64 wrote:Yes, such Federalists as Hamilton argued for an expansive interpretation of the General Welfare clause, despite the fact that a clause authorizing spending on internal improvements was rejected by the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson and Madison broke away from the Federalist Party in part because of opposition to that expansive interpretation, and we all know how that contest turned out. in his 1806 State of the Union address Jefferson called for a constitutional amendment to permit spending on internal improvements, but Congress ignored him.


From the Articles of Confederation: "All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled ..." Do you believe anyone at the time thought the Continental Congress was authorized by that to incur expenses for anything that it believed to be of benefit to the united States, or only for those areas that it was authorized to act by the Articles? There's another problem with placing the Congress's spending authority in the General Welfare clause--if that's the case, the only funds Congress is authorized to spend are those raised through "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." Where is Congress authorized to spend funds raised by borrowing (I.8.2) or the sale of lands? Better to look to the Necessary and Proper and Territories clauses, in which case the "common Defence and general Welfare" clause properly becomes the limitation it should be rather than a blanket permission that renders many of the rest of the enumerated powers pretty much superfluous.


I just read that article, and I don't see that restriction. Plus, the Articles of Confederation were ditched because they were too weak, which is why we have the current constitution to begin with. The necessary and proper clause gives congress more power (which is why anti-federalists opposed it), not less, just like the line about the general welfare. It's a list of powers granted by Section 8. Congress can tax to promote the general welfare, and borrow money. The constitution grants a lot more power to the government than the articles did.

► Show Spoiler

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

All of these grant Congress power. Necessary and Proper gives Congress the power to act even in ways that aren't explicitly stated in the constitution. This does not dispute my interpretation of the "general welfare" line.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15131308
After Fat Donald loses he will initiate 36 lawsuits against the American voters who did not vote for him. :|
User avatar
By jimjam
#15131314
Image

One of Fat Donald's "Key Advisors" :eek: .


Image

I'll take this any day:

Image
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15131316
People are voting in record numbers because obviously 4 years of desperate flailing and fucking up have inspired people to vote for Trump. Everyone loves the fat idiot who spends all day watching TV and actively killing his base. They can't get enough of it.

*Looks at a picture of Trump, sees nothing but giant muscles and an outline of a giant dong*

Tr-Trump, senpai... please notice me...
User avatar
By colliric
#15131317
People are voting early in record numbers because the democrats sent out all those Mail-ins ballots and encouraged pre-poll voting, of cause hardcore die hards are going to use them.

Republicans are expected in much higher numbers to turn up more on the day, but even their Mail-ins and pre-poll ballots are record levels too(not far behind the democrats at the moment).

Numbers do not show a terribly high differential.

Lol. On Election Day, Republicans are going to dominate the polling booths in person and see a "red wave" in queue. Probably going to be an intimidating sight. Lol.
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15131320
Yeah things are looking great for Trump right now lol. I'm sure the dumbest people on these forums, Trump supporters, scrying the bones trying to explain the inevitable victory are 1) extremely confident and 2) extremely competent.
User avatar
By maz
#15131321
Another high profile, iconic black man publicly admits his working relationship and seemingly tacit support for Trump. A wave of white and white presenting blue checks follows to flood the thread to hiss at the black man and call him names.



Image

Image
User avatar
By colliric
#15131323
SpecialOlympian wrote:Yeah things are looking great for Trump right now lol. I'm sure the dumbest people on these forums, Trump supporters, scrying the bones trying to explain the inevitable victory are 1) extremely confident and 2) extremely competent.


I called an EC victory which polls like Rasmussen, Emerson and IBD seem to support(Biden only in front by a whisker). If Biden wins, it's no big deal for me. It will be a close one, and I'm predicting there is a minor swing to Biden.

I told you this already.

Because you think it's going to be a landslide(just like you did last time), you think I'm defending Trump just because I'm saying it's tight and I believe the swing won't be big enough.
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15131325
You literally justified not counting votes because your fucked up slavery to your ideology defined counting things as subjective no less than 24 hours ago.
User avatar
By colliric
#15131330
SpecialOlympian wrote:You literally justified not counting votes because your fucked up slavery to your ideology defined counting things as subjective no less than 24 hours ago.


I just plain don't believe in endless recounts. I have worked as an Election worker here many times here in Australia, and we have three counts(referred to as "scrutinees" in this document) as standard in every election:
https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/candid ... policy.pdf

Formal Recounts are difficult to obtain here as a result, and they take a shitload of time and cost taxpayers more money. They often end up being a waste of time anyway.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15131362
Republicans after they have spent the last 20 years supressing votes and now it might be the highest turnout in a century:

Image

If that is true then i guess Republicans can say bye bye to both the Presidential positions and majority in Senate. As I said that is not good but there is a certain element of karmic retribution here.
By Doug64
#15131370
Random American wrote:I just read that article, and I don't see that restriction.

Did you know that in the original draft of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause wasn’t included? That would mean that that clause cannot have been intended to authorize federal spending or the original draft of the document would have authorized Congress to raise money but not spend it.

Plus, the Articles of Confederation were ditched because they were too weak, which is why we have the current constitution to begin with. The necessary and proper clause gives congress more power (which is why anti-federalists opposed it), not less, just like the line about the general welfare. It's a list of powers granted by Section 8. Congress can tax to promote the general welfare, and borrow money. The constitution grants a lot more power to the government than the articles did.


https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

All of these grant Congress power. Necessary and Proper gives Congress the power to act even in ways that aren't explicitly stated in the constitution. This does not dispute my interpretation of the "general welfare" line.

Yes, the Constitution grants the federal government more power than the Articles did, though not as much as people think—mostly, it gave the federal government more power to carry out the tasks it was originally given and it was still designed so that the federal government’s areas of responsibility were limited and defined. I see no reason why that expansion of the enumerated powers would change the meaning of a phrase from what in the Articles was a restriction of authority into a massive grant of authority. Nor does the Necessary and Proper clause change that. It reads:

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Congress is authorized to make all necessary laws to carry out the powers the Constitution grants to the Federal government, and only those powers. The power to collect taxes is one of them, the power to spend money on whatever Congress pleases is not.

This is made clear in the ratification debates. In response to Anti-Federalist fears that the General Welfare clause would be interpreted as you do and Hamilton later did, the Federalists emphasized that the clause was not any sort of general grant of spending authority. In Federalist No. 41 Madison wrote:

    Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxa- tion, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitu- tion, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

And then during the Virginia ratification debates, when Patrick Henry expressed fears that the General Welfare clause would be interpreted as you do and Hamilton later did, Edmund Randolph responded:

    “But in the general Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it? – for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless…But the rhetoric of the gentleman has highly colored the dangers of giving the general government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare. I contend that no such power is given.”

During the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton tried over and over to push for the creation of a strong central government, and was rebuffed every time, and during the ratification debates the Federalists made clear that the Constitution did not create the strong central government he dreamed of. It is much easier to believe that Hamilton and his supporters were the first Perfectionists, seeking to achieve through radical reinterpretation of the General Welfare clause what they were unable to achieve in the Constitutional Convention than that the Federalists lied over and over during the ratification debates. Certainly, Madison made it clear during his post-ratification career that he took what he wrote in the Federalist Papers seriously. Point to any statements by Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates asserting his later interpretation, and other Founders at those times that agreed with him, if you can.

Now back to the reason for this thread....

Here are some numbers and stats from Trump’s Arizona rallies this week:

Goodyear rally
  • 17,251 sign-ups
  • 19.5% NOT Republican
  • 35.7% did NOT vote in 2016

Bullhead City rally
  • 23,591 sign-ups
  • 24% NOT Republican
  • 45.3% did NOT vote in 2016

And bad news for Biden in Florida:

Biden trails Clinton's 2016 Florida Hispanic support in Telemundo poll: 'He has to at least match'
A new Telemundo poll paints a dangerous picture for Joseph R. Biden’s presidential campaign in Florida as it pertains to Hispanic voters.

The Sunshine State’s 29 electoral votes went to then-GOP nominee Donald Trump in 2016 despite 62% of Hispanic voters supporting Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Biden’s campaign holds a 51% to 47% lead over Mr. Trump in Telemundo’s poll, which was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy and has a 4.5% margin of error in either direction.

Brad Coker, one of Mason-Dixon’s pollsters, told Politico that Democrats are in a dire situation if the numbers are accurate.

“If Biden is going to flip Florida, he has to at least match Clinton’s numbers among Hispanics and that looks like it’s not going to happen,” Mr. Coker said Thursday. “Even if he were to pull most of the undecided vote still out there, Trump is going to do better this time than he did last time.”

Mr. Trump’s campaign has made consistent efforts to woo Florida’s Hispanics, particularly those with Cuban and Venezuelan roots.

The Republican’s campaign even hosted a “Fighters Against Socialism” bus tour featuring UFC fighter Jorge Masvidal.

“Fighting is easy and comes natural for me just like fighting communism and dictatorships comes easy and natural for patriots #thereelection,” the MMA fighter tweeted Wednesday.

Mr. Masvidal’s father risked his life fleeing Cuba on a raft in his 20s before arriving in the U.S. in 1971.


And then there’s the usual dirty tricks. Backing a candidate you and your supporters have no intention of voting for is bad enough, pushing voters to consider a candidate that withdrew from the race and endorsed your opponent a month ago is way over the line:

Third-party conservatives boosted by outside groups to siphon support from GOP candidates
Democrats’ allies are boosting third-party conservatives in U.S. Senate contests in states such as Kentucky and South Carolina in a last-ditch effort to siphon support from Republican candidates.

The meddling includes ads urging people to take a look at the Constitution Party’s Bill Bledsoe, who dropped out of the South Carolina race a month ago and endorsed Sen. Lindsey Graham.

But Mr. Bledsoe’s decision to drop out came too late to get his name off the ballot.

Mr. Graham’s campaign released a pair of ads on Thursday criticizing Jaime Harrison, his Democratic opponent, for promoting Mr. Bledsoe.

“This is Dr. Bill Bledsoe. I’ll be voting for Sen. Graham and I hope you will too,” the former candidate says in a 60-second radio ad.

Earlier this week, Mr. Bledsoe called on Mr. Harrison and other groups to “cease and desist.”

Mr. Graham and Mr. Harrison have been running neck-and-neck in recent polling in the typically red state.

The Harrison campaign did not respond to a request for comment but has previously defended their efforts.

Harrison campaign spokesman Guy King told the Associated Press earlier this month that the campaign was simply “making sure voters know the facts” about Mr. Harrison’s “two opponents on the ballot.”

The anti-Trump Lincoln Project also released a new ad this week touting Mr. Bledsoe as the only candidate South Carolina conservatives can trust.

“Dr. Bill Bledsoe is the real deal: tough on immigration, pro-guns, pro-God,” a narrator says with a slight southern drawl. “He’ll put ‘Christ’ back in ‘Christmas.’”

The group said in a statement Thursday it’s not backing down and that the Washington establishment is trying to “gaslight” Republicans into believing Mr. Graham is a conservative.

“The Lincoln Project will never cease or desist from our unfailing belief that Bill Bledsoe is the only true conservative in the South Carolina Senate race this election cycle,” the statement said.

In Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to be on his way to a relatively drama-free win over Democrat Amy McGrath in a race national Democrats were bullish on earlier in the cycle.

That hasn’t stopped outside groups from trying to boost Libertarian candidate Brad Barron in hopes of steering would-be McConnell voters away from the Republican.

The pro-McGrath “Fire Mitch, Save America” PAC is responsible for recent mailers saying that there is a “better choice” for U.S. Senate in Mr. Barron.

“Brad Barron will eliminate the IRS, audit the Federal Reserve, and bring our troops home,” the mailer says. “He will shake up Washington.”

A spokesman for Senate Republicans’ campaign arm said the moves smack of desperation.

“This is a last-ditch, desperate effort by these out-of-touch Democrats and their allies to meddle in these elections,” said Nathan Brand, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “But at the end of the day, voters know that Harrison and McGrath don’t share their values, and these dirty tricks are just another reminder why.”

In the presidential race, virtually all of the attention has been on President Trump and Joseph R. Biden, with Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen and Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins struggling to break through.

But White House adviser and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner has acknowledged talking with rapper Kanye West, whose odd “Birthday Party” White House bid was thought to potentially draw some Black support away from Mr. Biden.

Some operatives working to get Mr. West’s name on the ballot in various states have ties to Republicans or GOP causes.

Mr. Trump denied any part in helping Mr. West, whose wife Kim Kardashian West has praised the president’s efforts on criminal justice reform, get on the ballot.

“Not at all,” Mr. Trump said in August. “I like him. I like his wife.”
By Pants-of-dog
#15131371
@Doug64

At this point, I think we can assume that you were probably wrong when you claimed that there were attempts to force states to count invalid mail-in ballots.
#15131421
colliric wrote:I just plain don't believe in endless recounts. I have worked as an Election worker here many times here in Australia, and we have three counts(referred to as "scrutinees" in this document) as standard in every election:
https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/candid ... policy.pdf

Formal Recounts are difficult to obtain here as a result, and they take a shitload of time and cost taxpayers more money. They often end up being a waste of time anyway.


In a democratic system counting votes is simply an unnecessary and wasteful expense. Just hand the keys of government over to the party that hates it when people vote. It's the only way.
  • 1
  • 265
  • 266
  • 267
  • 268
  • 269
  • 432
Biden breaks his foot

Here is my response . https://www.cnn[…]

Rethinking the Electoral College

All it means is that the GOP will have to adjust […]

If God exists, who created God?

God by definition Is self-existent, self-subsisten[…]

Election 2020

The Electoral College's perceived flaws come down […]