Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones
It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same.
that I do not agree with. Actually that bolder part is a false statement.The rules are written and have been applicable for a long time. The fact is McConnell changed them . Every Justice was subject to the 60 vote test since 1805, except the 3 nominated by trump. Changing the rules to only benefit yourself but to punish the other side is not playing by the rules.
If the Dodgers were to “buy” the commissioners office, and change the strikeout rule to 2 strikes for opponents of teams in LA and beginning with the letter D and then go on to win the World Series, would everyone agree the Dodgers are “playing by the rules?”
he was allowed to change the rules. hence, he's playing by them.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,718
Biden
Got this bulk email from Move On this morning:
Brian,
Let me be clear about what's at stake with the deadline facing Joe and Kamala tomorrow night:
This is the last public fundraising deadline of this entire campaign.
Once it passes, Joe and Kamala will have to reveal how much they've
raised, and the whole world will see whether they have the resources
they need to finish the race strong, or whether Donald Trump and the
wealthy Super PACs that support him can drown out our message in the
final weeks before Election Day.
I can tell you from experience, Brian, the pressure to meet
this deadline is real. It matters. And the truth is, Joe and Kamala
cannot meet their goal without more help from grassroots supporters like
you.
Brian, I don't have to tell you how important it is that we elect Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris. The future of our democracy hangs in the
balance.
I believe in Joe and Kamala's ability to lead our country out of
these dark times and build it back better, and I know that you do too.
But they cannot do this alone.
Their campaign—and our future—relies on people like you and me
embracing our responsibility as citizens and pouring all of our effort
into these last 21 days before Election Day.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We all need to do more to help Joe and Kamala win this thing. And,
Brian, the best way to help today is by chipping in $10 or whatever you
can afford, and making sure the campaign hits its goal before
tomorrow's public fundraising deadline.
So I sent $100 to the Biden campaign while I could. We normally use our tithing money to support environmental work, but this years election is HUGELY important, so we coughed up the bucks for Biden/Harris. Perhaps others here might consider doing the same here:
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones
It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same.
that I do not agree with. Actually that bolder part is a false statement.The rules are written and have been applicable for a long time. The fact is McConnell changed them . Every Justice was subject to the 60 vote test since 1805, except the 3 nominated by trump. Changing the rules to only benefit yourself but to punish the other side is not playing by the rules.
If the Dodgers were to “buy” the commissioners office, and change the strikeout rule to 2 strikes for opponents of teams in LA and beginning with the letter D and then go on to win the World Series, would everyone agree the Dodgers are “playing by the rules?”
he was allowed to change the rules. hence, he's playing by them.
I’m not sure that logic recognizes the purpose of rules. The rules are designed to maintain order and the rights of everybody, Including the minority. Without them (or constantly changing or manipulating them) a democratic and free society can not exist. It is what authoritarians do.
Did democrats allow the republicans this power when they set rules for the Supreme Court ? Yes. But why? Because it’s their expectation the rules will be apply to both sides. And giving the minority power brings moderate views to the process. Denying it rewards extremism. They allowed McConnell to use it at the appellate level more times than it had been previously used in the history of the senate. Now McConnell has taken that power away for the highest court. When the Dems responded by changing it at the lower level, the check was the Supreme Court. Changing it at the SC level like mcconell has , provides no checks nor balances.
If it were just this one rule one time, you might have a point. But it’s hundreds of rules hundreds of times being changed or broken, whether it’s putting blacks into one CD so they only have one congressman in the state, or closing all voting places within a 45 minute drive, or benefiting from the 41 Senator vote rule for 215 years then changing it when it’s expedient or willing to keep a Court seat empty for five years because we hate Obama and Clinton
Its led to a degradation of leadership and society. It’s part of the reason for our polarization. The minority party, and minority races, have no rights in that logic.
Now the Dems have no choice but to fight fire with fire. Do I really want 104 senators and 15 Supreme Court justices? Not really. But when one side always changes rules it’s hardly a govt by the people for the people if the other side doesn’t fight back.
Third “stolen” seat? Don’t be stupid. Heck it’s not even 2. Only 1, either the Obama vacancy they wouldn’t fill or this one is “stolen” at all.
But this is was many activist kind tend to do. Take something to some crazy Nth degree. Much like the alt right conspiracy nuts.
RBG said she would have retired had there not been a filibuster and Obama would have been allowed to seat her replacement without being blocked by 41 republicans.
The republicans have enjoyed the power to stop any democratic Court nominee with 41 votes for the entire duration of the existence of the Republican Party. Democrats of the last 4 years do not have this power, for the first time in 215 years.
Had the rules been applied evenly to both parties, both RBG and Scalia's seat would have been replaced by democrats.
Two seats stolen.
Two.
unfortunately, blame the constitution. was it illegal? nope. was it unethical? arguable. but the republicans did what they were allowed to do under the law.
zero seats were stolen.
it sucks when it isn't "our/your" side, but it doesn't mean anyone did anything illegal. mitch mcconell is a rat. but he's smart, and he has no qualms about doing anything under the sun that he's legally allowed to do to tip the scales to the red.
if democrats stack the court, will you call those new seats stolen? or will you justify it because "well the republicans did it first"?
I definitely agree, but the context was Cincy’s comment; in fact it is a manipulation of rules so each side plays by different ones
It’s possible the country is about to drastically change, possibly 52 states, 104 senators and 12 or more court justices. I am all for that. But the need for that is a result of the mass manipulations we have seen the past ten years.
Which is necessitated by one side always changing the rules to gain unfair advantage, whether it be manipulating voting rights, closing polling places, redrawing congressional districts so the Dems are all in only one of them, using the filibuster to block a pick then deny its use to the other side. Whether we call all that “theft” or something else, perhaps you have a better word. Manipulation? Lack of order?
But the Dems problem is they try to play by “the rules” while republicans slash and burn them to their benefit. Let’s hope the Dems are willing to join this game and fight fire with fire.
let's get the verbiage right though. republicans are playing by the rules. they haven't broken any of them. there are simply "unwritten" rules that everyone seemed to agree to play by in the past. and republicans have stopped doing that. democrats needs to step up and start the same.
that I do not agree with. Actually that bolder part is a false statement.The rules are written and have been applicable for a long time. The fact is McConnell changed them . Every Justice was subject to the 60 vote test since 1805, except the 3 nominated by trump. Changing the rules to only benefit yourself but to punish the other side is not playing by the rules.
If the Dodgers were to “buy” the commissioners office, and change the strikeout rule to 2 strikes for opponents of teams in LA and beginning with the letter D and then go on to win the World Series, would everyone agree the Dodgers are “playing by the rules?”
he was allowed to change the rules. hence, he's playing by them.
I’m not sure that logic recognizes the purpose of rules. The rules are designed to maintain order and the rights of everybody, Including the minority. Without them (or constantly changing or manipulating them) a democratic and free society can not exist. It is what authoritarians do.
Did democrats allow the republicans this power when they set rules for the Supreme Court ? Yes. But why? Because it’s their expectation the rules will be apply to both sides. And giving the minority power brings moderate views to the process. Denying it rewards extremism. They allowed McConnell to use it at the appellate level more times than it had been previously used in the history of the senate. Now McConnell has taken that power away for the highest court. When the Dems responded by changing it at the lower level, the check was the Supreme Court. Changing it at the SC level like mcconell has , provides no checks nor balances.
If it were just this one rule one time, you might have a point. But it’s hundreds of rules hundreds of times being changed or broken, whether it’s putting blacks into one CD so they only have one congressman in the state, or closing all voting places within a 45 minute drive, or benefiting from the 41 Senator vote rule for 215 years then changing it when it’s expedient or willing to keep a Court seat empty for five years because we hate Obama and Clinton
Its led to a degradation of leadership and society. It’s part of the reason for our polarization. The minority party, and minority races, have no rights in that logic.
Now the Dems have no choice but to fight fire with fire. Do I really want 104 senators and 15 Supreme Court justices? Not really. But when one side always changes rules it’s hardly a govt by the people for the people if the other side doesn’t fight back.
democrats should absolutely fight back. it's their right. it's time to stop assuming everyone will play by the unwritten rules. I sincerely hope dems take back the senate, and then we can all listen to mcconel bitch and moan and whine and cry for at least two years while dems railroad everything he tries to do.
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40. In theory he's more well-liked now. That's disturbing. Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now). Now? After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.
except its not half of Americans. he garnered what 60 million votes in 16? has lost a fair amount of supporters.
60 million in a nation of 320 million is far short of half.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40. In theory he's more well-liked now. That's disturbing. Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now). Now? After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.
except its not half of Americans. he garnered what 60 million votes in 16? has lost a fair amount of supporters.
60 million in a nation of 320 million is far short of half.....
he doesnt even have half of eligible voters......
i don't understand where people keep getting this "half of america" nonsense.
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40. In theory he's more well-liked now. That's disturbing. Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now). Now? After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.
except its not half of Americans. he garnered what 60 million votes in 16? has lost a fair amount of supporters.
60 million in a nation of 320 million is far short of half.....
he doesnt even have half of eligible voters......
i don't understand where people keep getting this "half of america" nonsense.
because he garned a little less than half of the votes cast... so lazy math says half the country.....
GOP registered voters comprise about 25% of the electorate, give or take.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,774
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,774
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
National Lead: At this point in 2016, Clinton's lead over Trump was just 6 pts, at only 46%. Biden is up over the highly desired 50% mark at 52% compared to 42% for Trump
So that means at this point in 2016, Trump was at 40. In theory he's more well-liked now. That's disturbing. Four years ago, I knew he was unqualified and completely nuts. But I kinda get why people wanted to roll the dice on him (I mean, I thought it was crazy, but we didn't know nearly what we know now). Now? After the last four years, he's holding steady; well liked by nearly half of Americans. That's amazing and depressing.
except its not half of Americans. he garnered what 60 million votes in 16? has lost a fair amount of supporters.
60 million in a nation of 320 million is far short of half.....
he doesnt even have half of eligible voters......
i don't understand where people keep getting this "half of america" nonsense.
because he garned a little less than half of the votes cast... so lazy math says half the country.....
GOP registered voters comprise about 25% of the electorate, give or take.....
I know. i just don't get why it gets propagated so much.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,279
Biden
How the fuck do dueling townhalls benefit anyone but the trailing campaign? What kind of sense does this make?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,774
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
How the fuck do dueling townhalls benefit anyone but the trailing campaign? What kind of sense does this make?
To be fair, Biden scheduled his last week as soon as Trump was whining about the virtual debates. Trump scheduled his yesterday. I don't see Biden pulling the plug now.
How the fuck do dueling townhalls benefit anyone but the trailing campaign? What kind of sense does this make?
To be fair, Biden scheduled his last week as soon as Trump was whining about the virtual debates. Trump scheduled his yesterday. I don't see Biden pulling the plug now.
It is bullshit. Yeah he can't pull out. Why the fuck didn't NBC just start theirs at 9:30? Or do it tonight instead of tomorrow?
So I sent $100 to the Biden campaign while I could. We normally use our tithing money to support environmental work, but this years election is HUGELY important, so we coughed up the bucks for Biden/Harris. Perhaps others here might consider doing the same here:
I know people think giving money to candidates is some kind of sham, but it really is the best and most efficient way to make an impact. We've moved all of our donations from non-profits over to candidates for the most part. If I want what I want done then I've got to put that money into the hands of the people I believe will enact legislation so the non-profits can actually do the work. Without the right candidates then the work will never be substantial - especially now that donating to 501c3's is basically worthless from a tax perspective.
NBC is the network that told millions of people that Trump was a billionaire business genius every week for years.
NBC's job is to sell ad spots. I don't blame them for what they're doing. I think Trump will draw more audiences because people like to see a train wreck. He can't stop being himself for long periods of time. The only time he doesnt' seem unhinged is when he (poorly) reads a speech.
NBC is the network that told millions of people that Trump was a billionaire business genius every week for years.
NBC's job is to sell ad spots. I don't blame them for what they're doing. I think Trump will draw more audiences because people like to see a train wreck. He can't stop being himself for long periods of time. The only time he doesnt' seem unhinged is when he (poorly) reads a speech.
Oh good, then he can point to his higher ratings than Biden's. Hell, if Biden wins, people will probably point to these ratings as evidence it was rigged.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,279
NBC is the network that told millions of people that Trump was a billionaire business genius every week for years.
NBC's job is to sell ad spots. I don't blame them for what they're doing. I think Trump will draw more audiences because people like to see a train wreck. He can't stop being himself for long periods of time. The only time he doesnt' seem unhinged is when he (poorly) reads a speech.
Oh good, then he can point to his higher ratings than Biden's. Hell, if Biden wins, people will probably point to these ratings as evidence it was rigged.
Yeah that is exactly what he will do. Since it's NBC it will also be on MSNBC and CNBC so there is literally no way for the ratings not to be higher.
Above all else, it is a disservice to the voters.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,718
So I sent $100 to the Biden campaign while I could. We normally use our tithing money to support environmental work, but this years election is HUGELY important, so we coughed up the bucks for Biden/Harris. Perhaps others here might consider doing the same here:
I know people think giving money to candidates is some kind of sham, but it really is the best and most efficient way to make an impact. We've moved all of our donations from non-profits over to candidates for the most part. If I want what I want done then I've got to put that money into the hands of the people I believe will enact legislation so the non-profits can actually do the work. Without the right candidates then the work will never be substantial - especially now that donating to 501c3's is basically worthless from a tax perspective.
Good work.
I half way agree and fully respect what you're saying. Helping candidates win that are more likely to pass useful legislation is very important.
As much as economic and social issues are important, my biggest concerns are environmental. Because of that, I support organizations that actively work to protect environment. For example, I used to support Greenpeace but now give to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society instead. This difference between the two is that Greenpeace actively protests the killing of whales, ocean mammal, and endangered sea species whereas Sea Shepherds actively protect those species. I've dropped support for groups that merely protest, and support those that actually do the work- groups like Sea Shepherds, Wildlands Network, and Natural Resources Defense Council.
But this year, I have to give money to the Biden campaign. I don't feel highly confident that he will be as active in supporting environment as I would like, but I do believe Trump must hate this planet and his actions are harmful to the earth. Assuming Biden wins, after this election, I will resume my seldom giving money to politicians, and continue to use most of my tithing money to support those environmental organizations that defend the planet. Democrats are generally more helpful toward environment than republicans, but from what I have seen, they are also generally rather weak on environment. We're running out of time and politicians have been dragging their feet far too long on those issues.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
So I sent $100 to the Biden campaign while I could. We normally use our tithing money to support environmental work, but this years election is HUGELY important, so we coughed up the bucks for Biden/Harris. Perhaps others here might consider doing the same here:
I know people think giving money to candidates is some kind of sham, but it really is the best and most efficient way to make an impact. We've moved all of our donations from non-profits over to candidates for the most part. If I want what I want done then I've got to put that money into the hands of the people I believe will enact legislation so the non-profits can actually do the work. Without the right candidates then the work will never be substantial - especially now that donating to 501c3's is basically worthless from a tax perspective.
Good work.
I half way agree and fully respect what you're saying. Helping candidates win that are more likely to pass useful legislation is very important.
As much as economic and social issues are important, my biggest concerns are environmental. Because of that, I support organizations that actively work to protect environment. For example, I used to support Greenpeace but now give to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society instead. This difference between the two is that Greenpeace actively protests the killing of whales, ocean mammal, and endangered sea species whereas Sea Shepherds actively protect those species. I've dropped support for groups that merely protest, and support those that actually do the work- groups like Sea Shepherds, Wildlands Network, and Natural Resources Defense Council.
But this year, I have to give money to the Biden campaign. I don't feel highly confident that he will be as active in supporting environment as I would like, but I do believe Trump must hate this planet and his actions are harmful to the earth. Assuming Biden wins, after this election, I will resume my seldom giving money to politicians, and continue to use most of my tithing money to support those environmental organizations that defend the planet. Democrats are generally more helpful toward environment than republicans, but from what I have seen, they are also generally rather weak on environment. We're running out of time and politicians have been dragging their feet far too long on those issues.
Yeah so I think we agree but are saying it in different ways. My personal opinion is if people gave money locally to candidates (locally) that are pro-environment/pro-whatever you may believe we'd have a lot less problems locally, and therefore less problems nationally. Voting locally, donating locally is where it all starts for me. Get a state house in your favor, and keep pushing - legislators that believe in your causes will make the work more easily attainable. My dollars go so much further giving to my local state rep/senator every year than to a presidential nominee every four years. Not to say that doesn't matter, but it all starts at the local, grassroots level which will undoubtedly make its way to the very top with consistent involvement. It's not a coincidence that major oil companies, corporations, the wealthy, etc etc give money to candidates across the board. I'm just trying to do my little part in trying to take that back.
At the same time, though, I am proactively contributing money to candidates in House & US Senate races where there's a chance of moving the needle blue (AK, IA, NC, SC, AZ, MT, ME), along with giving to turnpablue.org/swingleft.org/pastandsup.org so that my dollars will help tilt the house here where I live.
What was that about not having a scapegoat and America's march toward authoritarianism, again?
Videos show closed-door sessions of leading conservative activists: ‘Be not afraid of the accusations that you’re a voter suppressor’
As the presidential campaign entered its final stages, a fresh-faced Republican activist named Charlie Kirk stepped into the spotlight at a closed-door gathering of leading conservatives and shared his delight about an impact of the coronavirus pandemic: the disruption of America’s universities. So many campuses had closed, he said, that up to a half-million left-leaning students probably would not vote.
“So, please keep the campuses closed,” Kirk, 26, said in August as the audience cheered, according to video of the event obtained by The Washington Post. “Like, it’s a great thing.”
The gathering in Northern Virginia was organized by the Council for National Policy, a little-known group that has served for decades as a hub for a nationwide network of conservative activists and the donors who support them. Members include Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Leonard Leo, an outside adviser to President Trump who has helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors to support conservative causes and the nominations of conservative federal judges.
Videos provided to The Post — covering dozens of hours of CNP meetings over three days in February and three in August — offer an inside view of participants’ obsessions and fears at a pivotal moment in the conservative movement. The videos, recorded by CNP to share with its members, show influential activists discussing election tactics, amplifying conspiracy theories and describing much of America in dark and apocalyptic terms.
“This is a spiritual battle we are in. This is good versus evil,” CNP’s executive committee president, Bill Walton, said on Aug. 21, addressing attendees at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City. “We have to do everything we can to win.”
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told attendees that same day that the left is “war-gaming” a plan to delay the election tally until Jan. 20, 2021, and enable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to become acting president. “This is kind of like crazy talk” among political people, Fitton said. But he added: “This is not an insignificant concern.”
Expressing concern about voter fraud and disenfranchisement, Fitton called on the audience to find a way to prevent mail-in ballots from being sent to voters. “We need to stop those ballots from going out, and I want the lawyers here to tell us what to do,” said Fitton, whose organization is a tax-exempt charity. “But this is a crisis that we’re not prepared for. I mean, our side is not prepared for.”
In an interview with The Post, Fitton elaborated on his remarks. “The left has war-gamed this out,” Fitton said. “And it could cause civil war.”
Brent Bozell, a CNP executive committee member and founder of the Media Research Center, another tax-exempt charity, told attendees at one of the August sessions that he believes the left plans to “steal this election.”
“And if they get away with that, what happens?” he said. “Democracy is finished because they usher in totalitarianism.”
Bozell did not respond to messages seeking comment.
At the February meetings, attendees discussed plans for seeking an advantage in the upcoming vote. Two said the right will begin “ballot harvesting,” a controversial technique that involves the collection and delivery of sealed absentee ballots from churches and other institutions.
At the time of the meeting, Trump, his campaign officials and other Republicans were blasting the practice as an abuse by Democrats. “GET RID OF BALLOT HARVESTING, IT IS RAMPANT WITH FRAUD,” Trump tweeted this spring.
But Ralph Reed, chairman of the nonprofit Faith & Freedom Coalition, told the CNP audience that conservatives are embracing the technique this year.
“And so our organization is going to be harvesting ballots in churches,” he said. “We’re going to be specifically going in not only to White evangelical churches, but into Hispanic and Asian churches, and collecting those ballots.”
Reed did not respond to requests for comment.
J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department official and the president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a charity, described mail-in voting as “the number one left-wing agenda.”
Adams urged the activists not to worry about the criticism that might come their way. “Be not afraid of the accusations that you’re a voter suppressor, you’re a racist and so forth,” Adams said.
In response to questions, Adams wrote in an email: “I stand by what I said because it is accurate.”
The partisan commentary and election-related discussions captured on the videos involved members of an array of nonprofit organizations, including tax-exempt charities. In exchange for the right to accept tax-exempt donations, charities are prohibited from actively supporting political candidates or working in coordination on candidates’ behalf.
Such laws are rarely enforced, in part because of murkiness about what constitutes a violation, and because of the complex interactions between some charities and nonprofits known as “social welfare” groups, tax specialists said. Social welfare groups are permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but must devote less than half of their resources to political activity. An individual may serve as a leader of both a charity and an affiliated social welfare group.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
Brian,
Let me be clear about what's at stake with the deadline facing Joe and Kamala tomorrow night:
This is the last public fundraising deadline of this entire campaign. Once it passes, Joe and Kamala will have to reveal how much they've raised, and the whole world will see whether they have the resources they need to finish the race strong, or whether Donald Trump and the wealthy Super PACs that support him can drown out our message in the final weeks before Election Day.
I can tell you from experience, Brian, the pressure to meet this deadline is real. It matters. And the truth is, Joe and Kamala cannot meet their goal without more help from grassroots supporters like you.
So I'm asking you directly: Please, make your $10 donation right now, and help Joe and Kamala raise the money they still need from California before midnight tomorrow.
Brian, I don't have to tell you how important it is that we elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The future of our democracy hangs in the balance.
I believe in Joe and Kamala's ability to lead our country out of these dark times and build it back better, and I know that you do too. But they cannot do this alone.
Their campaign—and our future—relies on people like you and me embracing our responsibility as citizens and pouring all of our effort into these last 21 days before Election Day.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We all need to do more to help Joe and Kamala win this thing. And, Brian, the best way to help today is by chipping in $10 or whatever you can afford, and making sure the campaign hits its goal before tomorrow's public fundraising deadline.
So, Brian, if you've been waiting to make your donation to Joe and Kamala's campaign, now is the time: Please, chip in $10 or whatever you can afford today.
Thank you—for everything that you do.
–Barack ObamaIf it were just this one rule one time, you might have a point. But it’s hundreds of rules hundreds of times being changed or broken, whether it’s putting blacks into one CD so they only have one congressman in the state, or closing all voting places within a 45 minute drive, or benefiting from the 41 Senator vote rule for 215 years then changing it when it’s expedient or willing to keep a Court seat empty for five years because we hate Obama and Clinton
Its led to a degradation of leadership and society. It’s part of the reason for our polarization. The minority party, and minority races, have no rights in that logic.
www.headstonesband.com
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/520846-cunningham-holds-lead-over-tillis-in-poll-after-news-of-affair-poll
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
ratings...... so nbc having had the prior relationship via the apprentice is looking for ad sales from trumps supporters watching.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Good work.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Above all else, it is a disservice to the voters.
At the same time, though, I am proactively contributing money to candidates in House & US Senate races where there's a chance of moving the needle blue (AK, IA, NC, SC, AZ, MT, ME), along with giving to turnpablue.org/swingleft.org/pastandsup.org so that my dollars will help tilt the house here where I live.
What was that about not having a scapegoat and America's march toward authoritarianism, again?
Videos show closed-door sessions of leading conservative activists: ‘Be not afraid of the accusations that you’re a voter suppressor’
As the presidential campaign entered its final stages, a fresh-faced Republican activist named Charlie Kirk stepped into the spotlight at a closed-door gathering of leading conservatives and shared his delight about an impact of the coronavirus pandemic: the disruption of America’s universities. So many campuses had closed, he said, that up to a half-million left-leaning students probably would not vote.
“So, please keep the campuses closed,” Kirk, 26, said in August as the audience cheered, according to video of the event obtained by The Washington Post. “Like, it’s a great thing.”
The gathering in Northern Virginia was organized by the Council for National Policy, a little-known group that has served for decades as a hub for a nationwide network of conservative activists and the donors who support them. Members include Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Leonard Leo, an outside adviser to President Trump who has helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors to support conservative causes and the nominations of conservative federal judges.
Videos provided to The Post — covering dozens of hours of CNP meetings over three days in February and three in August — offer an inside view of participants’ obsessions and fears at a pivotal moment in the conservative movement. The videos, recorded by CNP to share with its members, show influential activists discussing election tactics, amplifying conspiracy theories and describing much of America in dark and apocalyptic terms.
“This is a spiritual battle we are in. This is good versus evil,” CNP’s executive committee president, Bill Walton, said on Aug. 21, addressing attendees at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City. “We have to do everything we can to win.”
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told attendees that same day that the left is “war-gaming” a plan to delay the election tally until Jan. 20, 2021, and enable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to become acting president. “This is kind of like crazy talk” among political people, Fitton said. But he added: “This is not an insignificant concern.”
Expressing concern about voter fraud and disenfranchisement, Fitton called on the audience to find a way to prevent mail-in ballots from being sent to voters. “We need to stop those ballots from going out, and I want the lawyers here to tell us what to do,” said Fitton, whose organization is a tax-exempt charity. “But this is a crisis that we’re not prepared for. I mean, our side is not prepared for.”
In an interview with The Post, Fitton elaborated on his remarks. “The left has war-gamed this out,” Fitton said. “And it could cause civil war.”
Brent Bozell, a CNP executive committee member and founder of the Media Research Center, another tax-exempt charity, told attendees at one of the August sessions that he believes the left plans to “steal this election.”
“And if they get away with that, what happens?” he said. “Democracy is finished because they usher in totalitarianism.”
Bozell did not respond to messages seeking comment.
At the February meetings, attendees discussed plans for seeking an advantage in the upcoming vote. Two said the right will begin “ballot harvesting,” a controversial technique that involves the collection and delivery of sealed absentee ballots from churches and other institutions.
At the time of the meeting, Trump, his campaign officials and other Republicans were blasting the practice as an abuse by Democrats. “GET RID OF BALLOT HARVESTING, IT IS RAMPANT WITH FRAUD,” Trump tweeted this spring.
But Ralph Reed, chairman of the nonprofit Faith & Freedom Coalition, told the CNP audience that conservatives are embracing the technique this year.
“And so our organization is going to be harvesting ballots in churches,” he said. “We’re going to be specifically going in not only to White evangelical churches, but into Hispanic and Asian churches, and collecting those ballots.”
Reed did not respond to requests for comment.
J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department official and the president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a charity, described mail-in voting as “the number one left-wing agenda.”
Adams urged the activists not to worry about the criticism that might come their way. “Be not afraid of the accusations that you’re a voter suppressor, you’re a racist and so forth,” Adams said.
In response to questions, Adams wrote in an email: “I stand by what I said because it is accurate.”
The partisan commentary and election-related discussions captured on the videos involved members of an array of nonprofit organizations, including tax-exempt charities. In exchange for the right to accept tax-exempt donations, charities are prohibited from actively supporting political candidates or working in coordination on candidates’ behalf.
Such laws are rarely enforced, in part because of murkiness about what constitutes a violation, and because of the complex interactions between some charities and nonprofits known as “social welfare” groups, tax specialists said. Social welfare groups are permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but must devote less than half of their resources to political activity. An individual may serve as a leader of both a charity and an affiliated social welfare group.
Continues;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/council-national-policy-video/2020/10/14/367f24c2-f793-11ea-a510-f57d8ce76e11_story.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©