Did that douche bag, just call Air Force One, Trump Force One? *smh*
Trump Force One is what Trump calls his private jet. Miller was talking about the campaign, so before Trump had access to Air Force One.
I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse. Put it this way, if you name your own private jet and often refer to yourself in the third person (as Trump does), that's a pretty clear cut sign that you should be kept away from positions of power. People who name inanimate objects have always freaked me out.
Does that include cars? I don't think it's weird at all to name vehicles. I've had many names for my cars over the years. Although, 'Piece of Junk' was the most popular name for most if them...
People have asked me before if I have a name for my car and I looked at them like they were crazy. Must be me.
Did that douche bag, just call Air Force One, Trump Force One? *smh*
Trump Force One is what Trump calls his private jet. Miller was talking about the campaign, so before Trump had access to Air Force One.
I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse. Put it this way, if you name your own private jet and often refer to yourself in the third person (as Trump does), that's a pretty clear cut sign that you should be kept away from positions of power. People who name inanimate objects have always freaked me out.
Nah, it's Branding. The Trump name is a brand. That was my caveat about it in the first place. He shouldn't be branding the Presidency, but if he didn't (in this case) I have no qualms. It might be tacky to name it Trump Force One, but tacky is the Trump brand so0o0o...
As much as I'd like to read the book and as unwilling as I am to spend money on anything, it disgusts me that somebody would steal someone's intellectual property and post it online. It's illegal.
As much as I'd like to read the book and as unwilling as I am to spend money on anything, it disgusts me that somebody would steal someone's intellectual property and post it online. It's illegal.
I wonder if Trump will be concerned about that theft. I suspect he won't do a darn thing.
Given the fact that he and his son have been buddies with wikileaks this was probably given the ok.
More wonderful news from corporate America in the wake of the miraculous GOP tax bill. Phizer is not only cutting 300 jobs, but is also flat-out ENDING research into Alzheimer's and Parkinson's medications. Beyond that, companies ranging from Phizer to Novartis are hiking the prices on HUNDREDS of prescription drugs, in many cases by almost 10%. Between this and the cable companies, that pittance of a tax cut for most of us is already gone. For the record, Phizer is in position to get a $40 billion dollar tax break:
People are going to ask "are you going to post every story you see about major corporations shedding jobs just because the Republicans passed a tax bill??" Yes, I am. And so should every Democratic ad and speech for the next 11 months.
I've been thinking about how the Republican party is clearly trying to derail the Mueller probe.
The senate is making a criminal indictment against Christopher Steele - not any one who colluded or worked with Russia to help Trump get elected. Other Republicans are investigating Hillary Clinton - again. Devin Nunez took a midnight trip to brief the Trump admin on what Mueller had on them and then he recused himself and then later unrecused himself and has spent his time investigating leaks and trying to shut down the probe - and actively not investing Trump Russia. Many Republicans want Trump to fire Sessions so they can install a DOJ head that isn't recused who can fire Rosenstein and Mueller. Trump won't even admit he's under investigation he says Hillary and the DC colluded with Russia to lose the election and no one bothers correcting his lies. They go along with it.
How far are they willing to go? Do they think they are too big to fail? Do they have the power to hold on to their power? Are they wrong?
I've been thinking about how the Republican party is clearly trying to derail the Mueller probe.
The senate is making a criminal indictment against Christopher Steele - not any one who colluded or worked with Russia to help Trump get elected. Other Republicans are investigating Hillary Clinton - again. Devin Nunez took a midnight trip to brief the Trump admin on what Mueller had on them and then he recused himself and then later unrecused himself and has spent his time investigating leaks and trying to shut down the probe - and actively not investing Trump Russia. Many Republicans want Trump to fire Sessions so they can install a DOJ head that isn't recused who can fire Rosenstein and Mueller. Trump won't even admit he's under investigation he says Hillary and the DC colluded with Russia to lose the election and no one bothers correcting his lies. They go along with it.
How far are they willing to go? Do they think they are too big to fail? Do they have the power to hold on to their power? Are they wrong?
I have actually been holding my fire most of this time in regards to how wide-ranging this is (or at least what I believe about it). This case is about money coming from Russia being used to directly influence a US election, and about Trump and his associates helping criminals in Russia launder money. The problem for most Republicans is that this didn't just stop at the Trump campaign. Countless House seats across the country also benefited from what happened. Besides the obvious names who are still waiting for their shoe to drop (Jared and Don. Jr. being foremost), it would be wise to keep a company in mind as well. Cambridge Analytica.
Beyond that, how far are they willing to go?? As far as they have to. People need to understand that this has been building for at least 30 years. Why people think there are any heroes that will emerge on that side is well beyond my comprehension. I'd suggest it's best to not fool yourself into thinking this isn't what it looks like. We've known what the score was since well before Trump was elected. And it was revealed by Mitch McConnell in the Senate. They refused to let a sitting President appoint a Supreme Court vacancy. That is one thing. They then made it clear in no uncertain terms that should Hillary win, she ALSO would not be allowed to make an appointment. Including the patron saint of respectability, John McCain. They officially declared that as long as they are in power of the Senate, Democratic Presidents have no right to fulfill something that is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. They don't recognize Democratic rule as legitimate.
But how can they do this?? Because up until this point, we've been operating on basic norms. No one really contemplated what would happen if one party just plain REFUSED to allow something this important take place. And it turned out that, yes, there is no actual mechanism to stop a political party who is willing to sell out everything (including something this basic) for power. People craven and cynical enough to act in this much bad faith cannot actually be stopped, not in any legal way. The only thing that can be done is voting them out of office. Which they have been attempting to make as hard as possible for at least the last decade, with efforts as nakedly transparent as passing voter ID laws and then purposefully closing DMV offices in heavily Democratic districts.
The Democratic Party isn't even remotely perfect. It arguably isn't even what anyone on the left would consider "good". But they aren't a total cancer on the body politic, the rule of law, and willing to shatter all political norms of the last two centuries. The Republican Party is. They have been proving it for years, and they will continue to fall deeper into the abyss in 2018. As I've said dozens of times, there is no bottom to this barrel. It's just an endless black pit.
The Democratic Party isn't even remotely perfect. It arguably isn't even what anyone on the left would consider "good". But they aren't a total cancer on the body politic, the rule of law, and willing to shatter all political norms of the last two centuries. The Republican Party is. They have been proving it for years, and they will continue to fall deeper into the abyss in 2018. As I've said dozens of times, there is no bottom to this barrel. It's just an endless black pit.
This is why I don't vote for either major Party any more--I am not part of the problem and neither are my vote choices. If more people would think and vote like I do--as in "vote for a non-major party", not "vote exactly the way I do"--then we can finally end the stranglehold both major Parties have had on this nation for far too long.
It's a nice sentiment. I'll believe it's possible when I see any evidence of a viable 3rd Party. At the moment, it reminds me of last night. The Golden Globes were on, which prompted the usual cascade of comments about how everyone hates celebrities. And I'll believe that when everyone stops going to the movies every weekend and my supermarket check-out lane has less than 4 or 5 gossip magazines in it. In other words, people have been saying "I hate both parties" for decades, but nothing has ever taken place in regards to concrete actions from citizens that tell me that is actually the case. There are Democrats, Republicans, people who don't care enough (or aren't informed enough) about politics to care, and then there are 5% of people like @Mathsorcerer voting for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.
Can't wait for how Republicans will attempt to sell the country on the idea that an inexperienced celebrity isn't qualified to run for office. Because they WILL attempt to do so if this comes to pass. Which will just be further proof that nothing means anything anymore.
I'll say this about Oprah, and it has always stuck out to me. Every single women who has played a significant role in my life (mother, grandmothers, aunts, cousins, significant others) have, to a person, loved Oprah. Not liked, LOVED. I don't claim to understand, because being a male it probably isn't for me to understand. But my gut tells me she has an almost bottomless well of good will built up over decades with women in this country. It's very real.
I also find it VERY interesting that a general narrative is forming in the last 24 hours that we don't want to make a habit of celebrity Presidents. It strikes me as awfully convenient this line of thinking is popping up the MOMENT speculation starts about a celebrity on the left taking the plunge, when Republicans have already ELECTED two Presidents who came directly from the entertainment industry.
It's a nice sentiment. I'll believe it's possible when I see any evidence of a viable 3rd Party.
There's barely two parties now. How are we going to get three? There's one state party.
One party is making it difficult to vote and is stealing seats from the other party through gerrymandering and breaking norms. Both parties gerrymander but it's like 80% of the cases are Republican.
Norms the Republicans are breaking include not doing regular business such as the Merrick Garland Supreme Court tragedy. Another method is attempting to overthrow the results they of close elections they lose. They've had various success with this.
Trump delegitimized the election he won because he lost the popular vote. Roy Moore did this after losing a Senate seat in Alabama - he still hasn't conceded. Former governor Pat McCrory (R-NC) threw a hissyfit and first tried to claim the election results were fraud then signed bills to limit his Democratic successors powers before leaving office. The Virginia House was just stolen by having Republican judges and other officials hand a close election to a Republican by "chance".
Third party, ha. The only way to get that is to throw out Republicans for Democrats then there is a slim possibility that you could convince them or somehow trick them into allowing Democracy. There is no chance for Republicans to willingly share power. They are completely bought off by corporate interests and billionaire donors.
The Virginia result was absurd. Here is the rundown: The Democrat won the election by one vote on a recount. A day later, a judge declared a Republican ballot to tie the election. This ballot was a joke. The Democratic circle had been filled it, then a single line was put through it, and the Republican name was also filled-in. You CANNOT make marks like that on a ballot to indicate a mistake. You need to ask for a new ballot. Not only did the judge allow it, but he declared the Republican circle valid because.....the voter had voted for other Republicans on the ballot. It's absurd to use that kind of divination on something like this. That ballot should have been invalid. God knows the people who mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Gore in Florida were never given this benefit of the doubt. In the end, the winner was chosen by.....drawing a name out of a bowl. Maybe this country is just too stupid survive. Maybe we should change the law next time so the two candidates play a 2 out of 3 game of Rock, Paper, Scissors to decide a tie. Here is the ballot, the race in question is the 94th Distirct:
The Democratic circle had been filled it, then a single line was put through it, and the Republican name was also filled-in. You CANNOT make marks like that on a ballot to indicate a mistake. You need to ask for a new ballot. Not only did the judge allow it, but he declared the Republican circle valid because.....the voter had voted for other Republicans on the ballot. It's absurd to use that kind of divination on something like this.
That's actually a fairly reasonable assumption about who that person really wanted to vote for. He or she clearly first voted for the Democrat, then changed his or her mind, crossed it out, and chose the Republican instead. I'm not sure if that's good enough for a ballot to be valid, but I'd put my money on that voter wanting his or her vote to go to the Republican candidate.
Yes, I'm surprised you didn't hear about this. It was a random drawing. This is the process in Virginia for deciding a tied race:
Furthermore, this race decided control of the Virginia State House and, by extension, the Medicaid expansion. Thousands of people are going to miss out on heathcare because of that ballot and a raffle to decide the winner.
@jjstraka34 Is correct about that ballot--the voter in question should have taken the ballot to a polling official, requested a new ballot, then filled it out while the election official shreds the original ballot.
This whole book thing....you know, I don't like Trump, either, but efforts to try and get him removed via the 25th Amendment are about as likely to succeed as impeachment hearings in Congress. Quit wasting time and energy trying to get rid of him; instead, just suck it and up and let him lose in 2020. After that, you won't have to deal with him any more.
@jjstraka34 Is correct about that ballot--the voter in question should have taken the ballot to a polling official, requested a new ballot, then filled it out while the election official shreds the original ballot.
This whole book thing....you know, I don't like Trump, either, but efforts to try and get him removed via the 25th Amendment are about as likely to succeed as impeachment hearings in Congress. Quit wasting time and energy trying to get rid of him; instead, just suck it and up and let him lose in 2020. After that, you won't have to deal with him any more.
I'm under no illusions they are going to do anything to remove him. By the time a 25th Amendment-type emergency situation would come about, events would outpace the process anyway. It's too late. The lunatic is already running the asylum. I become more convinced by the day, however, that he is suffering early-onset dementia.
Whether the vote should be counted depends on the electoral law. Personally it does look to me as though the intention was to vote Republican and where the intention is clear election officials may have discretion to include ballots. The law may not include that element of discretion though, so I also wouldn't have been surprised if this had been deemed to be a spoilt ballot.
Note that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that all voting systems "notify the voter of overvotes (votes for more than the maximum number of selections allowed in a contest) and provide the voter a chance to correct these errors". It wouldn't surprise me if the judge in this case had reinstated this vote as a result of a failure to comply with this Act.
Whether the vote should be counted depends on the electoral law. Personally it does look to me as though the intention was to vote Republican and where the intention is clear election officials may have discretion to include ballots. The law may not include that element of discretion though, so I also wouldn't have been surprised if this had been deemed to be a spoilt ballot.
Note that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that all voting systems "notify the voter of overvotes (votes for more than the maximum number of selections allowed in a contest) and provide the voter a chance to correct these errors". It wouldn't surprise me if the judge in this case had reinstated this vote as a result of a failure to comply with this Act.
I think that ballot is a mess. For one thing, that mark on the Democratic candidate's circle isn't even remotely explicit. But for another, hypothetically, even if this person voted for 3 other Republicans, it seems to me that there is at least a, say, 5% chance any given person may in fact, be voting for that one specific person regardless of party. But, beyond that, this ballot had Kindergarten-level instructions. If they can't be followed, I just don't see how we are supposed to recreate what some random person was thinking to decide an election.
Oprah trying to run for President in 2020 would give Democrats a tough choice. Do they nominate Ms. Winfrey, a celebrity who has as much political experience as Trump had before his nomination in 2016 but is probably highly likely to win, or do they nominate someone like Kamala Harris, who has real-world political experience but runs the risk of losing? The problem with an Oprah Presidency would be one of the initial problems with an Obama Presidency in 2009--too many people are going to think that somehow her being in office would change things for the better overnight. That never happens.
The problem with someone not being able to follow simple yet clear instructions on a voting ballot is that we cannot prevent someone from voting based on their ability to understand directions. Even people who are illiterate (at least in English) are allowed to cast a ballot despite their inability to understand for what or for whom they are voting.
On a completely unrelated topic, that bowl he is using for the random draw....ugh. The shape of the bowl is just fine but I can tell you from personal experience at formulating and making stoneware glazes for ceramics that this is a pathetic glaze job on that bowl. Truth be told I much prefer raku firing because the randomness of the scorching is more artistic. That generic bluish gray is just boring.
The problem with someone not being able to follow simple yet clear instructions on a voting ballot is that we cannot prevent someone from voting based on their ability to understand directions. Even people who are illiterate (at least in English) are allowed to cast a ballot despite their inability to understand for what or for whom they are voting.
People who are literate voted for Trump. Literacy is overrated. What's the saying? Never underestimate the dumbness of a group of people? I may have just made that up.
I don't have a problem with the Virginia method of choosing a delegate in the case of a tie. It is the law they have. Could they make a better method? Of course.
I think Republicans definitely took advantage of the situation first by finding a ballot that they were able to get Republican appointed judges to count for the Republican. Then the Republican appointed judgges denied the Democrats legal challenge complaining about the ballot was clearly not challenged in time and so forth. Then the Republican supervised lottery system just happened to pick the Republican.
In the 1985 NBA draft a once in a lifetime prospect named Patrick Ewing was the top prize. Before the lottery team executives were convinced he would be awarded to the New York Knicks the team with the leagues biggest market and they were right. Managers from other teams heard that it was all arranged. The lottery consisted of sealed envelopes with different teams names were put in a rotating drum and one would be chosen. Pat Ewing just happened to be awarded to the Knicks. What's the problem? For years now people have claimed that the envelope for the Knicks was frozen or dented and made easier to pick out of the drum.
Did something like that happen in Virginia? Let's just say that it would be far easier to rig that draw with only two pieces of paper.
People have always thought the NBA lottery was rigged that year, but there has never been any proof. I have a serious problem with it deciding a tie. A new election should have been held. But that isn't the law.
As for Oprah, I don't think she'll run. I think it's a big overreaction to a good speech last night.
In regards to people not being able to follow ballot instructions, it is pretty much THE reason Gore lost Florida, even without any recount shenanigans. A massive number of elderly Jewish voters in certain counties ended up voting for right-wing 3rd Party candidate Pat Buchanan by mistake. Many of them came forward and said the ballot had been confusing. And they had WAY more of a case than whoever wrote out this ballot did. Because on those Florida ballots, the names didn't even line up with the boxes (or circles) that needed to be filled in. It didn't matter. None of those votes went to Gore.
So the White House is going to ban personal cell phones. Apparently this ban does not apply to Donald Jenius Trump - aw.
Being Republicans they should know that if you outlaw cell phones then only outlaws will have cell phones. Cell phones don't leak, people post leaks.
Cell phones aren't the problem. The problem is they let a reporter walk around the West Wing for most of the first year of the Administration who was able to hear and see everything that was going on. Letting Michael Wolff have that kind of unfettered access is one of the biggest communication blunders in the modern Presidency. I heard him in an interview today, and he said that one of the reasons he was able to get so many people to open up to him is that there was warring factions within Trump's staff. When a person from the opposite faction would see Wolff talking to someone, they would immediately seek him out to tell their side of the story. It was, essentially, "Mean Girls".
So the White House is going to ban personal cell phones. Apparently this ban does not apply to Donald Jenius Trump - aw.
Being Republicans they should know that if you outlaw cell phones then only outlaws will have cell phones. Cell phones don't leak, people post leaks.
Cell phones aren't the problem. The problem is they let a reporter walk around the West Wing for most of the first year of the Administration who was able to hear and see everything that was going on. Letting Michael Wolff have that kind of unfettered access is one of the biggest communication blunders in the modern Presidency. I heard him in an interview today, and he said that one of the reasons he was able to get so many people to open up to him is that there was warring factions within Trump's staff. When a person from the opposite faction would see Wolff talking to someone, they would immediately seek him out to tell their side of the story. It was, essentially, "Mean Girls".
Trump himself and probably his staff seem really really easy to manipulate.
If you want a positive response you just compliment the guy way over the top. "Will you please sign this bill oh great and brilliant one?"
If you want a negative answer just approach him with an insult or tell him obama did it. "Obama could hold his breath for ten whole minutes, I bet you couldn't!"
The other big news today is of course that Trump's lawyers are trying to negotiate a way for him to avoid having to personally appear before Mueller's team for questioning. The are (hilariously) aiming for him submitting written statements which is.....not going to fly. I can understand their trepidation. If Trump takes the 5th, he will be seen as guilty by any right-minded person. If he answers questions, I can't imagine a single scenario where Trump doesn't perjure himself multiple times. He wouldn't be capable of avoiding it. If I was one of Trump's lawyers, the idea of him sitting down for a couple hours of questions from seasoned federal prosecutors would terrify me to the point that I would probably just quit while I still had the chance. I've posted this excerpt about Trump taking questions in a lawsuit once before, but it was a long time ago, and it deserves another look:
It was a mid-December morning in 2007 — the start of an interrogation unlike anything else in the public record of Trump’s life.
Trump had brought it on himself. He had sued a reporter, accusing him of being reckless and dishonest in a book that raised questions about Trump’s net worth. The reporter’s attorneys turned the tables and brought Trump in for a deposition.
For two straight days, they asked Trump question after question that touched on the same theme: Trump’s honesty.
The lawyers confronted the mogul with his past statements — and with his company’s internal documents, which often showed those statements had been incorrect or invented. The lawyers were relentless. Trump, the bigger-than-life mogul, was vulnerable — cornered, out-prepared and under oath.
Thirty times, they caught him.
Trump had misstated sales at his condo buildings. Inflated the price of membership at one of his golf clubs. Overstated the depth of his past debts and the number of his employees.
That deposition — 170 transcribed pages — offers extraordinary insights into Trump’s relationship with the truth. Trump’s falsehoods were unstrategic — needless, highly specific, easy to disprove. When caught, Trump sometimes blamed others for the error or explained that the untrue thing really was true, in his mind, because he saw the situation more positively than others did.
Please, for the love god, let this guy be dumb and delusional enough to think he can outsmart professional criminal prosecutors under intense questioning.
Another thing that came out is "executive time". According to his schedule Trump doesn't start work until 11am everyday. Most days he's scheduled for "executive time" from 8-11, which seems to be a euphemism for watching TV and rage tweeting.
Oh he also has executive time sprinkled several other times throughout the day as well.
Comments
That was my caveat about it in the first place. He shouldn't be branding the Presidency, but if he didn't (in this case) I have no qualms. It might be tacky to name it Trump Force One, but tacky is the Trump brand so0o0o...
This isn't a leak, it's theft.
Given the fact that he and his son have been buddies with wikileaks this was probably given the ok.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-alzheimers/pfizer-ends-research-for-new-alzheimers-parkinsons-drugs-idUSKBN1EW0TN
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/drug-price-hikes-a-few-bad-actors-or-widespread-pharma
People are going to ask "are you going to post every story you see about major corporations shedding jobs just because the Republicans passed a tax bill??" Yes, I am. And so should every Democratic ad and speech for the next 11 months.
I've been thinking about how the Republican party is clearly trying to derail the Mueller probe.
The senate is making a criminal indictment against Christopher Steele - not any one who colluded or worked with Russia to help Trump get elected. Other Republicans are investigating Hillary Clinton - again. Devin Nunez took a midnight trip to brief the Trump admin on what Mueller had on them and then he recused himself and then later unrecused himself and has spent his time investigating leaks and trying to shut down the probe - and actively not investing Trump Russia. Many Republicans want Trump to fire Sessions so they can install a DOJ head that isn't recused who can fire Rosenstein and Mueller. Trump won't even admit he's under investigation he says Hillary and the DC colluded with Russia to lose the election and no one bothers correcting his lies. They go along with it.
How far are they willing to go? Do they think they are too big to fail? Do they have the power to hold on to their power? Are they wrong?
Beyond that, how far are they willing to go?? As far as they have to. People need to understand that this has been building for at least 30 years. Why people think there are any heroes that will emerge on that side is well beyond my comprehension. I'd suggest it's best to not fool yourself into thinking this isn't what it looks like. We've known what the score was since well before Trump was elected. And it was revealed by Mitch McConnell in the Senate. They refused to let a sitting President appoint a Supreme Court vacancy. That is one thing. They then made it clear in no uncertain terms that should Hillary win, she ALSO would not be allowed to make an appointment. Including the patron saint of respectability, John McCain. They officially declared that as long as they are in power of the Senate, Democratic Presidents have no right to fulfill something that is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. They don't recognize Democratic rule as legitimate.
But how can they do this?? Because up until this point, we've been operating on basic norms. No one really contemplated what would happen if one party just plain REFUSED to allow something this important take place. And it turned out that, yes, there is no actual mechanism to stop a political party who is willing to sell out everything (including something this basic) for power. People craven and cynical enough to act in this much bad faith cannot actually be stopped, not in any legal way. The only thing that can be done is voting them out of office. Which they have been attempting to make as hard as possible for at least the last decade, with efforts as nakedly transparent as passing voter ID laws and then purposefully closing DMV offices in heavily Democratic districts.
The Democratic Party isn't even remotely perfect. It arguably isn't even what anyone on the left would consider "good". But they aren't a total cancer on the body politic, the rule of law, and willing to shatter all political norms of the last two centuries. The Republican Party is. They have been proving it for years, and they will continue to fall deeper into the abyss in 2018. As I've said dozens of times, there is no bottom to this barrel. It's just an endless black pit.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/08/media/oprah-golden-globes/index.html
I'll say this about Oprah, and it has always stuck out to me. Every single women who has played a significant role in my life (mother, grandmothers, aunts, cousins, significant others) have, to a person, loved Oprah. Not liked, LOVED. I don't claim to understand, because being a male it probably isn't for me to understand. But my gut tells me she has an almost bottomless well of good will built up over decades with women in this country. It's very real.
I also find it VERY interesting that a general narrative is forming in the last 24 hours that we don't want to make a habit of celebrity Presidents. It strikes me as awfully convenient this line of thinking is popping up the MOMENT speculation starts about a celebrity on the left taking the plunge, when Republicans have already ELECTED two Presidents who came directly from the entertainment industry.
One party is making it difficult to vote and is stealing seats from the other party through gerrymandering and breaking norms. Both parties gerrymander but it's like 80% of the cases are Republican.
Norms the Republicans are breaking include not doing regular business such as the Merrick Garland Supreme Court tragedy. Another method is attempting to overthrow the results they of close elections they lose. They've had various success with this.
Trump delegitimized the election he won because he lost the popular vote. Roy Moore did this after losing a Senate seat in Alabama - he still hasn't conceded. Former governor Pat McCrory (R-NC) threw a hissyfit and first tried to claim the election results were fraud then signed bills to limit his Democratic successors powers before leaving office. The Virginia House was just stolen by having Republican judges and other officials hand a close election to a Republican by "chance".
Third party, ha. The only way to get that is to throw out Republicans for Democrats then there is a slim possibility that you could convince them or somehow trick them into allowing Democracy. There is no chance for Republicans to willingly share power. They are completely bought off by corporate interests and billionaire donors.
Americans need to start demanding better.
Furthermore, this race decided control of the Virginia State House and, by extension, the Medicaid expansion. Thousands of people are going to miss out on heathcare because of that ballot and a raffle to decide the winner.
This whole book thing....you know, I don't like Trump, either, but efforts to try and get him removed via the 25th Amendment are about as likely to succeed as impeachment hearings in Congress. Quit wasting time and energy trying to get rid of him; instead, just suck it and up and let him lose in 2020. After that, you won't have to deal with him any more.
Note that the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that all voting systems "notify the voter of overvotes (votes for more than the maximum number of selections allowed in a contest) and provide the voter a chance to correct these errors". It wouldn't surprise me if the judge in this case had reinstated this vote as a result of a failure to comply with this Act.
The problem with someone not being able to follow simple yet clear instructions on a voting ballot is that we cannot prevent someone from voting based on their ability to understand directions. Even people who are illiterate (at least in English) are allowed to cast a ballot despite their inability to understand for what or for whom they are voting.
On a completely unrelated topic, that bowl he is using for the random draw....ugh. The shape of the bowl is just fine but I can tell you from personal experience at formulating and making stoneware glazes for ceramics that this is a pathetic glaze job on that bowl. Truth be told I much prefer raku firing because the randomness of the scorching is more artistic. That generic bluish gray is just boring.
I don't have a problem with the Virginia method of choosing a delegate in the case of a tie. It is the law they have. Could they make a better method? Of course.
I think Republicans definitely took advantage of the situation first by finding a ballot that they were able to get Republican appointed judges to count for the Republican. Then the Republican appointed judgges denied the Democrats legal challenge complaining about the ballot was clearly not challenged in time and so forth. Then the Republican supervised lottery system just happened to pick the Republican.
In the 1985 NBA draft a once in a lifetime prospect named Patrick Ewing was the top prize. Before the lottery team executives were convinced he would be awarded to the New York Knicks the team with the leagues biggest market and they were right. Managers from other teams heard that it was all arranged. The lottery consisted of sealed envelopes with different teams names were put in a rotating drum and one would be chosen. Pat Ewing just happened to be awarded to the Knicks. What's the problem? For years now people have claimed that the envelope for the Knicks was frozen or dented and made easier to pick out of the drum.
Did something like that happen in Virginia? Let's just say that it would be far easier to rig that draw with only two pieces of paper.
As for Oprah, I don't think she'll run. I think it's a big overreaction to a good speech last night.
In regards to people not being able to follow ballot instructions, it is pretty much THE reason Gore lost Florida, even without any recount shenanigans. A massive number of elderly Jewish voters in certain counties ended up voting for right-wing 3rd Party candidate Pat Buchanan by mistake. Many of them came forward and said the ballot had been confusing. And they had WAY more of a case than whoever wrote out this ballot did. Because on those Florida ballots, the names didn't even line up with the boxes (or circles) that needed to be filled in. It didn't matter. None of those votes went to Gore.
Being Republicans they should know that if you outlaw cell phones then only outlaws will have cell phones. Cell phones don't leak, people post leaks.
If you want a positive response you just compliment the guy way over the top. "Will you please sign this bill oh great and brilliant one?"
If you want a negative answer just approach him with an insult or tell him obama did it. "Obama could hold his breath for ten whole minutes, I bet you couldn't!"
It was a mid-December morning in 2007 — the start of an interrogation unlike anything else in the public record of Trump’s life.
Trump had brought it on himself. He had sued a reporter, accusing him of being reckless and dishonest in a book that raised questions about Trump’s net worth. The reporter’s attorneys turned the tables and brought Trump in for a deposition.
For two straight days, they asked Trump question after question that touched on the same theme: Trump’s honesty.
The lawyers confronted the mogul with his past statements — and with his company’s internal documents, which often showed those statements had been incorrect or invented. The lawyers were relentless. Trump, the bigger-than-life mogul, was vulnerable — cornered, out-prepared and under oath.
Thirty times, they caught him.
Trump had misstated sales at his condo buildings. Inflated the price of membership at one of his golf clubs. Overstated the depth of his past debts and the number of his employees.
That deposition — 170 transcribed pages — offers extraordinary insights into Trump’s relationship with the truth. Trump’s falsehoods were unstrategic — needless, highly specific, easy to disprove. When caught, Trump sometimes blamed others for the error or explained that the untrue thing really was true, in his mind, because he saw the situation more positively than others did.
Please, for the love god, let this guy be dumb and delusional enough to think he can outsmart professional criminal prosecutors under intense questioning.
Oh he also has executive time sprinkled several other times throughout the day as well.
https://www.axios.com/scoop-trumps-secret-shrinking-schedule-1515364904-ab76374a-6252-4570-a804-942b3f851840.html