@pegesus @allyn I will underscore what Pegasus said above but I’m on my phone so I can’t quote properly with my sausage fingers. Keep the eye on the overall outlook we’ve seen.
one thing I got while shopping for groceries today of all places (Aldi is a meditative experience for me sometimes and I’m not joking) right after reading your post was a strong “ENOUGH!” - the first thing I’ve gotten in a few weeks (anyone into astrology - are we out of retrograde yet?). It was in reference to your post and it was sort of like a teacher whose class was too rowdy finally yelling it out to quiet then down. The louder the Qs are getting about election integrity and fighting back the more they push others away.
Biden isn’t nailing it in the polls (not that I think polling is anywhere near as accurate as it used to be) but 84 million people voted for him BEFORE all the Big Lie and insurrection. If it’s between TFG and a broom handle in 2024 it’s “Broom-handle by a landslide”
Thank you both for your comfort. It is so draining to live in a state where people worship Trump merely because he "owns the libs" even though the vast majority of them can't ever name an instance where a "lib" has done them any harm and thus can only spout off Fox jargon whereas I have personally witnessed many overt acts of cruelty by these so-called conservatives. Sadly, it is not as simple as turning off Fox or avoiding the media. These people live and breath Trump so much that it is hard for me to see them as humans and not a threat to America's and my existence.
Speaking of Trump, I just saw where he issued a statement demanding that the Republican party fully endorse his lie that he won 2020 or he would tell his followers not to vote in 2022 and 2024.
I am willing to bet there are many republicans who would happily cheer if Trump left. How sad that a man would turn his inner light into darkness and try to kill the light in others.
I just wish that I had faith that he will eventually lose his influence and leave us in peace. But the fear of his return and what he will do to us chills me to the core.
I pray for something to give me hope that Trump will never run again, but I doubt that an indictment or conviction will keep him from doing so.
@allyn I am surrounded by them too - but while his flags and yard signs haven’t come down I’m seeing and feeling this “fed up” feeling coming from people without the yard signs. We’re still on a bumpy dirt road but there’s smoother asphalt ahead.
is anyone keeping count of my metaphor usage in this topic? I’ve got to be at 12 by now.
@allyn, @dannyboy, I too live in an area where there are many hanging on to TFG like hanging chads. A few weeks ago I was on my way into the neighborhood before mine as I was going home. A new sign was mounted in the bed of a parked pick up truck. It was a Mango 2024 endorsement. Suddenly, I saw in my minds eye TFGs face now on the words only sign & the numbers 2024 move under the face positioning themselves like they were part of a mug shot. I laughed out loud in the car. I don't know if this was phrophetic or if I was just seeing a meme that may crop up. Either way I appreciated the chuckle.
While I don't read or listen to the man (since the Apprentice), I have to say I'm still hearing Rupert Holmes...."if you have half a brain". This was his official statement yesterday. Let this sink in...
I'm beginning to get the feeling that instead of a Blue Wave, in 2022 and beyond we will see what I call a Purple Train.
Sane Republicans will join sane Democrats in voting for those who demonstrate care for people. It will be like an iron will that will inevitably grind and overwhelm those who cling to white supremacy and hate. Over the next few election cycles we will see this unstoppable force for peace.
@maggieci I read an article that I spent most of the morning trying to find again about this exactly. I believe it came from the LA Times via my Apple News subscription but it isn't showing up in my history.
The premise was slightly different - they see the rational republicans (are there any anymore?) voting for more moderate Republican candidates thus diluting the pool and making it easier for Democrats to win. But it's also coming from the LA Times which isn't exactly a bastion of center political commentary.
I think both scenarios are equally plausible. I just hope we don't get more Kyrsten Sinema's and Joe Manchin's.
Just my 2 cents here.
There are many polls being conducted about how Republicans and Democrats are thinking of voting or think about current political situations.
Not many polls are including Independents. Many former Republicans are now Independents. There are also former Democrats as well. I believe they are the purple who should be garnering attention. What shade of purple they lean will be very important. It is also worth considering which states allow Independents to vote for primary party candidates. In the states allowing Independents to choose a Dem or Rep candidate in a primary, you may see less extreme candidates survive to a general November election. This would be likely up and down the ballot.
I also am watching and reading less and less news coverage and analysis of politics. I am remaining informed but don't want the constant negativity surrounding me.
The protest factor.
I believe that we are likely to see MORE protests once covid is tampered down. In particular marches or protests involving more Democratic centered issues. Why? Well I know many people who have not wished to protest anything while covid has been a concern. With booster shots available and a children's vaccine on the horizon, more people will likely be inclined to MARCH for a cause. It will be less dangerous. Those concerned about covid tend to lean democratic. I have not been to a protest march or rally or even a walk-a-thon or fundraising event since before Covid. That is one thing I would love to do again, once things get more calm with the virus. Show up in person and support a cause I feel passionately about.
How do I feel about the November 2022 election?
Right now I believe it will ultimately swing blue, but a purple blue. I also believe we may have to wait a awhile for final results. This is coming from a mixture of logic and intuition. Ultimately the fact that I am not overly concerned tells me either I should not be worried (yet?) or I have other things to focus on which are more important at this time. Perhaps focusing on certain issues which speak most to me should be a priority now. Also, creating additional positive impacts in my home and local community is where I am being pulled.
You know, I will likely have a greater impact on an undecided or independent voter if I am grounded and coming from a place of love rather than upset and fear.
Again, just my 2 cents.
@polarberry I saw someone use part of it on twitter & I just expanded it. Who knew that a day later, the former twittler in brief would prove the last line so well? And you are right about @baba 's prediction probably coming true. Congress has set a hearing date of 10/19 for Bannon's criminal contempt.
Well, some legal news concerning our (favorite?) orange pain in the you-know-where. (There are ladies and gentlemen on this site, after all).
First, Trump must appear for a deposition on "October 18, 2021 at 10 a.m. ... or, in the event of illness or emergency, on another mutually agreed to date on or before October 31, 2021," as per the judge's order in the case.
Now, what can Trump do to delay this, as he does not want to have a video-taped deposition about how his security personal beat up protestors in 2015 because they were protesting the fact that Trump referred to all Mexicans as "criminals and rapists"?
Actually....there is not much he can do.
I saw that the judge set a specific date and then, for good measure, limited the amount of time for Trump and company to reschedule the deposition if they try to claim an emergency or illness on October 18. Very, very smart.
Now, Trump can't really claim an emergency will prevent him from attending unless he fakes one ("Sorry, your Honor, but Trump Jr. fell down a flight of stairs after I sent people to push him and....oh, I didn't say that! Fake news!") He isn't the President anymore, and a golf game does not count as an emergency.
Trump could potentially fake an illness, but methinks he won't, as it goes against his "macho man" image (not to mention it would fuel Democratic talk that Trump is physically unfit to be President a second time.) Don't forget, this is a man who tried to hide the fact that he got a colonoscopy done in 2019 and tried to be all secretive about it.
Finally, there is the old tried-and-true method of "file a frivolous motion to delay." Trump will likely try this, because he has done it millions of times. It doesn't matter if his motions are total works of fiction. What matters is that he gets his delay.
However, he has a problem. His case is in New York. And I don't foresee how Trump can get the case heard by the US Supreme Court this time.
Second bit of legal news relating to the GREAT ORANGE MENACE.
Steve Bannon, the criminal who was pardoned by Trump, was subpoenaed for the January 6 Committee, but he has publicly refused to do so. Remember, he did this during Trump's term, because he knew Trump would shield him from prosecution.
Today, the Committee announced that it will vote on whether to make a recommendation to have the Justice Department charge Steve Bannon with criminal contempt.
Now, I am no expert, but based on my research, this is how the process will go:
(1) the Democratic-lead Committee will vote on whether Bannon should be charged with Criminal Contempt, a charge that can be punished with up to one year in jail. At you can see, the Republicans' refusal to have a joint committee is back to haunt them. If they had worked with Pelosi to have a joint committee, then an equal number of Republicans and Democrats would be on the committee, and they could have potentially shielded Bannon here. However, their obstruction will have consequences here, as the committee has more Democrats and sane Republicans (yes, in this instance, Cheney is considered "sane" as it relates to her view on Trump.) So I foresee that the committee will vote to have Bannon charged here. If they don't, then they pretty much lose any authority over future witnesses.
(2) Next, the House votes on whether Bannon is referred to the Justice Department. As Pelosi and the Democrats control the House, it is likely his case will be sent to the Justice Department, even if no Republicans do so (It is a simple majority vote.) Thankfully, the vote DOES NOT go to the Senate, so there is nothing that McConnell the obstructionist can do.
(3) If the Justice Department gets the referral, they look at the case and take the appropriate action (AKA-an indictment).
Now, this process will take time. Although the case law is pretty settled on this matter, Bannon (and, by extension, Trump) will do the usual "file frivolous motions to delay the case" tactic. Yes, Bannon is claiming that he is not required to respond to the subpoena because Trump is claiming executive privilege even though Biden is now President and has not asserted that privilege, etc. etc. etc. Complete garbage. But that is not the point. What is the point is that Bannon hopes that if he delays the process long enough, he can hope Trump can win back the White House and then shield him again.
This tells me that Trump is definitely running for 2024. After all, why else would Bannon try this unless he had assurances that Trump would save him again? We know that Biden (or, if he dies in office, Harris) will never pardon Bannon. Nor would any other Democratic candidate who may run in 2024. And Trump has done all he can to ensure that he is the frontrunner for 2024 even at the expense of other Republican potentials. (I suspect that if Trump runs and yet somehow fails to get the Republican nomination, he will convince his terroristic followers not to vote for Republicans period as a means to punish Republicans).
Somehow, I don't see Bannon agreeing to go to jail for one year to save Trump. He is a opportunistic weasel, not a devoted follower.
So, this is bad news for America and the world at large. We can only hope that events will transpire that will hopefully prevent Trump from running again.
@allyn you noted : "Somehow, I don't see Bannon agreeing to go to jail for one year to save Trump. He is a opportunistic weasel, not a devoted follower." If memory serves me correctly, someone here once saw Bannon turning on the tiny hand that fed him. I can't recall if that was during the firsy or second impeachment to know where to begin looking for that prediction. He may try to protract things in court, but there are split vuews on whether Mango has chosen to run again. Some say his ego can't handle the thought of another defeat. There's also the legsl issues he faces which could derail any plans. Bannon won't take the fall for him. Plus there's always hope that there will be more judges who put time limits on any motions like they did today for 45.
Which brings me to another issue- 45 has been telling former staffers to ignore the subpoenas being issued. He's now a private citizen, not a government official. Isn't this considered witness tampering which could bring criminal charges?
Hi everyone, I wasn't sure where to post this article, but thought maybe this story of how New Zealand voters changed their government style from First Past the Post to MMP might be of interest.
quote from Helen Clark former PM
“By the early 90s, people just had a gut full of being told one thing – or not being told anything much – and then getting a radical reform agenda thrust down their throats,” Helen Clark told Stuff.
Labour and National lost their monopoly on power in the early 1990s, as voters sick of radical reform installed MMP over two emphatic referendums. (Labour is similar to Democrats and National would be similar to Republicans)
No one in any kind of power in 1990 wanted MMP.
But a referendum on electoral reform had been promised by the PM who was publicly not a fan of the Mixed Member Proportional system himself, preferring a new upper house instead. 80 per cent of all the MPs in Parliament were opposed because the old system, which gave governments, that never won more than half of the vote, all of the power, had delivered well for MPs.
Both parties when they were in government, Labour in 1980’s then the Nationals in 1990’s had used that absolute control to deregulate and privatise. Voters had got sick of that.
They held referendums on whether to change from First Past the Post to a different style of government.
They included MMP, but also three other possible systems: preferential voting, single transferable vote, and supplementary member. MMP being Mixed Member Proportional the West German style of government which gave the world Angela Merkel. (Preferential voting is what Australia has)
This article gives the story in 4 parts, the last part will be tomorrow and I will post the link for that then.
Once New Zealand changed to the new system in the past 25 years of having MMP 3 of the 5 Prime Ministers have been female. Jennifer Shipley 1997-1999, Helen Clark 1999-2008, and Jacinda Adern from 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_lists_in_the_2020_New_Zealand_general_election
To give an idea of how many political parties were in NZ for the last election in 2020
Hope you find it of interest
Regards to all
Steve Bannon has had a rough day
and Congress wants to hear his full say
He’s no longer protected
his privilege rejected
I think that smug asshole will pay.
sorry about the colorful language but it’s warranted here :-)
Andrew McCabe will get his full retirement benefits after a legal settlement against the Justice Department. He was fired by Trump in a retaliatory move just 2 days short of his official retirement in 2018. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ex-fbi-official-andrew-mccabe-fired-trump-hours-retirement-will-n1281617
Technically, you are correct. The Justice Department could potentially charge Trump with conspiracy. But they won't, for several reasons. First, it will look political, and the Justice Department is waiting with the rest of us and hopes that Trump will soon be indicted by New York for tax fraud, as those charges are alleged to have happened prior to him being president and thus are immune to all of Trump's usual "executive privilege" and "I am the real president and the election was stolen from me" garbage.
But more realistically, a conspiracy charge means that you have to prove "intent." And that means trying to figure out the intent of Trump, whose sanity is clearly lacking at this point. The only way you would get a conspiracy charge is for one of his con-conspirators to say "Trump came to me and told me to withhold the evidence/testimony because he wanted to deliberately keep the committee from investigating his crimes. And this was the reason I did so." In short, it isn't worth the time and the effort.
It would be far more logical to subpoena Trump himself to present testimony to the Committee. After all, no one can deny that he is the central figure and thus would have vital information as to what happened behind the scenes.
Obviously, Trump won't attend. But that's not the point. Democrats can simply get on TV and imply that Trump the traitor won't come because he knows he did a crime. Otherwise, why would he avoid it?
This will cause Trump to go to rallies and address the situation himself to his deluded devotees. He will either (1) admit that he wanted his followers to overturn the election results via intimidation and force, which would be considered evidence against him as a statement against his interests, and thus can be used in future indictments, or (2) deny that he ever wanted his followers to go to the capitol, which will confuse them and cause problems in the future for them should Trump attempt to do it again. He may lose a few followers who genuinely believe that he gave them his blessing (remember, this is a defense used by many of those who are facing charges for January 6, 2021). Can you imagine a defendant hearing Trump say "I never told them to do that!" and the defendant's attorney telling the defendant that they can no longer rely on that evidence as a defense?
I truly wish someone will hurry up and charge him with something. I truly want him out of our lives. I don't much care how, at this point, as he is so toxic that his absence will do more good than his presence has ever done. Period.
He will either (1) admit that he wanted his followers to overturn the election results via intimidation and force, which would be considered evidence against him as a statement against his interests, and thus can be used in future indictments, or (2) deny that he ever wanted his followers to go to the capitol, which will confuse them and cause problems in the future for them should Trump attempt to do it again
There's also option 3 whereby he admits that he wanted his followers to overturn the election via intimidation and force and then deny he wanted them to overturn the election via intimidation and force - and then talk about his mental acuity by reciting "Person Woman Man Dog Cake" (or whatever the hell it is). And then the people will cheer him on. And post about Biden having dementia.
Kidding aside, honestly I think you're right here - anything that comes up has to be airtight and the wheels of justice will grind slowly until it's an open and shut case. And it's far more likely to come from New York (or Georgia) because we all know he's been making it all up as he goes.
The point is karmically - the scales will balance. We just have to hang in there a little longer.
I get worked up about this and then I calm myself down because - it'll happen.
In the meantime @Allyn I want you and everyone on this thread to watch this 2 minute clip on YouTube because you will only be able to smile and feel calm by watching it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkj4zTlHcDY (P.S. Turn up the sound.)
Here's a great piece of news:
NOTE: Reader View will get you around the ad blocker if you're using one. Just have to be quick to hit it.
A bit of balance to the appointments made during the Former Guy's presidency.
My favorite quote toward the end:
Some conservatives are raising alarms about Biden's impact on the courts.
Carrie Severino, the president of the right-leaning Judicial Crisis Network, said liberal groups that spent "millions of dollars to help elect Joe Biden have become quite vocal in demanding judicial nominees who will help promote their liberal policy aims from the bench, and he has shown a willingness to do whatever he can to appease those groups."
Boo freaking hoo.
This is very, very interesting and while we all knew this at the time (remember when they were all saying they’d be pardoned?)