< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5935 OF 5935 · Later Kibitzing> Sep-29-20

perfidious : <Seven. Five. Zero.> Sep-29-20

saffuna : "I brought back Big Ten football." Sep-29-20 Everett : How’s Biden looking? Sep-29-20 schweigzwang : <Barrett's nomination is already clouded by the Republican inconsistency -- not to say hypocrisy -- in ramming it through the Senate after having refused "because it was an election year" to even consider the Merrick Garland nomination.> Not at all. There is a vacancy, and it is the President's job to nominate someone to fill it. Trump has done nothing wrong here. If the Senate goes ahead and brings it to a vote, they will be absolute hypocrites, but the nomination is perfectly fair. <According to opinion polls, the public think they should wait until the next administration takes office: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/.... So suppose the election is a rout. Suppose Biden wins and enough GOP senators lose to give the Democrats control of the Senate. But the lame-duck Republican-controlled Senate nevertheless goes ahead and approves the Barrett nomination. There will be at least a plausible argument that that they are going against the will of the people as expressed by their votes.> So what? Why would the Republicans give a crap about that? They sure didn't in 2016. Obama was elected for a four-year term, but the Republicans denied him his duly-willed fourth year of making Supreme Court nominations. <That will not only discredit Barrett,> How does it discredit Barrett? Do you consider her to be unqualified? Does the timing of all this (not to mention the hypocrisy on the part of the Senate Republicans) make her less qualified somehow? The timing might make it appear that we didn't really to try to *find out* whether she is qualified, but that's where my question started--why not just take a more typical length of time, and avoid that criticism? <it will give the Democrats an excuse to pack the Court -- appointing, say, three or four new leftish justices. And they'll do it.>

I seriously doubt that a decision to pack the court will be made based on whether the consent of the Senate is given before or after the election. They would decide based on their perceptions of how it would affect their power over the next N years, not on what the American public thinks of it. Why would their (Dems) consideration be different, based on when the Senate vote takes place? Or rather--why would the Republicans think that that makes any difference? Maybe the answer to my question can only be provided by someone who plots and plans like a Republican! Sep-29-20

saffuna : <Not at all. There is a vacancy, and it is the President's job to nominate someone to fill it. Trump has done nothing wrong here. If the Senate goes ahead and brings it to a vote, they will be absolute hypocrites, but the nomination is perfectly fair.> Correct. Splitting hairs, but correct. Sep-29-20

Susan Freeman : Too bad Mike Wallace lost control from the beginning. Sep-29-20

saffuna : I think Wallace did all he could. Trump simply does not want to respect rules. Sep-29-20

Susan Freeman : He should have turned off the microphones Sep-29-20

saffuna : I thought of that. But I'm sure that was not in the rules. Trump would never have accepted it. Sep-29-20

saffuna : <Jon Meacham

@jmeacham

No hyperbole: The incumbent’s behavior this evening is the lowest moment in the history of the presidency since Andrew Johnson’s racist state papers.> Sep-29-20

saffuna : Oregon sheriff says Trump lied about him.

<Mike Reese

@SheriffReese

In tonight’s presidential debate the President said the “Portland Sheriff” supports him. As the Multnomah County Sheriff I have never supported Donald Trump and will never support him.> Sep-29-20

perfidious : <saffuna....Trump simply does not want to respect rules.> Same as many another sociopath, rules are for others, not him. Sep-29-20

al wazir : <schweigzwang: How does it discredit Barrett? Do you consider her to be unqualified?> I've already posted that I think she's competent: Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #444791) But that's not the whole story.

SCOPUS justices deliver commencement addresses and receive honorary degrees. They get invited to speak before academic and business groups, where they get honoraria. They write books, for which they get paid royalties. When they die, they lie in state in the Capitol. How many honorary degrees has Clarence Thomas collected? How many books has he written? How much does he get in honoraria? As far a I can tell, Thomas is a competent jurist. I don't like his views, but I think he's qualified. But his nomination hearings and Anita Hill's unproven charges -- which many people, including me, think were true -- left his reputation in tatters. He has been paying for it ever since. That's what it means to be discredited. Sep-29-20

perfidious : <"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light - and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too. I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."> Sep-29-20

saffuna : He was being sarcastic! Sep-29-20

al wazir : NYTimes headline <Crosstalk and Mockery Dominate Chaotic First Debate> . "Crosstalk and mockery"? I call it squabbling.

"Chaotic"? Yes.

"Debate"? No.

I lasted five minutes. Sep-30-20

Susan Freeman : A pity, really. Nothing was accomplished. Sep-30-20

chancho : That was a disaster of a debate.

But as Rick Wilson's book title says: Everything Trump Touches Dies. Sep-30-20

HeMateMe : Wow, first five minutes! It was Mike Tyson biting off evander hollyfield's ear! Trump simply had no weapons, nothing to fall back on, just loud interruptions and gamesmanship. Desperation on Trump's part. Clearly, the questions were set up to force Trump to speak on his four year record, his performance as president. That's why he looked so bad. Trump did get points (I guess?) for getting Biden to lose his temper, tell Trump to shut up. I think that helps Biden. First time I've seen someone in politics tell that idiot to just "Shut up, man." Sep-30-20

HeMateMe : <Susan Freeman: He should have turned off the microphones >

absolutely. Let each man talk for two minutes, uninterrupted. But, TV is show biz. The ratings are there BECAUSE Trump was going to turn it into the Jerry Springer show. What the debate people should do is actually sound proof each man, and have them speak from a separate chamber. They would be on stage but unable to hear each other. However, that would probably kill the ratings. Joe fan wanted professional wrestling, The Rock vs. 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin, and this is what they got. One thing that is incontrovertible is that Trump had four years to get prescription drug prices lowered. He ran on that, and NOT A DAMN THING GOT DONE. any household with any health problems pays an ARM for Rx'd drugs. Only the very poor get Rx'd drugs at little or no cost. I do think Chris Wallace tried hard and did a reasonably good job at putting a muzzle on Trump. He worked harder than the last moderators have at shutting up Trump, in 2016. The debate between Kam Harris and Pence will be much quieter, more scholarly. Harris will blow him away because Pence will have to stand up there and defend Trump's four year record. Sep-30-20

HeMateMe : "The Chinese plague..."!

Ha! A grown man said that. Trump reminds me of guys who have had too much to drink, diarrhea of the mouth, just rambling, telling lies, speaking fast to keep from being corrected. "I'm the one who brought back Big Ten football!" I am surprised that Chris Wallace was allowed to ask the $750 question, Trump's tax specific return, a very embarrassing personal situation. Sep-30-20

saffuna : My one disappoint is that neither Wallace nor Biden asked Trump who he owes that $421 million to. Sep-30-20

HeMateMe : Indeed, perhaps Trump's bill due will be discussed in the next debate. One solution I think is to have a person sitting with the moderator with their hand on a button. They turn the button on when Trump either 1) interrupts Biden or 2) starts yapping <while> the moderator is asking a question. The accumulated <extra> time taht Trump talks is subtracted from the two minutes he gets for the next segment. Thus, Trump might only get 1minute and ten seconds for the next segment, and he is told in advance. If he talks beyond that his mike is turned off, so that not only the television audience but the people at home can't hear Trump speak. It's like teaching a dog not to pee on your carpet. You have to condition animals with punishment, a squirt gun or such. Trump has to be conditioned. It's the only thing such people understand. Sep-30-20 wtpy : Saffuna, I too would like to know who is going to be dunning Trump for that debt. Sep-30-20 Caissanist : Sooo, did anybody at all change their mind even a little as a result of this debate? I really doubt it, both candidates are extremely known quantities and the supporters of neither candidate had any reason to challenge their preconceptions. This kind of thing is perhaps why I find myself playing chess more nowadays, and engaging less with the wider world. In chess, there is real, objective truth. Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 5935)

search thread:

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5935 OF 5935 · Later Kibitzing>