Does Trump Know How To Count?

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  77 comments

Does Trump Know How To Count?
Once Trump announces the nominee in a few days there will be a month for the Democrats to go on tv and for the Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump to create ads to play in the suburban areas of swing states telling voters that Trump and the Republicans want to end legal abortion.


In his urge to rush toward exciting his religious right base, President* Trump will very soon announce his nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. The two women most mentioned as the possible nominee are both committed to overturning Roe v Wade at some point and making abortion illegal in the United States again. Trump thinks that because this makes his base happy it will help him in the election. 

There is a lot of reason though to think that this will backfire on Trump and hurt his chances of re-election. 

The most obvious reason is that 65 or 70% of Americans support Roe v Wade and , in general, abortion rights for American women. By nominating someone that the Democrats can credibly refer to as a justice that would end legal abortion , and doing so with a month left in the campaigns, Trump may in fact be hanging an anchor around the necks of not only himself but also numerous Republican senate candidates around the country. 

Once Trump announces the nominee in a few days there will be a month for the Democrats to go on tv and for the Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump to create ads to play in the suburban areas of swing states telling voters that Trump and the republicans want to end legal abortion. The simple fact is 70 is a lot more than 30. If the 70% who want to preserve Roe v Wade are persuaded to make that an issue to vote on on Nov 3, Trump is likely screwed, as is the hope of a Republican senate next year. 

Trump has always been much more interested in exciting his MAGA crowd than he has been in being the president of everyone. He continues to do so with his absurd rallies filled with nonsense clowning and lies. He likes those people because they wear the red hats and they laugh at his jokes that appeal to a ten year old's mentality. 

Ever since 2017, in general elections, Trump favored candidates have underperformed , either losing to the Democrat or often receiving a lesser percentage of votes in the district or state than in 2016. There was of course the blue wave of 2018. Because he is basically an idiot Trump has always assumed that keeping his 40% (tops) fan base happy would make him a winner in 2020. There is virtually no actual evidence of this but he is dancing with himself who brung him. 

Imagine the airwaves flooded in the next month with ads telling the nation's women that they will lose the right to legal abortion. This could gin up anti-Trump turnout that will overwhelm whatever benefit Trump thinks he is gaining by naming a far right anti Roe justice. Because 70 is more than 30. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

If he had a brain in his head Trump would have waited until after the election before mentioning replacing Ginsburg. But he is going to do it in a few days, giving the Democrats weeks to campaign on the theme of saving Roe v Wade. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

The Dems have consistently shown that they, in general, are terrible campaigners and interrogators. Beating up on Barrett, the likely nominee, will probably backfire on them. There is much more at stake here than the abortion issue.

I suspect the confirmation process will begin next week, with the vote coming after Trump's reelection

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    one month ago
The Dems have consistently shown that they, in general, are terrible campaigners and interrogators.

Have to agree about them being terrible campaigners, but not interrogators (for the most part).

There is much more at stake here than the abortion issue.

Yes and no.  There IS much more at stake, however many pro-lifers see abortion as the only cause that matters.  They can forgive anything else that judge may believe in, as long as the judge is an abortion hating Christian.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.2  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    one month ago
however many pro-lifers see abortion as the only cause that matters

You make an assumption the court will even take on the case, they don't really like to overturn precedence.. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

Every single time a Republican President makes a SCOTUS nomination, Democrats go all Chicken Little and campaign on Roe being overturned.

It is old and tired tactics, and totally false, of course.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
If he had a brain in his head Trump would have waited until after the election before mentioning replacing Ginsburg. But he is going to do it in a few days, giving the Democrats weeks to campaign on the theme of saving Roe v Wade. 

Why wait?  A judicial nomination underscores Trump's 'Law & Order' campaign.

Democrats want to push the abortion issue.  But Trump has been campaigning on crime and lawlessness.  And Democrats risk changing the perception of abortion into another example of lawlessness advocated by Democrats.

Trump really has changed the political landscape.  The old tried-and-true kneejerk politics can quickly become a minefield.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Let's get this straight, the Biden campaign had made the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic it's #1 issue. The media helped them do just that. Suddenly that has dramatically changed. The Ginsburg vacancy has now altered the election from a referendum on Trump’s performance in a crisis to a discussion about the future of the Court. As the top democrats begin to threaten Senate Republicans and potentially unleash all the nastiness they hurled at Brett Kavanaugh, against a woman, it will be the radicalized Democratic Party in the spotlight and Joe Biden and Donald Trump might just become an after thought.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one month ago

The vast number of Americans dont have the view of "radical leftists" that you do.  I dont know if you know this Vic but many of your views are extremist.  

I can see the Lincoln Project rousing voters to protect Roe v Wade without even mentioning the nominees name. They will mention Trump's name and Trump's announcement at one point that he was only going to nominate judges that oppose abortion. Its easy Vic, and I'm sure they are already writing the ads. 

The Democrats are not injecting abortion as an issue, your moron president Trump is by trying to confirm an anti abortion judge before the election. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago
The vast number of Americans dont have the view of "radical leftists" that you do.

John, anyone who is a normal human being was totally repulsed by the Kavanaugh hearings. People are also upset about all the rioting going on since late May.


 I dont know if you know this Vic but many of your views are extremist.  

John, this may astonish you, but I bet many feel the same about you.


I can see the Lincoln Project rousing voters to protect Row v Wade without even mentioning the nominees name. They will mention Trump's name and Trump's announcement at one point that he was only going to nominate judges that oppose abortion. Its easy Vic, and I'm sure they are already wring the ads. 

John, none of that will happen in a vacuum. Democrats are once again going to go way over the limits of civilized behaviour to stop the nomination. That will be the story and this time they'll be doing it to a woman!



 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    one month ago
John, anyone who is a normal human being was totally repulsed by the Kavanaugh hearings. People are also upset about all the rioting going on since late May. 

Anyone who is a normal human being is repulsed by Donald Trump. Most Americans don't want the president of the United States to be a total asshole. And fixing that problem will require a new president. 

Although Blasey Ford could not prove her allegation, from what I read at the time there is little doubt that Kavanaugh was an entitled punk in high school who took part in disrespecting the girls within his upper class social circle.  I would admit though that his being a teenage misogynist jerk is not an automatic disqualifier later in life. 

I can see the Lincoln Project rousing voters to protect Row v Wade without even mentioning the nominees name. They will mention Trump's name and Trump's announcement at one point that he was only going to nominate judges that oppose abortion. Its easy Vic, and I'm sure they are already wring the ads.
John, none of that will happen in a vacuum. Democrats are once again going to go way over the limits of civilized behaviour to stop the nomination. That will be the story and this time they'll be doing it to a woman!

I am not talking about whatever you do or dont consider civilized behavior.  I'm talking about Trump foolishly making abortion an issue in this election by nominating an anti abortion justice a few weeks before the election. It is much more likely this will hurt Trump than help him . 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    one month ago
Although Blasey Ford could not prove her allegation

That would be an understatement. Her so called "witnesses" countered everything she said and one of her "attorneys" admitted what many suspected:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/04/blasey-ford-attorney-admits-abortion-supported-motivated-anti-kavanaugh-accusations/

Enjoy your day

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    one month ago
That would be an understatement. Her so called "witnesses" countered everything she said and one of her "attorneys" admitted what many suspected:

And yet, the FBI was blocked from a thorough investigation of the claim.  How is a thorough investigation done when the investigators are not allowed to interview the suspect, or any possible witnesses?  And how many days were they given to complete this "investigation"?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.4    one month ago

False.

From Snopes:

At the Senate Judiciary Committee’s request, the FBI opened a supplemental background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh. It’s his seventh FBI background investigation in 25 years, going back to 1993. The request was for an investigation into current credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. In the course of its investigation, the FBI decided to reach out to eleven people, ten of whom agreed to be interviewed. The FBI reached out to all witnesses with potential firsthand knowledge of the allegations. The FBI provided to the Senate 12 detailed FD-302 reports summarizing their interviews with the witnesses as well as supporting materials cited by the witnesses during their interviews … The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation:   there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez .

The FBI investigation did not conclude that “none of the Kavanaugh accusations were true.” According to the Judiciary Committee’s synopsis, it concluded that the FBI was unable within the given timeframe to corroborate the allegations made by Blasey Ford (or by Deborah Ramirez, who also accused Kavanaugh of having exposed himself to her during a party at Yale).

The FBI’s conclusion allowed that the allegations against Kavanaugh might indeed have all been false, but it did not rule out the possibility that one or more of them might have been true. It is a crucial distinction that the Facebook post completely overlooked.

On 2 November, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley published a detailed, 400-page   update   on the committee’s investigation into the sexual assault and misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, an investigation which has expanded to examine the possibility of “violations of Senate rules, potential witness tampering, and potential false statements made to the Committee in violation of federal law.”

The Judiciary Committee has conducted many interviews with relevant individuals and examined a large quantity of evidence from various sources, including all of the FBI’s previous background checks on Kavanaugh, as well as its supplementary October 2018 investigation, and their conclusion was as follows:

After an extensive investigation that included the thorough review of all potentially credible evidence submitted and interviews of more than 40 individuals with information relating to the allegations, including classmates and friends of all those involved, Committee investigators found no witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegations brought against Justice Kavanaugh. In other words, following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was   no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh .

The Judiciary Committee, based on evidence which included the FBI’s investigations, did not conclude that the allegations against Kavanaugh were false. Rather, they said that they had not turned up any evidence that would support or confirm those allegations.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    one month ago
John, anyone who is a normal human being was totally repulsed by the Kavanaugh hearings.

Yes but not for the reasons you think. 

People are also upset about all the rioting going on since late May.

WTF does that have to do with a SCOTUS pick? 

John, none of that will happen in a vacuum. Democrats are once again going to go way over the limits of civilized behaviour to stop the nomination.

That's pretty funny since the ONLY Senator that went 'way over the limits of civilized behavior' in the Kavanaugh hearings was Lindsey Graham. 

512

That will be the story and this time they'll be doing it to a woman!

Do you think that the nominee's gender should shield her from scrutiny? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.4    one month ago

"And yet, the FBI was blocked from a thorough investigation of the claim.  How is a thorough investigation done when the investigators are not allowed to interview the suspect, or any possible witnesses?  And how many days were they given to complete this "investigation"?"

Completely true Ozz.  Whiny little bitch Kavanaugh was never vetted.  Just rammed through.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.7    one month ago

There wasn't any witnesses. That was determined. The only thing she had going for her was what four friends "said" she "told" them years after it happened (supposedly). Basically a she said/he said. No material witnesses to the alleged "crime".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-told-four-people-sexual-assault-claims/1429270002/

Seems to me there was no reason to go any farther than what it did. 

384

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.8    one month ago

Whiny little bitch Kavanaugh, I repeat, was never vetted.  His nomination was just rammed through.  

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one month ago
The media helped them do just that.

No, m'dear.  The 200,000 dead people helped them do just that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.2    one month ago

Oh I know, we wouldn't have had any dead if only somebody else was president!/ s

The forecast was for 2.2 Million

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/17/coronavirus-air-pollution/

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    one month ago
The forecast was for 2.2 Million

That's if NOTHING was done. Thankfully, the Governors did taker action to mitigate the virus spread, no thanks to Trump who knew how serious the threat was at least a month before first outbreaks hit. If he had just passed on that information to the Governors that would have saved lives but instead he chose to hide the truth. The facts show an earlier serious response would have saved tens of thousands of American lives. Dishonest Donald has blood on his hands and no amount of twisting, deflecting, whining and moaning from his ass kissing sycophants will wash it away.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    one month ago
The forecast was for 2.2 Million

Bullshit! 

2.2 million if nobody did anything.  The only thing keeping us away from that number are the state's governors that stepped up on their own.

How One Model Simulated 2.2 Million U.S. Deaths from COVID-19

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    one month ago

C'mon, Vic! You know better than that. 

The death rate at the beginning was around 10%. At that rate, we would have five million dead. Those early estimates included a lesser death rate, so two million was not an unreasonable idea.

The death rate has declined even more, so we have had only 

TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DEAD 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    one month ago
The forecast was for 2.2 Million

The first two words of your link are:

WITHOUT MITIGATION

Since Trump hung STATES out to dry. Governors and Mayors took steps to mitigate the spread of the virus. THEY saved lives. 

Trump claimed to set restrictions on March 29 to extend until April 30, yet on April 17 he tweeted 'Liberate' Michigan and Minnesota and Virginia undermining his own Administrations guidelines. He continues to do so to this day. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
2.2.6  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.3    one month ago
The only thing keeping us away from that number are the state's governors that stepped up on their own.

Which is how our system is supposed to operate. Remember all of the clamor when Trump insinuated that he was going to force states to do something? Not his province. Democrats love to play both sides of the federalism coin to suit their own argument. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Transyferous Rex @2.2.6    one month ago
Which is how our system is supposed to operate.

Then why did Trump declare a NATIONAL emergency?  Federal government has a very distinct role in this emergency, a role that the Trump administration has not only failed to meet, but one that Trump himself has actually undermined.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @2.2.6    one month ago
Which is how our system is supposed to operate.

No it is not, ESPECIALLY after it was designated a National Health Emergency. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
2.2.9  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @2.2.8    one month ago

Then Trump should have forced states to open? That would have been fine?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @2.2.9    one month ago
Then Trump should have forced states to open?

Trump should have followed the guidelines documented by his own experts. He didn't then and he still refuses to do so. Trump and the GOP insist that funding be based on fully reopening schools yet only 4 states meet the guidelines to do so. 

That would have been fine?

No more than it was fine for him to demand that 'blue' states reopen while giving 'red' states a pass. We didn't see tweets to 'Liberate Texas' or 'Liberate Florida'. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
2.2.11  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @2.2.10    one month ago
We didn't see tweets to 'Liberate Texas' or 'Liberate Florida'. 

That is because their respective governors utilized the authority they had. Michigan? Same deal. She was utilizing her authority as governor. The operative language here is "federal guideline." Its a guideline. That's why Trump slowly went away on that deal, and the pundits on the left mocked Trump for it, as I'll admit I did at the time he was leaning on her...which is about all he could do. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @2.2.11    one month ago
That is because their respective governors utilized the authority they had. 

Is it your posit that the Governors of Minnesota and Virginia do not have such authority? 

Michigan? Same deal. She was utilizing her authority as governor.

Yet Trump and his sycophants have been attacked her ad nauseam for using that authority. 

The operative language here is "federal guideline." Its a guideline.

Yes, a guideline allegedly devised by Agencies whose mission is to protect the health of the American people. Guidelines which those same Agencies use to protect their leadership while failing to provide the rank and file with the protection they enjoy. Guidelines which have been conscientiously used by the only 4 states in the US that have reduced their contagion levels to below 1%.  

That's why Trump slowly went away on that deal,

What 'deal' are you talking about? We're talking about Guidelines issued to mitigate a National Health Emergency, not some fantasy Trump 'deal'. 

and the pundits on the left mocked Trump for it,

So Trump is mocked. SO WHAT? People are dying and the issue is whether Trump is mocked for the STUPID shit he says? Fuck him.  

as I'll admit I did at the time he was leaning on her...which is about all he could do. 

Trump is STILL attacking Whitmer and he did so in rally in Michigan in early Sept. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
2.2.13  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @2.2.12    one month ago
Is it your posit that the Governors of Minnesota and Virginia do not have such authority? 

Nowhere, in anything I have said, could that have even been inferred. If they want to enforce some rules, I think that's their province, which is why I mention Michigan in the first place. What's good for Florida is also good for Michigan, or any other state.

As to the rest of your comment, I might suggest you take it easy a bit. It appears that you are so hung up on Trump, that the mere mention of the name gets you lathered up.

So Trump is mocked. SO WHAT?   

You focus on the mocking, and not the reason for the same. The reason Trump is being mocked for attempting to force states to open is because he hasn't the constitutional authority. The irony here is that you are blasting Trump for not doing enough, and at the same time supporting the states that rightfully claim that he can't force them to open. It doesn't work that way. Open...don't open...enforce some rules...or don't...all are at the discretion of the respective states...not Trump.

People are dying and the issue is whether Trump is mocked for the STUPID shit he says? Fuck him.

Cuomo and DeBlasio went through their own little tiff concerning state authority to direct New York City, to much the same result as Trump's attempt.  And, people are dying, so while we are on it, we might as well say fuck DeBlasio and Murphy. Let's give credit where it's due. Their states account for right at 25% of all covid deaths. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.2.5    one month ago

trumpturd hasn't done shit since day one.  All states have been left up to their own devices since day one.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.15  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.14    one month ago

See 2.2.6 and 2.2.10........................................

"Which is how our system is supposed to operate. Remember all of the clamor when Trump insinuated that he was going to force states to do something? Not his province. Democrats love to play both sides of the federalism coin to suit their own argument. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.3    one month ago
Bullshit!  2.2 million if nobody did anything.

Bullshit? was the forecast 2.2 or not?

If not, where did that number come from?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.15    one month ago

No need, waste of time.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.16    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.17    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.20    one month ago

[deleted

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @2.2.13    one month ago
Nowhere, in anything I have said, could that have even been inferred. If they want to enforce some rules, I think that's their province, which is why I mention Michigan in the first place. What's good for Florida is also good for Michigan, or any other state.

Actually, the litigation in states have specifically claimed that the STATE constitution didn't give those governors the authority. I was open to the possibility that you knew that. 

As to the rest of your comment, I might suggest you take it easy a bit.

Why? 

It appears that you are so hung up on Trump, that the mere mention of the name gets you lathered up.

You didn't mention Trump in your 'operative word' claim and I didn't mention him in my reply to it. 

You focus on the mocking, and not the reason for the same.

So did you. 

The reason Trump is being mocked for attempting to force states to open is because he hasn't the constitutional authority.

I disagree. IMHO, the reason Trump is being mocked is that HIS Administration put out guidelines and and then almost immediately demanded that they be ignored, ignored them himself, and encouraged others around him to do so.

Health experts have rightly scorned and expressed contempt for those actions. 

The irony here is that you are blasting Trump for not doing enough, and at the same time supporting the states that rightfully claim that he can't force them to open.

Only someone with a limited imagination would think that was the only failing in Trump's handling of the pandemic. 

It doesn't work that way. Open...don't open...enforce some rules...or don't...all are at the discretion of the respective states...not Trump.

The irony here is that Trump uses the threat of withholding funding to states because of sanctuary status, anarchist jurisdiction, mail in voting and even to force them to open schools to full time in person classes but you seem to think that he couldn't have done so for following the guidelines set forth by the CDC. 

That 'discretion of the respective states' thingy seems to be fluid in Trump world and WHEN he chooses to ignore it looks self serving. 

Cuomo and DeBlasio went through their own little tiff concerning state authority to direct New York City, to much the same result as Trump's attempt.

That's bullshit. Cuomo won the 'tiff' about state authority and took responsibility and brought his state through the pandemic. NY is one of only 4 states where the spread is below 1%. 

Trump punted on ANY responsibility for anything. IF Trump had done his fucking job, tens of thousands of deaths in Southern and Central states may not have happened. Millions of people need not have become sick or have the specter of life long health repercussions. They had the advantage of weeks to prepare and the gathered knowledge of healthcare professionals from New England who passed on best practices.  

512

It's pretty sad that you name the 2 governors who had the highest initial cases but did the best job of bending the curve. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.23  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.4    one month ago

That is a shit load of people considering Trump says virtually no one.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.24  Bob Nelson  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.2.23    one month ago

What are you saying?! 

Our Beloved Prophet Speaks The TRUTH.

The only possible conclusion is that TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND is virtually no one

Let us give thanks that we don't have "many" deaths. That would have to be in the millions... 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.2.25  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.3    one month ago

You mean like Cuoma, Whitless, and the other Democratic Governors that dumped those infected with Covid 19 into retirement and nursing homes that couldn't handle them; exposing those most susceptible to the virus?

Those bastions of stupidity Democratic governors?

Yeah, the Democrats have really saved us./S

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
2.2.26  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @2.2.22    one month ago
Actually, the litigation in states have specifically claimed that the STATE constitution didn't give those governors the authority. I was open to the possibility that you knew that. 

Interested in learning more, if you have a link to the case filings, please share them, or even a case citation, case name, etc. As an aside, if that is the case, and if those states are idiotic enough to draft state constitutions that release power to the federal government, that was in their power. Fuckin stupid, but within the respective states' powers. 

The irony here is that Trump uses the threat of withholding funding...

That's the federal executive's hammer, withholding of funding.

I wasn't focusing on the fact of Trump being mocked, and, in fact, sort of mocked him myself. Which is why I believe you are too hung up on Trump. You apparently stopped reading at the word "mocked." Let's review what I actually said here.

That's why Trump slowly went away on that deal, and the pundits on the left mocked Trump for it, as I'll admit I did at the time he was leaning on her...which is about all he could do. 

Pretty clear statement, not crying about Trump being mocked, and expressly admitting that I joined in for the stated reason. 

And by all means, shower NJ and NY with praises. 25% of all deaths. I'll slow clap for the stellar jobs they did. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
2.2.27  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @2.2.22    one month ago
Nowhere, in anything I have said, could that have even been inferred. If they want to enforce some rules, I think that's their province, which is why I mention Michigan in the first place. What's good for Florida is also good for Michigan, or any other state.
Actually, the litigation in states have specifically claimed that the STATE constitution didn't give those governors the authority. I was open to the possibility that you knew that. 

Nevermind on my request. I thought you were saying the state constitutions released the power to the feds. You lost me in your comment, as I was discussing the federal government's ability to control the respective states, and asserting that the state's had the authority with regard to the response to Covid. Your response actually supports my position. It's still the state's call.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.28  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.20    one month ago

You didn't post the truth.  Or facts.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.29  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @2.2.26    one month ago
Interested in learning more

Based on the rest of you paragraph, I doubt it. You either misunderstand my comment or you intentionally misrepresented it. 

As an aside, if that is the case, and if those states are idiotic enough to draft state constitutions that release power to the federal government, that was in their power. Fuckin stupid, but within the respective states' powers. 

READ this again and pay particular attention to what I highlight:

Actually, the litigation in states have specifically claimed that the STATE constitution didn't give those governors the authority. I was open to the possibility that you knew that. 

Note there is NOTHING about 'releasing power to the federal government'. 

That's the federal executive's hammer, withholding of funding.

How and when Trump chooses to use that 'hammer' is exactly my point. You failed to address it and instead deflect to 'mocking'. 

And by all means, shower NJ and NY with praises. 25% of all deaths. I'll slow clap for the stellar jobs they did. 

That's today and the pandemic is still growing. The chart I posted shows where the pandemic is growing and it isn't NY or NJ. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.30  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.24    one month ago

It is a good thing that I know that you did not add the s/ tag.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.2.31  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    one month ago

205,614 dead as of today Vic, with 168,474 dead and counting from the Trump virus....!

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
2.2.32  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @2.2.29    one month ago
Actually, the litigation in states have specifically claimed that the STATE constitution didn't give those governors the authority. I was open to the possibility that you knew that. 
Note there is NOTHING about 'releasing power to the federal government'. 

Take whatever offense you want, but there is a reason you argue with everyone on here. The comment that you originally responded to concerned interplay between the federal and state government. I'd be a smart ass, like you, but what's the use. Maybe I originally misunderstood your comment, but when you jump federal/state interplay, to wholly intrastate...? 

Interested in learning more Based on the rest of you paragraph, I doubt it. You either misunderstand my comment or you intentionally misrepresented it. 

No, seriously interested, and damn sure am now. Seriously, point me int the direction of where you are getting your information. I'd love to read it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.33  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @2.2.32    one month ago
Take whatever offense you want, but there is a reason you argue with everyone on here.

My comment merely points out your misinterpretation. No offense taken or implied. 

The comment that you originally responded to concerned interplay between the federal and state government.

Actually, the comment that I originally responded to concerned Vic's link. 

If you mean YOUR comment:

Which is how our system is supposed to operate...

That more of an abdication than an interplay. 

I'd be a smart ass, like you, but what's the use.

Your comment reflects that you think there is a 'use'. 

Maybe I originally misunderstood your comment, but when you jump federal/state interplay, to wholly intrastate...? 

Where did I do that? Post the comment #. 

No, seriously interested, and damn sure am now. Seriously, point me int the direction of where you are getting your information. I'd love to read it. 

You mean YES you misunderstood my comment. 

Now, multiple GOP state legislatures have sued their Governors because of shutdown orders. Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and California just off the top of my head. If you are sincerely interested in the details, google "GOP sues governor' and thousands of articles will pop up. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3  Bob Nelson    one month ago

Interesting article. 

By nominating someone that the Democrats can credibly refer to as a justice that would end legal abortion , and doing so with a month left in the campaigns, Trump may in fact be hanging an anchor around the necks of not only himself but also numerous Republican senate candidates around the country.

At-risk Senators may think about this and decide that they would be much better off if the vote could be postponed until after the election. At which point the nominee would be under great pressure to withdraw.

This seem very plausible... to the point that an intelligent Trump would not venture out, just to be stymied. But of course "intelligent Trump" is a unicorn...

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1  evilgenius  replied to  Bob Nelson @3    one month ago

The death of RGB turned the heat on this election up to 11! So far the only Republican Senators to go on record to wait are Collins and Mukowski. I think they will stick to their guns on this but will be hit back from within their own party as the two front runners for the empty seat have already been approved by the Senators. Also noteworthy is a report saying the Dems have raised $20M for Senate races since the news broke on Justice Ginsburg's death. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @3.1    one month ago

They say the Democrats have raised 70 million dollars for their national campaigns since Ginsburgs passing was announced. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    one month ago

The NPR morning report on my way into work said $20, but they may have been low balling it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  evilgenius @3.1    one month ago

We'll need a few days, to get feedback from Republican Senators in uncertain seats. Voting for an "anti-abortion activist who will immediately throw out Roe v Wade" could seem like a very bad idea. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.3    one month ago

SO, which anti-abortion activist are you referring to exactly, or is it that you think ANY nominee will be that?

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.3    one month ago

We'll see more when there is an actual nominee, which I just heard would be by the end of the week. Until then the pressure to stall a Senate vote until the election will keep ramping up. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    one month ago

Since overturning Roe is Mitch's fondest wish, we can assume that whoever the nominee is, "anti-abortion activist who will immediately throw out Roe v Wade" will be applicable. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.6    one month ago

Oh, so it is just the usual scare tactics Democrats seem to use with every Republican nominee.

Heck, if it were EVER true, Roe would already be overturned with Trump first two SCOTUS picks, because the same things were said about them, too.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.8  Dulay  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.2    one month ago

It was $100 million for ActBlue alone. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.7    one month ago

I don't know what to think about anything you say, Tex. 

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.9    one month ago
removed for contex by charger
 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.11  evilgenius  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.3    one month ago

Here's a bit of an interesting take from fivethirtyeight -

Based on what we know right now, here’s the  most   likely  way that the dominoes will fall: Trump chooses a nominee this week. The Senate holds hearings in October, but there is not a vote on the nominee before the election. Biden beats Trump. In the postelection, lame-duck Senate session, 50 Republican senators and Vice President Mike Pence combine for 51 votes to confirm Trump’s nominee, with the 47 Democrats, Collins, Murkowski and Romney in opposition.
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    one month ago

I doubt that my opinion carries much weight, for you. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.12    one month ago

I wasn't referring to your opinion. read my post again.

my offer still stands to clarify anything I wrote

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.13    one month ago

Your pretending to not know that McConnell wants Roe overthrown is not credible. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.14    one month ago

ok!, Bob, I guess it won't kill me to pretend that this time  like virtually every time since Roe, when a Republican nominates to SCOTUS, we don't hear the very same fear mongering tactics. and THIS time it Really, really will happen

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  evilgenius @3.1    one month ago

It will be interesting to see how Lincoln Project Senators vote on Trump's pick - to see if they are genuine in their adhering to their project's principles, or belong to it for no other reason than to keep their seats in the election.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.16    one month ago

Yes. 

Some commentators are saying that Trump’s nominee will be confirmed during his lame-duck period. 

That would be the height of hypocrisy... but hey! Republicans! 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.18  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.17    one month ago

If Trump is defeated he is a lame duck until January (the 20th?).  What if Senators are defeated?   Do they also carry on as lame ducks as well?  And to the same date?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.18    one month ago

Dunno. You'd think it would be an easy Google search... but I haven't found the answer. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.18    one month ago

Oh... duh! 

It's in the Constitution. January 3rd. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.21  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.19    one month ago

Found it.  It's in the 20th Amendment:

Section 1—The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.22  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.21    one month ago

LOL.  I posted my reply before looking  to see your answer.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4  Greg Jones    one month ago

I see that some lefties are still praying for the immaculate conception of their prophet. Joseph, and his rise to rule over the hallowed halls of White House...to be shamefully used as placeholder for Harris...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

I dont know which is correct. A reporter on MSNBC said the Act Blue organization said 70 million was donated since Ginsburg's death. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago

" Donors gave $70.6m on Saturday alone , and $6.3m in one hour on Friday , Hill said, beating previous records of $41.6m in one day and $4.3m in one hour."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/21/democrats-fundraising-records-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death

"ActBlue – a donation-processing site that helps Democratic candidates, committees and organizations raise money – reported more than $95 million raised  from the time Ginsburg's death was announced until Sunday morning . "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/19/democratic-campaign-donations-spike-after-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death/5839031002/

So the $70 million was just Saturday alone.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Tessylo
Ed-NavDoc
Kavika
AndrewK
Old Hermit
Snuffy
Ozzwald
zuksam


49 visitors