2020 Election - Catch-all Thread
323,878 Views |
2434 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Unit2Sucks
I agree, as much as I think this is a good idea, it would be better to do at the National Level. Taking the concept of states providing additional requirements to be placed on a ballot to an extreme, what would prevent a state from tacking on a bunch of other requires? For example, what would prevent Alabama to provide proof of gun ownership (or whatever else) prior to being placed on a ballot?dajo9 said:I would think this is unconstitutional. Submitting a tax return is not a requirement to be a President in the Constitution.bearister said:
Requiring tax returns to qualify for the ballot might be unconstitutional...but the counter argument is "states rights" and sort of shoving that in the wing nut's face because they use it all the freakin' time.
It should be done on a national level but that's not happening with this potus and senate. So you go with states rights to push some conservative buttons and move the sticks.
Even if it's unconstitutional, get enough states on board and it is legit pressure and concern and how this country should operate. If the point is root out potential criminal activity and vet a candidate, seems legit to me. The public's right to information about a candidate is fair.
It should be done on a national level but that's not happening with this potus and senate. So you go with states rights to push some conservative buttons and move the sticks.
Even if it's unconstitutional, get enough states on board and it is legit pressure and concern and how this country should operate. If the point is root out potential criminal activity and vet a candidate, seems legit to me. The public's right to information about a candidate is fair.
Yes, it's pretty much a "show" vote, to signal your concern over an issue to your base, not something that will actually become enforceable policy. Republicans have been doing the same stuff for years.Another Bear said:
Even if it's unconstitutional, get enough states on board and it is legit pressure and concern and how this country should operate. If the point is root out potential criminal activity and vet a candidate, seems legit to me. The public's right to information about a candidate is fair.
"History asks:
Did the man have integrity?
Did the man have unselfishness?
Did the man have courage?
Did the man have consistency?"
Franklin D. Roosevelt
tRump goes 0 for 4.
Did the man have integrity?
Did the man have unselfishness?
Did the man have courage?
Did the man have consistency?"
Franklin D. Roosevelt
tRump goes 0 for 4.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister said:
"History asks:
Did the man have integrity?
Did the man have unselfishness?
Did the man have courage?
Did the man have consistency?"
Franklin D. Roosevelt
tRump goes 0 for 4.
What would Gov Pete Wilson have said was the penalty for *four* strikes? I think that would be acceptable here.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Well stated.dajo9 said:I would think this is unconstitutional. Submitting a tax return is not a requirement to be a President in the Constitution.bearister said:
And likely you are 100% correct.
But the remedy is to bring it to the Supreme Court, which means furthering the discussion nationally.
The right wing flyover states have had their anti-California campaign going on fox and the radio syndicates for a while now. This would further the divide, which isn't good. Boy, all we need is a reasonable Republican in there to help smooth things out. The right faction is off the rails crazy these days.
concordtom said:Well stated.dajo9 said:I would think this is unconstitutional. Submitting a tax return is not a requirement to be a President in the Constitution.bearister said:
And likely you are 100% correct.
But the remedy is to bring it to the Supreme Court, which means furthering the discussion nationally.
The right wing flyover states have had their anti-California campaign going on fox and the radio syndicates for a while now. This would further the divide, which isn't good. Boy, all we need is a reasonable Republican in there to help smooth things out. The right faction is off the rails crazy these days.
It would never get close to the Supreme Court because it is so obviously unconstitutional.
Another Bear said:
Vote Russkie in 2020!!!
Nice sentiment from a notorious woman beater.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Yogi Bear said:Frustrating. Biden has all the downside of Sanders with zero of the upside.B.A. Bearacus said:
How it's looking right now. Feels like there's some inevitability to Biden/Harris.
How's that? Other than both being old dudes they have very different politics and Biden has more popularity/name recognition.
Don't get me wrong, I would personally vote Sanders over Biden, but I'm not seeing where he has all the same downsides.
If Biden gets the nomination I'll vote for him. It's that simple.
That said, policy-wise I don't think he'll address the future much, take a very centralist stance on the big stuff: healthcare, education, wages...including playing nicely with the GOP...which after Trump, is pure B.S. His long term DC insider status doesn't bode well for helping the majority of Americans. But he can win for NOT BE TRUMP. My rationale for this being okay is he'd be a good transitional candidate but at 75, he's too old. 8 years would make him 84. Way too old and way too inside.
This article is at the core of what I'm thinking. Only part way through the read but Dems need to capitalize on its strength, which is youth and new blood. They have the talent and candidates but the establishment Dems are beholden to the old ways and their power. Dems have a big and major advantage if they court younger voters.
The Coming Generation War
That said, policy-wise I don't think he'll address the future much, take a very centralist stance on the big stuff: healthcare, education, wages...including playing nicely with the GOP...which after Trump, is pure B.S. His long term DC insider status doesn't bode well for helping the majority of Americans. But he can win for NOT BE TRUMP. My rationale for this being okay is he'd be a good transitional candidate but at 75, he's too old. 8 years would make him 84. Way too old and way too inside.
This article is at the core of what I'm thinking. Only part way through the read but Dems need to capitalize on its strength, which is youth and new blood. They have the talent and candidates but the establishment Dems are beholden to the old ways and their power. Dems have a big and major advantage if they court younger voters.
The Coming Generation War
p.s. I posted it another thread but Joe apparently got the memo on being touchy and stopped. I like he's demonstrated self-control...something the current guy will never understand.Quote:
The Democrats are rapidly becoming the party of the youngand the consequences could be profound.
I think it's the opposite.Yogi Bear said:Frustrating. Biden has all the downside of Sanders with zero of the upside.B.A. Bearacus said:
How it's looking right now. Feels like there's some inevitability to Biden/Harris.
I view Biden as a good compromise candidate with conservatives that don't like Trump. I think that's a good bargain for 2020. Move further left after.
This is a bit of a pointless thread. Once the prophesies foretold by Q become public, all of QAnon will be vindicated and Trump's ascendance to emperor god will be complete.
There won't be an election in 2020.
There won't be an election in 2020.
Trump is playing 12th dimensional chess, while us commoners look on confused.Unit2Sucks said:
This is a bit of a pointless thread. Once the prophesies foretold by Q become public, all of QAnon will be vindicated and Trump's ascendance to emperor god will be complete.
There won't be an election in 2020.
TOOsycasey said:Yogi Bear said:Frustrating. Biden has all the downside of Sanders with zero of the upside.B.A. Bearacus said:
How it's looking right now. Feels like there's some inevitability to Biden/Harris.
How's that? Other than both being old dudes they have very different politics and Biden has more popularity/name recognition.
Don't get me wrong, I would personally vote Sanders over Biden, but I'm not seeing where he has all the same downsides.
DAMN
OLD
Well, duh. The list of people I'll vote for Trump over is non-existent. I'd vote Night King over Trump.Another Bear said:
If Biden gets the nomination I'll vote for him. It's that simple.
There is absolutely no need to compromise with the ****ing idiot conservatives who voted for Trump because they hate Hillary more. A majority of this country does not approve of Trump as president. Vote for someone who stands for something instead of another milquetoast do-nothing like Biden just because we're afraid of offending conservatives.dajo9 said:
I view Biden as a good compromise candidate with conservatives that don't like Trump. I think that's a good bargain for 2020. Move further left after.
Yogi Bear said:There is absolutely no need to compromise with the ****ing idiot conservatives who voted for Trump because they hate Hillary more. A majority of this country does not approve of Trump as president. Vote for someone who stands for something instead of another milquetoast do-nothing like Biden just because we're afraid of offending conservatives.dajo9 said:
I view Biden as a good compromise candidate with conservatives that don't like Trump. I think that's a good bargain for 2020. Move further left after.
Sadly, the majority does not choose the President in America. Trump winning is not a risk worth taking when a good Democrat like Biden can be President.
By what measure is he a "good" Democrat? I view him as an establishment Democrat, meaning that he's in bed with investment bankers and corporations every bit as much as Republicans are. We won't be selling nuclear technology to the Saudis and playing nice with Russia and North Korea, but we need much more than that from a president. And we won't get that with Biden (we wouldn't have with Hillary either).dajo9 said:How it's looking right now. Feels like there's some inevitability to Biden/Harris.Yogi Bear said:There is absolutely no need to compromise with the ****ing idiot conservatives who voted for Trump because they hate Hillary more. A majority of this country does not approve of Trump as president. Vote for someone who stands for something instead of another milquetoast do-nothing like Biden just because we're afraid of offending conservatives.dajo9 said:
I view Biden as a good compromise candidate with conservatives that don't like Trump. I think that's a good bargain for 2020. Move further left after.
Frustrating. Biden has all the downside of Sanders with zero of the upside.
I think it's the opposite.
Sadly, the majority does not choose the President in America. Trump winning is not a risk worth taking when a good Democrat like Biden can be President.
Yogi Bear said:By what measure is he a "good" Democrat? I view him as an establishment Democrat, meaning that he's in bed with investment bankers and corporations every bit as much as Republicans are. We won't be selling nuclear technology to the Saudis and playing nice with Russia and North Korea, but we need much more than that from a president. And we won't get that with Biden (we wouldn't have with Hillary either).dajo9 said:How it's looking right now. Feels like there's some inevitability to Biden/Harris.Yogi Bear said:There is absolutely no need to compromise with the ****ing idiot conservatives who voted for Trump because they hate Hillary more. A majority of this country does not approve of Trump as president. Vote for someone who stands for something instead of another milquetoast do-nothing like Biden just because we're afraid of offending conservatives.dajo9 said:
I view Biden as a good compromise candidate with conservatives that don't like Trump. I think that's a good bargain for 2020. Move further left after.
Frustrating. Biden has all the downside of Sanders with zero of the upside.
I think it's the opposite.
Sadly, the majority does not choose the President in America. Trump winning is not a risk worth taking when a good Democrat like Biden can be President.
If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.
Ageism = not a valid criticismYogi Bear said:
TOO
DAMN
OLD
Yogi Bear said:Well, duh. The list of people I'll vote for Trump over is non-existent. I'd vote Night King over Trump.Another Bear said:
If Biden gets the nomination I'll vote for him. It's that simple.
I would vote for an amoeba over tRumpelstiltskin. More charming. Better hair. Smarter. Less likely to get punked by Russia, China, and North Korea. And last, but not least, a has a bigger dick.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
I do know the difference between Biden and Trump. That's a stupid thing to say. Biden and Romney? Not as big as you think.dajo9 said:
If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.
As for being 5 years old when Bush became president, just LOL. I wish.
The number of stupid old men on these boards should illustrate the danger of having a president who is too old.GBear4Life said:Ageism = not a valid criticismYogi Bear said:
TOO
DAMN
OLD
Course I'd rather have many septuagenarians over you, who is stupid at whatever age you are now.
Yogi Bear said:I do know the difference between Biden and Trump. That's a stupid thing to say. Biden and Romney? Not as big as you think.dajo9 said:
If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.
As for being 5 years old when Bush became president, just LOL. I wish.
It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not. The difference between global accords on climate change and not. The difference between higher or lower taxes on the wealthy and access to health care for millions. The difference between action on guns.
The difference is huge.
We've had over 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe vs. Wade was passed and no sign of abortion going away. You think the Donald Trumps of the world really want abortion illegal?dajo9 said:It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not. The difference between global accords on climate change and not. The difference between higher or lower taxes on the wealthy and access to health care for millions. The difference between action on guns.Yogi Bear said:I do know the difference between Biden and Trump. That's a stupid thing to say. Biden and Romney? Not as big as you think.dajo9 said:
If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.
As for being 5 years old when Bush became president, just LOL. I wish.
The difference is huge.
How much did Obama raise taxes on the wealthy? How much did he do about guns?
The difference is not as big as people imagine.
Me: ageism bigotry isn't an argument (fact)Yogi Bear said:
The number of stupid old men on these boards should illustrate the danger of having a president who is too old.
Course I'd rather have many septuagenarians over you, who is stupid at whatever age you are now.
You: [whaaa] Yes it is. And you're stupid. [whaaa]
Why is abortion framed as a 'woman's rights' issue? It's a human rights issue. Framing it as such is a bit narcissistic and sexist, it seems.dajo9 said:
It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not.
GBear4Life said:Why is abortion framed as a 'woman's rights' issue? It's a human rights issue.dajo9 said:
It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not.
When's the last time you saw a man give birth?
Featured Stories
See All
Nohl Williams Named Consensus All-American
by Cal Athletics
Depleted Bears Fall to #24 UNLV in LA Bowl, 24-13
by Jim McGill
Cal Squares Off With No. 24 UNLV At LA Bowl
by Cal Athletics
Bear Insider Podcast #E102: Cal vs UNLV - LA Bowl Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
The Rodcast: Cal-Stanford Breakdown
by Rod Benson