Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I’ve been doing a bit of walking on the wild side, looking at Trump supporters’ comments on social media, and those who are active have really bought into this wholesale fraud BS. The journey towards any form of mutual respect and greater trust looks intensely difficult. In the end this may be Trump’s most poisonous legacy.
Putin must be congratulating himself on a successful destabilising campaign.
Perhaps, then, we could have an amendment to move inauguration day to January 30th, even if that causes some inconvenience to our US friends who like to celebrate the feast of Charles King and Martyr.
I thought you wanted to make it earlier, not later. (Unless you just have a special antipathy to the current date of January 21st.)
I’ve been doing a bit of walking on the wild side, looking at Trump supporters’ comments on social media, and those who are active have really bought into this wholesale fraud BS. The journey towards any form of mutual respect and greater trust looks intensely difficult. In the end this may be Trump’s most poisonous legacy.
Putin must be congratulating himself on a successful destabilising campaign.
That's the sad thing. I would love to say something like "given time, their anger will abate" or something like that. Things will calm down, but it will be so easy to stoke them up again. The best we can hope for is that Trump cracks it big time with the GOP some time in the next four years and starts up a separate political organisation. That, I sincerely hope, would be brilliant.
I’ve been doing a bit of walking on the wild side, looking at Trump supporters’ comments on social media, and those who are active have really bought into this wholesale fraud BS. The journey towards any form of mutual respect and greater trust looks intensely difficult. In the end this may be Trump’s most poisonous legacy.
Putin must be congratulating himself on a successful destabilising campaign.
That's the sad thing. I would love to say something like "given time, their anger will abate" or something like that. Things will calm down, but it will be so easy to stoke them up again. The best we can hope for is that Trump cracks it big time with the GOP some time in the next four years and starts up a separate political organisation. That, I sincerely hope, would be brilliant.
Yeah, the best chance the Democrats have of actually being able to fix the frothing mess that US politics has become is for the GOP and the Trumpers to start fighting each other and splitting the wingnut vote, giving the Dems both houses and the presidency.
Perhaps, then, we could have an amendment to move inauguration day to January 30th, even if that causes some inconvenience to our US friends who like to celebrate the feast of Charles King and Martyr.
I thought you wanted to make it earlier, not later. (Unless you just have a special antipathy to the current date of January 21st.)
Yet again I err!! With the onset of snow, I have become so discombobulated that I cannot even read a calendar.
The real problem is the lame duck session and the new Congress not swearing in until January 3. Ideally, the counting and certifying should be doable by the end of November, the new Congress sworn in shortly thereafter, and the new president sworn in for Saint Nicholas' Day.
I’ve been doing a bit of walking on the wild side, looking at Trump supporters’ comments on social media, and those who are active have really bought into this wholesale fraud BS. The journey towards any form of mutual respect and greater trust looks intensely difficult. In the end this may be Trump’s most poisonous legacy.
Putin must be congratulating himself on a successful destabilising campaign.
That's the sad thing. I would love to say something like "given time, their anger will abate" or something like that. Things will calm down, but it will be so easy to stoke them up again. The best we can hope for is that Trump cracks it big time with the GOP some time in the next four years and starts up a separate political organisation. That, I sincerely hope, would be brilliant.
I’ve been doing a bit of walking on the wild side, looking at Trump supporters’ comments on social media, and those who are active have really bought into this wholesale fraud BS. The journey towards any form of mutual respect and greater trust looks intensely difficult. In the end this may be Trump’s most poisonous legacy.
Putin must be congratulating himself on a successful destabilising campaign.
That's the sad thing. I would love to say something like "given time, their anger will abate" or something like that. Things will calm down, but it will be so easy to stoke them up again. The best we can hope for is that Trump cracks it big time with the GOP some time in the next four years and starts up a separate political organisation. That, I sincerely hope, would be brilliant.
Not if he won.
In order to win under those circumstances, his new party would have to take pretty much all the Republican vote, AND have the Democratic vote split for some reason. And very few Democrats seem interested in voting Green etc, even under normal circumstances.
IOW if he only splits the GOP vote(takes, say, half or even a third of their of their voters) but the Democrats still get somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50%, the Democrats win.
I think a more likely scenario is Trump stays a Republican, and just snipes and tweets from the sidelines, thus riling up his followers and keeping them an influence in the Republican Party. This has the advantage of scaring Democrats into thinking Trumpism might return, which keeps their turnout high(improved turnout being what likely pushed them over the top this time, rather than more voters being converted to the Democratic cause).
Perhaps, then, we could have an amendment to move inauguration day to January 30th, even if that causes some inconvenience to our US friends who like to celebrate the feast of Charles King and Martyr.
I thought you wanted to make it earlier, not later. (Unless you just have a special antipathy to the current date of January 21st.)
January 20th.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I wouldn’t rule that out. From across the pond it’s hard to figure how such a man attracts such a loyal mass following. But he does.
I wouldn’t rule that out. From across the pond it’s hard to figure how such a man attracts such a loyal mass following. But he does.
Racism. Pandering to the fears of rural white people regarding jobs and immigrants. Pretending to care about religion, thus pandering to Christian fear of the heathens. Actually pandering to rich people, and to the fallacious idea that the poor have a good chance of becoming rich.
I think a more likely scenario is Trump stays a Republican, and just snipes and tweets from the sidelines, thus riling up his followers and keeping them an influence in the Republican Party. This has the advantage of scaring Democrats into thinking Trumpism might return, which keeps their turnout high(improved turnout being what likely pushed them over the top this time, rather than more voters being converted to the Democratic cause).
I don't think Trump really gives a rat's about the Republican Party, except as they scratch his itch. He doesn't want the Republicans to win, he wants HIMSELF to win. The idea of him sitting on the sidelines working for the good of others wouldn't enter his darkest dreams.
The real problem is the lame duck session and the new Congress not swearing in until January 3. Ideally, the counting and certifying should be doable by the end of November, the new Congress sworn in shortly thereafter, and the new president sworn in for Saint Nicholas' Day.
Why do you think that would be better? I'm not seeing an advantage.
~~~
As to a couple of other things said by various people:
--No, New Year's Day would NOT be a good time for presidential inauguration or for inducting Congress. Frankly, a lot of people would have hang-overs. Plus there's a lot of pressure on Americans to have a perfect winter holiday season, which causes depression, anxiety, irritation, and anxiety. Some people even get suicidal. It takes a little time to come back from that, and readjust. I'd rather give the people involved time to do that.
--No, I don't necessarily agree that Congress's winter schedule means they're putting the holidays above their duties. They're people, and don't vow to give up whatever winter holidays they might celebrate. Sometimes, I wish they'd take less time off at other times of the year; but that's usually when there's disagreement over a time-sensitive issue, and one side stretches out their wranglings so that there can't be a vote before they go on break.
Plus new members of Congress have to move to DC (or thereabouts), find a place to live, and get settled. Their families might move with them. That all takes time.
As to time off in general: they're expected to spend time with their constituents back home; and, given the way our system currently works, they need to do a lot of fund-raising.
I think a more likely scenario is Trump stays a Republican, and just snipes and tweets from the sidelines, thus riling up his followers and keeping them an influence in the Republican Party. This has the advantage of scaring Democrats into thinking Trumpism might return, which keeps their turnout high(improved turnout being what likely pushed them over the top this time, rather than more voters being converted to the Democratic cause).
I don't think Trump really gives a rat's about the Republican Party, except as they scratch his itch. He doesn't want the Republicans to win, he wants HIMSELF to win. The idea of him sitting on the sidelines working for the good of others wouldn't enter his darkest dreams.
No, but I was assuming that he might want to run again, and he would surmise that he's better off as Republican than as an independent or third-party. So, his commentary would be with an eye toward getting hinself back in the game for 2024.
No, but I was assuming that he might want to run again, and he would surmise that he's better off as Republican than as an independent or third-party.
Assuming he wants to run again, I can't imagine the thought crossing his mind that the Republicans wouldn't be grateful to have him as their candidate.
Perhaps, then, we could have an amendment to move inauguration day to January 30th, even if that causes some inconvenience to our US friends who like to celebrate the feast of Charles King and Martyr.
I thought you wanted to make it earlier, not later. (Unless you just have a special antipathy to the current date of January 21st.)
No, but I was assuming that he might want to run again, and he would surmise that he's better off as Republican than as an independent or third-party.
Assuming he wants to run again, I can't imagine the thought crossing his mind that the Republicans wouldn't be grateful to have him as their candidate.
That's true enough!
But I don't see him running again. First of all, because he hates the job. Second, because it has been the scene of his greatest and most public failures. There are easier ways of getting ego gratification, like the alleged Trump TV idea. Third, because he's old and unhealthy--what odds would you give him making it to 2024? If he lives so long, what odds that he isn't obviously and publicly disqualified by bad health, dementia, etc.?
No, but I was assuming that he might want to run again, and he would surmise that he's better off as Republican than as an independent or third-party.
Assuming he wants to run again, I can't imagine the thought crossing his mind that the Republicans wouldn't be grateful to have him as their candidate.
I don't think he's delusional to the point where he would assume that there would be no other candldates for the nomination. Especially in the aftermath of this year's election, where Republicans are openly brawling for and against his efforts at stealing a victory.
Trump is a Narcissist. He has to be the most powerful man in the world. He refuses to acknowledge his failures. He blames everyone else for things that have gone wrong or the Deep State or the fake media. I would grant his age is working against him. Four years is a long time.
Trump is a Narcissist. He has to be the most powerful man in the world. He refuses to acknowledge his failures. He blames everyone else for things that have gone wrong or the Deep State or the fake media. I would grant his age is working against him. Four years is a long time.
Unless he's actually been told by a doctor that he'll be dead by 2025, I don't think his own mortality will play much role in any decision about running again.
And in that regard I don't think he's much different from anyone else. Most people don't base their short-term plans on the idea that they'll be dead in a couple of years.
Rumors say Rudy Giuliani is getting paid $20,000 a day by the Trump people for doing legal work. Doesn't take long to burn through a pile of money. Sounds like robbery.
The real problem is the lame duck session and the new Congress not swearing in until January 3. Ideally, the counting and certifying should be doable by the end of November, the new Congress sworn in shortly thereafter, and the new president sworn in for Saint Nicholas' Day.
Why do you think that would be better? I'm not seeing an advantage.
~~~
As to a couple of other things said by various people:
--No, New Year's Day would NOT be a good time for presidential inauguration or for inducting Congress. Frankly, a lot of people would have hang-overs. Plus there's a lot of pressure on Americans to have a perfect winter holiday season, which causes depression, anxiety, irritation, and anxiety. Some people even get suicidal. It takes a little time to come back from that, and readjust. I'd rather give the people involved time to do that.
--No, I don't necessarily agree that Congress's winter schedule means they're putting the holidays above their duties. They're people, and don't vow to give up whatever winter holidays they might celebrate. Sometimes, I wish they'd take less time off at other times of the year; but that's usually when there's disagreement over a time-sensitive issue, and one side stretches out their wranglings so that there can't be a vote before they go on break.
Plus new members of Congress have to move to DC (or thereabouts), find a place to live, and get settled. Their families might move with them. That all takes time.
As to time off in general: they're expected to spend time with their constituents back home; and, given the way our system currently works, they need to do a lot of fund-raising.
tl;dr: Sorting this all out ain't easy.
However clumsily, I was looking for ways of shortening the transition period. In most countries it's a few weeks. While one can argue that it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things if Canada takes 5 days or 50 for a transition (it's usually 7-15 days), the US has defence and foreign relations needs which require attention and cannot be left to sit for a few months. Cutting the transition to a month would help that.
Your point about the strain on congressfolk and their families is well taken and I think that decent holidays help representatives function better (as do they for us all). In a non-presidential season, I think that a two-month break from Washington would be optimal and one would hope that the representatives and their families get a few weeks of it-- most of it will of course be spent in their districts doing stuff of all sorts, and will not be personal time. Put them in a skiing cabin or a beach hut somewhere with a few books and some decent music, and they'll likely come back in better shape.
What does it mean when Rudy Giuliani thinks maybe you've gone just a little too far?
NYTimes: Trump lawyers disavow Sidney Powell, another member of his legal team, over spurious fraud accusations.
For the record, Ms. Powell said she was going to "blow up" Georgia and accused its Republican governor and secretary of state of corruption [video]. Given that there are two Senate seats still on the line in runoff elections in that state, telling Republican voters that their votes won't be counted fairly (so why bother voting?) probably was the determining factor in Ms. Powell's ejection from Trump's legal "strike force". Donald Trump probably doesn't care about the political fortunes of Republicans who aren't him, but he does care about maintaining the support of current Republican officeholders and getting them to maintain the pretense that the presidential election was anything other than a Biden victory. My guess is that there were grumblings of mutiny, particularly from Mitch McConnell.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
Reminds of a famous quote from the 60s. Rudy Giuliani is a louse but Sidney Powell is a double louse.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Nothing on the first 15 mins of TV news - which included a live report from Wilmington on Biden's cabinet picks. The first stories were from London about today's vaccine news, then Moscow then Soeul.
Sorry for double-post: just to reflect on how bizarre it was to find myself watching a board of canvassers meeting on a live stream. In ordinary days this would be the kind of torpor-inducing committee you would avoid at all costs!
Had its moments though:
Surprise - the GOP vice chair actually seemed to be in favour of the rule of law.
Comedy - the other GOP representative, who abstained, was surprised to find another page of the speech “he had prepared”, when he thought he had got to the end of it...
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
One Republican aye, one Republican abstention. They took their time.
Or to put it another way, 75% of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers voted to follow the law and not subvert American democracy. Yay!
The bar has truly been set.
On the ground.
And 25% of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers still managed to trip over it.
In fairness, is what that canvasser did all that much different from what a Faithless Elector does?
It seems to me that Faithless Electors usually just elicit a yawn, because they're just one vote and it usually doesn't make a difference. But you could say the same thing, really, about that canvasser, since the other three voted to certify.
Or to put it another way, 75% of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers voted to follow the law and not subvert American democracy. Yay!
The bar has truly been set.
On the ground.
And 25% of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers still managed to trip over it.
In fairness, is what that canvasser did all that much different from what a Faithless Elector does?
It seems to me that Faithless Electors usually just elicit a yawn, because they're just one vote and it usually doesn't make a difference. But you could say the same thing, really, about that canvasser, since the other three voted to certify.
One difference is that Michigan has 4 state canvaser and 16 electors. A smaller number of people have greater effect.
Another difference is that there isn't the same discretion in certification as there is in electoral voting.*
A canvaser is supposed to certify based on procedure, not preference
Or to put it another way, 75% of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers voted to follow the law and not subvert American democracy. Yay!
The bar has truly been set.
On the ground.
And 25% of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers still managed to trip over it.
In fairness, is what that canvasser did all that much different from what a Faithless Elector does?
It seems to me that Faithless Electors usually just elicit a yawn, because they're just one vote and it usually doesn't make a difference. But you could say the same thing, really, about that canvasser, since the other three voted to certify.
One difference is that Michigan has 4 state canvaser and 16 electors. A smaller number of people have greater effect.
Another difference is that there isn't the same discretion in certification as there is in electoral voting.*
A canvaser is supposed to certify based on procedure, not preference
*Potential choice
Is it written anywhere that a canvasser is legally prohibited from doing what our Michigan Holdout just did?
And if so, is there a penalty?
As for Michigan's having fewer canvassers than electors, there is at least one state, Maine, with only two electors, and, based on research I've just been doing, no prohibition against Faithless Electors. Maybe it would be more of a scandal if a Maine elector actually did exercise his perogative to buck the vote, but if that's the case, the practice really should have been outlawed long ago.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Reality finally bit, Lamb Chopped. Apparently Trump has gone sour on Giuliani. Giuliani had nothing to play with really, but the flamboyant clown shows damaged further the implausible WH narrative. Conservative Republican Judge Brann's demolition job of Rudy's presentation in court was pretty hard to climb over.
Apparently Lindsey Graham is on Hannity tonight (Fox News). That might be fun. ......
Seriously???? I never thought he'd be affected by reality. How odd.
Did you read that letter from the GSA official? Unsigned (at least the version I saw), full of self-pity and self-justification, and as unwelcoming as a cold jellyfish on the bedroom rug in winter.
The certification board of any state has only one responsibility, that is to certify the ballots of the state have been accurately and fully counted. On the basis of that certification, the electors of the state are selected. As pointed out above, just because one certifier in Michigan abstained, it really has no impact on the electors that will participate in the electoral college.
Comments
Putin must be congratulating himself on a successful destabilising campaign.
That's the sad thing. I would love to say something like "given time, their anger will abate" or something like that. Things will calm down, but it will be so easy to stoke them up again. The best we can hope for is that Trump cracks it big time with the GOP some time in the next four years and starts up a separate political organisation. That, I sincerely hope, would be brilliant.
Yeah, the best chance the Democrats have of actually being able to fix the frothing mess that US politics has become is for the GOP and the Trumpers to start fighting each other and splitting the wingnut vote, giving the Dems both houses and the presidency.
Yet again I err!! With the onset of snow, I have become so discombobulated that I cannot even read a calendar.
The real problem is the lame duck session and the new Congress not swearing in until January 3. Ideally, the counting and certifying should be doable by the end of November, the new Congress sworn in shortly thereafter, and the new president sworn in for Saint Nicholas' Day.
Not if he won.
In order to win under those circumstances, his new party would have to take pretty much all the Republican vote, AND have the Democratic vote split for some reason. And very few Democrats seem interested in voting Green etc, even under normal circumstances.
IOW if he only splits the GOP vote(takes, say, half or even a third of their of their voters) but the Democrats still get somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50%, the Democrats win.
I think a more likely scenario is Trump stays a Republican, and just snipes and tweets from the sidelines, thus riling up his followers and keeping them an influence in the Republican Party. This has the advantage of scaring Democrats into thinking Trumpism might return, which keeps their turnout high(improved turnout being what likely pushed them over the top this time, rather than more voters being converted to the Democratic cause).
I don't think Trump really gives a rat's about the Republican Party, except as they scratch his itch. He doesn't want the Republicans to win, he wants HIMSELF to win. The idea of him sitting on the sidelines working for the good of others wouldn't enter his darkest dreams.
Why do you think that would be better? I'm not seeing an advantage.
~~~
As to a couple of other things said by various people:
--No, New Year's Day would NOT be a good time for presidential inauguration or for inducting Congress. Frankly, a lot of people would have hang-overs. Plus there's a lot of pressure on Americans to have a perfect winter holiday season, which causes depression, anxiety, irritation, and anxiety. Some people even get suicidal. It takes a little time to come back from that, and readjust. I'd rather give the people involved time to do that.
--No, I don't necessarily agree that Congress's winter schedule means they're putting the holidays above their duties. They're people, and don't vow to give up whatever winter holidays they might celebrate. Sometimes, I wish they'd take less time off at other times of the year; but that's usually when there's disagreement over a time-sensitive issue, and one side stretches out their wranglings so that there can't be a vote before they go on break.
Plus new members of Congress have to move to DC (or thereabouts), find a place to live, and get settled. Their families might move with them. That all takes time.
As to time off in general: they're expected to spend time with their constituents back home; and, given the way our system currently works, they need to do a lot of fund-raising.
tl;dr: Sorting this all out ain't easy.
No, but I was assuming that he might want to run again, and he would surmise that he's better off as Republican than as an independent or third-party. So, his commentary would be with an eye toward getting hinself back in the game for 2024.
Assuming he wants to run again, I can't imagine the thought crossing his mind that the Republicans wouldn't be grateful to have him as their candidate.
That's true enough!
But I don't see him running again. First of all, because he hates the job. Second, because it has been the scene of his greatest and most public failures. There are easier ways of getting ego gratification, like the alleged Trump TV idea. Third, because he's old and unhealthy--what odds would you give him making it to 2024? If he lives so long, what odds that he isn't obviously and publicly disqualified by bad health, dementia, etc.?
I don't think he's delusional to the point where he would assume that there would be no other candldates for the nomination. Especially in the aftermath of this year's election, where Republicans are openly brawling for and against his efforts at stealing a victory.
Unless he's actually been told by a doctor that he'll be dead by 2025, I don't think his own mortality will play much role in any decision about running again.
And in that regard I don't think he's much different from anyone else. Most people don't base their short-term plans on the idea that they'll be dead in a couple of years.
NYTimes: Trump lawyers disavow Sidney Powell, another member of his legal team, over spurious fraud accusations.
T reportedly has a long history of not paying people. Giuliani may have a long wait.
However clumsily, I was looking for ways of shortening the transition period. In most countries it's a few weeks. While one can argue that it's not terribly important in the grand scheme of things if Canada takes 5 days or 50 for a transition (it's usually 7-15 days), the US has defence and foreign relations needs which require attention and cannot be left to sit for a few months. Cutting the transition to a month would help that.
Your point about the strain on congressfolk and their families is well taken and I think that decent holidays help representatives function better (as do they for us all). In a non-presidential season, I think that a two-month break from Washington would be optimal and one would hope that the representatives and their families get a few weeks of it-- most of it will of course be spent in their districts doing stuff of all sorts, and will not be personal time. Put them in a skiing cabin or a beach hut somewhere with a few books and some decent music, and they'll likely come back in better shape.
For the record, Ms. Powell said she was going to "blow up" Georgia and accused its Republican governor and secretary of state of corruption [video]. Given that there are two Senate seats still on the line in runoff elections in that state, telling Republican voters that their votes won't be counted fairly (so why bother voting?) probably was the determining factor in Ms. Powell's ejection from Trump's legal "strike force". Donald Trump probably doesn't care about the political fortunes of Republicans who aren't him, but he does care about maintaining the support of current Republican officeholders and getting them to maintain the pretense that the presidential election was anything other than a Biden victory. My guess is that there were grumblings of mutiny, particularly from Mitch McConnell.
What are you on about B62?
Had its moments though:
Surprise - the GOP vice chair actually seemed to be in favour of the rule of law.
Comedy - the other GOP representative, who abstained, was surprised to find another page of the speech “he had prepared”, when he thought he had got to the end of it...
The bar has truly been set.
On the ground.
And 25% of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers still managed to trip over it.
In fairness, is what that canvasser did all that much different from what a Faithless Elector does?
It seems to me that Faithless Electors usually just elicit a yawn, because they're just one vote and it usually doesn't make a difference. But you could say the same thing, really, about that canvasser, since the other three voted to certify.
GSA loves me, this I know,
'Cause they told Joe Biden "Yes, go!".
T won't like this, will claim it's wrong.
But GSA will say "Don, move along!"
{Sung to the tune of "Jesus Loves Me".}
Another difference is that there isn't the same discretion in certification as there is in electoral voting.*
A canvaser is supposed to certify based on procedure, not preference
*Potential choice
Thanks be to God.
I wonder what lit a firecracker under their tails?
Is it written anywhere that a canvasser is legally prohibited from doing what our Michigan Holdout just did?
And if so, is there a penalty?
As for Michigan's having fewer canvassers than electors, there is at least one state, Maine, with only two electors, and, based on research I've just been doing, no prohibition against Faithless Electors. Maybe it would be more of a scandal if a Maine elector actually did exercise his perogative to buck the vote, but if that's the case, the practice really should have been outlawed long ago.
Apparently Lindsey Graham is on Hannity tonight (Fox News). That might be fun. ......
Did you read that letter from the GSA official? Unsigned (at least the version I saw), full of self-pity and self-justification, and as unwelcoming as a cold jellyfish on the bedroom rug in winter.
Good. My source apparently had only page one.