Joe Biden: voters do not have the right to know.....

[BobRyan]

I think he is undecided

That graph you showed has Obama with 12M jobs after 8 years. Trump just did that in 5 months in 2020. Now how about that 2019 number...you did not mention?

And the fact that none of the people on the list had the global pandemic issue that the entire world faced this year to contend with.

an uptic of 11M jobs under pandemic conditions is not as trivial as some have imagined to themselves.

details matter.

Jan 30, 2020

GDP growth in 2019 continues to exceed pre-election forecasts. For example, in its final projection before the 2016 election, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that real GDP would grow at a 2.0 percent annual rate over the first 12 quarters of a new Administration. Instead, under President Trump, real GDP beat expectations and grew at a 2.5 percent annual rate from the election to the end of 2019—faster than the rate under President Obama’s expansion period.

Last year marked the third consecutive year that real GDP growth exceeded the final CBO and Federal Open Market Committee projections made before the 2016 election, as shown in the figure below. Because of economic growth surpassing expectations, real GDP at the end of 2019 is $260 billion—or 1.4 percent—higher than CBO’s projection.
from: United States GDP Growth Continues Exceeding Expectations | The White House

as of mid-year 2019 -- even then it was not hard to compare...
15 charts that compare the Trump vs Obama economy

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, it is.
The article clearly shows the 'facts' of who voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act as a percentage than Democrats did,”

fact check: -- "True"


================================= article
from: Fact Check: ‘More Republicans Voted for the Civil Rights Act as a Percentage Than Democrats Did’

Verdict: True

While the landmark act received a majority of support from both parties, a greater percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Throughout the 1950s and ’60s, Republicans were generally more unified than Democrats in support of civil rights legislation, as many Southern Democrats voted in opposition.

Fact Check:

Shapiro made the claim in response to a question put forward by Franklin Foer in an article he wrote for The Atlantic. “What if the moderate Republicans of the late 1950s and early ’60s had aggressively owned the civil-rights agenda—and rendered the cause of racial justice a bipartisan concern?” asked Foer.

“By the way, they did,” responded Shapiro.

As the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s and ’60s, the federal government passed a number of civil rights bills, four of which were named "The Civil Rights Act".

Of the four acts passed between 1957 and 1968, Republicans in both chambers of Congress voted in favor at a higher rate than Democrats in all but one case. Republicans often had fewer total votes in support than Democrats due to the substantial majorities Democrats held in both the House and Senate.

During this period, the South was a Democratic stronghold that consistently resisted the civil rights movement.

In 1956, many Southern members of Congress signed the “Southern Manifesto,” voicing their opposition to the ruling in the 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which declared that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. Democrats were geographically divided on matters of civil rights, while Republicans largely represented non-Southern states and were more unified.

 

[Fantine]

If you want to give Trump credit for creating 12 million jobs in 5 months, you must also acknowledge the fact that it was his callous negligence on the Coronavirus that has given the United States 10 times as many cases as all but a few other countries in the world, just India and Brazil. This callous indifference to human life also gave us a much higher unemployment rate. All Trump could think about where his empty hotels and how to get them open. So blindly fixated on reopening the country, he did it carelessly and dangerously. We are all paying the price. Every bit of those disastrous employment stats is his fault

 

[Hank77]

“More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act as a percentage than Democrats did,”

fact check: -- "True"


================================= article
from: Fact Check: ‘More Republicans Voted for the Civil Rights Act as a Percentage Than Democrats Did’

Verdict: True

While the landmark act received a majority of support from both parties, a greater percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the bill. Throughout the 1950s and ’60s, Republicans were generally more unified than Democrats in support of civil rights legislation, as many Southern Democrats voted in opposition.

Fact Check:

Shapiro made the claim in response to a question put forward by Franklin Foer in an article he wrote for The Atlantic. “What if the moderate Republicans of the late 1950s and early ’60s had aggressively owned the civil-rights agenda—and rendered the cause of racial justice a bipartisan concern?” asked Foer.

“By the way, they did,” responded Shapiro.

As the civil rights movement gained momentum in the 1950s and ’60s, the federal government passed a number of civil rights bills, four of which were named "The Civil Rights Act".

Of the four acts passed between 1957 and 1968, Republicans in both chambers of Congress voted in favor at a higher rate than Democrats in all but one case. Republicans often had fewer total votes in support than Democrats due to the substantial majorities Democrats held in both the House and Senate.

During this period, the South was a Democratic stronghold that consistently resisted the civil rights movement.

In 1956, many Southern members of Congress signed the “Southern Manifesto,” voicing their opposition to the ruling in the 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which declared that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. Democrats were geographically divided on matters of civil rights, while Republicans largely represented non-Southern states and were more unified.

At all but one case was the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Democrats were geographically divided on matters of civil rights, while Republicans largely represented non-Southern states and were more unified.

The above is fact. The vote was largely determined by which side of the Mason Dixon line that they represented.

However, it doesn't change the fact that percentage wise more Dems. voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than the percentage of Republicans who did, which was a landmark civil rights bill that was originally proposed the JFK.
Of the southern states, one Dem. did vote for it and the only Rep. didn't.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

 

[BobRyan]

delete

 

[BobRyan]

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

From that link

===========================================

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by United States Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator (John Tower of Texas) led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[18] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[19]


After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[21]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays.

 

[BobRyan]

temp delete for formatting issue

 

[BobRyan]

If you want to give Trump credit for creating 12 million jobs in 5 months, you must also acknowledge the fact that it was his callous negligence on the Coronavirus that has given the United States 10 times as many cases as all but a few other countries

1. As "all but a few"...sounds like parsing.
2. the jobs loss is from shutting down the economy which you call "paying no attention" to the pandemic??
3. Callous negligence by doing what???
a. Historic record fast tracking Vaccine development -- that "neglect"?
b. Historic record using war powers act to get emergency ventilators available - that "neglect"?
c Shutting down travel to China while democrats claimed nothing to worry about -- that "neglect"?
d. CDC officials said at every step that the President went along with their recommendations to the nation --- "that" neglect?
e. We are a mask-wearing nation with these 6 million cases of infections - in the pandemic... as compared to 60 million infections in the pandemic for Biden and Obama - and not at all being a "mask wearing nation" when they were faced with a pandemic. ... "that" neglect?

 

[civilwarbuff]

It is if it hasn't been adequately considered.

It's been bandied about for about a month.

It's quite reasonable that Biden and team hasn't had the time to give it adequate consideration to this point ...

Yeah, he has only been thinking about it for 37 years....gotta give him some time.....
Flashback: When Biden Called Court Packing a 'Bonehead Idea'

 

[BobRyan]

Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ To Know Stance On Court Packing

Biden Says Voters ‘Don’t Deserve’ To Know Stance On Court Packing

interesting read

The kingly power lives on.

If we don't "deserve to know" then fine - let's not take the risk.

 

[Hank77]

From that link

===========================================

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by United States Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator (John Tower of Texas) led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[18] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[19]


After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[21]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays.

Which supports exactly what I said.
I could quote other parts of the article but considering that we are off-topic from the OP I won't.
I just hope others will take the time to read both articles.

 

[A_Thinker]

Yeah, he has only been thinking about it for 37 years....gotta give him some time.....
Flashback: When Biden Called Court Packing a 'Bonehead Idea'

Do you really think that he's been thinking about it for 37 years ... or that he positioned himself on the issue 15 years ago ?

Anyway, the "court packing" issue is different ... when the Republicans have proven themselves to be so hypocritical about their past positioning ...

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you really think that he's been thinking about it for 37 years ... or that he positioned himself on the issue 15 years ago ?

1983....that's 37 years not 15....that he positioned himself of court packing....“It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct. But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, if for an entire decade, the independence of the most-significant body … in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” (my bolding)
And then again in 2005: In 2005, Biden made similar remarks, calling the idea of court packing a "power grab" during a Senate speech.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1314897949747535874

So yeah, 37 years is accurate....as well as reaffirming his position in 2005......

 

[A_Thinker]

1983....that's 37 years not 15....that he positioned himself of court packing....“It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct. But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, if for an entire decade, the independence of the most-significant body … in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.” (my bolding)
And then again in 2005: In 2005, Biden made similar remarks, calling the idea of court packing a "power grab" during a Senate speech.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1314897949747535874

So yeah, 37 years is accurate....as well as reaffirming his position in 2005......

I guess we'll see what he says this time ...

 

[civilwarbuff]

I guess we'll see what he says this time ...

He will most likely forget and say something different.....

 

[A_Thinker]

He will most likely forget and say something different.....

As long as it's him and not the super-spreader ...

 

[A_Thinker]

That graph you showed has Obama with 12M jobs after 8 years. Trump just did that in 5 months in 2020. Now how about that 2019 number...you did not mention?

And the fact that none of the people on the list had the global pandemic issue that the entire world faced this year to contend with.

an uptic of 11M jobs under pandemic conditions is not as trivial as some have imagined to themselves.

details matter.

Jan 30, 2020


as of mid-year 2019 -- even then it was not hard to compare...
15 charts that compare the Trump vs Obama economy

You can't discount Trump's abysmal incompetence during the pandemic.

He's only regained around 11 million of the 22 million jobs he lost in the midst of the pandemic ...

 

[Fantine]

The kingly power lives on.

If we don't "deserve to know" then fine - let's not take the risk.

Funny, that's exactly why I don't vote for DJT. He owes $438 million to agents of an indeterminate foreign government. They could extort him, coerce him, blackmail him into betraying our country (and let's face it, he's done a pretty good job of that already even without coercion or blackmail.) They could call in their loan or foreclose on his properties--and remember, no American bank will lend him money because he is such a poor credit risk.

He has already shown during the pandemic that he would put making a profit on his companies ahead of the health and safety of you and I--that's why he wanted to open the country precipitously early and why he made fun of people with masks and called the virus a hoax.

They could also sell their loans off to really bad people--mobsters and criminals. (As if he didn't have enough friends who were mobsters and criminals already.)

When he has betrayed our country right and left without having $438 million in loans called in, how much lower can he sink?

 

[jgarden]

1. Odd that you are posting a Jim Crow Law document when history shows that it was the Republicans that opposed the Jim Crow laws just like it was republicans that got slavery abolished. How is that helping you?

2. Republicans did not setup any rules in the past 20 years to make sure that democrats would not win in 2016. Democrats were not objecting to the "electoral college" when it was created. That is not a "democratic vs Republican" issue at all -- unless one party decides it no longer helps them.

THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY

In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party.

southern strategy wiki - Bing
***********************************************************************************
Perhaps Trump supporters should familiarize themselves with their own Party before they engaging in "revisionist" history that bears little resemblance to the facts!

Federal initiatives taken by President Kennedy to end "Jim Crow," with culminated in the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 under President Johnson, alienated the southern wing of the Democratic Party, a situation which the Republicans were only too willing to turn to their advantage!

By abandoning those core principles that the GOP had championed since Lincoln, the Republicans made a cynical decision based on political expediency by adopting "The Southern Strategy" - providing an alternative to attract those conservative, white, segregationist voters in the South who favored retention of "Jim Crow!"

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
- Kevin Phillips, Nixon political strategist, New York Times, 1970

Under the guise of supporting "state's rights" which was interpreted as opposing the introduction and enforcement of federal legislation on civil rights, traditional political affiliations during the 50's and 60's in the South shifted from the Democrats to the Republicans - where they've remained entrenched for the last 50 to 60 years!

 

[jisaiah6113]

We could easily ask the same question of Trump/Pence. After all, Republucans are the ones who have already shown themselves to be unethical and immoral where the courts are unconcerned.

Drunk.with power, they could choose to expand the courts with more of their Stepford justices just for the heck of it.

They know the demographic will sink.them, so why not add a few more Supreme Court justices to insure they will be able to legislate from the bench when their aging white male coalition has gone on to their final.judgments.

You seem to have some kind of animus against white people.