Here's how I see "things going down". This does not represent an endorsement of any candidate; just "soothsaying".
I think the "all clear" will sound about July 1. If they are to be believed, the Chinese are reporting fewer new Covid-19 cases as are the South Koreans. I only first learned of such during February and the widely reported fourteen day quarantine seems to be adequate.
I think the economy will recover fast. The reason is that most professionals with discretionary income are working, even if from home, and their demand for services, including travel, is "pent up". This of course means that furloughed service workers will be quickly recalled.
I think the Financial Markets will mirror the economic recovery, but in order to avoid inflation, interest rates had best rise (retirees whose portfolios comprise more fixed income securities than when working will like - something to remember on the way to the polls).
Now if this timeline holds, Trump will hold a "huge 4th" spectacle at taxpayer expense to celebrate the crisis' passing.
"Oh but we know it won't be partisan"
This of course followed with his throwing bread to the Proletariat touting his bold leadership, and how Joe would have been "snoring just like Herbert Hoover" (convenienly forgetting HCH was a Republican).
Trump will win re-election; not by an "oh so last century" landslide, but win.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Even if the nation's health and economy recover in late summer, you think people won't remember Trump's complete lack of leadership ability which may well have cost voters the lives of beloved friends and family members? Joe Biden may be a gaffe machine, but at least he would have been a better leader than what we've got now.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Jerome, you must be getting all your info on Trump filtered though CNN and other major media. I feel the guy has done fairly good. Not perfect, but fairly good, particularly since there seems to be a relatively large contingent of politicians media and others who want to see Trump fail regardless of the cost to the nation. The idea of how Hillary would have handled this gives me nightmares. I do not see any of the potential Democratic candidates that would be of any benefit to the country.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Sorry, Mr. Harris, my (evangelical) Sister, and all the other Trump supporters out there, are making a serious mistake listening to him touting Easter as an "all clear" date.
Drs. Birz and Fauchi surely have, in their professional minds, "the Fourth".
Simply look at the parts of the World - the Far East, where the cases appear to have peaked; look at when there were first reports of such, and you're looking at a 90 day timeline.
That's "the Fourth", volks.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I think the economy will recover fast. The reason is that most professionals with discretionary income are working, even if from home, and their demand for services, including travel, is "pent up". This of course means that furloughed service workers will be quickly recalled
It appears that I must "walk-back" this "optimistic soothsaying" on my part, for as this Journal article reports, layoffs are now hitting "white collar" positions that I thought were immune:
Fair Use:
The first people to lose their jobs worked at restaurants, malls, hotels and other places that closed to contain the coronavirus pandemic. Higher skilled work, which often didn’t require personal contact, seemed more secure.
That’s not how it’s turning out.
A second wave of job loss is hitting those who thought they were safe. Businesses that set up employees to work from home are laying them off as sales plummet. Corporate lawyers are seeing jobs dry up. Government workers are being furloughed as state and city budgets are squeezed. And health-care workers not involved in fighting the pandemic are suffering
Without doubt, this is the most ominous development I've learned regarding this downturn. I'm starting to think that the recovery from this "Covid Recession" (better name, anyone?) will resemble that of the "Great Recession" from which the recovery was believed to have begun during March '09, but was not complete until '19.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I have some other thoughts, but for now I am just going to drop this one out. There are a lot of businesses and their employees that have decided that they can do quite a bit from home, provided the people involved have the integrity to do real work. Since I have worked most of my life in engineering, which is for the most part an office job I have seen that come about. Although I am essentially retired I have done a little work from home in the last months. In every case, except field work, as in visiting a site for inspection, it has all been from home with communication by telephone and email with a few exceptions where the meetings on the site involved more than one person and we sat outside eating and talking. There are quite a few people that are saying, "hey, this ain't bad, we could keep this up." I could see some offices having this as a practice for some days of the week, but I suspect there will be some felt need to see face to fact at regular intervals. There are even some of the admin people that I know to be working from home, including items relating to time and expenses.
Should this occur, it could a a notable difference in road and transit traffic and trade at such businesses as restaurants and shops in office areas. It could also result in an even greater drop in public transit usage, two reasons, fewer people going and people being unwilling to be in close proximity with unknowns.
I was in Taiwan during the SARS epidemic and saw how they handled it. Virtually everyone wore a mask. Virtually every building had someone at the door taking temperatures or an infrared sensor. Public transit traffic dropped by almost half. People who did not have to go to an office or site stayed home. Air traffic between Taipei and Hong Kong dropped about half and that was/is one of the heaviest traveled air corridors in the world. People who did not have to go out, did not go out. There near panic we are seeing here did not occur. There were a lot of seemingly small things done, but the massive closings did not occur. People simply took precautions when they did go out. Eventually the epidemic worked its way through or fizzled itself out, but we got past it, and things came to be back to normal. There is a general suspicion that this one also started in China, but that I do not say further.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Where's The Greatest Generation and "pro bono publico" today? The willingness of people to sacrifice to get this COVID under control is totally lacking. People gather in large groups up close and without masks, kids and even young adults don’t know what the phrase “social distance” means. Then you get these “nutjobs” talking about their “rights”. Our civilized society is breaking down,
I’m so pessimistic with, at this posting, 93 days to go to the Election that I am fearing Trump will precipitate the greatest constitutional crisis we have faced. Should Joe prevail with pluralities in enough States to attain the needed 270 Electoral Votes, Trump will simply force the matter into the Federal Courts with challenges. He controls those; he’s packed them with loyalists. Sean and Tucker will be fanning the flames nightly.
The challenges will not be resolved by Jan 20, and I think we are looking at the Speaker of the House (presently and likely remaining so, Nancy Pelosi) being sworn in as the 46th (Acting) President.
Trump will have not won the Election, but with the Courts help, he will become the 47th President. The USA will be as much a dictatorship as is Russia, Turkey, and China.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
And we will go to our graves thinking about the the country we left our children.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I have somewhat more hope that the election will stay out of the judiciary with Joe's selection of Kamala, She could be ready to go and be President on a moment's notice.
She could stand up to these tin horn dictators like Erdogen, Maduro, and even Vladimir, and will further mop up the debate floor with Pence. Trump will color himself lucky he doesn't have to debate her.
The Black vote will turn out this time - that such didn't in '16 cost Hillary Ohio. If Joe can flip PA and OH, and hold everything Hillary won in '16, he'll have 270. If that means he wins, I hope it's determined at the Ballot Box. Same applies should Trump prevail.
Joe made the best choice. I hope readers here agree.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Even better if Biden wins AZ, FL. NC and even TX on top of WI. Biden needs to score a landslide, not just squeak out an elevator college victory to avoid your scenario. I would have preferred Harris for AG with Rice for VP because as a former prosecutor. she would go after Trump &co all out. But I'm sure they'll find someone suitable.. Now, after Biden and Harris' speech this afternoon, black women will come to the polls with their co workers, church members and salon buddies as they wouldn't have for Khlobuchar and didn't for Clinton. This puts OH and WI in play even more than before.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A very reasonable assessment, Mr. Nicholson.
Additionally, we must accept that the term "landslide" belongs to a past century, with Bill over Dole during '96 the last of such. I hold that there need be a 5% plurality in any state to avoid a challenge, so very safe assumption there will be. Fortunately, there is no meaningful Third Party to muddy things up this year (OK, Kanye West ).
There is simply no reason to disrupt your "body clock" this year, and I'm surprised the TV stations even plan to offer marathon coverage. Possibly, as Mr. Nicholson notes, that one ticket or the other will have sufficient Electoral Votes in states with greater than that 5% threshold I note, but then I also note, "landslide" is a historical term.
Let's remember that States have until Dec 20 to certify election results internally, and their delegation to the Electoral College.
Finally, I still hold 50-50 the 46th POTUS will be the the 117th Congress' Speaker of the House, as provided by the Constitution.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Continuing with my "doom and gloom" predictions with 82 DTG, I think should Joe and Kamala win in the College, and are able to take office on Jan 20, there will not be a "traditional" inauguration day. They will be sworn in at a "masked" ceremony no more elaborate than that of a VP filling an unexpired term (be such Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, TR, Truman, LBJ, or Ford, let the history books describe those surroundings). Should Trump (and his sidekick; uh, WAZZIZNAME) win, still a "subdued" affair.
Finally, should someone other than Trump be next sworn in as POTUS, he, first, will not formally concede, will not participate in the ceremony, and he will need be "escorted" from the White House to the helicopter assigned the SAM - Special Airlift Mission. As this occurs, there will be demonstrations in Lafayette Park by two opposite factions that hopefully, but not likely, will be peaceful.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
At this point I expect Trump to win with sufficient certainty that the Democrats will not spend the next four years playing "Calvinball" like they have the last four. The he won't willingly cede if he loses is more the way Hillary and cohorts have acted the last four years. Should he lose I think he will leave with much more grace than Hillary failed to acknowledge her loss. By now I have had it to my eyeballs with how twisted our normal press has become, and am well on the way to saying these professional rioters should simply be shot and be done with them.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, I pray I'm mistaken; and that the Election will be sufficiently decisive so that when the College convenes, we will follow our 245 year tradition of a peaceful transition, or continuation, of power.
We both have worn the uniform of our country. We both took the oath to uphold that tradition.
I know we both want that.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
If Biden wins, I think the inauguration will take place inside the Capitol Building. No parade, no inaugural ball. Split screen with Trump being walked/ carried/ frog marched/dragged out of the White House. The inaugural address will be virtual, with Biden signing dozens of executive orders as the House and New Senate enact dozens of new laws simultaneously with increased$ for corona virus/ depression victims.Meanwhile, the remaining Republicans will say they have a better solution which they never put forward when they were in power.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
As for myself, I'm going to bed at my usual 9P CT Nov 3, after having watched a movie. I'll "take a double" of my over the counter sleep aid, put the longest Mahler in the Player (8th; pretty sure), awake in the morning, and see where it all stands.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
That's what I did in 2016. Didn't help because my sister called in the wee small hours to tell me Trump won.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It matters not who you are for, this Opinion piece appearing in The New York Times is worthy of your attention.
Fair Use:
This is not a column about a case that’s pending at the Supreme Court — yet.
It’s about the nightmare scenarios surrounding the presidential election and its aftermath that could conceivably propel a case there. Such scenarios are being contemplated and written about with increasing urgency as President Trump ramps up his predictions of voter fraud, setting the stage for challenging the legitimacy of an election that he appears, at this point at least, likely to lose
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
If Biden wins, Trump will not concede however big the margin. But a big enough margin would have a better chance of surviving a court challenge.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I plan to vote on Nov 3rd at the polls. Of course I'll be masked (somewhere, but not in my precinct, somebody will try to vote unmasked; making a big "fruck" about "their rights") and go about 10AM.
I'm sure mail balloting is perfectly secure, but after voting early during '16, I said "never again". There was "just something missing"; emotional yes.
This could be my final Presidential Election, and I just want the "feel" of elections past. It will be hard enough not to "stay up", but "placing my bets" nothing will be decided, why disrupt my "hard to reset" body clock?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, while I had a "pretty high bar" for concession speeches set when I watched Stevenson during '52 (11 yo), I do agree with you, Hillary "could have handled things better".
While I discount the reports circulated within "alternate media" that Hillary was "drunk as a skunk" and Bill told the Secret Service "you deal with her; I can't", she owed her supporters more than her "next Morning on the QT" appearance.
An "awful lot of people" worked "awful hard" without pay (I know several) for her, Hillary could have come out and conceeded in front at the same time she reportedly texted Trump.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
"The Sum of All Fears", is my title for what follows:
In this video clip taken from "The Circus" S5 Ep13 airing on Showtime, foresees the civil unrest that will occur should Nancy Pelosi, or whoever is 117th Congress' Speaker, is sworn in as the 46th POTUS. It's not so much lack of qualifications, but rather our 231 year history of peaceful transition of power will have been broken.
"Let us pray..."
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
An even more fearful specter has appeared. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. Mitch McConnell, who denied President Obama a replacement for Antonin Scales in February 2016 on the argument that it was an election year, now says he will this vacancy in this election year. This is going to be BRUTAL!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Even if RBG had hung on until January 3, the Senate would still have to "flip" - and there is a greater chance of Joe winning than that occurring. If somehow Joe is to win, I'm sure any SCOTUS nominee of his, qualifications notwithstanding, would have a "rough ride" ending with Mitch selecting the nominee and a "Mr. President, here is who will be seated".
Oh well, so much for 231 years of Separation of Powers.
All told, I think that RBG's passing has delivered Reelection to Trump. I have sensed that from the moment I opened this topic. Obviously, Trump knew RBG was in worse shape than was being let on. He certainly had "need to know" and accordingly he publicly announced he had his conservative "list" ready to go. Now, he is in the "driver's seat" to decide to nominate pre or post election. If he senses that the Senate could "flip" (unlikely), he will appoint now with a hurry up and vote now agenda. If he senses the Senate is "safe", then why not drag it out? Get those conservatives like the Evangelicals who just might have had enough of his amoral behavior, corrupt staff, and a ranking by the Wiki Notable Scholars" that he ranks 42nd of 44 (Buchannan and Andrew Johnson below), to be sure to come out to the polls to ensure his reelection.
Time for Kubler-Ross Phase 5 and accept there will be "four more years" of Trump.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I had expected RBG to resign somewhere in the middle of Obama's second term. After all, she would have been 80, and it would give Obama the opportunity to put up a judge more in line with RBG's positions. Maybe she expected to outlast Trump's first term and that the Democrat, whoever it may have been, to be the one to appoint her successor?
As to Trump's crudeness in personality and past, for most of the Evangelicals and conservatives, Trump's positions on most things and his determination to action rather than just talk, put him far ahead of Biden regardless of what sort of personality he can present. As many have said, we are electing a president, not a pastor.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, I think that with the Dems having lost the Senate after the '14 midterms, RBG decided it was time for a "hang in there girl". Bearing that out was what happened with the Garland appointment, and all told so long as there is a Senate Majority Leader as ruthless as Mitch, the Constitution will be abrogated in favor of that Leader.
I think RBG was quite confident that whoever the Democrats nominated, Bernie and Liz included (just because I would have voted for Trump before either of those two matters not), would defeat Trump. I have to wonder that, as she saw Joe sink in the polls to the point that the election will likely be contested (ref: clip at post #22), she just "gave up and checked out".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
With now 39 DTG, and the chanting "short" ringing in the air, I've become convinced the momentum has swung to Trump.
That he will appoint and the Senate will confirm, a new SCOTUS Justice seated by Election Day, essentially assures should any contest reach the Judiciary (and several will; Trump will see to that), it will be decided in Trump's favor.
Further, Trump's statement he will not participate in an orderly transition, will be enough to scare some into voting for Trump. "Hey, no government I don't get my checks; better vote for him".
Also, the "bread for the Proletariat" will be thrown about. Case in point; the $200 prescription gift cards, which he appears to be empowered to initiate on his own.
But, even if not yet reflected in the Polls, the momentum is Trump's. He is a Showman, a Carnival Barker, and Joe is simply a weak and plodding candidate. That Joe holds qualifications beyond those of Trump matters not compared with the ballyhoo a showman brings. While, considering the absentee voting, including mine, will mean no point staying up, the Election will be decided by the results - close but decisive.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Mr. Norman: I have trouble seeing Biden's qualifications. Yes, he has spent a long time in public office, and apparently has good academic qualifications, but, what has he done? I see very little that says this guy is able to handle the job of president. If he is sitting down with some less than friendly head of a foreign state without teleprompter of puppeteer, what will he do? I don't think he could handle it. Even if I did not consider Trump having performed well as president and could find myself in agreement with more of Biden's positions than I do, I would still vote for Trump as "least bad" which is why I voted for him in 2016.
I think Trump has shown himself to be a doer, not a talker, and much of what he has done I consider to be the right moves. In fact, I think he would come across better if he did less talking. But then there is a near irrational hatred for the man in much of the news media, so not sure it would matter.
As to him benefitting financially from the office, if anything, he has lost financially. The one who has benefitted is Biden, or at least his son.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While I realize, and respect, that some here active at this Forum, will be quick to note that the linked source is biased, it is one of the two sources from which I draw my news and formulate my opinions.
I watched some fifteen minutes of the Debate, turned it off, read papers for about forty five minutes, then listened on the radio. I fell asleep before it ended.
Even if the annoying and childish behavior of the Party debates, such as the cheering that created an atmosphere of "Ellen" or "AGT", was absent, there was still enough of such to go around.
There was nothing presented by either that could assist an undecided voter, if in fact there are any of those at this point in the cycle (34 DTG).
Even though The Times journalists interviewed hold that Joe won the debate, I think that Trump did. He is more the skilled showman, and as we found out during '16, that does more to win Elections than the superlative command of the facts and issues Hillary showed throughout that cycle.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Good grief, talk about a campaign being upended!!!!!!
Will the undecided voters surmise that Trump is physically unfit and go with Joe, or will they deliver a "sympathy vote" to Trump?
"The Circus" - a TV show on Showtime that summarizes the campaign events of the week really did not have time to address Trump's illness (same with RBG's passing two weeks earlier) this past episode. It appears to "deadline" Friday to air on Sunday. It will be "sport" to see what they say next Sunday, along with reporting on Mike and Kammy.
Wasn't '16's Comey torpedoing Hillary, and Trump with his "grab 'em by", enough of October surprises to last a lifetime? Apparently not.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
With 26 DTG; VP Debate, I give it to Kammy.
Both were reasonably civil to one another, but Pence often ran over his alloted time. Kammy showed that she respects two minutes means two minutes.
But what really counts is that both showed they could "be ready to take over" - something that should weigh on all voters considering on one side there is a 74yo who has contracted COVID and has been "less than full disclosure" on his recovery from such. On the other, a 77yo who has shown some traits of dementia.
But who gets the highest marks from me was the Moderator. She is not a broadcast journalist, but she clearly showed who was wearing the badge.
Finally, let me note, I chose to vote by mail this past Tuesday. I feel "something missing"; I will not be answering "my call to duty" on the appointed day. But given my age and vulnerability to COVID, I thought the course I took was best.
But at least I did it on a Tuesday.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Must say that enthusiasm for Trump still remains at an all-time high, especially if the yard sign ratio holds. Never seen as many political yard signs in my life as during this year, in addition.
Have to disagree that Harris won the VP debate. Pence paraphrasing Moynihan put things to bed, there. Reminded me a bit of the Bush-Ferraro debate. And I confess to being troubled about how Harris got into politics in the first place, never mind her past record therein and her Senate voting record that has been analyzed as being even further left than that of Bernie Sanders.
PS. The NYT is beyond “biased”. Their hiring of overt racists/bigots, hosting of the so-called 1619 Project and other things, makes them worse than even their Duranty era.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Pleased to note your return to this site, Mr. Helfner. Having no knowledge of where you reside nowadays, yard signs are definitely as "grass root" as political sentiment can be. Somewhere within my affluent community, there are Trump supporters. I do see yard signs for the IL 6 CD Republican "neck and neck" challenger (seat historically R - until it "flipped" during '18), and one household, displaying such from a 2nd floor window, sign for Trump.
I voted absentee by mail Oct 5. I can only have confidence that there will be sufficient time from my ballot's receipt to be properly counted. I wish there was another way to verify, such as Photo ID, that who casts is registered. This 79yo's signature has changed with time.
I feel a sense of loss in that I am not answering a "call to my solemn duty" by getting to the polls half mile away (Park District HQ; schools kicked Elections out account security) on the appointed Tuesday. Further, as I noted earlier, I will be "Blacked out" 6PM CT onward Election Night because nothing will be decided. I'll watch a movie ("The Candidate" starring Robert Redford would be a good choice; some movie channel will offer it), then put the longest Mahler (8th I think) in the player, and go to sleep (often difficult for us elderly). 7AM CT Nov 4, I'll see where things stand.
I noted this prediction earlier, but if NBC still has their Rockefeller Center map, here's how I think it will look at that 7A. Trust Lester, Chuck, and Andrea (and Tom?) will have gone to bed themselves.
I just looked at your link,Mr. Norman, and I think all those brown states will be blue when all the votes are counted. Except Nebraska, (except for Omaha). And look for North Carolina and Iowa to surprise you. In your previous posting, you called Trump a "skilled showman", but most people now see that as a national leader, as a leader of the free world, as someone who can manage a crisis, he has been found wanting.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Nicholson, with 20 DTG, this Times article should be of interest:
Within such, it notes that both AZ and FL can process absentees upon receipt. Allow me to add, if Joe flips those two States and holds everything else Hillary won in '16, Joe will have 278 votes.
If that be the case, will he be inaugurated Jan 20? Well, that's the $64,000.00 question.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I cannot say how the rest of the country feels, but the more I see of Joe, and Kamala, the more I hope and pray they fall far short on November 3 and quietly fades away into the sunset on January 20 with the rest of the rioters and troublemakers doing likewise.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, I think we are both together in that whoever is to win, it is decided at the Ballot Box, and not by the Judiciary, for that would be a "recipe for riots".
Sometimes I wonder if our Republic is the better for having had Marbury (an aggrieved lawyer who wanted to be a "JP") v. Madison (Jefferson's Secretary of State) adjudicated as it was. For, had that landmark decision, from which the Judiciary became empowered to say "it's Unconstitutional", as they did in Gore v. Bush, this "upcoming little matter in 17 days" would be decided by the Ballot Box - period.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
If not for Marbury, what would the alternate method for deeming certain laws to have violated the Constitution be?
Also, I see no connection between Marbury and judicial activism, to wit legislating from the bench; arguably, judicial activism led to the Civil War. Where do state supreme courts get their authority (if so) for judicial review from, in addition?
This also begs the question as to the constitutionality of recent developments such as early voting and the security of mail-in voting against things such as vote-buying. Who gets to review such things, and prosecute if malfeasance happens?
Jefferson saw plenty of flaws of course in the fact that the federal SCOTUS had provided for justices with lifetime appointments, deeming that it made “the Constitution … a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into whatever form they please” and also that “whatever power in any government is independent is absolute also”. The implication is that while checks and balances are established between legislature and executive, those between each and both of those branches and the judiciary are merely implied.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: If not for Marbury, what would the alternate method for deeming certain laws to have violated the Constitution be.
Enacted legislation; the same way "bad laws" got on the books. To my kmowledge, I don't think The Fathers had in mind for the Judiciary to be empowered to overturn enacted legislation. For had that been the the case, the Constitution would have had language within Article III delineating judicial review.
The Adams-Jefferson election was sort of the Trump-Joe/Hillary of its day. Incoming Jefferson wanted to discredit his predecessor by nullifying a "two bit" appointment by outgoing Adams on a technicality. There weren't too many Lower Courts back then, and I'm not lawyer enough to understand the reasoning behind the Decision, for only HS US History, college Business Law, and Mr. Google, comprise my knowledge of such.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I'm updating the map a bit because Trump "has been coming on" in PA. Joe "is concerned"- what with spending a "disproportionate" amount of time there (not just the whistle stop train) and dragging Obama in to boot:
Trump is going to win; definitely not the popular vote, possibly not in the "raw" Electoral Vote count, but in "his" Judiciary.
From what I saw or heard of the Final Debate, Joe seemed "lethargic", and even senile, and easily could not make it through the term. I do, however, think Kamala would make a strong President and would build upon the "Bill Clintonesque Left-Centrist" policies that I believe Joe will seek to emulate. I do not think she would "drink AOC's Kool-Aid".
Now further on the Debate, while I'm hardly "giddy" about it, I'm think "the tide turned" last night in favor of Trump.
While Joe clearly had more command of the facts and issues, he was going against a Showman and a Carny Barker, for whom facts and issues are secondary to entertainment. Trump seemed at his game, while Joe seemed lethargic and was caught looking at his watch, as in "how much longer must I take of this?"
Lest we forget how GHWB got caught looking at his watch during '92 - and I think we know how that election turned out.
Trump won the debate - and with it, maybe the Election.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Kamala as president I find frightening. Joe not much less so, as he seems to be barely functioning mentally, and those pulling his strings way off in left side la la land.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Your immediate thoughts, Mr. Harris, even if I do not agree with them, raises the question of how strong are other voters considering the VP running mate?
This year, with both candidates in their 70's, and the question as to how fully has Trump recovered from COVID (there is enough evidence out there that it's not always the "over and done" of the flu), voters should really be weighing their comfort level with a "President Pence" or a "President Harris".
That dilemma really hit home to me during '08. There my concern was would McCain live to see the end of the term, or would Obama "get popped"? The thought of a "President Palin" was not too palatable.
It didn't much matter; for I knew morning of Sep 16-08, McCain has lost the Election.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I will be a poll worker on the day. Since we are in a semi rural and off the beaten path poll location, we do not expect any problems, but there are concerns that were voiced in the training session. Normally if our poll working is different from our poll voteing, as is my case, the usual plan is to slip away to go vote, however it is considered unlikely to be practical for this one, so most of us that were intended to be poll workers took the occasion to go vote that day.
Here is something to keep in mind: The "Down ballot" races. All of us will have a House of Representatives member and most of us a US Senator race at the least, plus any number of local races. Everyone should do their research on these. Many of these get very little campaigning compared to the national races, but they can be critically important. For example, even though Mississippi has most of their state races off year so they won't be clouded over by the national races, so I knew we would have no governor nor state house and senate races on the ballot, we still had a couple of school board races, three referendums and a state supreme court judge race on this ballot. I did not even know one of the referendums existed before I picked up the ballot, and I needed more time to study it out than I really had, and am now questioning whether I made the correct choice.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, we have some "neck and necks Down ballot" around here.
In my IL-6CD, it can only be described as that; Sean Casten D (incumbent) v. Jeannie Ives R.
Also, while I don't think anything will come of it, Sen. Durbin (D-IL) is facing a challenge from Willie Wilson, a successful Black businessman.
Within Cook County (Chicago), State's Attorney Kim Foxx has a formidable challenge (Dem turned Rep Pat O'Brien) on her hands. "Lot's gone wrong" on her watch.
Finally Mr. Harris, thank for for your service; both in uniform and as a poll worker.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Even if they note they haven't endorsed any Presidential candidate since Hoover in'28, The Journal, predictably, has come out for Trump.
They make some cogent points, but hardly enough to change my vote (even if I could; I voted by mail almost a month ago).
The only point they made with which I take strong issue is such in which they note that Joe will not run again in '24 and could well not make it through one term. I think anyone recognizes such be the case with either candidate, so a vote for VP is equally weighty. But where I disagree with the Board is their inference that Kamala is simply "an agent" for Bernie, Liz, and AOC. Allow me to share the pertinent Fair Use quote:
The biggest risk with Mr. Biden is his physical and mental condition. He looks increasingly like an old 77. His campaign’s strategy of letting him out only once or twice a day, and his refusal to take nearly all media questions, isn’t reassuring. The truth is that Americans don’t know if Mr. Biden’s clear deterioration from even four years ago is routine aging or something more serious.
A fair consideration for voters is how long Mr. Biden will be able to handle the burdens of the Presidency. A capable staff and a forgiving press corps will cover for him as long as they can. But he surely won’t run for re-election, if he makes it four years. Americans who vote for Mr. Biden may be voting for Ms. Harris as his successor sooner than they imagine.
Mr. Biden has led in the polls for months, and tens of millions of voters clearly have Trump fatigue and dislike the President’s handling of Covid. They may elect the man they think is Mr. Trump’s opposite in the hope of restoring more decorum and calm to American politics. They should know they may be voting for disruption of a different kind from the political left.
Kamala will be "her own gal" come '24 or sooner.
But allow me to close with "may the best man win".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
"I can't believe it"; the day is FINALLY here.
Even though I personally voted by mail on Oct 5, there is still the symbolism of this "solemn and sacred" day that has now come to pass.
If for some reason any reader of this material is "on the fence about bothering", never forget how in all too many sovereign jurisdictions, "voting" is just some kind of a "we love you, dear leader" ritual. While here it might not seem like much, it's the only chance "we the people" have to tell those clowns what we think of them.
And I modify my immediate closing: "may the best man prevail; hopefully at the polls, but if not, within the Judiciary".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The precinct where I work had an 80% turnout combining on site and absentee ballots. The line got as long as a two hour wait with approximately 250 people in line by 6:30 for a 7:00 opening. There were no gaps without lines or even lines with much of under an hour wait throughout the day. If this is any indication, this race has developed more interest and concerns in things political than any other within the last century.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Well volks, the polls are now closed, here's how it looks like "things are going down".
The "commentary consensus" is that Joe will take AZ, GA, NV, and PA which would give him 306, or the same plurality of Trump over Hillary during '16. Even if 306-232 prevails, the Senate remains "Pink", and the House "Baby Blue". All told, it's "four more years" of divided government.
OMG.
Of course, here come the challenges. Several "razor thins" have State law that automatically call for recounts, but how often has the result of any election of note been changed from such?
The Trump challenge in PA to stop counting mail-ins is a State matter and, hence, adjudicated within such.
Now regarding a rerun of "Gorebushoff", that dispute centered around voter intent. The punch cards used back in 2K, especially in the hands of a "half blind", arthritic 85yo was a recipie for the "pregnant" and "dimpled" chad. With ballots now scanned, the questionable ones, say a stray marking across the voting field, or a "not too strong" erasure, can be more readily resolved with a manual review. There is considered question how far within the Federal Judiciary any such challenges arising from such will go, but if such is limited to "Joe's insurance PA", it's all "moot".
But heaven help our Republic, for when Joe "raises his right" Jan 20, realizing the dream of every "career politician", will have to feel like the 1865 Governor of Georgia, looking over his "scorched earth", at the close of the "Civil---", "--- of Secession", or however else that armed conflict is known.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: With ballots now scanned, the questionable ones, say a stray marking across the voting field, or a "not too strong" erasure, can be more readily resolved with a manual review.
Don't know about the rest of the country, but in Mississippi we were not allowed to do any form of manual review. Also, marks were done with a pen issued and retrieved at the poll. The only thing we could do was tell the person to check his marks and reinsert the ballot. If machine would still not accept the ballot, the only thing that could be done would be take it to the appropriate person, state what was happening, tear it in two and insert it into the spoiled ballot bag and then be given a new blank ballot with a few words on the appropriate way to mark it. It is amazing how many of these spoiled ballots were by someone who changed their mind and then decided to put a big "X" across the choice they did not want to take. Amazing the number of times I had to say, no, you do not sign this anywhere as that is the whole point behind the concept of secret ballot. Once you proved that you have the right to vote here, the rest is secret.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
This is, to say the least, a soft coup attempt by the left. Many degrees worse than twenty years ago.
Edit: Had no idea how bad until the next day after I wrote this.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: This is, to say the least, a soft coup attempt by the left. Many degrees worse than twenty years ago.
Edit: Had no idea how bad until the next day after I wrote this.
The cemeteries are enthusiastic Biden supporters.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, let it be noted the "cemetery vote" came out where I live and delivered the Presidency to JFK.
Considering out that one turned out, would have Nixon even wanted it?
According to the Associated Press, which I just checked prior to this posting, the closest state is Georgia at 10000 votes plurality in favor of Joe.
There are just too many States in which Trump would like to challenge to upset this close, but still decisive, Election.
Anyway, if you want to read the latest on conspiracies, here's where it's at:
I voted straight blue ticket more than a month ago as we are all o we'd to in Virginia. So I don't have any election day stories to share. Judging by the enthusiasm in cities across the country,I'm surprised how lively these corpses were. I'll save the gloating and arguing for a later date. But I do want to register my shock that the election was as close as it was, and my disappointment the Democrats not only didn't take the Senate, but lost seats in the House. If the Democrats don't win at least one of the runoff sea t s in Georgia, there's no telling what Moscow Mitch will be up to. A couple of "what-if"s.. What if Trump had shown any kind of competence in handling the COVID crisis? What if he had done what ANY of his 44 predecessors would have done to protect the American people, he might very well have won. What if the Democrats had nominated Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or anyone other than Joe Biden? Trump probably would have won. So the Nation owes its thanks to Congressman Jim Clyburn for endorsing Biden when he was on his last legs in South Carolina.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It seems as if we wish to discuss the Election and its aftermath at one topic, which I guess is the appropriate course of action.
Since this Forum is "user moderated", I have chosen to move the one posting I or anyone made to the topic titled "Joe's 'Victory'" over here.
Finally, I have retitled this topic from "Why Trump Will Win", which is honestly what I thought would occur, to simply "The Election".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: I voted straight Blue ticket more than a month ago as we are all o we'd to in Virginia.
I'm happy to step up as well and share.
I voted Blue for all Federal and State level offices, but "Turned Red" for those at County level. I also voted "for" an Illinois Constitutional Amendment, which failed, allowing for enacted legislation to set graduated individual income tax rates. It's only fair to have the "one percenters" to pay a higher rate of tax, just as they do at Federal level, than does someone "just getting by".
Like you, Mr. Nicholson, had the Dems nominated Bernie or Liz, I too would have voted for Trump.
Finally, does Joe owe Rep. Clyburn? You bet he does. He owes him a Cabinet seat (something like HHS or ED), but the reality is that vacate that seat, and Pachyderm SC Governor McMaster will appoint same to fill such, cutting into the razor thin House majority held by the Donkeys.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
"had the Dems nominated Bernie or Liz, I too would have voted for Trump."
This nails my greatest fear concerning Biden, that effectively we will be getting their policies. While there are many things about the generalities in the Democratic platform I cannot agree with, it is blind socialism of these two and their followers I feel will destroy much of what has made our country great.
I feel that we had the most lopsided press coverage imaginable. It was like a ballgame with the referee blind to any fouls on one team and calling ones that did not happen on the other. Without that, I think Trump would have walked away with it. Outside urban areas he actually did. Particularly in Georgia and Pennsylvania, it was close to looking like, OK now that we see how the smaller counties are going, how many Biden votes do we need to have in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and a few other places to turn this thing around?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: …..."had the Dems nominated Bernie or Liz, I too would have voted for Trump."
This nails my greatest fear concerning Biden, that effectively we will be getting their policies.
Mr. Harris, let's leave it to Chuck and Nancy to keep those "renegades" under control. I think Joe has confidence they can.
Mitch will be alongside Chuck on that if those two try and "break out".
The other concern I have heard expressed that at such time Kamala becomes President, pre or post '24 notwithstanding, is that she is an "agent" for "all of 'em". I think not, for if she succeeds Joe "mid-term", the Party Elders will be quick to remind her "just how she got there. Oh, and we just might be looking elsewhere come '24"
Well, be thankful for one fact of life; earliest AOC can run is '28.
But I must acknowledge, Mr. Harris; try they will:
They have an extensive blacklist for possible Biden appointees they do not like. They want to elevate allies like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont to premier government posts. And they are even considering the possibility of bypassing Senate approval to fill executive branch roles.
As progressives have watched the Senate potentially slip out of reach this week, they have begun preparing to unleash a furious campaign to pressure President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. over personnel and priorities — even as they wrestle with the results of the election and the possible need to be more realistic about expectations over the next two years.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson:
A couple of “what-ifs”… What if Trump had shown any kind of competence in handling the COVID crisis? What if he had done what ANY of his 44 predecessors would have done to protect the American people, he might very well have won
By “any kind of competence”, do you mean shutting down travel to/from countries where SARS-CoV2 was more prevalent, or perhaps implementing Operation Warp Speed, or the hospital ship dispatched to New York Harbor, or provision of multifarious hospital beds and sites and ventilators that ended up not being used in spite of the fearmongering over “millions” of deaths that did not materialize, or accelerating the production of surgical masks and N95 masks, or volunteering to be the guinea pig for experimental treatments when coming down with the virus himself, or…?
Never mind the matter of the onus being dumped on the POTUS by the supposed court of public opinion, or is that the “public opinion” as written by Big Tech and Big Media? The same weighty accusations and/or responsibilities were not placed on the shoulders of his predecessor(s) with respect to H1N1 or Ebola.
quote:What if the Democrats had nominated Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or anyone other than Joe Biden? Trump probably would have won
Nobody knows who won yet. The media’s premature declaration is still (by their own admission) a projection. But no matter who was picked out of the 23-strong parade of pretenders, the same fraud machine would have kicked into high gear to proclaim them the “winner” also. And as mentioned on other forums, Al Gore in 2000 when presenting his legal challenges was not confronted with the media prematurely declaring his opponent the winner.
Already, however, certain Democrats have created this thing called the “Trump Accountability Project” (TAP) and recently had to alter their website since it announced their intention to blacklist anyone who supported Trump and deny them employment.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
If the Dem's are certain they have truly and honestly won this thing, they should be pushing harder for recounts than anybody else.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
That's a good point, Mr. Harris.
Georgia, where The Times notes Joe has a 12k vote lead, has authorized a "hand recount". If more states in which the count is questionable will "follow suit", more credence will be made to Joe's apparent victory.
But sorry, Trumpers, I don't foresee enough from any Post-Election initiatives to overturn the counts as they stand.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
There are no counts as they stand; none are certified and certainly none are audited.
Back in 2000, no media outlet surreptitiously projected a winner for POTUS and then proceeded to behave as if he were the certified winner.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Actually, Mr. Helfner, eight states have certified their election results to date, but all appear to be in either the Red or Deep Blue Seas.
But I think it's time for the Trumpers to accept the facts of life - no recount or Judiciary is about to overturn the Election. There is a bit more "cushion" for Joe than there ever was for Al during 2K - one state, 537 votes.
Time to start thinking "Trump '24".
I somehow think Joe will become the second POTUS to resign or the fifth to decease while in office. He does look lethargic, but he will soon be our President.
Now come '24, WOW, Trump v. "Mean Girl" Kamala; that WILL be the "barn burner". Guess I'll be around to watch it unfold - from the nursing home's dayroom.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Your source’s assertion is more gaslighting, with all due respect. More “projections”; take note that they avoid being openly mendacious in that respect.
Mr. Harris is still correct, in addition: too many judges scrambling indicates a lot to hide.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Two columns appear in this past Saturday's Wall Street Journal suggesting that during his one-term presidency, Donald Trump did make some notable accomplishments.
My takeaways are that, first, he oversaw an economic environment reducing unemployment to a historic low. Very simply, anyone on January 1 last, who wanted a job, had a job.
Secondly, with this business friendly environment, came growth in the value of investments. While, I have long since left the workforce, the growth of the portfolio I built while in such is obviously paramount.
On foreign affairs, I do note the easing of tensions between the Israelis and the Arab world resulting from Trump administration "brokerage".
While both columnists note favorably the profound effect Trump made to the Federal Judiciary during his one term, I defer upon that to the likes of my Evangelical Sister.
So Mr. President, "you weren't all bad" as some hold, but it's time to accept "someone else won".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The media still confesses their claims are projections in between saying "president-elect". It truly is an inversion of their 2000 behavior.
As for the WSJ, their rather infamous call for a Constitutional amendment declaring open borders put them for me eternally in the category of the USSR's Pravda. What they were calling for was a Marxistic repeal of the Guarantee Clause.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Mr. Norman: You may not be in a nursing home 4 years from now. You seem to be fairly spry at least in your discussions.
I regard Mr. Trump's achievements in the Mideast as Nobel Prize quality. Far beyond that given to Obama for little more than standing up and breathing. I fear that Biden/Harris will undo much of that either intentionally or through sheer ignorance and stupidity.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, I totally agree the "détente" between Israel and several Arab states, will be recorded as President Trump's major foreign policy achievement. Even if simply "brokered" during his term, it nevertheless has occurred, and the Administration had a role. Even if the role was Ivanka's "charm" and Gerald's Judaism, it was a role that cannot be overlooked.
Now we can only hope that this one turns out better than the last "brokerage" during the Carter administration. What?, with both principals assassinated, "uh, not too good".
I further agree with Mr. Helfner that President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for "standing and breathing". "Lotta bad stuff" happened as his terms unfolded. The Committee should have held back and evaluated his accomplishments until he left office.
But with the Election having been decided 306-232 - the same plurality as during '16, now is the time for all good Trumpers to start planning for '24. Even if obviously not one of such, I do respect that for every one of "meez" there is almost one of "theez". If Former President Trump chooses to acquire a "Right Leaning" media outlet, as it appears he is considering, and he comes together with the owning parties, such is the "American Way" and fully within the First Amendment.
Of course, in the interest of fairness and balance, there should be another outlet with that Gothic "T" appearing behind the anchors. Such was the case with WQXR 1560 prouldly announcing "This is the radio station of The New York Times" that I listened to as a kid rather than "Cousin Brucie" on WABC 770.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Mr. Harris seems to have Trump's penchant for projecting. Thinking Biden/Harris will take apart some Trump/Kushner "peace agreement". I use quotes because I cant call it Peace when those countries were never at war against each other. There will never be a true peace agreement unless it includes the Palestinians. But as for "undoing much of that either intentionally or through sheer ignorance and stupidity", Look at what Trump did with the Iran peace deal, the Paris Agreement, the Virus Preparations, even hanging his predecessors' portrait in the White House, no one can come off as petty and small minded as Trump. BTW, whoever posted about or thought about the election officials "finding votes" to make up for the ones already cast for /trump, it's easily explained: Trump told his minions to vote only on Election Day, so of course their votes were counted first, as same day votes always are. The Democrats tended to vote absentee, as I did, because we had good reasons not to vote on Election Day. Me because Im in dialysis on Tuesdays. Voting by mail would be a much bigger option than it was, considering the Trump appointee trying to sabotage the Post Office. Even so, millions still used the mail to cast their votes. Especially people in Pennsylvania, where voting by mail is the only alternative to same day voting. Those votes are also counted last. They werent "found"; they were always there.A couple of states like Florida, updated tjeir process so absentee and mail in votes wee counted at the same time, but many, like Pennsylvania, kept the old way of counting, despite the (Republican) legislature being practically begged to change. So thats why Pennsylvania had that problem. So Trump and his minions could have something to complain about, and be laughed out of court at every turn.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: Thinking Biden/Harris will take apart some Trump/Kushner "peace agreement". I use quotes because I cant call it Peace when those countries were never at war against each other. There will never be a true peace agreement unless it includes the Palestinians.
A corollary point to that of Mr. Nicholson's captioned is Trump moved the American Embassy (AmEmb) from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem simply on the strength that "Bibi wanted such". This cost the American taxpayers "loot" and removed the Embassy away from the diplomatic community in Israel.
What did Trump get from Bibi as a "quid pro quo"? As near as I can tell, nothing. But then, Trump "loves" his fellow strongmen - and oh, Trump did get a plaque on the door.
Funny, how amongst my friends of the Jewish faith, only one of such (a Doctor in Atlanta) is a Trumper. His wife, and I have no reason to doubt, is an independent voter - just as am I.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I'm simply dreaming, but now with PA (20), and NV (6) certifying, "it's over, and then some".
I'm not sure where, if anywhere, there remain unresolved challenges.
So here is my prediction; Trump will make a statement, TWEET whatever, to this effect:
"All the challenges have now been resolved, and I will allow Mr. Biden to become President Pro-Tempore until January 20, 2025, when the Presidency will resume under my leadership. Let us hope no harm will come to our Republic that cannot be remedied upon my return".
Trump hasn't conceded.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I hope it is still not over. Even if I were in agreement with most of the Democrat Party and Biden's views, which I am not, I still would consider Biden the most incompetent person to ever be elected to the office.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
In a series of interviews with NBC News' Lester Holt, all I could think as Joe responded to Mr. Holt's "whiffle ball" questions, and his "lethargic" demeanor, I can only foresee "FDR at Yalta moments" occurring during his Presidency. Somehow, I think that on January 19, 2025, and well much sooner than that, "President Kammy" will be in the White House.
Joe should have been "dumped" by the Party in favor of one, such as Andy (Cuomo; Gov. NY), who has comported himself as a leader. But with the rapid capitulation of both Bernie and Liz (either of which would have had me voting for Trump), the floodgates had been opened.
Finally, I also think it heartening to learn that a scene such as this, will not occur next January 20. President Trump stated that if defeated within The College, he will leave at the appointed time.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I never doubted that Trump would walk out without any fight. Gracefully? Well maybe about as graceful as he does anything, but he has far more respect for the Constitution and proper function of the government than he is given credit for, and for that matter, far more than any of these alternatives.
As for "FDR at Yalta"? Not sure Biden would be that good. I firmly believe that the world after WW2 would have been far better if Churchill had the final say on things European and MacArthur in Asia.
Bernie?, Naa. Somewhere left of Castro. Liz? If her lips are moving she is lying. Cuomo? Arrogance personified. I would take Bernie or Liz over him. If the alternative were to be Kammy, I would have to think about it, but for her case, I probably would take Cuomo.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:There will never be a true peace agreement unless it includes the Palestinians …
Never at any time when a peace agreement was brokered have the “Palestinians” been excluded. And the “Palestinians” have a very curious habit of excluding themselves and attacking Israel on any pretext anyhow. The “Palestinians” have never been and are not now interested in peace with Israel; they want all of Israel.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
In general, this has been a far more polite discussion than many I have heard and participated in on a face to face basis, however, Jerome, I feel you are pushing it. A couple of points:
1. To believe that Trump was the better choice for the office of President, does not make you a "minion". That is simply offensive. There are many things about Trump that, in my mind at least, place him far ahead of Biden as a choice. Yes, his personality can at time be grating, but his self control given the offensiveness of the news media and others toward him is truly impressive.
2. As to the "by mail" versus on the day voting, the lack of positive assurance that the vote arriving by mail is legitimate makes it suspicious, as does the astounding reversal of who holds the majority that seems to occur only where needed. The use of the dialysis day to justify by mail voting seems strange as medical reasons could be used to justify absentee ballots almost everywhere long before this vote by mail concept was cooked up. If there was any push to get the Republican voters to wait until election date to vote, it wasn't that noticible, as it was most important on the "R" side to get as massive a turnout as possible. I voted early becausse I was a poll worker.
3. As Irishchieftain has noted, every effort has been made to include the "Palestinians" in peace agreements in the Mideast, it is their own fault that they are not. Israel has bent over backward to appease them.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
However, IE no longer supports it. You will need Chrome or Edge (or HOONOSWAT if you've been hooked by A##!e).
Now to point; this new "tab" they now have will allow you to interactively track the scheduled certification of the Election. Such is supposed to be completed by Dec 8 to allow the College to convene on Dec 14.
Finally, November 30 with Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, and December 1 with Kansas and Wisconsin certifying, the map will become much less Pink and Baby Blue than present. Note the Battlegrounds on both days. If the Trump campaign still is hoping for a reversal somewhere, tomorrow is likely their last chance.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Lots of challenges to certifications in the disputed states, and with Constitutional grounds for all of the challenges. Seems to be the proverbial separation of the sheep from the goats.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner and Barbara (my Evangelical Sister)--
If AG Barr, amongst the most loyal in the Administration, says "it's over", it's time for President Trump to accept it.
We’re open to evidence of major fraud, but we haven’t seen claims that are credible. Now comes Mr. Barr, who has no reason to join a coverup. He likes his job. He wanted Mr. Trump to win. As the election timetable closes, Mr. Trump should focus on preserving his legacy rather than diminishing it by alleging fraud he can’t prove.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
They seem to like parsing Barr's words; he said his department has not seen enough evidence "to date".
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Don't stop with Barr. Now the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, three of those Justices hand picked by Trump, one of whom was rushed in before RBG'S body was even cold, said it's all over. Unanimously What more do you need?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
So with SCOTUS being what they are - the highest Court in the land from which "the only appeal is an appeal to God" (AJ Arthur J. Goldberg), on what fishing expedition does Rudy plan to next take the Trump Campaign?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: Don’t stop with Barr. Now the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, three of those Justices hand picked by Trump, one of whom was rushed in before RBG’s body was even cold, said it’s all over. Unanimously What more do you need?
They did not say anything of the sort. And there is absolutely not any 6-3 majority of conservatives on that panel.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: So with SCOTUS being what they are - the highest Court in the land from which "the only appeal is an appeal to God" (AJ Arthur J. Goldberg), on what fishing expedition does Rudy plan to next take the Trump Campaign?
Goldberg's opinion is not the Constitution. His opinion has been echoed of late by Sotomayor, too.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, perhaps I should clarify where and under what circumstances Justice Goldberg made that remark.
It was made during 1959, when Mr. Goldberg was just that - as General Counsel for the United Steelworkers of America. During that Summer, the Steelworkers went on strike for 116 days. At about day 100, President Eisenhower had "had it" and sought an injunction to end the strike under the Taft-Hartley Act.
The Union of course appealed, and the case got to The Supremes, who ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs (I think it was an industry council and not the President). At that time, a Times reporter asked Mr. Goldberg about a further appeal. He replied, "the only appeal from the Supreme Court is an appeal to God".
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).