Politics

[Hogpatrol]

 

[Wheels]

 

[Wheels]

A little fact check on Harris and her fabrication of the Abe Lincoln history lesson she cited during the debate. Just goes to show she and the Dems will make stuff up (lie) to make their point.

Washington Post fact-check's Harris' 'little history lesson' about Lincoln: 'Wasn't exactly true'

The Washington Post offered a sharp rebuke to the "little history lesson" Sen. Kamala Harris shared during Wednesday night's vice presidential debate, which apparently "wasn't exactly true."

www.foxnews.com

The Washington Post offered a sharp rebuke to the "little history lesson" Sen. Kamala Harris shared during Wednesday night's vice presidential debate, which apparently "wasn't exactly true."

During an exchange with Vice President Mike Pence on the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Harris suggested that one of the most revered Republican presidents would be in favor of allowing a newly elected president to fill a vacant seat instead of rushing a confirmation in the heat of an election.

She made her argument in response to Pence saying that President Trump's appointment is following precedent.

“I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let’s do that a little more,” Harris told Pence. “In 1864... Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.”

Well, according to a report from The Washington Post on Thursday, Harris did not accurately describe what took place under Lincoln when filling the vacant seat of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

"Harris is correct that a seat became available 27 days before the election. And that Lincoln didn’t nominate anyone until after he won," the Post wrote. "But there is no evidence he thought the seat should be filled by the winner of the election. In fact, he had other motives for the delay."

According to Lincoln historian Michael Burlingame, Lincoln told his aides he wanted to delay his Supreme Court confirmation process because he was “waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country," though the Post noted, "that didn’t mean he was waiting for ballots so much as the mail."

"The overarching effect of the delay is that it held Lincoln’s broad but shaky coalition of conservative and radical Republicans together," the Post explained. "Congress was in recess until early December, so there would have been no point in naming a man before the election anyway. Lincoln shrewdly used that to his advantage. If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn’t have filled the spot in the lame-duck session."

The Post concluded, "So Harris is mistaken about Lincoln’s motivations in this regard."

National Review senior writer Dan McLaughin went even further, accusing Harris of "dishonesty" with her Lincoln anecdote.

Good post.

It is my understanding that when Taney died, the Senate was not in session. Thus he could not be confirmed until they returned to session. A couple of days after the Senate returned from recess, Lincoln nominated Chase and he was immediately confirmed.

Lincoln probably used the promise of the SCOTUS nomination to get Chase to campaign for him instead of speaking against him as he had done prior to Taney's death. Thus, Lincoln used a SCOTUS' death for political gain just as Trump has.

 

[NamStay]

 

[Royal27]

If you need another reason to vote for Trump here you go.

Thanks to Trump, China's Huawei Is Dying

Vice President Biden may say he will be tougher on China than Trump, but his supporters have signaled that he will not. Max Baucus, who served as ambassador to China in the Obama years, predicted that, with a Biden win, there would be a "reset" in U.S

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

 

[DillonG]

Good post.

It is my understanding that when Taney died, the Senate was not in session. Thus he could not be confirmed until they returned to session. A couple of days after the Senate returned from recess, Lincoln nominated Chase and he was immediately confirmed.

Lincoln probably used the promise of the SCOTUS nomination to get Chase to campaign for him instead of speaking against him as he had done prior to Taney's death. Thus, Lincoln used a SCOTUS' death for political gain just as Trump has.

Certainly an interesting view point of Trump’s position. I see it more as an opportunity for conservatives to have an actual majority on SCOTUS for the first time in decades. I do want to be clear that I do not count GOP nominated justices as conservative. History has clearly shown that not all GOP nominated justices actually hold the same ideology.

I don’t believe Trump’s nomination of ACB gave him any sort of political advantage as of today. Of course, I could always change my viewpoint with poll data that has surveyed voters specifically questioning the ACB nomination.

Do you have that data available?

 

[Wheels]

If you need another reason to vote for Trump here you go.

Thanks to Trump, China's Huawei Is Dying

Vice President Biden may say he will be tougher on China than Trump, but his supporters have signaled that he will not. Max Baucus, who served as ambassador to China in the Obama years, predicted that, with a Biden win, there would be a "reset" in U.S

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

Good article.


Ross
Lighthizer
Navarro

are absolutely amazing. They don't get enough credit. Unfortunately the average American doesn't even know who they are or how much they have done for them and their children.

 

[Wheels]

Certainly an interesting view point of Trump’s position. I see it more as an opportunity for conservatives to have an actual majority on SCOTUS for the first time in decades. I do want to be clear that I do not count GOP nominated justices as conservative. History has clearly shown that not all GOP nominated justices actually hold the same ideology.

I don’t believe Trump’s nomination of ACB gave him any sort of political advantage as of today. Of course, I could always change my viewpoint with poll data that has surveyed voters specifically questioning the ACB nomination.

Do you have that data available?

Dillon, I agree with your sentiment.

Trump nominating Barrett was a promise kept. He has at least 51 votes. Perhaps two more with Collins and Manchin. That could disappear on November 3. He has to get Barrett confirmed now. IMO, this is also good for all the Republican Senators running for reelection with the possible exception of Collins and Gardner. This energizes the Trump base and will get them out to vote in higher percentages than Biden's supporters. This election will not be won by people that are undecided today. It will be won and lost by how energetic the Trump base is to vote vs. how unenergetic the Biden base is to vote.

With the mail in voting shenanigans, it is also important to have Barrett on the court prior to the election since Roberts is so flaky. Trump's base understands this.

I don't really look at polling. IMO, it is all fake and a narrative is driving the polling numbers. ie: Look how good Biden is doing, lets encourage the Democrat base, lets discourage the Trump voter, let's encourage independents to jump on the bandwagon, etc. The polls will tighten until the week of the election when the polls will get to within the margin of error where they can say they were right.

I tend to look at trends and the micro, like the following I posted earlier this week:


Regarding Nevada. Clinton beat Trump by 27,000 votes.

1. The state has lost 10,000-30,000 service workers from areas that voted heavily for Hillary.
2. UNLV and UNR are partially shut down. They have 40,000-50,000 students. In election years, Democrats rely heavily on getting out the vote from university students. This will not happen near as readily this year.
3. Gary Johnson got 37,000 votes in the 2016 election. These votes should lean significantly toward Trump in 2020.

 

[Brent in Az]

View attachment 371373

The media has brainwashed the masses into hating Trump. Most of them probably couldn't even explain why they hate Trump.

 

[Wheels]

Eddie Zipperer

@EddieZipperer

BIDEN (1983): Packing the Supreme Court is boneheaded

BIDEN (2005): Packing the Supreme Court is corrupt

BIDEN (2020): You have to elect me to find out if I will pack the Supreme Court

9:12 AM · Oct 10, 2020·Twitter Web App

 

[Wheels]

Trump put Biden in a difficult spot during the debate, by pressing Biden if he would pack the Supreme Court. Biden has a significant problem. He can't acknowledge that he will pack the Supreme Court or deny it.

If he denies he will pack the Court, he will loose the left wing of his constituents who refuse to go to the polls.

If he acknowledges he will pack the court, he will loose moderates who are disgusted with the idea.

The topic has gained enough traction that the mainstream media is now asking the question. If the question continues to be asked for the next couple of weeks, look for Biden to shed votes for not making a decision.

Biden is facing three choices. All three choices are wrong!

 

[Wheels]

Trump boat parade.

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[Hogpatrol]

 

[Hogpatrol]

Somebody has to feed these morons.

 

[IdaRam]

View attachment 371442

The one lone black dude in the middle looks thoroughly disgusted.

 

[Brent in Az]

The one lone black dude in the middle looks thoroughly disgusted.

He's just mad because he is surrounded by Honky's holding BLM signs.

 

[IdaRam]

He's just mad because he is surrounded by Honky's holding BLM signs.

Actually, I think his look is more like “what a bunch of f’ing dumbasses”. And who can really blame him? He might be the only one in the bunch who isn’t a moron??? He seems to be the only one not wearing a mask...

 

[Wheels]

 

[Ray B]

Appears the contestants could gain from a review of historical debates, for example, Nixon-Kennedy. It is widely concluded that Nixon had the best answers but Kennedy won on appearance and decorum. But then, I'm not sure that Harris is able to divorce herself from her arrogance and denigrating facial expressions.