Lurker > Corrik7

kevwaffles posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/69597bcc.png

June 27th New Jersey Trump +1
April Maine Trump +1 / Trump +1 / Biden +2 / Tie
June 1st-3rd Virginia Biden +1 / Tie
June 9-18 Minnesota Trump + 1 / Biden +2 / Biden +6 / Trump +2-5
June 28th New Hampshire Trump +2

Maine obviously doesn't have much polling and the pro Trump CD might be doing heavy work anyways.

There is a reason the Republican party is expanding operations so heavily into Minnesota though.

Also, Trump hasn't even begun spending advertising money while Biden is flooding the airwaves in those media battleground states. Nor do some of these polls happen post debate.

I guess that's Crack though.

Wanna know what's weird. The media wants this race to seem so competitive to keep interest and ratings that they neglect some of the data going around.

There is some data to suggest Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey are more toss ups than the toss ups they keep saying are the toss ups (Arizona, Nevada North Carolina, etc).

Those Bloomberg polls were all much more in favor of biden in all the battleground states except PA where it has Trump +7. Whoa.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Now I'm not all that knowledgeable about the US system, but my understanding is that would ultimately be up to the SCOTUS to define that and they have already shown where their decisions are going to land.(if I am wrong about this, which is very likely, I would love clarification)

You are wrong. The SCOTUS has zero avenue to affect the impeachment process, and this is why the SCOTUS ruling was considered expected. Because this path was already established as a power of Congress and not of the courts.

Espeon posted...

I never said anything about the constitution. Your argument was that overriding the will of the majority is inherently antidemocratic, but by your own logic, wouldnt that make the tenth amendment antidemocratic, since it allows a minority of voters to subvert the will of the majority?

Ironically we live in a representative democracy, but one that is bound to its constitution and its amendments. And that is what you have to work with. Aight good night.

(Yes a true democracy for a nation would have simple referendums for every last decision and not a person leading the nation, which many times was suspended at times of needs for a dictator to take over and then relinquish control when no longer necessary. And of course true democracy creates a paralyzed state that can never act in time and is not considered viable).

Aight. Happy 4th of July. Good night.

And, IGCD, haha I doubt she is wearing me down but it's quite a swing from a Trumper for life that hated that I didn't support Trump implicitly to a liberal Democrat that actually understands having a different opinion and doesn't push hers on mine nor will let me push mine on her.

It's in a way refreshing actually despite the clear differences in opinion.

Kenri posted...

"The president should only face legal consequences for really bad stuff, not for something like genocide, which isn't bad enough to qualify" is such an insane fucking double-down but that's the state of American conservatism I guess

It's not genocide. It's supporting an ally that suffered a terrorist attack that is invading to oust a terrorist government that has consistently, since existence and by their literal doctrine, supported terrorism against their nation. It's defending their people and us assisting an ally.

Even the most ardent person with that attack has to know they are at the very very very best dealing with a gray area. Like it's frivolous.

Genocide is wrong no one disputes that, but I think some people throwing that word around don't genuinely know what genocide really is.

v_charon posted...

This was done for hundreds of years without a problem or fear from either side. Funny we need protection for a governmental position that's existed since the 1700s.

You could argue for hundreds of years no one misunderstood the avenue of impeachment and indictment and brought charges against a President for acts in office.

Heck, we have a President who resigned because he was absolutely going to be impeached and indicted. The avenue exists, though it has been employed pretty heinous politically like in the case of Andrew Johnson.

Blaziken posted...

So if the majority of voters want abortion to be legalized, why should the laws be decided on a state-to-state basis? That sounds like the laws bending to what the minority of voters want.

There is a certain divide where states can choose their laws and where the government can encompass over them with federal laws or by incentiving with federal money to comply.

The Tenth Amendment states that states have the right to choose their own laws on things not prohibited by the constitution.

Of course depending on the court of the time, this has been gray for awhile. With federal law being considered the highest in the nation and others saying federal can't supersede and directly force states to follow regulations and laws.

Kenri posted...

Gotta love the argument that if a president doesn't have complete immunity they might face consequences for aiding and abetting genocide, as if that would be a bad thing somehow.

Because it's subjective and frankly dumb. And a frivolous lawsuit just mean to drain the system and keep the president occupied with things that shouldn't matter or to be used as political gambit.

A president should be able to lead the country as they were elected to do and not have to worry about retribution from whatever countless party. We elected them to do what they feel right and they should be able to do so without fear of frivolous reprisal.

Only something that passes a bar so high as impeachment and indictment should even be a consideration for reprisal.

Blaziken posted...

If you live in a state that bans abortion, and you didn't vote to ban abortion, and you're not able to move to a new state because economic conditions are far more complicated than that, you're just fucked and have your choices taken from you for reasons that you had no say in?

The laws shouldn't bend to what the minority of voters wish. That's ironically not how democracy that you state is being taken away works. Democracy by its virtues means the majority decides what is the best for everyone.

It's why we elect the people we do to represent ourselves.

Blaziken posted...

Corrik, if the Supreme Court determines that the president is immune from criminal prosecution (on a case by case basis where they choose what counts as an official act and what counts as an unofficial act), how exactly can he be impeached? The definition of impeachment requires the president being removed for high crimes and misdemeanors...but if nothing he does is a crime, then he can't constitutionally be impeached.

He can't be criminally prosecuted in Court. Impeachment and indictment remains the avenue available as intended.

Now, you could argue the two party system nullifies it except against the most extreme offensive acts. And, it probably is for the best as it should be a clear offense of course in which a majority couldn't refute. Nothing gray.

Blaziken posted...

I feel like, if a state chooses to ban abortion, then that still counts as banning abortion.

It was stated it would be banned by the Supreme Court. It gave the state's the right to choose how to dictate their laws regarding it. And people have the right to live in the state they want and vote for their elected officials in the state they live to uphold their values and beliefs.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Are you choosing to be willfully ignorant or have you just not been paying attention? I'm not even American and I worry for you guys. Like the parallels between America 2024 and Germany in 1933 are fucking astonishing. Nazi and Nazi adjacent groups are continually feeling more and more empowered to not shut the fuck up and keep their racist bullshit in the depths of the void where their empathy and compassion should be. Like there is no fucking way you look at your supreme court and say, yea making everything a president does legal isn't problematic at all. Considering that's exactly what happened in Germany with the Enabling Act.

Honestly besides some liberal bubbles no one actually believes this.

The Supreme Court ruling was expected, as stated before, because you already have means to impeach and indict the President as spelled out in the Constitution. It's actually a bit surprising it wasn't unanimous. The ability to bring charges over and over against the President for official acts would be realistically never ending with the way the political parties are.

Heck how many democrats alone would want to try Biden for genocide in Gaza or such and so on. It's frankly a bit asinine when you consider it.

Nothing here is really outlandish. The state of politics is just stupid with a 2 party system. It has become all about my team is the best and I'll believe every word they say and anything the other side is evil and terrible instead of listening and finding the good and bad ideas from each side and seeing which you agree with more and adopting the ones you like even if it isn't the candidate you think is the best.

It should be choosing the best option you view available, not acting like people are evil or stupid or whatever each side portrays if you don't agree.

Dancedreamer posted...

We said Roe v Wade was going.
It's gone.

We said Trump wouldn't accept the election results.
He didn't.

Your side is the one that constantly warns of all the undocumented immigrants, and nothing's ever happened there. Weird how you're okay with that. Well actually no it's not, i'm pretty sure we know why.

You said Abortion was being banned. It isn't. It was going to a state's right to choose.

You said Trump wouldn't accept the election results. He gave power over to Biden.

Biden's immigration policies are very close if not basically the same as Trump's. In fact, Biden being so close to Republican values is in itself why I voted for Biden over Trump in 2020.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So it sounds like she just wants to bury her head in the sand while facisim takes over. That's her choice and she is free to make it.

"Fascism" isn't taking over. The hyperbole on the liberal end is how they lose people. The sky is literally falling every single time if they don't get the results they want. Eventually when the sky doesn't fall over and over again, people stop listening.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Then you should read the first post of this topic to her.

I feel pretty confident she doesn't care what people in this topic are saying.

v_charon posted...

I have a feeling you're overselling this. Presidents aren't kings, no matter how badly the Supreme Court and the Orange Jester want that to be the case. If you describe a person as "a liberal", then I don't for one second believe they'd risk Trump being in the White House again. You can sit back and claim you don't want to vote for Biden for the "state he clearly is in" all you'd like, but everyone knows he is not a bad or evil man at the very least. Trump is not only old, but he's everything Biden isn't in terms of bad character.

"Hates Trump more than anything" is a powerful phrase. Anyone that truly hated him more than anything wouldn't let him back in power.

Selling it exactly as is.

v_charon posted...

Unfortunately, there are a lot of "good people" who don't want to concede to voting for Biden because they have some issue with him, so they vote 3rd party. Then they can claim they do care enough to vote. I've read some comments like that recently elsewhere, specifically the "if you believe nothing will change, it never will". Yeah, it's fine to vote that way if the candidate was like McCain or Romney then sure, by all means flush your vote away. That Republican party is dead though, and somehow so many still don't see it.

My girlfriend is a Democrat and liberal. Hates Trump more than anything. Voted Biden in 2020. She was voting Biden but after the debate she no longer is and isn't voting. Said she hates Trump, but she can't with a reasonable conscience also vote for Biden with the state he clearly is in.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So this looks to be a thing Trump did
(Trigger warning*SA/pedo accusations*)
https://x.com/RachelBitecofer/status/1808217785753129122

Kept it as an X link so it doesn't pop down

This is the fake girl that never existed and has never showed up for any court proceedings ever right?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Why not just say the Rep?

Cuz i dont remember their name. It's an Arizona rep.

I'm sure it was pertinent to know it was someone who had no political reasons to do so in a safe seat in a battleground state than some random dudes name.

Dang a house of Representatives in a safe democratic seat just called on biden to step down as the candidate in a battleground state.

paulg235 posted...

The Rock is an independent voter, though he's openly sided with democratic candidates in the past.

The Rock is actually probably republican.

Who does Dynata do polling for? I'm wondering if that cygnal poll from PA is the one I was a part of.

Nvm that call was July 1st. That's a June 26-28 poll.

GTM posted...

how do we get Taylor Swift or Kendrick Lamar or whoever the kids are into these days to campaign for Biden

Last time Taylor Swift supported a candidate was I believe in the Blackburn? Election and it had relatively zero effect. She might have supported Biden also but it didn't move the needle.

LeBron didn't move the needle in ohio either.

I just checked. Trump had the senate with 52 senators. The house also. So under trump is the last time.

Obellisk posted...

I think with independants we pretended to be in control?

• Between 2001 and 2007, Republicans controlled at certain points all three branches while President George W. Bush occupied the White House. GOP control was interrupted between 2001 and 2003, as the Senate majority flipped to the Democrats as one senator switched his party affiliation, one senator died, and when the 2002 midterm elections shifted control of the upper chamber.
• From 1961-1969, Democrats controlled all three branches during the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
• The 83rd Congress (1953-1955), during the presidency of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, saw the deaths of nine senators and the resignation of one. These changes shifted the balance of power in the Senate with each new replacement, according to the U.S. Senate website. When Republicans held the Senate majority during those years, all branches of government were under Republican-control, as the party also held the White House and Supreme Court.
• From 1937-1945, Democrats controlled all three branches of government during the administrations of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.
• And from 1927-1933, Republicans controlled all three branches of the government when Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover occupied the White House.

Possibly trump depending if he had the senate or not. I think he did on a tiebreaker though.

AriaOfBolo posted...

I think both things can be true. This should've been a layup for the dems. Likewise 2020. Likewise 2016. I can't tell how serious they are about stopping this, and that's a problem.

Remember. Trump was the candidate dems pushed from the Republicans as the pied piper to assure their presidential victory. This literally all stems back to the democratic party itself. Trump was a fringe candidate at best until the dems and media pushed him to the top.

Probably at some point in trumps tenure also I'd assume. Didn't he have complete control for the first 2 years? Or did the dems still have the senate?

Obellisk posted...

When was the last time House / Senate / President / Supreme Court were all controlled by a single party?

2025

UltimaterializerX posted...

Kamala Harris would get trounced in a general election.

Its Michelle Obama. Thats the way out.

She has no interest. That said, if they do a brokered convention it's gonna come down to who has the most allies in the party and donors and also that polls well enough. There will be a ton of greased hands to get the support needed to be named the nominee.

The democratic party has no one to blame but themselves. The writing was on the wall for this forever, and instead they propped up the idea of biden rerunning instead of finding someone viable. Instead they put all their money on bringing up cases against Trump instead. That was only going to reinvigorate support for Trump.

The craziest part is that this debate was BIDENS ask. He asked for this special debate and literally sealed the deal for his loss. Such an error. Trump if he is smart will decline to debate again and say that he feels it is unfair to put Biden through the rigor of a debate again because he can't handle it at his age. That he is looking out for the well being of Biden by declining.

Obellisk posted...

Can't we just deem Biden unfit right now and insert Kamala as president and have her run in his place?

Biden could step down now and make kamala president, but it wouldn't make her the nominee. That requires a brokered democratic convention to nominate the replacement.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Tbh I also think with Trump primarily running on tossing out his criminal charges and the Democratic Party in disarray that the fact Trump is barely ahead in the polls is no the best news for him. But who knows?

Disagree. Trump has won or come close to winning by a razor margin while down in the polls consistently. A tie or trump lead is likely a telling sign the outcome is already sealed if it holds (and it has been growing). The party is in disarray because of trumps lead and what it means. They wouldn't be telling biden to step down at all after the debate if he was up 5 points. That's the difference.

ZaziGuado posted...

I'm normally not the alarmist type, and I normally know better than to engage with comments such as this, but the foundation has been laid and communicated to everyone for things to be as bad as people fear they can be. Project 2025. Presidential immunity with an undefined scope. Bribery laws neutered. Federal agencies stripped of autonomy. The only thing in place to prevent a corrupt President is Congress passing legislation to curb corruption in the government or the President acting in good faith. Congress is more partisan than it has ever been. One of the presidential nominees has already demonstrated corrupt tendencies and an expressed desire to insulate themselves from any accountability. A rejection of the peaceful transfer of power has occured with many co-conspirarators that can be absolved of all wrong doing by a presidential pardon which is an indisputable official act of the presidency that Trump has said he would do. This is reality and any conjecture is based on comments made by people set to receive these powers.

Congress being partisan and impeachment being weaponized is why the president is above the law. These are the ways outlined by the constitution to deal with crimes in office. The courts are not supposed to be the avenue for this.

The system is broken. The Supreme Court ruling was pretty much what you would expect.

Step back from the ledge, my friends.

I got polled by phone yesterday. Was my first time ever.

Trump is gonna win easily.

##vote: Mzero

ggscum

Did foolmo admit he isn't town doctor?

PunishedBen posted...

Lopen, can you share your Death giga mega town tell at some point today before we lose you?

I'm in agreement with Corrik probably being scum, especially if Foolmo is doctor. I have no interest in pursuing claimed doctor any further today, and I like IGCD and Wallz. Mainly for interactions SUltan had with the two of them.

Show your notes.

Foolmo who did you protect night 1 and why

Obellisk posted...

under duress. You wanna counter?

No

But if a counter exists it should claim

##unvote:

Did foolmo claim doctor?

If sultan called foolmo town for no reason as you said, that is a point in foolmos favor

htaeD posted...

But the weekend hasn't started yet!

I leave for ocean city in an hour lol

htaeD posted...

SOMEONE TO TALK TO

Hey Corrik. I do appreciate the townread. But you will have to forgive me for not being able to return the favor yet.

Idc

Also, I'll be in ocean city the whole weekend so I likely won't be posting much if at all the rest of the day.

Sbell and foolmo and possibly ben if I had to choose 3 scum atm.

The one I'm least sure on is edumey

I have peaf, edumey, and death likely town. For the record.