no I'm not nor was I. The election of Mr. Trump was free and fair. In fact I have repeatedly asserted that Sec. Clinton's staff made a lot of errors in the final weeks of the campaign that led to the outcome we have. No matter whether or not I liked him or his policies, he was president legally and validly for four years. I haven't questioned that, nor do I intend to. Because its not a thing.
I do believe that the Electoral college not being aligned to the popular vote is a problem. But that problem exists independent of his election, and it doesn't mean his election wasn't valid.
I find it more likely that supply chain disruptions have made everyone’s life a living hell. And that means supply shortages for a lot of things, which means decreased supply and level demand.
Prices go up.
It’s basic economics.
this is true. You and I are not going to disagree over it. None the less the markups appear to be driven past a market "need" in many sectors. Surprising, don't you think, that no CEO reported losses as a result of the pandemic?
Donald Trump was legitimately elected president in 2016. Joe Biden was legitimately elected President in 2020. Donald Trump and most of the Republican Party continues to publicly lie about the legitimacy of that election.
Democrats in the Senate were legitimately elected to represent 41 million more Americans then Republicans.
And in response to to all this Republican legislatures are trying by passing laws, to keep that from happening regardless of what the voters actually do.
I'm not the one calling valid elections into question.
I have repeatedly pointed out that Trump won in 2016 with fewer popular votes geographically distributed to allow him to win the EC. I've never said his win was invalid. Frustrating, sure. But he won.
That's way different then the newly minted state laws that say state legislatures can overturn an election certified by the state election official on the basis of ... nothing.
I didn't mention any of those things because every time they have been presented to the courts they have been turned away as invalid and unsubstantiated.
legal non-citizens who receive local services and pay local taxes but are denied the right to participating how those resources are allocated would seem to be being denied a human right no?
Nevermind your credulous assertions (I doubt you do voting analysis for a living) that the Democrats have more votes than the Republicans.
Which I have yet to say about the Senate. I merely say - which is true - that the 50 Democrats represent more people in this us, so their proposals are not in fact counter majoritarian.
Going all the way back to 1982, the Heritage Foundation documents 1,340 incidents of in person voter fraud or fraudulent registrations. That's roughly 34 incidents per year. that's not even statistically significant, much something that needs to result in overturning an election.
The States represented by Democrats in the Senate contain 41 million more people then the states represented by Republicans. That's from the Census Bureau - based on the counts done under President Trump. And I don't believe that subsequent elections will all be null and void. I do believe - because I read - that the laws passed in a number of red states are designed to lower voter turnouts through a variety of means, and many of those laws allow republican state officials to overturn the will of the voters in their states on flimsy, evidence free grounds.
The Agencies are headed by people confirmed by the Senate - who can also be impeached and removed by the Senate. And they are still part of the Executive branch.
And the only reason the Executive Branch does things that look legislative is that the Legislative Branch - most notably the Senate - refuses to legislate. this vote is a classic example of that.
1) Mitch McConnell will happily change Senate rules - including the filibuster - when it suits him as majority leader. If Manchin and Sinema really wanted to protect the rights of the minority party for when Democrats go back to that position, they have failed.
2) Given that Manchin couldn't get Republican support for his prior watered down version of these bills, I'm not what he thinks will be gained by "negotiating" separate packages composed of individual portions of each bill. Its a fools errand doomed to fail because it's designed to run out the clock, not make substantive progress.
3) Mitch McConnell knows that voting to change the ECA won't impact the significant voting restrictions imposed in red states over the last year, so he's comfortable backing it.
4) Republicans playing of the long game at all levels including states is still beating democrats.
5) We as a nation are ill served by all of this, but until the people take to the actual streets, I see no way out. We will not - beginning this year - be allowed to vote our way out of this debacle.
That "narrow majority" represents 41 million more Americans then its opposition. That's a pretty big "rest of the country" never mind that substantial numbers of republican voters actually support the elements of the bills in question (or so even Fox News polls tell us). This wasn't a cultural cram down.
Carving refusing to hold a vote on one president's SCOTUS nominee a year out from an election and the holding a vote on another presidents nominee weeks before an election - that's a cultural cramdown.
yeah well a good many of Trump's minions seem to think otherwise. Of course they also think and Ex-President can assert Executive Privilege . . . . The interesting part for me will be what role Rudy asserts he was playing in the war room . . . .
do you agree that Jewish people deserve to be free from worry about threats of or the enaction of violence based on them simply being Jewish?
Because that's why they were attacked. Because they are Jewish. I believe that being free of threat for being Jewish (or Black, or a Woman) is not just reasonable, its critical. Its foundational. Its a moral foundation.
And trying to see if the actions of a crazed British Muslim might be REASONABLE in this context suggest you don't agree.
You seem to have trouble identifying trees and forests here, so let me help you out:
Chip was mocking you for asking a question, that, frankly, doesn't need to be asked if you actually care. OT - and many other sources - are brimming with the how of this. You've even suggested some of those ideas over the years (like decriminalizing marijuana). SO if you honestly, legitimatley don't know how, then we can't really help you at this point.
And if you are asking the WHY of this - I made it clear in my response. Humans deserve to exist without threat of violence because they are human. The "easiest" way for you to ensure they exist that way is to choose to not meet them with violence because they aren't you. Then you choose to fight back - in all the ways shown in the many, many HOWS - against anyone and everyone who would do other humans violence for their human characteristics.
That's as clear as any of us can make it. And frankly I'm disappointed that it has to be made that clear to you, because doing so requires me to lower my assessment of you as a person. I should you wouldn't want that outcome, but I've been wrong around here before.
As if we really need any more reminders of WHY this is so critical:
In Lincoln County -- a GOP stronghold where Donald Trump received more than 68% of the vote in 2020 and where 29% of its residents are Black -- the all-Republican county commission now appoints three out of five election board members. Officials there say closing six of seven polling places will eliminate the need to send equipment and staff around the county. It also will help mothball cramped and outdated polling sites that don't allow for social distancing, county leaders say.
All voting would happen at a central location in Lincolnton, the county seat, under the consolidation plan the elections board is set to consider.
But in a community with little reliable public transportation, "the poor and marginalized people won't be able to vote because, bottom line, they won't be able to get to the polls," said the Rev. Christopher Johnson, the head of the Greater Augusta's Interfaith Coalition -- one of the groups fighting the change.
On “Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Attempts To Withhold January 6th Materials”
One wonders of Steve Bannon's lawyers are telling him to rethink taking his case to court on executive privilege grounds.
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
no I'm not nor was I. The election of Mr. Trump was free and fair. In fact I have repeatedly asserted that Sec. Clinton's staff made a lot of errors in the final weeks of the campaign that led to the outcome we have. No matter whether or not I liked him or his policies, he was president legally and validly for four years. I haven't questioned that, nor do I intend to. Because its not a thing.
I do believe that the Electoral college not being aligned to the popular vote is a problem. But that problem exists independent of his election, and it doesn't mean his election wasn't valid.
On “2021 Saw Highest Levels of Inflation In 40 Years”
this is true. You and I are not going to disagree over it. None the less the markups appear to be driven past a market "need" in many sectors. Surprising, don't you think, that no CEO reported losses as a result of the pandemic?
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
Donald Trump was legitimately elected president in 2016. Joe Biden was legitimately elected President in 2020. Donald Trump and most of the Republican Party continues to publicly lie about the legitimacy of that election.
Democrats in the Senate were legitimately elected to represent 41 million more Americans then Republicans.
And in response to to all this Republican legislatures are trying by passing laws, to keep that from happening regardless of what the voters actually do.
I'm not the one calling valid elections into question.
"
I have repeatedly pointed out that Trump won in 2016 with fewer popular votes geographically distributed to allow him to win the EC. I've never said his win was invalid. Frustrating, sure. But he won.
That's way different then the newly minted state laws that say state legislatures can overturn an election certified by the state election official on the basis of ... nothing.
"
I didn't mention any of those things because every time they have been presented to the courts they have been turned away as invalid and unsubstantiated.
"
legal non-citizens who receive local services and pay local taxes but are denied the right to participating how those resources are allocated would seem to be being denied a human right no?
"
Schumer was trying to do this, but Manchin and Sinema clearly don't even want this.
"
I was pushing back on this:
Which I have yet to say about the Senate. I merely say - which is true - that the 50 Democrats represent more people in this us, so their proposals are not in fact counter majoritarian.
On “Good Guys Versus Bad Guys and Being a Conscientious Objector in the Culture Wars”
Agreed.
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
Going all the way back to 1982, the Heritage Foundation documents 1,340 incidents of in person voter fraud or fraudulent registrations. That's roughly 34 incidents per year. that's not even statistically significant, much something that needs to result in overturning an election.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
"
No, I don't believe its moral or ethical to overturn elections, especially when there's no evidence of fraud or any othe rillegality.
"
What Democratic legislation of this presidency - or the obama Presidency would you consider a cultural cram down?
"
The States represented by Democrats in the Senate contain 41 million more people then the states represented by Republicans. That's from the Census Bureau - based on the counts done under President Trump. And I don't believe that subsequent elections will all be null and void. I do believe - because I read - that the laws passed in a number of red states are designed to lower voter turnouts through a variety of means, and many of those laws allow republican state officials to overturn the will of the voters in their states on flimsy, evidence free grounds.
"
The Agencies are headed by people confirmed by the Senate - who can also be impeached and removed by the Senate. And they are still part of the Executive branch.
And the only reason the Executive Branch does things that look legislative is that the Legislative Branch - most notably the Senate - refuses to legislate. this vote is a classic example of that.
On “Senate To Take Up Voting Rights Packages, But Still Short of Votes Needed”
So, you now plainly assert that we liberals are NOT "real Americans." Noted, thanks.
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
1) Mitch McConnell will happily change Senate rules - including the filibuster - when it suits him as majority leader. If Manchin and Sinema really wanted to protect the rights of the minority party for when Democrats go back to that position, they have failed.
2) Given that Manchin couldn't get Republican support for his prior watered down version of these bills, I'm not what he thinks will be gained by "negotiating" separate packages composed of individual portions of each bill. Its a fools errand doomed to fail because it's designed to run out the clock, not make substantive progress.
3) Mitch McConnell knows that voting to change the ECA won't impact the significant voting restrictions imposed in red states over the last year, so he's comfortable backing it.
4) Republicans playing of the long game at all levels including states is still beating democrats.
5) We as a nation are ill served by all of this, but until the people take to the actual streets, I see no way out. We will not - beginning this year - be allowed to vote our way out of this debacle.
"
That "narrow majority" represents 41 million more Americans then its opposition. That's a pretty big "rest of the country" never mind that substantial numbers of republican voters actually support the elements of the bills in question (or so even Fox News polls tell us). This wasn't a cultural cram down.
Carving refusing to hold a vote on one president's SCOTUS nominee a year out from an election and the holding a vote on another presidents nominee weeks before an election - that's a cultural cramdown.
On “More Subpoenas From January 6th Committee”
yeah well a good many of Trump's minions seem to think otherwise. Of course they also think and Ex-President can assert Executive Privilege . . . . The interesting part for me will be what role Rudy asserts he was playing in the war room . . . .
On “Good Guys Versus Bad Guys and Being a Conscientious Objector in the Culture Wars”
It was meant literally as a mother who resides in the South.
On “Video: Texas Synagogue Hostage Jeffrey Cohen Talks Anti-Semitism”
do you agree that Jewish people deserve to be free from worry about threats of or the enaction of violence based on them simply being Jewish?
Because that's why they were attacked. Because they are Jewish. I believe that being free of threat for being Jewish (or Black, or a Woman) is not just reasonable, its critical. Its foundational. Its a moral foundation.
And trying to see if the actions of a crazed British Muslim might be REASONABLE in this context suggest you don't agree.
"
As I keep being reminded - sometimes daily - you gain little by asking for clarity in Jaybird's thinking.
"
You seem to have trouble identifying trees and forests here, so let me help you out:
Chip was mocking you for asking a question, that, frankly, doesn't need to be asked if you actually care. OT - and many other sources - are brimming with the how of this. You've even suggested some of those ideas over the years (like decriminalizing marijuana). SO if you honestly, legitimatley don't know how, then we can't really help you at this point.
And if you are asking the WHY of this - I made it clear in my response. Humans deserve to exist without threat of violence because they are human. The "easiest" way for you to ensure they exist that way is to choose to not meet them with violence because they aren't you. Then you choose to fight back - in all the ways shown in the many, many HOWS - against anyone and everyone who would do other humans violence for their human characteristics.
That's as clear as any of us can make it. And frankly I'm disappointed that it has to be made that clear to you, because doing so requires me to lower my assessment of you as a person. I should you wouldn't want that outcome, but I've been wrong around here before.
"
That obligation is to defend the rights of your fellow humans to exist as and where they are, free from threat of violence (including death).
Will that be hard? Yes. Might you be exposed to threat of violence for doing it? Yes. Are you willing to do it?
On “Senate To Take Up Voting Rights Packages, But Still Short of Votes Needed”
As if we really need any more reminders of WHY this is so critical:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/poll-closures-rural-lincoln-county-georgia/index.html