United States FLASH: U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DEAD AT 87

Urabrask Revealed said:
Bold of you to assume a liberal won't stab the conservatives in the back.

"B-but the democrats said they would like us again if we do as they say!"
t.Repcuck.
The GOP, as it is, is dying. In hopefully 4 years, their voters will be leeched away by a new actually conservative subparty lead by President Trump.
Click to expand...

Do keep in mind that the Senate is always on a delay because of both terms and election rotation. A Senator gets 6 years in office and in the US, we stagger them into three classes, so only a third of the senate is up for election. Right now, Class 2 is up for election. Class 2 has been in there since 2014. So the people who were elected in 2014 ran on issues from 2012 - 2014. Even though their positions might have changed, the reason why they were elected will not be anywhere close to the same. A senator who ran on issues in 2014 now has to run on issues in 2020.

That said, this is the upcoming battle ground seats:

en.wikipedia.org

2020 United States Senate elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The Republicans are defending 23 seats, the Democrats are defending only 12. So the objective terms show that the Republicans are at a disadvantage, defending twice as many seats as their opponents. That said, looking at the seats up for grabs, most of those are either safe seats or appear to be leaning Republican. Arizona, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Iowa are the real battleground states here.

It looks like the Democrats might take North Carolina and Maine. I haven't done a deep dive, but it looks to be strongly in their favor. I can chalk that up to +2 for the Democrats right there. I'm going to predict that Iowa will probably go red in its Senate race. It's only a .5 point lead for the challenger and I think Trump will help drive up support.

That leaves Colorado and Arizona as the battleground states for the Senate. The Dems seem to have the upper hand, but Razorfist seems to think that they can win it. That said, local politicians for the Dems seem pretty corrupt, so we might end up losing Arizona. I think we can probably hold onto Colorado though. RCP is pretty oddly leaning towards the Dems, despite there not appearing to be any polling data about it on said site. The last bit they have is from fucking 2014. So either it's an error of some sort or someone is trying to make the situation look better than it actually is.

Overall, I suspect on the current trajectory, that the Republicans might hold out at 51 Seats vs the Democrats 49. If things go better, we might see 52 seats for Republicans. Keep in mind that if the momentum for either candidate changes, this will change the results of the Senate race too. Trump's nomination could possibly backfire either way, while Biden's debate performance could cost him the entire election if it's not his good day. And I expect (really, hope) that Trump will try and trip him up.

Which brings me to the debates. All someone on Trump's team really needs to do is google what NOT to say to someone with Dementia:


powerfulpatients.org

What To Avoid When Speaking With Someone Who Has Dementia - Patient Empowerment Network

If you’ve not met someone who has dementia before, here are few things to avoid when conversing with someone who has dementia.
powerfulpatients.org powerfulpatients.org

Specifically:
  • Recall
  • Confusing Directions
  • Complex Language
  • Emotional Subjects
  • Impatience
A presidential political debate is going to agitate all five of these subjects. Especially given the recent revelations about his son (Recall, Emotional), his previous political stances with China (Recall, Complex Language, Confusing Directions), his own activities in Ukraine (Recall, Emotional Subjects), and any policy challenge (Recall, Confusing Directions, Emotional). And all the while, Trump is going to be trying to needle him into a response. Expect interruptions, expect jabs that test his Recall, Emotional Subjects, and his patience.

Biden, with years of political experience, lots of coaching, and a potent cocktail, on a good day can probably manage to handle two or three of these questions...even several times in a row. But I can't imagine he's going to be able to handle four or five at once, in quick succession, during what must be one of the most stressful positions you can put someone in. On a bad day...I can't imagine the devastation. Unable to recall facts, unable to follow directions, snapping at people for minor baits, and erupting at subjects too close to home.

That said, Biden does have a few saving graces here. First, Trump speaks rather plainly, so any direct confrontational comment from Trump is likely not going to be hard to understand. Trump may surprise us by saying something more complicated, but I wouldn't bet on it. Would be a neat trick though. Trump too can also get impatient on stage, so in relative terms, Biden getting angry may not look as bad as it might otherwise. It would certainly however, weaken his image as a calm and collected challenger arguing for a return to normalcy.

Personally, I would have avoided putting Biden on the debate stage, but it seems that the Democrats have recently become concerned about the riots. Biden and Pelosi were both denouncing them recently. And there is of course, the greater risk of Biden looking weak by not debating and the outside possibility that Trump would end up debating West, completely gutting Biden's campaign.
 
Last edited:
The Original Sixth said:
Do keep in mind that the Senate is always on a delay because of both terms and election rotation. A Senator gets 6 years in office and in the US, we stagger them into three classes, so only a third of the senate is up for election. Right now, Class 2 is up for election. Class 2 has been in there since 2014. So the people who were elected in 2014 ran on issues from 2012 - 2014. Even though their positions might have changed, the reason why they were elected will not be anywhere close to the same. A senator who ran on issues in 2014 now has to run on issues in 2020.

That said, this is the upcoming battle ground seats:

en.wikipedia.org

2020 United States Senate elections - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The Republicans are defending 23 seats, the Democrats are defending only 12. So the objective terms show that the Republicans are at a disadvantage, defending twice as many seats as their opponents. That said, looking at the seats up for grabs, most of those are either safe seats or appear to be leaning Republican. Arizona, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Iowa are the real battleground states here.

It looks like the Democrats might take North Carolina and Maine. I haven't done a deep dive, but it looks to be strongly in their favor. I can chalk that up to +2 for the Democrats right there. I'm going to predict that Iowa will probably go red in its Senate race. It's only a .5 point lead for the challenger and I think Trump will help drive up support.

That leaves Colorado and Arizona as the battleground states for the Senate. The Dems seem to have the upper hand, but Razorfist seems to think that they can win it. That said, local politicians for the Dems seem pretty corrupt, so we might end up losing Arizona. I think we can probably hold onto Colorado though. RCP is pretty oddly leaning towards the Dems, despite there not appearing to be any polling data about it on said site. The last bit they have is from fucking 2014. So either it's an error of some sort or someone is trying to make the situation look better than it actually is.

Overall, I suspect on the current trajectory, that the Republicans might hold out at 51 Seats vs the Democrats 49. If things go better, we might see 52 seats for Republicans. Keep in mind that if the momentum for either candidate changes, this will change the results of the Senate race too. Trump's nomination could possibly backfire either way, while Biden's debate performance could cost him the entire election if it's not his good day. And I expect (really, hope) that Trump will try and trip him up.

Which brings me to the debates. All someone on Trump's team really needs to do is google what NOT to say to someone with Dementia:


powerfulpatients.org

What To Avoid When Speaking With Someone Who Has Dementia - Patient Empowerment Network

If you’ve not met someone who has dementia before, here are few things to avoid when conversing with someone who has dementia.
powerfulpatients.org powerfulpatients.org

Specifically:
  • Recall
  • Confusing Directions
  • Complex Language
  • Emotional Subjects
  • Impatience
A presidential political debate is going to agitate all five of these subjects. Especially given the recent revelations about his son (Recall, Emotional), his previous political stances with China (Recall, Complex Language, Confusing Directions), his own activities in Ukraine (Recall, Emotional Subjects), and any policy challenge (Recall, Confusing Directions, Emotional). And all the while, Trump is going to be trying to needle him into a response. Expect interruptions, expect jabs that test his Recall, Emotional Subjects, and his patience.

Biden, with years of political experience, lots of coaching, and a potent cocktail, on a good day can probably manage to handle two or three of these questions...even several times in a row. But I can't imagine he's going to be able to handle four or five at once, in quick succession, during what must be one of the most stressful positions you can put someone in. On a bad day...I can't imagine the devastation. Unable to recall facts, unable to follow directions, snapping at people for minor baits, and erupting at subjects too close to home.

That said, Biden does have a few saving graces here. First, Trump speaks rather plainly, so any direct confrontational comment from Trump is likely not going to be hard to understand. Trump may surprise us by saying something more complicated, but I wouldn't bet on it. Would be a neat trick though. Trump too can also get impatient on stage, so in relative terms, Biden getting angry may not look as bad as it might otherwise. It would certainly however, weaken his image as a calm and collected challenger arguing for a return to normalcy.

Personally, I would have avoided putting Biden on the debate stage, but it seems that the Democrats have recently become concerned about the riots. Biden and Pelosi were both denouncing them recently. And there is of course, the greater risk of Biden looking weak by not debating and the outside possibility that Trump would end up debating West, completely gutting Biden's campaign.
Click to expand...
GA has two seats going this year, and they have been going a little left as seen by the governor election. With how close it was.

So they are one to watch
 
Zachowon said:
GA has two seats going this year, and they have been going a little left as seen by the governor election. With how close it was.

So they are one to watch
Click to expand...
Yep I can confirm that in Georgia had literally ever other political add is related to the Senate which means around a fourth of the total adds are. Man I hate election. Seriously there's way too many 30 second unskipable adds during it. Sigh I guess the algorithms have decided I'm a swing voter which to be fair I usually am on a per candidate basis as they relate to the issues, but this election has way too high of stakes to vote anything but Republican except as related to local stuff
 
Knowledgeispower said:
Yep I can confirm that in Georgia had literally ever other political add is related to the Senate which means around a fourth of the total adds are. Man I hate election. Seriously there's way too many 30 second unskipable adds during it. Sigh I guess the algorithms have decided I'm a swing voter which to be fair I usually am on a per candidate basis as they relate to the issues, but this election has way too high of stakes to vote anything but Republican except as related to local stuff
Click to expand...
Well one of GA senetors stepped down, and Perdue is up for relelection
 
Zachowon said:
Well one of GA senetors stepped down, and Perdue is up for relelection
Click to expand...
Yep which means more campaign adds than usual. To be fair I recall said senator retired because of health reasons which is something I can both respect(as it enables someone able to meet the physical requirements of the office to be in it) and understand(as being unhealthy and dealing with DC politics would be hell). Shame he had to do so though as he almost certainly would have won reelection without serious difficulty
 
Knowledgeispower said:
Yep which means more campaign adds than usual. To be fair I recall said senator retired because of health reasons which is something I can both respect(as it enables someone able to meet the physical requirements of the office to be in it) and understand(as being unhealthy and dealing with DC politics would be hell). Shame he had to do so though as he almost certainly would have won reelection without serious difficulty
Click to expand...
Oh for sure. I have faith in my state
 
RBG digital billboards have popped up along the highway in a nearby New England coastal city, causing me some consternation, though certainly eliciting little surprise. At first I thought there was only one, but it looks like a package purchase that's being displayed through a network of billboards. They feature a questionably flattering digitized headshot of Ginsburg and various cringe slogans, mostly quasi-religious ones like "Reign Supreme" and "All Rise".

I am not particularly tech-savvy, so my Google "skills" are weak, and I was unable to find information about these billboards or even any images when I did a few dozen searches. What I did find was some pricing for these advertisements, and it's not what you'd call cheap—generally a scrolling/rotating LED billboard costs $3-25k PER LOCATION, with ~8 second ads running once a minute for 4 weeks—but the kicker is most companies require a purchase of roughly 5 locations, meaning the absolute minimum cost of this venture would be in the $15k range, and considering the area that they're in I'm guessing it's at least double that.

Now, in the grand scheme of things where DNC operatives spend 8 figure sums promoting failed candidates, this can hardly be considered a large sum. But we're still talking about a contract worth more than half a year's median pay for what amounts to a trashy and vulgar obituary. Someone had to finance this, and what is the upside? These billboards immediately reminded me of another kind of obituary you tend to see in the South... usually starting with "REPENT" or "HE DIED FOR YOUR SINS". The comparison is both disturbing and satisfying (in that it validates everything I think I know about modern liberals).
 
A disturbing trend I'm seeing among the more ideological Left is the deification of personas, whether that's Barack Obama, George Floyd, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or someone else. Unfortunately, it fits with the "cult of personality" and "Deification of the Superior Man (or Woman)" that's been all too common in Socialist countries and Marxist movements, replace the churches and whatever accepted religions exist among the populace with Socialist beliefs and tenets and make martyrs and deities out of chosen figures...North Korea one current and particularly infamous example.

And for the record, I have some Pagan leanings (my personal beliefs are a bit complicated), but this is one golden calf I refuse to kneel to.
 
Tiamat said:
A disturbing trend I'm seeing among the more ideological Left is the deification of personas, whether that's Barack Obama, George Floyd, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or someone else. Unfortunately, it fits with the "cult of personality" and "Deification of the Superior Man (or Woman)" that's been all too common in Socialist countries and Marxist movements, replace the churches and whatever accepted religions exist among the populace with Socialist beliefs and tenets and make martyrs and deities out of chosen figures...North Korea one current and particularly infamous example.
Click to expand...

They act as if they were extremely perfect and innocent

I think they all think of George Floyd as just some "gentle giant" and are willfully unaware of his criminalities

Same for Obama, the guy kinda easily hid behind the whole First Black President thing and I don't think anyone's aware of that drone-strike stuff and him being responsible for many mass deportations of illegal migrants

Hell, this even goes for guys like Che Guevarra or Karl Marx, there was stuff involving drug addiction and horrible stuff mentioned by @The Immortal Watch Dog with Che and Marx was an anti-semite and racist towards Africans

I think that people think of the world in a more Hollywood-Movie-esque manner and as such mainly know the very simplified watered-down yet "human" sort of versions of certain historical figures

Even the whole "both sides" thing waters things down and actually kinda refuses to realize even in real-life there are people who are worse
 
Last edited:
We as humans will believe in something. If your ideology is antitheist in nature then you must create new idols to serve as spiritual and philosophical lighthouses for your worldview.

That being said I will be very impressed if a man on the street remembers Floyd's or even Ginsburg's name in ten years. Their corpses are useful tools for now, but once their utility is expended their names will be discarded.
 
f1onagher said:
We as humans will believe in something. If your ideology is antitheist in nature then you must create new idols to serve as spiritual and philosophical lighthouses for your worldview.

That being said I will be very impressed if a man on the street remembers Floyd's or even Ginsburg's name in ten years. Their corpses are useful tools for now, but once their utility is expended their names will be discarded.
Click to expand...

The one thing these sociopathic narcissists ironically can't believe in is themselves

That's probably why they hate the LibRight
 
Random Username said:
I wouldn't put her on a pedestal but being a parent to lots of children is worth some respect.

Modern progressive ideas happened?
Click to expand...

Its worth a fuckload of respect, to be able to be a mother to 7 successful children is a feat of astounding levels. Especially in this day and age when every single public school teacher is a treasonous, child grooming radical and even private school teachers are suspect.

To be able to not raise 7 blender fluid mental degenerates and be a judge? This soccer mom is a fucking paragon of women's liberation.

Granted I have serious issues with this lady. Her love of the defense industry and her opposition to qualified immunity but not judicial immunity, her willingness to white knight DAS and her love of the heretic in Rome what falsely calls himself Pope being among them.

But no one can say she isn't an awesome mom and an awesome human being for it.

I just hope she doesn't turn into another Justice Roberts.

Random Username said:
I don't get it.
Click to expand...



Literally all the earliest creation myths involved a soccer mom being split in half to create the universe with gods and the cosmos spewing forth from her nether regions (or mid section. Chest bursters as a concept have been with us since the caves) and the first priests were fat ass old bitches with titties down to their knees who would throw retarded babies out of our caves to be food for Gruggs newfangled pack of furry howling homes.

...and yes I'm absolutely wired right now but neither that nor my colorful descriptors detract from the dudes point!
 
Last edited:
The Immortal Watch Dog said:
Literally all the earliest creation myths involved a soccer mom being split in half to create the universe with gods and the cosmos spewing forth from her nether regions (or mid section. Chest bursters as a concept have been with us since the caves) and the first priests were fat ass old bitches with titties down to their knees who would throw retarded babies out of our caves to be food for Gruggs newfangled pack of furry howling homes.

...and yes I'm absolutely wired right now but neither that nor my colorful descriptors detract from the dudes point!
Click to expand...
Creation myths I can agree to when people used to worship gods and goddesses dedicated to fertility hoping they get sons more than daughters.
 
Random Username said:
Creation myths I can agree to when people used to worship gods and goddesses dedicated to fertility hoping they get sons more than daughters.
Click to expand...

The nobility of Carthage would burn slave babies to their goddesses to gain sons.

For the American left, abortions and the destruction of families have become rituals. Their own unnatural sacrifices to the self and a God of deconstruction.

Berret comes along and shows them what genuine religion can inspire women to achieve and what real empowerment is and they hate her and its like a battle of two faiths.

One natural and primordial and inherent and the other, monstrous, perverse and dysgenic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top