JohnboyND7

Don Lemon went on TV and claimed Joe Biden and a Democrat congress could abolish the electoral college. CNN isn't exactly high quality journalism.

you are covering for the dude who was paid by Russians out of fear that Trump has borrowed money from a bank that also services Russians?

Fine by me. You are conflating him personally being non-religious with him doing right by religious people. I'll take a guy who privately thinks Catholicism is stupid but ensures religious freedoms over say...a guy who proclaims he is Catholic but wants to force taxpayers and employers to pay for abortions. That article won't change a single voter's mind....its the Atlantic.

Idk. They called him a serial gang rapist. He had free reign there.

Deutsche Bank? Enormous bank with well over a trillion dollars in assets. Is everyone with loans from Deutsche a risk to the country?

Your post didn't seem to care whether or not it was legal. Your post indicated people getting their tax burden as low as possible is unpatriotic because of Afghanistan and preschool or some nonsense. So again..why would he pay more than is required, assuming it was legal? Do you give the government more money than is required?

Can you expand on something or perhaps have an original thought for once in your life? If it was legal, say his accountants and lawyers legally (or substantially legally, hard to get mad at folks for pushing the boundaries in good faith) got his Federal Income Tax burden to that amount, why the heck would he pay more? Does anyone say "you know what...my accountant says I owe $750 but I'm gonna write the government a check for $50 million because I'm a patriot!" No. They don't. That article is trash. I feel bad for you. Be better.

I suspect that played a role in the leak. A.) Give sleepy Joe ammo for a debate B.) Lead Americans to think close to an election that Trump is in financial trouble when more information would be needed to ascertain that. C.) Tell Don that he can clear it all up by releasing financial information that probably shows either A.) He is in financial trouble, or B.) He doesn't have as much money as he wants folks to think. Under any circumstance, its bad optics before an election and its on a topic that most people have a limited understanding on. Let's assume its all perfectly legal and he is in a fine place financially... He could send out the leading tax accountants, tax attorneys, and corporate attorneys in the country to explain it to people in a 15 minute speech or a 12 hour telethon, 99% of it will go right over people's heads and a lot of folks will still be saying, "Orange Man Broke, Orange Man Bad!" <--- see a few folks on this board without naming names.

Perhaps he only needs to generate the necessary cash flow to service his debt like many others seem to do.

Sounds like it's in the nation's best interest to keep Donald in office until he dies then... for national security. Thanks Barn!

If they added 4 additional justices there would be no need to pass a law saying "it takes 7 votes to overturn Congress" unless he is saying what I think he is saying. Its pretty clear contextually that his objective is to not only expand the court but also dilute its power to stand against Congress. And I'm pretty sure that Congress has no authority to say that "if it is not at least 10-3(7 vote majority), then our legislation stands." If im remembering Con law correctly, overturning a SCOTUS ruling can only occur under two circumstances, 1.) SCOTUS itself overturns their own past decision, or 2.) Constitutional Amendment which is very difficult. Its possible that I'm forgetting some other methods or that we didn't discuss them in class. But SCOTUS isn't going to let Congress create a genuinely ludicrous standard to find their laws unconstitutional. They would have next to zero check on the Legislative Branch. I dont think you'd get a single member of the Court to sign off on that. Those folks have their own leanings left and right but that's the sort of institutional threat that they'd all probably reject unless they are some goofy goofy activist. Once they reject that law (which no congressman with a remote shot at losing their seat will vote in favor of, but we will pretend they voted for it), you'd need a constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS. Has it been done in the past? On a few occasions. But that dude has a bizarre pie in the sky theory that I can't imagine anyone rational acting on. The result of that idea is basically "we have two branches of government now because the third branch will pretty much never have the votes to stop anything." That guy is an idiot. Tl:Dr .... just no.

According to the screen, roughly three hours ago. Consider yourself enlightened.

aren't you the guy who suggested Congress pass a law declaring that SCOTUS can't strike down their legislation without at least 7 votes? I'd take it easy before calling others idiots.

What happens if you are an executive at Company A and also Company B, and Company A hires company B for X amount of money...who later pays that money to the executive who works for both? Genuine question and not saying that happened here.

Not sure how being a sexist, racist, homophobe with issues of animal cruelty and a hawkish attitude against a regional nuclear superpower can be regarded as venial sins. The media and DNC told us this in 2012. Mitt was a monster. Now I am to believe that they were just kidding around back then and Trump REALLY IS a monster? Nah. The media lost all credibility. Not my fault they suck at their job. Donald doesn't need to release his taxes to prove anything. Apparently the NYT has them already. Whats this intelligence you speak of? The IRS has had this information for 20 years. You are telling me the Obama IRS, who literally got busted for targeting groups and individuals hostile to his administration, had information that Donald Trump was compromised in some way and did nothing with it? It appears you have some weird belief that Trump is both an idiot and some evil genius mastermind. The more likely reality is that he doesn't want his taxes released because he doesnt have as much money as the he likes to lead people to believe because he's a pretty petty and vain dude.

he was a sexist, racist, homophobe who dabbled in animal cruelty and didn't pay his taxes....Plus his foreign policy was straight out of the 80's! Gotta love our media.

I dont see it. I anticipate Haley. She's well liked, and the GOP would thoroughly enjoy a shot at electing the first female President. I don't think the Party will allow itself to get snagged into a 2016 situation again. Too many cooks in the kitchen there lent itself to the loud goofy tv guy getting picked.

I'm pretty confident that the Congress cannot put a caveat in legislation dictating to the Supreme Court the terms on which they can find it constitutional or not. Passing that law alone would get challenged and shot down 9-0, and I suspect each justice would be salivating at the opportunity to write that opinion. Judges are not going to cede objectively judicial power to the Congress lol. Adding SCOTUS judges just starts a cycle of each party adding the number of judges they need to pass/shoot down the other party's legislation and ultimately would justify secession. Trying to corner justices doesn't work. These people are generally the smartest person in the room, and aren't going to be very effective at landing punches on a judge. Anyone who watched or listened to the Kavanaugh hearing would have seen Dems trying to put gloves on him and continuously missing. These guys/gals are well-coached, some guy on a measage board doesn’t have the solution to somehow dunking on them.

I'm fine with W and Romney criticizing The Don. W in particular, likable guy. They aren't creating dumb strawman arguments. I'll take issue with people who didn't vote for W, McCain, or Romney pulling some "if only the GOP nominated reasonable conservatives!" card. Those three were typical establishment Republicans, and Mitt Romney in particular was as moderate a choice as Democrats could have asked for, and he still got his character assassinated. The GOP DID nominate the hypothetical reasonable guy and he got ripped apart as a monster. When the GOP picks a moderate or establishment type in 2024, guys like Hayduke and the mainstream media will trot out the same nonsense they deploy today against Donald, and the same crap they pulled on Mitt, McCain, and W.

Democrats lost 49/50 states twice in the span of 20 years. Parties change and adapt. I believe there were articles in 2008 proclaiming the GOP was dead only for the Party to win both chambers of Congress and the Presidency within 8 years. The GOP and Democrat Party ebb and flow. The Chicken Little nonsense is always silly. All it takes is one dumb person or policy to drive people to the open arms of the other party... until they do something dumb too. Further, its always funny to see libs bring up the "reasonable conservative." In 2004, libs were calling W a war criminal and fascist. In 2008 they were calling McCain all sorts of names, in 2012 Mitt Romney was a sexist who wanted to enslave black folks, in 2016/2020 they call Trump a Nazi. The only reasonable conservative to nearly any Democrat tends to be the conservative they previously called similar names to whomever they are running against now. The "reasonable conservative" is some strawman invented that probably never existed.

One could make an argument that a generic establishment GOP president would have backed down on Kavanaugh. But yes Mitch McConnell is a GOAT and will go down in history as being the American judiciary's Bismarck.

this is very true but he was the goofy outlier in the GOP primary full or normal guys. By the time enough of them had dropped out, it was too late to really go with anyone else.

He does make for a good avatar against the American liberal march leftward. I wouldn't call his voters inherently stupid, although many on both sides are stupid. Its not really speculation on some of it. He has said he has a goal of getting rid of the Hyde Amendment. And his refusal to answer about the Court seems pretty obvious about his intent, likely doesn't want to scare off independent voters. Biden/Obama have a specific unity in mind that seems to be rather similar to Donald's, its a "my way or the highway" approach. Barry had his famous lines about "clingers." I dont think the dude is a commie or anything, but his entire campaign has sort of been structured to lead people to think of some "return to normalcy" but I dont see where that normalcy is supposed to be. If you can't straight up say "we arent adding seats to the Court, that's insane" then you aren't a unifier. If you can't promise that, then you aren't bringing stability, you are practically begging about 25-30 states to consider leaving the Union.

I'm curious on what the over/under would be for amount of time Biden served before resigning would be in Vegas?

I dont see how Biden brings any sort of stability. He's expressed a willingness to expand the Court, getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, etc. Both of those things fan division more than anything Donald Trump has done; at best, Biden MIGHT slow down some of the unrest in cities because I suspect those folks don't actually care about police brutality, but simply have a beef with who sits in the Oval Office.