Trump enters the stage

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: Trump enters the stage - Trump win or loose in November

Postby Meno_ » Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:59 am

Trump can still win this election

Opinion by Richard Galant, CNN

Updated 1:58 PM EDT, Sun August 30, 2020



Editor's Note: (Sign up to get our new weekly column as a newsletter. We're looking back at the strongest, smartest opinion takes of the week from CNN and other outlets.)

(CNN)Outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, police were using billy clubs and tear gas to beat back anti-Vietnam War protesters. Inside the International Amphitheatre, Sen. Abraham Ribicoff was so enraged by the violence that he put aside his prepared nomination speech and declared, "with George McGovern as President of the United States, we wouldn't have to have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago."

The convention's host, Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, and other members of the Illinois delegation stood up and shouted insults at the senator from Connecticut. It was an electrifying moment, a rare case of the reality of the streets intruding on the packaged rhetoric of a political convention.

No such unscripted moment was allowed at this week's carefully orchestrated Republican National Convention, despite the tumult occurring outside: the protests after the shooting of a Black man in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Sunday, culminating in the arrest of a 17-year-old charged with killing two protesters; the fierce hurricane slamming into coastal Louisiana; the wildfires consuming homes and forests in California; and the continuing march of a pandemic that has left more than 180,000 Americans dead.

With relentless discipline, wrapped in flag-draped videos, the convention hammered home President Donald Trump's message: that behind closed doors and contrary to all outward signs, he is an ardent feminist who cares deeply about the problems confronted by Black Americans, that Joe Biden is a "Trojan horse" for radical activists and that a Democratic victory in November would spell the end of the American dream. The fact that in his acceptance speech Trump mostly stuck to the teleprompter script vetted by his advisers suggested to Sarah Isgur that "he believes he is losing this race."

Covid-19 is under control, Trump asserted, and America is reopening. As if to punctuate that message, he assembled 2,000 people on the White House's South Lawn with few precautions to prevent it from becoming a super spreader event.

David Gergen called the political use of the historic grounds owned by all Americans "an abomination" and urged: "never again should a sitting president be able to commandeer one of the most sacred sites of our democracy and turn it into a political prop."

It also presented a dangerous image to viewers, he wrote. "At a time when public health experts are trying to persuade Americans to wear masks and practice social distancing, they saw hundreds upon hundreds without masks and jostling close together."



The convention's narrative was jarring, wrote Frida Ghitis: "As America's 2020 dystopia barreled ahead, the Republican National Convention offered its version of alternative facts, a bubble containing a phony reality where President Donald Trump is a champion of women's equality, a protector of health care benefits, a defender of pre-existing conditions coverage, and a man of immeasurable compassion."

Twelve Black speakers were featured on the main stage in support of Trump, noted John Avlon. "Contrast that stat with the number of African Americans who are senior level White House staffers. That would be one -- Ja'Ron Smith, a deputy assistant to the President...What about Black Trump cabinet secretaries? That would be one as well: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson." Trump was lauded at the RNC for backing the careers of women too, but here also his record isn't strong -- it significantly lags presidents such as Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, Avlon wrote.

'Quite a show'



In reality show fashion, Trump disrupted the tradition of political conventions by bestowing a presidential pardon, meeting with freed American hostages and staging a naturalization ceremony for prime-time viewers. These segments were designed to depict Trump as a man of empathy, wrote Jamie Poniewozik in The New York Times. "They also smear Vaseline on the lens of his policy positions," he noted. "His administration has been boldly putting restrictions on legal, not just illegal, immigration -- but just look at these five lucky winners!" Which raises the question: "After four years of belligerence, insults and Twitter rages, can you suddenly remake him as Oprah?"

Maybe, wrote Jill Filipovic: "It was quite a show. The Republican Party seems to understand that liberal ideas -- racial justice, women's rights, health care access, diversity, welcoming immigrants -- are actually pretty popular in the United States. But in practice they are also often antagonistic to these same ideals... they want to give the appearance of embracing them without actually having to live them."

It just may work



Americans have seen Donald Trump up close as President for nearly four years and as a reality show star for a lot longer. Their view of him seems unlikely to change in the 70 days before the election. But branding -- and rebranding -- is what he does.

He particularly needed to after recordings of his sister, retired federal judge Maryanne Trump Barry, speaking damningly about her brother, surfaced a week ago, on the eve of the convention. Dean Obeidallah summed them up: "When a sibling says in confidence that her brother is cruel, lies, and is misleading his base with his phoniness, people should take notice."

Nonetheless, the RNC featured a parade of people vouching for Trump's magnificence. It "painted a picture of an administration that had completely eradicated myriad scourges, including Covid-19, ISIS, the Middle East conflict, unemployment, the opioid crisis, criminal over-sentencing, sexism, racism and a swamp that needed draining -- and Trump alone deserves all the credit," wrote SE Cupp. None of it was true, she noted, "nor does it tell the story of Trump's corruption, incompetence, nepotism, cronyism, abuses of power and lawlessness."

But many people don't follow politics closely, and if they're just tuning in, "they also would have heard speakers paying lip service to issues they care about...bad trade deals, disappearing manufacturing jobs, overregulation, endless wars, violence," Cupp wrote. "And fear is a powerful motivator -- sometimes more than the truth."

Julian Zelizer pointed out that "much of the country has been worn down by the impact of the pandemic, and many voters may want a leader who can either assuage their fears that the virus still looms or who can divert their attention to other issues altogether."

Republican strategist Doug Heye agreed: "Anyone who looks at the polls and says he can't win despite being down a large margin, would be making a foolish mistake... we are divided into nearly equal tribes, with a small advantage to the Democrats, and as we see increasing violence win our streets, Trump knows that he, as President, is given a longer leash and benefit of the doubt if he quells the fiery images. His campaign is keenly aware that many of the voters most likely to respond to Trump's message on this are the suburban voters he needs."

To Keith Boykin, Trump's acceptance speech "may have been the most overtly racist convention speech since Pat Buchanan's infamous culture war speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention." Boykin wrote, "Trump amplified the decibel level of what had once been quiet dog whistles into a loud and aggressive bullhorn, warning fearful white Americans that radical left socialists, anarchists, agitators, rioters, looters and flag burners are coming to get you."









© 2020 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved



Will the race gear up with more excitement or enthusiasm? We shall see. It is really very early to tell, but the markers are starting to shed some light.




>>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>><<<>>><<<>><<>><<><><><><>><<>>><<



Democracy Dies in Darkness

Trump goes all in and defends White violence

Opinion by Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
September 1, 2020 at 10:45 AM EDT

The Biden team might have to declare President Trump’s Monday afternoon news conference an “in kind” donation to the former vice president’s campaign. Just hours after Democratic nominee Joe Biden dared Trump to condemn all violence — including White violence — Trump defended the White militia member who allegedly traveled across state lines, killed two people and was charged with murder in Kenosha, Wis. The president suggested this was all in self-defense, the same argument the alleged killer’s attorneys are trying. Trump also argued that the paintball guns his supporters fired at peaceful protesters in Portland, Ore., were fine, because they did not shoot bullets. That made them “defensive.”
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - Possible election scenario

Postby Meno_ » Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:28 am

POLITICS

Trump Is Heading for a 'Red Mirage' Win on Election Night, Bloomberg-Funded Data Firm Says



POLITICS DONALD TRUMP 2020 ELECTION

President Donald Trump could appear to win the November election in an apparent landslide when the first results come in, but lose once counting mail-in ballots is completed days later.



Hawkfish, a data and analytics firm funded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has warned that Trump could win a phantom victory on election night because of the time it takes to tabulate votes sent by mail.

The firm's CEO Josh Mendelsohn told Axios that this result would be a "red mirage" that could pose problems given the president's attacks on mail-in ballots and accusations of voter fraud by Democrats.

"We are sounding an alarm and saying that this is a very real possibility, that the data is going to show on election night an incredible victory for Donald Trump," Mendelsohn said.



"When every legitimate vote is tallied and we get to that final day, which will be some day after Election Day, it will in fact show that what happened on election night was exactly that, a mirage.

"It looked like Donald Trump was in the lead and he fundamentally was not when every ballot gets counted," he said.

Significantly more Democrats than Republicans are expected to vote by mail in this November's election as Trump's criticisms of the process have had an impact with GOP voters.

Hawkfish modeled several scenarios for election night, including one where the president would appear to win 408 electoral college votes to former Vice President Joe Biden's 130. However, when results come in from mail-in ballots, the picture could be very different, with a clear Biden victory a distinct possibility.


U.S. President Donald Trump gestures after delivering his acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination on the South Lawn of the White House August 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. Trump gave the speech in front of 1500 invited guests. Trump could appear to win in a landslide on 3 November (Pho

Under Hawkfish's scenario, the Democrat could beat Trump by 334 electoral college votes to 204 when all the votes are tallied. The count could take four days, however.

President Trump appears to have been preparing for just such an eventuality. He suggested on August 15 that the results of the election may not be known for "months" or "years."

"Usually at the end of the evening, they say 'Donald Trump has won the election, Donald Trump is your new president," he said.

"You know what? You're not going to know this—possibly, if you really did it right—for months or for years. Because these ballots are all going to be lost, they're all going to be gone," Trump said.



The president has also questioned the security of mail-in ballots and claimed the system will be open to voter fraud, despite evidence that voting by mail is safe and his own party's push to expand it.

"Universal mail-in voting is going to be catastrophic, it's going to make our country the laughing stock of the world," Trump said at a news conference on 16 August.

"The problem with the mail-in voting, number one, is you're never going to know when the election is over," he said.



© 2020 NEWSWEEK
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - polls: Biden lead narrows

Postby Meno_ » Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:14 pm

POLITICO

ELECTIONS

Poll: Biden holds narrowed 7-point lead over Trump post-conventions
A USA Today/Suffolk University poll published Tuesday reports that 50 percent of voters prefer Biden and 43 percent favor Trump.

Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden.


By QUINT FORGEY

09/02/2020 08:39 AM EDT



Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden holds a 7-point advantage over President Donald Trump two months out from the November election, according to a new poll conducted in the days after the Republican National Convention.

And while the former vice president still maintains support from at least half of registered voters surveyed, his once double-digit lead in the White House race has diminished by 5 points this summer.




A USA Today/Suffolk University poll published Tuesday reports that 50 percent of voters prefer Biden and 43 percent favor Trump. The June version of the same survey showed Biden ahead of Trump by 12 points, 53-41 percent.

The latest polling results come after the conclusion of Republicans’ nominating convention last week, when Trump excoriated Biden as beholden to the “radical left” wing of the Democratic Party and warned that the “American way of life” would be destroyed were he not reelected.

Biden’s campaign aides have insisted in recent days that they expected a tightening of the race as the general election campaign enters its final stretch, pointing to the political polarization of the country’s electorate.

The USA Today/Suffolk University poll was conducted Aug. 28-31, surveying 1,000 registered voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.l

© 2020 POLITICO LLC
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - purges

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:15 am

Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - Cuomo on defunding cities

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:23 pm

"Democracy Dies in Darkness

Morning Mix

‘He better have an army’: Andrew Cuomo knocks Trump after threat to defund ‘lawless’ cities like New York"


Washington Post. September 4, 2020
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - are previous concerns troubling

Postby Meno_ » Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:34 pm

Trump told reporters at a White House news conference.

Trump's extraordinary comments come as several defense officials tell CNN relations between the President and Pentagon leadership are becoming increasingly strained.

They also followed efforts by Trump to convince the public that he had not made a series of reported disparaging remarks about US military personnel and veterans, which were first reported by The Atlantic magazine.

Trump referred to Marines buried at cemetery in France in crude and derogatory terms, a former senior official says

A former senior administration official confirmed to CNN that Trump referred to fallen US service members at the Aisne-Marne cemetery in crude and derogatory terms during a November 2018 trip to France to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. Other outlets, including Fox News, have confirmed much of The Atlantic's reporting, which Trump and the White House vehemently deny.

Some have expressed concern that the President's Monday accusations against the military's top brass could have a corrosive effect.

"The President's comments about the motivations of military leaders not only demeans their service and that of those they lead; he lends credence to the very disdain and thoughtlessness he tries to deny," retired US Navy Rear Admiral and CNN analyst John Kirby said.

The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment on Monday's remarks.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows appeared to attempt to walk back Trump's comments during an interview with Fox Business on Tuesday, saying the President's accusations against the "top people at the Pentagon" were not directed specifically at people like Secretary of Defense Mark Esper or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.

"Those comments are not directed specifically at them as much as it is what we all know happens in Washington, DC," Meadows said, saying "That comment was more directed about the military industrial complex."

While Trump has publicly disparaged the service of several high-profile veterans such as the late Sen. John McCain and his former Secretary of Defense, retired Gen. Jim Mattis, Monday's broadside was on a new level targeting leaders he appointed to carry out his orders.

Trump has also repeatedly touted boosting the defense budget as one of his administration's major accomplishments, citing it as evidence of his support for the military, spending that has also benefited defense contractors.

Top commanders exhausted and worried

CNN has previously reported that relations between Trump and Esper are tense, with Trump believed to be on the verge of replacing him. But, less than two months from the presidential election, the Pentagon's top commanders are growing increasingly exhausted and worried about their relationship with the President, several defense officials tell CNN.

A critical area of concern is how the Pentagon would respond if Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to put US military troops on the streets to deal with civilian protestors as he continues to stoke divisions across the country in the run up to the election. Trump floated the idea last month and, after he first made the threat in June, Esper publicly broke with him by saying he opposed any such move.



To avoid a new showdown with the White House, for the last several weeks, top military officials -- including Milley -- have been getting regular briefings on civil unrest in major cities across the country. The idea is to be ready with alternative plans for state-activated National Guard and other federal civilian law enforcement rather than have active duty troops potentially clash with protesters, according to several defense officials.

Another issue that could lead to a clash between Trump and military leadership is the $740 billion defense bill that would strip the names of Confederate generals in the face of vocal opposition from Trump who said he'd veto any move.

The entire Joint Chiefs have made it clear they want to eliminate what they see as the divisive symbols of the Confederacy.

Milley did not hold back on the issue in appearance before Congress in July, stating that "those officers turned their back on their oath," referring to the names on the bases. "It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the US Constitution."

Military leadership have embarked on several initiatives aimed at improving racial inclusion. Officials say it is vital work to ensure that when troops go to war, they are a cohesive fighting force.

There are also very real concerns about the aftermath of November's election, particularly if the result is not immediately clear after election night.

Last month Milley told members of Congress that the military will not play a role in the election and won't help settle any disputes if the results are contested.

"In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. Military," Milley wrote in a letter to the House Armed services committee.

Top US general tells Congress the military won't play a role in the 2020 election

"I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military," Milley wrote.

Despite what Milley stated, should there be some kind of constitutional crisis if the election result is unclear, the military could well be put in a tricky position especially as Trump's opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, floated the idea they might become involved in an interview in June.

"I promise you, I'm absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House with great dispatch," Biden said, referring to the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On top of that uncertainty there are concerns Trump may launch military action against an adversary before Inauguration Day, regardless of who wins the White House are also front and center for the top brass.





© 2020 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.




{The pent up power grab needs release. There are ominous signs, that the accumulated powers can not be rationally grounded, or discharged.} -meno



········ ......................




M.Cohen Trump attorney says:



Cohen says Trump 'actually looking to change the Constitution'
In an interview with CNN's Don Lemon, former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen claimed that if President Trump were to win reelection, he would start looking for ways to "change the Constitution" so he could be elected to a third term. Source: CNN
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - the show must go down

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:06 am

Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - drug tests for presidential can

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 13, 2020 4:49 am

The Guardian - Back to home










Fox News broadcast an interview on Saturday night in which Donald Trump without any evidence accused Joe Biden of taking drugs to get him through debates.

Trump ally who sought to change CDC Covid reports claims he was fighting 'deep state'

“I think there’s probably – possibly – drugs involved,” Trump told Jeanine Pirro. “That’s what I hear. I mean, there’s possibly drugs. I don’t know how you can go from being so bad where you can’t even get out a sentence … ”

Trump did not finish his own sentence, but he went on to say he was referring to the Democratic presidential nominee’s hesitant performances in early primary debates, before his surge to victory on the back of a win in South Carolina.

“You saw some of those debates with the large number of people on the stage,” Trump said. “He was, I mean, I used to say, ‘How is it possible that he can go forward?”

According to the president, Biden won the nomination because the progressive vote was split.

“And he only won because Elizabeth Warren didn’t drop out,” he said. “Had she dropped out Bernie [Sanders] would’ve won Super Tuesday, every state, and you would’ve had Bernie instead of Biden.”

Trump’s claim came not long after his oldest son, Donald Trump Jr, denied claims he used cocaine before speaking at the Republican convention. Remarkably enough, it was also not the first time Trump, 74, has accused Biden, 77, of taking drugs. Speaking to the Washington Examiner last month, the president said: “We’re going to call for a drug test, by the way, because his best performance was against Bernie [in the final debate] … It wasn’t that he was Winston Churchill because he wasn’t, but it was a normal, boring debate. You know, nothing amazing happened. And we are going to call for a drug test because there’s no way – you can’t do that.”

In the Fox interview broadcast told Fox News he would happily “put down very quickly” any leftwing protests. “Look, it’s called insurrection. We just send in and we, we do it very easy. I mean, it’s very easy. I’d rather not do that, because there’s no reason for it, but if we had to, we’d do that and put it down within minutes, within minutes.”

Trump has sent federal agents to confront protesters, most prominently in Portland. In the Fox interview Trump said it was “retribution” when US Marshals shot dead a suspect in the Portland killing of a member of a rightwing group.

Trump attacks Robert Mueller's 'hit squad' in row over 'wiped' phones

Trump and Biden are due to debate in Cleveland on 29 September, in Miami on 15 October and in Nashville on 22 October. The vice-presidential nominees Mike Pence and Kamala Harris will meet in Salt Lake City on 7 October.

Trump is famously teetotal and disapproving of drug use but his political rise has been fueled by a well-documented love for Diet Coke and junk food. Beset by speculation about his physical and cognitive health, earlier this month the president was moved to deny rumours that a “series of ministrokes” prompted a short-notice visit to hospital in Washington last November.



© 2020 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



On drugs



If religion is the opium of the people, and merely a dependency, should not that dependency be instituted if this people do not cohese in maintaining institutional society?

Otherwise, Hegel's ideals can not be said to be upended!?!



>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<>>>>>><<<<<>>>>>>><<<<<<<>>>>>>



China Syndrome



America’s China syndrome

As the US presidential election nears, Democrats and Republicans have defined their stances towards Beijing. Sadly for Europe, says Hanns W. Maull, they won’t find a common position.  

A new cold war or not – the relationship between America and China is on a downward spiral and the list of contentious issues is getting longer almost by the day. As the US presidential election approaches, Washington has been upping the ante, with leading members of Donald Trump’s team publicly targeting the Chinese Communist Party’s ideology, its habits of gathering intelligence by means fair and foul, and its economic policies. As Bill Barr, the US Attorney General put it in a speech: “The ultimate ambition of China’s rulers isn’t to trade with the United States. It is to raid the United States.” 

China is playing an important role in the battle for the next presidency and Congress. In the Democratic Party draft election manifesto, China gets 18 mentions, as opposed to seven in 2016, when Hilary Clinton ran for president. Her platform talked about “managing China’s rise” and pressing it to “play by the rules”, while Joe Biden’s is now all for “pushing back” against Beijing. Even in the light of significant continuity, like a call for “a fair system” for global trade, it is a strong signal of how the power equation has shifted in China’s favour. 

Democrats warn against a new cold war with China 

The Democrats’ platform warns against a new cold war and pledges not to avoid “self-defeating unilateral tariff wars” with China. Yet their strategy does show considerable similarities with the original US containment strategy in the face of the Soviet Union in the late 1940s. Its key elements are to push back “where we have profound economic, security, and human rights concerns about the actions of China’s government”, to cooperate where possible, and to control the risks of confrontation, for example, through arms control.  

This also sounds like the European Union’s take on China as “a partner, a competitor and a systemic rival”. Like the Europeans, deemed “natural partners”, the Democrats argue for a comprehensive response, covering economics, military security, and politics. A Biden administration would tackle economic imbalances and China’s unfair trading practices and hold China responsible for its contributions to global warming. It would rely on nuclear deterrence and a robust military posture and challenge China to uphold human rights and democracy. 

Biden and the Democratic Party have set out a coherent and comprehensive – if somewhat jaded – grand strategy to restore America’s standing in the world and meet China’s challenge. Trump and the Republicans have not. The Trump team’s recent attacks on China betray the shrill and hysterical edge of an administration caught on the wrong foot by Beijing. America is in bad shape and 72 percent of Americans believe “the country is on the wrong track”. Trump and his Republicans could lose the election, possibly by a landslide, and their call to arms against China is, on the one hand, a desperate attempt to turn the tide. 

Trump’s team calls for a crusade against China’s “tyranny” 

On the other hand, it is more than just electioneering. Starting with Vice President Mike Pence in October 2018 and culminating in a recent speech by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump’s current team has called for a crusade by the “free world” against China’s “tyranny”. The previous team of former generals – then Secretary of Defense James Mattis, National Security Adviser H.R. MacMasters and Chief of Staff John Kelly – was relentlessly realist in comparison: America was to preserve peace through strength with allies and partners that “magnify our power.” Pompeo prefers to remain vague about alliances.  

Clearly, Trump and his team do not think much of traditional allies and have little faith in dialogue with China. Instead, they appear to view US business as a good partner for their crusade. They have named and shamed American companies that have allegedly cow-towed to Beijing and described business leaders as targets of – and even pawns in – Chinese influence operations. Offering inducements and hinting at punishment for companies that won’t join the crusade, Barr has said he wants “public and private sectors […] to work together [… ] to win the contest for the commanding heights of the global economy.”   

Whoever takes office in the White House will need to face China’s challenge to US leadership 

Yet such an alliance is unlikely. Despite misgivings, American business has benefitted hugely from engaging with China and shows little interest in cutting back. An even bigger problem for Trump is his lack of credibility as the champion of the “free world”. His administration has failed its allies and undermined American democracy. Trump has routinely broken his oath of office, torn down much of the American diplomatic machine, and destroyed any vestige of consistency – he himself undermined the crusade against China by applauding Xi’s policies in Xinjiang and Hong Kong and allegedly begging him to support his re-election. 

But whoever takes office in the White House in January 2021 will continue to struggle with the gauntlet China has thrown down in a challenge to America’s global leadership. Will Americans rally around their flag to defend their country’s traditional international role? Don’t hold your breath. Some old and new cold warriors would like China to become the common enemy to unite a desperately divided America. But that simply won’t happen. Trump and his Republican followers cannot and will not work with the Democrats – not even on China. That is bad news for Europeans, who will no longer be able to count on US leadership in an ever more tense world. Europeans will have look out for themselves.  





© Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) gGmbH. 2020
Last edited by Meno_ on Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - 3 terms?

Postby Meno_ » Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:41 am

Trump suggests he would 'negotiate' a third term as president because he is 'probably entitled' to it


Sep 13, 2020, 10:55 AM

   



President Donald Trump on Saturday once more suggested he would spend three terms — 12 years — in office, claiming that he was "probably entitled" to an extra term in office. 

Throughout his presidency, Trump has sometimes suggested he would spend more than two terms in office.

The 22nd Amendment, which was ratified in 1951, established that a president may not serve more than two terms.

Prior to the ratification of the 22nd Amendment, FDR was elected to serve four terms in office, serving 12 years as president before his death in 1945. 

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

President Donald Trump on Saturday once again suggested interest in serving three terms in office, claiming that he was "probably entitled" to an additional four years following a hypothetical second term at a campaign event in Nevada. 

"And 52 days from now we're going to win Nevada, and we're gonna win four more years in the White House," Trump told the mostly maskless, non-socially distant crowd of his supporters on Saturday. "And then after that, we'll negotiate, right? Because we're probably — based on the way we were treated — we are probably entitled to another four after that."

Trump has often claimed he has been treated unfairly in comparison to his predecessors, often times pointing to the Russian election interference probe and his impeachment. Throughout his first term as president, Trump has also frequently floated the idea that he will attempt to serve more than two terms in office. 

 

In August, at a rally in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the president similarly suggested he was owed a third presidential term.

"We are going to win four more years," Trump said last month, according to Yahoo News. "And then after that, we'll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years."

In November 2018, Trump told Fox News' Chris Wallace that he would not seek a constitutional amendment to permit him to serve more than two terms in office. He made the clarification after he had praised Chinese President Xi Jinping's abolishment of presidential term limits.

"He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great." Trump said in March 2018. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot someday."

"I think the eight-year limit is a good thing, not a bad thing," Trump later told Wallace in 2018, although he has continued to suggest he would seek a third term in the time that has followed.

In June 2019, Trump told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd that he is only joking when he says he will try to serve more than two terms as president. 

Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson established an unofficial two-term limit, although President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to the office four times, in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944, serving 12 years as president before his death, as History.com noted. In February 1951, the 22nd Amendment was ratified, limiting American presidents to serving two terms in office. 



 

* Copyright © 2020 Insider Inc. All rights reserved. 
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - the politics of viral stimulus

Postby Meno_ » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:40 pm

Trump said:

"Democrats are “heartless”. They don’t want to give STIMULUS PAYMENTS to people who desperately need the money, and whose fault it was NOT that the plague came in from China. Go for the much higher numbers, Republicans, it all comes back to the USA anyway (one way or another!).
8:30 AM · Sep 16, 2020"
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage Barr's spinning

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:42 pm

Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage Barr's spinning

Postby MagsJ » Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:52 pm

Meno_ wrote:https://youtu.be/7iAXdJYEf1E

Lol..

Don’t go to work/go to work? you can’t have it both ways, but the political trolls think they can.

Lockdown = not soon enough / lockdown = damaging to society.. the contradiction is staggeringly blatant.

Do you think there’d have been a lot less deaths, if there was a lockdown during the Black Death?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20349
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: Trump enters the stage Barr's spinning

Postby Meno_ » Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:17 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:https://youtu.be/7iAXdJYEf1E

Lol..

Don’t go to work/go to work? you can’t have it both ways, but the political trolls think they can.

Lockdown = not soon enough / lockdown = damaging to society.. the contradiction is staggeringly blatant.

Do you think there’d have been a lot less deaths, if there was a lockdown during the Black Death?





MagsJ:


The uncertAinty revolved around religious themes, therefore moral issues may have been a lot more determinative., in or out of the home, or even in their own space -room.

I think it is very difficult one way or another. , the real state at that general level. Try to figure the literacy BC than may give some glimmer.


On the other hand, there is some credibility in the idea that another possible resurgence may cause nead irreparable economic damage, do You agree?

I d I not know much about the plague , though, other then it too, may have caused the Parisian rats' infestation, coming from established Chinese trade routes.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage Barr's spinning

Postby MagsJ » Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:56 pm

Meno_ wrote:The uncertAinty revolved around religious themes, therefore moral issues may have been a lot more determinative., in or out of the home, or even in their own space -room.

I think it is very difficult one way or another. , the real state at that general level. Try to figure the literacy BC than may give some glimmer.

You didn’t answer the question.. in that “Do you think there’d have been a lot less deaths, if there was a lockdown during the Black Death”?

Lockdown should have been sooner V lockdown has been detrimental to society and the economy. Which is it to be? You can only choose one.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20349
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: Trump enters the stage Barr's spinning

Postby Meno_ » Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:29 am

MagsJ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:The uncertAinty revolved around religious themes, therefore moral issues may have been a lot more determinative., in or out of the home, or even in their own space -room.

I think it is very difficult one way or another. , the real state at that general level. Try to figure the literacy BC than may give some glimmer.

You didn’t answer the question.. in that “Do you think there’d have been a lot less deaths, if there was a lockdown during the Black Death”?

Lockdown should have been sooner V lockdown has been detrimental to society and the economy. Which is it to be? You can only choose one.[/quit

An either/ or question may not necessitate an either/ or answer.

I personally think it is possible that if more people stayed home there would have been less infections. If people go out , and if they come into contact with infected people, UT is much more probable than not that infections will occur.

But then if they will definitely lock themselves into a a non interactive situation, the will lessen thsif chances for infection

But in this case, the plague took half of Europe's population. therefore they did interact, despite, the presumption that theu understood the consequences.

So I definitely believe that they should have flied upon their gut level feelings, fathead than their faith on religious convictions.

So my curt answer is , yes., had it then been a question devoid of religious reliance. That being the case, the question is muted by a reductive assumption further down this line on impenetrable variences: that such choice back then e as overly reductive and effected not to offend equal shares if yes and/ or no.

The criteria of this challenge gives little justice to assert a current belief which caddies equal weight to belief in what could have given rise to facilitate a fair assessment of my own particular non-religious belief.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - strongman

Postby Meno_ » Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:34 am

Is a storm brewing by a strongman to overcome democracy, out of fear?

Do finally Rousseau's splendid savage be replaced by fearful cult system devoid of any feelings other than Hobbsian fear of each other?

Will this be the end of something valuable in society that will transform social justice based on trust? And ultimately, will simulation replace this real thong?


"Trump won't commit to peaceful power transfer, prompting backlash

OPINION

Ignore the strongman fantasies. If Trump loses the election, he'll lose his job. Period.

Trump's not-so-veiled threats to overstay his Oval Office welcome are signs of weakness, not strength. The presidency is his shield against prosecution.



Do I think President Donald Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses the election? No. Do I think he’ll be able to wield his powers to prevent a legitimate result? No. Do I think he loves musing about sticking around no matter what? Absolutely. And that’s one of the many reasons we must stop giving him openings to weave fantasies, and stop the mass freakouts that routinely ensue.

Trump’s president-for-life schtick serves him in many ways. Just look at the attention he’s gotten from his answers to questions this week about whether he’d commit to a peaceful transition of power (“Well, we're going to have to see what happens”) and whether the results are only legitimate if he wins ("We want to make sure the election is honest, and I’m not sure that it can be").

Has any other president ever been asked questions like this, and would any other president have answered this way? Both are unimaginable.   

Trying to avoid legal reckonings

But Trump loves to sow doubt and handwringing, and this is the kind of own-the-libs red meat that fuels his base. He, and they, revel in his role as a faux iconoclast. They must know that he’s a rich man’s son, a (possibly) rich Ivy League graduate himself, who hangs out with millionaires at his own Mar-A-Lago resort and, CBS News reported, told them after he signed 2017 tax cuts into law that “you all just got a lot richer.” Trump’s pose as an enemy of the elite is pure fiction, but his fans seem happy to play along.   

And that affinity for international strongmen? Those not-so-veiled threats to occupy the Oval Office come what may in the election? These are features of Trump’s appeal, not bugs. As Bill Clinton memorably put it in 2002, “When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody that's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right.” 

In fact, Trump’s supposed strength arises from weakness. He is trying desperately to postpone his long-delayed season of reckoning. Who would doubt he’d happily depart the deflector shield of the White House to run Trump TV or some other Trump-centric media venture if he did not fear prosecution and, possibly, prison?   



The tragic deference shown by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Republican senators he counted on to hold Trump accountable has brought us to this pass. It’s only logical for Trump to see the presidency as his best hope for avoiding consequences and the long arm of New York legal authorities.

Backed up by his helpful Justice Department and other allies, Trump is speeding up the tempo of his attacks on the U.S. democratic process, planting falsehoods and sowing suspicions about mail ballots, fraud, foreign interference and the legitimacy of votes counted after Election Day.

He’s also escalating — not just raising public doubts about whether he’ll accept the election results but, according to The Atlantic, laying plans to keep those results in limbo until crucial deadlines pass, chaos reigns, Inauguration Day dawns Jan. 20 and, well, possession being nine-tenths of the law and all … 

Crushing democracy: Trump has a plan to steal the election and it's not clear Democrats have a plan to stop him

Progressive strategist Anat Shenker-Osorio, host of the “Words to Win By” podcast, put it simply in a messaging guide for Democrats: “Trump knows he can’t win so he’s trying to cheat.”  

Nothing has stopped Trump yet. Not even a Congress presented with enough evidence weekly to impeach him many times over.  

Voters will determine Trump's fate

But many of the Republicans who ignored Trump’s blatantly impeachable acts and kept him in office are now saying America will have a peaceful transfer of power — that nothing can stop it, not even Trump. A unanimous Senate reinforced the message Thursday by passing a resolution committing to a peaceful transfer.

There are also signs the sleeping giant of the U.S. military has awoken and is on alert. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported last week that the U.S. Cyber Command has taken proactive steps it says will make it impossible for Russia or anyone else to disrupt voting systems in the states. 

Rational fears: A Donald Trump coup if he loses in 2020? With all the norms he's busted, don't rule it out

And there is no indication the U.S. military is prepared to allow a Trump coup. In fact many see him as a danger. A bipartisan group of nearly 500 retired generals, admirals and national security officials — including retired Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, who until last year was the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump — endorsed Democrat Joe Biden on Thursday. They called Trump “not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office” and the challenges of dealing with “a world on fire.” 

In reality, Trump is swinging his metaphorical bat not at America’s elite but at its democracy and institutions, from the FBI, CIA and military, to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to the ballots and elections that will determine his fate.  

And determine it they will. "



© Copyright Gannett 2020
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - strongman

Postby Meno_ » Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:03 pm

Meno_ wrote:Is a storm brewing by a strongman to overcome democracy, out of fear?

Do finally Rousseau's splendid savage be replaced by fearful cult system devoid of any feelings other than Hobbsian fear of each other?

Will this be the end of something valuable in society that will transform social justice based on trust? And ultimately, will simulation replace this real thong?


"Trump won't commit to peaceful power transfer, prompting backlash

OPINION

Ignore the strongman fantasies. If Trump loses the election, he'll lose his job. Period.

Trump's not-so-veiled threats to overstay his Oval Office welcome are signs of weakness, not strength. The presidency is his shield against prosecution.



Do I think President Donald Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses the election? No. Do I think he’ll be able to wield his powers to prevent a legitimate result? No. Do I think he loves musing about sticking around no matter what? Absolutely. And that’s one of the many reasons we must stop giving him openings to weave fantasies, and stop the mass freakouts that routinely ensue.

Trump’s president-for-life schtick serves him in many ways. Just look at the attention he’s gotten from his answers to questions this week about whether he’d commit to a peaceful transition of power (“Well, we're going to have to see what happens”) and whether the results are only legitimate if he wins ("We want to make sure the election is honest, and I’m not sure that it can be").

Has any other president ever been asked questions like this, and would any other president have answered this way? Both are unimaginable.   

Trying to avoid legal reckonings

But Trump loves to sow doubt and handwringing, and this is the kind of own-the-libs red meat that fuels his base. He, and they, revel in his role as a faux iconoclast. They must know that he’s a rich man’s son, a (possibly) rich Ivy League graduate himself, who hangs out with millionaires at his own Mar-A-Lago resort and, CBS News reported, told them after he signed 2017 tax cuts into law that “you all just got a lot richer.” Trump’s pose as an enemy of the elite is pure fiction, but his fans seem happy to play along.   

And that affinity for international strongmen? Those not-so-veiled threats to occupy the Oval Office come what may in the election? These are features of Trump’s appeal, not bugs. As Bill Clinton memorably put it in 2002, “When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody that's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right.” 

In fact, Trump’s supposed strength arises from weakness. He is trying desperately to postpone his long-delayed season of reckoning. Who would doubt he’d happily depart the deflector shield of the White House to run Trump TV or some other Trump-centric media venture if he did not fear prosecution and, possibly, prison?   



The tragic deference shown by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Republican senators he counted on to hold Trump accountable has brought us to this pass. It’s only logical for Trump to see the presidency as his best hope for avoiding consequences and the long arm of New York legal authorities.

Backed up by his helpful Justice Department and other allies, Trump is speeding up the tempo of his attacks on the U.S. democratic process, planting falsehoods and sowing suspicions about mail ballots, fraud, foreign interference and the legitimacy of votes counted after Election Day.

He’s also escalating — not just raising public doubts about whether he’ll accept the election results but, according to The Atlantic, laying plans to keep those results in limbo until crucial deadlines pass, chaos reigns, Inauguration Day dawns Jan. 20 and, well, possession being nine-tenths of the law and all … 

Crushing democracy: Trump has a plan to steal the election and it's not clear Democrats have a plan to stop him

Progressive strategist Anat Shenker-Osorio, host of the “Words to Win By” podcast, put it simply in a messaging guide for Democrats: “Trump knows he can’t win so he’s trying to cheat.”  

Nothing has stopped Trump yet. Not even a Congress presented with enough evidence weekly to impeach him many times over.  

Voters will determine Trump's fate

But many of the Republicans who ignored Trump’s blatantly impeachable acts and kept him in office are now saying America will have a peaceful transfer of power — that nothing can stop it, not even Trump. A unanimous Senate reinforced the message Thursday by passing a resolution committing to a peaceful transfer.

There are also signs the sleeping giant of the U.S. military has awoken and is on alert. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported last week that the U.S. Cyber Command has taken proactive steps it says will make it impossible for Russia or anyone else to disrupt voting systems in the states. 

Rational fears: A Donald Trump coup if he loses in 2020? With all the norms he's busted, don't rule it out

And there is no indication the U.S. military is prepared to allow a Trump coup. In fact many see him as a danger. A bipartisan group of nearly 500 retired generals, admirals and national security officials — including retired Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, who until last year was the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump — endorsed Democrat Joe Biden on Thursday. They called Trump “not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office” and the challenges of dealing with “a world on fire.” 

In reality, Trump is swinging his metaphorical bat not at America’s elite but at its democracy and institutions, from the FBI, CIA and military, to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to the ballots and elections that will determine his fate.  

And determine it they will. "



© Copyright Gannett 2020





&&&&&&&& &&&& &&&&___



Trump set to name Supreme Court pick as he sows fears of election chaos

Analysis by Maeve Reston, CNN
Updated 9:38 AM EDT, Sat September 26, 2020

(CNN)As President Donald Trump continues to sow doubt and uncertainty about the election, he's set to announce his third Supreme Court nominee in the Rose Garden Saturday, the capstone of the promise he made four years ago to name a long line of conservative judges who will reshape the courts for generations.

"We have tremendous unity in the party," Trump said of his Supreme Court pick during a campaign rally in Newport News, Virginia, on Friday night, adding that getting his nominee confirmed would be a "great victory" ahead of November 3. "They say the biggest thing you can do (as president) is the appointment of judges, but especially the appointment of Supreme Court justices. That's the single biggest thing a president can do, because it sets the tone of the country for 40 years, 50 years."

The President's expected choice of Amy Coney Barrett, 48, a federal appellate judge and Notre Dame professor who was a law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia in the late 1990s, would further shift the balance of the court to the right, potentially ahead of a consequential case on health care that will be heard a week after Election Day.


Barrett's views on Second Amendment gun rights, immigration and abortion

Barrett's expected nomination -- just one week after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- would inject another polarizing and unpredictable dynamic into the presidential race at a time of great anxiety for Americans.

Trump foments mistrust of election he claims won&apos;t be honest
Trump foments mistrust of election he claims won't be honest
Trump this week tried to keep the public's attention away from the coronavirus pandemic as the number of cases ticked past 7 million and Americans grappled with an unshakable sense of economic uncertainty.

But in the lead up to his nomination announcement, Trump has only managed to create more anxiety. His refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power raised the specter that America will be transformed into a "banana republic" in November if Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins. The President contradicted his own FBI director by arguing that the election is rife with fraud and rigged against him, even though there is no evidence to support that conspiracy theory.

Trump also continued his war on science by undercutting his own medical advisers on the timeline for a vaccine and by suggesting that officials at the Food and Drug Administration might have political motivations if they take additional time to evaluate the safety of a vaccine. (The FDA declined comment on the President's statement, but FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn has said the "FDA will not authorize or approve a vaccine that we would not feel comfortable giving to our families.")

A consequential pick for the high court
While he was stirring more chaos, Ginsburg's death created another welcome distraction for Trump -- a chance to remind conservatives, some of whom may have soured on the President during the pandemic, the redeeming power of a Trump White House: his appointment of an unprecedented number of federal judges in his first term.

At the same time, it is difficult to decipher the effect that the high court pick will have on the presidential race, because the anger about Republicans' rush to confirm a replacement for Ginsburg has also electrified Democrats and led to a flood of donations to progressive groups and candidates.

Many Democrats view Trump's expected choice of Barrett, whom he appointed to the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals, as a direct rebuke to the legacy of Ginsburg, a liberal icon and staunch defender of abortion rights.

Based on Barrett's judicial philosophy and her past writings, Democrats have argued this week that if she is named to the court -- solidifying a 6-3 conservative majority -- she will likely have a hand in rolling back abortion rights and striking down the Affordable Care Act.

The Supreme Court plans to hear oral arguments one week after the election on the future of the Affordable Care Act. A group of Republican state attorneys general and the Trump administration have argued that the law's individual mandate is unconstitutional and there are legal grounds for striking down the law in its entirety.

"What matters most is that health care is on the ballot and is in front of the Supreme Court," Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, noting that the health care law protects those seeking health insurance from discrimination based on pre-existing conditions -- which will now include health complications for those who contracted Covid-19.

"We know that Judge Barrett has made statements disparaging the Affordable Care Act, disparaging the decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act," Coons said during an interview on "The Situation Room" Friday evening, "and I think this is a significant concern for millions of average Americans in the middle of a pandemic that doesn't seem to be going away any time soon."



But Republican senators and activists who have defended Barrett, the mother of seven children, have accused Democrats of targeting her because of her Catholic faith. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein angered Barrett's supporters in 2017 when she challenged Barrett during her confirmation hearings for her seat on the 7th Circuit by alluding to her faith and stating that the "dogma lives loudly within you."

Barrett met with Trump earlier this week and was widely viewed as one of his top contenders for the Supreme Court vacancy in 2018, when Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. The President ultimately chose Brett Kavanaugh as Kennedy's replacement.


Republicans have signaled plans for a quick Supreme Court confirmation process. Here's when it could happen.
As part of their strategy in the upcoming confirmation hearings, Democrats plan to ask Trump's nominee to recuse herself from any case involving the presidential election results, given that the President will have just named her to a lifetime appointment.

They plan to use the President's words against him -- noting that he has justified his brisk push to replace Ginsburg on the court by stating he wants to avoid a 4-4 tie on the Supreme Court if election disputes arise.

Trump's attacks on democracy
After the President refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power this week, he continued to insist that the presidential election is "rigged" and that mail-in ballots are a "scam."

Trump and his allies seized on reports about an incident in Pennsylvania, where nine ballots were improperly discarded, to further sow unfounded distrust in the election and falsely claim that Democrats are "trying to steal the election."


Fact-check: Team Trump capitalizes on Pennsylvania ballot incident to baselessly accuse Democrats of 'stealing' the election
But speaking under oath to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Thursday, FBI Director Christopher Wray undercut Trump's arguments of election fraud by stating, "We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise."

That statement drew a swift rebuke from Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows, who disputed Wray's assertion during an appearance on "CBS This Morning" on Friday.

"With all due respect to Director Wray, he has a hard time finding emails in his own FBI, let alone figuring out whether there's any kind of voter fraud," Meadows said. "This is a very different case. The rules are being changed."

"Perhaps he needs to get involved on the ground and he would change his testimony on Capitol Hill," Meadows added.

Later on Friday, during his rally in Newport News, Trump said he wanted to see "a smooth beautiful transition" after the election -- but only if it's an "honest vote," he said, reiterating debunked claims about unsolicited ballots.

"We're not going to lose this except if they cheat, that's the way I look at it," Trump said, repeating baseless claims about "mischief" -- now a cornerstone of his stump speech -- meant to sow more distrust in an election that polls currently show him losing.


A list of the times Trump has said he won't accept the election results or leave office if he loses
One Democrat who seemed unfazed by Trump's refusal to unequivocally commit to a peaceful transfer of power was Biden, who said Friday the American people "aren't going to be shut down in this election."

"This is a typical Trump distraction, trying to make everybody wonder whether or not the election will be legit and whether or not absentee ballots matter while he is writing his absentee ballot out," Biden told MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle.

"Every vote in this country is going to be heard and they will not be stopped. I'm confident that all of the irresponsible, outrageous attacks on voting, we'll have an election in this country as we always have had. And he'll leave."

View on CNN
© 2020 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - Amy Coney Barrett

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:30 pm

"A VOYAGE THROUGH RAGE, PLEASURE, AND TRANSCENDENCE

JURISPRUDENCE

Trump Kept the Quiet Part Quiet About Amy Coney Barrett

The president introduced his Supreme Court pick—but stayed mum about the real reason he needs her.

By DAHLIA LITHWICK

SEPT 26, 20207:48 PM



He didn’t have to say it out loud.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

President Donald Trump nominated federal appeals court judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat on Saturday in Washington, where—as Barrett noted in her remarks—flags around the capital still fly at half-mast, because Ginsburg has not yet been buried.



The reason the plan to fill Ginsburg’s seat was announced the same night as her death was never a mystery: The president explained several times over the last week that the new justice’s nomination and confirmation needed to happen in the same amount of time Barack Obama allowed the nation to mourn before even naming a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 because Trump needs her to weigh in on any election-related controversy on his behalf. As he put it to reporters on Monday: “We need nine justices,” he said. “You need that. With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending.” He explained that because of his (farcical, proofless) claim that mail-in ballots will be a source of rampant fraud, this ninth justice must be seated before an election challenge is mounted. That pronouncement came just prior to his claim that he could not commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election. Again: The reason a ninth justice is needed to be seated in advance of the election in which voting is already taking place is to decide whatever lawsuit is coming in his favor. Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, on Saturday Trump did not overtly ask Barrett to rule in his favor next month while detailing her biography on the White House lawn.

Trump has similarly announced on multiple occasions that he needs this vacant seat filled because Roe v. Wade cannot be allowed to stand and that any nominee of his would “automatically” overturn it. Indeed, several GOP senators are on the record saying they would refuse to vote for Judge Barrett unless she openly promises to do so. It’s a problem. A Pew poll from last year found that seven in 10 oppose seeing Roe overturned. Other polls suggest the margins are far higher. Barrett has written about her belief that stare decisis need not constrain judicial decision-making. It is thus unsurprising that Trump also did not bring up his promises about overturning Roe as he introduced Barrett in the Rose Garden.

Trump has also explicitly said that he wants the Supreme Court to overturn the Affordable Care Act and its protections for patients with preexisting conditions, which his Justice Department will actually argue in a case to be heard immediately in the wake of the election. If Barrett agrees with him, as many as 25 million people will lose their health insurance in the midst of a pandemic that is—if science is to be believed—not under control. Barrett wrote very critically of John Roberts’ vote upholding the ACA in 2012, saying in 2017 “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.” Polling from before the pandemic revealed that 55 percent of Americans support the ACA. So it is also unsurprising that nobody mentioned ending health care during the ceremony, either.

In her own remarks, Barrett said nothing objectionable, and her celebration of Ginsburg as someone who unfailingly worked across the aisle was deeply affecting. But working across the aisle is no longer fashionable, and this same Judge Barrett argued in 2016 that Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court was somehow to be viewed through the lens of raw partisan power: “We’re talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the court. It’s not a lateral move.” But the fact that the voters should be allowed to select the nominee in 2016, and the voters—many of whom have already cast ballots—should not be allowed to select the nominee in 2020 (despite polls showing that most voters do not want a justice seated before the election) is also something that nobody mentioned in the Rose Garden either. It would seem that “dramatically flipping the balance of power at the court” is just different when Republicans do it.



Trump forget to mention, in his tribute to an “independent judiciary” on Saturday, that he has devoted his presidency to bullying and insulting any judge who has ruled independently from him, and also that it’s very hard to say that your judicial nominee is independent when you have already tied her to striking down reproductive rights and access to affordable health care and to interceding in your upcoming vote-fraud claims in any election litigation. He did mention three other areas in which Barrett will support his view of constitutional freedom: broader gun rights, broader religious liberty rights, and a commitment to greater “public safety.” On these promises too, the judge’s record is clear.

The reason the president forgot to mention that (a) his judges cannot be permitted to be independent; and (b) that his judges tend to be wildly out of step with public opinion on so many of the topics he holds dear is that it would highlight what minority rule looks like, and why he cannot, in fact “let the people” decide with their votes in his upcoming election. A court determined to impose minority rule is in fact the playbook. It benefits big business, it benefits secret donors with considerable war chests, it benefits white supremacy, and it benefits Trump’s trailing electoral campaign. Quite simply, locking in the power of a minority through the courts is the political project of Trump and the Republican Senators who are equally eager to jam this nominee through before the election.

As has been noted many times over this past week, the GOP has lost the popular vote in six of the last seven elections and yet appointed 15 out of the last 19 justices. Barrett would make that 16 out of 20 seats. And that is why the people most assuredly cannot be allowed to decide the future of reproductive freedom, the future of health care, or even whether and how their own ballots will be counted in just over a month. Trump cannot talk about those things because they will further harm his own polling and will also reflect badly on GOP senators who pledged to vote for the nominee before they even knew whom she would be. They cannot talk about those things because minority rule doesn’t poll as well in the U.S. as it does in, say, Hungary or medieval France. But minority rule is on the ballot. It may well be the only thing on the ballot. Because if, as the president promises, his independent justice needs to be seated to decide whose ballots count, this isn’t merely a commitment to entrench unpopular, dangerous, and partisan policies into constitutional law. It’s also a commitment to commandeering the high court itself into deciding whether and how to count votes, in an election in which a sitting president has already pledged that only some voters will be allowed to pick the winner. "

 






Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company.
All contents © 2020 The Slate Group LLC. All rights reserved.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - is Trump crazy?

Postby Meno_ » Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:05 am

Psychiatric evaluations- credible? Or a manageable genius more fitting?



https://youtu.be/0B4nS1-ScYw
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage - legal problems after election l

Postby Meno_ » Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:37 am

https://youtu.be/BrQ-AzEheuM



>>>>>>>> >>>>>>


https://youtu.be/Fr3hhrpFULc



Say what? ( even after 4 years)
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Previous

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users