Now they're showing a fuller list of deaths and my friend Melody is noticing that when she looks at the dates, there hasn't been a single day without a death. The slideshow is still in April; we're not even halfway through.
They're so young. Most were in their 20's and 30's when they died.
This doesn't look like a stable republic to me. It is things like this that make me sincerely believe secession will be on the table sooner or later if people can't come to an understanding.
You just answered your own question from your post before this one:
It's serious because it's so widespread. Misinformation that even a year ago was mainly confined to specialist message boards is now circulating freely on mainstream social media. That makes a difference.
Why does it make a difference? What tangible harm is there in people sharing what they sincerely believe, wrong or not, on social media? Is this tangible harm on a large enough scale to justify not allowing the whole of the population to share what they believe for fear it might be conspiratorial? Highly doubtful. Seems like another reason to engage in politically motivated mass censorship to me.
That's the tangible harm with sincerely believed misinformation. A unstable republic and violent outbursts.
Judge was not impressed by this case.
In the ruling Judge Brann wrote that the Trump campaign had tried to "disenfranchise almost seven million voters".
He said his "court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations".
"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state."
Judge was not impressed by this case.
In the ruling Judge Brann wrote that the Trump campaign had tried to "disenfranchise almost seven million voters".
He said his "court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations".
"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state."
And that guy is a solidly right-wing, Federalist Society judge. What is going on right now is so spurious it almost defies belief. Even the "let the legal process play out" crowd are full of it, because the legal arguments being put forth are absurd, and the people putting them forward KNOW they are absurd, and they've known they were absurd since the Thursday after the election. All that is happening is Trump setting fire to everything he can on the way out the door. Recovering from these four years would be a uphill climb under the best of circumstances. He has so poisoned the body politic that it's now going to be basically impossible. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the only unifying philosophy left on the right is a bottomless nihilism that is weaponized in the pursuit of power for it's own sake.
Judge was not impressed by this case.
In the ruling Judge Brann wrote that the Trump campaign had tried to "disenfranchise almost seven million voters".
He said his "court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations".
"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state."
this is ANOTHER lawsuit, not the trump campaign lawsuit which was thrown out and the decision from that that you are quoting. This is GOP Congressman Mike Kelly trying to throw out all mail in ballots, not the trump campaign or crazy rudy.
Judge was not impressed by this case.
In the ruling Judge Brann wrote that the Trump campaign had tried to "disenfranchise almost seven million voters".
He said his "court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations".
"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state."
this is ANOTHER lawsuit, not the trump campaign lawsuit which was thrown out and the decision from that that you are quoting. This is GOP Congressman Mike Kelly trying to throw out all mail in ballots, not the trump campaign or crazy rudy.
Yeah he's falling flat in the lawsuits so he's inviting state legislatures to the white house and they are heading back and filing more lawsuits on his behalf.
Here's the michigan gop maskless drinking from perignon at the Trump hotel ($800 charge a bottle to taxpayers) while plotting to suppress votes and steal the election from Joe Biden.
Close your eyes and try to imagine the reaction if someone photographed Gov. Whitmer in a Washington DC hotel bar, with a $500 bottle of Dom Pérignon, without a mask, on the day Michigan had nearly 10,000 new cases of COVID-19 and 53 deaths.
Now further imagine if the bottle of Dom Perignon (actually $795 at trump's gouging hotel) was a gift from Joe Biden, after meeting with him to discuss suppressing the votes of Republicans.
A pretty persuasive case from the Washington Post that the revered Founders simply did not envision someone like Trump:
“No, the framers did not envisage a president refusing to step down or discuss what should be done in such a situation,” Princeton historian Sean Wilentz said. “There’s obviously nothing in the Constitution about it.”
“This is a contingency that no one would have actively contemplated until this fall,” said historian Jack Rakove, a professor emeritus at Stanford University.AD
“We [historians] pride ourselves in saying, ‘Don’t worry, this has happened before,’ or, ‘Worry, this has happened before,’ ” said Jeffrey A. Engel, founding director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. “Right now, if all your historians can say is, ‘We are in entirely uncharted waters,’ I don’t even know how the rest of that sentence ends.”
Recently, Engel asked the post-doctoral fellows and undergraduates affiliated with the center — whose areas of study range from George Washington to Trump — to drop everything they were doing and search for any historical clues or parallels.
“They all say they got nothing,” Engel said.
The Constitution says a president’s term expires after four years. That’s it. Congress set Washington’s first term as officially beginning on March 4, 1789. March 4 became the de facto inauguration date until the 12th Amendment made it official in 1804. Then, in 1933, the 20th Amendment moved that date up to Jan. 20 and further specified that a president’s term expires at noon.
This has been followed to the letter throughout U.S. history, when it was both easy and hard, Engel said. He pointed to Inauguration Day in 1989, when Ronald Reagan’s second term was ending and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, was about to assume the presidency. At the close of his last daily briefing in the Oval Office that morning, “Reagan said, ‘Good. Well, I guess I’m done,’ and got out the nuclear codes from his pocket to hand them to Colin Powell, who was national security adviser. And Powell said, ‘Mr. President, you have to hold onto those until you’re not the president anymore’ ” — meaning, until noon.
Some losing presidential candidates have had better claims than Trump to seek legal remedies, Engel said, such as Andrew Jackson in 1824, Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000, “but none of those people ever gave any hint that they were not going to respect the legitimate authority of whoever ended up winning the process.”
The Biden campaign has said that should Trump refuse to leave on Jan. 20, “the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.” But that’s simply “common sense,” Wilentz said, not a documented process described in the Constitution or any other law.AD
But weren’t the Founders obsessed with the encroaching nature of tyranny? Didn’t they worry constantly about a president having too much power?
Most of them did, yes, though not all. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Alexander Hamilton floated the idea of presidents serving for life, but when put to a vote, the proposal failed 4 to 6.
The power that scared many Founders the most was that of commander in chief.
Though not necessarily tied to an election loss, “there was a lot of discussion of the possibility that a president with control of the Army might refuse to relinquish power,” said Michael McConnell, a constitutional law professor at Stanford and author of the new book “The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution.”
At the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry said: “If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him; and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design.”AD
Gouverneur Morris, who wrote the preamble to the Constitution, warned that if a president was limited to one term, he might “be unwilling to quit his exaltation … he will be in possession of the sword, a civil war will ensue, and the commander of the victorious army on which ever side, will be the despot of America.”
Perhaps most ominously, one prominent Pennsylvanian identifying himself only as “An Old Whig,” wrote about this in Antifederalist No. 70 and is worth quoting at length:“Let us suppose this man to be a favorite with his army, and that they are unwilling to part with their beloved commander in chief … and we have only to suppose one thing more, that this man is without the virtue, the moderation and love of liberty which possessed the mind of our late general [Washington] — and this country will be involved at once in war and tyranny.… We may also suppose, without trespassing upon the bounds of probability, that this man may not have the means of supporting, in private life, the dignity of his former station; that like Caesar, he may be at once ambitious and poor, and deeply involved in debt. Such a man would die a thousand deaths rather than sink from the heights of splendor and power, into obscurity and wretchedness.”
Some Founders who supported the Constitution still predicted that it wouldn’t stop a president from seizing power.
“The first man put at the helm will be a good one,” Benjamin Franklin said, referring to Washington. “Nobody knows what sort may come afterwards. The executive will be always increasing here, as elsewhere, till it ends in a monarchy.”
So why didn’t the Founders plan for this particular scenario, of a president simply denying that he had lost an election? Because they couldn’t even fathom it, Engel said.
“They couldn’t fathom two things: a person who had become president who was so utterly lacking in classical virtue that they would deign or dare to put their own interests above the unity of the country. And the second thing is, I think they couldn’t fathom how any president who would so vividly display disdain for the unity of the country, and mock and undermine the legitimacy of American democracy, why that person [wouldn’t have] already been impeached and removed from office.”
Apparently - they'll even refuse to certify counties that they *won* and handily. It just goes to show you that the GOP is acting in such extreme bad faith for the sole purpose of harming democracy.
Apparently - they'll even refuse to certify counties that they *won* and handily. It just goes to show you that the GOP is acting in such extreme bad faith for the sole purpose of harming democracy.
Smoke and mirrors. They want to play both sides there knowing it wouldn't make a difference. Let's see what happens here in Michigan with a 2-2 split between the parties. All we need is one Republican with a spine to end this charade. Odds anybody?
Apparently - they'll even refuse to certify counties that they *won* and handily. It just goes to show you that the GOP is acting in such extreme bad faith for the sole purpose of harming democracy.
They don't even have any reasoning behind it other than "we lost so it doesn't count". It's all a stall tactic hoping for some miracle. The difference between the two parties is no longer tax policy or abortion. It's that one side believes in democracy and the other one doesn't. Nothing else even really matters at this point.
I've been spending alot of time on reactionary Youtube the past couple days, and the Kool-Aid is QUITE strong. Every ridiculous move is somehow spun as Trump playing 64 dimensional chess, that the big reveal is just around that corner. It's frightening stuff, honestly.
apparently all the business leaders (goldman sachs and others) told republicans & Trump it's over and they will stop donating if he kept holding up the transition. This was going to lead to market instability and we can't have that.
apparently all the business leaders (goldman sachs and others) told republicans & Trump it's over and they will stop donating if he kept holding up the transition. This was going to lead to market instability and we can't have that.
apparently all the business leaders (goldman sachs and others) told republicans & Trump it's over and they will stop donating if he kept holding up the transition. This was going to lead to market instability and we can't have that.
The letter from the GSA is nothing but self-pitying BS from someone who has refused to do her job for the last week because she is a complete craven. And what happened to Sidney Powell the MOMENT Trump thought that, even for him, she was getting too crazy, begs the same question we've been asking for four years. What in hell compels people to think they are going to be the ONE person Trump doesn't throw under the bus or knife in the back?? Why does anyone, at this late date, throw all their dignity away on this laughingstock of a human??
The letter from the GSA is nothing but self-pitying BS from someone who has refused to do her job for the last week because she is a complete craven. And what happened to Sidney Powell the MOMENT Trump thought that, even for him, she was getting too crazy, begs the same question we've been asking for four years. What in hell compels people to think they are going to be the ONE person Trump doesn't throw under the bus or knife in the back?? Why does anyone, at this late date, throw all their dignity away on this laughingstock of a human??
I don't think Trump thought she was too crazy, I think Rudy Giuliani did. He let her go and now there's tension apparently between Trump and Giuliani because of course there is. Trump demands complete loyalty, people do that, but he demands the impossible because reality eventually gets in the way. Once you can't do the impossible for him, he tosses you out. We've seen this scenario again and again and again. Whatever else he is, Trump is a terrible manager of people.
Dianne Feinstein is "stepping down" as the head Democrat on the judiciary. I put it in quotes because it is almost certain that the real story is Schumer pushed her out after her pathetic rollover during the Amy Coney Barrett hearings. Feinstein is the epitome of the "club" aspect of the Senate, and I couldn't be happier she is getting moved out of this consequential position.
The letter from the GSA is nothing but self-pitying BS from someone who has refused to do her job for the last week because she is a complete craven. And what happened to Sidney Powell the MOMENT Trump thought that, even for him, she was getting too crazy, begs the same question we've been asking for four years. What in hell compels people to think they are going to be the ONE person Trump doesn't throw under the bus or knife in the back?? Why does anyone, at this late date, throw all their dignity away on this laughingstock of a human??
I don't think Trump thought she was too crazy, I think Rudy Giuliani did. He let her go and now there's tension apparently between Trump and Giuliani because of course there is. Trump demands complete loyalty, people do that, but he demands the impossible because reality eventually gets in the way. Once you can't do the impossible for him, he tosses you out. We've seen this scenario again and again and again. Whatever else he is, Trump is a terrible manager of people.
Giuliani thought she was too crazy? That is absolutely terrifying. That would be like getting fired by Charles Manson because you make him feel uneasy...
Dianne Feinstein is "stepping down" as the head Democrat on the judiciary. I put it in quotes because it is almost certain that the real story is Schumer pushed her out after her pathetic rollover during the Amy Coney Barrett hearings. Feinstein is the epitome of the "club" aspect of the Senate, and I couldn't be happier she is getting moved out of this consequential position.
Cut Barrett a little slack. The juriy's still out on Trump's SCOTUS picks. Even Kavanaugh hasn't 'towed the line' like he was supposed to. The judicial seems to be the sanest branch of our government by far. Maybe 'not' having to run for election every so many years was a good choice by the Founding Fathers after all. They can actually rule as their conscience dictates instead of lying to win elections...
She's ideological far rightwing nutjub who is unqualified as far as experience goes to be on the highest court. Technically she meets the low qualifications, but realistically she has no relevant experience.
To top it all off she was put on there a week before the election by the party that said 8 months was too close to an election to put a supreme court justice on the bench.
Why does she deserve slack? She can resign and I'd give her slack.
She's ideological far rightwing nutjub who is unqualified as far as experience goes to be on the highest court. Technically she meets the low qualifications, but realistically she has no relevant experience.
To top it all off she was put on there a week before the election by the party that said 8 months was too close to an election to put a supreme court justice on the bench.
Why does she deserve slack? She can resign and I'd give her slack.
I guess I would reserve judgment until she's actually made a ruling. What do I know though? I believe that judges are the reason that Trump's little 'coup', as you call it, fell flat. Not all of those judges that ruled against him were 'liberals'. It's easier to just label people though I guess...
She's ideological far rightwing nutjub who is unqualified as far as experience goes to be on the highest court. Technically she meets the low qualifications, but realistically she has no relevant experience.
To top it all off she was put on there a week before the election by the party that said 8 months was too close to an election to put a supreme court justice on the bench.
Why does she deserve slack? She can resign and I'd give her slack.
I guess I would reserve judgment until she's actually made a ruling. What do I know though? I believe that judges are the reason that Trump's little 'coup', as you call it, fell flat. Not all of those judges that ruled against him were 'liberals'. It's easier to just label people though I guess...
That's exactly why she was picked though right, her labels. She certainly doesn't have the experience.
She's ideological far rightwing nutjub who is unqualified as far as experience goes to be on the highest court. Technically she meets the low qualifications, but realistically she has no relevant experience.
To top it all off she was put on there a week before the election by the party that said 8 months was too close to an election to put a supreme court justice on the bench.
Why does she deserve slack? She can resign and I'd give her slack.
I guess I would reserve judgment until she's actually made a ruling. What do I know though? I believe that judges are the reason that Trump's little 'coup', as you call it, fell flat. Not all of those judges that ruled against him were 'liberals'. It's easier to just label people though I guess...
We'll see. But the hypocrisy she displayed by accepting the nomination given her arguments against the Garland nomination in 2016 does not bode well in my opinion.
I do hope but am not totally confident that the impact on established law like the Affordable Care Act and Roe-vs-Wade won't be significant, since even Conservatives justices are usually reluctant to overturn old precedent. However, the impact on new legislation will probably be severe. E.g. the new court may not overturn Obamacare now, but any similar new legislation will be in trouble.
She's ideological far rightwing nutjub who is unqualified as far as experience goes to be on the highest court. Technically she meets the low qualifications, but realistically she has no relevant experience.
To top it all off she was put on there a week before the election by the party that said 8 months was too close to an election to put a supreme court justice on the bench.
Why does she deserve slack? She can resign and I'd give her slack.
I guess I would reserve judgment until she's actually made a ruling. What do I know though? I believe that judges are the reason that Trump's little 'coup', as you call it, fell flat. Not all of those judges that ruled against him were 'liberals'. It's easier to just label people though I guess...
We'll see. But the hypocrisy she displayed by accepting the nomination given her arguments against the Garland nomination in 2016 does not bode well in my opinion.
I do hope but am not totally confident that the impact on established law like the Affordable Care Act and Roe-vs-Wade won't be significant, since even Conservatives justices are usually reluctant to overturn old precedent. However, the impact on new legislation will probably be severe. E.g. the new court may not overturn Obamacare now, but any similar new legislation will be in trouble.
Personally, I don't think SCOTUS will touch Obamacare with a 10' pole unless there's some kind of alternative in play. I could be wrong, but that's what my Spidey-sense tells me.
Why so many people on the left political spectrum is so obsessed with equality?
People are mass starving on Argentina, with a currency so devaluated that the government is passing the new laws and taxes US dollars instead of the local currency, and ... The government is concerned with affirmative action and diversity on the army and in private sector and a stricter gun law to cripple the Argentine hunting industry more than the pandemic already ruined. Some right wings says that "socialists wanna everyone equally starving to death" but I don't think that it is a straw man.
Socialism ruined Cuba, ruined Venezuela, ruined Argentina and is a matter of time before ruins Chile, and USA. Will only takes more time on USA cuz USA has check and balances on the government power and a stronger rural culture.
Comments
They're so young. Most were in their 20's and 30's when they died.
You just answered your own question from your post before this one:
That's the tangible harm with sincerely believed misinformation. A unstable republic and violent outbursts.
Trump calls on GOP state legislatures to overturn election results
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/trump-state-legislatures-overturn-election-results-439031
and they're responding at the state level.....
After Trump lost his case in federal court for Pennsylvania, GOP Group Files Pennsylvania Lawsuit to Invalidate State's Mail-in Ballots—All of Them
https://www.newsweek.com/gop-group-files-pennsylvania-lawsuit-invalidate-states-mail-ballotsall-them-1549262
RNC chair urges Michigan board to pause certification of election results
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/republicans-michigan-election-certification-438984
On Parler, a Pro-Trump Call For Georgia Runoff Boycott for not breaking the law or something and ignoring that Biden won
https://www.newsweek.com/parler-pro-trump-call-georgia-runoff-boycott-threatens-mitch-mcconnells-plan-restrain-biden-1549282
also Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, running for re-election, tests positive for Covid
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/21/politics/kelly-loeffler-tests-positive-covid-georgia/index.html
Judge was not impressed by this case.
In the ruling Judge Brann wrote that the Trump campaign had tried to "disenfranchise almost seven million voters".
He said his "court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations".
"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state."
And that guy is a solidly right-wing, Federalist Society judge. What is going on right now is so spurious it almost defies belief. Even the "let the legal process play out" crowd are full of it, because the legal arguments being put forth are absurd, and the people putting them forward KNOW they are absurd, and they've known they were absurd since the Thursday after the election. All that is happening is Trump setting fire to everything he can on the way out the door. Recovering from these four years would be a uphill climb under the best of circumstances. He has so poisoned the body politic that it's now going to be basically impossible. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the only unifying philosophy left on the right is a bottomless nihilism that is weaponized in the pursuit of power for it's own sake.
this is ANOTHER lawsuit, not the trump campaign lawsuit which was thrown out and the decision from that that you are quoting. This is GOP Congressman Mike Kelly trying to throw out all mail in ballots, not the trump campaign or crazy rudy.
Trump has called on GOP state legislatures to overturn election results and this guy jumped up to do that.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/21/trump-state-legislatures-overturn-election-results-439031
OK - it's hard to keep up with them all
Here's the michigan gop maskless drinking from perignon at the Trump hotel ($800 charge a bottle to taxpayers) while plotting to suppress votes and steal the election from Joe Biden.
Close your eyes and try to imagine the reaction if someone photographed Gov. Whitmer in a Washington DC hotel bar, with a $500 bottle of Dom Pérignon, without a mask, on the day Michigan had nearly 10,000 new cases of COVID-19 and 53 deaths.
Now further imagine if the bottle of Dom Perignon (actually $795 at trump's gouging hotel) was a gift from Joe Biden, after meeting with him to discuss suppressing the votes of Republicans.
“No, the framers did not envisage a president refusing to step down or discuss what should be done in such a situation,” Princeton historian Sean Wilentz said. “There’s obviously nothing in the Constitution about it.”
“This is a contingency that no one would have actively contemplated until this fall,” said historian Jack Rakove, a professor emeritus at Stanford University.AD
“We [historians] pride ourselves in saying, ‘Don’t worry, this has happened before,’ or, ‘Worry, this has happened before,’ ” said Jeffrey A. Engel, founding director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. “Right now, if all your historians can say is, ‘We are in entirely uncharted waters,’ I don’t even know how the rest of that sentence ends.”
Recently, Engel asked the post-doctoral fellows and undergraduates affiliated with the center — whose areas of study range from George Washington to Trump — to drop everything they were doing and search for any historical clues or parallels.
“They all say they got nothing,” Engel said.
The Constitution says a president’s term expires after four years. That’s it. Congress set Washington’s first term as officially beginning on March 4, 1789. March 4 became the de facto inauguration date until the 12th Amendment made it official in 1804. Then, in 1933, the 20th Amendment moved that date up to Jan. 20 and further specified that a president’s term expires at noon.
This has been followed to the letter throughout U.S. history, when it was both easy and hard, Engel said. He pointed to Inauguration Day in 1989, when Ronald Reagan’s second term was ending and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, was about to assume the presidency. At the close of his last daily briefing in the Oval Office that morning, “Reagan said, ‘Good. Well, I guess I’m done,’ and got out the nuclear codes from his pocket to hand them to Colin Powell, who was national security adviser. And Powell said, ‘Mr. President, you have to hold onto those until you’re not the president anymore’ ” — meaning, until noon.
Some losing presidential candidates have had better claims than Trump to seek legal remedies, Engel said, such as Andrew Jackson in 1824, Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000, “but none of those people ever gave any hint that they were not going to respect the legitimate authority of whoever ended up winning the process.”
The Biden campaign has said that should Trump refuse to leave on Jan. 20, “the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.” But that’s simply “common sense,” Wilentz said, not a documented process described in the Constitution or any other law.AD
But weren’t the Founders obsessed with the encroaching nature of tyranny? Didn’t they worry constantly about a president having too much power?
Most of them did, yes, though not all. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Alexander Hamilton floated the idea of presidents serving for life, but when put to a vote, the proposal failed 4 to 6.
The power that scared many Founders the most was that of commander in chief.
Though not necessarily tied to an election loss, “there was a lot of discussion of the possibility that a president with control of the Army might refuse to relinquish power,” said Michael McConnell, a constitutional law professor at Stanford and author of the new book “The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution.”
At the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry said: “If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him; and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design.”AD
Gouverneur Morris, who wrote the preamble to the Constitution, warned that if a president was limited to one term, he might “be unwilling to quit his exaltation … he will be in possession of the sword, a civil war will ensue, and the commander of the victorious army on which ever side, will be the despot of America.”
Perhaps most ominously, one prominent Pennsylvanian identifying himself only as “An Old Whig,” wrote about this in Antifederalist No. 70 and is worth quoting at length:“Let us suppose this man to be a favorite with his army, and that they are unwilling to part with their beloved commander in chief … and we have only to suppose one thing more, that this man is without the virtue, the moderation and love of liberty which possessed the mind of our late general [Washington] — and this country will be involved at once in war and tyranny.… We may also suppose, without trespassing upon the bounds of probability, that this man may not have the means of supporting, in private life, the dignity of his former station; that like Caesar, he may be at once ambitious and poor, and deeply involved in debt. Such a man would die a thousand deaths rather than sink from the heights of splendor and power, into obscurity and wretchedness.”
Some Founders who supported the Constitution still predicted that it wouldn’t stop a president from seizing power.
“The first man put at the helm will be a good one,” Benjamin Franklin said, referring to Washington. “Nobody knows what sort may come afterwards. The executive will be always increasing here, as elsewhere, till it ends in a monarchy.”
So why didn’t the Founders plan for this particular scenario, of a president simply denying that he had lost an election? Because they couldn’t even fathom it, Engel said.
“They couldn’t fathom two things: a person who had become president who was so utterly lacking in classical virtue that they would deign or dare to put their own interests above the unity of the country. And the second thing is, I think they couldn’t fathom how any president who would so vividly display disdain for the unity of the country, and mock and undermine the legitimacy of American democracy, why that person [wouldn’t have] already been impeached and removed from office.”
Apparently - they'll even refuse to certify counties that they *won* and handily. It just goes to show you that the GOP is acting in such extreme bad faith for the sole purpose of harming democracy.
Smoke and mirrors. They want to play both sides there knowing it wouldn't make a difference. Let's see what happens here in Michigan with a 2-2 split between the parties. All we need is one Republican with a spine to end this charade. Odds anybody?
They don't even have any reasoning behind it other than "we lost so it doesn't count". It's all a stall tactic hoping for some miracle. The difference between the two parties is no longer tax policy or abortion. It's that one side believes in democracy and the other one doesn't. Nothing else even really matters at this point.
I've been spending alot of time on reactionary Youtube the past couple days, and the Kool-Aid is QUITE strong. Every ridiculous move is somehow spun as Trump playing 64 dimensional chess, that the big reveal is just around that corner. It's frightening stuff, honestly.
Trump himself did not write this tweet, no way. Too articulate. Also he doesn't care about anyone but himself. No misspellings.
He didn't write it himself lol, cowardly ass can't admit he lost like a grown up.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/23/did-michigan-certify-election-results-board-canvassers/6388768002/
https://www.ft.com/content/8c7745ef-b7a9-42be-90ac-69da9675a87f
That article is behind a $39.50/month paywall. I guess I'll have to take your word for it... ?
come on don't you have 39.50 sitting around from the $1200 covid stimulus we all got almost a year ago? Budgeting...
Just joking but seriously, here's another one... It didn't ask me for money when I clicked on it (the financial times one).
https://thehill.com/homenews/527230-over-160-new-york-executives-call-on-trump-administration-to-start-transition
I don't think Trump thought she was too crazy, I think Rudy Giuliani did. He let her go and now there's tension apparently between Trump and Giuliani because of course there is. Trump demands complete loyalty, people do that, but he demands the impossible because reality eventually gets in the way. Once you can't do the impossible for him, he tosses you out. We've seen this scenario again and again and again. Whatever else he is, Trump is a terrible manager of people.
Giuliani thought she was too crazy? That is absolutely terrifying. That would be like getting fired by Charles Manson because you make him feel uneasy...
Cut Barrett a little slack. The juriy's still out on Trump's SCOTUS picks. Even Kavanaugh hasn't 'towed the line' like he was supposed to. The judicial seems to be the sanest branch of our government by far. Maybe 'not' having to run for election every so many years was a good choice by the Founding Fathers after all. They can actually rule as their conscience dictates instead of lying to win elections...
She's ideological far rightwing nutjub who is unqualified as far as experience goes to be on the highest court. Technically she meets the low qualifications, but realistically she has no relevant experience.
To top it all off she was put on there a week before the election by the party that said 8 months was too close to an election to put a supreme court justice on the bench.
Why does she deserve slack? She can resign and I'd give her slack.
I guess I would reserve judgment until she's actually made a ruling. What do I know though? I believe that judges are the reason that Trump's little 'coup', as you call it, fell flat. Not all of those judges that ruled against him were 'liberals'. It's easier to just label people though I guess...
That's exactly why she was picked though right, her labels. She certainly doesn't have the experience.
We'll see. But the hypocrisy she displayed by accepting the nomination given her arguments against the Garland nomination in 2016 does not bode well in my opinion.
I do hope but am not totally confident that the impact on established law like the Affordable Care Act and Roe-vs-Wade won't be significant, since even Conservatives justices are usually reluctant to overturn old precedent. However, the impact on new legislation will probably be severe. E.g. the new court may not overturn Obamacare now, but any similar new legislation will be in trouble.
Personally, I don't think SCOTUS will touch Obamacare with a 10' pole unless there's some kind of alternative in play. I could be wrong, but that's what my Spidey-sense tells me.
People are mass starving on Argentina, with a currency so devaluated that the government is passing the new laws and taxes US dollars instead of the local currency, and ... The government is concerned with affirmative action and diversity on the army and in private sector and a stricter gun law to cripple the Argentine hunting industry more than the pandemic already ruined. Some right wings says that "socialists wanna everyone equally starving to death" but I don't think that it is a straw man.
Socialism ruined Cuba, ruined Venezuela, ruined Argentina and is a matter of time before ruins Chile, and USA. Will only takes more time on USA cuz USA has check and balances on the government power and a stronger rural culture.
Equality is a broad concept. Even conservatives and right wingers in general would agree that equality before the law is a good idea.
Then you have other ideas like equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, these are generally regarded as opposites.
It would help the discussion if you were more specific.