Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

I categorically reject the notion that Biden is a figurehead for a far left progressive coalition pulling strings behind the scenes. In fact, I can prove it. When the D primary voters were faced with the prospect of Bernie Sanders becoming the presumptive nominee, they rallied like I didn't think was possible to prevent that from happening. The 78 year-old corpse of Joe Biden whooped Bernie's ass like it was a Don Brown defense in a big game. That's because even within the D party the AOC/Sanders faction isn't nearly as popular or as powerful as it is made out to be. That's because the media personalities that fawn over those idiots are one and the same. Let the 2020 primary be your guide. The moderate wing was polling 2 to 1 over the progressive wing.

Then there's the matter of the Senate. Good luck trying to peel off Manchin, Tester, Klobuchar, etc. in a scenario where you need ALL of them to go along with this coup. Nope.

Now, in general, the party is moving uncomfortably to the left. In fact, Biden will be the only D I vote for this year. But there's nothing I can do about U.S. Rep voters from the Bronx or elsewhere along the coasts.

[lineygoblue]

If Biden is a figurehead for a progressive coalition looking to consolidate power as Liney says he is, court packing is a huge risk to limited government and conservatism while advancing the nanny state. A progressive minded SCOTUS is likely assured if the Ds get to 50 in the Senate with Harris as VP being the tie breaking vote. You think the government is over-involved in our lives now? Just wait and hold out hope the Schummer doesn't replace the Turtle.

Thing is, the Dems don't really have to threaten to pack the Court. If my prediction comes true, then Joe (Kamala) wins the Presidency, the Dems keep the House, and they regain the Senate. Repubs will basically be told to STFU and stand aside. Alito, Thomas and Breyer will be retiring within the next 4 years, which means Kamala will replace all 3. She's not nominating any "moderates". There's a better chance of Michigan beating OSU 48-0, than Kamala appointing a Justice who is a true "moderate". So, even if Coney-Barrett is confirmed, and gives the Cons a 6-3 advantage on the Court, it will be short-lived. Kamala gets to replace 2 of those Cons, and re-seat another Liberal in Breyer's seat. Basic addition tells us that swings the Court back to a 5-4 Lib advantage. It also allows Roberts to lean more to the Liberal side, which he is most comfortable with, which will make most USSC votes 6-3 Liberal.

So really, the Dems can let Joe go ahead and lie, and say he has no intention of "packing" the court, because he won't have to. Its coming back to their side anyway. Courtesy of the 2020 elections.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Fair Mike ....... I think Biden is definitely a moderate and, you're right, the "squad's" and the "bernie bros" influence in the legislative process is probably much less than, as you say, it's made out to be. But I do think the D's pursuing a court packing objective is likely. Getting 3 progressive judges to the supremes during a one term Biden presidency with Harris his anointed successor isn't likely to happen despite what Liney thinks.

[Mike]

I can't imagine a scenario where Biden stands for reelection in 2024 but I'm not sold at all that Harris would win the primary.

[lineygoblue]

Getting 3 progressive judges to the supremes during a one term Biden presidency with Harris his anointed successor isn't likely to happen despite what Liney thinks.

Why not, Jeff? What's going to stop them? Four years ago, would you have believed that PDJT would put 3 justices on the Court? Its about to happen. Why can't Kamala do the same? Joe's mental state is not going to allow him to serve all 4 years. I feel a lot of sympathy for the man. His mental capacities have obviously diminished in just the last 12 months. What will another 12 months do to him? I am very sorry for him. I hope the man lives to be 100, but he's not the same Joe Biden that he was back around 2010. He's just not. And he's not going to get better.

So, a vote for Joe = a vote for President Kamala Harris. There is no getting around that. And if/when she makes USSC appointments, they aren't going to be "moderates". Her voting record is a dead giveaway.

The only hope conservative folks will have, is that the country might wake up a bit, and throw the Dems a curve ball in 2022, by taking back one of the House or Senate. But, I wouldn't bet on it.

[iam416]

I categorically reject the notion that Biden is a figurehead for a far left progressive coalition pulling strings behind the scenes. In fact, I can prove it. When the D primary voters were faced with the prospect of Bernie Sanders becoming the presumptive nominee, they rallied like I didn't think was possible to prevent that from happening. The 78 year-old corpse of Joe Biden whooped Bernie's ass like it was a Don Brown defense in a big game. That's because even within the D party the AOC/Sanders faction isn't nearly as popular or as powerful as it is made out to be. That's because the media personalities that fawn over those idiots are one and the same. Let the 2020 primary be your guide. The moderate wing was polling 2 to 1 over the progressive wing.

Then there's the matter of the Senate. Good luck trying to peel off Manchin, Tester, Klobuchar, etc. in a scenario where you need ALL of them to go along with this coup. Nope.

Now, in general, the party is moving uncomfortably to the left. In fact, Biden will be the only D I vote for this year. But there's nothing I can do about U.S. Rep voters from the Bronx or elsewhere along the coasts.

I think this all fair and accurate. I think the one thing to add, though, is that the drivers in the D party are very much the Progressives. The swing state voters that will put the Ds in power are very much the the purple voters that Scranton Joe purports to represent. There's a huge tension there, and I'm not sure how it'll play out. I think you're absolutely right about the Senate being the brakes on the nonsense. But, I also think you're going to see the House driven by the Progs and the legislation coming out of it will be representative of that shift.

In any event, I'll trust the Constiutional system once again. It's tried and true. That is, until one party essentially attempts to nuke the judicial branch.

[Da Geezer]

The SC has had a liberal majority my whole life, and I've never heard a Republican even talk about a change in the composition of the SC. Now, for the first time, the Rs may have a 5-4 majority and the Ds are going crazy about "packing the court". I guess it is part of the "cancel culture" to want to change the rules if something does not go your way.

I too think the Ds will take the House and Senate. The key vote will be whether the Senate does away with the legislative filibuster That is the only thing standing in the way of adding states and packing the SC.

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU

[lineygoblue]

Shouldn't you be frying up a batch of wings right now?

Hop to it.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Why not, Jeff?...........

See Mike's and talent's posts. Geezer has thrown another wild card on the table that makes sense. The filibuster. That's a player if the Ds get to 50.

[Jeff Buchanan]

You'll hear dire consequences over J&J's halt in their Phase III vaccine trial and Eli Lilly's halt in their Antibody product + Gilead's Remdesvir trial. Nothing to worry about. In the J&J case it's similar to Moderna's pause on their vaccine last month, subsequently restarted, due to an adverse reaction (Fever). Don't yet know what the adverse reaction is to the J&J vaccine.

Vaccine trial pauses are common. After all that's what large scale trials are for and both vaccine manufacturers were/are testing products involving hundreds of thousands of participants globally. One guy .... ONE had a reaction in each trial so, take a deep breath.

The Eli Lilly trial is a small one intended to support continued use of the combo of drugs that Trump reportedly received. It's more like a clinical trial than one that has sufficient controls and power to be predictive. Those come later. While Lilly would certainly like to get this product green-lighted, for now, EUA and Commpassionate Care provisions will continue to apply.

The good news is and this won't be reported is that manufactures and the FDA are in no hurry to bring a vaccines or COVID drugs to market before November 3rd. When these RXs hit the streets they will be proven safe and effective. Don't tell that to the lay press though who are more interested in insuring a larger population of anti-vaxers and a more persistent COVID-19 transpires.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Shouldn't you be frying up a batch of wings right now?

Hop to it.

I hop for nobody. Except crash. He's kinda cute.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The SC has had a liberal majority my whole life, and I've never heard a Republican even talk about a change in the composition of the SC. Now, for the first time, the Rs may have a 5-4 majority and the Ds are going crazy about "packing the court". I guess it is part of the "cancel culture" to want to change the rules if something does not go your way.

I too think the Ds will take the House and Senate. The key vote will be whether the Senate does away with the legislative filibuster That is the only thing standing in the way of adding states and packing the SC.

Roberts isn't a 'liberal' just because he sided with the liberals on a few high profile cases. Neither was Kennedy.

I wouldn't abolish the filibuster but change the rules back to the way they used to be. No more two-track Senate. All Senate business comes to a complete halt when a filibuster begins. Making filibusters easy to do and easy to sustain is what led to them being threatened far more frequently that they used to be. The Founders never intended that every single bill in the Senate receive 60 votes for passage. That's just something that evolved through practice and especially in the cable news age.

Incidentally, I believe most filibusters prior to the 1970 rule changes mostly failed. Those changes made it a highly successful tactic.

[lineygoblue]

The filibuster. That's a player if the Ds get to 50.

The filibuster is toast if the Dems get to 50 with Kamala or her VP as the deciding vote. Dems are already on record as saying they intend to eliminate the Senate filibuster when they regain power.

If everything goes to the Dems, they'll literally have everything. Repubs will be totally powerless. Which, seems to be what the majority of the country wants.

[lineygoblue]

Roberts isn't a 'liberal' just because he sided with the liberals on a few high profile cases. Neither was Kennedy.

Kennedy was about the closest to a so-called "moderate" that the USSC has had in my lifetime. He had times when he sided with cons, and others when he sided with Libs. Ironic that the Dems were all 'gloom and doom' during his confirmation hearings as well.

Roberts has shown in his opinions that when he sides with the liberals, he's more comfortable on that side of the line. The few times he's sided with Cons, he seems to do so reluctantly. If the slant goes to 5 Lib justices, as I expect they will under a Kamala administration, then Roberts will be more willing to side with them and make it a solid 6-3 liberal. Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh will be the last of the conservatives.