OT - 2020 U.S. presidential election

[g***@gmail.com]

After Nov., Pres. Biden?:

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

[Oscar]

From the article:

<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White House. >>

Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

[graham]

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

So he's like Trump then.

[John Hood]

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?

JH

[Ricardo Jimenez]

On Sun, 3 May 2020 09:18:27 +0800, John Hood

Post by John Hood

<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

JQ Adams might fit that description. At the age of 13 he was sent to
the Court of Catherine the Great to act as French translator for the
American envoy.

[dk]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Sun, 3 May 2020 09:18:27 +0800, John Hood

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

JQ Adams might fit that description. At the age of 13 he was sent to
the Court of Catherine the Great to act as French translator for the
American envoy.

Not clear to me how that makes him a
"genius". Babbling in two languages
does not make anyone smarter than
babbling in one.

dk

[Frank Berger]

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished
politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to
the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that
would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White
House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

Don't know, but considering brilliant people are found are all sides of
all issues, it's not clear that being brilliant is a particularly
important characteristic in a politician.

[p***@classicalnotes.net]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished
politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to
the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that
would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White
House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

Don't know, but considering brilliant people are found are all sides of
all issues, it's not clear that being brilliant is a particularly
important characteristic in a politician.

We've had enough self-proclaimed "genius." It's time we had a president who appoints advisors who actually have expertise in their claimed fields (rather than relatives and sycophants) and will actually listen to and be guided by their input (rather than rely on his irrational, impulsive whims).

[Frank Berger]

Post by p***@classicalnotes.net

Post by Frank Berger

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished
politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to
the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that
would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White
House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

Don't know, but considering brilliant people are found are all sides of
all issues, it's not clear that being brilliant is a particularly
important characteristic in a politician.

We've had enough self-proclaimed "genius." It's time we had a president who appoints advisors who actually have expertise in their claimed fields (rather than relatives and sycophants) and will actually listen to and be guided by their input (rather than rely on his irrational, impulsive whims).

To a large extent, what I said about geniuses applies to "experts" as well.

[Bob Harper]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by p***@classicalnotes.net

Post by Frank Berger

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished
politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to
the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that
would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White
House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

Don't know, but considering brilliant people are found are all sides of
all issues, it's not clear that being brilliant is a particularly
important characteristic in a politician.

We've had enough self-proclaimed "genius." It's time we had a president who appoints advisors who actually have expertise in their claimed fields (rather than relatives and sycophants) and will actually listen to and be guided by their input (rather than rely on his irrational, impulsive whims).

To a large extent, what I said about geniuses applies to "experts" as well.

But Frank, what would we do without experts?
(Live in a saner world, perhaps.)

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Frank Berger

Post by p***@classicalnotes.net

Post by Frank Berger

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished
politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to
the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that
would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White
House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

Don't know, but considering brilliant people are found are all sides of
all issues, it's not clear that being brilliant is a particularly
important characteristic in a politician.

We've had enough self-proclaimed "genius." It's time we had a president who appoints advisors who actually have expertise in their claimed fields (rather than relatives and sycophants) and will actually listen to and be guided by their input (rather than rely on his irrational, impulsive whims).

To a large extent, what I said about geniuses applies to "experts" as well.

But Frank, what would we do without experts?
(Live in a saner world, perhaps.)
Bob Harper

Thank God politicians make public policy decisions and not experts nor
geniuses.

[Oscar]

Obama complained about many problems that President Trump is fixing. For example:

1. Trade with China. Obama complained about that multiple times. President Trump is making progress.
2. N.A.T.O. not paying their share. Ditto
3. Tax inversions. Obama tried to change the regulations to stop them. Trump took away the incentive via the tax reform of 2017.
4. ISIS. Obama couldn't beat ISIS. Under Trump, they are defeated.


And then there's this:

From Town Hall:

<< New Biden Accuser: He Complimented My Breasts When I Was 14 Years Old
By Matt Vespa
May 01, 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden has done an abysmal job neutralizing stories that could damage his presidential hopes. His son, Hunter, who has no experience in the energy sector, allegedly sold access to top Obama officials in 2014, while sitting on the board for a Ukrainian company while daddy Biden was spearheading efforts to root out corruption at the time. Now, he’s been slapped with a serious sexual assault allegation from a former Senate aide, Tara Reade, who alleges the then-Delaware senator penetrated her with his fingers in 1993. And Reade is not alone. There are scores of women who have come forward to describe what could only be called sexual harassment, with Joey being handsy and smelling their hair. Now, we have a woman who alleges that Biden complimented her breasts when she was 14 years old. This isn’t an old story either, like from the 1970s. This incident reportedly occurred at a fundraiser in 2008 (via Law and Crime):

My classmate, Eva, has just come forward with her story about an inappropriate exchange with Joe Biden when she was fourteen. This has been incredibly hard for her to do. I commend her for her bravery, and for helping other women potentially come forward. https://t.co/0VAnXNBjXl
— Nicole Alexander Fisher (@_nalexander) May 1, 2020

< A woman says she was sexually harassed by presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden when she was 14 years old.

The woman, Eva Murry, told Law&Crime that Biden complimented her on the size of her breasts at the First State Gridiron Dinner & Show in 2008, a long-running roast of and party for politicians, journalists and prominent business figures held each year in Delaware. Murry says she remembers the event occurring sometime around May of that year.

One friend and her sister said that Murry told her details of the alleged incident more or less immediately after it happened. Four other friends of Murry’s said they were told about the incident, with the same details, between two and three years after it originally occurred.

Law&Crime interviewed Murry, her sister, and those friends over the course of multiple days. Murry is the niece of former Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell and said she occasionally received school credit for attending such political events. O’Donnell was running a long-shot campaign against Biden at the time that the alleged sexual harassment incident occurred.
[…]
According to Gridiron Dinner Secretary Cathy Klocko, the roast is held the first Saturday of every May, which would place the 2008 event on May 3 of that year. Klocko went on to note that until recently the event was secretive and did not release information such as guest lists or photographs of the event.

“I remember walking into the lobby and being in awe of all the people in such fancy clothes,” Murry said in an interview. “Our two parties of people gravitated towards each other and everyone started saying their hellos. When it was Biden and my aunt’s turn to say hello he quickly turned to me and asked how old I was. I replied with my age and he replied with the comment ‘Fourteen? You’re very well endowed for 14!’ I was confused but it was definitely weird, he looked me up and down and hovered his eyes on my chest so I had some clue [about] the notion of his comment but didn’t fully understand at the time. We quickly separated from his area after the encounter.” >

The publication noted that Murray told her friends, Aileen Callaghan, Katielynn Weaver, and Victoria Anstey, about this incident. Eva’s older sister, Jenna, told Law and Crime that her younger sister detailed this creepy encounter to her a week or so after the dinner. Again, there's more corroborating evidence with this story than during the entire Brett Kavanaugh witch hunt. >>

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/05/01/another-biden-accuser-n2568043

[msw design]

Post by Frank Berger
Thank God politicians make public policy decisions and not experts nor
geniuses.

What is the term you and Frank use to describe people who know what they are talking about in intimate detail but who aren't corrupted by knowledge? There's got to be a way you two talk about the role of knowledge in decision-making that doesn't involve putting it down. Or is "expert" just some code word for you?

[Frank Berger]

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Thank God politicians make public policy decisions and not experts nor
geniuses.

What is the term you and Frank use to describe people who know what they are talking about in intimate detail but who aren't corrupted by knowledge? There's got to be a way you two talk about the role of knowledge in decision-making that doesn't involve putting it down. Or is "expert" just some code word for you?

You completely misunderstand. First of all, as I said
before, you find experts and geniuses on all sides of every
issue. Putting that aside, medical experts (and I use the
term with all due respect) are qualified to answer questions
like, "How many people will die under various mitigation
policies?" Economists are qualified to answer questions
like, "How many people will lose their jobs under various
mitigation policies and how long will it take to the economy
to recover, and perhaps even weigh in on how many people
will commit suicide or die from non-Covid illnesses due to
lack of care. Sociologists, political scientists,
demographers all have something to say because of their
expertise in their disciplines. But our elected officials
make the decisions, and rightly so.

[Bob Harper]

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Thank God politicians make public policy decisions and not experts nor
geniuses.

What is the term you and Frank use to describe people who know what
they are talking about in intimate detail but who aren't corrupted by
knowledge? There's got to be a way you two talk about the role of
knowledge in decision-making that doesn't involve putting it down. Or
is "expert" just some code word for you?

You completely misunderstand.  First of all, as I said before, you find
experts and geniuses on all sides of every issue.  Putting that aside,
medical experts (and I use the term with all due respect) are qualified
to answer questions like, "How many people will die under various
mitigation policies?"  Economists are qualified to answer questions
like, "How many people will lose their jobs under various mitigation
policies and how long will it take to the economy to recover, and
perhaps even weigh in on how many people will commit suicide or die from
non-Covid illnesses due to lack of care.  Sociologists, political
scientists, demographers all have something to say because of their
expertise in their disciplines.  But our elected officials make the
decisions, and rightly so.

Agree completely. Experts, almost by definition, are narrowly focused
(there's an old joke that says an expert is defined as 'someone who
knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about
nothing'). Specialized knowledge is important, but as a *part* of
decision-making, not the whole.

Bob Harper

[Gerard]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Thank God politicians make public policy decisions and not experts nor
geniuses.

What is the term you and Frank use to describe people who know what
they are talking about in intimate detail but who aren't corrupted by
knowledge? There's got to be a way you two talk about the role of
knowledge in decision-making that doesn't involve putting it down. Or
is "expert" just some code word for you?

You completely misunderstand.  First of all, as I said before, you find
experts and geniuses on all sides of every issue.  Putting that aside,
medical experts (and I use the term with all due respect) are qualified
to answer questions like, "How many people will die under various
mitigation policies?"  Economists are qualified to answer questions
like, "How many people will lose their jobs under various mitigation
policies and how long will it take to the economy to recover, and
perhaps even weigh in on how many people will commit suicide or die from
non-Covid illnesses due to lack of care.  Sociologists, political
scientists, demographers all have something to say because of their
expertise in their disciplines.  But our elected officials make the
decisions, and rightly so.

Agree completely. Experts, almost by definition, are narrowly focused
(there's an old joke that says an expert is defined as 'someone who
knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about
nothing'). Specialized knowledge is important, but as a *part* of
decision-making, not the whole.
Bob Harper

So congratulations with your head decison-maker who knows nothing about everything and lies about everything he does not know.

[msw design]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Frank Berger
To a large extent, what I said about geniuses applies to "experts" as well.

But Frank, what would we do without experts?
(Live in a saner world, perhaps.)
Bob Harper

Heckuva job, Brownie!

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@classicalnotes.net

Post by Frank Berger

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished
politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to
the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that
would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White
House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

Don't know, but considering brilliant people are found are all sides of
all issues, it's not clear that being brilliant is a particularly
important characteristic in a politician.

We've had enough self-proclaimed "genius." It's time we had a president who appoints advisors who actually have expertise in their claimed fields (rather than relatives and sycophants) and will actually listen to and be guided by their input (rather than rely on his irrational, impulsive whims).

Do Trump's advisors need to force him to sign a kind of Magna Carta?:

https://books.google.com/books?id=HcKD92ly5CIC&pg=PA57&dq=%22great+men+are+used+to+taking+advice,+but+they+only+agree+to+that+which+serves+their+own+interests%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPjYff1PDoAhVLs54KHW6eAGoQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22great%20men%20are%20used%20to%20taking%20advice%2C%20but%20they%20only%20agree%20to%20that%20which%20serves%20their%20own%20interests%22&f=false

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@classicalnotes.net

Post by Frank Berger

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished
politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to
the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that
would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White
House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

Don't know, but considering brilliant people are found are all sides of
all issues, it's not clear that being brilliant is a particularly
important characteristic in a politician.

We've had enough self-proclaimed "genius." It's time we had a president who appoints advisors who actually have expertise in their claimed fields (rather than relatives and sycophants) and will actually listen to and be guided by their input (rather than rely on his irrational, impulsive whims).

This article on Trump mentions expertise over a dozen times:

https://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/files/pdfs/Dan_McAdams_Trump_Primal_Leader_2017.pdf

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@classicalnotes.net

Post by Frank Berger

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished
politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to
the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that
would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White
House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

Don't know, but considering brilliant people are found are all sides of
all issues, it's not clear that being brilliant is a particularly
important characteristic in a politician.

We've had enough self-proclaimed "genius." It's time we had a president who appoints advisors who actually have expertise in their claimed fields (rather than relatives and sycophants) and will actually listen to and be guided by their input (rather than rely on his irrational, impulsive whims).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise

[Oscar]

The following opinion piece is about the special election for California's 25th Congressional district, which was vacated last year by the disgraced Katie Hill. A Republican, Mike Garcia, stole away her seat last week. And the voting? ALL MAIL-IN BALLOTS. According to the Ms. Pawel's piece, only the "overwhelmingly old, white, Republican" voters could be bothered to fill-out and return the postage-paid ballot. Because, y'know, Millennials get all anxious and stuff when being confronted with post offices, stamps and creepy letter carriers in weird trucks. Will be interesting to see what happens in the fall.

<< “I tried to register for the 2016 election, but it was beyond the deadline by the time I tried to do it,” a man named Tim, age 27, explained to New York magazine last fall. “I hate mailing stuff; it gives me anxiety.” Tim was outlining the reasons why he, like 11 other millennials interviewed by the magazine, probably wouldn’t vote in the 2018 midterm election. “The amount of work logically isn’t that much,” he continued. “Fill out a form, mail it, go to the specific place on a specific day. But those kind of tasks can be hard for me to do if I’m not enthusiastic about it.” >> -Buzzfeed News, How Millennials Became The Burnout Generation, January 5, 2019


From The New York Times:

<< Opinion
California’s Warning Signs for Democrats
The party needs to figure out how to adapt to post-coronavirus politics to hold on to the seats that it flipped in 2018.

By Miriam Pawel
Contributing Opinion Writer
May 15, 2020

Before the pandemic, visitors to the Ronald Reagan Library were greeted by a hologram of the 40th president, speaking one day from his ranch and the next from the Oval Office.

On Tuesday, the Simi Valley hilltop overlooking the Pacific Ocean drew visitors for a different reason: curbside voting. At a makeshift polling place outside the shuttered museum, masked voters cast ballots in a special election to fill a vacancy in California’s 25th congressional district.

You can only imagine the Gipper was pleased with the result. For the first time in more than two decades, Republicans in California wrested a seat from Democrats. Mike Garcia, a political novice running as a supporter of President Trump, defeated Assemblywoman Christy Smith, a centrist Democrat, by around 10 percentage points.

The outcome was neither an earth-shattering victory that presages a red wave in the bluest state nor an entirely predictable result of low turnout in a special election destined to be reversed when the two candidates face off again in November. As always, there were circumstances peculiar to the local contest.

But there are also larger portents about the perils of electoral politics in the post-coronavirus world and the Democrats’ challenge in holding on to the seats they flipped in the 2018 midterm election.

For decades, the district that stretches northeast from the Reagan Library across the high desert suburbs of Los Angeles County sent Republicans to Congress. Representative Steve Knight was re-elected in 2016, even as Hillary Clinton comfortably carried the district. Her margin made the 25th district a target for Democrats in the 2018 midterm, when Katie Hill unseated Mr. Knight in an expensive, high-profile campaign. Ms. Hill’s resignation amid a sex scandal less than a year into her term led to the special election.

On paper, Democrats hold a six-point registration edge, built up over the past four years largely because Republican defectors switched to no party preference. The numbers mask a still-conservative electorate, especially among the most reliable voters. Gov. Gavin Newsom coasted to victory statewide in 2018 over a little-known Republican — but carried the 25th district by only two points.

Mr. Garcia, a former Navy pilot and son of a Mexican immigrant, campaigned on a traditional Republican platform — against high taxes, overregulation and Democratic control. Unlike Mr. Knight, who had cast unpopular votes on issues like health care, Mr. Garcia had no record to attack. He embraced President Trump, and in a low-turnout election conducted almost entirely by mail, that helped motivate his base. While Mr. Garcia will have the advantage of incumbency in November, he will also have a record that may make his ties to President Trump more of a liability in a general election that might draw twice as many voters.

The key question of turnout will depend on whether Democrats devise a successful post-pandemic strategy to replace the armies of volunteers who went door-to-door canvassing swing districts in 2018. For the foreseeable future, campaign and get-out-the-vote operations accustomed to relying on face-to-face contact will have to make radical shifts. Democrats, particularly progressive candidates, have eked out wins in recent contests by knocking on doors, taking voters to the polls for same-day registration and collecting mail-in ballots up to the last minute. All that will change.

Mr. Garcia’s surprisingly wide margin of victory in a race Democrats had expected to be close illustrates the challenge. Every registered voter in the district received a postage-paid, mail-in ballot, as will be the case statewide in November. Voters who returned the simple ballot skewed overwhelmingly old, white and Republican.

An analysis by the firm Political Data Inc., which tracks ballots returned, showed the younger the voter, the less likely to vote. Fewer than 20 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds cast ballots; twice as many voted who were between 50 and 65; and only among the oldest voters did turnout exceed 50 percent. Latinos were least likely to vote (21 percent), while 40 percent of whites cast ballots. To win back the seat in November, Democrats will need to motivate younger voters and Latinos, mirroring the challenge nationally for a party with a presidential candidate who has not generated enthusiasm among either constituency.

“Yes, turn out Latinos. But you need to persuade us too. Especially if the G.O.P. candidate is Latino!” Antonio De Loera-Brust, a Californian who worked on the policy staff of the Elizabeth Warren and Julián Castro campaigns, tweeted in response to the election result. He pointed to one of several recent analyses warning that Latinos, disproportionately hit by the health and economic consequences of Covid-19, might just stay home in November.

In recent elections, last-minute votes, by mail and in person, have skewed heavily for Democrats. Not this time. Voters who showed up at the handful of outdoor pop-up polling places voted for the Republican two to one. Some told reporters they voted in person because they did not trust the Postal Service.

Republicans have not won a statewide election in California since 2006. Democrats hold veto-proof majorities in both houses of the State Legislature. The California of Ronald Reagan, ruled by Republican governors for all but 21 years of the past century, is gone. Yet Donald Trump raised more than $30 million in California, outstripping all of his Democratic challengers during the height of the primary campaign. In 2016, even as he lost the state two to one, he won more than four million votes.

The governor predicts a quarter of all workers in California may soon be unemployed. Revenues are plummeting at a time of staggering need. It is impossible to know whether the impending depression will foster appreciation of government or antipathy. To make assumptions based on past practices about anything, including elections, is to risk complacency at a time of unprecedented and unpredictable upheaval. >>


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/opinion/california-special-election-democrats.html?searchResultPosition=3

[Raymond Hall]

Post by John Hood

Post by Oscar
<< In fairness to Biden, he is a stable, experienced and accomplished politician. While some of his qualities are not unique, compared to the president’s disruptive nature, they are appealing in a way that would not have prevailed if we had a typical Republican in the White House. >>
Stable?? I'm afraid he is neither stable _nor_ a genius.

When was the last (or first for that matter) genius American president?
JH

Nobody who was a genius, or above a certain IQ, would ever need or want to be a politician. Money and the gift of the yap, in dispensing mostly bullshit, are the qualities that succeed in attracting the rabble. The more thinking type are mostly lefties.

Ray Hall, Taree

[Oscar]

Post by Raymond Hall
Nobody who was a genius, or above a certain IQ, would ever need or want to be a politician. Money and
the gift of the yap, in dispensing mostly bullshit, are the qualities that succeed in attracting the rabble.
The more thinking type are mostly lefties.

Thinking of more ways to take my money, to seize my guns, to corral my carbon footprint? More ways to control my movements, to regulate my inalienable rights, to force into submission thoughts and actions the State determines (thinks) disqualifying? You got dat right!

[Oscar]

“My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there’s hardly any difference. An honest public servant can’t become rich in politics. You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook. It cannot be allowed to be done.” -President Harry S. Truman

Donald J. Trump takes no salary as President _and_ is draining the swamp.
Joe Biden took Air Force 2 to China and Ukraine with his son making nepotism millions. There is also Biden's claim that he was tougher on CHI-NAH than Trump. Absurd. And last, Biden is the most powerful career politician ever from the biggest banking state in the country: Delaware. Grease, graft and greed. And digital penetration of female subordinates after 3-martini lunches.

So, there's that.

[Andy Evans]

Post by Oscar

Post by Raymond Hall
The more thinking type are mostly lefties.

Thinking of more ways to take my money, to seize my guns, to corral my carbon footprint? More ways to control my movements, to regulate my inalienable rights, to force into submission thoughts and actions the State determines (thinks) disqualifying? You got dat right!

I must be a "leftie" in that case. Controlling carbon footprint and regulating a whole host of issues is going to become indispensable as a way of counteracting climate change future disasters. There are no "inalienable rights" in terms of saving the planet. There is only profound social change, which will require sacrifices by populations across the world. Right now those who refuse to make sacrifices are largely getting away with it, but that will change as the impact of global warming gets more and more serious and pressure groups start to have more and more influence on politics.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-china-likely-wants-trump-to-lose-the-election

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

What the man who predicted Trump's win in 2016 says about 2020:

https://buffalonews.com/2020/04/04/what-are-trumps-chances-in-2020/

[JohnGavin]

This is a retweet by pianist Marc-André Hamelin from this morning:

2 Americans died of Ebola: They said Barack Obama should resign.

4 Americans died in Benghazi: They had Hillary Clinton testify for 11 hours, held 33 hearings, and launched a multiyear probe.

Donald Trump *might* come in at less than 250,000 Americans dead: They cheer.

[Oscar]

Post by JohnGavin
2 Americans died of Ebola: They said Barack Obama should resign.
4 Americans died in Benghazi: They had Hillary Clinton testify for 11 hours, held 33 hearings, and launched
a multiyear probe.
Donald Trump *might* come in at less than 250,000 Americans dead: They cheer.

To compare the Benghazi debacle of 9/11/12—in which Obama hung NSA Director Susan Rice out to dry on four Sunday morning talk shows to spread fake news about a spontaneous demonstration inspired by a ridiculously amateur-produced YouTube video, something that Killary's emails later _proved_ to be false, least among these one sent to her daughter, Chelsea—to the Chinese Coronavirus says more about the thinker than the subject at hand. Oh, that's right. Hamelin is Québécois. They're different.

[wkasimer]

Post by JohnGavin
2 Americans died of Ebola: They said Barack Obama should resign.
4 Americans died in Benghazi: They had Hillary Clinton testify for 11 hours, held 33 hearings, and launched a multiyear probe.
Donald Trump *might* come in at less than 250,000 Americans dead: They cheer.

Who are "they"?

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/tamara-keith-and-amy-walter-on-trumps-reelection-strategy

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-this-is-looking-bad-for-trump-20200528-5v4rfh4ma5b3xf6xtxw7am2som-story.html

[Oscar]

Lots of information, Slavic names and cognitive dissonance herein. Please try to pay attention! "Local media reported it took 12 hours to count the cash."


From Washington Post:

<< Ukraine says it intercepted $6 million bribe to stop probe of Burisma founder

By David L. Stern and Robin Dixon
June 14, 2020

KYIV, Ukraine — Prosecutors say the heap of $6 million in crisp, new bills, fastened in bundles with pink and yellow rubber bands, was supposed to bribe a Ukrainian anti-corruption investigator to drop an embezzlement case against the founder of the natural gas company Burisma.

To Ukrainians, the pile was eye-popping — and not just because it was so large. In this country, plagued for decades by corruption, such payments normally change hands quietly, without anyone finding out.

But here it was, seized by law enforcement officials and proudly displayed in transparent, plastic bags by the director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the special anti-corruption prosecutor. Details of the case emerged Sunday in a Kyiv court.

Authorities said an anti-corruption bureau official was paid $6 million to drop the investigation against Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, a former ecology and natural resources minister, in an elaborate sting operation Friday. Local media reported it took 12 hours to count the cash.

Special anti-corruption prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytsky ruled out involvement by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden or his son, Hunter. Anti-corruption bureau director Artem Sytnyk implicated Zlochevsky, another former Burisma employee and two former tax officials.

Zlochevsky is accused of embezzling loan funds from the National Bank of Ukraine issued to Real Bank in 2013. Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board in 2014 and left in 2018.

The company was at the heart of the impeachment proceedings this year against President Donald Trump. Trump pressured Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky last year to launch an investigation into the Bidens based on Hunter’s involvement with the company.

Burisma remains at the center of efforts led by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani to dig up dirt in Ukraine on Joe Biden to help Trump’s re-election campaign. Giuliani has pushed claims that as vice president, Biden pressured then-Ukraine president Petro Poroshenko to sack Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin in return for $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees. Trump’s allies claim Biden wanted to prevent investigations that might implicate his son in wrongdoing.

At the time, however, Biden was open about pressing for Shokin’s removal as part of a campaign by the U.S., the European Union and international financial institutions, who viewed the prosecutor as ineffective in the fight against corruption.

Former Ukraine prosecutor general Ruslan Ryaboshapka audited the many outstanding case files looking into Burisma and said he found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens.

Burisma denied involvement in the new bribery allegations.

“The Burisma Group company and its management have nothing to do with the report of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and some media outlets about participating in illegal actions,” the company said in a statement Saturday. “The company is operating exclusively within the framework of the current legislation, and it is one of the largest taxpayers and defends the interests of energy independence of Ukraine.”

Details of the suspected bribe emerged Sunday during the arraignments of Mykola Ilyashenko, first deputy head of Kyiv’s tax office, and Andrii Kicha, a former legal adviser to Burisma and a former member of Ukraine’s taxation service. Another former tax official, Olena Mazurenko, was charged as an accomplice.

Prosecutors alleged that Ilyashenko handed three travel bags laden with $5 million in $100 bills to anti-corruption bureau agent Yevgeny Shevchenko in a parking lot under the Kyiv tax headquarters. Another $1 million was paid as a “commission to an intermediary.”

Authorities said the $6 million was a record amount for a bribe seized in Ukraine. The cash is now to be transferred to the Ukraine state treasury.

Ending the probe was to be a birthday gift for Zlochevsky, who turned 54 on Sunday, officials said. It would have allowed him to return to Ukraine without risking arrest.

Sytnyk said Zlochevksy also was under suspicion.

Prosecutors said the parties agreed to the suspected bribe at a meeting Wednesday. They said Shevchenko met with Ilyashenko, Kicha and Mazurenko on Friday for the handover.

Ilyashenko carried three large travel bags stuffed with cash, prosecutors alleged.

Kholodnytsky ruled out involvement by the Bidens.

“Let’s put an end to this once and for all,” he said. “Biden Jr. and Biden Sr. do not appear in this particular proceeding,” he said. Sytnyk said the case had no political subtext.

Some anti-corruption activists saw the arrests as a hopeful sign that Ukraine’s culture of corruption is finally changing.

“I think it’s a big deal, but obviously it’s only the tip of the iceberg,” said Daria Kaleniuk, director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center. “It’s the biggest bribe caught in an attempt to bribe a senior official.

“The usual case in Ukraine, prosecutors are like at a supermarket. There is a price to close cases and there is a price to open them again. This was a landmark.”

—Dixon reported from Moscow. Natalie Gryvnyak in Kyiv contributed to this report. >>

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

https://www.foxnews.com/media/pollster-nate-silver-trump-can-win-2020-election

[Andy Evans]

I note that we are now seeing Mike Pence speaking on behalf of the president, and promoting wearing a face mask.

As a European I know less about the US political system than experts on this forum. My question is whether the Republican party is able or willing to dump Trump as their presidential candidate and substitute a proper politician. How would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or what?

[dk]

Post by Andy Evans
I note that we are now seeing Mike Pence speaking on
behalf of the president, and promoting wearing a face mask.
As a European I know less about the US political system
than experts on this forum. My question is whether the
Republican party is able or willing to dump Trump as their
presidential candidate and substitute a proper politician.
How would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or
what?

What/who is a "proper politician" ?!?
Don't remember ever seeing one! I
suppose they must be kept in some
zoo!

dk

[Andy Evans]

Post by dk
What/who is a "proper politician" ?!?
Don't remember ever seeing one! I
suppose they must be kept in some
zoo!
dk

Yes, I expected somebody to pick up on that. I meant a person with years of professional politics behind them, not a narcissistic media personality, which I take to be an experiment that has failed. Of course any politician can have years of really bad professional politics behind them just as you say, but at least they might be a change from government by Twitter and Presidential decrees.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Andy Evans

Post by dk
What/who is a "proper politician" ?!?
Don't remember ever seeing one! I
suppose they must be kept in some
zoo!
dk

Yes, I expected somebody to pick up on that. I meant a person with years of professional politics behind them, not a narcissistic media personality, which I take to be an experiment that has failed. Of course any politician can have years of really bad professional politics behind them just as you say, but at least they might be a change from government by Twitter and Presidential decrees.

All presidents issue executive orders. If you don't count
Trump's executive orders that simply undo Obamas's I'm not
sure how they compare. Executive orders are supposed to
affect only the President's subordinates in the executive
branch, but that has been abused.

It's not the use of Twitter per se that is the problem.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Andy Evans

Post by dk
What/who is a "proper politician" ?!?
Don't remember ever seeing one! I
suppose they must be kept in some
zoo!
dk

Yes, I expected somebody to pick up on that. I meant a person with years of professional politics behind them, not a narcissistic media personality, which I take to be an experiment that has failed. Of course any politician can have years of really bad professional politics behind them just as you say, but at least they might be a change from government by Twitter and Presidential decrees.

As far as I am concerned, Trump proves that you don't have to be crazy to survive in the U.S., but it helps.

[Oscar]

Post by g***@gmail.com
As far as I am concerned, Trump proves that you don't have to be crazy to survive in the U.S., but it helps.

• Defeat in the First Opium War (1839–1842) by the British.
• The unequal treaties (in particular Nanking, Whampoa, Aigun and Shimonoseki).
• Defeat in the Second Opium War (1856–1860) and the sacking of the Old Summer Palace by British and French forces.
• The Sino-French War (1884–1885).
• Defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) by Japan.
• The Eight-Nation Alliance suppressing the Boxer uprising (1899–1901).
• British expedition to Tibet (1903–1904).
• The Twenty-One Demands (1915) by Japan.
• Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931-1932).
• The Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945).
• Winnie-the-Pooh is elected President by National People's Congress (NPC) (2013).
• Wuhan Virus escapes and infects the world (2019-20).

[wkasimer]

Post by Andy Evans
My question is whether the Republican party is able or willing to dump Trump as their presidential candidate and substitute a proper politician. How would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or what?

Unless Trump withdraws and refuses to accept the party's nomination, it'd require a major intra-party battle. Such battles, which have occurred in the past when the incumbent is weak, or there is serious dissent within the party, are invariably unsuccessful, and only serve to further weaken the incumbent nominee (e.g. Carter in 1980, Taft in 1912).

[Frank Berger]

Post by wkasimer

Post by Andy Evans
My question is whether the Republican party is able or willing to dump Trump as their presidential candidate and substitute a proper politician. How would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or what?

Unless Trump withdraws and refuses to accept the party's nomination, it'd require a major intra-party battle. Such battles, which have occurred in the past when the incumbent is weak, or there is serious dissent within the party, are invariably unsuccessful, and only serve to further weaken the incumbent nominee (e.g. Carter in 1980, Taft in 1912).

I asked the same question about Biden a while back.

[Andy Evans]

Post by Frank Berger
I asked the same question about Biden a while back.

Good point. A very strange pair of candidates.

[Ricardo Jimenez]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:00:27 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by wkasimer

Post by Andy Evans
My question is whether the Republican party is able or willing to dump Trump as their presidential candidate and substitute a proper politician. How would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or what?

Unless Trump withdraws and refuses to accept the party's nomination, it'd require a major intra-party battle. Such battles, which have occurred in the past when the incumbent is weak, or there is serious dissent within the party, are invariably unsuccessful, and only serve to further weaken the incumbent nominee (e.g. Carter in 1980, Taft in 1912).

I asked the same question about Biden a while back.

Because of the way the candidates were chosen, many, if not the
majority of the electorate will again think they are again deciding
which is the lesser of two evils they had little say in picking. In
contrast, French voters choose between 10 candidates and then among
the two highest scorers. The original 10 are chosen by votes of
elected officials.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:00:27 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by wkasimer

Post by Andy Evans
My question is whether the Republican party is able or willing to dump Trump as their presidential candidate and substitute a proper politician. How would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or what?

Unless Trump withdraws and refuses to accept the party's nomination, it'd require a major intra-party battle. Such battles, which have occurred in the past when the incumbent is weak, or there is serious dissent within the party, are invariably unsuccessful, and only serve to further weaken the incumbent nominee (e.g. Carter in 1980, Taft in 1912).

I asked the same question about Biden a while back.

Because of the way the candidates were chosen, many, if not the
majority of the electorate will again think they are again deciding
which is the lesser of two evils they had little say in picking. In
contrast, French voters choose between 10 candidates and then among
the two highest scorers. The original 10 are chosen by votes of
elected officials.

Different, but is it better?

[Ricardo Jimenez]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:27:11 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:00:27 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by wkasimer

Post by Andy Evans
My question is whether the Republican party is able or willing to dump Trump as their presidential candidate and substitute a proper politician. How would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or what?

Unless Trump withdraws and refuses to accept the party's nomination, it'd require a major intra-party battle. Such battles, which have occurred in the past when the incumbent is weak, or there is serious dissent within the party, are invariably unsuccessful, and only serve to further weaken the incumbent nominee (e.g. Carter in 1980, Taft in 1912).

I asked the same question about Biden a while back.

Because of the way the candidates were chosen, many, if not the
majority of the electorate will again think they are again deciding
which is the lesser of two evils they had little say in picking. In
contrast, French voters choose between 10 candidates and then among
the two highest scorers. The original 10 are chosen by votes of
elected officials.

Different, but is it better?

I think yes. For starters, candidates have to drop out if they don't
attain much in smaller early voting states. Also, having
knowledgeable people filter out the obviously unqualified makes it
less probable that a wothless demagogue will be among the 10
finalists.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:27:11 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:00:27 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by wkasimer

Post by Andy Evans
My question is whether the Republican party is able or willing to dump Trump as their presidential candidate and substitute a proper politician. How would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or what?

Unless Trump withdraws and refuses to accept the party's nomination, it'd require a major intra-party battle. Such battles, which have occurred in the past when the incumbent is weak, or there is serious dissent within the party, are invariably unsuccessful, and only serve to further weaken the incumbent nominee (e.g. Carter in 1980, Taft in 1912).

I asked the same question about Biden a while back.

Because of the way the candidates were chosen, many, if not the
majority of the electorate will again think they are again deciding
which is the lesser of two evils they had little say in picking. In
contrast, French voters choose between 10 candidates and then among
the two highest scorers. The original 10 are chosen by votes of
elected officials.

Different, but is it better?

I think yes. For starters, candidates have to drop out if they don't
attain much in smaller early voting states. Also, having
knowledgeable people filter out the obviously unqualified makes it
less probable that a wothless demagogue will be among the 10
finalists.

Who says all 10 won't be worthless demagogues? That is one
of the functions of our electoral college, isn't it? I
guess it didn't work.

[number_six]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:27:11 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:00:27 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by wkasimer

Post by Andy Evans
My question is whether the Republican party is able or willing to dump Trump as their presidential candidate and substitute a proper politician. How would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or what?

Unless Trump withdraws and refuses to accept the party's nomination, it'd require a major intra-party battle. Such battles, which have occurred in the past when the incumbent is weak, or there is serious dissent within the party, are invariably unsuccessful, and only serve to further weaken the incumbent nominee (e.g. Carter in 1980, Taft in 1912).

I asked the same question about Biden a while back.

Because of the way the candidates were chosen, many, if not the
majority of the electorate will again think they are again deciding
which is the lesser of two evils they had little say in picking. In
contrast, French voters choose between 10 candidates and then among
the two highest scorers. The original 10 are chosen by votes of
elected officials.

Different, but is it better?

I think yes. For starters, candidates have to drop out if they don't
attain much in smaller early voting states. Also, having
knowledgeable people filter out the obviously unqualified makes it
less probable that a wothless demagogue will be among the 10
finalists.

Who says all 10 won't be worthless demagogues? That is one
of the functions of our electoral college, isn't it? I
guess it didn't work.

Iran uses an Assembly of Experts to choose a Supreme Leader.

What could go wrong?

[Andy Evans]

In the UK one way to get rid of an incumbent Prime Minister is a Leadership Challenge through a confidence vote.

Is there a mechanism for this in the USA?

[Bob Harper]

Post by Andy Evans
In the UK one way to get rid of an incumbent Prime Minister is a Leadership Challenge through a confidence vote.
Is there a mechanism for this in the USA?

No. The only ways to change the President are
Term limit (8 years)
Resignation (Nixon)
Assassination (Lincoln and several others)
Death in office (William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren Harding,
and FDR)
Impeachment (tried 3 times w/o success)
25th Amendment (never tried; allows for *temporary* removal, subject to
certain conditions and determinations; probably unworkable, though it
most nearly resembles the leadership challenge route in the UK)

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:27:11 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:00:27 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by wkasimer

Post by Andy Evans
My question is whether the Republican party is able or willing to
dump Trump as their presidential candidate and substitute a
proper politician. How would this be done - would Trump need to
withdraw or what?

Unless Trump withdraws and refuses to accept the party's
nomination, it'd require a major intra-party battle.  Such
battles, which have occurred in the past when the incumbent is
weak, or there is serious dissent within the party, are invariably
unsuccessful, and only serve to further weaken the incumbent
nominee (e.g. Carter in 1980, Taft in 1912).

I asked the same question about Biden a while back.

Because of the way the candidates were chosen, many, if not the
majority of the electorate will again think they are again deciding
which is the lesser of two evils they had little say in picking.  In
contrast, French voters choose between 10 candidates and then among
the two highest scorers.  The original 10 are chosen by votes of
elected officials.

Different, but is it better?

I think yes.  For starters, candidates have to drop out if they don't
attain much in smaller early voting states.  Also, having
knowledgeable people filter out the obviously unqualified makes it
less probable that a wothless demagogue will be among the 10
finalists.

Who says all 10 won't be worthless demagogues?  That is one of the
functions of our electoral college, isn't it?  I guess it didn't work.

It hasn't served that part of its function for a long time. However, it
does serve the purpose of preventing the domination of the nation by a
small number of coastal states--which seems to me sufficient reason to
retain it. It would be nice to believe the original purpse could be
recovered, but I don't think that's in the cards.

Bob Harper

[Ricardo Jimenez]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:47:40 -0700, Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper

Who says all 10 won't be worthless demagogues?  That is one of the
functions of our electoral college, isn't it?  I guess it didn't work.

It hasn't served that part of its function for a long time. However, it
does serve the purpose of preventing the domination of the nation by a
small number of coastal states--which seems to me sufficient reason to
retain it. It would be nice to believe the original purpse could be
recovered, but I don't think that's in the cards.
Bob Harper

I don't see how the current electoral college prevents what you say
from happening and even if it did, why that is goodness. Your remark
is more appropriate for excusing the idiotic way the US Senate is
constituted. It only makes sense if you believe representation
becomes fair if it is based on the cattle population.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/16/are-cows-better-represented-senate-than-people/?arc404=true

[Frank Berger]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:47:40 -0700, Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper

Who says all 10 won't be worthless demagogues?  That is one of the
functions of our electoral college, isn't it?  I guess it didn't work.

It hasn't served that part of its function for a long time. However, it
does serve the purpose of preventing the domination of the nation by a
small number of coastal states--which seems to me sufficient reason to
retain it. It would be nice to believe the original purpse could be
recovered, but I don't think that's in the cards.
Bob Harper

I don't see how the current electoral college prevents what you say
from happening and even if it did, why that is goodness. Your remark
is more appropriate for excusing the idiotic way the US Senate is
constituted. It only makes sense if you believe representation
becomes fair if it is based on the cattle population.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/16/are-cows-better-represented-senate-than-people/?arc404=true

I don't understand your misunderstanding. The main function
of the electoral system is to reduce the influence of the
most populous states. Isn't that intuitively obvious? And
that was the intent of the founders. I understand the
argument for a popular vote. I respect what the founders
intended. I could see a constitutional argument against the
electoral college, except that it is in the constitution.
The elector system disenfranchizes voters in New York and
California at the expense ot those in Montana and Iowa.
That's what the founders wanted.

[Bob Harper]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:47:40 -0700, Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper

Who says all 10 won't be worthless demagogues?  That is one of the
functions of our electoral college, isn't it?  I guess it didn't work.

It hasn't served that part of its function for a long time. However, it
does serve the purpose of preventing the domination of the nation by a
small number of coastal states--which seems to me sufficient reason to
retain it. It would be nice to believe the original purpse could be
recovered, but I don't think that's in the cards.
Bob Harper

I don't see how the current electoral college prevents what you say
from happening and even if it did, why that is goodness.  Your remark
is more appropriate for excusing the idiotic way the US Senate is
constituted.  It only makes sense if you believe representation
becomes fair if it is based on the cattle population.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/16/are-cows-better-represented-senate-than-people/?arc404=true

I don't understand your misunderstanding.  The main function of the
electoral system is to reduce the influence of the most populous
states.  Isn't that intuitively obvious?  And that was the intent of the
founders.   I understand the argument for a popular vote.  I respect
what the founders intended.  I could see a constitutional argument
against the electoral college, except that it is in the constitution.
The elector system disenfranchizes voters in New York and California at
the expense ot those in Montana and Iowa. That's what the founders wanted.

Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.

Bob Harper

[Raymond Hall]

Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.
------------------

So that the 'momentary enthusiasms' of the few override those of the vast majority? Ridiculous!

Ray Hall, Taree

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper
Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.
------------------
So that the 'momentary enthusiasms' of the few override those of the vast majority? Ridiculous!
Ray Hall, Taree

Imagine that Presidential elections in New York and
California were always competitive. Candidates would spend a
lot of time there campaigning for votes. If those states
always voted 50-50 for Republicans and Democrats they
wouldn't dominate national elections. But for whatever
reason that is not the case. Does it seem "right" to you
that national elections should always be determined by New
York and California, with other states not mattering? It
didn't seem so to the founders.

[Raymond Hall]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper
Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.
------------------
So that the 'momentary enthusiasms' of the few override those of the vast majority? Ridiculous!
Ray Hall, Taree

Imagine that Presidential elections in New York and
California were always competitive. Candidates would spend a
lot of time there campaigning for votes. If those states
always voted 50-50 for Republicans and Democrats they
wouldn't dominate national elections. But for whatever
reason that is not the case. Does it seem "right" to you
that national elections should always be determined by New
York and California, with other states not mattering? It
didn't seem so to the founders.

It seems perfectly right that the national majority, from wherever they choose to live, should determine, pro rata as much as is possible (without being rigged), the state and governance of said nation. Whether two separate enormous majorities are competitive is really totally irrevelant, because it only matters that the 'national' proportion of voters are what really counts and decides. In the case of California and NY, they are not competitive anyway, but then so what?

Ray Hall, Taree

[Frank Berger]

Post by Raymond Hall

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper
Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.
------------------
So that the 'momentary enthusiasms' of the few override those of the vast majority? Ridiculous!
Ray Hall, Taree

Imagine that Presidential elections in New York and
California were always competitive. Candidates would spend a
lot of time there campaigning for votes. If those states
always voted 50-50 for Republicans and Democrats they
wouldn't dominate national elections. But for whatever
reason that is not the case. Does it seem "right" to you
that national elections should always be determined by New
York and California, with other states not mattering? It
didn't seem so to the founders.

It seems perfectly right that the national majority, from wherever they choose to live, should determine, pro rata as much as is possible (without being rigged), the state and governance of said nation. Whether two separate enormous majorities are competitive is really totally irrevelant, because it only matters that the 'national' proportion of voters are what really counts and decides. In the case of California and NY, they are not competitive anyway, but then so what?
Ray Hall, Taree

OK, but the founders and I disagree with you. In fact, I
wonder how stable the political life of the country would be
if every small state felt they had no say in choosing the
President. We have a system where states are supposed to
matter. In some sense state and local governments have more
influence over people's lives than the Federal government.
It least that's supposed to be the case. People identify
with their state. If that was not the case we wouldn't have
the term state's rights and this whole conversation would be
moot. The electoral college is a reflection of that.

[Raymond Hall]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Raymond Hall

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper
Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.
------------------
So that the 'momentary enthusiasms' of the few override those of the vast majority? Ridiculous!
Ray Hall, Taree

Imagine that Presidential elections in New York and
California were always competitive. Candidates would spend a
lot of time there campaigning for votes. If those states
always voted 50-50 for Republicans and Democrats they
wouldn't dominate national elections. But for whatever
reason that is not the case. Does it seem "right" to you
that national elections should always be determined by New
York and California, with other states not mattering? It
didn't seem so to the founders.

It seems perfectly right that the national majority, from wherever they choose to live, should determine, pro rata as much as is possible (without being rigged), the state and governance of said nation. Whether two separate enormous majorities are competitive is really totally irrevelant, because it only matters that the 'national' proportion of voters are what really counts and decides. In the case of California and NY, they are not competitive anyway, but then so what?
Ray Hall, Taree

OK, but the founders and I disagree with you. In fact, I
wonder how stable the political life of the country would be
if every small state felt they had no say in choosing the
President. We have a system where states are supposed to
matter. In some sense state and local governments have more
influence over people's lives than the Federal government.
It least that's supposed to be the case. People identify
with their state. If that was not the case we wouldn't have
the term state's rights and this whole conversation would be
moot. The electoral college is a reflection of that.

How much more unstable the political life of the country were the effects of the electoral college the opposite? In a sense as it is now? The UK is in the same boat, but there they call it something like 'proportional representation', but it amounts to much the same thing, which essentially means unproportionate representation, or gerrymandering in some quarters, because representation gets rigged.

Besides, the whole idea of the lower house is based upon population size within individual states, so proportionality was always a primary consideration. However, your chief honcho stacks the courts with Republicans, and several states re-district their boundaries, of which NC is one such standout case, which are clear cases of gerrymandering, not to mention other ways truer proportionality gets rigged.

Ray Hall, Taree

[Bob Harper]

"However, your chief honcho stacks the courts with Republicans"

If you like, but then his predecessor did the same, only in the opposite
direction.However, your chief honcho stacks the courts with Republicans

Actually, I prefer judges who read the Constitution as written, not
those who read the Constitution as they would prefer it to be.

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

Post by Bob Harper

"However, your chief honcho stacks the courts with Republicans"

If you like, but then his predecessor did the same, only in the opposite
direction.
Actually, I prefer judges who read the Constitution as written, not
those who read the Constitution as they would prefer it to be.
Bob Harper

Somehow this got garbled. This is corrected.

Bob Harper

[dk]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Raymond Hall

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper
Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.
------------------
So that the 'momentary enthusiasms' of the few override those of the vast majority? Ridiculous!
Ray Hall, Taree

Imagine that Presidential elections in New York and
California were always competitive. Candidates would spend a
lot of time there campaigning for votes. If those states
always voted 50-50 for Republicans and Democrats they
wouldn't dominate national elections. But for whatever
reason that is not the case. Does it seem "right" to you
that national elections should always be determined by New
York and California, with other states not mattering? It
didn't seem so to the founders.

It seems perfectly right that the national majority, from wherever they choose to live, should determine, pro rata as much as is possible (without being rigged), the state and governance of said nation. Whether two separate enormous majorities are competitive is really totally irrevelant, because it only matters that the 'national' proportion of voters are what really counts and decides. In the case of California and NY, they are not competitive anyway, but then so what?
Ray Hall, Taree

OK, but the founders and I disagree with you. In fact, I
wonder how stable the political life of the country would be
if every small state felt they had no say in choosing the
President. We have a system where states are supposed to
matter. In some sense state and local governments have more
influence over people's lives than the Federal government.
It least that's supposed to be the case. People identify
with their state. If that was not the case we wouldn't have
the term state's rights and this whole conversation would be
moot. The electoral college is a reflection of that.

Just get rid of the states.

dk

[Bob Harper]

Post by dk

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Raymond Hall

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper
Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.
------------------
So that the 'momentary enthusiasms' of the few override those of the vast majority? Ridiculous!
Ray Hall, Taree

Imagine that Presidential elections in New York and
California were always competitive. Candidates would spend a
lot of time there campaigning for votes. If those states
always voted 50-50 for Republicans and Democrats they
wouldn't dominate national elections. But for whatever
reason that is not the case. Does it seem "right" to you
that national elections should always be determined by New
York and California, with other states not mattering? It
didn't seem so to the founders.

It seems perfectly right that the national majority, from wherever they choose to live, should determine, pro rata as much as is possible (without being rigged), the state and governance of said nation. Whether two separate enormous majorities are competitive is really totally irrevelant, because it only matters that the 'national' proportion of voters are what really counts and decides. In the case of California and NY, they are not competitive anyway, but then so what?
Ray Hall, Taree

OK, but the founders and I disagree with you. In fact, I
wonder how stable the political life of the country would be
if every small state felt they had no say in choosing the
President. We have a system where states are supposed to
matter. In some sense state and local governments have more
influence over people's lives than the Federal government.
It least that's supposed to be the case. People identify
with their state. If that was not the case we wouldn't have
the term state's rights and this whole conversation would be
moot. The electoral college is a reflection of that.

Just get rid of the states.
dk

Certainly one of the two major parties would agree, or at least would
prefer to make them mere administrative units of the central government.

Bob Harper

[dk]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by dk

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Raymond Hall

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper
Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.
------------------
So that the 'momentary enthusiasms' of the few override those of the vast majority? Ridiculous!
Ray Hall, Taree

Imagine that Presidential elections in New York and
California were always competitive. Candidates would spend a
lot of time there campaigning for votes. If those states
always voted 50-50 for Republicans and Democrats they
wouldn't dominate national elections. But for whatever
reason that is not the case. Does it seem "right" to you
that national elections should always be determined by New
York and California, with other states not mattering? It
didn't seem so to the founders.

It seems perfectly right that the national majority, from wherever they choose to live, should determine, pro rata as much as is possible (without being rigged), the state and governance of said nation. Whether two separate enormous majorities are competitive is really totally irrevelant, because it only matters that the 'national' proportion of voters are what really counts and decides. In the case of California and NY, they are not competitive anyway, but then so what?
Ray Hall, Taree

OK, but the founders and I disagree with you. In fact, I
wonder how stable the political life of the country would be
if every small state felt they had no say in choosing the
President. We have a system where states are supposed to
matter. In some sense state and local governments have more
influence over people's lives than the Federal government.
It least that's supposed to be the case. People identify
with their state. If that was not the case we wouldn't have
the term state's rights and this whole conversation would be
moot. The electoral college is a reflection of that.

Just get rid of the states.

Certainly one of the two major parties would agree, or at least would
prefer to make them mere administrative units of the central government.

I couldn't care less about political parties'
take on the matter. As you all know, I am not
only apolitical but also anti-political.

Many choices in life boil down to pay now versus
pay later, cost/benefit and risk/reward analysis.
The cost of maintaining the state system now far
exceeds the benefits. Society and economy were
quite different in the 18th century than they
are in the 21st.

dk

[Oscar]

Watch out for the Millennials running Biden's campaign. They're not as 'woke' as they'd like you to believe. Now, were Comms Director Kamau Marshall named, oh I dunno, 'Todd' Marshall and lacked his special melanin compassion* (or whatever) he would have been fired this morning, dismissed out of hand, see-ya-wouldn't-wanna-be-ya, Sayonara, Sam! Instead, he keeps his job and gets to delete his Tweeting transgressions like nothing happened—or better yet, to use this episode as a racial cudgel against the oppositions when they call him out. This all _just happened_ to transpired on the day after the premiere of a new show on MSNBC by new 'It' Girl, Joy-Ann Reid, an erstwhile homophobe and conspiracy theorist who has, we may suppose, 'evolved'+. You gotta love it!

* https://nypost.com/2020/07/16/african-american-history-museums-whiteness-exhibit-raising-eyebrows/
+ https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286392/joy-reid-msnbc-lgbtq-gay-hack


From FOX News Channel:

<< Top Biden communications aide has history of sexist Twitter posts
Posts are the latest example of a top Biden staffer undercutting the former vice president's messaging

By Gregg Re
July 21, 2020

EXCLUSIVE: Joe Biden's head of strategic communications, Kamau M. Marshall, has repeatedly posted sexist messages on social media over the past decade, beginning with a Christmas Eve 2011 tweet in which he expressed his affection for "power women" – as long as she "know[s] her place" and he can "where [sic] the pants."

The social media posts are the latest example of a top Biden staffer undercutting the former vice president's public messaging. On Friday, Fox News reported that a supervising videographer on the campaign, Sara Pearl, openly called for defunding the police and tweeted a meme mocking officers as worse than "pigs" – even as Biden says he only wants some money redirected from police departments.

Within minutes of this story's publication, Marshall deleted many of the tweets cited in this article, but Fox News retained screenshots. The Biden team has declined to offer any comment on the posts by either Marshall and Pearl, and Marshall did not respond to an emailed request for comment prior to this story's publication.

Unlike Pearl's messages, Marshall's posts are from a senior campaign official – and appear to be part of a long-running pattern.

In early 2012, Marshall inquired: "Are all women crazy???? Lol no offense ijs [I'm just saying]."

Later that year, he opined, "Nice guys finish last because they make sure their girl comes first."

In August 2013, Marshall observed, "It's unattractive when a girl doesn't act classy & does not know how to control her feelings."

In 2012, he wrote: "@kimberlyjaneece I disagree-I try not look at __or impress__Personally speaking-I enjoy the challenge & I only look & talk to CLASSY Women."

After actor Bill Cosby was arraigned on sexual assault charges, Marshall wrote on Dec. 31, 2015, that "It's not a coincidence that Cosby can be arraigned on allegations, yet countless police officers who gun down black bodies aren't indicted."

Minutes later, Marshall apparently quoted someone saying that the Cosby arraignment was "about a strategic agenda that is pervasive and unrelenting."

Marshall has also advised "sour, angry women" to "Keep your distance...Don't take it out on the next man."

"Who ever my future Girl Friend/Wife is...it will be a partnership/mutual...I kinda like Powerful Women," he added. "They turn me on...lol."

Indeed, Marshall wrote in 2011: "As long as my woman looks good & turns me on..she pretty much can have whatever she wants from me."

Marshall has also repeatedly written the phrase "no homo." For example, in 2010 he wrote: "Wood wakes everybody up...no homo but to many memories #hazing is bad smdh lmao."

And, Marshall retweeted a post complaining: "Hispanics are taking over Houston but yall can't vote?? For YOUR own candiate either? Something just aint right."

Marshall was hired by the campaign in April 2019, according to his LinkedIn profile, and previously worked in Democratic congressional politics. In an interview last year with PR Week, Marshall remarked, “In all honesty, I don’t have a regrettable career moment. It hasn’t been perfect, but it hasn’t been bad either. If anything, I would say I had some great teachable moments where I’ve learned and gotten better. Also, I’m still getting better with time."

The Biden campaign didn't respond to Fox News' request for comment on Tuesday concerning Marshall's posts. The Biden campaign also still hasn't responded to Fox News' reporting last week about videographer Sara Pearl.

Pearl tweeted a meme in June that urged people to stop calling the police "pigs" – but only because unlike the police, pigs are "highly intelligent and empathetic animals who would never racially profile you." Pearl also retweeted a user's comment that while "pigs are sweet, intelligent and compassionate," police officers are "monsters" who "don't deserve to be called pigs."

On June 1, Pearl tweeted simply, "#DefundPolice." Days later, she said Buffalo's police department should be "defunded immediately."

Fox News also reached out to Pearl for comment. Pearl did not reply, but she deleted all of these tweets shortly afterward.

The lack of response from the Biden team surprised conservatives.

"Joe Biden can’t stand up to his supporters or staff who are calling to Defund the Police. Scary!" wrote Richard Grenell, Trump's former acting director of national intelligence, after this article was first published.

"The Biden campaign didn’t respond to when given the chance," Grenell added. "Why wouldn’t the Biden campaign immediately say 'of course we don’t support this!'??!"

Pearl is one of several Biden staffers to openly advocate for defunding the nation's police departments – a position Biden says he opposes. Matthew Foldi with the Congressional Leadership Fund, a PAC backing House GOP candidates, flagged Pearl's tweets last week, as well as several additional posts "liked" and reposted on Twitter by other Biden staffers.

For example, Hannah Bristol, a Biden youth vote staffer, has retweeted and "liked" several posts calling for the defunding of D.C. police. Molly Doris-Pierce, Biden's disability director, has "liked" similar messages.

In response to criticism from the Trump campaign, Democratic National Committee communications director Xochitl Hinojosa asserted on "Bill Hemmer Reports" last Thursday that Biden "does not support defunding the police."

The Biden campaign has said the same thing.

However, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said in a recent interview that some funding should “absolutely” be redirected from police budgets.

In June, Biden attended a high-roller fundraiser headlined by musician John Legend, who has openly promised that he'll try to push the former vice president toward totally defunding law enforcement and adopting other far-left positions.

Last Wednesday, Trump received the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), which praised his “steadfast and very public support” for law enforcement. NAPO did not endorse a candidate in the 2016 election but endorsed former President Barack Obama and then-Vice President Biden in both the 2008 and 2012 elections.

When asked how the NAPO endorsement of Trump would impact Biden's campaign, Hinojosa said, "I think right now, Joe Biden is making sure that he is someone who is talking directly to Americans about how to keep them safe and making sure we are rebuilding this trust."

—Gregg Re is a lawyer based in Los Angeles. >>


Click on this link to read the actual Twitter posts embedded in the article below: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-communications-has-history-of-sexist-posts

[Bob Harper]

Post by Bob Harper
Exactly. And while some are offended by this, it has served us well. The
Founders did not trust 'King Numbers', i.e. pure democracy, believing
(correctly, in my view) that it would lead to poor decisions based on
momentary enthusiasms. Given human nature, I think they were right. But
if you want to change it, amend the Constitution. Difficult, but it can
be done if those who want to do so have sufficient determination and
support.
------------------
So that the 'momentary enthusiasms' of the few override those of the vast majority? Ridiculous!
Ray Hall, Taree

You misunderstand, Ray. The original purpose of the EC was precisely to
'saucer and blow' those momentary enthusiasms AND to give representation
to small states in our FEDERAL republic. The first has been lost,
unfortunately, but the latter endures, and I for one am glad of it.

Bob Harper

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:47:40 -0700, Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper

Who says all 10 won't be worthless demagogues?  That is one of the
functions of our electoral college, isn't it?  I guess it didn't work.

It hasn't served that part of its function for a long time. However, it
does serve the purpose of preventing the domination of the nation by a
small number of coastal states--which seems to me sufficient reason to
retain it. It would be nice to believe the original purpse could be
recovered, but I don't think that's in the cards.
Bob Harper

I don't see how the current electoral college prevents what you say
from happening and even if it did, why that is goodness.  Your remark
is more appropriate for excusing the idiotic way the US Senate is
constituted.  It only makes sense if you believe representation
becomes fair if it is based on the cattle population.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/16/are-cows-better-represented-senate-than-people/?arc404=true

I don't understand your misunderstanding.  The main function of the
electoral system is to reduce the influence of the most populous
states.  Isn't that intuitively obvious?  And that was the intent of the
founders.   I understand the argument for a popular vote.  I respect
what the founders intended.  I could see a constitutional argument
against the electoral college, except that it is in the constitution.
The elector system disenfranchizes voters in New York and California at
the expense ot those in Montana and Iowa. That's what the founders wanted.

What exactly did the founders have to say about Montana?

[Frank Berger]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:47:40 -0700, Bob Harper

Post by Bob Harper

Who says all 10 won't be worthless demagogues?  That is
one of the
functions of our electoral college, isn't it?  I guess
it didn't work.

It hasn't served that part of its function for a long
time. However, it
does serve the purpose of preventing the domination of
the nation by a
small number of coastal states--which seems to me
sufficient reason to
retain it. It would be nice to believe the original
purpse could be
recovered, but I don't think that's in the cards.
Bob Harper

I don't see how the current electoral college prevents
what you say
from happening and even if it did, why that is goodness.
Your remark
is more appropriate for excusing the idiotic way the US
Senate is
constituted.  It only makes sense if you believe
representation
becomes fair if it is based on the cattle population.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/16/are-cows-better-represented-senate-than-people/?arc404=true

I don't understand your misunderstanding.  The main
function of the electoral system is to reduce the
influence of the most populous states.  Isn't that
intuitively obvious?  And that was the intent of the
founders.   I understand the argument for a popular vote.
I respect what the founders intended.  I could see a
constitutional argument against the electoral college,
except that it is in the constitution. The elector system
disenfranchizes voters in New York and California at the
expense ot those in Montana and Iowa. That's what the
founders wanted.

What exactly did the founders have to say about Montana?

I assume you are joking. They were concerned with New York
and Virginia dominating the new nation. I'm not a scholar
on this. I could guess that the electoral system was a
compromise in order to induce the smaller colonies to even
agree to join up. So I suppose if secession is not an issue
the political compromise is today irrelevant. Nevertheless
reducing the dominance of the coasts still seems reasonable
to me.

[Steven Bornfeld]

I assume you are joking.  They were concerned with New York and Virginia
dominating the new nation.  I'm not a scholar on this.  I could guess
that the electoral system was a compromise in order to induce the
smaller colonies to even agree to join up.  So I suppose if secession is
not an issue the political compromise is today irrelevant.  Nevertheless
reducing the dominance of the coasts still seems reasonable to me.

While we're trying to divine what was on the minds of the Founders when
the electoral college was developed, remember that a major factor in its
creation was its consideration of slavery.

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

I assume you are joking.  They were concerned with New
York and Virginia dominating the new nation.  I'm not a
scholar on this.  I could guess that the electoral system
was a compromise in order to induce the smaller colonies
to even agree to join up.  So I suppose if secession is
not an issue the political compromise is today
irrelevant.  Nevertheless reducing the dominance of the
coasts still seems reasonable to me.

While we're trying to divine what was on the minds of the
Founders when the electoral college was developed, remember
that a major factor in its creation was its consideration of
slavery.
Steve

Yes. It was another compromise. In a popular vote the North
would dominate the South. So in formulating the electoral
system, they let 3/5 of the slave population count in
determinng the number of electors. This "worked" so well
that (quoting one source) "for 32 of the constitution's
first 36 years a white slave-owning Virginian occupied the
White House."

Again, I am no scholar on this, but my impression is that
this was a feature of the electoral college system that was
politically necessary at the time, but not necessarily the
main reason for it. I could be wrong.

[weary flake]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by Bob Harper
It hasn't served that part of its function for a long time. However, it
does serve the purpose of preventing the domination of the nation by a
small number of coastal states--which seems to me sufficient reason to
retain it. It would be nice to believe the original purpse could be
recovered, but I don't think that's in the cards.
Bob Harper

I don't see how the current electoral college prevents what you say
from happening and even if it did, why that is goodness. Your remark
is more appropriate for excusing the idiotic way the US Senate is
constituted. It only makes sense if you believe representation
becomes fair if it is based on the cattle population.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/16/are-cows-better-represented-senate-than-people/?arc404=true

I don't understand your misunderstanding. The main function of the
electoral system is to reduce the influence of the most populous
states. Isn't that intuitively obvious? And that was the intent of
the founders. I understand the argument for a popular vote. I
respect what the founders intended. I could see a constitutional
argument against the electoral college, except that it is in the
constitution. The elector system disenfranchizes voters in New York and
California at the expense ot those in Montana and Iowa. That's what the
founders wanted.

No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states. The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
etc., but who's voting looks like this:

States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B

State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A

In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.

Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

[Ricardo Jimenez]

Post by weary flake
No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states. The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently run
are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents than
the electoral college. Every post coming from my comments
unfortunately has concentrated on the latter. Our primaries and
caucuses cause the best candidates to be either flushed out early or
not bothering to run.

[Bob Harper]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by weary flake
No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states. The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently run
are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents than
the electoral college. Every post coming from my comments
unfortunately has concentrated on the latter. Our primaries and
caucuses cause the best candidates to be either flushed out early or
not bothering to run.

Unfortunately today good candidates do not run because, at least in
part, they do not want to be subjected to the routine demonization they
would be forced to endure. Suppose, for example, that Ike had known
beforehand that he would be hounded about the Kay Summersby rumors 24/7.
Would he have run? Somehow I doubt it.

I believe that Mitch Daniels, former governor of Indiana and now
President of Purdue, would have been an outstanding President, but he
didn't run, I suspect because he would have been hounded by the media
about the details of his personal life (his wife left him, he raised
their daughters, then some years later she came to her senses and they
remarried quite successfully). In the current media climate, would his
candidacy have been about his ideas or about his private life?

The 24-hour news cycle, Twitter, and social media in heneral are, IMO,
inimical to good government.

Bob Harper

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by weary flake
No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states.  The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A.  4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently run
are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents than
the electoral college.  Every post coming from my comments
unfortunately has concentrated on the latter.  Our primaries and
caucuses cause  the best candidates to be either flushed out early or
not bothering to run.

Unfortunately today good candidates do not run because, at least in
part, they do not want to be subjected to the routine demonization they
would be forced to endure. Suppose, for example, that Ike had known
beforehand that he would be hounded about the Kay Summersby rumors 24/7.
Would he have run? Somehow I doubt it.
I believe that Mitch Daniels, former governor of Indiana and now
President of Purdue, would have been an outstanding President, but he
didn't run, I suspect because he would have been hounded by the media
about the details of his personal life (his wife left him, he raised
their daughters, then some years later she came to her senses and they
remarried quite successfully). In the current media climate, would his
candidacy have been about his ideas or about his private life?
The 24-hour news cycle, Twitter, and social media in heneral are, IMO,
inimical to good government.
Bob Harper

That's pretty funny. I remember when Nelson Rockefeller divorced and
re-married--there was talk his political career was over. There was no
social media, it's true; but moralizing candidate's backgrounds is
nothing new.

Steve

[Bob Harper]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by weary flake
No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states.  The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A.  4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently run
are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents than
the electoral college.  Every post coming from my comments
unfortunately has concentrated on the latter.  Our primaries and
caucuses cause  the best candidates to be either flushed out early or
not bothering to run.

Unfortunately today good candidates do not run because, at least in
part, they do not want to be subjected to the routine demonization
they would be forced to endure. Suppose, for example, that Ike had
known beforehand that he would be hounded about the Kay Summersby
rumors 24/7. Would he have run? Somehow I doubt it.
I believe that Mitch Daniels, former governor of Indiana and now
President of Purdue, would have been an outstanding President, but he
didn't run, I suspect because he would have been hounded by the media
about the details of his personal life (his wife left him, he raised
their daughters, then some years later she came to her senses and they
remarried quite successfully). In the current media climate, would his
candidacy have been about his ideas or about his private life?
The 24-hour news cycle, Twitter, and social media in heneral are, IMO,
inimical to good government.
Bob Harper

That's pretty funny. I remember when Nelson Rockefeller divorced and
re-married--there was talk his political career was over.  There was no
social media, it's true; but moralizing candidate's backgrounds is
nothing new.
Steve

You must admit though, Steve, that it was a different age with respect
to views of marriage and divorce, and that what happened to Rockefeller
was mild by today's standards. He didn't become president, but he did
become VP for a while.

Bob Harper

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Bob Harper
You must admit though, Steve, that it was a different age with respect
to views of marriage and divorce, and that what happened to Rockefeller
was mild by today's standards. He didn't become president, but he did
become VP for a while.
Bob Harper

It did almost certainly cost him the nomination in 1964. His sex life
of course would hardly be an issue today; his other improprieties might
be, and of course there would be little place in today's Republican
party for him; after Attica he probably wouldn't have a place at all.

[Bozo]

Trump/Russia:

[Owen]

Post by Bozo
http://youtu.be/eUBAAeuBpPQ

Nothing smacks of a fabricated scandal as much as this "Soldier bounty"
kerfluffle. It just doesn't make sense. Why would the Taliban need
money to kill US soldiers? It's their job. This doesn't pass the smell
test. If Trump is Putin's puppet, why would he want Trump to look bad
by having more US soldiers killed before the election? There's been
only 4 soldiers died in Afghanistan this year, and 20 last year. He's
not getting much bang for the buck for money spent. And in a country
that Trump is desparate to get the soldiers out of?

This looks suspiciously liked planted evidence from the Democrats, a la
the dossier. Particularly because the facts don't add up, it's just
meant to rile emotions. The use of the word "bounty" is just to
disturb. Suppose Russia sent money to the Taliban (which they deny,
btw), is that anything like the $700 million we sent to Afghanistan
during the Soviet invasion that effectively paid Afghanistan to kill
Soviet soldiers? The attack ads like the one above were made up awfully
quickly -- this must have been in the pipeline for weeks, not days.

-Owen

[wkasimer]

Post by Owen
This looks suspiciously liked planted evidence from the Democrats, a la
the dossier. Particularly because the facts don't add up, it's just
meant to rile emotions. The use of the word "bounty" is just to
disturb.

Yup.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/02/schiff-learned-of-russian-bounty-intelligence-in-february-withheld-information-from-congress-and-took-no-action/

[Bob Harper]

Post by wkasimer

Post by Owen
This looks suspiciously liked planted evidence from the Democrats, a la
the dossier. Particularly because the facts don't add up, it's just
meant to rile emotions. The use of the word "bounty" is just to
disturb.

Yup.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/02/schiff-learned-of-russian-bounty-intelligence-in-february-withheld-information-from-congress-and-took-no-action/

It should surprise no one that Schiffty is involved and is lying.

Bob Harper

[Todd Michel McComb]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently
run are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents
than the electoral college.

I generally favor federalism, details aside. So I'm not someone
who's been agitating about the electoral college. Better that
voters elsewhere should have *less* say over me, not more. (These
sorts of tiered ideas seem especially significant to a hypothetical
world government.) Anyway....

I totally agree on the two-party system. It's an atrocity -- and
produces exactly what it's designed to produce, the worst possible
candidates. It's also not in the Constitution or anything like
that (although unfortunately it's increasingly enshrined in various
state laws).

[Frank Berger]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by weary flake
No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states. The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently run
are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents than
the electoral college. Every post coming from my comments
unfortunately has concentrated on the latter. Our primaries and
caucuses cause the best candidates to be either flushed out early or
not bothering to run.

Which countries can you point to (with what political
systems) that consistently produce better candidates? How
do we even define "a better candidate?"

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by weary flake
No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states. The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently run
are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents than
the electoral college. Every post coming from my comments
unfortunately has concentrated on the latter. Our primaries and
caucuses cause the best candidates to be either flushed out early or
not bothering to run.

Which countries can you point to (with what political
systems) that consistently produce better candidates? How
do we even define "a better candidate?"

- The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal - that you can gather votes like box tops - is, I think, the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.

Adlai Stevenson I

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by weary flake
No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states. The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently run
are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents than
the electoral college. Every post coming from my comments
unfortunately has concentrated on the latter. Our primaries and
caucuses cause the best candidates to be either flushed out early or
not bothering to run.

Which countries can you point to (with what political
systems) that consistently produce better candidates? How
do we even define "a better candidate?"

- Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.

Gore Vidal

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by weary flake
No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states. The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently run
are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents than
the electoral college. Every post coming from my comments
unfortunately has concentrated on the latter. Our primaries and
caucuses cause the best candidates to be either flushed out early or
not bothering to run.

Which countries can you point to (with what political
systems) that consistently produce better candidates? How
do we even define "a better candidate?"

- By the time a man gets to be presidential material, he's been bought ten times over.

Gore Vidal

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by weary flake
No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states. The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A. 4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

I think the two party system and primaries as they are currently run
are a much bigger factor in electing inferior quality presidents than
the electoral college. Every post coming from my comments
unfortunately has concentrated on the latter. Our primaries and
caucuses cause the best candidates to be either flushed out early or
not bothering to run.

Which countries can you point to (with what political
systems) that consistently produce better candidates? How
do we even define "a better candidate?"

- As the age of television progresses the Reagans will be the rule, not the exception. To be perfect for television is all a President has to be these days.

Gore Vidal

[Frank Berger]

Post by weary flake

Post by Ricardo Jimenez

Post by Bob Harper
It hasn't served that part of its function for a long
time. However, it
does serve the purpose of preventing the domination of
the nation by a
small number of coastal states--which seems to me
sufficient reason to
retain it. It would be nice to believe the original
purpse could be
recovered, but I don't think that's in the cards.
Bob Harper

I don't see how the current electoral college prevents
what you say
from happening and even if it did, why that is goodness.
Your remark
is more appropriate for excusing the idiotic way the US
Senate is
constituted.  It only makes sense if you believe
representation
becomes fair if it is based on the cattle population.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/16/are-cows-better-represented-senate-than-people/?arc404=true

I don't understand your misunderstanding.  The main
function of the electoral system is to reduce the
influence of the most populous states.  Isn't that
intuitively obvious?  And that was the intent of the
founders.   I understand the argument for a popular vote.
I respect what the founders intended.  I could see a
constitutional argument against the electoral college,
except that it is in the constitution. The elector system
disenfranchizes voters in New York and California at the
expense ot those in Montana and Iowa. That's what the
founders wanted.

No that is *not* the function of the electoral college.
With the elector system it means that the popular vote
of a state cannot unduly overwhelm the popular vote of
other states.  The easiest way I can think of to
demonstrate the two voting systems is to pretend that
there are five states in all ways equal in population,
States 1,2,3,4 vote 55% for Candidate A and 45% for
Candidate B
State 5 votes 95% Candidate B and 5% for Candidate A
In the electoral college system it is a landslide
for Candidate A.  4 states win 1 state loses.
Without the electoral college it is a landslide for
Candidate B, with 1 state winning and 4 states losing.

Seems to me that's pretty much what I said.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:27:11 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:00:27 -0400, Frank Berger

Post by Frank Berger

On Monday, June 29, 2020 at 3:19:32 AM UTC-4, Andy

Post by Andy Evans
My question is whether the Republican party is able
or willing to dump Trump as their presidential
candidate and substitute a proper politician. How
would this be done - would Trump need to withdraw or
what?

Unless Trump withdraws and refuses to accept the
party's nomination, it'd require a major intra-party
battle.  Such battles, which have occurred in the
past when the incumbent is weak, or there is serious
dissent within the party, are invariably
unsuccessful, and only serve to further weaken the
incumbent nominee (e.g. Carter in 1980, Taft in 1912).

I asked the same question about Biden a while back.

Because of the way the candidates were chosen, many, if
not the
majority of the electorate will again think they are
again deciding
which is the lesser of two evils they had little say in
picking.  In
contrast, French voters choose between 10 candidates
and then among
the two highest scorers.  The original 10 are chosen by
votes of
elected officials.

Different, but is it better?

I think yes.  For starters, candidates have to drop out
if they don't
attain much in smaller early voting states.  Also, having
knowledgeable people filter out the obviously unqualified
makes it
less probable that a wothless demagogue will be among the 10
finalists.

Who says all 10 won't be worthless demagogues?  That is
one of the functions of our electoral college, isn't it?
I guess it didn't work.

It hasn't served that part of its function for a long time.
However, it does serve the purpose of preventing the
domination of the nation by a small number of coastal
states--which seems to me sufficient reason to retain it. It
would be nice to believe the original purpse could be
recovered, but I don't think that's in the cards.
Bob Harper

Every time an elector considers not voting for the guy he's
was elected to vote for he is fulfilling (or at least
considering filling that function). I guess some states
have made it illegal for an elector to so vote. Seems to me
that should be unconstitutional. As should those states
that give all their electoral vote to the candidate that
wins the national popular vote.

[wkasimer]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
Because of the way the candidates were chosen, many, if not the
majority of the electorate will again think they are again deciding
which is the lesser of two evils they had little say in picking. In
contrast, French voters choose between 10 candidates and then among
the two highest scorers. The original 10 are chosen by votes of
elected officials.

Different, but is it better?

I'm not sure, but it certainly couldn't be any worse...

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/here-are-six-things-could-change-2020-presidential-race-n1235084

[RANDY WOLFGANG]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/here-are-six-things-could-change-2020-presidential-race-n1235084

I thought there was a nice moratorium on political messages (and it has been nice). How about controlling yourself for once

[Bob Harper]

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/here-are-six-things-could-change-2020-presidential-race-n1235084

I thought there was a nice moratorium on political messages (and it has been nice). How about controlling yourself for once

There was not a 'moratorium'. Rather, some of the worst offenders
(myself included) decided that continuing was unproductive and stopped.
I hope to do so permanently, but can't promise perfection :).

Bob Harper

[RANDY WOLFGANG]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/here-are-six-things-could-change-2020-presidential-race-n1235084

I thought there was a nice moratorium on political messages (and it has been nice). How about controlling yourself for once

There was not a 'moratorium'. Rather, some of the worst offenders
(myself included) decided that continuing was unproductive and stopped.
I hope to do so permanently, but can't promise perfection :).
Bob Harper

Yes of course but I thought this person would have gotten the message and held off for awhile - I guess there ia always hope. It has been so pleasant just posting about music, That is a subject from which I am sure we can actually learn and expand our musical horizons. It sure has worked for me - I have learned a ton of stuff I never knew about and have enjoyed exploring.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article242448296.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/05/professor-allan-lichtman-predicts-joe-biden-beat-donald-trump/3304680001/

[Oscar]

In case anyone missed it, on the big Sunday morning talking shows yesterday all hosts—Stephanopoulos (ABC), Margaret Brennan (CBS), Todd (NBC), Tapper (CNN)—they all, save Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel, ignored Biden's "diversity" and "junkie" comments from last week. Did not address them. The fix is in.

"What you all know, but most people don't know. Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things. You go to Florida you find a very different attitude about immigration in certain places than you do when you're in Arizona. So it's a very different, a very diverse community."

And then, when a CBS News correspondent on a Yahoo! News panel asked Biden if he was ever tested for “cognitive decline,” Biden dodged the question by asking the black reporter whether or not he took a drug test before participating in the panel.

“That’s like saying before you got on this program did you take a test where you’re taking cocaine or not huh? Are you a junkie?”

[Ricardo Jimenez]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Oscar

In case anyone missed it, on the big Sunday morning talking shows yesterday all hosts—Stephanopoulos (ABC), Margaret Brennan (CBS), Todd (NBC), Tapper (CNN)—they all, save Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel, ignored Biden's "diversity" and "junkie" comments from last week. Did not address them. The fix is in.
"What you all know, but most people don't know. Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things. You go to Florida you find a very different attitude about immigration in certain places than you do when you're in Arizona. So it's a very different, a very diverse community."
And then, when a CBS News correspondent on a Yahoo! News panel asked Biden if he was ever tested for “cognitive decline,” Biden dodged the question by asking the black reporter whether or not he took a drug test before participating in the panel.
“That’s like saying before you got on this program did you take a test where you’re taking cocaine or not huh? Are you a junkie?”

Your job is to convince others that Biden is worse than Trump. Just
pointing out the occasional stupidities that Biden utters does not get
over the 10 or so lies, distortions and idiocies that Trump puts out
every day.

[Andy Evans]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
Your job is to convince others that Biden is worse than Trump. Just
pointing out the occasional stupidities that Biden utters does not get
over the 10 or so lies, distortions and idiocies that Trump puts out
every day.

None of this matters to the Evangelicals who helped put him there. They think it was actually God who put him there, and you can't argue with God.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Andy Evans

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
Your job is to convince others that Biden is worse than Trump. Just
pointing out the occasional stupidities that Biden utters does not get
over the 10 or so lies, distortions and idiocies that Trump puts out
every day.

None of this matters to the Evangelicals who helped put him there. They think it was actually God who put him there, and you can't argue with God.

Sure you can. It's called prayer. Anyone who believes that
God is omnipotent (at lot more people than that just
evangelicals) implicitly believes that God put him there in
the sense that He could have caused Trump to lose, and
didn't. And since God is assumed to be benevolent, it must
be for the best.

If you don't believe in God, then never mind.

[Henk vT]

Post by Oscar
In case anyone missed it, on the big Sunday morning talking shows yesterday all hosts—Stephanopoulos (ABC), Margaret Brennan (CBS), Todd (NBC), Tapper (CNN)—they all, save Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel, ignored Biden's "diversity" and "junkie" comments from last week. Did not address them. The fix is in.
"What you all know, but most people don't know. Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things. You go to Florida you find a very different attitude about immigration in certain places than you do when you're in Arizona. So it's a very different, a very diverse community."
And then, when a CBS News correspondent on a Yahoo! News panel asked Biden if he was ever tested for “cognitive decline,” Biden dodged the question by asking the black reporter whether or not he took a drug test before participating in the panel.
“That’s like saying before you got on this program did you take a test where you’re taking cocaine or not huh? Are you a junkie?”

<g> I understand why you prefer Trump. There is no evil in Biden, just clumsiness.

Henk

[Owen]

Post by Henk vT

Post by Oscar
In case anyone missed it, on the big Sunday morning talking shows yesterday all hosts—Stephanopoulos (ABC), Margaret Brennan (CBS), Todd (NBC), Tapper (CNN)—they all, save Chris Wallace on Fox News Channel, ignored Biden's "diversity" and "junkie" comments from last week. Did not address them. The fix is in.
"What you all know, but most people don't know. Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things. You go to Florida you find a very different attitude about immigration in certain places than you do when you're in Arizona. So it's a very different, a very diverse community."
And then, when a CBS News correspondent on a Yahoo! News panel asked Biden if he was ever tested for “cognitive decline,” Biden dodged the question by asking the black reporter whether or not he took a drug test before participating in the panel.
“That’s like saying before you got on this program did you take a test where you’re taking cocaine or not huh? Are you a junkie?”

<g> I understand why you prefer Trump. There is no evil in Biden, just clumsiness.

Biden appears to be on a cognitive decline, but perhaps that is just
rope-a-dope to get the Trump campaign to underestimate him. He
survived Kamala's attack on him during the Democratic debates, and she
faded after Tulsi's attack on her, only to resurrect as Biden's running
mate.

A curious selection, but probably the politics of the best of a bad
bunch. A president generally doesn't want a VP that would potentially
overshadow him, and Kamala isn't bringing any votes with her, as Biden
has her State (CA) solidly in the bag already. The VP's job is
traditionally to attack the other ticket, and to say the things that the
Presidential contender wouldn't say because it might make him looking
less Presidential. However, Trump certainly isn't shy about getting
down and dirty and attacking, so the Press is undoubtedly salivating
about all the lively stories they'll get to write. Successful VPs: Dan
Quayle, Pence, Mondale, Humphrey, Binden, Al Gore - Unsuccessful VPs:
Lyndon Johnson, Sarah Palin, Geraldine Ferraro, Dick Cheney

Kamala's a better choice than Liz Warren, who, once Trump got inside her
head, drove her to take a silly DNA test which sunk her political
aspirations. Liz is less likely to stand by and let Biden be President
without input from the Vice President, and more likely to overshadow the
"clumsy" talking Biden. I don't think she could help herself.

Kamala is a fierce fighter, and will probably ring Pence's clock, but
not that the VP debates matter much. Like Biden, she has a lot of
baggage that will be brought up, like her tough stance on criminals,
which won't play very well in these BLM times. Expect to see Tulsi
early and often on Fox News commenting on Kamala.

I don't know why we can't have better candidates, but according to
legend, we get the elected officials we richly deserve.

-Owen