Page 9 of 18

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:57 pm
by Xan
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:54 pm
If his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.
Maybe he just wants his personal business to remain his personal business. Releasing tax forms has always been voluntary. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's a good idea, or even right or wrong.

But there are probably 100 things in there which are perfectly legal but which would be spun as something nefarious. He has every right (as do we all) to organize his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax burden. But there are plenty of low-information people who would point to these things and say "what a scumbag".

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:21 pm
by glennds
Xan wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:57 pm
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:54 pm
If his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.
Maybe he just wants his personal business to remain his personal business. Releasing tax forms has always been voluntary. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's a good idea, or even right or wrong.

But there are probably 100 things in there which are perfectly legal but which would be spun as something nefarious. He has every right (as do we all) to organize his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax burden. But there are plenty of low-information people who would point to these things and say "what a scumbag".
Well I hear what you're saying. But there's a part of me that thinks if you're going to enter the arena of politics, it's a fairly obvious expectation that some high level of scrutiny is going to come with it. If keeping personal business totally private is important, then stay out of politics. One comes at the expense of the other, especially when we're talking the highest office and public vetting goes along with the grant of power.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 7:08 pm
by Xan
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:21 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:57 pm
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:54 pm
If his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.
Maybe he just wants his personal business to remain his personal business. Releasing tax forms has always been voluntary. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's a good idea, or even right or wrong.

But there are probably 100 things in there which are perfectly legal but which would be spun as something nefarious. He has every right (as do we all) to organize his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax burden. But there are plenty of low-information people who would point to these things and say "what a scumbag".
Well I hear what you're saying. But there's a part of me that thinks if you're going to enter the arena of politics, it's a fairly obvious expectation that some high level of scrutiny is going to come with it. If keeping personal business totally private is important, then stay out of politics. One comes at the expense of the other, especially when we're talking the highest office and public vetting goes along with the grant of power.
It's up to the voters to decide whether tax returns are required or not.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:30 am
by glennds
Xan wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 7:08 pm
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:21 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:57 pm
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:54 pm
If his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.
Maybe he just wants his personal business to remain his personal business. Releasing tax forms has always been voluntary. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's a good idea, or even right or wrong.

But there are probably 100 things in there which are perfectly legal but which would be spun as something nefarious. He has every right (as do we all) to organize his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax burden. But there are plenty of low-information people who would point to these things and say "what a scumbag".
Well I hear what you're saying. But there's a part of me that thinks if you're going to enter the arena of politics, it's a fairly obvious expectation that some high level of scrutiny is going to come with it. If keeping personal business totally private is important, then stay out of politics. One comes at the expense of the other, especially when we're talking the highest office and public vetting goes along with the grant of power.
It's up to the voters to decide whether tax returns are required or not.
Yes you're probably right. Up until now, many practices that have been norms of convention and tradition are not necessarily legally required. So maybe more and more of these controversial issues will need to be voted upon.
I think the pre and post election period is going to be very interesting partly because things we've come to expect that are not specifically written into law or regulatory code, might now all be optional. One example is that there are really no specific rules or laws requiring the peaceful transition of power. Generally it has followed a code of conduct that the outgoing incumbent generally chooses to follow, but not a specific legal obligation requiring he or she to do so.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:45 am
by Ad Orientem
Polls from the last seven days sorted alphabetically with newest on top. In cases where the same polling agency posted two polls within the last 7 days for the general election or the same state, I am only posting the most recent.


General Election: Trump vs. Biden DFP Biden 52, Trump 40 Biden +12
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Global Strategy Biden 52, Trump 42 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden NPR/PBS/Marist Biden 53, Trump 42 Biden +11
General Election: Trump vs. Biden FOX News Biden 49, Trump 42 Biden +7
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 39 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D)* Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6
General Election: Trump vs. Biden IPSOS Biden 58, Trump 42 Biden +16
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Morning Consult Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Monmouth* Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden GU Politics/Battleground Biden 53, Trump 40 Biden +13



Arizona: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 49, Trump 45 Biden +4
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden OH Predictive Insights Biden 49, Trump 45 Biden +4
California: Trump vs. Biden Survey USA Trump 56, Biden 28 Biden +28
Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden WXIA-TV/SurveyUSA Trump 44, Biden 46 Biden +2
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden HIT Strategies Trump 40, Biden 44 Biden +4
Kansas: Trump vs. Biden SurveyUSA Trump 48, Biden 41 Trump +7
Massachusetts: Trump vs. Biden WCVB/UMass Amherst Biden 61, Trump 28 Biden +33
Massachusetts: Trump vs. Biden WBUR/MassINC Biden 63, Trump 27 Biden +36
Maine: Trump vs. Biden Critical Insight Biden 45, Trump 38 Biden +7
Maine: Trump vs. Biden Bangor Daily News Biden 44, Trump 36 Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden Univ. of Wis/YouGov Biden 47, Trump 43 Biden +4
Minnesota: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 50, Trump 47 Biden +3
Mississippi: Trump vs. Biden Garen Hart Yang Trump 53, Biden 43 Trump +10
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Civitas/Harper (R) Trump 44, Biden 45 Biden +1
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Rasmussen Reports Trump 48, Biden 47 Trump +1
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Morning Consult Trump 43, Biden 50 Biden +7
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden HIT Strategies Trump 37, Biden 47 Biden +10
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 52, Trump 43 Biden +9
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 44 Biden +4
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Univ. of Wis/YouGov Biden 50, Trump 41 Biden +9
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 43 Biden +6
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Rasmussen Reports Biden 55, Trump 43 Biden +12
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 47, Trump 43 Biden +4
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Marquette Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Univ. of Wis/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 43 Biden +6


# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
by vnatale
After Trump Calls Her A ‘Poor Student,’ Ocasio-Cortez Challenges Trump To Release His College Transcripts


https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross ... 5b6692b251

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:34 pm
by Ad Orientem
vnatale wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
After Trump Calls Her A ‘Poor Student,’ Ocasio-Cortez Challenges Trump To Release His College Transcripts


https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross ... 5b6692b251

https://youtu.be/KsLaAbzVb9E

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:23 pm
by vnatale
Ad Orientem wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:34 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
After Trump Calls Her A ‘Poor Student,’ Ocasio-Cortez Challenges Trump To Release His College Transcripts


https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross ... 5b6692b251

https://youtu.be/KsLaAbzVb9E
I don't see that anything from that Big Bad Media involved in this ad! Is this not unprecedented for so many chosen by a president to be so critical of that president?

Vinny

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:20 pm
by vnatale
Reed Galen Why former Republicans back Biden over Trump — and attack Senate Republicans


If this is to be an argument about ideology and party fealty, I submit that none of these endangered senators can any longer legitimately claim the label of Republican or conservative.



https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/w ... cna1236472

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:08 pm
by vnatale
For the Trump fans among us.....you'll be hard pressed to hear anyone giving more praise to Trump than what you will hear here. Plus, as a bonus you will actually get to hear the C-Span host in action who was in the article that Tech posted in which Tech questioned why the host did not challenge a caller. For me, it was yet another dose of being brainwashed by the Marxist media....

Vinny

AUGUST 15, 2020 | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 08/15/2020

Cheryl Chumley on Campaign 2020
Cheryl Chumley, Washington Times online opinion editor, discussed Campaign 2020 as the political parties head into their national conventions.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?474714-4/ ... paign-2020

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:44 pm
by vnatale
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (77.25 KiB) Viewed 4444 times

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:47 pm
by vnatale
Biden's lead over Trump narrows in new national poll


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5 ... ssion=true

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:56 am
by Tortoise
The rioters and looters in the blue cities are committing crimes and endangering life and property.

The Trump-supporting protesters toting their AR-15s are not.

That’s the difference.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:47 am
by shekels
Kbg wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:10 am
Once upon a time, the GOP stood on the three pillars of individual liberty, fiscal conservatism and a moral foreign policy. It was a party that claimed to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law. No Republican leader today abides by these tenets. Since Trump’s election, some GOP senators have become part and parcel of his movement, one that is as dangerous as it is chaotic.

It is not conservative to stand silently by and watch as the president of the United States deploys federal authorities into city streets. The act flies in the face of the rule of law and due process, and is an abusive government overreach. National Republicans now only cry states’ rights when it suits them. For them, if it’s a blue city in a blue state, prep the tear gas and load the rubber bullets. If it’s Trump supporters toting AR-15s and Confederate flags and calling for Michigan (and Democrat) Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s ouster? Crickets.


This!
Good point.
I have the thought in the back of my mind that Trump is not a Republican in the broader sense.
So that is why the people back him to the hilt.
When the masses have been screwed around by Government for a very long time,
Trump is/was the candidate to throw a wrench in the machinery.
When you perceive that you have nothing to lose, you look elsewhere.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am
by glennds
shekels wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:47 am
Kbg wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:10 am
Once upon a time, the GOP stood on the three pillars of individual liberty, fiscal conservatism and a moral foreign policy. It was a party that claimed to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law. No Republican leader today abides by these tenets. Since Trump’s election, some GOP senators have become part and parcel of his movement, one that is as dangerous as it is chaotic.

It is not conservative to stand silently by and watch as the president of the United States deploys federal authorities into city streets. The act flies in the face of the rule of law and due process, and is an abusive government overreach. National Republicans now only cry states’ rights when it suits them. For them, if it’s a blue city in a blue state, prep the tear gas and load the rubber bullets. If it’s Trump supporters toting AR-15s and Confederate flags and calling for Michigan (and Democrat) Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s ouster? Crickets.


This!
Good point.
I have the thought in the back of my mind that Trump is not a Republican in the broader sense.
So that is why the people back him to the hilt.
When the masses have been screwed around by Government for a very long time,
Trump is/was the candidate to throw a wrench in the machinery.
When you perceive that you have nothing to lose, you look elsewhere.
It's an understandable sentiment.

The caution would be when you look back in history, you will find a pattern that most every autocratic, strongman fascist dictator came into power on the back of a "we're fed up with government" public mood. Bolshevik Lenin/Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe, Napoleon, certainly Hitler. Once the fed up masses handed the levers of power over to the hero that would upend the past and save them, he eventually turned the gun on the public until the saga played out to it's bitter end.

To be fair, there have been instances of extensive power being handed to a leader who used it benevolently. Good examples might be Lee Kuan Yew, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, maybe Simon Bolivar. In ancient history, Marcus Aurelius would have qualified. And there are a few outlier characters with a foot in both camps, like Pinochet or Tito.

The fascist autocrats have certain characteristics in common, most notably highly ideological, usually in a controversial, radical departure from the past, and also highly self absorbed personally.
The benevolent dictators were usually people of modest ego and unconcerned, almost oblivious to their self interest, personal gain.
Lee Kuan Yew lived in the same modest home most of his adult life, and asked in his will that it be demolished for fear it might be treated as some kind of museum or shrine to him which he thought was inappropriate. Upon his death, Ataturk willed all his personal assets to the Party and State Treasury for the benefit of the people of Turkey with the exception of an interest allocation for his 13 adopted children, most of whom I think were orphans.

Interesting that the number of evil, authoritarian dictators outweighs the list of benevolent ones. Perhaps this lends credibility to the adage that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So which way would our present occupant of the White House take us (given the opportunity)? Who knows. You can be the judge.

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:27 am
by shekels
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
True. It cuts both ways. Just a perspective from a rooftop.

Just look at the Riots today, they are on a different rooftop.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:29 pm
by glennds
shekels wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:27 am
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
True. It cuts both ways. Just a perspective from a rooftop.

Just look at the Riots today, they are on a different rooftop.
Okay, which poison would you pick?

I have no love for rioters, that's for sure. But a riot will burn itself out. Destruction to property. Casualties, maybe dozens of casualties. A temporary interruption to public safety. None of these are insignificant.

But a fascist autocrat gone bad? Maybe casualties in the thousands, millions? Generational impact? Global instability? I'll take a riot over a dictator any day.
Others might choose the dictator. Though I realize every dictator initially came into power because a majority of people wanted him. Angry, fed up people that wanted change.

The hard part is knowing whether you are dealing with Lee Kuan Yew or Mussolini.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:59 pm
by Ad Orientem
A number of new polls have popped up since Friday... newest on top. (Edit: All of these polls were released within the last 24hrs give or take, so they are all current.)

General Election: Trump vs. Biden ABC News/Wash Post Biden 54, Trump 44 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNN Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 52, Trump 42 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Biden 50, Trump 41 Biden +9


North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden East Carolina U. Trump 47, Biden 47 Tie
Texas: Trump vs. Biden Rice Univ./YouGov* Trump 48, Biden 41 Trump +7



# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error typically +/- 3%.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:24 pm
by Xan
Kbg wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:20 pm
Tortoise wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:56 am
The rioters and looters in the blue cities are committing crimes and endangering life and property.

The Trump-supporting protesters toting their AR-15s are not.

That’s the difference.
An actual conservative could care less if blue cities want to blow themselves in riots and cowboy country wants to tote AR-15s around up so long as they are not messing with Federal stuff and causing interstate crime/sedition etc. This is the line. If antifa attacks a federal court in Seattle, the Feds should get involved, if a cattle ranching family takes over a BLM office in western Washington state the feds should get involved. Neither of these examples gets a pass if you are a conservative law and order guy/gal...and true conservatives outside the local area don't give a crap if it's a local issue. If Portland's elected leaders are cool with city offices getting burned down, their call. That's what state and local elections are for and they will need to answer to those voters.
In Portland it was a federal courthouse which was under siege. That's where the federal agents were.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 2:28 pm
by shekels
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:29 pm
shekels wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:27 am
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
True. It cuts both ways. Just a perspective from a rooftop.

Just look at the Riots today, they are on a different rooftop.
Okay, which poison would you pick?

I have no love for rioters, that's for sure. But a riot will burn itself out. Destruction to property. Casualties, maybe dozens of casualties. A temporary interruption to public safety. None of these are insignificant.

But a fascist autocrat gone bad? Maybe casualties in the thousands, millions? Generational impact? Global instability? I'll take a riot over a dictator any day.
Others might choose the dictator. Though I realize every dictator initially came into power because a majority of people wanted him. Angry, fed up people that wanted change.

The hard part is knowing whether you are dealing with Lee Kuan Yew or Mussolini.
I will choose the paradigm we have Today with all it's faults.
Marxism that is on Display with the riots/protest has brought death to Millions of people.

Whatever you want to title the positions Marxist/ Socialism/Communism, it is all a brand of Collectivism.
Collectivism is very dangerous and death to your Personal Freedom.

Now that is not to say that today's paradigm does not have flaws,
but I will place my bet and see where it leads.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:10 pm
by Cortopassi
If anyone expects tech to go, damn, you're right, Trump is terrible, it will not happen.

I, however, while having severe TDS, can state that he has positions on many items that I am fine with, it is just wrapped up in a man that I cannot stand.

And I have also been quite clear that is illogical. But it's also a completely human response. I am not a machine just looking at results. The manner in how those results are achieved is supremely important as well.

Not that he also doesn't suck on some issues and flip flops a lot (no, I will not research a list).

We'll see in November if logic trumps emotion or if emotion trumps Trump.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:13 am
by glennds
Libertarian666 wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:37 pm
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

Interesting that the number of evil, authoritarian dictators outweighs the list of benevolent ones. Perhaps this lends credibility to the adage that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So which way would our present occupant of the White House take us (given the opportunity)? Who knows. You can be the judge.

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
Please name an unconstitutional action that President Trump has taken, and explain exactly why it is unconstitutional.
I think he has abused a constitutional power, namely presidential pardon, in a way that has undermined legitimate due process rather than rescuing a victim who was deprived of legitimate due process. And he's done it flagrantly, numerous times, mostly for people connected to him.

If you point out that other Presidents have done so too, I would say they were equally wrong. Although I don't recall any in my lifetime who were quite as flagrant about it as Trump.

On a related note, I happen to believe that the scope of executive authority has progressively expanded over the past 70 years or so, to the point where the office of the President is materially different than what is contemplated in the Constitution. This is just a personal opinion.

My post did not allege that Trump is an authoritarian dictator. Whether he will or not remains to be seen and is for each to judge. His characteristics, whether coincidental or aspirational are what they are.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:01 am
by glennds
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:26 am
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:13 am
Libertarian666 wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:37 pm
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

Interesting that the number of evil, authoritarian dictators outweighs the list of benevolent ones. Perhaps this lends credibility to the adage that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So which way would our present occupant of the White House take us (given the opportunity)? Who knows. You can be the judge.

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
Please name an unconstitutional action that President Trump has taken, and explain exactly why it is unconstitutional.
I think he has abused a constitutional power, namely presidential pardon, in a way that has undermined legitimate due process rather than rescuing a victim who was deprived of legitimate due process. And he's done it flagrantly, numerous times, mostly for people connected to him.
So in other words, he used a constitutional power in a way you don't approve of.
That's not unconstitutional.
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

If you point out that other Presidents have done so too, I would say they were equally wrong. Although I don't recall any in my lifetime who were quite as flagrant about it as Trump.
I guess that depends on what you mean by flagrant, and whether you are very young (or have a very bad memory). Remember the Marc Rich pardon? He was a big contributor to Bill Clinton, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence: https://www.thoughtco.com/controversial ... ew-3368325
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am
On a related note, I happen to believe that the scope of executive authority has progressively expanded over the past 70 years or so, to the point where the office of the President is materially different than what is contemplated in the Constitution. This is just a personal opinion.

My post did not allege that Trump is an authoritarian dictator. Whether he will or not remains to be seen and is for each to judge. His characteristics, whether coincidental or aspirational are what they are.
So you have no evidence that he has acted unconstitutionally. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, with the disclaimer that I am not a Constitutional scholar, I do not have any evidence that Trump has acted unconstitutionally. I never alleged that he did. Nor did I say that it is impossible to be an authoritarian dictator within constitutional parameters. Nor did I definitively say Trump is a bona fide authoritarian dictator at this moment in time. I merely pointed to historical reference to say the circumstances are in place for a potential authoritarian dictatorship. Whether it will happen I cannot say.

Indeed, many authoritarian dictators implemented their power within what would have been perfectly legal parameters at the time, usually expanded use of executive authority. Hitler did so after the Reichstag Fire in 1933 under an act granting him emergency powers, specifically the Reichstag Fire Decree, and later the Enabling Act. These powers allowed Hitler to begin sending clandestine Federal police forces into German cities for the purpose of protecting the public. These police were the beginnings of the SS which ultimately came to function as Hitler's private police.

So if your thesis is, if it's Constitutional, it can't be bad, I wouldn't necessarily agree. The Constitution is a fairly broad and sometimes unspecific document. This is why we need a SCOTUS to interpret it and even they get it wrong more than most people think. The Constitution is whatever it is interpreted to be at a particular time, and more importantly, what is enforced and practiced.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I am not a "Never Trumper" nor an "orange man bad" tribe member. I'm just a fan of history and an observer of patterns with an interest in futurism, realizing that none of us can definitively predict it.

Question for you: Do you feel that the Constitution grants the President unlimited immunity and virtually unlimited power? William Barr set forth a memo that provides an interpretation of executive power that is unprecedented, for the most part, and certainly supportive of what Trump has claimed to be "absolute authority". https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/the- ... residency/. Barr has consistently interpreted expansive Presidential power in his career going back to Nixon.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... er/592951/

There are also lesser known classified executive powers known as Presidential Emergency Action Documents. It is believed that these powers, to which Congress is not privy, can permit the President to suspend habeus corpus, issue general warrants for the seizure of persons and property, detain "dangerous persons", and by some speculators, suspend the Constitution entirely.] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wor ... -documents. Plenty of reading and references in the footnotes.

I don't know if such a thing could ever come to pass, but if it did, would you support a Presidential suspension of the Constitution, or any of its specific Articles or Amendments?
Do you think the President has the authority to suspend or delay the election, and if he did, would you support it?

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:51 pm
by glennds
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:00 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:01 am


Question for you: Do you feel that the Constitution grants the President unlimited immunity and virtually unlimited power? William Barr set forth a memo that provides an interpretation of executive power that is unprecedented, for the most part, and certainly supportive of what Trump has claimed to be "absolute authority". https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/the- ... residency/. Barr has consistently interpreted expansive Presidential power in his career going back to Nixon.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... er/592951/
No, obviously the Constitution doesn't grant the President unlimited immunity or virtually unlimited power. There are a number of specific limitations on the Presidency, including the impeachment power.

As for articles from The Atlantic, that used to be a reputable magazine. It is now TDS central, so anything they say about Trump or his administration can safely be ignored.
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:01 am

There are also lesser known classified executive powers known as Presidential Emergency Action Documents. It is believed that these powers, to which Congress is not privy, can permit the President to suspend habeus corpus, issue general warrants for the seizure of persons and property, detain "dangerous persons", and by some speculators, suspend the Constitution entirely.] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wor ... -documents. Plenty of reading and references in the footnotes.

I don't know if such a thing could ever come to pass, but if it did, would you support a Presidential suspension of the Constitution, or any of its specific Articles or Amendments?

Do you think the President has the authority to suspend or delay the election, and if he did, would you support it?
I do not support any suspension of the Constitution, or of any of its provisions, whether by the President, by the legislature, or by the Supreme Court, e.g., the disregard of virtually every provision of the Bill of Rights by former Presidents, the legislature and the Supreme Court, at various times.

The President also doesn't have the power to change the date of the election. That is in the hands of Congress.
So I see there is quite a bit we agree upon.

Generally speaking, I am less aligned (nor strongly against) either party. My bigger concern is the concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, whomever might be in the chair.

As part of the Reichstag Fire Decree, Hitler was granted (and used) the power to suspend free press on the basis that the press was Communist/Marxist. He also suspended the right to public assembly on the basis that the assemblers were thugs threatening the safety of the public. These were all emergency powers. It could be coincidence that some of the recent developments in the US are reminiscent of the conditions that led to Hitler's dictatorship.
However, I think at the risk of being called paranoid, it would be prudent for libertarian minded types to watch closely the events of the next few months to see which way they tilt, using history as at least one reference for interpretation.

To be clear, it was not until the Enabling Act was legally passed by the German legislature that Hitler was given the right to rule by decree thereby consolidating his power as a true dictator. Up until that point, he was a temporary dictator under emergency powers.

Again, not a Constitutional scholar, but I like to retain the belief that the framers of the US Constitution were more than mindful of consolidation of power in the hands of any one individual or government branch.

Have we allowed ourselves to drift away from that ideal over an extended period due to the progressive expansion of executive authority over many administrations and calamities? If we like or trust a particular President, do we become okay with he/she wielding power that could be abused in the hands of another?

Fortuitous - today I found out CBS/Ted Koppel did a recent segment about this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rewriting- ... al-powers/. Worth a watch. Even if one doesn't trust CBS and/or might think Koppel a deranged maniac as his demeanor might imply, it's worth a watch. Use it as a jumping off point to do your own research using sources you trust.

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:20 pm
by sophie
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:59 pm
This includes but is not limited to DACA, handling the riots, and pandemic response, none of which is the job of the executive branch of the federal government. The only time Trump has stepped in to the riots is to protect federal property, which IS his job. Otherwise, it's up to the states and cities to police their own territory, asking for help if they need it. And when they have asked for help, he has provided it, whether for policing or for medical supplies and services.
I see where these points are coming from, but I rather disagree. The federal government should indeed step in when a local government fails in its duty to protect its law-abiding population. Moreover, there is precedent for this dating back to the 19th century. It sounded to me like Trump wanted to intervene but he's holding back and limiting his role to protecting federal property.

As far as DACA...his executive orders here are really a dig at Congress to deal with the situation, as they should. I definitely am of a mixed opinion about this though. On the one hand, any yielding will only further encourage the illegal immigrant onslaught. On the other hand....the people in question have been living here all their lives and had no say in where they were brought up. Humanely speaking can you really bear to pack them all back off to a home country they can't even remember?

There's another good reason why Trump should not be fighting DACA: he may not realize this but he has a lot of support among Hispanics. They (the ones who got here legally anyway) are not sympathetic to illegal immigration AND they have borne a lot more of the effects of BLM-induced crime than the more well to do neighborhoods.