Official VP Debate Thread: Krazy Kamala vs Puritanical Pence

[PLOL]

This is so f'd up, how can u vote Biden

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1314578999016910848

Sounds like we're actually voting for Kamala

[Jayjami]

Dems need to drop expanding supreme court at least in this context. I believe its just a threat to get leverage but doing them no good.

The real problem is a system that allows someone (unelected) to serve for 40-50 years once sworn in. Honestly when you look at the length of time they serve they arguably have more influence than the president of the united states.

I took a Constitutional law class from Justice Kennedy. He had two guest speakers, Scalia and Rehnquist. The supremes are fully cognizant of the fact that the live in ivory towers and are essentially unaccountable to the American people. This is one of the strongest arguments against “judicial activism”. In their opinion, many of these issues are better left to the legislature, who are accountable every 2 years. They have deep concerns about their perceived legitimacy. This is why they are loathe to reverse long standing precedent. Hate to disappoint Druff, but they are not going to reverse Roe v. Wade.

[mickeycrimm]

This is so f'd up, how can u vote Biden

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1314578999016910848

Sounds like we're actually voting for Kamala

Mum is the word right now. But if Biden wins it won't be long that Dems start showing some serious concerns about Joe's mental faculties. Then Kamala is in and the dems go full tilt marxist.

[PLOL]

Sounds like we're actually voting for Kamala

Mum is the word right now. But if Biden wins it won't be long that Dems start showing some serious concerns about Joe's mental faculties. Then Kamala is in and the dems go full tilt marxist.

I'm down if you are

[TheXFactor]

Pretty amazing that Kamala and Biden won't event make the BS promise that they won't pack the court, and then reevaluate later after they win

Instead, they are risking losing votes because they are so certain they want to do it, and they're afraid to blatantly lie, knowing it will bite them later.

The answer is pretty obvious.

I love how Democrats are trying to justifying why this is okay, totally ignoring that it will set a precedent that the party in power will just endlessly pack the court to get the majority they want. It's amazing that this is even up for discussion.

Of course they are.

After this election, Democrats will have the White House and should have a super majority in the House and the Senate.

Time for revenge, they are going to go on a tear and pass every kind of law that you have nightmares about.

Abortion will not only be legal everywhere but the U.S. government will pay for it. U.S. government will pay for you to change into a woman.

Republicans deserve to get fucked up the ass. Trump has fucked up the Republican party for decades. No one will ever trust a Billionaire businessman again.

[GambleBotsChafedPenis]

Dems need to drop expanding supreme court at least in this context. I believe its just a threat to get leverage but doing them no good.

The real problem is a system that allows someone (unelected) to serve for 40-50 years once sworn in. Honestly when you look at the length of time they serve they arguably have more influence than the president of the united states.

I took a Constitutional law class from Justice Kennedy. He had two guest speakers, Scalia and Rehnquist. The supremes are fully cognizant of the fact that the live in ivory towers and are essentially unaccountable to the American people. This is one of the strongest arguments against “judicial activism”. In their opinion, many of these issues are better left to the legislature, who are accountable every 2 years. They have deep concerns about their perceived legitimacy. This is why they are loathe to reverse long standing precedent. Hate to disappoint Druff, but they are not going to reverse Roe v. Wade.

good to hear that...

these grifty, shitty politicians write shit legislation so every time they're up for re-election they can just pass the buck and say, 'well we wrote the laws, somebody challenged it, the court ruled this way, it's outta my control'...term limits would obviously be golden, but these grifters ain't writing their death sentence...

[Rick Sanchez]

Dems need to drop expanding supreme court at least in this context. I believe its just a threat to get leverage but doing them no good.

The real problem is a system that allows someone (unelected) to serve for 40-50 years once sworn in. Honestly when you look at the length of time they serve they arguably have more influence than the president of the united states.

I took a Constitutional law class from Justice Kennedy. He had two guest speakers, Scalia and Rehnquist. The supremes are fully cognizant of the fact that the live in ivory towers and are essentially unaccountable to the American people. This is one of the strongest arguments against “judicial activism”. In their opinion, many of these issues are better left to the legislature, who are accountable every 2 years. They have deep concerns about their perceived legitimacy. This is why they are loathe to reverse long standing precedent. Hate to disappoint Druff, but they are not going to reverse Roe v. Wade.

What are your thoughts on Gorsuch? In some of the recent decisions in which he "sided with the liberals", I read that this is because he has a strict adherence to textualism. I don't entirely understand what that interpretation of the constitution means, but it seems that he's more loyal to that principle than partisan ideology.

Stuff like this is why I suspect that concerns are way overblown about ACB leading a 6-3 decision to help Trump steal the election

[Jayjami]

I took a Constitutional law class from Justice Kennedy. He had two guest speakers, Scalia and Rehnquist. The supremes are fully cognizant of the fact that the live in ivory towers and are essentially unaccountable to the American people. This is one of the strongest arguments against “judicial activism”. In their opinion, many of these issues are better left to the legislature, who are accountable every 2 years. They have deep concerns about their perceived legitimacy. This is why they are loathe to reverse long standing precedent. Hate to disappoint Druff, but they are not going to reverse Roe v. Wade.

What are your thoughts on Gorsuch? In some of the recent decisions in which he "sided with the liberals", I read that this is because he has a strict adherence to textualism. I don't entirely understand what that interpretation of the constitution means, but it seems that he's more loyal to that principle than partisan ideology.

Stuff like this is why I suspect that concerns are way overblown about ACB leading a 6-3 decision to help Trump steal the election

Every justice on the court, except Clarence Thomas, is totally qualified. Alito is way too conservative for me, but intellectually competent. I would prefer a liberal, but Gorsuch is fine.

[Dan Druff]

Dems need to drop expanding supreme court at least in this context. I believe its just a threat to get leverage but doing them no good.

The real problem is a system that allows someone (unelected) to serve for 40-50 years once sworn in. Honestly when you look at the length of time they serve they arguably have more influence than the president of the united states.

I took a Constitutional law class from Justice Kennedy. He had two guest speakers, Scalia and Rehnquist. The supremes are fully cognizant of the fact that the live in ivory towers and are essentially unaccountable to the American people. This is one of the strongest arguments against “judicial activism”. In their opinion, many of these issues are better left to the legislature, who are accountable every 2 years. They have deep concerns about their perceived legitimacy. This is why they are loathe to reverse long standing precedent. Hate to disappoint Druff, but they are not going to reverse Roe v. Wade.

I never said I thought they were going to reverse Roe v. Wade. In fact, I've consistently made the opposite case when speaking to histrionic liberals who are sure the end of their abortion rights are coming.

If Roe v. Wade does get overturned, it's the Dems' own fault for poking the abortion bear. This issue faded to the background for many years (except with conservative Christians), and Dems woke it up with their ridiculous support of late term abortion on demand -- something which isn't even popular with the general population.

They use cheap phrases like, "The decision should be between a woman and her doctor", but in reality that means you're allowing very viable human beings to be murdered if you can find a greedy/callous doctor who says okay. Unbelievable line of reasoning. And this is already legal in a number of blue states -- something which doesn't get enough attention from Trump or Republicans during this election style.

Anyway, Dems have completely perverted the spirit of the Roe v. Wade decision ("Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare"), so fuck them if this ultimately leads to it backfiring and the entire thing gets overturned.

[dwai]

I took a Constitutional law class from Justice Kennedy. He had two guest speakers, Scalia and Rehnquist. The supremes are fully cognizant of the fact that the live in ivory towers and are essentially unaccountable to the American people. This is one of the strongest arguments against “judicial activism”. In their opinion, many of these issues are better left to the legislature, who are accountable every 2 years. They have deep concerns about their perceived legitimacy. This is why they are loathe to reverse long standing precedent. Hate to disappoint Druff, but they are not going to reverse Roe v. Wade.

I never said I thought they were going to reverse Roe v. Wade. In fact, I've consistently made the opposite case when speaking to histrionic liberals who are sure the end of their abortion rights are coming.

If Roe v. Wade does get overturned, it's the Dems' own fault for poking the abortion bear. This issue faded to the background for many years (except with conservative Christians), and Dems woke it up with their ridiculous support of late term abortion on demand -- something which isn't even popular with the general population.

They use cheap phrases like, "The decision should be between a woman and her doctor", but in reality that means you're allowing very viable human beings to be murdered if you can find a greedy/callous doctor who says okay. Unbelievable line of reasoning. And this is already legal in a number of blue states -- something which doesn't get enough attention from Trump or Republicans during this election style.

Anyway, Dems have completely perverted the spirit of the Roe v. Wade decision ("Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare"), so fuck them if this ultimately leads to it backfiring and the entire thing gets overturned.

fuck women's rights, and fuck the gays too

[Dan Druff]

And while I'm no fan of the Christian right, I remember everyone laughing at them when they claimed that Democrats actually want abortion until birth, and were trying to eventually lead up to that. Their biggest argument against Roe v. Wade was that it was eventually going to get there, and if we didn't stop it early, that's where we'd end up.

I didn't agree with this reasoning and told them they were crazy. I told them that Roe v. Wade existed for decades without an attempt to make abortion-at-any-point-for-any-reason legal, and that Dems would never be foolish or evil enough to propose such a thing.

Well, boy do I have egg on my face now.

[Dan Druff]

And again, fuck the people writing the questions for this Harris/Pence debate who decided that they'd ask a really tough abortion question to Pence, but a really easy one for Kamala.

AND SHE WASN'T ASKED ABOUT LATE TERM ABORTION

They ask an abortion question of both candidates, and don't ask about late term abortion?!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

I see that shit and I realize how quietly biased these debates really are.

[dwai]

And while I'm no fan of the Christian right, I remember everyone laughing at them when they claimed that Democrats actually want abortion until birth, and were trying to eventually lead up to that. Their biggest argument against Roe v. Wade was that it was eventually going to get there, and if we didn't stop it early, that's where we'd end up.

I didn't agree with this reasoning and told them they were crazy. I told them that Roe v. Wade existed for decades without an attempt to make abortion-at-any-point-for-any-reason legal, and that Dems would never be foolish or evil enough to propose such a thing.

Well, boy do I have egg on my face now.

and this is why we won't budge on the second amendment, first it's "gun control" next thing you know you're out of guns, give them an inch they'll take a mile, look no further than the recent covid lockdowns for tyranny hungry democratic governors

[blake]

I took a Constitutional law class from Justice Kennedy. He had two guest speakers, Scalia and Rehnquist. The supremes are fully cognizant of the fact that the live in ivory towers and are essentially unaccountable to the American people. This is one of the strongest arguments against “judicial activism”. In their opinion, many of these issues are better left to the legislature, who are accountable every 2 years. They have deep concerns about their perceived legitimacy. This is why they are loathe to reverse long standing precedent. Hate to disappoint Druff, but they are not going to reverse Roe v. Wade.

I never said I thought they were going to reverse Roe v. Wade. In fact, I've consistently made the opposite case when speaking to histrionic liberals who are sure the end of their abortion rights are coming.

If Roe v. Wade does get overturned, it's the Dems' own fault for poking the abortion bear. This issue faded to the background for many years (except with conservative Christians), and Dems woke it up with their ridiculous support of late term abortion on demand -- something which isn't even popular with the general population.

They use cheap phrases like, "The decision should be between a woman and her doctor", but in reality that means you're allowing very viable human beings to be murdered if you can find a greedy/callous doctor who says okay. Unbelievable line of reasoning. And this is already legal in a number of blue states -- something which doesn't get enough attention from Trump or Republicans during this election style.

Anyway, Dems have completely perverted the spirit of the Roe v. Wade decision ("Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare"), so fuck them if this ultimately leads to it backfiring and the entire thing gets overturned.

have you actually thought through how this would "backfire" and which political party would be fucked if roe v. wade is overturned?

hint, it's not the dems who live in states where abortion would remain legal.

i'm sure the deep south will love all their new black voters.

[Dan Druff]

And while I'm no fan of the Christian right, I remember everyone laughing at them when they claimed that Democrats actually want abortion until birth, and were trying to eventually lead up to that. Their biggest argument against Roe v. Wade was that it was eventually going to get there, and if we didn't stop it early, that's where we'd end up.

I didn't agree with this reasoning and told them they were crazy. I told them that Roe v. Wade existed for decades without an attempt to make abortion-at-any-point-for-any-reason legal, and that Dems would never be foolish or evil enough to propose such a thing.

Well, boy do I have egg on my face now.

and this is why we won't budge on the second amendment, first it's "gun control" next thing you know you're out of guns, give them an inch they'll take a mile, look no further than the recent covid lockdowns for tyranny hungry democratic governors

That has been a concern, yes. Look at California where they banned guns with magazines over 10 rounds (lol). Then it was brought to court, and three situations were discussed -- two where women ran out of shots (after 10) and were killed by intruders, and one where a woman scared off 3 intruders in a firefight with them, where her 13th and 14th shots were what finally made them run off. That law was temporarily suspended.

But yeah, you can't give the left any concessions with gun control or they will parlay it into increasingly restrictive measures.

[limitles]

You know that fly was desperately trying to get off right?. That hair could catch a low flying hawk.

Has this been used?

[Jayjami]

and this is why we won't budge on the second amendment, first it's "gun control" next thing you know you're out of guns, give them an inch they'll take a mile, look no further than the recent covid lockdowns for tyranny hungry democratic governors

That has been a concern, yes. Look at California where they banned guns with magazines over 10 rounds (lol). Then it was brought to court, and three situations were discussed -- two where women ran out of shots (after 10) and were killed by intruders, and one where a woman scared off 3 intruders in a firefight with them, where her 13th and 14th shots were what finally made them run off. That law was temporarily suspended.

But yeah, you can't give the left any concessions with gun control or they will parlay it into increasingly restrictive measures.

Two points. If you’re firing off ten rounds in a closed environment, you’re more a a danger to yourself with that gun than the intruder. A conservative, literal reading of the second amendment would never prohibit a state from banning assault rifles.

[dwai]

That has been a concern, yes. Look at California where they banned guns with magazines over 10 rounds (lol). Then it was brought to court, and three situations were discussed -- two where women ran out of shots (after 10) and were killed by intruders, and one where a woman scared off 3 intruders in a firefight with them, where her 13th and 14th shots were what finally made them run off. That law was temporarily suspended.

But yeah, you can't give the left any concessions with gun control or they will parlay it into increasingly restrictive measures.

Two points. If you’re firing off ten rounds in a closed environment, you’re more a a danger to yourself with that gun than the intruder. A conservative, literal reading of the second amendment would never prohibit a state from banning assault rifles.

this is true

[MumblesBadly]

That has been a concern, yes. Look at California where they banned guns with magazines over 10 rounds (lol). Then it was brought to court, and three situations were discussed -- two where women ran out of shots (after 10) and were killed by intruders, and one where a woman scared off 3 intruders in a firefight with them, where her 13th and 14th shots were what finally made them run off. That law was temporarily suspended.

But yeah, you can't give the left any concessions with gun control or they will parlay it into increasingly restrictive measures.

Two points. If you’re firing off ten rounds in a closed environment, you’re more a a danger to yourself with that gun than the intruder. A conservative, literal reading of the second amendment would never prohibit a state from banning assault rifles.

I’m a liberal and want more effective gun control, but banning mags with greater than 10 rounds is pure gun control theatre. Instead, we need REAL gun reform where the distributors of guns and gun accessories have pass-through shared civil liability if one of the nutjobs they sell that gun or device ends up criminally harming or killing someone using it.

Such civil liability law, at the federal level so that you can’t escape it by state law, would motivate gun market merchants to “know the customer”, and reduce the likelihood that their products don’t end up in the hands of people who are inclined to use them in a crime. Such a law would be totally consistent with the 2nd Amendment, as it does not as all prevent a non-criminal from “bearing arms”, but would inject much needed accountability for who provides those weapons and accessories to the firearms market.

[Walter Sobchak]

Holy shit, how long is this fly gonna gonna stay on Pence's hair. WTF.

This is the moment of the debate.

He knows a juicy piece of shit when he smells one.