It was a bit both sidesy for me (but I’ll assume for arguments sake that is because of my own bias)...but the overall point was good. When Trump loses the election...he’ll be will no longer be President at noon on Jan 19 2021. Not sure it really ends there at though.
I will read that article! I have been wondering about that same question since Trump's election. It's clear that the GOP will only be increasing its attack on democracy, regardless of the 2020 elections.. If Trump wins, he and the party will take that as a mandate that his Presidency is indeed above the law, as he maintains, and that Democratic protests are immaterial. If Trump loses, the GOP's voters will be angry and embittered as never before. They will not consent.
NYT is reporting that Trump is looking into firing the IG who passed along the whistleblower report. So he wants to fire him for doing nothing more, and nothing less, than his job.
And that goes back as far as Sessions. He was the first Senator to jump on the Trump bandwagon when most other GOPers weren't taking him seriously. When he became his AG, Sessions was operating under the "old norms"--he didn't get the memo--and he rightfully recused himself from the Russia investigation. In normal times under a normal administration it would be the normal thing to do. He had been involved earlier, so he had a conflict of interest, which is somewhat normal. But nothing about this administration is "normal." Trump simply could not fathom how these things work, and he genuinely believes that he is the king, and everyone--literally everyone--in government is there to serve him and only him, not the country, or this thing called the Constitution or whatever the hell those old guys in wigs and stockings came up with!
Maybe Brummie is right, we need to disenfranchise republikans because they do it to us: The NCGOP/WIGOP playbook moves to upstate New York! Dems gained the county executive position in populous Monroe Coutny (Rochester) for first time in decades. So the county's GOP legislature is moving to reduce powers of the executive before changeover. https://t.co/4iuq9rlW47 pic.twitter.com/usvdnU10EW— Taniel (@Taniel) November 13, 2019
Typical Trump contemptible. Doing so would flaunt the very purpose of whistleblower protection laws. Of course, he doesn't believe that the law should protect his perceived enemies.
IMO 1. Sessions was highly involved in the quid pro quo re the GOP Ukraine platform 2. Sessions was not so stupid as to put himself in the frame - unlike Bill Barr
Seems the city of Houston elected a few non-traditional Americans to be judges. The GOP's response? If you can't win fairly then change the rules. Hopefully this idea will die in committee. https://www.facingsouth.org/2019/11/texas-considers-ending-judicial-elections-democrats-gain-ground
As discussed before, the Reps do not have the votes to pass it. There is talk about getting rid of voting for judges, but the result will be different than the wishful plan the GOP has. Now in other States that have big Republican majorities, they may see this and get ahead and implement it before they lose power.
I’d say that sounds like a 3/5 of a good deal: https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...risoners-who-can-t-vote-fill-voting-districts But if Alexander and his more than 1,200 fellow prisoners are still incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution next Census Day — April 1 — the Census Bureau will officially consider them residents of Waupun, Wis., for the 2020 national head count. That's because, since the first U.S. census in 1790, the federal government has included incarcerated people in the population counts of where they're imprisoned. This technical detail of a little-known policy can have an outsized impact on prison towns across the U.S. for the next decade. In many cases, rural, predominantly white towns see their population numbers boosted by population counts from prisons disproportionately made up of black and Latinx people. In turn, states, which control how voting districts are drawn, and local governments can use those numbers to form districts filled predominantly with people who are locked behind bars and cannot vote in almost all states. Maine and Vermont are the exceptions. Officials in some prison towns have come up with creative ways to avoid forming voting districts made up primarily of prisoners. But in many others, political lines are drawn around prisons in a way that critics deride as "prison gerrymandering."
Correct me if I am wrong, but non citizens who can not vote are also taken into account when creating voting districts, so this is part of all residents regardless of being able to (or even caring to vote) should be taken into account when creating districts. Non-tax paying Indians tended to be excluded in these things back in the day.
I can never be rich....SMH. Here's how much of their wealth the 10 richest Americans gave to charity in 2018:Ellison: 0%Page: 0%Brin: 0%Bezos: 0.1%D. Koch: 0.1%C. Koch: 0.5%Zuckerberg: 0.7%Bloomberg: 1.5%Gates: 2.6%Buffet: 3.9%Billionaire philanthropy will not save us. Tax the rich.— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) January 3, 2020
I am guessing you also gave 0%. IIRC Warren Buffet is leaving his children next to nothing on his death and his fortune will go to charity. Maybe I am wrong and that was Jimmy Buffet. Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller all gave away most of their fortunes. The left can tax the wealthy 100% and they'll never cover the promises they are making.
What ever would those poor billionaires do without the sucker apologist class there to speak for them?
He doesn’t seem to suck anymore. Yet. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/modern-monetary-theory.2099894/
Suckiness is in the eye of the beholder, of course. The IC Squad has been quiet so far. Maybe the 4 year Hillary jihad has expired
Other than our President is jerk I am pretty happy about what is going on. With Hillary we would still have a jerk in the White House but everything else would be going to shit.