@saibh - you're really onto something there, hadn't thought about it.
I've thought the Russians were trying to pull another Jill Stein with Tulsi Gabbard or Nikki Haley, but they're not on the political radar right now. It makes sense Kanye would be beholden to them too, and would account why he went overboard to support Trumpito Dorito early on.
@laura-f I was not prepared for that last sentence but as I read it I heard the king singing in that maniacal voice. Now I’m laughing. Thanks for that! ?
What are the chances that the reps and dems would ever break up into smaller parties? We have about 38 in The Netherlands (which is extreme), but I always found it odd that the US and UK had so few parties to pick from. Can you ever see this happening? In a meaningful way since the 3rd (and 4th?) party you have don't mean much.
I once thought it would happen with the tea party. That branch splitting away from the GOP, but alas....
Oh my!!! Lindsey is sassing back at his Fearless Leader!!! More and more here lately... hmmmmmmperhaps what they held over his head has lost it's power - I am getting a "nothing to lose" vibe from LG.
In today's Guardian US in response to Twittler's tweet about demanding Nascar and Bubba apologize as well as reinstate using the Confederate flag :
“Well, I don’t think Bubba Wallace has anything to apologize for,” Graham said. “When there was a chance that it was a threat against Bubba Wallace ... they all rallied to Bubba’s side, so I would be looking to celebrate that kind of attitude more than being worried about it being a hoax.”
Graham also said he did not agree with Trump’s criticism of Nascar’s decision to ban Confederate flags at its races.
“They’re trying to grow the sport,” Graham said. “I’ve lived in South Carolina all my life, and if you’re in business, the Confederate flag is not a good way to grow your business.”
Interesting development today.
Apparently, the book from Trump's niece is going to be published several weeks early (July 14, 2020.)
Now, why would the publisher move a book date several weeks early? Trump knows by now he is not going to block this book coming out (he tried with Bolton and failed "bigly"). There are also extra costs involved in releasing a book early.
My gut tells me is that he knows that the interest for the book will peak next week.
Why, you may ask?
Well, let's consider the following:
(1) Trump is engaged in extremely bizarre behavior lately (even for him). His latest tweets trying to pick fights with Bubba Watson and NASCAR are beyond stupid, and there is no political points to score, not even with his followers. He is also planning to refile on DACA again this week, even though it is not popular to end DACA, even among Republicans. Also, there is no way for Trump to have the matter reheard by the Supreme Court before the election, so why not wait?
(2) The Supreme Court has not released a decision on Trump's tax records yet, although a decision is likely to come any day now.
Based on this information, I believe that the book publisher has found out what the Supreme Court has decided, and is planning to publish the book early to capitalize on the inevitable tweet storm that Trump will produce.
In other words, the book publisher likely knows someone from the inside (a law clerk, a paralegal, etc.) who has told the publisher that the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump, and the publisher wants to publish the book at the same time that Trump's tax decision comes out.
Believe me, anyone with inside connections (aka-lawyers) and money can find out this stuff if they try hard enough. But based on what is going on, I believe we will see a decision this week. After all, the publisher will have to factor in the usual pre-publication interviews and the news commentators debating the results of the tax case (as well as commentary from whatever Trump tweets about), so that will probably take about a week.
My guess is that Trump knows too, hence the reason he is trying to distract us with his usual "Racist in Chief" stuff (which is starting to get old for his own followers). Methinks that whatever Trump has in his taxes must be EXTREMELY BAD!
How bad? Well, his followers have put up with so many things that it is unlikely it would cause them to turn on him (his followers have no morals, after all). But I have a few possibilities in mind:
(1) Evidence that Putin is paying Trump millions of dollars.
(2) Evidence that Trump owes China millions of dollars.
(3) Evidence that Trump has paid off more lovers and/or porn stars.
(4) Evidence that Trump has paid at least one woman to get an abortion (this would definitely cause the evangelical and pro-life people to turn on Trump, because they pride themselves on being "pro-life" and know that association with someone who paid to have an abortion preformed would kill their movement forever.)
(5) Evidence of tax crimes that will eventually land Trump and his family in jail. This one is also very likely. In this scenario, it doesn't matter what Trump's support with his followers is. The DA involved in this case is in New York (a blue state), so public opinion will not save him. Further, Trump has no ability to save himself here, because the DA will not say "well, if you step down, I won't prosecute you or your family." If anything, the DA will say, "plead guilty, and I might consider not going after your family." (DAs usually take the hard line, then slowly work their way to a compromise. They NEVER start with the most easy offer.)
Methinks we are about to see a big show in the next few days. If the Supreme Court does rule against Trump (and I think they would if they follow current case law, but courts are unpredictable), then we need to watch Trump VERY CLOSELY. Because once the decision is made and then the niece's book is released, I would expect a closed-door meeting between Republicans and Trump. They may convince him that if he steps down, the interest in convicting him will go away.
Remember, Republicans need Trump to step down before the election (or die, so they can tout him around as though he was some sort of martyr. They know through their own internal polling that they are going to lose, and the only chance they have is to take away the Democrats' enthusiasm in taking Trump down. Basically, if Trump is off the ballot, then the Republicans hope that enough Democrats will stay home with the knowledge that Biden will win. That way, the Republicans can keep enough seats to keep control of the Senate.
Too bad Trump thinks only of himself. He won't leave, and the Republicans will pay dearly for it.
How do I know this? Simple. The Republicans aren't releasing any of their internal polling.
Why? Why is this important?
Consider February 2020. After Republicans moved to save Trump from impeachment, Republicans gleefully released polls showing that approval for Trump was strong. But after March 2020, I noticed that polls that are conducted by Republicans themselves aren't being released.
Why? Because the numbers are very, very bad.
Remember, Republicans have no reason to ignore their own polling, which they conduct themselves and share with the Republican leaders so they know which states to send money to. Why would they hold on to this information if they want to dispute the Democrats' contention that the Republicans will be driven out much like they were in 2018? Why not show your own evidence and claim "fake news?"
Because they know better. They know that the national polls don't lie.
I recall that there was a prediction on this site a few years ago that Trump's approval would drop down to 25% (I can't recall who made it). I suspect that the expected Covid 19 death toll that will soon become evident in the southern states and any fallout from Trump's taxes will make this prediction become a reality this month and in August. If there is ever a time that Republicans push him out, it will be in the next few weeks. After that, it will be too late.
So keep your fingers crossed and hope that Trump will finally, finally go away. But if he stays on until November, that is fine too. I am willing to crawl on my stomach through hot coals and broken glass to cast my vote against Trump and any Republican who stands with him and/or stood by while he committed atrocities. Nothing will save them from the coming reckoning, and they will pay dearly for selling out America to corporate entities and hostile foreign powers. And if jailing some of them is needed to ensure that future politicians are warned not to engage in such conduct in the future, then I am all for it!
Russell Brand talking about people moving away and starting their own communities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTODIdZfR4
@allyn thank you again for your in depth analysis. You’re indeed very intuitive in a very analytical and fascinating way. Let’s hope for all of this to happen. I did see a lot of 7’s in my reading and meditation so I’m happy for all of this to unravel sooner than later.
share the love and light
Not a big fan of his, he tends to spout nonsense. He is mentally ill*, and he says one thing one day and another the next. Also, only people with a fair amount of privilege have the ways and means to go off and start their own new communities. Poor people and immigrants do not have such avenues open to them.
* We are friends with one of his former therapists, who he mentions in his book - Dr. Flowers
As long as there are no limits to the amount of money that a candidate will receive, then there is no chance of a third party ever materializing in our political system. You may occasionally have an offshoot of a party (the Tea Party, which is considered a smaller branch of the Republican party), but never an actual separate entity.
Why? The Republican and Democratic parties simply have too many donors and insiders. Basically, they have all the money and thus control the field. But even if enough people break away from either party and try to start their own party, they are still at a disadvantage because it takes a while to organize such a party and gain enough national recognition that it can compete against the two mainstream parties.
Further, history has shown that if one of the main parties splits into two, then the opposition wins. In 1864, there were four political parties when the Democratic party split up into three different groups (depending mostly on how they felt about slavery), which allowed the Republicans (at the time a small, newly made party) to take control by electing Lincoln as President. Likewise, in 1912, after decades of Republican rule, a split within the Republican party between the establishment (who supported President Taft) and the "Bull Moose Party" (led by former President Theodore Roosevelt) allowed the country to elect a Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson.
This is the reason the Tea Party never tried to split off from the Republican party. They knew that if they did, the Democrats would win all the elections. So instead, the Tea Party took over the Republican Party. Indeed, if you look back a few years, you will see how the tactics that they have employed (refusal to work with the Democrats or establishment Republicans, obstructionism, hypocricy in the sense that they deplore government spending if it is a Democrat President but not a Republican one, lack of respect and use of "anger" politics) basically paved the way for Trump.
So no, I do not see the parties splitting up unless something is done to control the money that both parties have at their disposal. That is why I hated the Supreme Court decision that basically allowed for candidates to receive unlimited funds from corporations and others in power. If there were limitations on how much a candidate could receive from a donor, then it would be easier for more political parties to form.
I wonder if anyone sees what will happen to the Republican party in the next few decades. Will they be on the outside looking in? Basically reduced to a minority with no power except in a few states while Democrats deal with their own internal battle between the moderate wing and the liberal wing? Will they reflect what happened to the California Republican party?
I hope so. A decade or so of being ignored while the rest of the country moves on without them seems a proper punishment for the abuses they subjected us to when they chose to support Trump. And hopefully they will become so reduced that they literally "start over" by kicking the old leadership out and change their platforms on a number of issues instead of engaging in these ridiculous culture wars.
Likewise, I sincerely hope that the Evangelical portion of the Republican party will likewise lose their influence. While I don't doubt their sincerity, I feel that the last few years have shown that they too have become drunk with the influence of power and have chosen that power unwisely. Further, they have aligned themselves with open racists and Trump, even though they claim neither represent their values. In my humble opinion, they need to stop trying to impose their will on others and instead reflect on who God wants them to be. [personally, I think that they would do better by helping to pass laws that makes it easier for a woman to financially support a child, tougher laws on rapists, and helping to fund doctors so that they can find cures for medical conditions would be better than just denying women the ability to have an abortion. Perhaps if they helped cure the reasons why a woman has an abortion in the first place, then their wouldn't need to be abortions? Just my opinion, of course, but if they were serious in stopping abortions, you would think that they would try to help the situation instead of making it worse, because now they have lost the support of many neutral parties who would have supported them had they not engaged in the behaviors that they did.]
Finally, the openly racist part of the Republican party (yes, I am talking about the ones who march down the streets with their guns, call all blacks "criminals" and "thugs" for no other reason than because they are black, who stomp around the border and threaten and/or shoot at immigrants, who tell Americans who came here as children and became citizens that they need to be sent back to their countries of origin, etc.) need to be silenced. I'm sorry, but I hope the Republican party decides to throw these people out instead of catering to them. As Americans, they can believe whatever they want to believe, but as far as I am concerned, if they decide to engage in their racist practices, then I as an American also have the right to strongly oppose it as part of my right to free speech. (And no, the Constitution does not guarantee that people can say whatever they want without consequences. It simply says that the government cannot restrict free speech. It says nothing about private citizens being unable to object to something that someone else says). So the racist part of the Republican party needs to be driven out and ignored (and the Democrats must not cater to them either.) Basically, their views need to be so abhorrent to the rest of the population that they are forced to keep silent least they be ostracized. We cannot heal the wounds from racism if these people are allowed free reign to say and do whatever they want without dealing with the consequences. After all, if someone spreads lies about someone else, does the victim not have the right to sue them in court? We may have free speech, but there are also consequences of that speech when done recklessly. And this country will never, ever heal until racism is looked upon for what it is-a threat to our existence as a country and thus should never be given free reign and social acceptance ever again.
It is my hope that the cancer that has so destroyed the Republican party is cut out and driven out into obscurity. Because as much as I hate to admit it, our country was never better than when two opposing parties came together and through compromise and respect were able to come up with solutions for the betterment of our people. If only one party has complete control, then there is a part of the country that is not heard, and thus not part of the solution. Also, it allows for the party in power to become corrupted as well, as there is no one left to fight and thus no further need to work for solutions.
So in essence, I want the Republicans to suffer a few years (perhaps a decade) where they are a minority in the House, Senate, and the nation at large. I want them to suffer the same fate as the Republican party in California, who went from total control to being only able to hold onto a few seats and watch as decisions are made without them. Then, I want the smarter Republicans to begin trying to work with the ruling Democrats to make solutions to problems. Basically, if the Republicans are respectful and make compromises, then the Democrats should work with them. But if Republicans try to engage in the usual "all or nothing" approach and/or resort to obstructionism simply to pacify the radical wing of their party, then Democrats should ignore them and continue to govern without them.
The message is clear. Act like you want this government to work, or we will work without you.
A decade of this should drive it into Republicans' heads that (1) anger politics and culture wars will only turn the population against you, (2) "compromise" is not a dirty word, and it is better to be part of the solution where everyone gets a voice and gets something out of the deal than being shut out completely, and (3) it is better to be respectful (even if it is boring) than to be disrespectful and engage in dirty tactics simply to infuriate the opposition, because eventually the opposition will win back power and will hold a grudge.
To this day, I think it was a mistake that Democrats, who were treated badly by Republicans in the Bush years by being labeled unpatriotic and subjected to senseless investigations simply for political gain, to continue to treat Republicans with respect during the Obama years. If anything, this encouraged Republicans to believe that Democrats would be meek in the face of cruelty, and they could get away with anything in the years they were in power because Democrats have never treated them badly when the tables were turned. So they blocked Obama from getting a Supreme Court Justice and engaged in their eternal war on Obamacare. So when (not if, but when) Democrats take the nation back, they need to stop being so forgiving. They need to treat Republicans with contempt and keep them out of the decision-making process until Republicans are willing to try to compromise their stances and follow the rules of respect and decorum that they have ignored for so long. I realize that may seem counterproductive to the ultimate goal (the parties working together), but if Democrats take control and go in with a "let bygones be bygones" attitude, then Republicans will do the same things over and over because they have no reason not to. They need to be literally retrained to realize that the only way they get a say in anything regarding the country's future (and to take something back to their constituents) will be to "play nice" and be respectful (simple priniciples they should have been taught as children, but they have apparently forgotten.)
Further, Democrats need to punish Republicans if they fail to reign in the crazy fringe members in the Republican base that may be left standing after 2020. If one of these members engages in combative conduct and/or divisive rhetoric and the Republican leadership does nothing more than shrug helplessly, then Democrats need to shut the Republican party out of the decision making process until measures are taken. No, I don't expect Republicans to kick one of their own out of the party, but they could use sanctions, take them off committee chairs, and strongly denounce them on Fox News as opposed to try to come up with excuses for him/her. The Republicans allowed themselves to be taken over by the radical group of their party, and thus lead the way to Trump. They need to learn that we will not tolerate their inactions, least it lead to another Trump in the future.
These are my views only, of course. While I am not advocating violence or crimes against Republicans, I think some measure of treating them with contempt and ignoring their demands is reasonable should we get the majority power in the country. Further, I think that by systematically rewarding them for good, productive behavior and shutting them out completely for bad behavior is not unreasonable, as it will teach them that the lesson of "treat others the way you would want to be treated" is something they should remember in the future.
And while we are on the subject, I think that Democrats need to make it a priority after the 2020 census to change the redistricting and ensuring that those gerrymandering laws no longer have affect for at least the next decade. As a result, we will (hopefully) have a decade of "one person, one vote" situation where everyone is at least heard, and this country will not be in a position where a minority tries to impose its will on the nation to the detriment of the majority.
Whew! I talked too much again today. So sorry, but I tend to ramble on when I feel passionate about something. I'm an attorney. It's what I do. ;)
Yeah he's a drug addict survivor and it's something he has to cope with everyday. He's pretty open about it. One in four people in the world will be affected by mental or neurological disorders at some point in their lives, but that's not a reason to discredit someone's thoughts. People can still have very valid thought's and have mental health problems.
If our cities are going to be destroyed by climate change and there's going to be mass global migration then where will everyone live?
At that point I'm not sure it will be a luxury lifestyle choice.
My point is that it won't end up being a luxury lifestyle choice - it will be millions of refugees.
I have lots of recovering addicts and people with mental illness in my life. Russell Brand tends to speak without reflection, flippantly. I appreciate his struggle more than most, but he tends not to come from an enlightened viewpoint.
@laura-f. I hope his therapists aren't sharing their views of him with their friends. That would be a violation of privacy by a therapist.
Also sometimes mentally ill talented artistic people see the truth of the world, even if they are volatile and inconsistent.
Finally, you don't have to be rich to join the kind of community people speak about for the future. We are not talking about golf course communities like Disney condos or like at Fisher Island, off the coast of Miami.
Perhaps we need a thread to explore the issue of communities of the future.
P.S. Confession that I have not seen the YouTube yet that stu posted but we have predicted here that many people would live in communities in the future in order to share farmland and other ways to live more sustainably and self sufficiently.
He did not share anything with us, but did mention that all the stuff in Brand's book is true, so no violation of privacy.
There is a good article on Newsweek on how T can steal the election. It is scary to think but it has to be thought. I hope Nancy Pelosi and fellow liberators are one step ahead of him. Dear lord I want him gone. He is going full crazy now.
United States government using emergency powers that no one could foresee. Recent press reports have revealed the compilation by the Brennan Center at New York University of an extensive list of presidential emergency powers that might be inappropriately invoked in a national security crisis. Attorney General William Barr, known for his extremist view of the expanse of presidential power, is widely believed to be developing a Justice Department opinion arguing that the president can exercise emergency powers in certain national security situations, while stating that the courts, being extremely reluctant to intervene in the sphere of a national security emergency, would allow the president to proceed unchecked.
Something like the following scenario is not just possible but increasingly probable because it is clear Trump will do anything to avoid the moniker he hates more than any other: "loser."
Trump actually tweeted on June 22: "Rigged 2020 election: millions of mail-in ballots will be printed by foreign countries, and others. It will be the scandal of our times!" With this, Trump has begun to lay the groundwork for the step-by-step process by which he holds on to the presidency after he has clearly lost the election:
- Biden wins the popular vote, and carries the key swing states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by decent but not overwhelming margins.
- Trump immediately declares that the voting was rigged, that there was mail-in ballot fraud and that the Chinese were behind a plan to provide fraudulent mail-in ballots and other "election hacking" throughout the four key swing states that gave Biden his victory.
- Having railed against the Chinese throughout the campaign, calling Biden "soft on China," Trump delivers his narrative claiming the Chinese have interfered in the U.S. election.
- Trump indicates this is a major national security issue, and he invokes emergency powers, directing the Justice Department to investigate the alleged activity in the swing states. The legal justification for the presidential powers he invokes has already been developed and issued by Barr.
- The investigation is intended to tick down the clock toward December 14, the deadline when each state's Electoral College electors must be appointed. This is the very issue that the Supreme Court harped on in Bush v. Gore in ruling that the election process had to be brought to a close, thus forbidding the further counting of Florida ballots.
- All four swing states have Republican control of both their upper and lower houses of their state legislatures. Those state legislatures refuse to allow any Electoral College slate to be certified until the "national security" investigation is complete.
- The Democrats will have begun a legal action to certify the results in those four states, and the appointment of the Biden slate of electors, arguing that Trump has manufactured a national security emergency in order to create the ensuing chaos.
- The issue goes up to the Supreme Court, which unlike the 2000 election does not decide the election in favor of the Republicans. However, it indicates again that the December 14 Electoral College deadline must be met; that the president's national security powers legally authorize him to investigate potential foreign country intrusion into the national election; and if no Electoral College slate can be certified by any state by December 14, the Electoral College must meet anyway and cast its votes.
- The Electoral College meets, and without the electors from those four states being represented, neither Biden nor Trump has sufficient votes to get an Electoral College majority.
- The election is thrown into the House of Representatives, pursuant to the Constitution. Under the relevant constitutional process, the vote in the House is by state delegation, where each delegation casts one vote, which is determined by the majority of the representatives in that state.
- Currently, there are 26 states that have a majority Republican House delegation. 23 states have a majority Democratic delegation. There is one state, Pennsylvania, that has an evenly split delegation. Even if the Democrats were to pick up seats in Pennsylvania and hold all their 2018 House gains, the Republicans would have a 26 to 24 delegation majority.
- This vote would enable Trump to retain the presidency.
@jessi1978 wow, what a scary picture that paints! I truly hope things don't get that bad.
@jessi1978 However, if I have not been wrong, someone in an earlier post said that Trump have been greatly underestimated.
@lovendures Today it was announced that Mary Trump's book now will be released on July 14! I can't wait to read it.