I've asked this a few times. I may have to request that Zoom session to get an answer. What IS that comic strip on the book shelf behind you? If you held it up to the camera the mystery would be solved.
There's been a lotta yapping about SCOTUS term limits, all seemingly on the premise of a single fixed term (and a pretty long one at that), then out ya go, like presidents and most governors at the eight-year mark.
I'm not hearing much about no term LIMITS per se, but the requirement of regular reconfirmation, as with members of congress. What say you to that option?
Side note: I'm thinking specifically of every eight years (ten's okay, too), there's an automatic full floor vote, no committee vote or hearings or presidential input, two-thirds (I'd consider sixty, but I prefer sixty-seven) to confirm and you get a fresh term. Fall short of that and it becomes an open seat, all the usual procedures of presidential nomination to judiciary committee and hearings, and the incumbent CAN be renominated; the mandatory fast-track senate vote has no effect on that other than being a politically expedient straw poll should the sitting justice fall short of sixty-seven senate votes to reconfirm.
Today- 'term limits for Congress' is absolutely necessary! Congress no longer works for or represents We-the-People. Many have violated their' oaths of office.
If you’re a political pundit that LOVES to quote the polls, at least when it provides evidence that your perspective is correct (as I think you do at times, Chris), what do you think of this?!? Even Fox News’ poll shows Biden ahead now! How do you read this?
Fox News - 3 pt Biden gain, 50%-48% (7 pts since March)
Echelon - 4 pt Biden gain, 48%-47% (prominent GOP pollster)
I have 2 questions, both about the Washington Post. 1. Any comments about the new incoming chief editor there, and how their staff feel about his previous behavior? 2. I believe columnist Jennifer Rubin is spot on in her criticism of Trump and the media's failure to call out his shortcomings and hold him accountable. Your take?
I would have to say that this first debate has huge stakes for both candidates. Both on the mental front. You can't hide behind teleprompters and other means (ear pieces, notes, etc.) for the 90 minutes. Also, can Trump control having his mic cut? Seriously, unless they practiced that, I could see him getting very frustrated with being muted (censored?) I almost feel like watching with some good popcorn.
Unsurprisingly, both major candidates are tacking to the center as the election approaches, e.g., Biden's new border initiatives, Trump rejecting any national restrictions on abortion. Which candidate thus far has been more successful in doing so? Which has more danger of a backlash? And how do candidates decide on these positions? Is there polling -- "We're getting killed on the border; how much support do we lose on the left if we impose new border restrictions?"
This debate will be very, very different with no audience for the first time since Carter and Ford in 1976. CNN's Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, two experienced political journalists are the moderators and the candidates mics will be controlled. NYT's Maggie Haberman reported the Trump team knows he was too much in the 2020 debate and he plans to counter his own criminal convictions with "Hunter" How weird is this about to be?
What do you think of the Louisiana 10 Commandments law? If this case is eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, how do you think the justices (and I use that term very loosely) will rule? My fear is that the GOP is going to try to turn the U.S. into a Christian nation, which obviously goes against the Constitutional separation of church and state.
Is it possible that a third party candidate could win enough electoral college votes that would make it so NO candidate hits 270? If so, what happens then?
This is in relation to the double-haters. This seems like a long-term losing proposition for both parties. If a business only sells product because people hate the other product, that doesn't bode well for staying in business. Are the parties afraid of this? Or are they so confident in a high-barrier to entry that they don't care at all?
'Double Haters' used to be called moderates - Against kakistocracy and graft, but also unsupportive of a bailout for bad decisions (attending college). Both cost us greatly, especially since we seem to stagger from one energency after another (Savings and Loan crisis, Financial crisis of 2007), Covid, Middle East/Ukraine war, .... The solution is always to throw money at it - 'Loosen our fiscal belt'. But we never tighten the belt.
Chris, if you were a moderator of next week's Biden/Trump debate, what question would you ask Biden and what question would you ask Trump -- and why?
I've asked this a few times. I may have to request that Zoom session to get an answer. What IS that comic strip on the book shelf behind you? If you held it up to the camera the mystery would be solved.
Yes, inquiring minds would like to know!
There's been a lotta yapping about SCOTUS term limits, all seemingly on the premise of a single fixed term (and a pretty long one at that), then out ya go, like presidents and most governors at the eight-year mark.
I'm not hearing much about no term LIMITS per se, but the requirement of regular reconfirmation, as with members of congress. What say you to that option?
Side note: I'm thinking specifically of every eight years (ten's okay, too), there's an automatic full floor vote, no committee vote or hearings or presidential input, two-thirds (I'd consider sixty, but I prefer sixty-seven) to confirm and you get a fresh term. Fall short of that and it becomes an open seat, all the usual procedures of presidential nomination to judiciary committee and hearings, and the incumbent CAN be renominated; the mandatory fast-track senate vote has no effect on that other than being a politically expedient straw poll should the sitting justice fall short of sixty-seven senate votes to reconfirm.
Today- 'term limits for Congress' is absolutely necessary! Congress no longer works for or represents We-the-People. Many have violated their' oaths of office.
You knew this was going to come up, Chris.
If you’re a political pundit that LOVES to quote the polls, at least when it provides evidence that your perspective is correct (as I think you do at times, Chris), what do you think of this?!? Even Fox News’ poll shows Biden ahead now! How do you read this?
Fox News - 3 pt Biden gain, 50%-48% (7 pts since March)
Echelon - 4 pt Biden gain, 48%-47% (prominent GOP pollster)
CBS/YouGov - 3 pt Biden gain, 49%-50%
Morning Consult - 2 pt Biden gain, 44%-43%
Yahoo/YouGov - 2 pt Biden gain, 46%-44%
NYT - 2 pt Biden gain, 46%-47%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsTnK5ii4L8&t=14s
Didn’t see that! Thx.
If you could ask one of the debate questions, what would you ask?
Let’s just suppose that Trump breaks all the debate rules and really gets out of hand. What will the moderators do?
Given Trump’s appalling track record in the debate arena, what should Joe do to be heard. I have little faith that the mic will control him.
I have 2 questions, both about the Washington Post. 1. Any comments about the new incoming chief editor there, and how their staff feel about his previous behavior? 2. I believe columnist Jennifer Rubin is spot on in her criticism of Trump and the media's failure to call out his shortcomings and hold him accountable. Your take?
What is that beautiful green glass set in your office? Has it ever been used?
I would have to say that this first debate has huge stakes for both candidates. Both on the mental front. You can't hide behind teleprompters and other means (ear pieces, notes, etc.) for the 90 minutes. Also, can Trump control having his mic cut? Seriously, unless they practiced that, I could see him getting very frustrated with being muted (censored?) I almost feel like watching with some good popcorn.
Would Trump just wander over and start talking into Biden's microphone?
After the way he “stalked”Hillary Clinton, I would put nothing past him!
Unsurprisingly, both major candidates are tacking to the center as the election approaches, e.g., Biden's new border initiatives, Trump rejecting any national restrictions on abortion. Which candidate thus far has been more successful in doing so? Which has more danger of a backlash? And how do candidates decide on these positions? Is there polling -- "We're getting killed on the border; how much support do we lose on the left if we impose new border restrictions?"
This debate will be very, very different with no audience for the first time since Carter and Ford in 1976. CNN's Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, two experienced political journalists are the moderators and the candidates mics will be controlled. NYT's Maggie Haberman reported the Trump team knows he was too much in the 2020 debate and he plans to counter his own criminal convictions with "Hunter" How weird is this about to be?
This is a question they should ask Trump - if you are elected in November, what wll you do after you are inaugurated about the war in Ukraine?
I think the first question they should ask Trump is "who won the 2020 election?"
What do you think of the Louisiana 10 Commandments law? If this case is eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, how do you think the justices (and I use that term very loosely) will rule? My fear is that the GOP is going to try to turn the U.S. into a Christian nation, which obviously goes against the Constitutional separation of church and state.
Is it possible that a third party candidate could win enough electoral college votes that would make it so NO candidate hits 270? If so, what happens then?
Then it goes to the House of Representatives with each state’s delegation getting ONE vote. Republicans have a lock…what a CRAZY system we have!
This is in relation to the double-haters. This seems like a long-term losing proposition for both parties. If a business only sells product because people hate the other product, that doesn't bode well for staying in business. Are the parties afraid of this? Or are they so confident in a high-barrier to entry that they don't care at all?
'Double Haters' used to be called moderates - Against kakistocracy and graft, but also unsupportive of a bailout for bad decisions (attending college). Both cost us greatly, especially since we seem to stagger from one energency after another (Savings and Loan crisis, Financial crisis of 2007), Covid, Middle East/Ukraine war, .... The solution is always to throw money at it - 'Loosen our fiscal belt'. But we never tighten the belt.
Totally disagree. Moderates used to be people who saw a little good in both sides as well as a little bad.
But it also doesn't answer my question (or admittedly I missed your point) - why do parties deliver bad candidates?