Blog powered by Typepad

« What's up, cat got your tongue? | Main | "In the name of God, go!" »

Thursday, 05 November 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Who won? So far Communist China. "Never let a crisis go to waste". Joe Biden may be the breach birth result of this sham voting in a handful of states. Trump must fight all of these at once for the sake of our elections in the future. I have seen governments in other countries do this kind of thing and what their people have to accept just to try and live a normal life. Now it is here. Everyone must swallow their Blue Pills daily. Our election, media/polling and political systems have discredited themselves maybe beyond repair. This election devolved into a third world sham. All to stop the most direct threat to the DC ruling class ever-Donald Trump and his over 68 million plus backers.

Biden has 3 times the chance of winning Trump has. And don't worry, if he wins things are going to be dull and that's the point. Two things will have defeated The Don:

1. His blowing the covid crisis. Trying to gaslight people into thinking friends and relatives aren't getting sick is not a smart move. His "turning the corner" trope reminded a lot of people of Herbert Hoover.

2. Trump fatigue. Enough with the tweeting and bombast and chewing the scenery already!

Americans are sick of Trump, but they didn't change the balance of power in Washington. They still don't trust Democrats and shouldn't. Biden will probably spend most of his time putting the government back together and restoring normalcy.

The fate of the Reaganist neo-liberal (Libertarian if you prefer) project is shaky, but it's not because of any personalities involved. It's because it's failed most Americans. Watch for similar results near you.

Nah worries David about you losing your visiting privileges.

The week after inauguration when there's been time to "settle things down" President Harris is sure to grant you a pardon.

Puts me in mind of Bob's wandering about somehow.

Bob, try adding the Libertarian vote onto the Don's count in each state.

If coalitions were possible the dream ticket would be in already in the WH - the Don and the Libertarians.

The US is still a Libertarian Right country, even if the democratic system shanks the results leftward.

For that reason if Biden and the Dems survive the legals, this will be the lamest of lame duck presidencies in the history of lame duck presidencies. The Don and the Goppers are going to disrupt Biden and the Dems like never before. Russiagate and the failed impeachment will be chicken feed to what's coming their way.

The Don's gains in foreign policy, the tax cuts, the deregulation, the swamp draining, all will be preserved. After 4 years of Biden and the Dems supping the poisoned chalice of victory, the Goppers and Don'll be back.

But let's see what the Supreme Court has to say first.


Speaking somewhat to your fourth paragraph Loz.

And directly to you last.


To my knowledge all the legal tricks Team Crybaby Trump are trying have already been rejected. The US is a center right country that's been flirting with Libertarianism since the 1980's. Most people aren't happy:

"Satisfaction now sits just six points above the all-time low in October 2008 immediately following sharp drops in the U.S. stock market during the global financial crisis."

Swamp draining? Good lord man, have you lost your mind?

"To my knowledge all the legal tricks [..] have already been rejected."

Speaking more precisely to that "have been rejected."

What happened some ten days ago was Pennsylvania's legislature and secretary of state petitioned the Supreme Court to issue an injunction against Pennsylvania's executive decree that mail-in ballots received for a period of three days after Election Day be counted.

The Court's (with its newest member not yet settled in) 8 Justices, Chief Justice Roberts issuing the opinion, "declined to intervene."

Nothing has been "rejected."


The Court refused to hear the case, if you'd be more comfortable with a euphemism. Barrett might have to recuse herself from 2020 election cases. The tension is so thick you could cut it with a pool noodle.

'Might have to' huh Bob?

Care to present me with a legal argument there Bub?

Doesn't have to be in the legalese I sometimes tend to as I understand your lack of formal schooling in comparison to my own but, give it your best shot Bob. (Just a bit of advice where 'working it up' I'd suggest Bob, as I unfortunately know from bitter experience - tryin an 'off the cuff, train of thought, stream of consciousness [whatever] legal argument in blog comment fashion - at any rate I can tell you 'slip ups' happen with some frequency.

Anyway my advice is - work it up in a Word doc and only then paste it into this here D&N comment framework.)


Now then.

Providing that link for especially y'all of my foreign friends who've had limited experience (and/or success/satisfaction) with American media political commentary/analysis - that there's about the closest thing you're likely to find to the oft' claimed fair and balanced canard so prevalent over here.

If Bob'd care to weigh in with his opinion of The Hill's 'Rising' neutrality I don't expect he'd much disagree with what I've said immediately above.

(Of course my "enthusiasm" for the two moderators on the program is highly likely to piss off some of the more right-leaning friends I've made here. Well perhaps 'dismay' would be the more appropriate rather than 'making angry.')

Oh crap. And I tried so to proof that.

Lawrence my intent was to italicize just that 'legal argument' bit on the second line and then lastly the 'fair and balanced' bit just below where I typed the two words 'Now then.'

Fix it for me lad?


The legal case:

Hill TV is the only televised source I usually agree with. You might note a lot of Krystal and Saagar's opinions are similar to my own.


On second thought, my endorsement is probably the kiss of death around here, so I'll elaborate. Rising is probably more fair and balanced than other shows, but more than that Krystal and Saagar are smart and young enough to see politics from a different perspective that's more relevant for the present.


Where Rising specifically is concerned, however you'd replied would, and is, sufficient so far as I'm concerned. There's been plenty of instances after which, I'd linked 'em, "our" arguments soon concluded and we immediately turned to other matters in dispute.

'Nuff said.'

I haven't had the time to do a proper study of the justia linked case (but will do so if there's still a wish on your part I do so after you take note of just this:

"It is up to a justice whether to recuse. Kagan did not recuse herself from Obamacare cases, even though she was the Obama administration solicitor general and helped develop the Obama administration’s legal position on the legislation. Before being appointed to the high court, Breyer was one of the architects of the federal sentencing guidelines, but he did not recuse himself when the constitutionality of the guidelines was challenged. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh not only were not disqualified from last term’s cases involving President Trump’s personal finances, they ruled against him."

And although the author of that makes the point (just on your contention ACB must recuse) there's a wider bunch of stuff implicit having to do with federalism itself that I'm hoping, from which you may discern the 'hows & whys' I've framed my underpinnings of thinking whether the federal government ought stay the hell outta the way where states governments should be the sole source of making rules that the citizens of the several states should abide by.

Whether you are able to pick up on what I'm pointing toward, if you don't, don't sweat it. I'm confident we'll find ourselves arguing about the same sort of stuff in the future.

(God I hope I closed all those damn italics!)

The comments to this entry are closed.