Voters don't deserve an answer

[*PhilHos*]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/10/biden-says-voters-dont-deserve-to-know-stance-on-court-packing/#1e72032d7aac

Quote:“Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know-” DiMattei began to ask, as Biden interjected “no they don’t deserve,” before asserting “I’m not gonna play [Trump’s] game… he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

The idiot doesn't realize that by NOT answering it, he's making that the very discussion he's trying to avoid having it.

I don't really understand why he doesn't just answer "No". It's not like it's going to cost him a lot of votes since most of the people voting for him don't care about his positions. All they care about is that he's not Donald Trump.

[*PhilHos*]

Also, this "genius" thinks Trump nominating Amy Coney Barret is "unconstitutional".

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-says-amy-coney-barrett-appointment-not-constitutional-he-evades-court-packing-question-1538111

Is Biden trying to sabotage his own campaign or something?

[GMDino]

One thing Biden has done exceedingly well is not letting Trump and his minions control the narrative.

Trump has been unable to get his usual misdirection to stick and Biden knows it.

Answering the question would just lead to more/different questions.  He allows Trump and his supporters to yell at clouds while continues to campaign on his plans that are out there.

It's a very good strategy.  And it is working.

But then Trump is also still talking about Hillary's emails so I'm not sure what his actual strategy is.

[Benton]

Soooo... is this Trump's new strategy? No healthcare plan, no jobs plan, no real tax reform... just drive home that he has to stay in office to pack the SCOTUS, even though there's been a majority of Republican appointed justices multiple times in the last 50 years?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 09:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: One thing Biden has done exceedingly well is not letting Trump and his minions control the narrative.

Trump has been unable to get his usual misdirection to stick and Biden knows it.

Answering the question would just lead to more/different questions.  He allows Trump and his supporters to yell at clouds while continues to campaign on his plans that are out there.

It's a very good strategy.  And it is working.

But then Trump is also still talking about Hillary's emails so I'm not sure what his actual strategy is.

While I agree that Biden's best strategy is to keep the focus on Trump (which also goes to show how shitty a candidate Biden is), I still think it's backfiring on him cause we ARE talking about his non-answer on court packing.

(10-13-2020, 10:01 AM)Benton Wrote: Soooo... is this Trump's new strategy? No healthcare plan, no jobs plan, no real tax reform... just drive home that he has to stay in office to pack the SCOTUS, even though there's been a majority of Republican appointed justices multiple times in the last 50 years?

If Trump refuses to run on his record, then he's got no choice than to attack Biden any which way he can.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-13-2020, 10:01 AM)Benton Wrote: Soooo... is this Trump's new strategy? No healthcare plan, no jobs plan, no real tax reform... just drive home that he has to stay in office to pack the SCOTUS, even though there's been a majority of Republican appointed justices multiple times in the last 50 years?

I didn't realize the senate had expanded the SCOTUS to more than 9 Justices.

[*PhilHos*]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-on-56-of-americans-saying-theyre-better-off-now-than-4-years-ago-they-probably-shouldnt-vote-for-me

Quote:Biden On 56% Of Americans Saying They’re Better Off Now Than 4 Years Ago: They ‘Probably Shouldn’t’ Vote For Me

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said during an interview on Monday that the 56% of Americans who say that they are better off now than four years ago “probably shouldn’t” vote for him, adding that they have “memory” problems.

“Gallup, in a survey between Sept. 14-28, found that 56% of registered voters said they were better off than they were four years ago, while just 32 percent said they were worse off,” Fox News reported. “This is in spite of the coronavirus pandemic, which has also led to an economic downturn and a number of pandemic-related restrictions for businesses and schools across the country. But it suggests that voters still have a strong economy that carried through the majority of Trump’s term in mind.”

Biden was asked about the results from the poll during an interview with WKRC-TV in Cincinnati.

“Gallup reported last week 56% of Americans said they were better off today than they were four years ago—would’ve been under the Obama-Biden administration,” the reporter said to Biden. “So why should people who feel they are better off today, under the Trump administration, vote for you?”

Biden responded, “Well, if they think that, they probably shouldn’t.”

“They think 54% [sic] percent of the American are better off economically today than they were under our administration?” Biden asked. “Well, their memory is not very good, quite frankly.”

“And in addition to that, we have a president who doesn’t share the values of most Americans,” Biden claimed. “He’s not very honest with people. He is flouting the conventions relative to public safety in terms even now not wearing a mask.”

The poll results are a good sign for the Trump campaign as the economy is the top issue for voters in this election, according to polling.

“With the country in the midst of a recession, nearly eight-in-ten registered voters (79%) say the economy will be very important to them in making their decision about who to vote for in the 2020 presidential election – the top issue of 12 included in the survey,” Pew Research Center reported. “The economy is consistently a top voting issue. In a survey asking a similar, though not identical, list of issues in June 2016, the economy also was the top voting issue.”

According to Forbes, Biden has repeatedly told voters not to vote for him, including the following times during his current campaign:

August 24, 2019—Biden, 77, responded to voters’ concerns about his age by declaring, “I say if they’re concerned, don’t vote for me,” to a group of reporters in Keene, N.H.
November 22, 2019—When Carlos Rojas, an immigration activist, pressed Biden at an event in South Carolina on the issue of deportations during the Obama administration, Biden told Rojas, “you should vote for Trump.”
January 29, 2020—Environmental activist Ed Fallon confronted Biden on his climate positions, and Biden responded, “you have to go vote for someone else. You’re not going to vote for me in the primary.”
May 14, 2020—Biden said in an MSNBC interview that voters who believe Tara Reade’s allegation that he sexually assaulted her in 1993 “probably shouldn’t vote for me” and should instead “vote their heart,” adding “I wouldn’t vote for me if I believed Tara Reade.”

Does Biden NOT want to win the election?

[Benton]

(10-13-2020, 11:54 AM)PhilHos Wrote: If Trump refuses to run on his record, then he's got no choice than to attack Biden any which way he can.

Fair point. I wouldn't want to run on that record either.

I hear if he wins, it's only going to take him 4.5 years before he unveils his healthcare plan.

(10-13-2020, 11:55 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I didn't realize the senate had expanded the SCOTUS to more than 9 Justices.

Uhhh... they haven't.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-13-2020, 02:00 PM)Benton Wrote: Fair point. I wouldn't want to run on that record either.

I hear if he wins, it's only going to take him 4.5 years before he unveils his healthcare plan.


Uhhh... they haven't.

Are you meaning pack by filling vacant seats?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 02:04 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Are you meaning pack by filling vacant seats?

I won't speak for Benton but it's clear Democrats are trying to change the meaning of "packing" the courts. It's sad.

[Benton]

(10-13-2020, 02:04 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Are you meaning pack by filling vacant seats?

That's what I've taken it to mean.

(10-13-2020, 02:09 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I won't speak for Benton but it's clear Democrats are trying to change the meaning of "packing" the courts. It's sad.

There's another meaning?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 02:38 PM)Benton Wrote: That's what I've taken it to mean.


There's another meaning?

Seriously? For the last hundred years or so, packing the court has meant to add seats to the Supreme Court. STACKING the court has meant filling vacant seats with partisan judges. 

The term "court packing" stems from FDR's attempt to increase the number of justices on the SCOTUS to 15 in 1937. It's what it's always meant. Well, til recently when it actually hurts the Democrats and Biden to be in favor of it.

[Benton]

(10-13-2020, 03:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Seriously? For the last hundred years or so, packing the court has meant to add seats to the Supreme Court. STACKING the court has meant filling vacant seats with partisan judges. 

The term "court packing" stems from FDR's attempt to increase the number of justices on the SCOTUS to 15 in 1937. It's what it's always meant. Well, til recently when it actually hurts the Democrats and Biden to be in favor of it.

Well, I'm only 40 so...

[CJD]

I would prefer Biden say what everyone already knows.

"The only reason that packing the court is even on the table of discussion right now is because of the unethical and hypocritical behavior of the Republican party and their attempts to forego decency and the will of the people to obtain and maintain as much power for themselves as they possibly can. I can't tell you whether I am for packing the courts or not because I honestly can't tell you how far they are willing to go to yank the power out of the people's hands and put it into their own and that of their donors and masters. If they cease their behavior, then I will have no reason to pack the courts because they will have been appointed in a just and fair manner for the people of this country. Right now, 74% of people want this appointment to be delayed until after the election chooses its next president and I think if the Republicans truly cared about the will of the people, they'd halt their preposterous behavior and instead focus on helping the people, who are struggling right now, with a well overdue stimulus package that the Democrats have been trying to get them to work on for months now."

It would have been a complete answer without condemning or endorsing the idea of packing the courts while simultaneously refocusing on what the actual problem is with the courts, which is the Republicans' naked power grab between their hypocritical behavior in 2016 vs 2020 and how you can't trust the words that come out of their mouth in any way. They are not genuine actors and therefore are not fit to lead anyone.

Unfortunately, Biden is absolutely awful with words. When cornered, he reverts to short, often insulting, phrases and "Come on man"s and "here's the deal, folks"s.

It's exhausting knowing that he's the country's best option as president for the next 4 years.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 03:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, I'm only 40 so...

Touche. 

[*bfine32*]

This is silly and it's fun to watch each side point to how silly the other side is.

During Garland I said he should be vetted. Dems (to include Obama and VP Biden) agreed/ GOP (including candidate Trump)did not

During ACB I say she should be vetted. GOP (including Trump) agrees/ Dems (including Biden) do not

The Dems and GOp both have a history of changing the "rules" depending on who's in charge. I don't agree with the ambiguity, but don't point finger at each other and say you're wrong. Look in the mirror

[Benton]

(10-13-2020, 04:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Touche. 

Seriously, though, I thought the term was interchangeable. My mistake. To be honest, I've never paid a ton of attention to concerns of a partisan court. I read somewhere years ago that no matter who nominated them, most justices tend to be mostly nonpartisan. Of course, we're entering different times where everyone is accused of falling on one of two sides with no wiggle room.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 03:25 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I would prefer Biden say what everyone already knows.

"The only reason that packing the court is even on the table of discussion right now is because of the unethical and hypocritical behavior of the Republican party and their attempts to forego decency and the will of the people to obtain and maintain as much power for themselves as they possibly can. I can't tell you whether I am for packing the courts or not because I honestly can't tell you how far they are willing to go to yank the power out of the people's hands and put it into their own and that of their donors and masters. If they cease their behavior, then I will have no reason to pack the courts because they will have been appointed in a just and fair manner for the people of this country. Right now, 74% of people want this appointment to be delayed until after the election chooses its next president and I think if the Republicans truly cared about the will of the people, they'd halt their preposterous behavior and instead focus on helping the people, who are struggling right now, with a well overdue stimulus package that the Democrats have been trying to get them to work on for months now."

It would have been a complete answer without condemning or endorsing the idea of packing the courts while simultaneously refocusing on what the actual problem is with the courts, which is the Republicans' naked power grab between their hypocritical behavior in 2016 vs 2020 and how you can't trust the words that come out of their mouth in any way. They are not genuine actors and therefore are not fit to lead anyone.

Unfortunately, Biden is absolutely awful with words. When cornered, he reverts to short, often insulting, phrases and "Come on man"s and "here's the deal, folks"s.

It's exhausting knowing that he's the country's best option as president for the next 4 years.

So the 2016 election term ends in 2019?

[CJD]

(10-13-2020, 04:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the 2016 election term ends in 2019?

Nope.

[GMDino]

(10-13-2020, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is silly and it's fun to watch each side point to how silly the other side is.

During Garland I said he should be vetted. Dems (to include Obama and VP Biden) agreed/ GOP (including candidate Trump)did not

During ACB I say she should be vetted. GOP (including Trump) agrees/ Dems (including Biden) do not

The Dems and GOp both have a history of changing the "rules" depending on who's in charge. I don't agree with the ambiguity, but don't point finger at each other and say you're wrong. Look in the mirror

The issue being this time is that the GOP was/is in charge both times and still changed the rules.

Meanwhile the Democrats have said they want them simply do what they did last time even thought the Democrats opposed it.