Inventing History

"It was impossible to miss how Kamala Harris, like Joe Biden, refused to answer questions about their plans to expand the Supreme Court. But she also misrepresented history.

Harris claimed at the VP debate that Abraham Lincoln refused to nominate a candidate for Chief Justice in October 1864 because “Honest Abe said, it’s not the right thing to do” and wanted the people to vote first.

Lincoln, of course, said no such thing. He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December. He sent a nominee the day after the session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the same day. And Lincoln wanted to dangle the nomination before Chase and several other potential candidates because he wanted them to campaign for him. Lincoln’s priority was winning the election, which was necessary to win the war — and he filled the vacancy at the first possible instant.

Kamala Harris is simply inventing history."

It is interesting how they are dodging that specific question....

These people (all of them) are not afraid to promise something may not be able to deliver. Why so tight lipped on this one? It seems like a lightning rod easy answer to rally the Dems? Unless they are afraid that position would only assure more republicans would show up to vote that may not otherwise?

From what I can tell the fact checkers only checked one side.... It wasn't the Dem side either.

Weren't the BLM Dems wanting to tear down Lincoln's statues just a few months ago because he was white and owned slaves? Now, we're supposed to do what Kamala says Honest Abe allegedly told us to do? Why cant these liberals make up their minds?

As for Kunnntmala, when her mouth is moving, you know she is either lying or sucking d!ck.

I don't get why they just won't come out & say they will. They, just like their supporters are already doing, can spin it it's fine because the GOP is ramming ACB

I guess Willie Brown didn't take the time to teach her a history lesson whilst she was fellating her way up the ladder. I guess she figured she had her hands (and mouth) full.

(10-08-2020 11:00 AM)gdunn Wrote:  From what I can tell the fact checkers only checked one side.... It wasn't the Dem side either.

I think all such debates should be moderated by 2 individuals sworn to neutrality. One needs to be a specialist in Constitutional Law and the other a Professor of American History. They put both candidates in sound proof booths and ask each the same question denying them the opportunity to hear their opponents answer. Then both answers are used to asked the candidates relevant questions with the moderators pointing out the errors in constitutionality and historical facts made by the candidates.

This way the voters get to see what the candidates are made of rather than get bogged down in the mud slinging and the B.S. talking points.

The debate could open with a 10 minute monologue by each candidate in which they give their vision for the next 4 years. Followed by the questioning as described, followed by the airing of mistakes, and giving each candidate another 5 minute summation after their errors are pointed out.

What we have right now is a mini version of the view complete with the biased harangue. And frankly it's piss poor TV.

Edit: And they dodge the question about packing the court because it is controversial from a government standpoint, and because it would not only spur the Republicans to the voting booth, but would turn away many moderates and even some traditional Democrats. They know its a gangster move and that the public perceives it that way.

(10-08-2020 11:00 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  It is interesting how they are dodging that specific question....

These people (all of them) are not afraid to promise something may not be able to deliver. Why so tight lipped on this one? It seems like a lightning rod easy answer to rally the Dems? Unless they are afraid that position would only assure more republicans would show up to vote that may not otherwise?

They are dodging it because they tell the truth, they won’t get elected.

******* con artists.

(10-08-2020 11:50 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 11:00 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  It is interesting how they are dodging that specific question....

These people (all of them) are not afraid to promise something may not be able to deliver. Why so tight lipped on this one? It seems like a lightning rod easy answer to rally the Dems? Unless they are afraid that position would only assure more republicans would show up to vote that may not otherwise?

They are dodging it because they tell the truth, they won’t get elected.

******* con artists.

Yup like Biden said himself you can't win a Yes or No. Both answer lose support. Separation of Powers is the key to this democracy.

Answer Yes, you lose almost all moderate and swamp republican support they might have. I believe (not sure if someone wants look it up) they would need to change law to pack the courts.

Answer No, and you start off on a bad foot with Pelosi/Schumer and Co (made them look bad) . And if your actually serious about No, then your left support drops as well. What Trump/Biden/Senate are doing is current law, they don't need to change any laws.


We know the likely answer because even if Biden respects the separation of power which I believe he probably does, most know he isn't the leader of the Democratic Party.

A dim lying about a Republican? Shocking. /sarc

(10-08-2020 11:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 11:00 AM)gdunn Wrote:  From what I can tell the fact checkers only checked one side.... It wasn't the Dem side either.

I think all such debates should be moderated by 2 individuals sworn to neutrality. One needs to be a specialist in Constitutional Law and the other a Professor of American History. They put both candidates in sound proof booths and ask each the same question denying them the opportunity to hear their opponents answer. Then both answers are used to asked the candidates relevant questions with the moderators pointing out the errors in constitutionality and historical facts made by the candidates.

This way the voters get to see what the candidates are made of rather than get bogged down in the mud slinging and the B.S. talking points.

The debate could open with a 10 minute monologue by each candidate in which they give their vision for the next 4 years. Followed by the questioning as described, followed by the airing of mistakes, and giving each candidate another 5 minute summation after their errors are pointed out.

What we have right now is a mini version of the view complete with the biased harangue. And frankly it's piss poor TV.

Edit: And they dodge the question about packing the court because it is controversial from a government standpoint, and because it would not only spur the Republicans to the voting booth, but would turn away many moderates and even some traditional Democrats. They know its a gangster move and that the public perceives it that way.

Something like you propose would be good...of course, the Left Dems would never go for it, as their whole schtick is lying and having no one check them on what they say, thus it becomes added to the Dem "facts."

(10-08-2020 12:55 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 11:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 11:00 AM)gdunn Wrote:  From what I can tell the fact checkers only checked one side.... It wasn't the Dem side either.

I think all such debates should be moderated by 2 individuals sworn to neutrality. One needs to be a specialist in Constitutional Law and the other a Professor of American History. They put both candidates in sound proof booths and ask each the same question denying them the opportunity to hear their opponents answer. Then both answers are used to asked the candidates relevant questions with the moderators pointing out the errors in constitutionality and historical facts made by the candidates.

This way the voters get to see what the candidates are made of rather than get bogged down in the mud slinging and the B.S. talking points.

The debate could open with a 10 minute monologue by each candidate in which they give their vision for the next 4 years. Followed by the questioning as described, followed by the airing of mistakes, and giving each candidate another 5 minute summation after their errors are pointed out.

What we have right now is a mini version of the view complete with the biased harangue. And frankly it's piss poor TV.

Edit: And they dodge the question about packing the court because it is controversial from a government standpoint, and because it would not only spur the Republicans to the voting booth, but would turn away many moderates and even some traditional Democrats. They know its a gangster move and that the public perceives it that way.

Something like you propose would be good...of course, the Left Dems would never go for it, as their whole schtick is lying and having no one check them on what they say, thus it becomes added to the Dem "facts."

Yes sir, I agree with your assessment. I just long for the day when we once again choose what is best for the voter instead of what is best for the party.

(10-08-2020 12:55 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 11:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 11:00 AM)gdunn Wrote:  From what I can tell the fact checkers only checked one side.... It wasn't the Dem side either.

I think all such debates should be moderated by 2 individuals sworn to neutrality. One needs to be a specialist in Constitutional Law and the other a Professor of American History. They put both candidates in sound proof booths and ask each the same question denying them the opportunity to hear their opponents answer. Then both answers are used to asked the candidates relevant questions with the moderators pointing out the errors in constitutionality and historical facts made by the candidates.

This way the voters get to see what the candidates are made of rather than get bogged down in the mud slinging and the B.S. talking points.

The debate could open with a 10 minute monologue by each candidate in which they give their vision for the next 4 years. Followed by the questioning as described, followed by the airing of mistakes, and giving each candidate another 5 minute summation after their errors are pointed out.

What we have right now is a mini version of the view complete with the biased harangue. And frankly it's piss poor TV.

Edit: And they dodge the question about packing the court because it is controversial from a government standpoint, and because it would not only spur the Republicans to the voting booth, but would turn away many moderates and even some traditional Democrats. They know its a gangster move and that the public perceives it that way.

Something like you propose would be good...of course, the Left Dems would never go for it, as their whole schtick is lying and having no one check them on what they say, thus it becomes added to the Dem "facts."

A few weeks back someone from the Biden campaign dodged questions from Brett Baier I think and finally said, look our fact checkers said we were right.

Key word was their fact checkers....

As long as the media shills for them and "checks" them, along with the brilliant minds on social media, we'll never hear the full story.

(10-08-2020 01:11 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 12:55 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 11:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 11:00 AM)gdunn Wrote:  From what I can tell the fact checkers only checked one side.... It wasn't the Dem side either.

I think all such debates should be moderated by 2 individuals sworn to neutrality. One needs to be a specialist in Constitutional Law and the other a Professor of American History. They put both candidates in sound proof booths and ask each the same question denying them the opportunity to hear their opponents answer. Then both answers are used to asked the candidates relevant questions with the moderators pointing out the errors in constitutionality and historical facts made by the candidates.

This way the voters get to see what the candidates are made of rather than get bogged down in the mud slinging and the B.S. talking points.

The debate could open with a 10 minute monologue by each candidate in which they give their vision for the next 4 years. Followed by the questioning as described, followed by the airing of mistakes, and giving each candidate another 5 minute summation after their errors are pointed out.

What we have right now is a mini version of the view complete with the biased harangue. And frankly it's piss poor TV.

Edit: And they dodge the question about packing the court because it is controversial from a government standpoint, and because it would not only spur the Republicans to the voting booth, but would turn away many moderates and even some traditional Democrats. They know its a gangster move and that the public perceives it that way.

Something like you propose would be good...of course, the Left Dems would never go for it, as their whole schtick is lying and having no one check them on what they say, thus it becomes added to the Dem "facts."

A few weeks back someone from the Biden campaign dodged questions from Brett Baier I think and finally said, look our fact checkers said we were right.

Key word was their fact checkers....

As long as the media shills for them and "checks" them, along with the brilliant minds on social media, we'll never hear the full story.

Our nation is too important to permit partisans from either party to moderate these so called debates. We need neutral moderation by experts. Journalists and Biographers are not well versed in any particular subject or in general knowledge. The idea that the press (some of the most academically inept degreed people) is allowed to assume this position is insane. These people are hired on their ability to twist facts and mislead people into reading their articles, clicking their links, or starting their UTube Video. They are by nature dishonest sensationalists. And now that they are funded by myopic corporations who have their own global agenda with regard to trade they should be the last group considered for this duty.

(10-08-2020 11:50 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 11:00 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  It is interesting how they are dodging that specific question....

These people (all of them) are not afraid to promise something may not be able to deliver. Why so tight lipped on this one? It seems like a lightning rod easy answer to rally the Dems? Unless they are afraid that position would only assure more republicans would show up to vote that may not otherwise?

They are dodging it because they tell the truth, they won’t get elected.

******* con artists.

To paraphrase Talking Heads, "same as it ever was....."

Biden, in Arizona, just said, “You’ll know my answer on that question (court packing) when the election is over.”

(10-08-2020 03:32 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  Biden, in Arizona, just said, “You’ll know my answer on that question (court packing) when the election is over.”

Vote on it to see whats inside.

(10-08-2020 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Our nation is too important to permit partisans from either party to moderate these so called debates. We need neutral moderation by experts.

*sigh*.. I miss the William F. Buckley's of the Journalism world now more than ever..

(10-08-2020 03:32 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  Biden, in Arizona, just said, “You’ll know my answer on that question (court packing) when the election is over.”

You mean you expect us to believe you after you lose? You WILL lose partly because you were not transparent, something you demand of your opponents. Americans can see through your deception. If you won't answer that question, it is obvious to us that the answer is YES.

Liberals lie. She’s just another liberal liar. It’s what they do and she won’t be called on it. Shocking.