Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 310
  1. #226
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Cono Este View Post
    He did try to steal the election. I think he should go to jail, and I think the the morons on Jan 6th should be shot. I’d go watch.

    But, as someone who is not a full blooded American, who has lived on several continents has three passports, who grew up abroad hearing the hate, how the world views the greatest democracy in history mattters. We provide support for fledging countries around the world. Both sides acting like two yr olds has brought consequences. My relatives abroad have been shocked at how someone like Trump was elected, they thought America was all Disneyland, literally. I try to explain what I see in decaying mid west rust belt cities. However, on the flip side there are those who cheer for our demise. Actually most do, it’s only natural when you grow up beholden to our culture. Our movies, TV shows, clothing, food etc. they take pride in their countries and we gave them more than needed to put us down. Both Trump, and how the democrats reacted, with all the failed attempts to de throne him has helped de stabilize the whole world. My opinion.

    It’s more than just an embarrassment, in my opinion, people see us divided and weak and will exploit that. It’s happening now, in the Ukraine. Not because of anyone man/president, but because our enemies believe we will destroy ourselves.
    [/url]
    Cono- has his critics too ;

    his post has merit.
    ( and both sides do deserve criticism.

    That is part of the ( / a healthy ) process.

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    9,617
    Two words... Electoral College.. Designed to give slave owning/pro white supremacy lower population states inflated power per person.. Still working exactly as it was designed to.

    Name:  electoral-college-math-the-population-of-california-is-38-800-000-the-6760883-300x366.png
Views: 213
Size:  81.8 KB

    Yes, in a democracy (which this isn't) California and New York policies would be the norm for the rest of the nation
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by skiJ View Post
    the situation in wisconsin is very familiar to me -
    I would claim the gerrymandering was not the last step but the first step - initiated before 2010, and largely in-place by 2012 ( see my post up thread ) ;

    I will agree political sabotage activities did not end on January 6 (2021), but in the same neighborhood, relative to the perception in other countries, we are now seen as the Divided States, that are too busy fighting amongst ourselves to be world leaders ( and we can howl all we want about not needing to be world leaders or not wanting to be world leaders, and my response is three words : Putin and Ukraine. ) ;

    I don't know the machinery by how the (congressional) hearing(s) might lead to indictments or charges, and
    I do understand how an incoming president would not want to use the Good Will allowed a new president by having the Justice Department prosecute the former president ( especially in an amazingly close election ) ;

    stuff did not end on January 6th and it's not just the former prez., But such movements generally go as far as the leader ( RossPerot, RalphNadar, etc. ), and I will always believe the former prez. succeeded through the media - and had he not received more media attention than the other seven or eight candidates combined in 2015, his 'movement' would have quietly and relatively quickly faded. and there were several other important factors that all came together in 2016...

    I will go back and re-read the post about worldwide perception, but Summer's posts in the Ulvarde thread, 'If only there was something... ' illustrates Americans' unusual world view - and when the response is,
    ' go f* yourself with this f*-ing b.s. ',

    I'm sorry - no sale.


    good luck. skiJ
    Nader and Perot accepted there defeats and moved on. Trump conspired to remain in power and fomented and insurrection (is that the term we decided on?).

    Trump still wants to regain power and is the current favorite, by far, to be the next Republican nominee for President.

    I could maybe buy the media attention argument back in 2016, but I’d say the media negativity towards Clinton was equally important. But at this point voters know who Trump is, and much too many of them want him back.

    I really don’t understand what your preferred course of action would be. Congress let’s the whole Jan. 6 thing slide, and we hope to get a whole new media ecosystem before the 2024 elections?

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    11,592
    Quote Originally Posted by teledad View Post
    Yeah, the short Jewish billionaire running on climate change and gun control would have really killed it in the Midwest and the South. The guy who tried to ban the Big Gulp? Even New Yorkers didn't take him seriously. (I actually agree with many of his policies, but he was a terrible candidate.)

    And the guy who won (and was the most moderate of the credible candidates) did win the clear majority of votes: 4.45% margin in the popular vote, more than in 2000, 2004, 2012, or 2016.
    It’s the economy. That’s all Trump had going for him. A white, male, Jewish billionaire would have given every moderate conservative/ Californian Republican an out. It would have been lights out for Trump.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    7,008
    Even Nixon resigned rather than fight because he knew the writing was on the wall and it was the right thing to do.

    Circling back to watergate, most do realize how close he was to weathering the storm. From the break in until resignation was over two years and his fate wasn’t cast until almost a year into the hearings

    https://watergate.info/chronology

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    7,554
    Please don't do that; Nixon's malfeasance paled in comparison to Trump's, and he didn't have the support of cult zombies.

  7. #232
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Cono Este View Post
    It’s the economy. That’s all Trump had going for him. A white, male, Jewish billionaire would have given every moderate conservative/ Californian Republican an out. It would have been lights out for Trump.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    In polls looking at Trump/Biden and Trump/Bloomberg matchups the results were equal. Not sure how that equates to wiping the floor.

    ETA: also, would it have mattered if Trump lost by even more in the election? I don’t see any reason to believe he would have left graciously if only he’d lost by another 2 or 3 points.

  8. #233
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    7,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Cono Este View Post
    It’s the economy. That’s all Trump had going for him. A white, male, Jewish billionaire would have given every moderate conservative/ Californian Republican an out. It would have been lights out for Trump.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Maybe you missed the debate in which Bloomberg self destructed so bad his campaign was effectively over the next day after spending more money than anyone in his brief primary appearance

    Biden was the out for standard issue conservatives and I know lots that voted for him. You may forget that biden got the same number of electoral votes as trump did in his “landslide” election

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,224
    DeJong.
    I am going to consider your post overnight -
    2022 - 2024, I believe any attention promotes the former prez's campaign ;
    memories are Short - and If he receives no-more-than-equal media attention prior to 2024 And no more than equal media attention in 2024, his sensational campaign will burn out as it did in 2020.

    But if he is given the free media - as he was in 2015 - he can again become a threat to be elected - and the candidate of Anti-Government ( a belief and a feeling that is still Very strong ) ;

    the former president's supporters can still (attempt to ) discredit the congressional hearing as a fourth attempt to malign the former prez.

    I say, Don't give 'em that opportunity. (!)

    the same media that led to his election in 2016 ( including the anti-Hilary machine ) was almost equally involved in his defeat in 2020 -
    the Economy is critical - but in 2020, the mishandling of covid cost the prez. a lot.

    by November2024, the electorate will not remember the hearing of June2022 -
    If the former prez. is elected prez, again, I will take steps to further isolate myself from society ( it's not hard. )

    in 2024, the former prez. will be seventy-eight, and there will be another half-generation eligible to vote - and there will also be another half generation of potential Presidential candidates...

    Time marches on -

    to me, that the best congress could do with the Mueller Report ( eleven episodes of obstruction of justice ) was a single charge of abuse of power, illustrates the belief I have for Congress' involvement in this process.


    I hope I am Out of this discussion -
    while I am curious about a debate of insurrection / coup / revolt,

    the congressional process is poison to me - but I appreciate the Patience of those who showed Patience with me ( including DeJong. though we clearly have different reasons for being here. I hope - )


    goodnight. skiJ

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1,664
    Something I hope we can all agree on:



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	E62B87C7-AB72-4E25-BD93-83691827CB2D.jpeg 
Views:	41 
Size:	206.4 KB 
ID:	420555

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    7,008
    Is there a banana stand in the rotunda?

  12. #237
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    btweenst
    Posts
    4,069
    We've already talked about how hot hutchinson is, right?
    "somebody's gotta do it"

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    9,617
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    9,617
    Quote Originally Posted by stealurface831 View Post
    We've already talked about how hot hutchinson is, right?
    How about a video with her and Lez Chenney.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    16,800
    Free media? He was on morning joe all the time. Damn that right wing msnbc

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...lapdogs-90992/

  16. #241
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7,344
    Quote Originally Posted by stealurface831 View Post
    We've already talked about how hot hutchinson is, right?
    Not adequately. In this case I think it's even relevant: no way her presence in a white house full of old men didn't influence what she saw and heard.

    She knows what she does in part because she was a trusted conduit for information and in part because she was underestimated/ignored by some and subtly hit on by others. Her book is gonna be the movie.

  17. #242
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    btweenst
    Posts
    4,069
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    How about a video with her and Lez Chenney.
    Sans the latter.
    "somebody's gotta do it"

  18. #243
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    7,554
    You knew Liz and Cassidy are an item, right??

  19. #244
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    11,547
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    There it is.

    Anyone making ‘both sides’ arguments right now is enabling the ONE SIDE that is currently making serious attempts to undermine democracy in this country.
    Thanks for saving me the typing.

    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    My screen name is literally mocking the former president. Should be obvious which side I’m on.
    Never heard of him.

    I’m not sure I ever met Barron. I mean, I know him. I shook his hand. Many people say his father was a great man. But he's a child, right? There are many children. Ivanka, and uhh... many children. She does have a very nice figure. If she weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her. But no, I've never met him.

  20. #245
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    9,617
    A few years ago the NC State General Assembly got challenged for creating massively gerrymandered districts. The NC State Supreme Court ordered the districts redrawn. NC Ga claimed that the state supreme court has no authority to challenge their activities when it comes to elections and voting per the NC Constitution and appealed to SCOTUS... while Ginsburgh was still seated SCOTUS refused to hear the case leaving the redistricting orders in place.

    Fast forward to today... now SCOTUS wants to review the case they had turned down previously.. or one very much like it.. It really looks like they are about to uphold the right of state legislatures to circumvent voters/constituents when it comes to elections... at least ones with state constitutions similar to NC's fucked up mess.. It will also allow those red states to amend their constitutions if they don't already have that power written in.

    This is not good. This sets things up so states can LEGALLY do exactly what Trump and Co was pressuring them to ILLEGALLY do with the electors..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  21. #246
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The 'ville
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    A few years ago the NC State General Assembly got challenged for creating massively gerrymandered districts. The NC State Supreme Court ordered the districts redrawn. NC Ga claimed that the state supreme court has no authority to challenge their activities when it comes to elections and voting per the NC Constitution and appealed to SCOTUS... while Ginsburgh was still seated SCOTUS refused to hear the case leaving the redistricting orders in place.

    Fast forward to today... now SCOTUS wants to review the case they had turned down previously.. or one very much like it.. It really looks like they are about to uphold the right of state legislatures to circumvent voters/constituents when it comes to elections... at least ones with state constitutions similar to NC's fucked up mess.. It will also allow those red states to amend their constitutions if they don't already have that power written in.

    This is not good. This sets things up so states can LEGALLY do exactly what Trump and Co was pressuring them to ILLEGALLY do with the electors..
    This case has made it feel like I’ve had a knot in my stomach for days. The Supreme Court’s ruling will obviously have national implications but as a NC voter and resident it upsets me that this state’s legislature is behind this lawsuit.


    Sent from my Zune
    We Make Memory When We Do Bussiness

  22. #247
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,550

    Would we have discussed Watergate hearings here?

    I don’t think i saw this posted/shared yet. heather cox Richardson had a good essay a few days ago about this:
    In the past, the Supreme Court has operated on the basis of “stare decisis,” which literally means “to stand by things decided.” The purpose of that principle is to make changes incrementally so the law stays consistent and evenly applied, which promotes social stability. On occasion, the court does break precedent, notably in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision, which overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that rubber stamped racial segregation. When that sort of a major change happens, both the court and elected officials work hard to explain that they are changing the law to make it more in line with our Constitution, and to move people along with that change.

    With the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision of last Friday, the court simply tore up 49 years of law and history, ending federal recognition of a constitutional right Americans have enjoyed since 1973.

    Today, the court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency reversed almost 100 years of jurisprudence by arguing that Congress cannot delegate authority on “major questions” to agencies in the executive branch. At stake were EPA regulations that would push fossil fuel producers toward clean energy in order to combat climate change. The vote was 6 to 3, along ideological lines. That the court agreed to hear the case despite the fact that the rules being challenged had been abandoned suggested they were determined to make a point.

    That point was to hamstring federal regulation of business. The argument at the heart of this decision is called the “nondelegation doctrine,” which says that Congress, which constitutes the legislative branch of the government, cannot delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. Most of the regulatory bodies in our government are housed in the executive branch. So the nondelegation doctrine would hamstring the modern regulatory state.

    To avoid this extreme conclusion, the majority on the court embraced the “major questions” doctrine, which Chief Justice Roberts used today for the first time in a majority opinion.

    That doctrine says that Congress must not delegate “major” issues to an agency, saying that such major issues must be explicitly authorized by Congress. But the abuse of the Senate filibuster by Republican senators means that no such laws stand a hope of passing. So the Supreme Court has essentially stopped the federal government from responding as effectively as it must to climate change. And that will have international repercussions: the inability of the U.S. government to address the crisis means that other countries will likely fall behind as well. The decision will likely apply not just to the EPA, but to a whole host of business regulations.

    As recently as 2001, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the nondelegation argument in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the court must trust Congress to take care of its own power. But now it has become law.

    In the dissent, written by Justice Elena Kagan, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Kagan argued that Congress had, in fact, properly given authority to the EPA to act, recognizing that agencies need to be able to respond appropriately to new and big problems. “Congress knows what it doesn’t and can’t know when it drafts a statute; and Congress therefore gives an expert agency the power to address issues—even significant ones—as and when they arise.” She noted that “[t]he Clean Air Act was major legislation, designed to deal with a major public policy issue.” “This is not the Attorney General regulating medical care, or even the CDC regulating landlord-tenant relations. It is EPA (that’s the Environmental Protection Agency, in case the majority forgot) acting to address the greatest environmental challenge of our time. She concluded: “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy.I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

    Kagan’s dissent noted the hypocrisy of the Republican justices claiming to be originalists when they are, in fact, inventing new doctrines to achieve the ends they wish. “The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it,” she wrote. “When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards. Today, one of those broader goals makes itself clear: Prevent agencies from doing important work, even though that is what Congress directed.”

    Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) applauded the ruling, saying it limited the power of “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.”

    The court also said today that it will consider making even greater changes to our country. It will hear Moore v. Harper, a case about whether state legislatures alone have the power to set election rules even if their laws violate state constitutions.

    The case comes from North Carolina, where the state supreme court rejected a dramatically partisan gerrymander. Republicans say that the state court cannot stop the legislature’s carving up of the state because of the “independent state legislatures doctrine.” This is a new idea, based on the clause in the U.S. Constitution providing that “[t]he times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Those adhering to the independent state legislature theory ignore the second part of that provision.

    Those advancing the independent state legislature theory also point to another clause of the Constitution. It says: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”

    Until now, states have interpreted “legislatures” to mean the state’s general lawmaking processes, which include shared power and checks and balances among the three branches of state government. Now, a radical minority insists that a legislature is a legislature alone, unchecked by state courts or state constitutions that prohibit gerrymandering. This interpretation of the Constitution is radical and new. It caught on in 2015, when Republicans wanted to get rid of an independent redistricting commission in Arizona.

    This doctrine is, of course, what Trump and his allies pushed for to keep him in power in 2020: Republican state legislatures throwing out the will of the people and sending electors for Trump to Congress rather than the Biden electors the majority voted for.

    That doctrine would also give to state legislatures the power to control who can vote, and how and where they can do so. It would strip power from elections commissions and secretaries of state, and it would take from state courts the power to challenge gerrymandering or voter suppression. Republicans currently control 30 state legislatures, in large part thanks to the gerrymandering and voter suppression in place in a number of those states.

    Revered conservative judge J. Michael Luttig has been trying for months to sound the alarm that this doctrine is a blueprint for Republicans to steal the 2024 election. In April, before the court agreed to take on the Moore v. Harper case, he wrote: “Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine (thus allowing state court enforcement of state constitutional limitations on legislatively enacted election rules and elector appointments) and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.”

    And yet in March, when the Supreme Court let the state supreme court’s decision against the radical map stay in place for 2022, justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh indicated they are open to the idea that state courts have no role in overseeing the rules for federal elections.

    In the one term Trump’s three justices have been on the court, they have decimated the legal landscape under which we have lived for generations, slashing power from the federal government, where Congress represents the majority, and returning it to states, where a Republican minority can impose its will. Thanks to the skewing of our electoral system, those states are now poised to take control of our federal government permanently.

    Almost exactly 35 years ago, when President Ronald Reagan nominated originalist Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) recognized his legal theory for what it was: an unraveling of the modern United States.

    “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

    “America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks,” Kennedy said.

    And yet, here we are.

  23. #248
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    25,977
    Quote Originally Posted by skinny_kid View Post
    This case has made it feel like I’ve had a knot in my stomach for days. The Supreme Court’s ruling will obviously have national implications but as a NC voter and resident it upsets me that this state’s legislature is behind this lawsuit.
    The odd thing here is that the state constitution specifies the right of the courts to over see the activities of the legislature with regard to elections.
    So, if the SC rules in favor of the legislature, that overrules the 'states rights' arguments so dear to the right wing when convenient.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  24. #249
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    9,617
    Quote Originally Posted by skinny_kid View Post
    This case has made it feel like I’ve had a knot in my stomach for days. The Supreme Court’s ruling will obviously have national implications but as a NC voter and resident it upsets me that this state’s legislature is behind this lawsuit.


    Sent from my Zune
    Right, beyond NC this is the case that will determine whether or not a state's legislature can go totally rogue and send electors of their choosing for the candidate of their choosing regardless of the state wide vote totals.. i.e. it allows the gerrymandered districts to TRUMP the un gerrymandered statewide vote totals for the Presidential and Senate elections. So, there will be very little hope for flipping anything anywhere and national elections as we know them will be moot when it comes to electing a President or Senators. Doesn't matter which side you're on, the last element of democracy remaining here at the national level is essentially over if SCOTUS rules in favor of the state legislature over the state supreme court.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  25. #250
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    20,347
    The position the GOP is taking in the NC case is that the right of the state legislature to do whatever it wants re elections is absolute--not subject to restriction or oversight by the state constitution--even by clauses initiated by the legislature, state law (in other words the state legislature can't even impose restrictions on itself) or state courts. So although we have a federal govt restrained by checks and balances, there would be no checks and balances re federal elections.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •