Donald Trump will come to the realization, probably soon that he has lost the election. He will soon have to live with the consequences of that condition. Beginning January 20, 2021, his immunity will expire. He is, by nature, a vain, vile, petulant, petty individual, and has surrounded himself with those of a similar ilk. I think the question we all have to face is, how much damage can they inflict on the country between now and then? Predictions, concerns and defenses are all welcome.
I think the question we all have to face is, how much damage can they inflict on the country between now and then? Predictions, concerns and defenses are all welcome.
On the other hand, if they quietly and graciously accept the transfer of power, then things will go a lot better for their legal situation in 2021. If they do a lot of damage on their way out, they won't have much sympathy when they face indictment.
On the subject of post-election pardons, I bet Trump doesn't issue any because he feels like everybody betrayed him. Except maybe for Ivanka, and he'll certainly try to pardon himself. But I also bet the Supreme Court says self-pardons are invalid because there is a passage in The Federalist Papers that says no man can be his own judge. A President pardoning himself is essentially self-judgement.
He might have a better chance by resigning and having Pence pardon him, but I think the same logic applies when you try to pardon your own conspirators. Even if they did use succession to pardon each other, it sounds like a successful RICO prosecution could be made.
As for Ivanka, she has the same problem as her dad: Presidential pardons can't touch state crimes, and she has at least an intentional tax evasion charge for getting that $700K consulting fee while she was a salaried employee. Plus they ran that payment through one of her companies to try to conceal it, which is money laundering. Both state crimes. And New York State is not exactly good buddies with either Ivanka or her dad.
the Supreme Court says self-pardons are invalid because there is a passage in The Federalist Papers that says no man can be his own judge
and what makes you believe the so-called "originalists" would even bother to make that argument???? If there is an ideological bias available, they will construct an "originalist" interpretation to ensconce it.
The last 3 were carefully chosen to help conservatives achieve their vision. Don't be deceived, the law will not stand in the way of an ideology.
There is some interest in having SDNY indict Trump right now for the charges that put Michael Cohen in prison. Cohen's indictment lists "co-conspirator # 1" as being guilty of the same money laundering and campaign finance violations. So the evidence is all available and the statute of limitations has not run out. Plus they were bimbo payoffs while his wife was pregnant, so it has a nice juicy sex-related twist. The indictment would be an easy thing.
What this would get us is a judge saying the OLC memo about not indicting a standing President is nonsense, so all future Presidents would know they are not above the law. The Supreme Court has already told Donald Trump that, but they failed to say the OLC memo was rubbish. It would also likely force a Supreme Court decision about the validity of Presidential self-pardons.
The next President this would apply to would be Biden, so Trumpists should not be all that offended. Of course, Biden would probably never DO anything illegal, but the Trumpists seem to believe he will.
The head of GSA has not signed the requisite paperwork for a Biden Transition Team, therefore locking out the team from access to money and facilities.
Many many people (including the TikToc crew) are calling the Trump Election Fraud hotline and leaving prank calls. They also have a website with no character limit in the message window, so people are pasting screenplays, whole novels, etc. into the report window.
It's like the Four Seasons press conference all over again.
Trump is the modern version of King Midas: Except everything he touches turns to something else. Definitely not gold...
Lots of callers are reporting election fraud by an elderly mentally-impaired fat man living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. So many such calls came in that Laura Trump tweeted they were changing the phone number. Of course, new reports promptly came in to the new number...
I guess she hasn't figured out that you have to publish the number to get any calls, and then the pranksters will just call the new number. The sad thing is that even having such a hotline to report election fraud, means the Trump team has no actual evidence, but they would like some.
That "having no evidence" thingie is really hampering their lawsuits when they get in front of a judge. You would think their high-priced lawyers would know that, and search for evidence BEFORE running to a judge. But I guess they are getting paid by the hour. Might damage a few lawyer careers, though, since lawyers do get sanctioned sometimes for filing frivolous no-evidence lawsuits.
so far I have only found one case which has a legal standing (an affidavit sworn under oath) alleging fraud. A postal worker alleges the local PM in Erie PA told workers to collect all ballots found after election day and stated we would "backdate" ballots for Nov 3. Local counters found there were 135 ballots sent to counters which were apparently the ones picked up after Nov 3. There is no status on mailing dates but there was a breakdown of votes cast .... 65 Biden .... 60 Trump ... and the rest to 3rd party and write-ins.
It is not clear whether ballots were collected up until and including Nov 6, but I can imagine a PM thinking if ballots are collected on Nov 4, most likely they were mailed on Nov 3 and probably by 8PM. The last mail pickup in many places is 4PM. So he may have actually backdated those ballots, not wishing to disenfranchise late mailing voters.
Should it be found true, Mr Trump would have a net gain of 5 votes .... and I am sure in his mind that is enough to have won the Commonwealth of PA.
update!!!!
This clown fabricated his fantastical story.
Now why couldn't Republican sycophants have vetted this nut???? ....
Listened to the nut attorney Giuliani and I have an idea their strategy is to present cases in state courts then appeal and finally make it to SC where they believe they will win with their conservative hand picked majority .... and if that doesn't work, they will appeal to Republican state legislatures to not certify results and select their own (Trump) list of electors. In either case their intent is to steal an election.
A social worker in Mexia fraudulently registered 67 people at an assisted care facility. She was charged. It is a crime in Texas to register people without their consent.
There are no reports if any ballots were cast.
I suspect this is a case of dumb and dumber. She thought she would be "helping" someone running for office if she could register a bunch of people. Wouldn't it be ironical if she thought she was helping Mr Trump.
Apparently a lot of the lawyers filing bogus lawsuits for Trump are worried they could lose their licenses to practice law if they commit outright fraud. (Knowingly filing a fraudulent lawsuit is fraud on the part of the lawyer! Who knew?)
So they are being very careful in what they claim. For example one suit complained about the vote counting room being very loud, as if counters were counting in their heads and could lose track because of noise. Another suit complained about the presence near the poll watcher of "a large intimidating man". All real complaints (not fraud), but not anything you could sue over.
I think this is the reason why they keep on getting dismissed: They are designed to get dismissed without any lawyers getting sanctioned! So Trump's "legal defense" is just as much a fantasy as his claims he won.
I thought this was a scheme to file a number of suits, get them dismissed, appeal to higher court, get them dismissed, so they could go to SC where the Manchurian Justices would do the deed (I think this is the same legal strategy Right to Lifers use). But I have not seen any appeals. I thnk there are currently some 67 suits filed and none of them have any evidence of actual fraud. They contain complaints ... someone called me a "Karen".
He is still saying fraud, but at this point he is running out of lawsuits and time. He may be forced to do something crazy.
Its SO unfair! When he was running all of his advisors told him, honestly, that he was the beloved of the United States of America. EVERYBODY, all Americans, voted for him. He had absolutely nothing to worry about! Now, however, the evil Dems have stolen the race, through corruption, Soviet and Chinese interference, and sneaky ballot counters. SHAME! and, now, when our Dear Leader expresses his unbelief at what the numbers say, he has only one single choice, fight for the rights of those that voted, especially those that voted for Trump, to make absolutely sure that all their ballots are actually counted. Already, we have been told, there have been ballots found in garbage bags, along the highways, hidden in secret post office holding places, etc. Its just terrible.
Oh, facts? Well, maybe not, but only because the enemies of Trump world are very clever and very deep into the dark recesses of the children eating covens of America! SHAME!
I just thought this was necessary to be express this right out loud so that unbelievers are treated, finally, to almost the facts and surely the truth as its known by the True Believers in their pocket reality.
Reading the "news" there seems to be a largely unconsidered assumption on the Trumper side that Trump's right to have questionable election issues examined by the courts ad infinitum deploribus, and that he shall magically remain the President until all the dust and smoke have cleared, via injunctivitis, or some similar legal argle bargle.
What they don't acknowledge is the fact that Trump's tenure will undeniably cease on Jan. 20th and there is no way in Hell that he will be sworn in for a second term if he still has less than 270 electoral votes come noon.
While it looks like that is valid, based on current vote counts, we will know for a fact after the Joint Session of Congress finishes counting the votes of the electoral college. Once the tally has ended, I don;t think there is any legal wiggle room left for Teflon Man to slip through any loopholes.
Then it will be .... You're fired! .... Hit the road Mr Don ... and don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out
I just learned that the Conservative Tree House (never heard of them) was "de-platformed" by Word Press. So I went to take a look.
Word Press has this code of ethics for users:
Quote
We strive to maintain a welcoming environment where everyone can feel included, by keeping communication free of discrimination, incitement to violence, promotion of hate, and unwelcoming behavior.
Going to the CTH site, I read some of the content, and to my Liberaltarian mind, it looked as though the CTH mission is to violate all of those strivances to the utmost of their abilities.
Given that I am a long-time business owner, I tend to take the position that WP can tell anybody they want, who is violating their clearly stated policy, to feck the feck off. Right-wingers apparently disagree, citing freedom of speech, and all. Maybe they are too incompetent to set up their own web hosting?
Right-wingers apparently disagree, citing freedom of speech, and all. Maybe they are too incompetent to set up their own web hosting?
It always amazes me that so-called conservatives are incapable of understanding what the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech means. It most certainly does not mean forcing a private company to publish anything I write. If it was, I’d have dozens of horrible novels published.
Right-wingers apparently disagree, citing freedom of speech, and all. Maybe they are too incompetent to set up their own web hosting?
It always amazes me that so-called conservatives are incapable of understanding what the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech means. It most certainly does not mean forcing a private company to publish anything I write. If it was, I’d have dozens of horrible novels published.
Conservatives are known for confusing free speech - the right to criticize the government - with consequence-free speech. Nuance requires higher-level thinking which these rightwing idiots clearly do not possess.
Wayne Co, MI was auditing election results while the Trump campaign was filing suits to stop the count. The board had a split vote on certification of results which emboldened Mr Trump to crow Republicans stopped the fraud. Almost immediately the board reconvened and voted to certify the results.
The Trump campaign is now going to pay for a recount of selected counties in Wisconsin.
I don't know how this fits with a strategy to get a lawsuit to the SC so the last 3 confirmed justices will ensure Mr Trump wins the election. All I can say is .... Giuliani
That Michigan county story is a bit more complicated: The two Republican county election canvassers voted in favor of not certifying Detroit's election. One actually said she would certify the (mostly White) suburb vote, but not the (mostly Black) inner city vote. Of course, they had absolutely no evidence of any fraud, other than Trump's twitter ravings. Election officials said they saw no evidence of fraud. (Other than Black People Voting, of course.)
After a bit of public reaction, they decided to certify the entire county election. So the two Democrats and the two Republicans on the county canvassing board did all vote to certify.
Then Trump called them, and they now say they want to change their votes back to not certify. But it's too late. There is no legal channel to decertify. So the process moves on to the state level.
I wonder if this is analogous to Trump's lawyers filing lawsuits they know will fail: They don't want to do anything that might have real repercussions, like losing their license, so they make a faint effort for appearances sake.
OK folks .... it is clear now what the grand strategy is .... and hold on to your seats.
The grand strategy is Congressional nullification. That's right folks. The plan is for Republicans to nullify the electors as illegitimate, thus forcing the election to the House where Mr Trump wins.
Unbelievable ... and I still don't believe these clowns are even trying this.
OK folks .... it is clear now what the grand strategy is .... and hold on to your seats.
The grand strategy is Congressional nullification. That's right folks. The plan is for Republicans to nullify the electors as illegitimate, thus forcing the election to the House where Mr Trump wins.
Unbelievable ... and I still don't believe these clowns are even trying this.
As if the Dem-controlled House will vote for Trump.
A House vote on who would be President is by State, each state gets one vote and I believe the Republicans control the majority of state delegations - after taking into account those state delegations that would nullify themselves because they are equally split. Ergo, Trump wins.
Though published 9 Jan 2020, it is still valid and clearly explains what happens. If President Donald (Coward, Traitor, Misogynist, Demagogue, Criminal, Serial Predator, Adulterer, Draft Dodger, Narcissist, Liar, Thief, Grifter, Incompetent, Bully, Braggart, Loser, etc) Trump* is attempting to force a house vote, he wins. Ah, the hidden benefits of Gerrymandering...
Should the House have to determine the presidency, there is a procedure .... and it is not what you think.
Each state will receive one and only one vote. That vote is determined by a majority within each state. Thus if one state had 12 R's and 15 D's, probably the D's will get the one and only one vote. Currently, by my count, there are 26 state delegations which are Republican (and one state split). So if it goes to the House we would have 26 for Mr trump, 23 for VP Biden, and one, no count. Thus Mr trump would remain as occupant of WH.
Rep Mo Brooks from AL said yesterday he would not certify any state counts which he believed were tainted by fraud. He is of course one of the right wing nuts and may represent the thinking of all of the right wing nuts, in both the House and Senate. This may be a factor worth considering, especially since it would appear this may be the Trump campaign strategy i.e. nullify votes to force the House to elect the president.
Just when you thought the nightmare was ending, the boogieman popped up again.
I didn't realize one person could have so many epithets of such elevated quality.
Thank you.
Have had the last 4 years to gather and about 20 years in the New York City Tri-State (New York, Connecticut and New Jersey) area to learn about him and his character. Besides President Donald (...) Trump* provided such fertile ground for the growing of the list.
Trump is trying to get states to ignore the vote and send a Trump delegate slate to the Electoral College, but he's already failed at that in several states. Republican Secretaries of State are telling him they are going to follow their state's laws and certify for the winner of the election.
Giuliani’s epic rant in his latest wild news conference about suspicious voting in Michigan was based on a glaring mistake: President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer was complaining about vote counts in Minnesota districts, not in Michigan.
That obliterated Giuliani’s claims Thursday of discrepancies in district populations and suspiciously large voter turnouts. The figures mangled overvote percentages by comparing the number of expected district votes in one state to the populations of completely unrelated districts in another state.
I think Trump has used up all the sane lawyers and is now left with Giuliani. Typical Dunning–Kruger effect: Trump is not competent enough to identify a competent lawyer. At some point, courts are just going to have to declare him a vexatious litigant or send him for a 90 day psychiatric committment.
Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky has been peddling this strategy for some time. People in this forum have pooh poohed the idea as unworkable or having no viability, and yet here we are with a growing number of Republicans calling for this very thing. Decertify the vote and therefore throw the selection to Republican legislatures. If thrown to Congress we would have arguments over which set of electors is legitimate. There is already one congressman, Rep Mo Brooks, who will not accept electors from any state which he believes has illegitimate votes counted. If there is one of these nuts there are more.
Maybe we can get a poll on how many congressmen will not certify the electors selected by the will of the people.
Is there anyone left who does not believe this is an emboldened attempt to overthrow the duly elected president?????
Trump and his toadies are going well beyond "exploring his legal alternatives". Some of the things they have done are actually against various state and federal laws. If we don't want this happening again, we need to prosecute where laws have been broken.
It was a week ago that Sidney promised to release the Kraken... I wonder what she is waiting for? I heard the Pennsylvania case that was tossed yesterday (by the Republican judge) was supposed to be the release venue - maybe the Kraken died in captivity?
Trump and his toadies are going well beyond "exploring his legal alternatives". Some of the things they have done are actually against various state and federal laws. If we don't want this happening again, we need to prosecute where laws have been broken.
This is exactly why ol' Joe needs to investigate the Trump Administration - even though ol' Joe doesn't want to.
Obama let W off the hook for war crimes and many Americans are still pissed about that! Unfortunately, if ol' Joe doesn't investigate Trump and hold him and his cronies accountable, the Republican behavior, already outrageous, will become even more outrageous than it is today.
It was a week ago that Sidney promised to release the Kraken... I wonder what she is waiting for? I heard the Pennsylvania case that was tossed yesterday (by the Republican judge) was supposed to be the release venue - maybe the Kraken died in captivity?
If it was released, I muthta mythed it...
Even serial killer Tucker Carlson* is waiting for Sydney's evidence and has stated so publicly on his show this week.
*Tucker Carlson is a serial killer with a whole room full of dolls made from parts of people he murdered. It’s an indisputable fact.
It’s the Valhalla rule, IMO, Rick. Striking one god means that all other gods are vulnerable to injury. Even if it’s a god despised by the rest, they will defend him/her lest they be struck. In a way, another example of class solidarity that’s very strong in the ruling classes. An unwritten rule that is forbidden for the rest of society. Hence the vilifying of any organizing that challenges them in any way for resources. Labor unions, BLM, leftists (hardly organized but vilified) teachers, etc..
It’s why meritocracy and it’s implementation, means testing, that both political factions have shoved down our throats since the 80’s, is such a fraud and theft of public resources.
According to the sources that spoke to The Washington Post, the attorney general is examining whether any of the state officials engaged in bribery, perjury or conspiracy.
New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell has filed a complaint with New York’s attorney disciplinary officials, calling for the disbarment of Rudy Giuliani for “fraud” and “deceit” in his actions attempting to overturn the presidential election without any justification.
“Mr. Giuliani has participated in the filing of a series of absurd lawsuits seeking to overturn the will of the voters ... and has caused irreversible damage to the public trust in the fair administration of our elections,” Pascrell wrote Friday to the Grievance Committee for three New York Judicial Districts.
He accused Giuliani, who is leading Donald Trump’s attack on the results of the presidential election, of “clearly” violating the state’s Rules of Professional Misconduct that prohibit “dishonesty, fraud, deceit” and “misrepresentations.”
New York also prohibits attorneys from filing frivolous lawsuits.
It was a week ago that Sidney promised to release the Kraken... I wonder what she is waiting for? I heard the Pennsylvania case that was tossed yesterday (by the Republican judge) was supposed to be the release venue - maybe the Kraken died in captivity?
If it was released, I muthta mythed it...
Hahaha! I figured it out... Sidney was, indeed, the Kraken who she said would be released within two weeks! Her powers are certainly mythical.
She will be mythed...
The Trump administration is astonishingly self-satirizing. It would be super funny if it wasn’t so destructive.
I visited a Trump supporting web site, whose owner self described herself as a skeptic. It was abundantly clear she was simply hosting a clearinghouse for every baseless allegation anyone could concoct. I say baseless since all of the ones mentioned have been investigated and found lacking in evidence, despite the fact she solicited "reasonable" allegations of fraud.
It become clear to me Trump supporters have accepted as fact these allegations, and when confronted describe the facts as liberal propaganda.
My conclusion is there are about 70M people in this country who believe PE Biden stole an election, using a global cabal of conspirators, including communists and dead people, election poll workers, polling machine owners, as well as many Republicans and canvassers. This conspiracy is so large it is amazing one of them hasn't dropped a dime on the criminality of it all.
That's the problem with most conspiracies: They just take so many people "being part of it" that a non-delusional person would conclude it was impossible to keep it secret. True believers seem to think all those perpetrators are so dedicated there isn't one who is a human being: That is has doubts, feels guilty, talks to their spouse or friend, gets drunk and brags about it, etc. In the real world, any secret known by more than one person gets out. This is basic human nature. Telling somebody "secrets" is how we bond with them.
The election fraud conspiracy would take thousands (10s of thousands?) of conspirators, all acting in concert, all keeping many secrets. Believing it requires denial of reality to the point of psychosis. I'm afraid we are going to end up with millions of people who need psychiatric intervention.
It is my fond hope that Biden does investigate Trump - just not talk about that and deny any and all Trump investigations. If they find something then they can claim it fell into their laps and they were bound, by the law, to do something about it. I also, incidentally, believe Trump to be a criminal enterprise and also believe that they WILL find something.
I tend to doubt it, however. Biden is already saying that an investigation into Trump doings would not be a really good idea. I say, "fine" then stop talking about it and just let it happen! I can't even figure out why he would even talk about it! Just stirs the pot for absolutely no sensible reason.
My main fear is that what we are watching, in slow time, is the Democratic party beginning to work hard on their own failure. Trump has been investigating just about any Democrat he thinks he can go after and he does that publicly and his minions and true believers thinks he is doing a wonderful job. That being the case I would expect the Democrats would, at the very least, make sure that Trump has been on the up and up and, if not, hammer the crap out of him. I am praying that Biden doesn't take a leaf out of the Hillary book and just stand above the fray and never fight back or say a mean thing. That didn't work well for her and it sure as hell won't work real good for Biden. I fully expect, incidentally, that Trump is going to be constantly accusing the Dems of everything they can think of.
3 1/2 years of phony Russia conspiracies by congress and senate seems to be conveniently omitted here. Oh wait.. those aren’t conspiracies when team Coke is alleging them.
3 1/2 years of phony Russia conspiracies by congress and senate seems to be conveniently omitted here. Oh wait.. those aren’t conspiracies when team Coke is alleging them.
Forgot that
Donald Trump was revealed by special counsel Robert Mueller to have actively sought the Russian government’s assistance during the 2016 election. Despite Trump, his sycophants, and Bill Barr's claims to the contrary, it is clear that the Trump campaign was eager to work with the Russian government in 2016.
Mueller's report showed the degree and depth of the Russian active measures, propaganda, and intelligence warfare efforts which allowed Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton.
Simply because Congress chose not to pursue Trump's crimes, doesn't mean they did not happen.
gee ... perhaps you did not get the memo. The Russia investigation was predicated on perception of possible national security risk. No one alleged a conspiracy. People who are concerned about America had to ask the question, is there something going on between Trump campaign and Russia? I would have asked the same question if Sec Clinton was surrounded by Russians and had contacts with Assange, Russian agents, and dirt mongers.
That Mueller did not find ENOUGH evidence of criminal activity is still disconcerting.
Based on your lack of concern, I would have to conclude if PE Biden were found to have all manner of Chinese contacts running around, you would say nothing. Is that your story???
My story was to look at it from all angles over time and realized it was a bogus story that helped in several ways, none of them good, IMO. I’m familiar enough with the Trump families history to see them for what they are and it should be enough for most. Going down spook rabbit hole narratives and coming out the other side as divorced from critical thinking as any QAnon string diagram is now what we have for many on team blue. And now they show contempt at Trumps supporters not believing Bidens election is legitimate (and neither do I but for much different reasons) You’ve committed to the bit. I doubt your coming back anytime soon. You’ll be cheering Biden on when they try and move missile systems into the Ukraine, accelerating the nuclear arms race where Obama left off. To the cheers of the intelligence and war contracting community. Sorry, Russiagaters got played in a similar way to Trumps supporters, IMO.
Your post reminded me of the Iraq WMD fantasy. Remember when Blair was being grilled about having found none after invading and did he commit troops and violence under false pretenses? What was his response again? That the absence of finding any weapons points to the sophistication and deviousness of a weapons program existing... You may have reached that mental state now.
Sure sold a lot of military material though. Too bad about the hundreds of thousands of dead innocent Iraqis.. whoopsie!
Ol' Joe is going to make Janet Yellen SecTres...just like the progressives wanted.
What’s progressive about Yellen again?
Quote
Progressives aligned with Warren have [said] they'd consider it a victory if Yellen were appointed.
Yellen has a long history of serving under Democratic administrations. She became the first woman to head the central bank after she was appointed by former President Barack Obama helping guide the U.S. economy in its recovery from the 2008 financial crisis.
Ummm.. Okay, I read a fox business report that says progressives wanted Warren. I’d agree the mostly credentialed types supported Warren in the primaries and wanted her in the cabinet after she dutifully acted as spoiler to Sanders. First I heard of her supporters wanting Yellen as a second for Warren. We’re you posting in favor of Yellen?
Biden’s list seems heavy on people who’ve already been vetted/confirmed by the Senate, to limit Mitch’s ability to obstruct.
So Biden is basically fishing in the swamp for well known, well connected, swamp creatures. It's a clever ploy and it might work.
Biden is more progressive than he used to be. But that's not saying a lot.
I'm not terribly concerned about progressive appointments being made, I never expected them. Voters have made it pretty clear that they aren't interested in a bump to the left right now.
You can be like Trump and deny the results of the election or you can roll with the punches and keep fighting.
The enemy is not Joe Biden nor his cabinet, no matter who he chooses they will be better than the Trump nightmare of incompetence.
You can be like Trump and deny the results of the election or you can roll with the punches and keep fighting.
Of course Biden will be seated. He was chosen in a most illiberal way but chosen none the less. I don't see the point in denying that. Now were on to who's interest he's going to serve. His cabinet is speaking volumes now.
I don't recall anyone yelling for a dixiecrat from Delaware in the primary (cept maybe Rick) and after a party insiders decision to collapse the field of candidates to Biden (not even third IIRC at the time, a historic first we never talk about) to the preferred party chosen candidate is a poor example of the will of voters being freely exercised in the selection process.
To be honest, I don't know if Rick is pulling my leg with Yellen's progressive bona fides. I was just curious to know where the progressive chorus of 'Yellen for Treasury' was coming from. Fox business reporting has the inside track on progressive politics apparently...
I don’t see any chance of a Sanders appointment. In case you haven’t read the memo, Democrats are the new Republicans now.
Realignment baby!
I wonder what actions regular people can take?
I think were in uncharted waters here, IMO. There's been savage capitalism in the past that had some of the more harshest edges sanded down by the New Deal coalition efforts. I don't think there's any equivalent to forming those coalitions today.
There's never been a more propagandized society than ours currently is. More atomized, etc... Now were in a corporate censorship phase with Liberals leading the way.
I just don't see any of the necessary conditions to form organized pressure on current government capture.
The idea that change thru electoral process is a nonstarter for me. Nothing makes government change without outside pressure and Biden is a refutation of any organizing for reform that we've seen at the grass roots level. I've never seen the ownership class in as strong a position, historically speaking, as they are today.
Some will ally themselves with the bosses. There doing alot of discounting of the problems, IMO. Nothing new.
I don't stop helping but I'm not encouraged with the present situation.
Trump has not found ENOUGH evidence of election fraud
Let me correct that for ya. He hasn't found any evidence. I keep hoping he will find some so he doesn't look so idiotic, deranged and delusional, but no such luck. I am holding out for Sydney Powell to concoct a more elaborate conspiracy, one more believable ... something like space aliens hated Mr Trump and zapped voting machines
Quote
I submit that Russiagate was blown all out of proportion if not a complete fabrication from the start.
It was not a fabrication the Trump campaign mingled with Russians. They had direct contact with Assange, who has contact with Russian agents. A campaign clown got drunk and spilled the beans ... the Russians have the Clinton's emails (so he was told ... by Russians? ... space aliens? .... voices in his head?).
The predication for the investigation is based on the question, with all the Russians in the campaign, does Mr Trump pose a national security threat, especially when told of potential contact with Russian agents? If you can not see the risk, then I am glad you are not in charge of counter espionage.
It’s an interesting moment in politics to watch the authoritarian nature of liberalism jump to the front.
It’s kinda scary to see how easy it is to get them to abandon, not only the concept of whistle blowing, but the 1st (for a reason) amendment itself,
The near complete blackout of the persecution of Assange by our by our now ‘news as entertainment’/political endorsing media of the state department, thru consecutive administrations, for publishing evidence of the obvious falsehoods and atrocities committed by our government and military, is shocking.
Watching them side with the same organizations that lied us into war, killing hundreds of thousands has removed all doubt for me of this sad class of people and it’d convictions.
I simply don’t see any. Only a similar thirst for revenge and willingness to suspend critical thinking.
I don't think yellin' will have much of an effect...
My approach is summed up in my signature line.
One new model is built around highly distributed and sustainable biochar production and use. It's deep in possibilities both practical and philosophical. Trick 'em into a better culture.
Besides that, I think our resident Zen Druid has the line on what's most doable - sit back, relax, and marvel at the insane weirdness of humanity.
It was not a fabrication the Trump campaign mingled with Russians.
The campaign included a lot of world players in the money game. Russia, China, Azerbaijan, you name it, wherever money could be skimmed and pocketed. In and of itself, not illegal.
Most of the convictions came for lying to the investigators. The only charge against Trump was obstructing the investigation. Buncha Republicans lying to Republicans about Republican stuff.
Quote
The predication for the investigation is based on the question, with all the Russians in the campaign, does Mr Trump pose a national security threat, especially when told of potential contact with Russian agents? If you can not see the risk, then I am glad you are not in charge of counter espionage.
American voters were well aware of Donald Trump's storied and troubled past. Of his many wives, sister wives, and daughter wives. Of his many affairs with hookers, his connections to syndicated crime, his fathers crimes and his grandfathers crimes.
They were aware of his connections to Russia, His daughter's connections to China and his cozy relationship Japan. They knew he was a sleazy, dishonest assh*le and a failure as a legitimate businessman.
And in 2016 with a deficit of some 3 Million votes, he was elected President of the United States of America.
If not for the pandemic he would likely have been elected to a second term.
The voters were well aware of everything about Trump.
This was an historical election as far as turnout was concerned with both men receiving record numbers of votes. Biden won, just as I said he would when you said it was too early to call.
70 million Americans said that they didn't think his record showed him to be a security risk.
They wanted four more years and they wanted to elect Ivanka the first woman president after his next term.
Watching them side with the same organizations that lied us into war, killing hundreds of thousands has removed all doubt for me of this sad class of people and it’s convictions.
I simply don’t see any. Only a similar thirst for revenge and willingness to suspend critical thinking.
People are people. The two parties are not so very different. Black people and white people are not so very different. Oil and water are not are not much different....
Folks over on the very far left aint so much different themselves.
I think one fails to understand that 2016 was just as much about Hillary Clinton as it was about Trump or the dislike of both. The nomination of both left many Americans scratching their heads, surely think the nomination process was broke.
25% of all Americans disliked and didn't want neither Trump nor Clinton to become the next president. That included an astounding 54% of all independents.
In the end, 12% of independents, 6% of all those who voted in 2016 choose to punt on choosing between those two. Instead deciding to vote against both Trump and Clinton by voting third party. That came out to 9 plus million voters.
Hillary lost the independent. I think this time around a lot of Democrats considered that fact when they chose Biden. Definitely not the one the progressive wing wanted. But one that was a much safer choice to win and to be able to attract independents. Which Biden did, winning them 54-41 over Trump instead of losing them. Third party vote in 2020 was in the more normal range of 2% instead of 6 while 5% of independents this year voted third party instead of 12%. most of that difference went to Biden.
You can also tell by the difference in favorable/unfavorable of the candidates by America as a whole. Trump in 2016 36% favorable/ 60% unfavorable, Trump in 2020 43% favorable/56% unfavorable. A slight improvement. Clinton in 2016 was seen 38% favorable/56% unfavorable. Two very unfavorable and dislike candidates. In 2020, Biden 52% favorable/46% unfavorable.
I expected Biden to win by more than 4 points, but that all depends on turnout and who turns out. I also expected, was darn right sure Biden would return Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin back to being blue. He also added Georgia and Arizona. Those were 50-50 in my book.
So the presidential election went as I expected it too. What was a surprise was the GOP success down ballot. One thing is for sure, the democrats still haven't realized how much Hillary was disliked in 2016 and it seems the Republicans haven't come to terms how much Trump was disliked this year. It's all in the numbers.
I would remind you that Biden sucked gas until South Carolina where the well financed 2nd and 3rd place candidates at that time, in terms of delegates, dropped out simultaneously to back his losing campaign. Extremely unusual party assist for a ‘safe bet’. Don’t recall that level of party interference before.
There was a lot of unusual assist going on before S.T., too.
I mention this only as an inconvenient reminder as the coronation of the Dem parties restoration candidate ascends the throne and the media courtiers start in on the public narratives that fit with their agenda.
I actually think there was a lot more interference in 2016 on Hillary's behalf. I also think a lot of Democrats put their preferred candidate aside and went for Biden during the primaries because he had the best chance of beating Trump. Beating Trump became the number one priority.
Looking back, I also don't think any other candidate could have beaten Trump. Of course there's no way to prove that as it didn't happen. Biden was simply more acceptable to that large group of non-affiliates known as independents. No national candidate these days can win without them. It was the independent vote that defeated Hillary, it was the independent vote that defeated Trump.
We have moved into an era where both major parties need to ascertain who can win and place that above ideology at times or lose the election.The independent vote who gave Biden his wins in Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and it was the independent vote in 2016 which gave those states to Trump.
As a poll guy, I’m surprised you don’t recall sanders doing better than the Dem parties candidate against Trump in both recent elections. The independent vote is a tricky animal. It behaves very differently with income and regions in which they live. I think the parties are more comfortable playing the politics of minimums. Offering the least to a minority of voters carries less risks to their donors. If the Dem party really wanted large turnout majorities they could have put Warren or Sanders on the ticket with the deteriorating Biden. They went with identity politics instead with Harris. A candidate bringing no electoral votes with her and no inconvenient campaign planks. She didn’t bring any resulting bump in AA votes so from a tactical standpoint she was a dud. From a practical material standpoint to the doners though, she’s a major success.
Sure, Sanders was seen more positive in the primaries than either Clinton and Biden by independents. But other polls when asked if one would vote for a socialist which Trump and company would be running ads all over the place found on him being a socialist. Even from Sanders own mouth as he tells the world he is a Democratic Socialist. Only 45% of all Americans would even consider voting for a socialist.
The polls from March and April are one thing. But how would this be received during the general, by independents in particular. Here are your Sander's polls.
If you compare them, Biden always does a bit better in March and April. I do think the general campaign would have driven Sanders numbers down when ads appearing of Sanders himself saying, "I'm a Democratic Socialist. Just my opinion.
the general campaign would have driven Sanders numbers down
Yep ... completely ignorance driven.
Like I have said for years, the American electorate is ignorant and stupid. Education is the only solution and I dare say a full 60% of Americans would choose to be ignorant rather than be educated.
I see Trump has pardoned Flynn. I guess nobody explained to him that pardoning your co-conspirators is a very bad idea, because they can then be forced to testify against you with no Fifth Amendment excuse. Should be interesting next year, when the new AG meets his obligation to convene Grand Juries to investigate evidence of crimes.
LOL, well, that brings to mind something else. On average we have 45% of the electorate or Americans who never bother to vote in presidential elections. They just don't care They don't pay one bit attention to politics, yet we're trying our darnest to get them to vote. These are totally uniformed and not caring folks.
A lot of political junkies complain about independents, swing voters. Who generally don't pay much if any attention to politics until a few weeks to a month prior to the election. Then they vote on charisma, on who looks presidential, who a family member or friend at work voted for or perhaps just flipped a coin.
Ignorance driven, but isn't what one considers ignorance is a voter voting against your candidate? Everyone who votes has their reason for voting the way they do, their reason is important to them. Other may think their reason is asinine, wrong, foolish or whatever. Nevertheless, their reason was important to them, important enough for them to get out and vote.
I wonder if the record turnout is a product of Trump, or a product of all this mail-in voting. Maybe both? Mailing in a ballot sure takes a lot less time and effort. It will be interesting to see if, as Trump predicted, "a Republican never gets elected again". Or if the long-lasting trauma associated with Covid-19, versus an end to the lockdowns and economic recovery associated with Biden will keep Republican Presidents out of power for a while.
when the new AG meets his obligation to convene Grand Juries to investigate evidence of crimes.
And so it will become customary for all outgoing presidents to be investigated and jailed for supposed crimes. "Lock Them Up" will become a new American tradition.
If Biden wants to heal and reunite Americans he will pardon Trump of all Federal and State crimes. That would put a stop to a lot of violent rhetoric and hate, and take the wind out of the sails of the radical right.
Pero, I tolja a while back this election was gonna be 100% about turnout. Both sides knew it and both sides did their damndest to get out and vote or mail in their votes. I was surprised at the number of Trump supporters, and honestly believed the anti-Trump vote would overwhelm them.
The rejection of down ballot Democrats was a surprise too. And not a happy one for me. I thought American voters were ready to spin the wheel to the left. Bernie's early ascension seemed to point to this, so I'm going to chalk the weird election results up to the Trump Kool-Aid.
A Presidential Pardon does not apply to State Charges. The State's governor can pardon for state crimes. With how Governor Cuomo and the state of New York have been treated, I do not think that a state pardon is forth coming from New York.
President-elect Biden has already said he will take no action to interfere with any investigation as it may relate to President Donald (...) Trump*
Biden’s poll numbers had widest amplitude of any Dem candidate.
Sanders had consistent rise over time of any candidate.
Taking a snapshot at any particular time means nothing in explaining outcomes. March was very chaotic and had distortions.
For me, the giveaway was the Dem party intervening to kneecap the Sanders campaign on Super Tuesday. They were aware of the risk he represented and didn’t take comfort in any polls you might reference now. I remember quit well the neoliberal boomer freak out from the blue check juorno’s and politicos at the time.
Funny enough, there was a poll out recently that claimed 2/3 of Biden voters were voting against Trump and not for Biden. Kinda supports the earlier data that Biden had no strong base and merely represented a protest vote for most.
Fearing Red baiting from republicans In the general is moot. You have no idea how Sanders would have done in the election. Again, crowd size and individual donations would be a better guide here than polling as it exists. Sanders crushed it. Biden’s was nonexistent.
But this is all a false frame anyways.
Divining the ‘will of the people’ by only offering them Coke or Pepsi and then suggesting people only want coke or Pepsi is simply self reenforcing logic. Convenient but misleading.
Trump made a funny joke at the debates that Biden couldn’t fill a room if he paid people. It was funny cuz it was true. Who you gunna believe polls or your own lying eyes. Democrats showing the will and ability to rig elections does not help their cause to legitimately claim to govern and I can’t blame Trump voters for not believing the results of the election.
Pero, I tolja a while back this election was gonna be 100% about turnout. Both sides knew it and both sides did their damndest to get out and vote or mail in their votes. I was surprised at the number of Trump supporters, and honestly believed the anti-Trump vote would overwhelm them.
The rejection of down ballot Democrats was a surprise too. And not a happy one for me. I thought American voters were ready to spin the wheel to the left. Bernie's early ascension seemed to point to this, so I'm going to chalk the weird election results up to the Trump Kool-Aid.
I basically thought the same. Somewhere along 54-45 Biden with the normal 1% voting third party. In the end though, getting rid of Trump seems to be main reason for Biden's victory. 51-47 isn't bad with a 6 million vote advantage. I really didn't think Trump would or could improve on the 46% he received in 2016. Regardless, it still boils down to independents going overwhelming for Biden, 54-41 in my book is overwhelming.
Not so overwhelming was the down ballot offices. House, the Republicans had 26 open seats, the Democrats 9. No incumbent running in those districts. The GOP at last count received 48.4% of the nationwide popular vote to the Democrats 49.8%. The GOP so far has a net gain of 10 seats, flipping 13 Democratic seats to the Democrats flipping 3 GOP seats. The tally so far is Democrats 222, Republicans 209 with 4 still to be decided. Last election 236 Democrats, 199 Republicans. Of the four remaining, the Democrats are favored in 3, the Republicans in 1. They must be real close, it's taking a real long time to decide. The number of open seats is interesting as they are the easiest to flip. Yet the Democrats failed miserably.
But the Democratic congressional candidates did edge out the Republican congressional candidates in the nationwide popular vote. By a slim 1.4%, vs Biden's 4 point win. The Republican senate candidates won the nationwide popular vote 48.1% to 46.0%. But that only included 33 states, not the whole nation.
So Biden out performed Democratic congressional candidates by 2.6 points. That translate into 4 million votes that Biden received more than the congressional Democratic candidate.
I think this election was no breakwater or breakthrough. It was just a rejection of Trump while at least voting the status quo down ballot. It wasn't an endorsement or a rejection of either major party's ideals, agenda or policies. It was no mandate. It was all about Trump. It wasn't a movement left nor right or toward Sanders policies or a more progressive agenda. If that was true, with 26 open seats for the GOP vs. 9 for the democrats, they surely would have gained 10-15 seats, gained the senate without Georgia as forecasted. The Democrats were supposed to pick up not only Arizona and Colorado, but Maine, North Carolina and Iowa which they lost. Both Georgia races were rated pure tossups. 50-50. If this election was an endorsement of Progressive ideals, they would have picked up state legislatures instead of losing two and picked up a governor or two instead of losing one.
But each of us can look at this election and come to different conclusions. For me, it was just about Trump, no more, no less.
That’s not the way I saw it, I think I posted soon after the more progressive leftists had mor scalps on the war post than the right wing Dems.
They increased their numbers in congress, state houses and mayorships. The ‘Squad’ fought off right wing dem challengers ( officially sanctioned and not the reversal under DNC rules) And held their seats.
Swing district voters voted for Dems backing GND, Minimum wage and M4A and sent conservative Dems packing.
Joe Biden has all the enthusiasm of a glass of room temperature water with a soaked in ring stain in the wood. Most people I spoke with could not articulate what his platform was besides the ‘he’s better than Trump’ mantra.
As usual, I take the position that he’s not and I’m some ways far worse.
The word "ignorant" is an adjective that describes a person in the state of being unaware, or even cognitive dissonance and other cognitive relation, and can describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts, or individuals who are unaware of important information or facts.
Note the omission of what I believe or think about why anyone who votes and who doesn't vote for a particular person. Ignorance is what it is. Now I can't help it if a huge chuck of Trump supporters and voters fit the definition. For the most, knowing so many as I do, they choose ignorance over knowledge ergo an ignorant electorate. Please note this does not in any way imply all liberals or Biden voters are not ignorant. The difference is there are far more on the Trump side of the scales than on the Biden side.
I wonder where delusional fits in this equation? Note the number of delusional people who are Trump supporters promoting a coup to overturn an election based on insinuation and allegations rather than presentation of factually proven rampant voter fraud. I don't believe these folks are fabricating or concocting some elaborate ruse knowing full well there is no basis for the allegations other than fevered imaginations stepped in delusion. They actually believe their delusions.
Unless New York's governor is struck by lightening on the Damascus road, and suddenly converts to Trumpism, New York is going to indict him. Why do you think Trump fled New York after his whole life there, and moved to Florida? I suppose Trump could fight extradition and stay in exile in Florida, with the support of Florida officials, but that's pretty unlikely.
And I doubt New York indicting and even imprisoning Trump will generate much of a backlash against Biden. It might make hard-core Trump dead-enders hate New York, but that's certainly nothing new. In fact, it seems odd that so many Trump fans already hated New Yorkers like Trump for their entire lives before Trump came along.
I suppose Trump could fight extradition and stay in exile in Florida, with the support of Florida officials, but that's pretty unlikely.
Think Gov De Santis and AG Pam Bondi. There is no doubt in my mind should the NY AG indict Mr Trump and file extradition orders, FL will not comply. I suspect some frivolous, disingenuous reasoning will be used, like the Founding Fathers did not envision any state indicting a sitting nor a former president of any crime. Gee I think that would work for the Trump supporters I know.
He will remain at Mar a Lago and never set foot in NJ again.
Yes Trump supporters will see it as another harassing attempt to indict the son of god for crimes he committed but should not be tried .... because he is the son of god ... and o yeah ... a former occupant of the WH
I have no problem with folks viewing the results differently. But I did get a chuckle out of three house races where the democrats in their primary defeated a pro-life incumbent Democrat only to lose in the general election. So much for overall inclusion.
Now I have to plead guilty to seeing elections as putting up the best candidate with the best chance to win. Ideology isn't that important if being a pure ideologist means losing an election. I'd rather have someone who would vote my party line 75% of the time even if not ideological pure than lose with a ideological pure candidate where that opponent of the other party votes with my party zero percent of the time. Does that make me a realist, a pragmatist or someone just pure out of touch, I don't know.
I am keeping close tabs on the house elections, the GOP has a net gain of 10 seats so far, putting them within 9 seats in 2022 of regaining the house with 4 remaining uncalled or undecided.
I still can't fathom how Biden can win the presidency by 6 million votes, 4 percentage point and yet lose house seats. That's mindbogglingly, at least to me. If it hadn't happened, I'd have said that's impossible.
Trump says he's going to Georgia to have another big rally on December 5th. Plenty of time to kill a lot more Republican voters before the January 5th runoff! From the current infection rate, it will probably infect everybody who attends. We'll see how they are doing around December 12th. I bet most of them are sick by then.
We'll see what happens in 2022. Biden may end up being so popular for presiding over a booming economy and not killing a quarter million Americans, that Democrats actually win control of congress.
Trump lost 41seats in 2018 Lost control of the house. Obama lost 63 seats in 2010 lost control of the house **Bush gained 8 seats in 2002 Clinton lost 54 seats in 1994 lost control of the house Bush lost 8 seats in 1990 Reagan lost 26 seats in 1982 Carter lost 15 seats in 1978 Nixon lost 12 seats in 1970 *LBJ lost 47 seats in 1966 JFK lost 4 seats in 1962 Eisenhower lost 18 seats in 1954 lost control of the house Truman lost 28 seats in 1950 FDR gained 11 seats in 1934
*LBJ lost 47 seats in 1966, but he could afford the big loss. His majority fell from 295 down to 248. From a 155-seat majority down to a 61 seat majority.
**G.W. Bush in his second midterm, lost 33 seats in 2006 and lost control of the house.
Democrats from Truman until Bill Clinton had control of the house and at times over a 100 seat majority. So those president's loses in the house didn't result in loss of control. In those years from 1933-94 the Democrats at times had an 80-100 seat majority and in a few years well over a 100 seat majority as was the case with LBJ in 1964. From 1933-1994 the Democrats had control of the house for 58 of 62 years. At one point, they controlled the house for 40 straight years.
During that 62 year time span, 11 times the Democrats had over 60 senators including on year with a 75-17 majority and five more with 67, 68, 69 senators.
As for 2022, we'll see. If not for 9-11, every president would have had first midterm loses in the house. Having the Democrats majority cut from 37 from the results of the 2018 election down to 13 at the moment with 4 seats still to be decided isn't a good sign or omen for the first Biden midterm.
But then again, have no, zero, nadda, none coat tails may aid the democrats. They won't have any vulnerable seats up that were the results of Biden's popularity that revert to their natural political roots in the first midterm. Depending or not whether Biden and the Democratic congress does something to make independents angry at them, the odds are because of the above only a handful of seats will change hands. My two cents anyway.
Yeah, I get what your saying. I've some experience in past careers of advertising and film making. Industries laser concerned with character development and strong story telling. It's still a major U.S. export. Not blind to it. Just disagreeing to what extent it's role is playing in the minds of voters.
I think you risk glossing over important evidence and details by using such a broad and nebulous basket as 'Charisma' to dump voter motivation into.
Paul Jay had guest speaker Tom Ferguson from U Mass on to break down the numbers and do some entrail reading. A grinder for sure and I appreciate his moss back charisma in discussing his insights into the election numbers:
I liked that he brought attention to the Latino details that seem to be missing from MSN. How did so many from Latino communities go strong with Sanders in the primary and then broke for Trump in significant numbers in the general..
It's a shame so many went hard for Russian rabbit holes instead of thinking about these issues Ferguson raises. On, the other hand, it did the job it was intended to do for a certain segment, IMO.
I have always been dubious about these kinds of stats. I think it is equivalent to saying the last coin toss was heads therefore the next one has a greater chance of being heads.
For those kinds of stats to be meaningful, the context of each year would have to possess some form of equivalency, otherwise it is anecdotal.
Here is an example which I think everyone would agree is not well founded .... Mr Trump says he got 11M more votes this time than in 2016 => he actually won the election in 2020
More augurie as it relates to class, income and edjumication. Some in opposition to Ferguson's observations:
"OK, this may come as a surprise. Trump’s vote share increased between 2016 and 2020 in 2,252 or 72.4 percent of the 3,110 US counties for which we have data. On average, he gained 1.41 percent in vote share by county. Weighted by population, of course, he lost 0.97 percent on average. But still, incredibly, there was a swing towards the GOP in nearly three-quarters of US counties. "
As they say in the investment community, past performance is no indicator of future performance. Previous administrations were nothing like Trump's. So a Biden administration that simply returns America to normalcy could be extremely popular, for independents and even for many conservative Republicans. Conservatives want this kind of normalcy, and Trump's term was anything but "normal".
In fact, if you compare the past 40 years of presidential terms to Trump's, Democratic and Republican administrations were much more alike than Trump's administration.
I see a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reamed Giuliani et all a new a**hole today on their Pennsylvania appeal: Two of these judges are Bush appointees and the third judge writing the opinion is actually a Trump appointee. They all voted to turn down the appeal, saying it was ridiculous, lacked evidence, and asked for a solution that would invalidate all of the state's election results (like for congress and local offices) because Republican districts decided not to let mail-in voters fix their defective ballots. Sort of like murdering your parents and then begging for mercy in court because you are an orphan.
Quote
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Trump campaign’s challenge of a district court’s decision had no merit. “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” said Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed to the court by Trump.
Washington Post
This validates something I have been posting about for a while now, and that is Trump keeps on appointing Federalist Society-recommended judges who are conservative. But that doesn't mean they will ignore the law to find for Trump. They believe in a strict application of the law and precedent, and their lives are heavily invested in the judicial system. Not a good strategy for a criminal President!
The obvious and definitive response from the Trump Coup Camp would be these judges are a part of the deep state judicial system of activism, so therefore their opinion is irrelevant.
Giuliani is intent on taking the case to the Supremes. There he believes they will overturn or invalidate or abrogate state courts and allow Republican battleground state legislatures to appoint a Trump slate of electors. Not only that but he also believes when the joint session of Congress is called they will not count any battleground slate of electors appointed by the Gov's but will instead count the battleground state legislatures Trump slate of electors, thus overturning the will of the people. There are campaigns at both the state level and in Congress to achieve this goal.
When humans are involved there is always the possibility of irrational thinking and acting.
The Trump campaign spent three million dollars on a partial recount in Wisconsin. They are still counting in Madison, but Milwaukee finished: Biden gained a net of 132 votes.
Yeah, I get what your saying. I've some experience in past careers of advertising and film making. Industries laser concerned with character development and strong story telling. It's still a major U.S. export. Not blind to it. Just disagreeing to what extent it's role is playing in the minds of voters.
I think you risk glossing over important evidence and details by using such a broad and nebulous basket as 'Charisma' to dump voter motivation into.
Paul Jay had guest speaker Tom Ferguson from U Mass on to break down the numbers and do some entrail reading. A grinder for sure and I appreciate his moss back charisma in discussing his insights into the election numbers:
I liked that he brought attention to the Latino details that seem to be missing from MSN. How did so many from Latino communities go strong with Sanders in the primary and then broke for Trump in significant numbers in the general..
It's a shame so many went hard for Russian rabbit holes instead of thinking about these issues Ferguson raises. On, the other hand, it did the job it was intended to do for a certain segment, IMO.
I tend to think Democrats are looking at Hispanics with a one shoe fits all. Hispanics make up more than just Mexicans and Central Americans who do vote solid Democratic. Cuban-Americans on the other hand vote Republicans which is why Trump won Florida twice. Trump's 32% among Hispanics is the highest for a Republican presidential candidates since G.W. Bush's 40% in 2004. Bush's 40% is the highest since Pew Research started keeping track of the Hispanic vote back in 1980.
Then there's Texas where Trump won 41% of the Hispanic vote. Much more than the 32% nationally. There was a good article about Texas which unfortunately I failed to save.
Many Hispanic down in Texas according to the article consider themselves Tejanos instead of Hispanics. This group went for Trump. Tejano's are the Hispanic residents of the state of Texas who are culturally descended from the original Spanish-speaking settlers of Tejas, Coahuila, and other northern Mexican states. They may be variously of Criollo Spaniard or Mestizo origin. There roots in Texas go back to way before the war of Texas independence. They fought along side the Texans against Mexico. There are at least four Tejano Republican congress members from Texas. Those Hispanic who consider themselves Tejano's tend to vote Republican as do Cuban-Americans.
You can also break down Hispanics into other sub groups throughout the U.S. Not all Hispanics come from Mexico who fled economics as many democrats tend to believe.
Now this isn't that article, but it explains exactly what I just said.
Trump Didn’t Win the Latino Vote in Texas. He Won the Tejano Vote.
As an aside, Trump also increased his percentage of the Asian vote from 2016 27% to 34% in 2020. The highest for a Republican presidential candidate since G.W. Bush's 42% in 2004. To round this off, Trump went from 8% of the black vote up to 12% in 2020. That's the highest since Bob Dole received exactly 12% back in 1996.
If Sander dominated the border regions of Texas it was due to Hispanic's active in the democratic party and primaries. Dominating the primaries doesn't mean the general election which includes all, Democrats, Republicans and independents.
Since Tejano's tend to vote Republican, they most likely voted in the Republican primary instead of the democratic one.
Rather hilarious little Rachael Maddow post on YouTube today: She had video of the governor of Arizona bragging about how close he was with Trump and Pence before the election, so he had to assign them a special "Hail To The Chief" ringtone on his cellphone.
Then she played his video from today, as he was signing the certification of the state's election for Biden. In the middle of that, we can hear "Hail To The Chief" resounding from his pocket. He pulls out his cell phone, glances at the phone to see who is calling, then hits the "go to voicemail" button, and places it facedown on the table. Then he went back to signing the documents....
I'm fascinated by the pay-for-pardon case that came out yesterday. I'm wondering if that was intended as a shot across the bow for Trump, who is contemplating pardons for himself, his family, and his other co-conspirators (since he's given some already). Who asked that it be released? Why now?
I have been biding my time waiting to see which way the wind is blowing and today is a good day to type something.
The Washington Post is reporting 222 Republican congressmen do not acknowledge VP Biden won the election. or to put it another way that is about 90% of Republicans. Couple that with what Rep Mo Brooks is saying (he will vote to not seat some state electors ... only those battleground states which Mr Trump lost). Now is it a stretch to think he is not the only one? Now is it still unimaginable that if Congress can not agree to seat electors who have been sent by the states, that it would throw the election to the House, where Republicans control 26 of the 50 votes ... and guess who they will select
I suspect the probability of this happening is >0.
222? They only had 199 prior to the election. Even with their 13 seat pick up, the Republicans are up to 212. In the new congress it will be 222 Democrats, 212 Republicans with NY 22 still to be decided. Old congress 236 Democrat, 199 GOP.
That would be all Congressmen .... House & Senate.
Remember both the House and Senate will convene to accept the slate of electors from each state. Once the process begins each state in alphabetical order will present to the joint session their slate of electors, at which point anyone can object, when there will be (if I understand this part correctly) a separate session of each house to find a resolution to the objection. Now I do not understand what happens. Is only a majority enough to proceed and what if one house does not agree with the other etc. The possibilities are 3. They either reject the state slate and reject any slate, reject the state slate and accept the alternate slate, or finally accept the slate sent by the states. In the first two VP Biden would not have enough electoral votes on Jan 6 to get 270 votes nor would Mr Trump. It would therefore go to the House which has a Republican majority of states 26-23 (one state is split) and ergo, presuming the Republican states would vote for Mr Trump, he would continue to be occupant of the WH.
To me this is scary sheis. This would essentially be voter nullification. How can I even be typing these words ... and people still be oblivious!!!
If you got the crazy ... you're probably a Republican
That would be all Congressmen .... House & Senate.
Remember both the House and Senate will convene to accept the slate of electors from each state. Once the process begins each state in alphabetical order will present to the joint session their slate of electors, at which point anyone can object, when there will be (if I understand this part correctly) a separate session of each house to find a resolution to the objection. Now I do not understand what happens. Is only a majority enough to proceed and what if one house does not agree with the other etc. The possibilities are 3. They either reject the state slate and reject any slate, reject the state slate and accept the alternate slate, or finally accept the slate sent by the states. In the first two VP Biden would not have enough electoral votes on Jan 6 to get 270 votes nor would Mr Trump. It would therefore go to the House which has a Republican majority of states 26-23 (one state is split) and ergo, presuming the Republican states would vote for Mr Trump, he would continue to be occupant of the WH.
To me this is scary sheis. This would essentially be voter nullification. How can I even be typing these words ... and people still be oblivious!!!
If you got the crazy ... you're probably a Republican
Here’s what the Constitution says: Article II, Section 1 Para 3.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of votes for each, which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of Government of the United States, directed to the President of the senate. The president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed…
Now some of that was changed by the 12th amendment.
The 12th basically made the vote for the President and Vice President. Thus preventing a tie for the presidency as was the case with Jefferson and Burr along with other minor changes such as instead of taking up the top 5 electoral vote receivers, it cut it down to 3.
Unless I missed something, the constitution specifies the president of the senate will count the certified results. No where does it give the senate nor the house authority to challenge the certified results. Only in case of a tie or if no candidate has received a majority of the electoral votes does the House become involved in choosing a president, the senate the vice president.
I suppose the bottom line is the actual vote of electors take place in their states on 14 Dec and is then certified. The certified count is then sent to the President of the senate by the 23 Dec. Who counts them on 6 Jan 2021 and the new president takes office on 20 Jan.
There is no provision in the Constitution for rejection. At least that I can find either in the main document or in the amendments by the senate or the house.
The 12th Amendment prescribes that the vice president opens the certificates containing the electoral votes cast in each state in front of the joint session. ... Each time a certification is read out loud by the tellers, the vice president must call for objections. Where one is made, it must be submitted jointly in writing by a member of the House and a member of the Senate alongside an explanation of the relevant grounds, or else the objection may be rejected.
There is a process. My point is this may not be an academic exercise in Constitutional law or the rules of the House and Senate. This may become an exercise in real life and politics. I don't know what Republicans will do. I think they have become unpredictable because of the cult of personality revolving around Mr Trump. You can see what is happening to Gov Kemp, and he is simply following the law.
If Congress refuses the slate of electors or refuses to seat the electors. The Irish have a saying, there would be wigs on the green that day. Adapting the saying for we Americans, there will be bloody scalps on the steps of congress.
Do not advocate it. Just saying...
Also, how COVID-19 Brain will Republicans become. All the need to do is remember when their man won and their reply was tough it up buttercup he is your president to. Be Americans first and political hack, last
For any of Republicans that may be reading this and that you are a veteran here is some provable history of the current coward, draft dodger, etc.
Why do people follow leaders who enact evil? Who restrict freedoms, or cause suffering? The question could be broader, in fact: What makes any leader compelling or authoritative?
One quality often discussed, is charisma. Charismatic leadership can contribute positive and negative outcomes for organisation and followers. A charismatic leader has been defined as a person that possesses a “memorable and powerful charm, indefinable aura, [and] an ability to lead and inspire” (Boehmer 2012: 159). Obtaining these important characteristics reflects on a leader’s success in gaining support from their followers and making a difference in their community.
Sen. Ted Cruz had called Trump a "pathological liar" who, "whatever lie he tells, at that minute he believes it." Like most figures within the GOP, Cruz now bows to Trump's enduring power over the voters ambitious Republicans need.
That power represents Trump's greatest feat of wizardry. His presidency has brought supporters no border wall financed by Mexico, no health plan to replace Obamacare, no manufacturing or coal-mining revival to restore lost blue-collar earning power.
His extravagant promises never withstood critical scrutiny. But as he launched his presidential bid in 2015, Trump brazenly insisted there would be no Oz-like unmasking.
"I will not let those people down," he told me at Trump Tower back then.
The 74 million people who voted for his reelection plainly don't think he did. Most tell pollsters they believe his election fraud lies.
Not only that, Trump has persuaded them to keep sending him money. His campaign, his new political action committee and the Republican Party say they've collected $207.5 million since Election Day.
The one thing that thin skinned egotist can' t stand is being labeled a loser. This is what is all behind his shenanigans. Not being labeled or called a loser.
The one thing [ed. Mr Trump] can' t stand is being labeled a loser
Still not convinced he is a narcissist?
Originally Posted by Mayo Clinic: Narcissistic personality disorder
Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder and the severity of symptoms vary. People with the disorder can:
Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it Exaggerate achievements and talents Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations Take advantage of others to get what they want Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others Be envious of others and believe others envy them Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office
At the same time, people with narcissistic personality disorder have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism, and they can:
Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatment Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation
I do not condone lay people trying to diagnose medical or mental problems. However, there are a number of psychologists & psychiatrists who have from a distance analyzed Mr Trump and are convinced he suffers from NPD. Of course it takes a big ego to even see yourself as leader of the free world, but it quite a different thing to act in the way Mr Trump does. His delusion does not allow for him being a loser ... period ... full stop.
On another and probably more important note, it appears a good size chunk of Republican Senators will not condone nor be complicit in any electoral coup.
I hope they have live TV so I can see how they handle Rep Mo Brooks.
Voter fraud is rampant and everywhere (I love doing that), Democrats, communists, socialists, antifa-ists, and anti-Trump Republicans have conspired in a massive, voter fraud scheme (I love doing that ... I need ore emphasis), which only Trump supporting Republicans can see. I have to wonder ... am I damaged because I don't see it??? Inquisitive minds want to know ... what is real and what is not ... gaslight the planet!!!!! ... nothing is real if everything is real ..... arrrrrggggghhhh
Activist Conservative SCOTUS Alito masquerades as an originalist. His method of addressing constitutional questions consists of:
Determine the outcome,
Reverse engineer a constitutional basis to support the desired outcome.
The thing that the idiot Republiclowns don't understand is that if they somehow got the SC to void the election in PA, that means that anyone who was elected in the November 3rd election no longer is 'elected.' They can't just void the votes for president and leave the rest intact.
My guess is that Alito will refer to full court, so it can be unanimously denied shutting down forum shopping to keep it going. The SCOTUS will say State Court should hear the challenge if Act 77 is constitutional per PA Constitution but will punt on the relief due to laches on remedy Kelly is seeking.
While I agree with everything in your post, I'm responding just to add a few cents. Alito is a proto-fascist. I'll just put that out there. Moreover, he's a religionist, so there is a theocratic element to his "reasoning". In this case, I think, he enjoys the opportunity to inject a bit of chaos into the system. I believe there are enough cooler heads on the Court to avoid this becoming an issue, but he sees it as an opportunity to wreak havoc on the judicial scene. He LOVES striking down State laws (as well as federal ones). He's the most activist jurist at the Supreme Court. He'll probably get Thomas and Barrett to go along - it furthers his conservative agenda to throw another dart at Roberts - but I think that, ultimately, neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh will, and Roberts certainly not. It takes four to take a case.
What Alito is really up to is taking another opportunity to push Roberts. The Alito-Barrett-Thomas troika are trying to encourage conservative litigants to get cases to them so they can begin the reshaping of the legal landscape before sanity returns to the Court. They are looking for ways to get religion-based cases, anti-LGBT and anti-abortion cases, as well as voting rights cases to them so they can push their agenda. This is more of a signal to litigants and other jurists than a serious effort in this particular instance, but I would not be shocked if all the analysts and pundits are wrong - the 'safe harbor' deadline is an 1870's law, and he'd like nothing more than to obliterate it under an "originalist" interpretation. Don't underestimate his Machiavellian mind or his true anti-democratic bona fides. He just wants to know who might be along with him for the ride.
and we can see that it's no only Republican. A certified loser in Iowa will get the Democratic controlled House of Representatives to overturn her loss in a party line vote, thus seating her.
I would also like to point-out that Act 77 that Alito is looking at, was written and passed by the same Republicans who are now claiming it's unconstitutional.
Or I should be more accurate, if your side wins, you trust the results. If your side loses, mistrust prevails, fraud and everything else.
In 2016 Democrats were not happy with the results. But we didn't deny that the results were valid. Once again Republicans lost the popular vote yet won the electoral college and the White House. We were called poor losers. This timje around they lost the popular vote by a wide margin and the electoral college too.
The election was a fraud and a hoax because...uh...they cannot lose! Because God has chosen Donald Trump to guide the church through the end times...? So who the feck is a sore loser here? Who the feck has set the stage for future lawsuits and future claims of fraud...
Every time our country becomes a little less democratic and a little less free it is Republicans who have led us there.
**edit**...and every time Democrats try to fight back and use the same dirty tactics used against them...cries of BOTH SIDES DO IT! ring out from the fringes...
LOL, god didn't choose Trump, the idiots Republicans did. The article was talking about the future, not the past. Up until this year, there hasn't been a problem outside of 2000 of the loser accepting the results. Florida was all messed up in 2000, with the networks first declaring Gore the winner before the polls closed in the panhandle, central time zone, then declaring Bush the winner before they finally admitted it was too close to call.
I was referring to the future elections as was the article, not the past ones when I made my final remark. Just feel lucky you aren't from Georgia with the national runoff scheduled for January. I got so sick and tired of all the political ads portraying all four of the candidates as the worst scumbags on earth deserving a special place in hell, I turned off the TV and went to watching old Charlie Chan movies and the history vault's Digging for the Truth. I doubt I'll turn on the TV until the runoffs are over.
I don't think an election loss by 6 votes is the same as losing by 20k or 150k. My guess is she did not have the money left to file for a recount ... if you're serious about the job and there is only a 6 vote difference ... well ... There was already a change of some 150 votes getting to -6. As all election officials have stated, a recount usually is only a small number of votes ... as in this case. Remember in Clark Co NV, they threw out the election results of a county commissioner because the vote count was too close and required a very fine granular look at results, prompting them to settle for another election.
So the question should be, does it really matter which party was involved in an election that close? I don't care if it was the Dem Party or Rep Party or the office Christmas Party .... if it's that close get it right
And I was referring to the original sins that set us on this path of contention between the parties. Yes....if it's okay for Trump to be corrupt, is it okay for Biden? Or is it only okay for Republicans? Trump has set a new standard for all presidents to come...shady dealings...? Don't release your taxes...multiple wives, sex scandals, connections to foreign governments...?
We are dangerously close to a successful soft coup.
In 2016 Republicans held the majority in the Senate. They had the power. They preferred to say, let's hear the voters voice. It is far too crass for them to just say the truth ... they had the power.
In 2020 they continue to have the power in numerous states and in the Senate. They have the power. Need I elaborate? What is to keep them from using the power? Men of honour? Men of the law? Men with integrity?
Has anyone not heard US Senators saying there are voter fraud issues in battleground states? We are dangerously close to the unimaginable.
I don't think an election loss by 6 votes is the same as losing by 20k or 150k. My guess is she did not have the money left to file for a recount ... if you're serious about the job and there is only a 6 vote difference ... well ... There was already a change of some 150 votes getting to -6. As all election officials have stated, a recount usually is only a small number of votes ... as in this case. Remember in Clark Co NV, they threw out the election results of a county commissioner because the vote count was too close and required a very fine granular look at results, prompting them to settle for another election.
So the question should be, does it really matter which party was involved in an election that close? I don't care if it was the Dem Party or Rep Party or the office Christmas Party .... if it's that close get it right
She decided to forego, not that she didn't have the money as the article said. There was already a recount as the article and you stated. From the article.
"After what appears to be the tightest congressional election in decades, Rita Hart, a state senator, has decided to forgo a legal battle in her home state and will instead contest the election directly with the House Administration Committee. Iowa election officials certified Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks as the winner on Monday after a recount diminished her initial victory margin from 47 votes to only 6 votes."
With the Democratic Majority in the House, she will be declared the winner. Now we all have been getting on Trump for not abiding by the wishes of the voters...
We are dangerously close to a successful soft coup.
In 2016 Republicans held the majority in the Senate. They had the power. They preferred to say, let's hear the voters voice. It is far too crass for them to just say the truth ... they had the power.
In 2020 they continue to have the power in numerous states and in the Senate. They have the power. Need I elaborate? What is to keep them from using the power? Men of honour? Men of the law? Men with integrity?
Has anyone not heard US Senators saying there are voter fraud issues in battleground states? We are dangerously close to the unimaginable.
McConnell is a very vindictive person, that may have been payback for Schumer in July 2007, a year and a half before the end of the Bush administration stating he wouldn't allow Bush to appoint a new justice to the SCOTUS if an opening occurred.
This is what I hate about both major parties, no core values. Then in 2016 Schumer did an 180 with Garland. McConnell also did a 180 with Garland in 2016 and Barrett in 2020. Neither has any core values in my book.
If it were me, I'd have a rule for both parties that any SCOTUS nominee should have his hearing and a floor vote if nominate 6 months prior to a presidential election. Any nomination after that should wait until after the election. In other words, Garland should have had his hearing in committee and a floor vote, Barrett shouldn't have.
Now least we all forget, Barrett was made possible by ex-democratic senate majority leader Harry Reid's first use of the nuclear option thus setting a precedence for its use. So it's him we owe this debt of thanks to.
Way too many times our politicians in Washington only think of the short term political gain and not the long range prospects for the future or that what they do may be used by the other side and come back to haunt. What was Reid thinking, that the democrats would hold the senate for an eternity or McConnell and company were gentlemen and would never stoop to use the nuclear option.
McConnell is a very vindictive person, that may have been payback for Schumer in July 2007, a year and a half before the end of the Bush administration stating he wouldn't allow Bush to appoint a new justice to the SCOTUS if an opening occurred.
Did Schumer actually ever hold-up a GWBush SCOTUS nominee during that time? No.
Rightwingers seem to have this mindset that "both sides do it" for some reason. I suppose its done to assuage the rightwing sociopathy since they're never going to seek help and fix themselves and become emotionally healthy human beings.
I think one can be blinded by partisan blindness. Another example was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from 2011 through 2015 tabled over 300 Republican house bills without such as a committee hears. Then McConnell does exactly the same thing, tabling Democratic house passed bill and that causes the Democrats to scream. But it was perfectly okay and acceptable for the Democrats to have Reid do it. Not so with McConnell.
You're correct, no opening for the SCOTUS came about during Bush's last year and half. But I have no reason to doubt Schumer's sincerity on this subject if one did. All I'm looking for is for a politician to take a stance and stick with it on these things. Be consistent. Not to be for something when it benefits your party, but be against the exact same thing when it benefits the other party.
Personally, I think Schumer was wrong in 2007 and McConnell wrong in 2016. Then McConnell became a grade A hypocrite this year with Barrett. I rate Schumer as a grade B hypocrite since the opening never occurred during Bush. Even tossing out 2007, you had Schumer being a very strong advocate for committee hearings and a floor vote on Garland and strongly opposed to the hearings and floor votes on Barrett. That my friend is a perfect 180 strictly based on whether or not one would gain a party advantage or not. I'm just looking for constancy.
why do you ASSUME the House Dems would side with her??? Has there been any indication from any Dem that should someone show up claiming the in they would be confirmed??? Not true with Senate Republicans.
and before you claim hypocrisy, let me say should they do that, I will join you in your criticism. I don't think the process is what you would think it is. Otherwise in every election the loser would appeal to the party in power to confirm them and we would end up with a one party system.
I gotta go with Rick on this one. There is a salient difference between talking smack and actually implementing the smack. It's kinda like in the law. You actually have to commit a crime before being charged with that crime.
I have to disagree about nominations. The Constitution does not state when the Senate has to deal with a nominee, only that it does. All the arguments about timing are irrelevant. We can by induction find no justices are just as good as 9. (If 8 justices are ok then why not 7? and if 7 is ok why not 6? etc).
The rule should be simple ... like when a president nominates a justice, the Senate should take it up ... no matter when. We don't have government when it is only convenient, but because it is necessary. Act like it.
I agree about Sen Reid. Frustration should not have been the guiding force behind his decision to change the rules. If Republicans did not want to compromise, the people to convince it is a problem is the electorate.
About Reid's sequestration of bills is not accurate. While it is true he did table some bills, the practice had been ongoing for years. The question is the number of bills. I think most people who have analyzed this have found the actual number was far smaller than the 300 you mention. The padding came from comments from a Senator about many proposals etc which had not been submitted for consideration. Here is an example of why a majority leader may want to table a bill ... suppose a bill from opposing party came through wanting to eliminate tax revenues. Clearly the bill would not go far, so why consume tie with a bill which goes no where. One could make the same argument about minority PARTISAN bills. By partisan I mean bills which promote opposing minority party agendas. Not much chance of going far, so why waste time. The problem is one party could easily confuse PARTISAN bills with bills proposed by the opposing party which may have bipartisan support.
Past history and being a cynic. There has to be a reason why she would forego Iowa's procedures in favor of having the Democratic controlled house choose or decide whether she won or lost. Whenever I see something like this, I always assume the worst.
she had to know going through Iowa's normal procedures since the election was certified, she had little to no hope there. So take it to the democratic controlled house where by an old law rarely used they could reverse the decision.
Besides down from a 236-199 majority to a 222-212 majority with NY 22 not yet decided, Pelosi will want and need every Democratic congress person she can get. It'll be bad optics for sure for a couple of days, then forgotten.
All those bills tabled by Reid and McConnell probably deserved to be tabled. Most were vanity bills passed without bi-partisan support. In Reid's case many were bills striking down the ACA. McConnel also follows procedural rules set by that convicted child molester Dennis Hastert.
All those bills tabled by Reid and McConnell probably deserved to be tabled. Most were vanity bills passed without bi-partisan support. In Reid's case many were bills striking down the ACA. McConnel also follows procedural rules set by that convicted child molester Dennis Hastert.
Jeezus, man! What is it with you and the acknowledgement of context, anyway?
I hear Lindsey Graham promised on Fox News that if the Republicans retain control of the senate, they will refuse to confirm any Biden AG nominee who says he will investigate Trump for criminal prosecution. Now, of course Graham can say almost anything he wants on Fox News. But if he actually did that, he could be indicted as an Accessory After The Fact. The definition of that is someone who knows a person has committed an offense against the United States, and does anything to help that person avoid investigation, prosecution, or punishment. Mueller reported 10 instances of Obstruction of Justice Trump could be prosecuted for after leaving office, and Mueller was extremely qualified to be the judge of that.
So Graham either has to know Trump committed an offense against the US, or at least suspect. Obstructing an investigation of that confirms it! So there you have all the elements of Accessory After The Fact. All the other Republican Senators who vote to not confirm the AG would be harder to prosecute, because they could just claim to be doing their job. But Graham actually announced his intention for a criminal reason on TV.
The federal sentencing guideline says Accessory After The Fact gets half the sentence and fine of the original criminal. So if Trump got 5 years per Obstruction charge, Graham could get 25 years. I wonder if that's his retirement plan?
Graham could also face Georgia state charges for soliciting a state official to discard valid ballots. Their law is very clear, and that was witnessed by others.
What one thinks deserves to be tabled, another doesn't. I'm sure Republicans are saying the bills McConnell tabled deserved to be tabled for political reasons also.
I've always been of the opinion that all bills passed by the house regardless of who controls it, should be voted on in the senate and vice versa. They have plenty of time to do so. They only work 3 days out of the week and spend close to a half a year in recess. Monday and Friday's are travel days when in session.
There has to be a reason why she would forego Iowa's procedures in favor of having the Democratic controlled house choose or decide whether she won or lost.
well of course
you uncovered it. Yes the massive Democrat Party conspiracy of cheating, fraud, and baby eating, pedophiles.
Why not ask her why? Of course you may not believe what she says. So why believe what anyone says.
If I were her, I would ask for a recount with only Trump supporting counters.
I suspect going to the House for relief is not what she thinks it is nor what you think it is. The votes are certified in a razor thin race. For her to make a case she would have to claim she actually won the race because there was an error in the certified vote count. Any claim she should be seated because she is a Democrat doesn't work.
Of course for Republicans, I believe that is precisely their case. Mr Trump won because ... well ... he is the greatest human to have ever lived and therefore yadda yadda yadda. 39 of 40 appearances in court have been met with judicial derision for trying to make a case out of he couldn't lose therefore fraud. The one case won was for technical reasons ie.e watchers were not allowed close enough to see the fine print on a ballot.
Quote
Pelosi will want and need every Democratic congress person she can get.
I will conclude you believe she is corrupt. Perhaps you can point out some action which was as egregious as Mr Trump abusing the power of his office???
yes. We do not live in colonial America or early Constitutional times, when the county courts met once a month and considered all the cases until those submitted cases were exhausted. It should be a full time job, not just because a lot of jobs should be full time but also because America deserves and requires full time legislators addressing all the problems of a modern, fast paced society.
non sequitur
I wonder why Republicans continue to call members of the opposition the socialist Democrats, so don't Democrats call the opposition the fascist Republicans??? Is fascism ok in America???
What one thinks deserves to be tabled, another doesn't. I'm sure Republicans are saying the bills McConnell tabled deserved to be tabled for political reasons also.
Of course they should be tabled. Most were passed by the house with no bi-partisan support and were written to appeal to democrats and the democratic agenda. Vanity bills the House knew would never see the light of day. If Democrats want McConnell to take their bills seriously they need to be able to get some Republicans on board...even if that means making compromises.
Quote
I've always been of the opinion that all bills passed by the house regardless of who controls it, should be voted on in the senate and vice versa.
I agree, but has it ever been that way? Government has been so f*cked up for so long that I've lost track of when things might have ever been better. The rest of the world is leaving us behind as we become more backward.
How long will it be before the American Diaspora begins and Americans begin flooding into other countries to escape the economic hardships forced on them by corporate greed and ineffective government? Why should anyone stay here when other countries have so much to offer?
Living wages
Socialized healthcare
Free college education.
You can get those things and more almost anyplace in the world.
Here again, who determines vanity bills? You had the same the last two years with all most all of bills passed by the Democratic House passed on party line votes. What's the difference? Republican party line votes with almost no Democrats between 2011-2014 or Democratic party line votes with almost no Republican support between 2019-2020?
As for fleeing America, I see the ever rising national debt weakening the dollar so much that in the near future we'll have another great depression. 574 billion dollars went to pay the interest on the national debt in 2019. Total revenue 3.4 trillion. Money that must be paid prior to paying for any government programs. Money spent so far for 2020 6.55 trillion or almost double the amount of money the federal government took in.
I think the Democrats should care and find out why they lost seats in the house this year. I don't see them doing that as of yet. All the Republicans need to do to take control of the house in 2022 is have a net gain of 6 seats, perhaps only 5 depending on the outcome of NY 22. Very easily done.
In the senate the Republicans have 20 seats up for reelection vs. 13 for the Democrats. It is very possible, perhaps even likely that the Republicans will gain control of the house in 2022 while the Democrats gain control of the senate. A total reversal of where things stand today.
This is my prediction for 2022. A flip of control for both the House and the Senate. As long as the Democrats won't search for the reason Biden was able to carry independents 54-41, by 13 points but Democratic congressional candidates winning independents by 50-48, just 2 points, then make adjustments, they're bound to lose the house. But that's the democrats problem.
History has shown that when a new president is elected, his party always goes too far in pushing their own agenda only to have huge losses in the first midterm in the house. This happened to Obama in 2010, 63 seat loss. To Bill Clinton in 1994, 54 seat loss, to Reagan in 1982, a 26 seat loss and on back. G.H.W. Bush lost only 8 seats in 1990, but he was popular for desert storm and his son, G.W. Bush actually gained 8 seats, due to the unifying effect of 9-11. G.W. Bush would go on to lose 33 seats in 2006 giving the democrats control of both chambers of congress.
Bottom line, to avoid losing the House in 2022, the Democrats need to figure out how far is too far and never cross that line or 2022 and perhaps 2024 will be Republican years.
It was my understanding that those Dems, who lost their seats, were a bit far to the left and those in the middle are not real enthused by them. Since those on the left are always claiming victory for their cause I am not sure that is true or not. I am talking about stuff like "defund the police", etc.
The Democrats, not unlike the Republicans, tend to talk to each other A LOT! (a serious sin in politics)
The greatest epiphany I have had is Republicans (this mostly applies to Republicans and less so to Democrats .... unless you can present some evidence otherwise) are ok with Democrats as long as they agree with the Republican agenda.
When Gingrich started the burning down the House full frontal assault on Democrats. Think about Bannon and his deconstruction campaign. I get a kick out of talking heads proclaiming PE Biden can compromise with Republicans. They are delusional. Even former moderate Republicans have become hesitant to compromise. Never give an inch!!!!
So what you're saying is my lead-in epiphany. If Democrats become Republicans, then all is well. If Democrats did not try to ensure people do have equal rights or Republicans try to destroy the very government in which they serve, then we would remain in 1791. I guess for some, who are incapable, or do not want to adapt, that would be ok ... In am on the other side of this .... "Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall" ... "the battle outside is ragin"
The world is changing far too fast and is far too dangerous for these clowns not to be addressing all of the inherent problems
House conservatives urge Trump not to concede and press for floor fight over election loss
Quote
President Donald Trump's staunchest defenders on Capitol Hill are urging him not to concede even after President-elect Joe Biden wins the Electoral College vote next week, calling on their party's leader to battle it out all the way to the House floor in January as he makes unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud.
The view of Trump's defenders is at odds with that of many top congressional Republicans, including leaders of the Senate, who believe the election will be over next Monday when electors cast their votes and make Biden's win official -- even though the Democrat's victory in the presidential race has been clear for weeks.
But conservative House Republicans argue that next week doesn't mark the end of Trump's desperate efforts to overturn the election results, which he has failed to do through scores of fruitless lawsuits and brazen efforts to pressure state and local leaders to subvert the will of voters and appoint new slates of electors to the Electoral College. They said that Congress should engage in a full-throated debate over the results in key states because of their allegations of fraud, which have yet to be borne out in court.
Asked if Trump should concede next Monday, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said bluntly: "No. No way, no way, no way."
I'm not sure of the political ideology of being far left for those Dems who lost as I haven't read anything to deal with that. Now there were two pro life Democratic incumbents who lost in their primaries to pro choice Democratic challengers, which lost in the general. Apparently those Democrats were willing to give those two seats to Republicans to get rid of two pro life Democrats.
You guys can say all you want about the Democrats being all inclusive and not having litmus tests, I just don't see it.
But that's neither here nor there...Democrats will most likely lose everything again in 2022 and 2024. Trump has sworn to return in 2024 to take up where he left off.
If he ever leaves at all. It looks like a full blown coup is underway. Congressional Republicans are siding with Trump and ready to throw out the election and appoint Trump President for life.
Republicans no longer believe elections are even necessary.
You guys can say all you want about the Democrats being all inclusive and not having litmus tests, I just don't see it.
Who said that? The Democratic Party is run by a bunch of world class pricks who twitch to the marionette strings of the rich. Centrists only are allowed at the table.
Democratic voters on the other hand are pretty diverse.
You know Greger, I always said that both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors, etc. That's where they get all their money to run their organizations and campaigns. Taking care of all the above is always the first priority of both major parties. I do think we see eye to eye on more things than not, although we approach them from different perspectives. You as more or less as a progressive ideologue and me more or less as a political realist.
I do think we both distrust both major parties about as far as we could throw a 5,000 pound bull elephant. You vote Democratic because that party comes closest to your political ideology, the closest fit at the present. I swing back and forth tending to vote for the lesser evil or the least worst or even for the candidate I want to lose the least of the two major party candidates, many times voting third party against both.
For PDX, I'll not tell either party what to do. Now I'll give advice in how to win elections or tell them why they won or lost. I can recognize that this election was all about removing Trump at the presidential level and keeping the status quo down ballot. No mandate, no endorsement or rejection of either major parties ideals, agenda, philosophy if you will.
It's no secret that slogans like Defund the Police played a big part in the down ballot success of the republicans in their gaining house seats, state legislatures and a governorship. Especially among the non-affiliated, swing voters. These voters which made up 26% of those who voted, went big for Biden, 54-41, by 13 points just to get rid of Trump. Then they basically split their congressional vote down the middle, voting 50-48 for democratic congressional candidates. These folks as Greger would call them are the uninformed, the unwashed so to speak. They pay little to no attention to politics until election time. Why should they? They don't have any horses in the race, they had no say who the horses are or was. But it is these folks that usually decides who wins and who loses. Neither major party's base is big enough by itself.
Yet neither party recognizes this. I always found that dumbfounding.
You know Greger, I always said that both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors, etc. That's where they get all their money to run their organizations and campaigns.
Not true. Look at Bernie's (2016) and (2020) campaign and Trump's first 2016 campaign - all small donations. I believe that Biden was as well this year. Your both sidesism is really getting old and tired - like gum that has lost its flavor.
You know Greger, I always said that both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors, etc. That's where they get all their money to run their organizations and campaigns.
Not true. Look at Bernie's (2016) and (2020) campaign and Trump's first 2016 campaign - all small donations. I believe that Biden was as well this year. Your both sidesism is really getting old and tired - like gum that has lost its flavor.
The problem in figuring out Sanders is his money was for primaries only and not really documented as candidates were in the general election.
In 2016 Sanders raised 230 million, which 135 million came from small donors. Small donors are defined as donating 200 dollars or less. 2020 Sanders raised 212 million which 114 million came from small donors. This is his primary totals.
Other candidates 2016 Hillary Clinton raised 770 million which 106 million came from small donors. Trump in 2016 raised 433 million million which 87 million came from small donors. Counting the primaries, Clinton raised and spent 1,191 billion, Trump 646.8 million.
2020 Joe Biden raised 1.6 billion which 407 million came from small donors. Trump in 2020 raised 1.1 billion which 378 million came from small donors.
The general election campaign is certainly more expensive than the primaries. So the figures are basically apples to oranges when dealing with Sanders. Putting Sanders aside since he hasn't, didn't particpate in the general election. One candidate doesn't make the both sideism untrue.
Only 13.8% of Hillary's money came from small donors in 2016, 20.6% of Trump's money came from small donors in 2016. In 2020 Biden received 25.4% of his money from small donors, Trump received 34.3% of his money from small donors.
Now Sanders did indeed raise over half of his money from small donors. But that was just the primary only. No one knows how or who would have contributed during the general election in which both major party candidates raised over a billion dollars each for 2020.
You obviously don't understand. Its really pretty easy. The Democrats are dedicated to fighting. Their problem is that they don't care who they are fighting as long as they can have a fight. They can attack the Republicans but its unlikely they will get a fight out of it. The Republicans are not so much fighters as liars, the whole damned bunch of them. They will call Democrats all sorts of names and stuff but not really fight at all. For a really good fight the Dems have learned that they gotta go after their own and THEN they will get a fight.
The interesting thing is that they just don't seem to get it. The result is that the jackbooted Republicans march in complete agreement no matter what and the result of that is, pretty much, that they stomp all over the Democrats before the Dems even notice as they are busy with 'important' stuff like going after one another rather than the opposition.
You know Greger, I always said that both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors, etc. That's where they get all their money to run their organizations and campaigns.
Not true. Look at Bernie's (2016) and (2020) campaign and Trump's first 2016 campaign - all small donations. I believe that Biden was as well this year. Your both sidesism is really getting old and tired - like gum that has lost its flavor.
...Other candidates 2016 Hillary Clinton...
I never mentioned Hillary Clinton because she was never small donor - she has always been big-money Wall Street. You people start off arguments with a semi-answer to a question, and then, ALWAYS introduce another factor into the equation to support your predetermined agenda. I'm sick of it.
You know Greger, I always said that both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega money donors, etc. That's where they get all their money to run their organizations and campaigns.
Not true. Look at Bernie's (2016) and (2020) campaign and Trump's first 2016 campaign - all small donations. I believe that Biden was as well this year. Your both sidesism is really getting old and tired - like gum that has lost its flavor.
...Other candidates 2016 Hillary Clinton...
I never mentioned Hillary Clinton because she was never small donor - she has always been big-money Wall Street. You people start off arguments with a semi-answer to a question, and then, ALWAYS introduce another factor into the equation to support your predetermined agenda. I'm sick of it.
You get one, perhaps two who rely on small donors and ignore all the rest because it doesn't suit your narrative. I could carry this on back if I had the time to do the research, What about Obama vs. McCain and then Romney. Obama became the first presidential candidate to turn down matching funds because he could raise more than double that. Kerry and Gore vs. Bush and on back.
Rounding off the numbers 2012 Obama 800 million raised to Romney's 600. 2008 Obama 750 million to McCain's 250 million. 2004 G.W. Bush 350 to Kerry's 340. More even. Bush really out raised Gore in 2000 180 million to 120 million, but Bill Clinton in 1996 doubled Dole 160 million to 70 million.
You obviously don't understand. Its really pretty easy. The Democrats are dedicated to fighting. Their problem is that they don't care who they are fighting as long as they can have a fight. They can attack the Republicans but its unlikely they will get a fight out of it. The Republicans are not so much fighters as liars, the whole damned bunch of them. They will call Democrats all sorts of names and stuff but not really fight at all. For a really good fight the Dems have learned that they gotta go after their own and THEN they will get a fight.
The interesting thing is that they just don't seem to get it. The result is that the jackbooted Republicans march in complete agreement no matter what and the result of that is, pretty much, that they stomp all over the Democrats before the Dems even notice as they are busy with 'important' stuff like going after one another rather than the opposition.
I think you get it. You take an independent voter, doesn't have to be a Trumper, he hears the slogan Defund the Police. Now he isn't going to delve deep into that. Chances are he'll take it as meaning defund the police. He say, heck no. I like my police. He votes against Democratic congressional candidate because he sees a couple of democrats on the nightly news out front shouting about defunding the police. Then he's hit with all these GOP political ads stating the democrats want to do away with the police.
Now here's a guy, more or less the average independents who really doesn't pay much if any attention to politics or the daily grind going on in Washington. He's trying to make ends meet, take care of his family, rooting for his favorite sports team, watching his favorite TV shows. Politics and the actual meaning of Defund the police goes missing. He takes the slogan of defund the police as meaning exactly that.
You and I know different, but we're political junkies. If we weren't we wouldn't be on a site like this one. The average independent doesn't even know debating politics sites even exist.
A language problem, yeah, I'd say so. Perhaps the Democrats need to learn to say exactly what they mean. Not standing behind phrases and slogans that can mean many different things to different people. People who will hear the slogan or the phrase and think it means what it says.
They need a positive message like the Republicans have to win the votes of independents..
Things like Swastikas and slavery flags. They need leaders like Trump who put party over country and personal greed above all else.
They need armed insurrectionists storming statehouses and plotting to kidnap and Kill governors of the treason party.
They need to deny the results of elections and attack democracy.
That's what gets voters attention and gets them to the polls.
Demonstrating against police brutality loses votes and turns off the voters. Siding with blacks or queers is stupid and costs you votes. Democrats need to become more racist, more homophobic and much much greedier. They need to stop getting educated. They need to stop complaining about expensive healthcare, suck it up and die like men when they get sick. And living wages? You gotta be kidding! No one wants to make enough money to pay the bills!
I see the Texas AG lawsuit against Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania has been joined by 18 Republican AGs. It will be interesting when it gets laughed out of the Supreme Court. I wonder if the Supreme Court will tell their local Bar Associations those AGs should lose their licenses for bringing such an idiotic suit to their court.
Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas — you know, the one who always seems to be in trouble with the law, was indicted for securities fraud in 2015, and in fact is still under indictment for that right now, and that's on top of all the new allegations of new crimes he's being investigated for at the moment — has gone DI-RECT to the Supreme Court to sue the noted non-Texas states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin to please overturn the votes of their actual citizens - because that's what shady idiot Rightwing government officials do.
The other 18 states are jealous of how idiotic Texas is looking suing non-Texas states, so they wanted-in on the action as well. Usually being idiotic is reserved for Florida's antics.
I am delighted that everybody is convinced that this last gasp IS THE LAST GASP! However, that being said, I take no comfort until this stuff gets ignored and throwed out. Until the Biden campaign is officially the winner Trump will continue and, probably, afterwards as well. My paranoia will decrease when he leaves the White House. My really fond hope is that, whilst this goes on, we don't get a crazed group of merry white nationalists who just start shooting the other side for target practice.
Basically, I don't trust the other side one little bit. These people are invested in fairy tales and unproven conspiracies! They are, in other words, mentally challenged! What I would really like is for every one of them claiming the truth of their fairy tales and unproven conspiracies be given jobs stacking stiffs and cleaning out ICU's (starting out with a one week stint). My problem with that is that these people will claim its all a lie as they lie in a hospital dying because they cannot breathe! Perhaps just taking them off the streets, in their own best interest, might be in our own best interest?
We need to see how many of them are dead or disabled by next month. We are in the steep asymptote of the pandemic curve. Sources of infection are very high now, especially in states that don't lockdown. Any mass gathering without masks is going to infect most attendees. I'm thinking of Trump's December 5th rally in Georgia. Consider that his fans tend to associate with his other supporters as they go about their lives post rally, there might not be enough Republican voters left or able to vote in person in the senate runoff election to keep the senate Republican.
This is the point where Jim Jones tells all his followers to line up for cyanide KoolAid.
They need a positive message like the Republicans have to win the votes of independents..
Things like Swastikas and slavery flags. They need leaders like Trump who put party over country and personal greed above all else.
They need armed insurrectionists storming statehouses and plotting to kidnap and Kill governors of the treason party.
They need to deny the results of elections and attack democracy.
That's what gets voters attention and gets them to the polls.
Demonstrating against police brutality loses votes and turns off the voters. Siding with blacks or queers is stupid and costs you votes. Democrats need to become more racist, more homophobic and much much greedier. They need to stop getting educated. They need to stop complaining about expensive healthcare, suck it up and die like men when they get sick. And living wages? You gotta be kidding! No one wants to make enough money to pay the bills!
Yeah, Democrats have totally got it wrong.
To win elections you need the right phraseology. Ask the average American Joe who doesn't follow politics daily, just roots for his favorite sports team, watches his favorite tv show, works to take care of his family what "Defund the Police," means. I can tell you he won't mention reform. That not what the slogan says, the slogan says take all the money away from the police.
The demonstrations didn't cause the down ballot losses, but the riots did. Most independents were too busy with other things to care about a demonstration. But once they turned into riots, all over the TV, now they didn't want that to happen where they live.
The working class who went for Trump in 2016, for Biden in 2020 but congressional Republicans in 2020 want those who they elect to think about them and to protect their jobs, not which bathroom a transgender can use.
Something is wrong, Trump received 12% of the black vote this year, up from 8% in 2016. He received 32% of the Hispanic vote, up from 28% in 2016. His share of the white vote dropped, from 59% down to 58%.
The gay, lisbian, bisexual, transexual vote, Trump in 2016 received 14%, in 2020 27%. That's a 13 point jump in Trump's favor.
So how do you explain the above. One last comment, the working class backed Biden big time, but not Democratic congressional candidates, there really seems to be a huge disconnect there also.
When I broached the subject several months ago now, many scoffed at the idea anyone would not leave the WH when losing an election, but now what say you naysayers?
well over 100 House Rep's have signed on the amicus brief, as well as 18 Republican led state AG's ... and of course the Constitutional giant Sen Cruz representing Republican fascism. This does not include probable Senate Republicans who will lend a hand.
The bi-partisan inauguration committee failed to pass a simple resolution recognizing anyone other than Mr Trump as president. The Republicans represented by Sen McConnell, Sen Blunt, and Rep McCarthy are the leaders of the party in Congress. Now if the leaders do not recognize PE Biden as the PE, I can only conclude they will not move on the actual physical inauguration.
So, because I was right to be concerned, I now have some more questions.
How will the Chief Justice know to whom to administer the oath of office of the president?
If PE Biden simply invites Justice Roberts to administer the oath, would that constitute an act of sedition?
If no one has taken the oath of office at noon Jan 20, will the current occupant of the WH continue to be president?
Now some may think I am being hyperbolic and alarmist, but should you be, I would say have you read the news of late? have you watched in disturbing amazement what Mr Trump is doing? Why just a few months ago the unimaginable is now more than a fleeting thought of some demented, fevered mind of a deeply concerned citizen worried I may be watching the end of democracy as I have known it. I have always asked myself the question, how was it possible an A. Hitler could have ascended power in a republic where there are thoughtful citizens. Folks I believe we are witnessing just how it happened in Germany.
If this is allowed, who will be left to speak for our Democracy?
aren't you saying, what I have said succinctly, the American electorate is ignorant?
LOL, this gets me. It seems that those who call voters ignorant want more and more voters to turn out to vote. The uninformed, those who don't give a dang who wins or loses, but we're doing every thing to get them out to vote.
If 55% of the electorate, the average since 1970 turn out to vote in a presidential election because they care enough to vote. Yet around half are deemed ignorant and uninformed, what about the rest. The other 45% that we're trying to get to vote? They don't pay one iota to politics or if they do, don't give an owl's hoot about politics, who's president, who controls congress or anything else.
Kind of strange isn't it. Calling those who care and willing to pay enough attention to decide whom to vote for ignorant, yet we want more ignorant folks who don't give a coyote's howl to come on out and vote.
My statement (and I have made it numerous ties over the past 17 years) is simply an observation based on observable reality of what people do and say. Now it could be only the ignorant are ever singled out by the media, so it could be skewed and my observation is inaccurate or not valid, but I would rather think based on election circi (hmmm .. i like it) and what these folks say, my observation is accurate.
I am not calling for or hoping for more ignorant people to vote. Good god no. I am hoping educated folks will vote and we can leave the ignorance (and their voice) to those who choose to be ignorant. Almost everyone I know is a Trump supporter. They are all bigots, and ignorant. They all believe the Democrats stole the election and celebrated in an orgy of eating babies. If you don't think these folks are ignorant ...well .... you must be using a different dictionary than I.
I could arbitrarily design criteria for voting as must have at least 12 ancestors who fought in Revolutionary War. You get a bonus vote for any who died in the war. or a citizen must pass a relatively simple civics exam to guarantee they understand the system of government under which we live. Of course you noticed right away, the Founders recognized people are ignorant but in order to guarantee some semblance of freedom and equality, even the ignorant are protected ... even if they through their ignorance would destroy America.
My hope as I said is to educate people first, so they make knowledgeable voters.
It appears the SC just ruled on the Texas Suit. Denied.
So some would say ... game over man ... but ... the game is not over. The ruling made clear states with standing could file a suit. Thus all the battleground states which Trump lost could file a suit to overturn their own certification. So you may say, no person in their right mind would do that. Are you listening to yourself??? Does anything these clown do make sense???
So think like a delusional narcissist. What can be done?
We already know some 118 House Rep's signed on the Texas amicus. There are some Republicans who stand with them. The joint session has not received the slate of electors. so there are 2 avenues still available to the lunatic fringe. Each of the battleground states could still file a suit to decertify (or something similar) and the lunatic House Republicans joined by some Senators could make objections. Republicans can still stall the inauguration committee, which throws a kink in the process. and of course the coup de grace is Mr Trump refuses to leave the WH especially if there is no swearing in on Jan 20.
I explain the above by sending you to an article that explains it much better than I can...
Quote
Democrats focused more on courting GOP voters than younger voters in the last election, former Bernie Sanders senior staffer Jeff Weaver argues. The strategy was a disaster, damaging downballot Democrats across the country — and it could backfire even more when Trump is gone.
The date has passed where congress is obligated to accept all states that had certified. They can't uncertify. Congress is obligated to accept all those certified counts. The only state with issues left is Wisconsin, and even if they flipped Republican, Biden has more than enough electoral votes.
On Monday, the Electoral College votes. It's going to go as planned. Several states actually have laws that replace an elector if he or she tries to vote for somebody other than the state winner.
Congress receives the Electoral totals. Congressmen or Senators can object, but objections have to be upheld by both houses or they get dismissed.
So Trump's only path to keep power is a military coup, which is about as likely as a giant asteroid.
Okay, let's look at how the High School or less along with college grads voted over the years.
Not a High School Graduate voted Democratic in presidential elections from 1980-2012. Went Republican in 2016 and 2020.
High School grads voted republican 1980, 84, 88. Then democratic 1992 and 96, Republican in 2000 and 04, Democratic in 2008, 2012 and then Republican 2016 and 2020.
College grads voted Republican 1988-2004, Democratic in 2008, Republican in 2012, Democratic in 2016 and 2020.
Seems HS or Less were solid Democratic voters until Trump, HS grads seemed to go with the more charismatic candidate regardless of party. College grads were solid Republican until Obama, then went for Obama, Clinton and Biden.
You can draw your own conclusions. Obama may owe his election to the uneducated HS grad or less as could Bill Clinton. Now both were charismatic as all get out.
The date has passed where congress is obligated to accept all states that had certified. They can't uncertify. Congress is obligated to accept all those certified counts. The only state with issues left is Wisconsin, and even if they flipped Republican, Biden has more than enough electoral votes.
On Monday, the Electoral College votes. It's going to go as planned. Several states actually have laws that replace an elector if he or she tries to vote for somebody other than the state winner.
Congress receives the Electoral totals. Congressmen or Senators can object, but objections have to be upheld by both houses or they get dismissed.
So Trump's only path to keep power is a military coup, which is about as likely as a giant asteroid.
33 states have faithless elector laws, some with penalties, some without. Of the remaining 17 states, Trump won 10 of those. Georgia has no faithless elector law. Although, here in Georgia, the election, the popular vote determines which slate of electors cast Georgia's electoral votes. Each candidate on the ballot must submit their list of electors, either chosen by the candidate or his campaign to the secretary of state's office prior to the election. The popular vote winner, it's their chosen electors who will cast Georgia's electoral votes. If there is a faithless elector here, it's the candidates own fault as the candidate choose and placed that name on their list.
I was an elector for Ross Perot in 1996, had he won Georgia, I would have cast an electoral vote for him. I assume most of the remaining 17 states have similar ways of choosing electors.
The date has passed where congress is obligated to accept all states that had certified. They can't uncertify. Congress is obligated to accept all those certified counts. The only state with issues left is Wisconsin, and even if they flipped Republican, Biden has more than enough electoral votes.
On Monday, the Electoral College votes. It's going to go as planned. Several states actually have laws that replace an elector if he or she tries to vote for somebody other than the state winner.
Congress receives the Electoral totals. Congressmen or Senators can object, but objections have to be upheld by both houses or they get dismissed.
So Trump's only path to keep power is a military coup, which is about as likely as a giant asteroid.
....33 states have faithless elector laws, some with penalties, some without.
The SCOTUS ruled on this in the summer of 2020. Please review their ruling.
Speaking of the military, the veterans vote, Trump beat Biden in the vet vote 54-44 this year. Hillary Clinton only received 34% of the veteran vote. There's a lot of gaps in past exit polling as the veteran question wasn't asked. As far as I can determine from different articles, LBJ back in 1964 was the last democratic presidential candidate to win the veteran's vote.
Each state determines their own elector laws, and the Supreme Court said that's fine. They all have the popular vote determine which slate of electors will vote in the Electoral College, in the manner perotista wrote. What happens to faithless electors can be nothing, a fine, or instant replacement with a backup elector. I don't think any states specify jail sentences.
Quote
There are 33 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Most of those states (16 plus DC) nonetheless do not provide for any penalty or any mechanism to prevent the deviant vote from counting as cast. Five states provide a penalty of some sort for a deviant vote, and 14 states provide for the vote to be canceled and the elector replaced (two states do both).
Has anybody given a thought about how ironic it will be when every Representative in the new House has to take the oath of office and swear to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, in light of so many petitioning the Supreme Court to throw the Constitution in the toilet?
well actually ... my take on conservatives in general is they only support and condone selective parts of the Constitution i.e. J Scalia, who essentially crossed out the opening phrase of the 2nd amendment i.e. a well regulated militia is irrelevant to his understanding on the Constitution. Thus we should conclude the Trump supporters who were essentially calling for the overthrowing of a duly elected government, had thrown out large chunks of the Constitution, and if you should ask any of them if they support and will uphold the Constitution, they would immediately say they are true patriots etc etc.
yeah I don't understand the way they think either ... anti-rational ... or maybe rational irrationality
It appears there will be a 2-pronged attack on democracy by Mr Trump and his rabid supporters.
1. Texas AG (currently under a cloud of impropriety and legal problems) will lead other states to file their own suits to overturn rightfully cast votes in several battleground states.
2. The fight will end on the floor of the House. Frothing at the mouth rabid Trump supporters in the House, led by Rep Mo Brooks, will carry on the fight with objections to all battleground states votes Mr Trump lost. Each will require a 2 hour battle and an ensuing vote. Nothing but political ugly and hopefully it will be televised.
Of course, and I confute the talking heads who continue to claim the embarrassment of Republicans will impact their ability to get votes in future elections, none of it will persuade any of the cultist Trump supporters PE Biden won the election. Biden will be forever branded by Mr Trump and his supporters as the illegitimate president who stole an election from the rightful president, greatest human to have ever lived, savior of America, son of God, etc etc.
I don't think anything will move the Trump True Believers until they become convinced that they are supporting a loser and I can't think of ANYBODY who is more worthy of that title than Trump. The problem is that its kindofa secret. Everybody knows about some of his failures but nobody talks about all of those that are known about from his handling of the 450 billion dollar present (result was bankruptcy) from daddy and onward.
Once everybody understands just how much of a loser Trump is I suspect at least some of those currently bamboozled might change their minds.
at least some of those currently bamboozled might change their minds
well ... no
Mr Trump finally exposed the Republican base, for what many folks have known, as a largely a group of people malignantly infected by bigotry. It's in the open now. Why would these folks forget about Mr Trump? They wouldn't. He is their voice ... and they see him as the savior of everything they think is sacred ... including their bigotry.
For this reason, Trumpism will remain a force for which all Republican will have to contend and fear. Should any of them say anything contrary to the tenets of Trumpism, they will incur the wrath of THE BASE.
We have had literally millions of years to educate our young to take the best course of action for ourselves, our families, our communities, and our world.
In the past we have always had time on our side. Any number of mistakes could be corrected and we could learn from them and move on. That's not the case anymore. We are in an extinction event and our species is in no way immune...in fact...it was our species which set the extinction event in motion with our incredibly unhealthy fascination with fire.
The latest Trump ploy is to present "alternate electors" to congress when the votes are counted. Two problems with that idea:
1) There is a law that congress has to recognize the electors from states in which all disputes were resolved on December 6th. Only Wisconsin had any issues outstanding, resolved on Monday before the Electoral College count.
2) The only states which would possibly send an "alternate elector" count to congress are deep red states that Trump won.
Turns out there was voter fraud in Pennsylvania! A Republican guy registered his dead mother online, and then voted by mail on her ballot for Donald Trump.
He's under indictment now. He's the third case. The other two cases from Forbes:
Quote
Bartman’s arraignment follows a Republican man in Forty Fort, Pennsylvania, who was charged in October for similarly filling out an absentee ballot application on behalf of his deceased mother.
A registered Republican in Chester County, Pennsylvania, was also charged for casting a ballot in person in the November election, and then returning to his polling place with sunglasses on in an attempt to disguise himself and vote on behalf of his son.
I have two worries. The first is that he gets the house and senate to challenge the vote and get into a pissing contest that Biden inherits.
The Second thing is that he runs to Russia to live out his life as its gonna get real bad. There are, at the very least, two full years of law suits and he is likely to lose them all. In addition to all of that I am sure that the next AG is going to investigate the entire Trump family and its also likely that most of the money he has scammed whilst President will be take as what he will have done will probably be illegal.
I wonder if Russia would even take him! It would probably be more interesting if they deny him entry and then proceed to tell the world about how they ran him during his presidency and was a flat out traitor.
The interesting thing for all his thugs with pardons, is that he can't pardon them for future crimes. If a federal grand jury subpoenas them, the FBI will enforce those. In front of the grand jury, they can either refuse to testify and rot in jail for contempt for as long as any grand jury is in session that wants their testimony, or they can testify about Trump's crimes. If they tell the truth, Trump goes down. If they tell lies, they go down for perjury.
Trump made a fundamental mistake: Never pardon any of your fellow conspirators, because now they can't claim the 5th Amendment to refuse to testify.
We are all, regardless of political stuff are absolutely thrilled with our Dear Leader's capacity for self destruction. It is just another little example of why the man has an almost flawless capacity for losing!
The truly amazing thing is that his base doesn't quite see it that way. They think that this current silly is an example of just how straight forward he is! His next example may be holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger to prove it isn't loaded.
I guess you guys have not been paying attention to the continuing efforts by Republicans to overthrow a duly elected president.
We have a number of state legislatures now willing to decertify the vote in those states. We have suits filed in a number of courts to overthrow election results. We now have not just one but many US Rep's willing to post objections to slates of electors from battleground states but apparently they may have supporting senators.
I suspect we would all prefer not to spend too much time on that stuff as it scares the crap out of us. I also think we all know its going on and we probably believe that the system, so far, as rejected most of this stuff and they will continue to do so.
I, for one, hope so.... After all, we only have a president which a surprising amount of people tend to believe is insane. We also have something around 40% of the voting public who support the end of the United States democracy in favor of an insane leader. One can only wonder what's next!
I suspect we would all prefer not to spend too much time on that stuff as it scares the crap out of us.
and rightfully so
Think about this (and I hope it makes you as uneasy and uncomfortable as it does me), the polarization is so diametrical that in an election which has been counted, recounted, audited, and re-audited, then certified by every state, can, if there is but a small change of party affiliation in one house of Congress, actually overturn that election if anyone objects to the slate of electors from any of the states which Mr Trump lost. We, most likely will escape that result only because one house is controlled by the opposition party.
Now the kicker ... what this means is any political party in the future can now claim an election has been stolen and if the right political stars are aligned in Congress, that party can overturn the election.
and that is what should make each and everyone of us frightened of the possibility of political tyranny imposed by any party in power.
Now bow your head and pray to the great and almighty Mr trump savior of our democracy
There are actually all sorts of legal reasons why all Trump's coup nonsense is not going to happen. First of all, 49 states and DC certified their elections by December 8, the "safe harbor deadline". Congress is obligated by federal law to accept those elector slates. States can't "decertify" and substitute slates. Then the electors got together physically or online in each state on December 14th to record their votes. Then by December 23rd, all state certificates were received by the appropriate officials in DC.
The next step is January 6th, when Congress meets to count the electoral votes according to the state certificates. If a member of each house objects, they debate for a while, and then both houses vote on rejecting those state's certificates. If they both have simple majorities in favor of rejecting a state's certificate, then the coup could continue. But they won't. The votes are by individual members, and Democrats hold the House. But I'm pretty sure the Senate will vote to accept them as well. So all the state certificates will be accepted.
Then on January 20th, Biden becomes President, and Trump is arrested. On January 21st, all the congressional coup supporters are arrested and charged with treason. Nope, just kidding! That's what Trump would do. but not Democrats.
There are actually all sorts of legal reasons why all Trump's coup nonsense is not going to happen.
It's not about the law or the facts.
It is about a propaganda campaign which has convinced 50M people an election was stolen. The law ... the facts ... rational thinking are out the window. We have states which have been intimidated into doing additional audits, under the guise of fraud. This is not about a simple recount because it was close, but because a narcissist is incapable of accepting defeat and his ability to manipulate people into believing his delusion.
We have congressmen incapable of understanding the simple truth. No one has produced the names of over 500k fraudulent votes. The argument is simple ... there is no way Mr Trump could have lost because he is the greatest president ever, he is the savior etc etc. The only "evidence" anyone has produced is statistical "anomolies" which they believe is "proof" of fraudulent voting.
We now have a congressman with the intelligence of a snail, filing a suit which claims VP Pence can make his own decision of on which electors are legal. Are these people sane or rational????
What is more important is we have now entered the domain of banana republics. When an election does not go your way ... overthrow the duly elected government.
That there are very few people concerned has me more than concerned .... I am disturbed. Just think ... if there was a more compliant Senator and a few more votes in the House, we may very well be seeing ... in real time ... the birth of a dictatorship. If you think it couldn't happen in America ... you may very well be deluding yourself.
I am a encouraged by the fact that so many Red State governors and Republican-appointed judges have said "NO" to Trump's coup attempt. Yes, it's shocking that so many in congress are willing to destroy their political futures to go along with him. But he won't get a majority in either house of congress for his nonsense.
Sure, if a majority in both houses and enough governors and state legislators and judges all were willing to toss democracy out with the trash, then Trump could install himself as dictator. But a giant meteor could hit the Earth and kill all higher life forms too. That's actually happened before, unlike America becoming a dictatorship!
Literally thousands of things would have to be different for this coup to succeed, so I think it's rather silly to get worked up about that. It was way more likely that Trump could have done a little less self-sabotage and won reelection by getting more votes than Biden.
But a giant meteor could hit the Earth and kill all higher life forms too. That's actually happened before, unlike America becoming a dictatorship!
Well, to be fair, the CSA quickly devolved into a military dictatorship run from the seat of Jefferson Davis’ pants spiced up by any number of field commanders who did whatever they wanted (no matter how bad for the “overall plan”) mixed in with many who did whatever Davis told them (no matter how bad for the survival of the fighting force).
The Davis administration’s haphazard, chaotic, contradictory and inept performance - informed by heavy dollops of magical thinking - is very reminiscent of the current administration in o, so many ways.
Which political enemies did Democrats imprison over the last four years?
Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Stone, et al. The calls here for the arrest of President Trump were unceasing for his entire term. Hopes still run high that he and his family will be locked up in the near future.
yes yes ... of course it not only sounds preposterous that anyone could steal an election but ... well the law
Soooo ... there is the VP's gambit afoot.
Yes the law says can't happen and lots of scholars say no legal basis and all reasonable people say etc etc. Please note none of the people adhering and possibly implementing the gambit have said it can't happen. In fact the VP has not said anything.
So, if the gambit unfolds, VP Pence says that slate of electors is invalid, I select the Trump electors, who will stop him? Has anyone ever seen "the law" stop someone of committing a crime? So who exactly would say, stop, you can't do that? Sen McConnell? Certainly Sen Shumer and Rep Pelosi, but they would be out of order ... point of order please .... really .... and does anyone think VP Pence would come to his senses???? He has the backing of probably 125 House Republicans and a handful of Senators, who, may believe, the election WAS stolen by the evil, satanic Democrat cabal of pedophiles.
I am not sure anyone can stop the VP from doing this on Jan 6. This is why I have advocated from day 1 for ongoing suits to be filed to reach the SC and make rulings on what appears to me to be Constitutional issues which if they go unencumbered could and apparently have resulted in a possible Constitutional crisis. The Democrats would have to file a suit for a ruling on whether the VP could do what Rep Gohmert et al claim. I suspect Rep Gohmert has already tested his theory with the Trump appointed judge who will make a ruling on this and I suspect that judge will rule favorably for the plaintiff.
I have yet to see anyone recognize the possible result. Imagine, once a political party has gained control of the executive branch, all they would have to do is make any absurd claim (as justification) and let the VP select the next president or to say it another way, the party in power stays in power forever.
Do I think Republicans have any Constitutional common sense??? You know my answer.
Which political enemies did Democrats imprison over the last four years?
Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Stone, et al. The calls here for the arrest of President Trump were unceasing for his entire term. Hopes still run high that he and his family will be locked up in the near future.
Well, none of those people were tried and convicted by Democrats. They were tried by the Trump Dept. Of inJustice and convicted in federal courts.
Democrats agitated for impeachment and conviction of Trump for crimes committed while president. The impeachment happened but the conviction failed in the Senate after Republicans decided that they would not consider any evidence.
There continues to be state investigations of crimes Trump committed before he was president. Unless one feels that Trump should be granted a get out of jail free card for any and all crimes he may have committed, then I don’t see why these investigations should be considered partisan attacks on a blameless political opponent.
The FBI threshold for predication of an investigation is invariant. If you or I did the same thing as Mr Trump did or his campaign did, we also would have met that threshold and should have been investigated.
All I can say is, if you do a crime and think you are above the law, then you don't live in America.
They were tried by the Trump Dept. Of inJustice and convicted in federal courts.
As hard as republicans have tried to completely seize control of law enforcement and the courts over the last four years, they don't control everything. And what they don't control is under the control of democrats. There is no neutral faction. If Trump had been in control, none of his cronies would have ever been indicted.
It might surprise you how much politics affects the goings on within government...? Every one of those guys I mentioned were political hits carried out by a democratic party digging for dirt on Trump.
All I can say is, if you do a crime and think you are above the law, then you don't live in America.
And all I can say is, you're dreamin' pal. The rich seldom pay for their crimes. Donald Trump is too rich to be prosecuted. He's never had to worry about it because he's always been too rich to go to jail. Fines and legal fees are just part of doing business. Once you graduate to white collar crime you are, in fact, above the law.
They were tried by the Trump Dept. Of inJustice and convicted in federal courts.
It might surprise you how much politics affects the goings on within government...? Every one of those guys I mentioned were political hits carried out by a democratic party digging for dirt on Trump.
My eyes have been opened! No one is neutral. Everyone is a partisan. There are no honorable Americans. No one in this country ever does anything because it is the right thing to do; all actions are only ever done after calculating what is best politically.
I’m encouraged to hear that all these men are and have always been as pure as the driven snow and did not commit any crimes. I’ve also been disabused of the delusion that Robert Mueller has been a life-long Republican. I’m also impressed at at how good the evil Democrats are at assuring only Democrats ever run Dept. of Justice investigations and only Democratic judges are ever assigned to trials against Republicans.
There are no crimes if you are involved in politics.
All’s fair in politics! (Except prosecution of crimes).
Point is not that these men are innocent. But that Democrats shout just a gleefully about locking up their political rivals as the Republicans.
The difference between the parties is so slight anymore that it's barely worth mentioning. The Democrats are not the "good" guys, Republicans not the "bad" guys.
I've spent a lifetime backing Democrats in the belief that they were the party of the working man. Minimum wage still $7.25. Healthcare unaffordable. Education a road to a lifetime of debt.
Red koolaid, blue koolaid...it all tastes the same.
I’m sorry for those who see no difference between the current manifestations of America’s political parties.
Are there similarities? Sure. Does that make them equivalent? I don’t think so. Or maybe I should consider tigers and house cats as the same? Or a murderer and a shoplifter?
Republicans have spent the last 50 years persecuting and prosecuting Democrats for non-existent crimes. Which, of course, is just the same as prosecuting Republicans for actual crimes.
Democrats fight for more access to health care, higher minimum wages, stronger unions, more spending on infrastructure and education, better universal voting. Republicans fight tooth and nail against all of those things. But the parties are so alike no one can tell the difference.
I think you are absolutely right on this one. Trump, for instance, has never made a dime on his golf courses and is trying to sell his interest in that hotel he leases from the gov. He had a huge amount in his initial 2020 campaign but that was stolen by family and friends (I think there are several investigations into that one).
Basically Trump is an economic disaster. There is no evidence he has a dime to his name and all public information is just more and more notifications of Trump failures. He has duly helped all his friends. I wonder if his friends are going to help him out or if they have already and not likely to spend any more. We all know Trump is leaving a mess for Biden to deal with. He is also leaving an incredible mess for Trump to deal with too! He is, basically, your genuine American Failure that works hard at being just that. As far as I can tell he fails at marriage, his kids are dependent failures, his businesses are a joke and. as far as I can tell, the greatest deal maker the world has ever seen has yet to make a single deal.
That's what all this BS is about: Keeping the con going to squeeze the maximum amount of money out of the marks. He's on the rail, coated in tar and feathers, still asking for money.
Similar to the ‘Ditch Mitch’ con. Democrats running wall to wall ads to flip the senate without ever giving a reason what that would accomplish other than ‘flipping that senate’.
No policy proposals, no public goods. Just getting a majority for majorities sake. An empty campaign harvesting millions while offering nothing but consumer brand celebration.
I’m sorry for those who see no difference between the current manifestations of America’s political parties.
Are there similarities? Sure. Does that make them equivalent? I don’t think so. Or maybe I should consider tigers and house cats as the same? Or a murderer and a shoplifter?
Republicans have spent the last 50 years persecuting and prosecuting Democrats for non-existent crimes. Which, of course, is just the same as prosecuting Republicans for actual crimes.
Democrats fight for more access to health care, higher minimum wages, stronger unions, more spending on infrastructure and education, better universal voting. Republicans fight tooth and nail against all of those things. But the parties are so alike no one can tell the difference.
I don't think we should sugarcoat or equivocate about what is going on with this contingent of the Republican Party. This is fascism at play, here, without hyperbole. That is fundamentally different than anything Democrats have ever done (including, historically, the Civil War). Fascism is "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control". That is, literally, what is going on here. It's a minority of the minority trying to maintain/seize power, just like Hitler did in Germany.
He is, and he is getting the bucks. The question is what is going to happen to it. He has surrounded himself with utter greed. His children - greed, those he appoints - greed. Those he hires to manage the money - serious greed. The part about it all is that he actually seems to be happy with his efforts being ripped off.
There are a lot of people trying to justify and legitimize what he does. What's almost interesting is that, at the same time, they are providing themselves with fancy cars, living space, etc. Trump is, basically, a poster child for greed.
All that being said there remain those determined to 'help' him by giving him money AND support. They all mind, they all don't wear masks, and they all believe every word that comes out of the Trump Trumpet. I don't think they will remain, however, once they have no more money they are useless to the man. OH, and on their way through life they are likely to also be victims of Covid-19 (which they will continue to deny whilst they are actually dying from it!) I fully expect he will gather others. The current Qanon folk, for instance, seem like good targets. They believe in bullsh*t, to a doting extent, just for starters. A better bunch of determined victims is hard to even imagine!
I see Trump was recorded on a call asking SecState of Georgia Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough Trump votes to overturn the Georgia election. That would be a felony in Georgia, so Raffensperger wisely refused. But it's also a felony in Georgia to ask an official to do that. Same penalty, even.
So if Georgia ever decides to follow the rule of law, Trump has another felony charge against him. There are actually quite a few people who have violated this law. It will be interesting to see if there is any effort to enforce it.
I suspect the Republican Party has self-destructed for a decade or two. Trumpists will win primaries, but lose elections for quite a few years until they come to their senses and realize Americans don't want fascism. I predict loss of future general elections for most of the Senators and Reps voting to overturn the election on Wednesday. They are just too short-sighted to see that.
I’m sorry for those who see no difference between the current manifestations of America’s political parties.
And I'm sorry for those who think Democrats are going to do anything. Because they aren't. They kowtow to our corporate overlords just like the other centrist party. Yes, they pretend they are going to deliver better healthcare and higher wages and a 10% discount on you student loan. But in the end none of it will happen...it's just talk.
Democrats fight for more access to health care, higher minimum wages, stronger unions, more spending on infrastructure and education, better universal voting. Republicans fight tooth and nail against all of those things. But the parties are so alike no one can tell the difference.
Hilarious!
Banking and telecommunication modernization acts, NAFTA, killing single payer option for a conservative think tank scheme, crushing its left flank, refusing to pass card check, pro war, pro empire, pro incarceration, etc, etc...
The Democratic Party would be more progressive, if they didn't have to compromise with Blue Dogs and moderate Republicans to pass laws. But those folks exist, and they need some of their votes to pass bills. They don't get to march Republicans out back and shoot them.
Democrats in congress are NOT just like the Republicans, but they can't just ignore them. If the Senate seats go to the Democrats, then the whole government has a chance of fixing some things that were broken. If not, then Biden and the Democrats will be severely hobbled.
We shall see on Tuesday, or maybe a few days later. Considering all of Trump's efforts, the result might be clear on Tuesday night.
For the past two days all that has been on is the Trump phone call. I fully expect that this, and other things are going to be investigated under Biden. If Trump broke any laws he will be persecuted. In addition to that the manufacturer of the voting machines he has maligned will be suing Trump for the big bucks as well.
Trump, as far as I can tell, believes that nobody would dare. I have faith that nobody is going to dare anything but they will nail him for breaking any laws (if he goes). If he doesn't go then there is going to be real interesting times for our entertainment.
Hundreds of people and companies "have dared" to sue him. They usually win a settlement with an NDA. That's why the suits disappear and you never hear about the outcome. There is no question about him breaking laws. He did, both federal and state laws, so even if he resigned and had Pence pardon him it would not save him.
But I doubt he will resign. It's just something he wouldn't do, even if it is the smart thing. Congress might still have to impeach him, if he tries something outrageous like a military coup. Did anybody know he can even be impeached after leaving office, just to disqualify him from any future office? I was surprised to learn that.
He thinks he can direct the military to do anything he wants, because he has replaced a few people at the top with his toadies. His ringers are idiots if they believe career military men would follow illegal orders. Those high-ranking officers didn't get to their ranks by being stupid. The military has one of the most intense performance review infrastructures in our society. They know illegal orders when they see them. And they know they swore an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, not to Donnie.
I bet he could order ICBM launches right now and nothing would happen.
The military has one of the most intense performance review infrastructures in our society. They know illegal orders when they see them. And they know they swore an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, not to Donnie.
Yes, I agree in the main. Pardoned criminal Lt. Gen. Flynn (ret.) being a recent, notable exception.
Beg to differ, the dishonorable Flynn, the betrayer, was a civilian when he betrayed the country. Now, if this dishonorable betrayer betrayed his oath, he probably did, in the military is an unknown to me.
I just hope that a later pentagon will recall the dishonorable betrayer, investigate and courts-martial and if found guilty dishonorably cashiered. As an officer, the dishonorable betrayer can be recalled to active duty.
Finally, to me, as a dishonorable betrayer Flynn does not deserve the honorifics of Lt. Gen and retired, and they should be stripped from him.
I think you are right. I also noticed that every living secretary of defense released a letter saying that its a REALLY bad idea to involve the military in politics. That seemed to come out of the blue and the only reason I could imagine is that somebody has been sniffing around the military.
Hopefully that will be the end of it. Trump has also requested that all white supremacists (not expressed that way) merge on Washington, DC tomorrow night. Oh, and Washington, D.C. have called out the National Guard for that night as well.
I suspect its fairly obvious that Trump is trying something. The question is whether it succeeds or not.
Trump supporters are preparing the election to be handed to the true winner, Mr Trump.
Talking heads keep saying Mr Trump knows he lost, but I disagree. If he actually thought he had lost, we would have found him whimpering in some dark corner, his delusions had been shattered and he had disassociated. I am convinced he actually believes he won, and the evil empire is trying to steal his election win from him.
Some 150 Republicans in Congress are the powder keg, willing to blow themselves up for a narcissistic faux dictator. The talking heads continue to lament the fate of Republicans but I believe this will not affect their standing nor change their power.
I believe we will be witnesses to the first tectonic political change in the demise of our Democracy. I send condolences to my fellow American patriots as we watch the end of democracy.
I think this does mark a tectonic political change, but that change will be the end of the Republican Party in presidential races for a couple of decades at least. The Party will split into Fascists and Republicans. The Fascists will win Republican primaries, but then lose the general election. As long as Democrats don't go hog-wild with a Socialist candidate, the Democrats and Independents will vote to defeat the crazy Fascist.
When enough young people who don't remember Trump and his mishandling of pretty much everything become voters, then maybe the Republicans will be back.
the [ed death] of the Republican Party in presidential races for a couple of decades
To grossly paraphrase this famous quote .... The reports of [ed the Republican Party's] death are greatly exaggerated
Yes everyone who is not a Republican has said it is the end of the Republican Party for several years now as Mr Trump obliterated all standards of propriety and leveled the monuments of our democratic institutions to their foundation. Now he is trying to turn those very bulwarks into rubble, but None of this matters to the base.
P likes to type about the numbers and how the independents will determine elections. I like to type my belief the American electorate is, for the most part, ignorant. Add the ingredient of some 75M people who voted for the most offensive person to have ever occupied the WH and the belief of some 50M of those that the election was rigged with rampant voter fraud perpetrated by Democrat Party cabal of baby eating satanists and we should conclude there is no lock on the proposition Democrats should win the general election for at least a decade or two.
The next election will be even more hotly contested and will be equally as close. The media likes to say stuff like yippee Georgia is flipped. I am looking at it like it is a one off at this time. Many if not most of the solid red states will remain red for decades. All it takes for another populist poseur to win is to kiss a few independents and Democrat/liberals fail to turn out to vote and voila .... we have another Trump. I would hope this would be the end of thus fascist nonsense, but I suspect (since I have been wrong many times on similar issues) it will take at least 2 or possibly 3 generations for these ideas to be relegated to the archives.
I predict no matter how much evidence is presented by investigators on the integrity of the election, Trump's Base will still not accept it as valid. I also predict none of the Senators and Congressmen who are objecting to the certified slates will correct the record.
Well, today is when all the fun starts. Trump has called all the White Nationalists together today. When I left the TV they said that Trump was marching, with his supporters, on Congress. They said he has a right to go to congress and speak on the floor. I think this means that he will fill the bleachers with loud supporters and then give a 2 hour speech all about how everybody hates him, nobody likes him (except), and how hard he has worked to try and save America from itself.
When I left the TV they were broadcasting congress and I could see that would go on for hours and nothing would really happen except everybody gets to talk (ON TV!) Speculation is that they can probably keep going for several days. A veritable passel of liars and cheats selling themselves to those of the American public willing to listen.
I keep thinking, and hoping, that the American public would treat Trump just like they do any other TV show that is done and losing support. I still think that's gonna happen but I gotta give trump credit for understanding his supporters about as good as anybody with a TV show. I have also noticed that TV has reduced giving Trump as much exposure for free. Time will tell?
It's already gotten interesting because one House member objected to seating a number of representatives because their state election was fraudulent. The House voted almost 100% that those members must be seated because their state elections were not fraudulent. Just about every House member is on record as saying all the state's elections were legitimate. So now if they claim a state's election was NOT legitimate, they have a problem. Would that be grounds for perjury under oath before congress?
Seems that while Trump was leading supporters to congress he abandoned them. They continued to march and so they shut down congress instead. The above link also has pictures of the supporters. As far as I can tell the supporters, at least some, were dressed in costumes as well!
I think the DC authorities were crazy not to have the National Guard surrounding the Capital with live ammo today. When the President of the US is inciting riots against Congress, Congress needs to impeach him immediately. Hopefully that will be their first order of business as soon as they clear out his goons and get back to their joint session.
Welp, right-wingers have always insisted that “republic” and “democracy” are antonyms, but they’ve rarely been so .... vivid in their demonstration of the belief that “republic” and “authoritarian kleptocracy” are synonyms.
I hope the fear when windows started breaking and they had to flee to the bomb shelter, will make some of those Trumptard congress people realize what they have created. Fouling your breeches is usually enough to make sane people reconsider things.
Good to hear there is a lot of Amendment 25 and immediate Impeachment talk out there. You know it's only going to get worse, and he's got 14 days left.
Yes, President Donald (Coward, Traitor, Misogynist, Demagogue, Criminal, Serial Predator, Adulterer, Draft Dodger, Narcissist, Liar, Thief, Grifter, Incompetent, Bully, Braggart, Loser, failed Con-man, Fraudster, Seditionist, Insurrectionist, Wanted by Interpol, etc.) Trump* could be impeached in two or three days and maybe this time enough republican cowards will have the courage to convict, thus ending President Donald (...) Trump's* attempted second term in 2024.
On the bright side, he could make the claim of being the first President to hold two impeachments in his first term...
Yes, President Donald (Coward, Traitor, Misogynist, Demagogue, Criminal, Serial Predator, Adulterer, Draft Dodger, Narcissist, Liar, Thief, Grifter, Incompetent, Bully, Braggart, Loser, failed Con-man, Fraudster, Seditionist, Insurrectionist, Wanted by Interpol, etc.) Trump* could be impeached in two or three days and maybe this time enough republican cowards will have the courage to convict, thus ending President Donald (...) Trump's* attempted second term in 2024.
On the bright side, he could make the claim of being the first President to hold two impeachments in his first term... * Impeached
A Senate trial could certainly be expedited, now that we know it's unnecessary to hear any evidence.
NONE of this makes any sense. The Washington DC mayor said that she had called out the national guard first thing in the morning! Then they said that they weren't there because nobody asked them to be there. After that there was more baloney. One can only wonder if what happened is that before Trump made his little talk about how he would lead them to the congress he told his supporters not to worry and then told the national guard to stand back and everything will be dandy.
Now there are going to be several investigations - interesting times.
Oh, I saw several of the rioters walking out of the congressional buildings with tables, chairs, papers, etc.
Trump has less than 2 weeks. I have no idea how anybody can keep him in check as there is no time for that. At the very least the congress should pass a law banning Trump from any and all runs for public office. There has to be some way to do that as the man is working, very hard, to destroy the nation.
I continue to wonder. Once he leaves the White House I wonder - will he go directly to Russia to retire?
I can hardly stop laughing long enough to type. Fits of giggles, y'know?
I mean honestly. Sedition. Insurrection. Pelosi has called for his removal. Impeachment articles have been circulated. Cabinet members resigning.
These folks are looking like the biggest fools on the planet.
You can't make sh*it like this up. We knew he'd go out in a blaze of glory, but we never could have imagined anything as truly delightful as the last 24 hours.
Oddly enough, I take no delight in the fact that a plurality of Republicans think the election was rigged and what happened yesterday was just fine and dandy.
One nice side effect is that there is going to be much less resistance to prosecution of Trump after he leaves office. There is also going to be a lot of scrutiny looking at the DC police agencies who let that happen, and much less benefit for the congressional insurrection caucus in future elections.
Less resistance to the prosecution of Trump, probably true. Investigations up the ying yang, probably true again. But by 2022, all of this will have become ancient history. Heck, come 31 January, outside of the investigations most Americans will have completely forgot about all of this outside of political junkies. Some other issue will be the topic of the day, become the hot issue having replaced the D.C. riots. That's just the way things work. Most Americans have a very short memory span.
Everything thing, every happening always seems to be a game changer, but two weeks later, that supposedly game changer is forgotten replaced by something else. Everything reverts to the way it was before the supposedly game changing event even happened.
I don't blame them. I don't think history will be very kind to Trump. It didn't take me long into his presidency to figure out Trump was in this for Trump and not the country. I think the D.C. riot was a fitting end to his presidency. That will probably be the defining moment of how history reflects on his presidency.
Kind of like Nixon, everyone remembers Watergate and little else about his presidency. Nixon opened up Red China, created detente, established the EPA, OSHA, the Endangered Species Act, was all for affirmative actions, funds for education and more. Take away Watergate, you probably had a pretty good president for his time. Too bad he was so paranoid.
Trump has done none of those and accomplished little. From a paranoid to an egotist, a very thin skinned egotist at that among other things.
Its unlikely to happen. On the other hand it gives them that just want it to go away (like Nixon) reasons for Trump to just quit and go away rather than going through more humiliation. Given his mental problems I wouldn't be surprised to see him suicide.
He is learning the hard way that everybody does NOT love him!
The good thing about all of this is that it looks as if we are going to lose our National Jackass!
I think most of the Trump supporters are going lose interest when they see him being humiliated every day for the rest of his life. They don't like losers, just like Trump didn't like soldiers who get captured or killed.
It takes quite a lot to get a party faithful or an avid candidate supporter to turn against them. Back in 1974 you still had 50% of Republicans and 25% of independents who thought Nixon had been railroaded out of office by the Democrats for partisan means. That Nixon was innocent. This was back in the day when both parties respected each other and for the most part worked together calmly. Before the modern era of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisanship.
Not much has changed in folks view of Trump. All Adults, on 3 Jan 43.9% approved of the job Trump was doing, today, 9 Jan that has dropped to just 43.3%. Same dates, Republicans 87% and 85%. Democrats 6% and today, 4%. Independents, 39% and today 34%. Now it takes a week or so after an event, happening for it to become baked into the poll numbers.
Job approval isn't holding Trump accountable for the D.C. riot, but it does show how folks view him as a whole. Those numbers would have more meaning a week from now.
Now here's something else since the House is starting impeachment process. Some 57% of Americans think Trump should leave office as soon as possible instead of serving out the remaining 12 days of his term, according to an Ipsos/Reuters poll conducted Thursday and Friday (14% want impeachment, 30% want his Cabinet to remove him by invoking the 25th Amendment and 13% want him to resign).
Although 57% want Trump removed immediately, the means vary. Those who want impeachment for example may not want Trump removed by resigning or another means. One never knows of these things.
Sometimes one must read deep into the polls. An example of this is gun control. To the question of issue importance, 52% list gun control as very important, 25% somewhat important for a total 77%. Just looking at that, one would think or assume 77% of all Americans want more gun control. But wait, put the question another way, do you think we should have more gun control legislation. 43% say yes, 44% say no, they want less or for it to remain the same.
On impeachment, I think the House should go ahead and impeach Trump even though the senate probably won't have time for a trial. That would make Trump the only president to have been impeached twice. Something for historians to think about in the future.
Trump supporters believe he is their savior ... savior of America, because it is their America ... he is their voice in the swamp of everything not them. Attacking him ... pursuing him criminally .... politically ... only enhances his standing as their savior. Think Jesus Christ vis a vis Donald J Trump.
Something for historians to think about in the future.
Yes
Mr Trump is the aberration. He and his administration will go down as one of the most significant in history. In addition, party complicity will bring into sharp relief just how close we were to one political party overthrowing a duly, legally elected president.
I don't think it has sunk in yet just how close we were to having an election overthrown. Imagine if Republicans controlled all three branches of government. What would have stopped them from throwing out every slate of electors with which they did not like? An objection in writing signed by both a Senator and a Rep. 2 hours of debate for which both houses would concur. voila ... Trump 4 more years.
You may say but but but ... the law. Yep ... and I say did you see all the nuts pounding on the doors, breaking windows, yelling for blood at the Capitol?
While we saw many courts throw out these fake suits on "fraud", would you bet your life on the SC doing the right thing should a suit be brought? Remember the words VP Pence said for counting electors ... check authenticity and format. When it goes to SC to which law would you cite? Looks like a Constitutional process to me.
From reading it, I think it should go ahead and impeach Trump. By doing so the senate via a majority vote could disbar or forbid Trump from holding any federal office in the future.
Read the 14th Amendment, Section 3: He's already disqualified himself from running again. His actions have done it. It requires nothing from Congress or any court.
I havent seen all the facts but I don't think it matters that much, as we should be getting a pretty good view of what happened. I think I said it before .... Mr Trump is capable of anything, and one of the things for which he would do is .... BURN DOWN THE HOUSE
and if you think it's over ... he will be a martyr for THE BASE ... the Trump Base. These 50M people will be around a while. Imagine right wing extremism getting more virulent. 50 State Houses on the list .... only the beginning
Remember when I asked the question, what would happen if the military supported Mr Trump? Well Jan 6 somewhat answered that question. There were members of GOP Congressional staff who aided and abetted the insurrection. There were members of police and fire departments supporting the insurrection. There were ex-military supporting the insurrection.
Gen Milley and JC's had to issue a memo alerting the military they were not to participate in any illegal or seditious activities, especially related to Trump's insurrection. Why would they feel the necessity of doing that unless there was an element of the military which supported the insurrection.
I feel compelled and justified in speculating there was a real possibility of Trump sympathizers in law enforcement and the military who if they had participated would have easily overrun the capitol and controlled it. What then???
When you think back to this day, you will wonder just how close we were to a real disruption in control of the government, if not a successful coup.
The problem with that one is that you gotta prove it and I am not sure that will happen. Trump is, right now, trying to prove he didn't do that with Trump Sweetness and Light.
Its strange. My wife tells me that she saw a video of the Trump family watching the riot occur wherein they were all pretty happy with what was happening. I have not seen it as it seems to have gone away. The 14th would stand a chance if there actually was a video like that.
The 14th Amendment is pretty all-inclusive. It says you are guilty even if you just "give aid or comfort" to the actual insurrectionists. Trump tweeted out that he loved them and they were special people, after the insurrection. That sure sounds like "aid and comfort" to me. Even more so if he pardons any of them.
Lots of Democratic pols are now talking about the 14th Amendment. I think if anything gets to federal court, the judges will decide the 14th applies.
As for proof in court, it may be difficult to prove Trump incited it, but a slam-dunk to prove he failed in his duty to end it. He had a legal obligation to protect Congress, and he just watched it on TV and blocked attempts to help them. As a result, people died. Once again: "Aid or comfort".
We know a number of law enforcement/military people were engaged in the insurrection. We know far right militias have for years been trying to recruit military people into their ranks. Now suppose we have just 10% of the 25k NG in Washington who are members and are willing to overthrow the government are employed on the 20th to open the barricades to protesters/rioters/insurrectionists. These could be the real martyrs. Laying down their lives to incite a national insurrection. No false flag .... that's real blood in the streets. Of 50M people, how many would be willing to join the effort? Remember we have currently serving elected Congresspeople who aided and abetted the Capitol Insurrection of 2021.
Just saw a blurb ... some 23 police officers are being investigated by the FBI as possibly involved with the insurrection. Turns out my guess of 10% is off a magnitude as the USCO is about 2300 strong.
So to rephrase your honors ... is 250 soldiers enough to cause chaos and induce a response of extreme prejudice? Martyrs all to the bankrupt confidence game played by Mr Trump.
So 1% of any force guarding buildings or the inauguration is corrupt. But most important, that 1% is unlikely to be concentrated at any one place. For each one who might help insurrectionists or assassins, there are 99 others there to stop them. And now it's widely known that they are there, so the 99 will not fail to act.
I think the extremists have ALWAYS claimed to have much larger numbers than they do. Sure, they may have 39% of the people generally approving off President Trump, but how many of those are willing to come to Washington DC at his behest? How many of the crowd outside the Capital were devoted (or stupid) enough to break in?
I think their ranks are going to fit in the federal prison system, and as more of them get arrested, their ranks will get a lot thinner fast.
Remember when I asked the question, what would happen if the military supported Mr Trump? Well Jan 6 somewhat answered that question. There were members of GOP Congressional staff who aided and abetted the insurrection. There were members of police and fire departments supporting the insurrection. There were ex-military supporting the insurrection.
...also current national guard and military was at the insurrection.
I talk a lot about comfort zones effecting elections, I was comfortable with every president I personally experienced in my lifetime since IKE. I was born right after WWII, so I can't remember Truman, too Young. That is, I was comfortable with every president until Trump. Trump I wasn't. He was in it for himself and only himself. Not for the country or even his political party.
I was comfortable with G.W being president. I think he did somethings wrong, but that has been the case with every president in my lifetime. I'll add beginning with Eisenhower/Stevenson, I also would have been comfortable with every losing presidential candidate also with the exception of McGovern and Hillary Clinton. Hence my vote for Johnson against both Trump and Clinton.
You have seen in books and movies plots to overthrow the government from Manchurian candidates (in Mr Trump's case, a Russian candidate with intentions to destroy America from within) to JC cabal intent on subverting and overthrowing the government.
We are now in the uncharted territory of that fictional world where the FBI has alerted relevant entities of the possibility of a Qanon styled op designed on the German's Operation Grief.
We have already had sedition and insurrection prosecuted in and around the Capitol. Who would have thunk it just a few short months ago?
That's the trouble with basing everything on statistics of past races. We really were in uncharted territory. Old "knowns" like Republicans being extremely anti-Russian, law-and-order, and Pat Nixon's "good Republican cloth coat" were out the window.
Their future looks pretty bleak right now. If they can pull off a revival to traditional Republican values, they might be able to return. Might help them if Trump was in prison or dead. Otherwise, the Patriot Party and Republicans are going to split the Right vote and elect Democrats as far as the eye can see.
Time will tell what happens in the future. It's a lot tougher than one thinks in establishing a new party and getting that new party on all the state ballots. I went though that once with Perot and the Reform Party.
It might actually be a good thing if the GOP did split. Trump's family business is losing millions since 6 Jan D.C. riot. From anywhere from losing a PGA event to banks saying they'll do no more business with him. Trump may not have that much time for politics if he wants to get or keep his family business on solid ground once more.
Nice to meet you perotista. I'm not surprised that you would be uncomfortable with McGovern, but with Hillary Clinton compared to Rump?
I am shocked, however, by your claiming to have been comfortable with all other post-WWII losing presidential candidates. Purrhaps you may have overlooked the most successful third party candidate of our lifetimes, George Wallace, or at least I hope so!
Nice to meet you perotista. I'm not surprised that you would be uncomfortable with McGovern, but with Hillary Clinton compared to Rump?
I am shocked, however, by your claiming to have been comfortable with all other post-WWII losing presidential candidates. Purrhaps you may have overlooked the most successful third party candidate of our lifetimes, George Wallace, or at least I hope so!
TAT
I was talking about major party candidates. Being an old Georgia boy, it's hard to over look Wallace. Wallace did receive 13.5% of the total vote, but he was basically a regional candidate. Perot received 18.9% in 1992. Wallace did get 46 electoral votes, all in the south, Perot, none.
Now my disdain for both both major party candidates in 2016 caused me to vote third party, against both. I actually never heard of Trump until he announced for the presidency in 2015. I'm no fan of reality TV. I watch my baseball games, the History, Science, Discovery and a few other channels now and then.
It didn't take me long to dislike Trump, Trump basically accusing McCain of being a bad military man because he got caught, that was the end for him as far as my vote went. I've been a military man all my adult life. 21 years active duty, 26 years working for the army as a department of the army civilian.
So I tend to look at a lot of things different than civilians. Now I was uncomfortable with McGovern because of his politics, not the man. I respected George McGovern, he was a WWII bomber pilot. I just couldn't accept running up the white flag. Little did I know then that Nixon would basically do the same thing in the form of the Paris Peace Accords. With Trump, it was the man himself I was uncomfortable with. No respect for him.
Tat, Pero is a single issue voter...his entire ideology is based on his perceived treatment of the military by politicians. He imagines that Madam Clinton was rude to the boys in uniform as Bill Clinton's first lady, thus disqualifying herself for the office of President.
I spent a lifetime in residential construction, I base my opinions about politicos entirely on how they treat workers, are they pro union? Education? Healthcare? Living wages? Safe workplaces?
Most union guys are Republican's these days. Unions are just another level of corruption. Unions poured money into Trump's campaign.
Chunks might be a labor unionist but I'm not. Living wages need to be legislated, not "bargained for" with billionaires. There should be, in this day and age, no need for unions. Their time has passed.
That fundamental tension between Clinton and the president would continue to be a defining feature of her four-year tenure as secretary of state. In the administration’s first high-level meeting on Russia in February 2009, aides to Obama proposed that the United States make some symbolic concessions to Russia as a gesture of its good will in resetting the relationship. Clinton, the last to speak, brusquely rejected the idea, saying, “I’m not giving up anything for nothing.” Her hardheadedness made an impression on Robert Gates, the defense secretary and George W. Bush holdover who was wary of a changed Russia. He decided there and then that she was someone he could do business with.
“I thought, This is a tough lady,” he told me.
Robert Gates thought she was an upfront serious hawk, but what did he know about military culture anyway? I was worried at the time, like many, that she was too hawkish for our taste. Retrospectively it seems she was about right, and was very tight with the military when she was Secretary of State. (see attached long Article). It's curious that this was not more widely appreciated in military culture.
In fact, many attribute Putin's preference for Rump, was that he knew Hillary would be tough on Russia and give him a hard time. He was also correct in predicting that he could freely manipulate Rump, which actually sounds a bit kinky!
Living wages need to be legislated, not "bargained for" with billionaires. There should be, in this day and age, no need for unions. Their time has passed.
The problem with those "bargains" these days is that they just represent more division between the "Haves" and the "Don't Haves". A few people make out and the others pay more for whatever the Unionists produce.
But that's only the compensation angle... there are still workplace issues that unions can help to solve.
Greger may have worked in construction for a long time, but he ended up running a construction business in Florida: Thus little enthusiasm for trade unions. But I do agree with him. Unions benefitted workers by increasing their incomes and security. But there are multiple strata of people below that level in our society. Unions did nothing for them, and made upward mobility more difficult.
Sure, a poor young man could go to trade school and then apprentice into a union. But he had to survive during that training program, and then wait in line behind all the legacies. Being a son of a union member was a great "in".
The $15 minimum wage could actually help those people a lot more.
I think the $15 minimum wage would be a good thing but I don't think its gonna make it. I do think there will be an increase though. I have had problems with business and unions for a very long time. One of the problem with unions is the same problem that politics has - both tend to go too damned far. I remember, for instance, when the auto workers pulled their members out because General Motors refused to pay for magazine subscriptions for the bathrooms. They lost a lot of memberships when union management just went too far. I de-certified two unions at a time when it was almost impossible but it was also a time when union members figured out that their dues were just waaaay too much.
I am not sure that just about everybody, at one time or another, tend to go waaay to far. That is true of individuals as well as groups and businesses. The simple fact, I think, is that going too far is something that everybody should watch out for because, in the end, it tends to really put those involved into the exit line. Gods need worshippers and unions need happy members. When they lose those they also lose (some to extinction).
Tat, Pero is a single issue voter...his entire ideology is based on his perceived treatment of the military by politicians. He imagines that Madam Clinton was rude to the boys in uniform as Bill Clinton's first lady, thus disqualifying herself for the office of President.
I spent a lifetime in residential construction, I base my opinions about politicos entirely on how they treat workers, are they pro union? Education? Healthcare? Living wages? Safe workplaces?
Or are they just hoping to make your boss richer?
Greger, that may be, maybe not though. I always ask the question would this country be better off once a candidate leaves office than when a candidate first enters office. I really don't have a litmus test on the issues.
In the case of 2016, I came to the conclusion that this country would be worst off no matter who won between Trump and Clinton. Hence my vote against both of them which 9 million others did the same.
Now I don't belong to either major party, when pushed for a party affiliation I will eventually tell them the Reform Party although no longer active in Georgia. I'm a swing voter, which some refer to as an independent. But looking back on 2016, at independents, I'm wasn't alone in not liking Hillary Clinton. Question 10. Favorability of Candidates – Hillary Clinton, 27% of all independents view her favorably, 70% unfavorably. Question 11. Favorability of Candidates – Donald Trump, he wasn't liked by independent either, 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable. Hence Trump won the independent vote and the white house.
Now that wasn't a surprise to me at all. Back in Feb 2016 a poll showed 56% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone other than Hillary Clinton. The Democrats didn't listen to America as a whole, which was their right. Democrats nominate the Democratic Candidate, not all Americans. But all Americans determine who wins in the general.
I firmly believe almost any other Democrat, alive or dead, would have trounced Trump in 2016. I know it's hard for any avid supporter of a candidate to understand how much their candidate was disliked by other Americans. Their avid supporters won't even acknowledge it. They can't see it, they're blind in their support.
I like the way a friend of mine summed up the 2016 presidential election, We elected the devil we didn't know, Trump, a businessman, a TV reality show host, no one knew how he would govern over the devil we knew, everyone knew exactly how Hillary would govern. We threw the dice in electing the devil we didn't know over the devil we did.
Perhaps you have it there, a vast majority of Americans viewing each major party candidate as the devil of some sorts except their avid supporters.
It's very hard to defend the case that the country would be worse off if Hillary was elected, regardless of unfavorable polls. No politician has ever had the kind of continuous virulent attacks, over decades than Hillary! Repeat the lies long enough and they become truth to the, how should I phrase it, less intellectually informed populace.
Having a Black President, who did pretty well with the GOP mess he inherited, promoted the merging of white nationalist/racists and threatened misogynists, that now threaten the democracy of the Nation! Maybe a President H. Clinton would have promoted misogyny, but probably not racism, but I could be wrong, after all Bill did claim to be the first Black President!
Quote
It really does beg an answer doesn’t it? The hatred towards Hillary Clinton does not on its face make sense. If we consider how thoroughly Mrs. Clinton’s background has been scrutinized in efforts to discredit her, what is remarkable is how little scandalous material her opponents have found.
She is clearly not a “crooked” politician and using a personal email account does not rank up there with the great scandals of Presidential politics.
But regardless of how one feels about what her opponents do allege none of it is the kind of stuff that would be expected to generate the intensity of the hatred they express towards her. And yet people so hate Hillary Clinton that almost half of all Americans are voting for a man who is widely considered the most unqualified and even dangerous person ever to run for the Presidency. So just how do we explain it?
Quote
As I explained in my book, State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind (St. Martin’s Press, 2008) if we threaten people in the areas of sexual identity, then swamp them with feelings of envy and paranoia we can do a pretty good job of disabling their mental apparatus. They then become irrational and vulnerable to a demagogue who appears strong and promises to deliver them from their panic. This is what has been done to the American political right.
The American mind has been under assault in all three of these areas, and Hillary’s candidacy has become the perfect lightening rod for the trifecta of sexual confusion, envy, and paranoia that is assaulting it. As a society we are not paying enough attention to the combined impact of these forces especially the impact they are having on the most psychologically vulnerable.
Quote
Of course, for a nation in which millions of white men are terrified that to lose their gun is to lose their masculine security, having a woman President is very threatening. This is especially true when they have just learned, quite conclusively, that an African American man can make a better President than they can. White men who are hating Hillary so irrationally are terrified that they will lose the significant scaffolding that artificially inflated and discriminatory sexual stereotypes play in their very core self-definition. The more destabilized they feel by this, the worse the problem becomes.
Losing special status is painful, unpleasant, and shamefully exposing. Naturally, most men who feel this way do not acknowledge or even understand the feeling. It becomes an inchoate feeling of dislike for Hillary, a feeling-state awaiting explanation. With millions of American males needing to explain their hatred of her to themselves, any alleged flaw will do, real or imagined, to “explain” their visceral reaction. Thus, whatever is thrown against Hillary tends to stick. No politician in our lifetime has had more false or trivial accusations stick against her than Hillary Clinton.
Its really pretty simple. Hillary allowed people to lie about her, and accuse her of stuff for about 40 years without once defending herself. I consider her a living saint! The Republicans, on the other hand, worked very hard to demonize her. They are the true experts at demonization. Not only that but, over the years, the lies and accusations got more and more crazy. She now, apparently, eats babies.
I think the real question is "who has been demonized by the Republicans?" (there should be a list someplace)
For most independents elections are beauty contests. They vote for who they like and against who they don't. In 2016 it was simply obnoxious over aloof and elitist, although indies didn't like nor want either one.
In 2020 it was the adult in the room over obnoxious. But I think will all the excuses I see here for Hillary proves that an avid supporter of any candidate can never admit their candidate was disliked and unwanted.
Perhaps another point, if the Republicans demonized Hillary to the point Trump could beat her, they tried the same demonization on Biden. It worked in the case of Hillary, but failed miserably on Biden.
It seems as of the moment, Republican candidates that back Trump would win the GOP primaries, but lose the independent vote and the election. Candidates that opposed Trump would win the independent vote and the general, but wouldn't have a chance to get that far losing in the primaries. All subject to change in the future.
Now interesting change from when Trump was president to now with Biden as president among independents and impeachment. 57% of Georgia independents were in favor of the House's impeachment while Trump was president, that dropped to just 33.7% of independents today. 64.4% oppose the impeachment today. Indies wanted Trump gone, he's gone so they don't really care what happens in the trial.
Now I wonder if that pertains or trend is nationwide? Among independents, not the avid pro and anti Trumpers, Democrats and Republicans.
Two things here, while Trump was president 57% of all Americans thought he should be convicted and removed from office. Today with Trump gone and Biden president that is down to 51% who think Trump should be convicted. Independents are also dropping. Whereas when Trump was president 55% of independents favored conviction and removal. Today 42% favor convictions, 43% do not, 15% don't care, Trump is gone.
One last thing, Biden's job approval, it's early, doesn't mean much but 51% approve, 44% disapprove. Among independents who decide elections 44% approve, 33% disapprove, 23% not sure.
Georgia was a blue state from the civil war until 2002 when we elected our first ever Republican governor and state legislature. Now it seems we're reverting back to blue status after a 20 year absents.
I'd say until the late 1990's almost all of our elections were decided in the Democratic Primary. The general election was just a formality.
But Georgia has also always been a conservative state. The democrats elected by Georgians are all moderately conservative. No Bernie's or AOCs in the mix. Sensible folks though, and not folks to fall prey to scammers from New York City.
Anyone who affiliates with any* political party are automatically responsible for every policy, every utterance and every idea of each of the most radical members** of that party.
*Except, of course, the American Republican Party were no member is even responsible for what they have just done or said, much less the actions of anyone else. Here, as always, the person questioning a Republican in any but the most friendly manner must look deep inside themselves and learn to come to grips with the evil rot they will find.
**Except, of course, the American Democratic Party were every part member is also responsible for non-members who caucus with them or happen to share at least one policy goal.
That's especially weird: Rural people in the South typically hate New Yorkers who come around to "fleece the hicks", and pretty much everybody from New England (meaning everything Washington DC and North).
Yet many have embraced that orange con-man in chief.
But Georgia has also always been a conservative state. The democrats elected by Georgians are all moderately conservative. No Bernie's or AOCs in the mix. Sensible folks though, and not folks to fall prey to scammers from New York City.
That's how I look at it also. We were lucky enough to have Jimmy Carter as Governor who knew the state had to change when it came to civil rights. He changed it. Georgia never had the problems that Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas had. we moved on easily.
We had Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, Max Cleland, as governor/senators and the Republicans were also fairly moderate with Paul Coverdale and Johnny Isakson. Until Perdue and Lofler came around.
But that changing with the huge influx of folks from the northeast. Now we did have Cynthia McKinney for awhile. But as a representative only.
Rural people in the South typically hate New Yorkers who come around to "fleece the hicks"
I was taught as a young man that the only man lower than a black man was a New York Yankee. And that phrase has absolutely nothing to do with baseball.
That's why this southern/confederate love for Trump eludes me more than most. These folks were raised better than that.
I think we've become comfortable with northerner's. There's probably more folks living down here from the Midwest and Northeast than native Georgian's.
Thus the marked improvement My folks lived in sleazy heavily redneck Druid Hills Hotlanta. 3 minutes from govs mansion, but better when Gov was Democrat.
But that changing with the huge influx of folks from the northeast.
Along with those folks comes a certain wokeness. An acceptance of LGBT folks and people of color. Liberalism always wins, conservatism keeps it from happening too quickly but is destined always to lose in the end. There are a few instances of conservatives winning...Hitler and Mussolini being among them, but even when they win they lose.
On a timely subject, snow and ice, someone had to go South to teach them that driving in snow is actually possible. Knowing how to do it properly, however, does not protect from collateral damage. It's best to just sit it out and enjoy watching the bumper-car show on TV, knowing you won't get where you want if you drive.
It, somehow, reminds me of the joke: Why did the chicken cross the road? To show the possum it could be done.
It's beginning to look a lot like Groundhog day... :sing :
As soon as the weatherman says a chance of snow or we see some snow flurries that don't stick, there's a run on the grocery stores. Give it an hour, no more milk and bread.
Funny how everyone buys the heck out of milk and bread and leaves all the can goods on the shelf. If one is to be stuck for awhile, it seems can goods is the way to go.
Our problem isn't so much the snow, it's ice storms. We usually get one or two a year. Snow, once every ten or so years in any amount that can be measured.
Snow fever does strange things to some southerners, foreshadowing Covid toilet paper madness. One strange day in Durham NC, redbuds in full bloom, and it snowed. The trees were beautiful with the white background contrasting the hot pink. Schools closed with the threat of snow, realistic considering the drivers. Snowplows? I asked a local how they cleared snow? "God has always taken it away before." And,he was right. It melted before I could photograph the trees, as we used cameras in the old days.
Atlanta traffic is terrible under the best conditions, and not too long ago snow and ice caused major disruptions, variously described as Snowpocalypse or Snowmageddon I will look it up for fun.
This is an interesting article from the Atlantic. I'm not sure what to make of it.
They Don’t Look Like Extremists
Just who stormed the US Capitol? Though members of extremist groups were present, Robert A. Pape and Keven Ruby write for The Atlantic that after leading an in-depth study of 193 people charged criminally, they’ve found the Jan. 6 mob didn’t resemble typical extremists.
“The average age of the arrestees we studied is 40,” Pape and Ruby note. “Two-thirds are 35 or older, and 40 percent are business owners or hold white-collar jobs. Unlike the stereotypical extremist, many of the alleged participants in the Capitol riot have a lot to lose. They work as CEOs, shop owners, doctors, lawyers, IT specialists, and accountants. Strikingly, court documents indicate that only 9 percent are unemployed. … [M]ost of the insurrectionists do not come from deep-red strongholds ... more than half came from counties that [President Joe] Biden won.”
The riot, Pape and Ruby conclude, “revealed a new force in American politics”: a “mass political movement that has violence at its core and draws strength even from places where Trump supporters are in the minority.”
Yeah...rich people love Trump. Because he is like them.
This is a caricature of Galtism. They aren't going to take their money and leave, they want to run everyone out except themselves and a few poorly paid servants.
Punishing an extremist by removing them from a committee is a joke! A slap on the hand just teaches an extremist to lay low and wait for opportunities. No HR dept would let a clearly violent Greene whackjob back into the workplace let alone a committee, unless they have a postal committee!
I think the issue of Republican intransigence has come up here before. As soon as word came out about her pre-election shenanigans republican's should have sent her packing and cauterized the wound. But the political reality is they can't if they hope to be re-elected.
I think as more and more insurrectionists get sentenced to federal prison, and other Republicans start to suffer consequences like disbarment, a lot of Trump cult followers will decide it's not their patriotic duty to commit sedition. By 2022, if the Trumpistas are still the majority of Republicans, moderates will get primaried. Then the whack-job candidates will mostly lose in the general election. So Democrats will capture more seats in both houses. If they don't get primaried, Trumpistas will boycott the general election, and Democrats will win more seats.
This will not follow the usual midterm seat loss paradigm, but seldom has the party out of power been so fractured.
This will not follow the usual midterm seat loss paradigm, but seldom has the party out of power been so fractured.
Remember the TEA Party? Same crowd. The GOP has long catered to a looney-toons fringe. Was it the 2010 shellacking where they filled seats with the same sort of wack jobs. Trump just brought out an even wackier batch than usual.
Way I see it...pandemic's gonna end, economy gonna recover, Biden's gonna ride the coattails and remain popular during midterms, Patriot Party antics will fail and Democrats gain seats.
For those interested, NY-22 has finally be decided. It goes to the Republican. When Tenney’s sworn-in, the Democrats’ majority in the House will shrink to 221-212 over the Republicans.
Two vacancies remain, and they’re both in Louisiana. One is the seat that was held by former Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond, who joined President Biden’s administration last month. The other was the seat won last November by late GOP Rep.-elect Luke Letlow.
This means the Republicans have a net gain of 13 seats in the house with two to be decided by special election in Louisiana. Chances are those two special's will be split 1-1 bringing the final tally to 222-213. The old house election results from 2018 was 236-199. This also means the GOP will need a net gain of just 5 seats to regain control of the house in 2022.
Note: Once called a “national embarrassment” by a fellow Republican, press has noted her “history of controversial remarks” and her “divisive rhetoric.” Even Republican operatives agreed that Tenney’s “bombastic reputation” contributed to her election loss in 2018, with one saying: “every week she says something controversial or stupid. These are self-inflected wounds.” “Disaffected Republicans” ended up being “a major problem for Tenney.” And Tenney has not changed her style this cycle.
“It’s not the press that’s the problem, it’s the candidate,” said DCCC Spokesperson Christine Bennett.
The U.S. Air Force has tightened security at Joint Base Andrews after an intruder breached security and made his way into one of the aircraft reserved for top officials and commanders, the Pentagon said Friday.
The base is home to the unit responsible for Air Force One and other aircraft reserved for the country’s elected leaders and top military brass. After gaining access to the airfield, the unarmed intruder then entered a C-40 aircraft from the 89th Airlift Wing, known as the “presidential wing,” officials said.
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/aa470/ricksjunkmail1/Screen_Shot_2020_11_15_at_7.51.37_PM.png)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/aa470/ricksjunkmail1/Screen_Shot_2020_11_16_at_5.21.32_AM.png)
Awesome!!!
:
