Please be patient and understanding when interacting with others, and avoid getting frustrated or upset if someone does not respond to your posts or if a discussion does not go as you expected. Remember that everyone is entitled to express their own perspectives. Furthermore, even when you don't entirely agree, try to benefit in some way from it.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 4
John W. Dean @JohnWDean
Trump's latest federal indictment includes violation of 18 USC 241 ' conspiracy to violate rights. (Here the constitutional right to vote for Biden.) Ironically, this post-Civil War statute was used during Watergate to convict Nixon's top domestic policy adviser John Ehrlichman, plus Gordon Liddy, et al for a warrantless entry into a doctor's office looking for info to discredit Dan Ellsberg after he leaked national security information. The coverage of this criminal statute should make Trump shudder. With h/t to JWV see
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-ehrlichm...But take a look at intent in this paragraph:
"Dealing with the two arguments together, the court first concludes that the specific intent needed for a conviction under section 241
DOES NOT REQUIRE recognition by the defendant of the unlawfulness of his acts, but ONLY AN INTENT TO COMMIT ACTIONS which in fact deprive a citizen of constitutional rights which are firmly established and plainly applicable. (Op. at ___-___ of 178 U.S.App.D.C., at 919-923 of 546 F.2d). The court upholds the trial judge's ruling that the intrusion infringed Dr. Fielding's firmly established Fourth Amendment right, because the legal theory advanced to justify the warrantless search is clearly inapplicable. "
So this statute only requires that intent to commit the actions be proven, not that they understand they are unlawful and the belief that the election is stolen doesn't enter into it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
DOES NOT REQUIRE recognition by the defendant of the unlawfulness of his acts,
----------------------
However, it does require the act to be unlawful in the first place, which no matter how much you hate Trump does not make this given.
"You have a right to request your governments for a redress of a grievance, to correct some wrong. This can be in the form of petitioning your representatives or seeking redress in a court of law."
No. of Recommendations: 6
bighairymike: This can be in the form of petitioning your representatives or seeking redress in a court of law.
He went to court over 60 times and lost every lawsuit except for one meaningless legal action. And "petitioning your representatives" isn't forming a conspiracy to replace legitimate electors with fake electors, or attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, or obstructing an official proceeding to delay the electoral vote count to toss the election into the House of Representatives, or conspiring against voters rights.
Those are unlawful acts. And yes, it's a "given". What's necessary is evidence.
Did you happen to notice that Mark Meadows, the former president's chief of staff, was not indicted? You don't think he and others -- oh, like the former vice president, the former AG, and White House lawyers -- won't be providing evidence at trial?
You think the special counsel would indict a former president without rock solid, irrefutable evidence?
C'mon.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You think the special counsel would indict a former president without rock solid, irrefutable evidence?
----------------
Of course he would.
No. of Recommendations: 4
bighairymike: Of course he would.
Then why didn't he indict Trump for seditious conspiracy?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Of course he would.
And soon it'll be our turn. Game theory dictates that when someone screws you over you shaft them until they cry Uncle.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Then why didn't he indict Trump for seditious conspiracy? - CO
-------------------
Probably leaving some dry powder to use to divert the news cycle the next time some bad news about Biden come out. Shouldn't take long with the steady drip, drip, drip.
Trumps popularity jumps with each new outrageous indictment. Like Trump claims, he only needs 'one more indictment' to win 2024 election.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Game theory dictates that when someone screws you over you shaft them until they cry Uncle.
...and there's the disconnect. Trump has his cult stupidly believing it's a game.
No. of Recommendations: 5
bighairymike: Like Trump claims, he only needs 'one more indictment' to win 2024 election.
Trump claimed that a president under indictment would cause a constitutional crisis.
TRUMP: "We could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt."
Dope1: Game theory dictates that when someone screws you over you shaft them until they cry Uncle.
The party of law and order sure abandoned law and order mighty fast.
Lindsey Graham was right: 'If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.'
Trump has destroyed your ability to think rationally.
Pathetic in an amusing, karmic sort of way.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trump has destroyed your ability to think rationally. - CO
---------------------
No doubt this happens. Take a look in a mirror.
No. of Recommendations: 4
bighairymike: No doubt this happens. Take a look in a mirror.
Dope1: Again, let me know when the new programming gets uploaded. The current version seems to blue screen a lot.
I understand. You're addicted to Trump. And every addict needs to hit rock bottom to reach that simple yet striking moment of epiphany when he wants to shed his addiction.
Good luck.
No. of Recommendations: 1
...he wants to shed his addiction.
You seem to think there is a bottom to Trump cult madness?
No. of Recommendations: 3
However, it does require the act to be unlawful in the first place, which no matter how much you hate Trump does not make this given.
"You have a right to request your governments for a redress of a grievance, to correct some wrong. This can be in the form of petitioning your representatives or seeking redress in a court of law."
Someone thinks the bank owes them $50,000. The bank says no. So that someone robs the bank.
No matter what happened or happens, in any sequence of events, they still robbed the bank.
Trump robbed the bank. He has to pay for robbing the bank - no matter what his followers "feel".
No. of Recommendations: 1
Trump robbed the bank. He has to pay for robbing the bank. - Lapsody
-------------------
OK, just what action did Trump take that you equate with robbing a bank? Does it come back to things he said or things he did? He did use his voice but that is not a physical action like robbing a bank.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So this statute only requires that intent to commit the actions be proven...
Hmmm. That's interesting. I read an analysis in the NYT that indicated that the prosecutor is going to have to prove his state of mind. And Trump has certainly given several statements (i.e. speeches/rants/interviews) that will make that easier, it's still a difficult hurdle to clear.
No. of Recommendations: 3
bighairymike: Does it come back to things he said or things he did? He did use his voice but that is not a physical action like robbing a bank.
The indictment is not complicated.
Trump entered into a criminal conspiracy to retain the presidency despite losing the election. That conspiracy to defraud the United States in the administration of elections under 18 USC 371 included fraudulent slates of electors in seven states and other alleged schemes.
Among those schemes, Trump and his co-conspirators pressured states to overturn the election on the basis of false claims of election fraud. They sought to have the Justice Department "conduct sham election crime investigations" and use its authority to announce the legitimacy of Trump's claims of election fraud. And they created actual slates of fake electors, including fraudulent certificates from dozens of Trump-supporting electors in seven states which described the signers listed as "duly elected."
After each of his schemes failed, Trump pressured his vice president to obstruct the constitutionally mandated congressional certification of the election Jan. 6, by either blocking Congress from recognizing Joe Biden's win or by delaying the vote count.
When Pence, who tried to find a way to comply with the former president's demands, said he could not do so Trump and his co-conspirators enlisted Members of Congress to further delay certification based on false claims of election fraud (such as senator Cruz's speech demanding a ten-day pause in order to return electors to the states for review).
In addition, Smith alleges Trump obstructed and conspired to obstruct an official proceeding of the United States government, under two different parts of 18 USC 1512, by conspiring to and interfering with the proper counting of the ballots Jan. 6.
So, no, the indictment does not address mere words spoken by Trump, "his voice".
Trump and his co-conspirators placed several schemes into action. The fact that they failed does not make them any less criminal.
No. of Recommendations: 2
onepoorguy: Hmmm. That's interesting. I read an analysis in the NYT that indicated that the prosecutor is going to have to prove his state of mind.
Gotta' link? That's a bad take. None of the statutes charged require a jury to determine his state of mind.
Criminal intent can be established by proving some, or all, of the following charges: Trump deceitfully attempted to get states to overturn the election results, the electoral certificates Trump utilized in his scheme were false, Trump attempted to leverage the Justice Department to use deceit to replace legitimate votes with Trump votes, Pence did not have the authority to override the electoral votes or pause the count of electors on Jan. 6, Trump exploited the violence and chaos at the Capitol on that day toward these ends, or that Trump intended to prevent the electoral votes of the American people from being counted correctly.
No. of Recommendations: 0
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/t...That's why this case seems likely to revolve around Trump's state of mind. The first page of the indictment, referring to his claims of election fraud, states, 'These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.' By contrast, Trump's defense lawyers are likely to argue that he truly believed he had won. By airing his honest views, the lawyers will explain, he was exercising his right to free speech, The Times's Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman write.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Trump and his co-conspirators placed several schemes into action. - CO
-------------------
How exactly? By speaking a bunch of words to various people. Still words.... and only words.... Where were the threats?, the coercion?, the actions?
And this so called conspiracy was conducted right out in the open in front of the courts, in front of the media, in front of the people for all to see and hear. A little secrecy usually accompanies a real plot to perpetrate a crime.
No. of Recommendations: 8
bighairymke: How exactly? By speaking a bunch of words to various people. Still words.... and only wordsHow exactly? By speaking a bunch of words to various people. Still words.... and only words...
What don't you understand about FAKE CERTIFICATES AND FAKE ELECTORS?
From the indictment:
The Defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes; cast fraudulent votes for the Defendant; and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. Some fraudulent electors were tricked into participating based on the understanding that their votes would be used only if the Defendant succeeded in outcome-determinative lawsuits within their state, which the Defendant never did. The Defendant and co-conspirators then caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.
Senator Ron Johnson carried those fake WI electors to the vice president who refused to accept them.
Here's an email of the conversation of the plan in Arizona:
I just talked to the gentleman who did that memo, [CoConspirator 5]. His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren't legal under federal law -- because they're not signed by the Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6". (They could potentially argue that they're not bound by federal law because they're Congress and make the law, etc.) Kind of wild/creative -- I'm happy to discuss. My comment to him was that I guess there's no harm in it, (legally at least) -- i.e. we would just be sending in "fake"
electoral votes to Pence so that "someone" in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the "fake" votes should be counted.
They conspired to send in fake certificates from fake electors with the intent of causing chaos in the House and delsying the certification of the duly elected president, Joe Biden.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I just talked to the gentleman who did that memo, [CoConspirator 5]. His idea is ...
===============
Expressing an idea is criminal?
No. of Recommendations: 13
bighairymike: Expressing an idea is criminal?
When carried out, yes. They assembled the fake electors who met in a room inside each state Capitol (where the real electors have to meet, by law), signed the fake certificates, and set about to deliver them to the vice president and other officials.
The prosecution has the signed fake certificates which falsely declare they are the true state electors (they are not). The fake electors in MI have been indicted by the state.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
No. of Recommendations: 4
How exactly? By speaking a bunch of words to various people.
Yes. Conspiracies are planned using words. Progress!
Next question?
And this so called conspiracy was conducted right out in the open in front of the courts
Nope. Not out in the open.
The 'bunch of words' that violate the laws were spoken in private, but people to whom he spoke those "bunch<es> of words" repeated those 'bunches of words' to others, so the "bunches of words" that came out of FatDons mouth became known to the Department of Justice. They matched that spoken "bunch of words" to a written 'bunch of words' in documents that describe the rules and regulations that are the basis of our system of government (big bunch of words there).
More progress!!
PS: The 2nd Amendment is only a bunch of written words.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Expressing an idea is criminal?
Nope. It's evidence. But.. when it can be demonstrated that the idea was executed it's evidence that the defendant knew what he was doing. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And, as has been discussed earlier, committing that crime on advice of counsel won't get Fat Don off the hook because other 'counselors' told FatDon that the idea, if executed, is illegal.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The 'bunch of words' that violate the laws were spoken in private, but people to whom he spoke those "bunch<es> of words" repeated those 'bunches of words' to others, so the "bunches of words" that came out of FatDons mouth became known to the Department of Justice. - sano
----------------
Consulting in private with your lawyers about avenues to address apparent election fraud is not criminal. When those lawyers file lawsuits in various venues to make those challenges, it is public and is not criminal to make those challenges, even if they ultimately are not successful. These are the bunches of words the Trump haters have decided are criminal and are going to have a hard time proving it. So far, the accusers have held the microphone, but when we get into actual litigation, the defense will have its turn.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And, as has been discussed earlier, committing that crime on advice of counsel won't get Fat Don off the hook because other 'counselors' told FatDon that the idea, if executed, is illegal. - sano
--------------------
So, when lawyers provide conflicting advice, the only advice that can legally be utilized is the advice expressing democrat approved opinions. LOL.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So you've bought into Trumpenspiel that the DoJ and people who want to see Trump brought to justice are haters ?
"Consulting in private with your lawyers about avenues to address apparent election fraud is not criminal."
Albaby explained in detail the circumstances in which it is criminal and the circumstances in which the attorney stupidly sticks his own derriere into the chopper on behalf of the criminal.
The explanation was lengthy and, clearly, quickly forgotten.
"when we get into actual litigation"
"What you mean 'we' kemo sabe?"
No. of Recommendations: 2
"the only advice that can legally be utilized is the advice expressing democrat approved opinions. LOL. "
No, kemo sabe. Dems and Reps, honest ones anyway, recognize it as attorney shopping. Trump's judge shopping ERA ain't so hot. He may as well try the 'advice of counsel' schtick. Anything to buy time to scam MAGAkult out of more money.
No. of Recommendations: 4
BHM: Trumps popularity jumps with each new outrageous indictment. Like Trump claims, he only needs 'one more indictment' to win 2024 election.
------------------------------------
Not so, take a look at 538, his unfavorability has increased. See 538 at link. Perhaps you meant nomination and not election? But you'll most likely read a blurb that only the independents are affected, there is very little change among the faithful. If there is a reckoning, it is not apparent. But that we get convictions is important for someone like me.
I want to see Trump convicted for his blatant criminality toward our voting system. I've questioned our voting system for some time. Is it rigged? Yes. One man, one vote is meaningless after viewing how the electoral college system works, but I could live with that. We rigged that system in the big states vs small states, and heavy population vs sparsely populated rural controversy in order to became a nation. Not to mention the 3/5 compromise for our aristocrat wannabes. But beyond that we have gerrymandering and voter suppression techniques that are constantly evolving to out maneuver the new legislative threats. So yes, both sides have gerrymandered, but Republicans have taken gerrymandering to dizzying heights, and Republicans have made voter suppression into an art form. A while back one of the Republican voter suppression researchers computers was opened by his wife after he died, and I was chilly impressed with the work he had done.
Why does the country look like it's going to hell now that I'm an old man? :)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorab...
No. of Recommendations: 8
bighairymike: Consulting in private with your lawyers about avenues to address apparent election fraud is not criminal.
There was no election fraud, apparent or otherwise.
His Attorney General told him there was no election fraud.
His vice president told him there was no election fraud.
His justice department told him there was no election fraud.
His director of the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agency told him the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. And Trump fired him.
Why do you keep circling back to what you believe were legal conversations -- here's a clue: there's nothing "private" or protected about conversations held while planning a crime (which is why his attorney-client privilege was pierced) -- while repeatedly ignoring the actions he took that were clearly illegal? Do you think by ignoring the illegal fake elector scheme, that one day ' like a miracle ' it will disappear?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Do you think by ignoring the illegal fake elector scheme, that one day ' like a miracle ' it will disappear?
--------------
Wiped clean, like with a cloth.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Me: So this statute only requires that intent to commit the actions be proven...
1pg: Hmmm. That's interesting. I read an analysis in the NYT that indicated that the prosecutor is going to have to prove his state of mind.
Do you see that this is incomplete? What state off mind are you thinking about? "The intent to commit the actions" is a state of mind. It has to be shown that he intended to enter into committing the actions, which includes a conspiratorial aspect. But that can be shown by meetings, witness testimony, and that a conspiracy did occur and was set into motion.
What I am saying is that Trump's belief system about rigged elections doesn't enter the picture to prove the charges. But juries are also persuaded by motive. It's part of legal/courtroom tactics is my understanding. So, why does Trump enter into this conspiracy? Is it because of a rational belief that the election was rigged? That the Presidency was stolen from him? No. He was told every step of the way he had legitimately lost the election, and at times verbally admitted he did. He began setting up the fraudulent election story early, before election day, because he saw he was going to lose. He carried it through and enlisted 99% of the Republican party to back the story - he had that much power. He was putting in a new AG to do his bidding, fraudulent electors, putting pressure on Mike Pence - either new electors, or the election gets thrown into the 12th Amendment, but none of that is necessary to show that he entered into a conspiracy to commit the actions.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trump robbed the bank. He has to pay for robbing the bank. - Lapsody
-------------------
OK, just what action did Trump take that you equate with robbing a bank?
Trump committed crime(s). Take your pick of the charges. He has to pay for them.
No. of Recommendations: 2
How exactly? By speaking a bunch of words to various people. Still words.... and only wordsHow exactly?
You mean commands? Choices made among competing criminal proposals on how he might retain his power by disregarding the laws, constitution, and electorate?
Mere words sentence people to death, ya know. Watch out for that Putin guy.
So the new AG was to concoct or declare proof of voter fraud and pressure that states. The top echelon of the AG office threatened to resign. Trump chose the new AG, based on his cooperation in the scheme. At some point there will be a movie on all this, should be three episodes or more.
People headed to the capital to create violence and chaos. One of the hopes was the chaos would thwart the initial counting under the 12th amendment and send it into the tie part, where the House of Representatives chooses -odd thinking because there was no tie. Pence got in the way.
All the different slates of electors. Remember the Supreme Court one?
Look at all the wheels that got set into motion.
So there were several - it would take a scholar to catalogue them all, and I take my hat off to commone one and Albaby, they are that capable.
I cannot keep track of all of them.
No. of Recommendations: 4
A key part of these laws is that they revolve around a person's intent. Intent is core to the notion of fraud: Only if somebody is knowingly trying to deceive others can he be committing a fraud. If he is spouting falsehoods that he genuinely believes, he isn't participating in an illegal conspiracy.
That's why this case seems likely to revolve around Trump's state of mind. The first page of the indictment, referring to his claims of election fraud, states, 'These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false.' By contrast, Trump's defense lawyers are likely to argue that he truly believed he had won. By airing his honest views, the lawyers will explain, he was exercising his right to free speech, The Times's Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman write.
IIRC the fraud in the case isn't the verbal claims, Jack Smith even said that in leading up to the charges, the fraud committed is false slates of electors being submitted as real electors to the US Government. There may be more frauds, but that is the main one. So we don't care what he believed (though a jury likes to know), we do care that his intent was to submit fraudulent electors. And also that he had the intent to cause the obstruction of the vote counting, and in so doing deprive people of the right to have there vote counted by substituting his fraudulent state of electors.
And these are layered in in four separate charges, designed as such that if one charge is lost on appeal, the other three should stick.
No. of Recommendations: 11
It is extremely sad and disheartening that Republicans have become willing to subvert democracy in order to keep the reins of power. It is not hard to see that Trump was willing to undertake this as this has been his business model all his life. But for thinking men and women, not the rabble that wear MAGA hats, but educated and professional men and women who took oaths to defend and protect the constitution, subvert the interpretation of said document for their own benefit, well, words fail me.
Patriotism and Citizenship no longer have real meaning.
fd, Capt, USAF (ret)
No. of Recommendations: 1
I am not defending Trump. In my simplistic opinion, he's a crook and should spend the rest of his life in prison. BUT...the legal system is very specific. He has to have had mens rea. I think we had a discussion about that on TMF with albaby and some others. Proving mens rea is a lot more difficult. I think that's what the Times article was saying.
In GA, it seems that will be easier ("find me 11000 votes"). But GA hasn't indicted yet, last I knew.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
I think he is. To make a conspiracy you have to talk to make a plan, which is sometimes very short, and set the plan into motion. Typically they like to see a step in furtherance of the conspiracy and the false electoral slates are precisely that - evidence that there was a conspiracy that went beyond the talking stage. The Jan 6 crowd was assembled to cause chaos (more evidence of furtherance of a plan beyond the talking stage). I notice Eastman is now saying that Trump read several scholarly articles on the Electoral College to bone up on the law. They've already got witnesses who talked to Eastman at the time and he knew his plan would fail. Why do lawyers do this? Don't know.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Patriotism and Citizenship no longer have real meaning.
fd, Capt, USAF (ret)
--------------------------
That does seem to be the case, eh? My father was an Army Doc, retired full bird Colonel, and my brother and I both did stints in the military, he got slightly better grades than I did. But he went MAGA and he's pro- DeSantis now. He got initial Covid shots but won't get boosters telling me I'm not getting good info. I didn't get an answer when I asked him if he's against all vaccines. I have no idea what he thinks about Trump now, and don't want to find out, because I'll be disappointed.
But the huge number of people who don't seem to care about what Trump did disappoints me more.
No. of Recommendations: 7
...extremely sad and disheartening that Republicans have become willing to subvert democracy in order to keep the reins of power
Agree with the above. The only thing I will add - and that makes it more depressing - is a thought experiment:
If in an alternative timeline TFG had ridden the escalator down to declare his candidacy as a D instead of an R (presumably while wearing a blue MAGA cap) - I see no empiric reason why the surviving D leadership would over the ensuing six years not have behaved in the same way that the R leadership has done.
It may be that Ds, as a group, are marginally less venal than Rs. But the love of power over years relentlessly selects the behavior we have seen.
Until late 2016, I hadn't considered that I could spend four solid years continually aghast.
/Debbie downer
The fact remains that the single most effective we can do is vote against the party that did, in fact, behave that way. And not just in federal elections, but in state, county, municipal-level elections. If the local party committee doesn't disavow this behavior, then they will not get my vote. In any election, for the foreseeable future
--sutton
bluish-purple state, purple county, red community.
No. of Recommendations: 6
sutton: I see no empiric reason why the surviving D leadership would over the ensuing six years not have behaved in the same way that the R leadership has done.
Really? Don't we have evidence to the contrary in senator Al Franken?
No. of Recommendations: 2
BUT...the legal system is very specific. He has to have had mens rea.
And I just told you what the mens rea was. Perhaps you misunderstood that the "intent to commit the crime (the actions)" is the mens rea? You seemed to think it was something different than that. Exactly what did you think the required mens rea was?
It has to be shown that Trump intended to enter into a conspiracy to commit the crimes (actions). His belief system about whether the election was fraudulent or not does not enter into the required mens rea.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I see no empiric reason why the surviving D leadership would over the ensuing six years not have behaved in the same way that the R leadership has done.
I don't think so.
It's true the D's have whackos on the far end of the left spectrum, but nothing like the R's do now. And the media the two sides consume are NOT comparable. No, I think you are wrong.
No. of Recommendations: 7
If in an alternative timeline TFG had ridden the escalator down to declare his candidacy as a D instead of an R (presumably while wearing a blue MAGA cap) - I see no empiric reason why the surviving D leadership would over the ensuing six years not have behaved in the same way that the R leadership has done.
It may be that Ds, as a group, are marginally less venal than Rs. But the love of power over years relentlessly selects the behavior we have seen.Since 1968 Democrat Admins have had 3 criminal indictments, 1 conviction, 1 prison sentence
Since 1968 Republican Admins Have had 120 criminal indictments, 89 convictions, 34 prison sentences
Dems tend not to have as corrupt admins as Republicans.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/11/1619079...https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/our...
No. of Recommendations: 2
This bears repeating:
Since 1968 Democrat Admins have had 3 criminal indictments, 1 conviction, 1 prison sentence
Since 1968 Republican Admins Have had 120 criminal indictments, 89 convictions, 34 prison sentences
Dems tend not to have as corrupt admins as Republicans.
No. of Recommendations: 1
This bears repeating:
Since 1968 Democrat Admins have had 3 criminal indictments, 1 conviction, 1 prison sentence
Since 1968 Republican Admins Have had 120 criminal indictments, 89 convictions, 34 prison sentences
Dems tend not to have as corrupt admins as Republicans. - ges
--------------------
Prosecutorial discretion has a liberal bias.
No. of Recommendations: 7
BHM, it is more likely that the Republican party has lost its way. They have been willing to twist and bend the rules for so long, to win elections., that there is no longer respect for this democracy.
Witness the Alabama legislature who refuse to redistrict at the direction of the Supreme Court, Trump's court.
No. of Recommendations: 1
fd, Capt, USAF (ret)
--------------------------
That does seem to be the case, eh? My father was an Army Doc...
What does that "fd" mean, and is this someone you're quoting or your own description?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Prosecutorial discretion has a liberal bias. What kind of crimes are you referring to?
Prison demographics show that white people are imprisoned at a far lower rate than people of color.
This is interesting with respect to 'white collar crimes.'
Reports I see online suggest that white collar criminals tend to be older, whiter, with job positions that give them access to substantial sums of money. Yet white collar crime criminals receive the most lenient sentencing. Sounds pretty conservative to me.
Demographic data
Among racial and ethnic groups, black persons had
the highest imprisonment rate in 2021 (1,186 per
100,000 adult black residents), followed by American
Indians and Alaska Natives (1,004 per 100,000);
Hispanics (619 per 100,00); white persons (222 per
100,000); and Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other
Pacific Islanders (90 per 100,000).
"More than 651,800 persons (62% of all state prisoners)
were serving sentences in state prison for a violent
offense at year end 2020, the most recent year for
which offense data were available.
Forty-seven percent (66,500) of all persons in federal prison were serving
time for a drug offense on September 30, 2021 (the
most recent date for which federal prison offense data
were available), and an additional 20% (28,500) of
persons sentenced to federal prison were serving a
sentence for a weapons offense." "75.2% of those who commit property crimes, embezzlement, counterfeiting, bribery, or fraud are White.
Which is notably higher than 60.1% of the population that identifies as White. In fact, the percentage for bribery, in particular, is a considerable 84.9%." https://www.zippia.com/advice/white-collar-crime-s...
No. of Recommendations: 2
What does that "fd" mean
flight doc
No. of Recommendations: 2
BHM, it is more likely that the Republican party has lost its way. They have been willing to twist and bend the rules for so long, to win elections., that there is no longer respect for this democracy.
Witness the Alabama legislature who refuse to redistrict at the direction of the Supreme Court, Trump's court.Player, please.
The democrat party today resembles NOTHING of say, the democrat party from JFK's day. Or Jimmy Carter's. Or even Bill Clinton's, for that matter.
And when you object to that statement, consider this:
How many democrats today would support partial privatization of Social Security? The answer is zero. But Bill Clinton did. (
https://www.cato.org/commentary/clinton-wanted-soc..., among others)
The democrat party used be somewhat rational on a host of issues: immigration. Energy policy. National defense.
Now? Heh.
As far as shenanigans go, let's not go there. I'm going to guess that you want Trump prosecuted for the classified documents but vociferously defended Hillary! and are defending Biden today. I'm also going to guess that you didn't have a problem when the Pennsylvania Secretary of State unilaterally rewrote the mail in ballot rules for the 2020 election.
Let's also not forget the legion of democrats who routinely lie to Congress and abuse their power but are NEVER call to account for it.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Dems tend not to have as corrupt admins as Republicans.Yes, a Republican Executive branch tends to violate the law. A Democrat Executive branch generally follows the law. The Legislative branch is more evenly split, with a similar number of R and D convicts. There are not many convictions (about 1 person per year), but enough to show U.S. federal politicians are sometimes held to account. The abuse of the pardon power has incited criminal behavior.
Convicts in the last 100 years:
party party party
D I R Total
Executive 2 1 29 32
Judicial 6 0 3 9
Legislative 46 0 35 81
Total 54 1 67 122
Period Convicts
1923'1929 (Coolidge) 2
1929'1933 (Hoover) 1
1933'1945 (Roosevelt) 4
1945'1953 (Truman) 4
1953'1961 (Eisenhower) 3
1961'1963 (Kennedy) 1
1963'1969 (Johnson) 2
1969'1974 (Nixon) 16
1974'1977 (Ford) 6
1977'1981 (Carter) 5
1981'1989 (Reagan) 22
1989'1993 (Bush) 8
1993'2001 (Clinton) 12
2001'2009 (Bush) 15
2009'2017 (Obama) 15
2017'2021 (Trump) 5
2021'present (Biden) 1
total 122
List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_fed... Period (President) Branch Party State Convict Crime
2021'present (Biden) Legislative R NE Jeff Fortenberry falsifying and concealing material facts and making false statements
2017'2021 (Trump) Legislative R CA Duncan D. Hunter misuse of campaign funds
2017'2021 (Trump) Legislative R NY Chris Collins insider trading
2017'2021 (Trump) Legislative R TX Steve Stockman fraud
2017'2021 (Trump) Executive R Steve Bannon Contempt of Congress
2017'2021 (Trump) Executive R Michael Flynn lying to the FBI
2009'2017 (Obama) Judicial R Mark E. Fuller domestic violence
2009'2017 (Obama) Judicial D Thomas Porteous bribery and lying to Congress
2009'2017 (Obama) Judicial R Jack Camp cocaine
2009'2017 (Obama) Judicial R Samuel B. Kent lied about sexually harassing
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative D NY Anthony Weiner sending sexually explicit photos
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative D FL Corrine Brown wire and tax fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and other corruption charges
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative D PA Chaka Fattah racketeering, fraud, and other corruption charges
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative R IL Dennis Hastert illegally structuring bank transactions
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative R NY Michael Grimm felony tax evasion
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative R FL Trey Radel possession of cocaine
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative R AZ Rick Renzi wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative D IL Jesse Jackson Jr. wire and mail fraud in connection with misuse of campaign funds
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative D CA Laura Richardson improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence and tampering with witness testimony
2009'2017 (Obama) Legislative R MI Mark D. Siljander obstruction of justice
2009'2017 (Obama) Executive I David Petraeus providing classified information
2001'2009 (Bush) Legislative D LA William J. Jefferson bribery
2001'2009 (Bush) Legislative R ID Larry Craig disorderly conduct
2001'2009 (Bush) Legislative R OH Bob Ney conspiracy and making false statements
2001'2009 (Bush) Legislative R CA Duke Cunningham conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion
2001'2009 (Bush) Legislative D NC Frank Ballance money laundering and mail fraud
2001'2009 (Bush) Legislative R SD Bill Janklow second-degree manslaughter
2001'2009 (Bush) Legislative D OH Jim Traficant felony counts of financial corruption
2001'2009 (Bush) Executive R Scott Bloch contempt of Congress
2001'2009 (Bush) Executive R Felipe Sixto misusing money
2001'2009 (Bush) Executive R Robert E. Coughlin accepting bribes
2001'2009 (Bush) Executive R David Safavian perjury
2001'2009 (Bush) Executive R Scooter Libby perjury and obstruction of justice
2001'2009 (Bush) Executive R Lester Crawford conflict of interest
2001'2009 (Bush) Executive R Claude Allen felony theft
2001'2009 (Bush) Executive R John Korsmo lying to congress
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative D IL Mel Reynolds sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography, bank fraud
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative D PA Austin Murphy voter fraud
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative R OR Wes Cooley lied on the voter information pamphlet
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative D PA Joe Kolter conspiracy
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative D IL Dan Rostenkowski
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative D OH Mary Rose Oakar misdemeanor campaign finance charge
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative R OH Buz Lukens bribery and conspiracy
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative D DC Walter Fauntroy filing false disclosure forms to hide unauthorized income
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative D KY Carl C. Perkins check kiting scheme
1993'2001 (Clinton) Legislative D KY Carroll Hubbard illegally funneling money to his wife's 1992 campaign
1993'2001 (Clinton) Executive D Webster Hubbell fraud
1993'2001 (Clinton) Executive D Wade Sanders child pornography
1989'1993 (Bush) Judicial D Robert Frederick Collins bribery
1989'1993 (Bush) Judicial D Alcee Hastings soliciting a bribe
1989'1993 (Bush) Judicial D Walter Nixon perjury
1989'1993 (Bush) Legislative D TX Albert Bustamante accepting bribes
1989'1993 (Bush) Legislative D MA Nicholas Mavroules extortion, accepting illegal gifts and failing to report them on congressional disclosure and income tax forms
1989'1993 (Bush) Legislative R CA Jay Kim illegal campaign contributions
1989'1993 (Bush) Legislative R MN David Durenberger misuse of public funds
1989'1993 (Bush) Executive R Catalina Vasquez Villalpando obstruction of justice and tax evasion
1981'1989 (Reagan) Judicial D Walter Nixon perjury
1981'1989 (Reagan) Judicial D Harry E. Claiborne tax evasion
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative R GA Pat Swindall perjury
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D NY Robert Garcia
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D NY Mario Biaggi obstruction of justice and accepting illegal gratuities
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative R ID George V. Hansen failing to fill in disclosure forms
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D NY Frederick W. Richmond tax fraud and possession of marijuana
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D PA Dan Flood bribery
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D PA Joshua Eilberg conflict-of-interest
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative R MS Jon Hinson
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D NY John M. Murphy
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D NJ Frank Thompson
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D PA Michael Myers
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D PA Raymond Lederer
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative R FL Richard Kelly corruption
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D SC John Jenrette bribery and conspiracy
1981'1989 (Reagan) Legislative D NJ Harrison A. Williams bribery and conspiracy
1981'1989 (Reagan) Executive R James G. Watt perjury and obstruction of justice
1981'1989 (Reagan) Executive R Deborah Gore Dean fraud
1981'1989 (Reagan) Executive R Melvyn Paisley bribery
1981'1989 (Reagan) Executive R Michael Deaver perjury
1981'1989 (Reagan) Executive R Elliott Abrams withholding evidence
1977'1981 (Carter) Legislative D PA Frank M. Clark mail fraud and tax evasion
1977'1981 (Carter) Legislative R FL J. Herbert Burke disorderly intoxication, resisting arrest, witness tampering
1977'1981 (Carter) Legislative D MI Charles Diggs mail fraud and filing false payroll forms
1977'1981 (Carter) Legislative D LA Richard Tonry receiving illegal campaign contributions
1977'1981 (Carter) Legislative R CA Andrew J. Hinshaw accepting bribes
1974'1977 (Ford) Legislative R NY James F. Hastings kickbacks and mail fraud
1974'1977 (Ford) Legislative D NY Bertram Podell conspiracy and conflict of interest
1974'1977 (Ford) Legislative D NY Frank Brasco conspiracy to accept bribes
1974'1977 (Ford) Legislative D CA Richard T. Hanna influence-buying scandal
1974'1977 (Ford) Legislative D TX John V. Dowdy perjury
1974'1977 (Ford) Executive R Earl Butz tax evasion
1969'1974 (Nixon) Legislative R CA Edwin Reinecke perjury
1969'1974 (Nixon) Legislative R PA J. Irving Whalley using mails to deposit staff salary kickbacks and threatening an employee
1969'1974 (Nixon) Legislative D NJ Cornelius Gallagher tax evasion
1969'1974 (Nixon) Legislative R NY Martin B. McKneally failing to file income tax return
1969'1974 (Nixon) Legislative D MA Ted Kennedy leaving the scene of an accident
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R Maurice Stans violating the Federal Election Campaign Act and illegal campaign contributions
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R Spiro Agnew tax evasion
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R Charles Colson obstruction of justice
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R Herbert W. Kalmbach corrupt practices
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R Dwight Chapin perjury
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R John Dean obstruction of justice
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R Egil Krogh
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R John Ehrlichman conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R H. R. Haldeman conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R Richard Kleindienst obstruction
1969'1974 (Nixon) Executive R John N. Mitchell perjury
1963'1969 (Johnson) Legislative D MD Daniel Brewster unlawful gratuity without corrupt intent
1963'1969 (Johnson) Legislative D AL Frank W. Boykin conspiracy and conflict of interest
1961'1963 (Kennedy) Legislative D MD Thomas F. Johnson conspiracy and conflict of interest regarding the receipt of illegal gratuities
1953'1961 (Eisenhower) Legislative D MA Thomas J. Lane evading taxes
1953'1961 (Eisenhower) Legislative R CA Ernest K. Bramblett making false statements
1953'1961 (Eisenhower) Legislative R MS Orland K. Armstrong fraud
1945'1953 (Truman) Legislative R OH Walter E. Brehm accepting contributions illegally
1945'1953 (Truman) Legislative R NJ J. Parnell Thomas salary fraud
1945'1953 (Truman) Legislative D KY Andrew J. May accepting bribes
1945'1953 (Truman) Legislative D MA James M. Curley fraud
1933'1945 (Roosevelt) Legislative D CA John H. Hoeppel selling an appointment to the West Point Military Academy
1933'1945 (Roosevelt) Legislative R ME Donald F. Snow bribery
1933'1945 (Roosevelt) Legislative D MI George Ernest Foulkes bribery
1933'1945 (Roosevelt) Legislative R NY Michael J. Hogan bribery
1929'1933 (Hoover) Legislative R IN Harry E. Rowbottom accepting bribes
1923'1929 (Coolidge) Legislative R KY John W. Langley violating the Volstead Act (Prohibition)
1923'1929 (Coolidge) Executive R William P. MacCracken Jr. contempt of congress
No. of Recommendations: 2
Prosecutorial discretion has a liberal bias.
democrats use their power liberally (<---see what I did there?) to go after their political enemies and Republicans don't. It's that simple.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I see no empiric reason why the surviving D leadership would over the ensuing six years not have behaved in the same way that the R leadership has done.
Because their base wouldn't tolerate it??
I wouldn't. I'd be writing letters, and possibly even volunteering for someone else. And if Trump had been a D victor in the primaries, I would have voted R almost certainly (at least I can't think of a worse "R" off the top of my head that would make me vote for Trump).
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes, I know what mens rea is. The author of the Times piece obviously believe it will be difficult to prove that. It is helpful that Trump spouted-off at every opportunity, and that he called people asking them to break the law (most notably GA).
I have not read the full complaint, and am content to let the legal system do its thing. But it may not be the slam dunk that left-leaning people think. That is the gist of some articles that pop into my feed. (And, no, none of those articles were from FOX or OANN or other dubious sources.)
No. of Recommendations: 3
The democrat party today resembles NOTHING of say, the democrat party from JFK's day. Or Jimmy Carter's. Or even Bill Clinton's, for that matter.
JFK's day, absolutely. That was before the CRA and resulting "Southern Strategy".
But since Carter, the Dem party has swung right. The past couple of cycles have seen a few people like AOC, but most would have been considered Republicans 40 years ago. So, for example, the Clean Water Act (signed by a Republican) is now only defended by the left wing of the D party. Republicans want to scrap it (or some do). That used to be a center-right issue.
The political spectrum has moved under my feet. I voted for Reagan (second term)**. I was center right. Now I'm decidedly left of center. My views on some things have changed as I learned more about some issues, but mostly the scale moved and now I'm left.
By European standards we do not have a liberal party at all.
**And have since learned I probably shouldn't have, but I believed the rhetoric at the time, and missed a lot of the dog-whistles.
No. of Recommendations: 0
D'oh! Never mind. I didn't realize that Lapsody was merely quoting "flightdoc 101"...
No. of Recommendations: 3
democrats use their power liberally (<---see what I did there?) to go after their political enemies and Republicans don't. It's that simple.
Democrats don't control the DOJ. The DOJ is a very conservative organization, as most prosecutorial entities are. Meanwhile, the Clintons serve as a good counter-example to your statement. They went after Bill for a BJ (well...for lying about it), and they went after Hillary because she was Hillary. Nothing ever stuck to Hillary. (I won't use the obvious innuendo about "stuck" and Bill and his "crimes". ;-)
No. of Recommendations: 0
JFK's day, absolutely. That was before the CRA and resulting "Southern Strategy".
:rolleyes
You guys need to get over "the Southern Strategy" and take a hard look in the mirror.
This is an example of the casual smears that leftist throw out when they don't understand who it is that they're talking about or what they value, what their concerns are, etc. It's not different from the mentality that leads the coastal idiots to look down on the Midwest as "flyover country".
But since Carter, the Dem party has swung right.
Uhhhhh, sure.
he past couple of cycles have seen a few people like AOC, but most would have been considered Republicans 40 years ago.
Now you're just trolling me.
So, for example, the Clean Water Act (signed by a Republican) is now only defended by the left wing of the D party. Republicans want to scrap it (or some do). That used to be a center-right issue.
This is where nuance is lost in a debate. Do you honestly think ANYONE wants a flaming Lake Erie? Seriously?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Democrats don't control the DOJ.
Merrick Garland isn't a democrat?
The DOJ is a very conservative organization, as most prosecutorial entities are.
That's not correct. We have a spike in crime in this country in no small part due to left wing DAs who don't want to prosecute crime.
In the case of the DOJ, under Obama it became a-OK for government employees to become partisan actors; he grew an organizational culture within the federal government that looked the other way when its employees campaigned for...the federal government.
When bureaucracies get too large they start looking after their own interests and NOT the interests of whatever it is that its supposed to be serving.
But let's conduct a test.
Say there's two managers, Manager A and Manager B. Manager A cites low productivity, low customer satisfaction ratings and a lot of redundancies in tasks and if hired for the job, vows to slash the size of the department and increase accountability across the board.
Manager B doesn't see anything wrong with how the department functions and wants to expand it, hiring even more.
Which Manager would the rank and file want to hire?
The answer to that explains a lot about the federal government.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Democrats don't control the DOJ.
Merrick Garland isn't a democrat?
Your suggestion that a Democrat cannot apply the laws of the land fairly suggests that you have been successfully brainwashed by the GOP efforts to distrust any government agency unless GOP persons are in charge.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You guys need to get over "the Southern Strategy"...
Why? It made the deep blue south into a red block. Democrats turned Republican. So prior to that, the parties were radically different than their current incarnations.
As for the D party swinging right, I wish I could get back onto TMF and look for the discussion we had a few years ago. The entire political spectrum has shifted right since Carter. Republicans are not only red, they're maroon. And if the Ds ever were a deep indigo, they are a light sky blue now.
This is where nuance is lost in a debate. Do you honestly think ANYONE wants a flaming Lake Erie? Seriously?
No. But many/most deny that could happen. Just as they continue to deny climate change. And there are campaign dollars attached to claiming that clean water and clean air regulations are "too strict". If someone's livelihood depends on believing that, they will be prone to believing it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why? It made the deep blue south into a red block. Democrats turned Republican. So prior to that, the parties were radically different than their current incarnations.
No it didn't. This "The South is a racist place and the GOP just plays to racists and that's the only reason why the South votes for them" is a lazy, dishonest trope that's mile beneath a guy like you.
You don't think that the democrats' insistence on a "Global order first, US last" doesn't bother a lot of people?
That the dems' embrace of more and more federal power just might influence people to vote Republican?
You *really* think the democrats' core values of open borders, criminals' rights over citizens, anti-2A, anti-free speech and more taxes resonates down South?
As for the D party swinging right, I wish I could get back onto TMF and look for the discussion we had a few years ago. The entire political spectrum has shifted right since Carter. Republicans are not only red, they're maroon. And if the Ds ever were a deep indigo, they are a light sky blue now.
That must explain the rise of the "democratic Socialist" and the fact that they're gaining a lot of traction inside your party. Come on, man.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Re: veterans for democracy.
My father-in-law is 99 years old. He crewed in B-24s in WWII, was shot down on his second mission and spent the remainder of the war as a POW. He hates Trump and all that little weasel represents.
My father grew up on a ranch in west Texas. Came out of that conservative area a Roosevelt Democrat. Served with the Army Air Corps in the Pacific in WWII. He's gone now but he would never have supported a traitorous little twit like Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 5
DOPE:
:rolleyes
You guys need to get over "the Southern Strategy" and take a hard look in the mirror.
This is an example of the casual smears that leftist throw out when they don't understand who it is that they're talking about or what they value, what their concerns are, etc. It's not different from the mentality that leads the coastal idiots to look down on the Midwest as "flyover country".
Dope, that isn't any smear, it's historical reality. The slow shift is very, very real. Look, it's no secret that our country has a racist core to it. Remember the two quotes I cite by Atwater and LBJ to help people understand? That's just the beginning of understanding that. And I was in Panama, CZ as a kid when the major civil rights struggles went on, and missed it. I got such poor history going to four different High Schools I had to explain it to myself. Do you think Tulsa didn't happen? I read history slowly because I don't like it. :)
So we had aristocratic wannabes come up from St Kitts and Barbados to South Carolina. They brought the island slave codes with them, and those slave codes took over by 1750 and spread through the deep south. There were 26 colonies by the time of the revolution and 13 revolted. The other 13 couldn't, they were too dependent on the British military. Why? At the time of the revolution there were 4 whites for every one slave in the USA, in the other 13 colonies the ration was 8 slaves to 1 white.
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 1
Dope, that isn't any smear, it's historical reality.No. It's what
The Nation said
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusiv...along with this place
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/...and here
https://archive.nytimes.com/takingnote.blogs.nytim...and here
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-secre...and so on and so forth. All pushing the exact same narrative. Because it's convenient and far better than actually debating issues. But you know what those sites don't contain?
What Atwater actually said.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/wha...Here's the part that The Nation and the rest of them didn't quote:
In 1980, I think the crucial thing in 1980 is, the two dominant issues in southern politics, which had been race and party'you had to be a Democrat to win'are pretty well resolved. And the main issues became the economy and national defense.And
So what you have is two things happening that totally washed away the Southern strategy, the Harry Dent type Southern strategy, and that is, that whole strategy was based, although it was more sophisticated than a Bilbo or a George Wallace, it was nevertheless based on coded racism. The whole thing, busing, we want a Supreme Court judge that won't have busing, anything you look at can be traced back to the issue [of race], in the old southern strategy. It was not done in a blatantly discriminatory way.
But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.Hmm. That seems to be the exact opposite of the points you're trying to make: That the GOP is hopelessly racist.
For some reason you keep bringing up LBJ, but studiously avoiding this quote from him:
"I'll have those <bad word here> voting democrat for 200 years".
No. of Recommendations: 1
No.
Liberals like Martin Bashir cite this interview for the proposition that Republicans skillfully conceal appeals to racism in seemingly innocuous policy discussions. Obviously, Atwater said nothing of the sort. And he declined to agree with Professor Lamis's suggestion that Reagan's talk about cutting programs like legal services and food stamps 'gets to' the racist side of the George Wallace voter, albeit unconsciously. 'I'm not saying it.' What Atwater did say, repeatedly and unambiguously, is that racial prejudice no longer plays a significant role in Southern elections, and that Reagan won the South in 1980 on the same issues with which he swept the rest of the country: the economy and national defense. It requires a great deal of dishonesty to twist Atwater's words into the exact opposite of what he actually said.
No. of Recommendations: 8
<<You guys need to get over "the Southern Strategy"...>>
Racism and hate are still cornerstones of the GOP brand. If you can't see it, you are probably in a cult...
"Because of Republican Ron DeSantis and his frenzied appeal to extremists, LGBTQ+ people in Florida are finding themselves in a state of emergency
every single day. Since the day he took office, DeSantis has weaponized his position to weave bigotry, hate, and discrimination into public law for his own political gain.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05...Donald Trump and Mike Pence were endorsed by former KKK leader David Duke and by the "Crusader" the official newspaper of the KKK.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were not.
Neo-Nazis explain why they support Donald Trump and the GOP...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/8/..."Beware, your life is not valued":
NAACP travel advisory warns Florida has become "hostile toward African Americans" under the leadership of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/us/naacp-florida-tr...When your political ideology is a homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the 1950's and you're voting for the same folks as the KKK and the Nazis, congratulations, you're on the wrong side.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Dope1: So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference.
Umm, what?
Ronald Reagan's first post-convention presidential campaign speech on August 3, 1980, at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi linked "states' rights" and "welfare reform" at a place just a few miles from Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town associated with the 1964 murders of civil rights workers.
No. of Recommendations: 10
<<Dope1: So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference.>>
LOL Reagan?
You mean this guy...
RONALD REAGAN: "To see those monkeys from those African countries. Damn them. They're still uncomfortable wearing shoes."
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/31/747041525/historian..."Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon."
Reagan repeatedly invoked a story of a "Chicago welfare queen" with "eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards
who is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. She's got Medicaid, food stamps, and she is
collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000." Often, Reagan placed his mythical welfare
queen behind the wheel of a Cadillac, tooling around in flashy splendor. Beyond propagating the stereotypical image of a lazy,
larcenous black woman ripping off society's generosity without remorse.
https://www.salon.com/2014/01/11/the_racism_at_the...When you are voting for the same folks as the KKK you should ask why.
No. of Recommendations: 3
All pushing the exact same narrative. Because it's convenient and far better than actually debating issues.Dope, you're on the dopey side with your resentments. It was because
the Republicans who were saying that Democrats were the racist partyand pointing out that the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the
racist South was the Democrats, which was true. Y'all were sitting back there snickering and laughing while you plastered it all over the internet, and we had to learn about the Southern Strategy - because then Southern racists switched parties.
So now you want to tell us to get over it? We ain't gettin' over nothin' Dope. Let's from Let's Go Brandon to you. Let's Go Dope. That's something you can understand. You can resent forever - that's what y'all do. And if one resentment goes sour y'all will invent new ones.
Reagan? "In August 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan made a much-noted appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, Mississippi,[72] where his speech contained the phrase "I believe in states' rights"." "Reagan's campaigns used racially coded rhetoric, making attacks on the "welfare state" and leveraging resentment towards affirmative action.[78][79] Dan Carter explains how "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose".[80]" Quotes from Wiki. Pretty famous.
I think Atwater talks about top issues, and I tell people that racism was always there, but under the surface. I stopped hearing "n!gger" as much as when I was a kid. Reagan didn't have to do the Southern Strategy hard because the road was paved already, but he did it too. You foster and nurture your resentments Dope. I was born in the Midwest and have the healthy version of suspicion of Washington and the New England East Coast states.
"He (George Wallace) also talked about the politics of race across America, saying Ronald Reagan had used tactics of divisiveness to install "a tax structure that is the most crippling system in the country... . The rich got richer while the poor and the middle class didn't get anything at all."
"I don't support white supremacy," Wallace told me. "I'm the one who made them take 'white supremacy' off the roster that was the symbol of the Democratic Party in this state."
"I did nothing worse than Lyndon Johnson," he continued. "He was for segregation when he thought he had to be. I was for segregation, and I was wrong. The media has rehabilitated Johnson, why won't it rehabilitate me?" "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/dai...And I reiterate that for many years Republicans touted that Democrats were the party of racism and segregation and now tell us to get over the Southern Strategy.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Dope, you're on the dopey side with your resentments. It was because the Republicans who were saying that Democrats were the racist partyand pointing out that the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the racist South was the Democrats, which was true. Y'all were sitting back there snickering and laughing while you plastered it all over the internet, and we had to learn about the Southern Strategy - because then Southern racists switched parties.
Who's been posting "resentments" this entire thread? Not me.
It was the democrat party that started (and lost) the Civil War.
Then it was the democrat party that ruined Reconstruction and ushered in anti-black laws all over the South.
democrat President Woodrow Wilson forciby re-segregated the government (after Republican Teddy Roosevelt integrated) and hosted the kkk movie Birth of a Nation in the White House.
JFK would appoint racist judges in the south to ensure survival of Jim Crow laws.
And then of course we have the famous LBJ quote of "I'll have <them> voting democrat for 200 years".
So yeah, there's far more history and fact behind the charge that the Republicans are the racist party. In fact, the quote you've been using the entire thread has been taken 180 degrees out of context.
So now you want to tell us to get over it?
I'm not asking you to do anything. You're operating off a bad set of facts fueled by the liberal media.
What I'm asking you to understand history from a factual basis and take a look at the assumptions you're making.
No. of Recommendations: 5
It was the democrat party that started (and lost) the Civil War
No, it was slavers, racists, regardless of party affiliation.
The racists, white supremacists, religious bigots, ammosexuals, etc support whichever party supports them. At that time it was Dems. Now it's Republicans.
No. of Recommendations: 3
What I'm asking you to understand history from a factual basis and take a look at the assumptions you're making.Which we are doing. The Republican Party of today is NOT the party of Lincoln. You're skipping over huge chunks of history regarding the morphing of the two parties. I don't even have to go back to TMF for that. Albaby, and others, posted some detailed histories on this very board just a couple of months ago. Before 1964, the parties were more diverse. There were conservatives and liberals within both parties. Then came the 1964 CRA, pushed by a Democrat (LBJ), with the knowledge that the Democrats had just lost the South for a generation.
(recent article...I was going to the wiki, but found this)
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/22/we-m...'I said, 'Quite a day, Mr President.' As he reached a sheaf of the wire copy he tilted his head slightly back and held the copy up close to him so that he could read it, and said: 'Well, I think we may have lost the south for your lifetime ' and mine.'
'It was lightly said. Not sarcastic. Not even dramatically. It was like a throwaway sidebar.'Nixon then employed the "Southern Strategy" to win the South for Republicans. (This is well-documented by insiders of the Nixon administration.) It wasn't an overnight thing to polarize the parties. The South started voting RED, unless the Dem was a southern-boy (Carter, Clinton). I suspect I'm older than you by a lot, so when I tell you that I was alive when it was still illegal for me to have married 1poorlady, that may not register with you.
Loving was decided in 1967. If 1poorlady and I were of age, we wouldn't have been allowed to marry in many states. Before the CRA, many of those would have been BLUE states.
Since then, the parties have further morphed into parties of education. Many Republicans now claim that Dems have lost touch with the "common man" (translation: lesser-educated people). And there is some truth to that. Republicans tap into the rage and racism of the common man, while not actually doing anything that would help them (e.g. healthcare...working class folks need access to healthcare a lot more than the wealthy, who can just afford to buy it for themselves). Today, the blatantly racist organizations in our society (e.g. KKK, neo-Nazis, etc), openly endorse candidates, and they are Republicans. That is NOT to say that all Republicans are racist. But most racists (today) are Republican. The CRA, the Southern Strategy, and a mix of other factors (including Reagan's embracing of the "Moral Majority"**) resulted in a migration of voters that has today solidified into a very polarized party system.
Sort of like "all Great Danes are dogs, but not all dogs are Great Danes". Most -but not all!- racists are Republicans, but not all Republicans are racist. I was a registered Republican, and I wasn't a racist. I may have been unaware of my privilege as a white male when I was young (and lower-middle class), but I wasn't racist.
**I always like the retort: The Moral Majority is neither. :-)
No. of Recommendations: 1
Which we are doing. The Republican Party of today is NOT the party of Lincoln. You're skipping over huge chunks of history regarding the morphing of the two parties. I don't even have to go back to TMF for that. Albaby, and others, posted some detailed histories on this very board just a couple of months ago. Before 1964, the parties were more diverse. There were conservatives and liberals within both parties. Then came the 1964 CRA, pushed by a Democrat (LBJ), with the knowledge that the Democrats had just lost the South for a generation.
...aaaand they didn't actually lose the south for some time. That's even if I grant your premise, which is that racism is motivating southern voters to vote Republican. I don't grant that premise.
You guys seriously need to revisit your prejudices. Does it bother you at all that Lee Atwater actually didn't say what 100% of the liberal media claims he said?
Since then, the parties have further morphed into parties of education. Many Republicans now claim that Dems have lost touch with the "common man" (translation: lesser-educated people).
LOL@this. I'll wager that with 2 Masters' degrees and a Ph.D. in engineering I have more education than just about anyone on this board :).
That is NOT to say that all Republicans are racist. But most racists (today) are Republican.
Uh, huh. Sez the party that ASSUMES blacks don't have photo ID and can't get it and are dependent on welfare. The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations literally permeates the democrats these days.
No. of Recommendations: 8
The racists, white supremacists, religious bigots, ammosexuals, etc support whichever party supports them. At that time it was Dems. Now it's Republicans.
A more accurate way to write that:
The racists, white supremacists, religious bigots, ammosexuals, etc support whichever party they are most comfortable in. At that time it was Dem. Now it's Republicans.
This is not to say all Republicans are all those things. Clearly there are racists who support more effective gun control, just as there are Republican evangelist anti-abortion extremists who oppose any increase in gun regulations, just as there are people registered Republican, labeled RINO, and wondering what the hell happened to the Republican party.
That all but the RINOs support a rapist, a god damned rapist, as their leader makes them all amoral as hell, and their claim to be Christians a perversity.
No. of Recommendations: 5
It was the democrat party that started (and lost) the Civil War
And you know full well the two party's politics have flipped.
Abraham Lincoln sure as hell wouldn't be Republican today.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sez the party that ASSUMES blacks don't have photo ID and can't get it and are dependent on welfare. The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations literally permeates the democrats these days.I think that's a mischaracterization of the position. For the photo ID, I think almost all Dems would agree to photo ID -I assume you mean for voting-
if photo IDs were available for free. Reps usually balk at that. Also, on TMF, one poster who lived in Michigan actually volunteered to help poor people get photo IDs. It's not just black folks, but poor people in general. Often they didn't have their birth certificates, couldn't easily afford to get a certified copy, etc. He helped them with all of that. It's a lot more common than you appear to realize (and more common than I realized until I interacted with that poster on TMF).
Just as an example.
Dr Dope? Cool. I bailed on my PhD (physics) because I didn't want a life of writing grant proposals. I was finished with everything except the dissertation. The Count has a PhD in aeronautical engineering. LorenCobb is a PhD in mathematics. The old Atheist board attracted a lot of highly educated folks.
Oh...and to the previous post, I forgot to add that another dynamic in the polarization of the parties is the urban/rural divide. Which itself is a product largely of education (i.e. the educated tend to congregate in urban centers where jobs suited to their abilities concentrate).
I'm not sure that racism
today is motivating southern voters to vote Rep. It certainly was for the next few election cycles. Today? Not sure. Certainly Trump milked it, and it was shocking how many openly-racist people came out of the woodwork. But I suspect that now it's more the urban/rural divide, and the education divide (here's Trump with his famous quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0). You're right that it isn't as simple as racist/not-racist. It's a complex interplay of events, feedback loops, and the like. But there is no denying that several prominent figures (like Strom Thurmond) switched parties after the CRA. He was an unabashed racist, and could not stomach the Dem party after its POTUS jammed-through the CRA. He was not alone.
However, the Rep party gets very little black support. Just 14%, as of this article:
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-....
Rightly or wrongly, they clearly feel that they are not represented by Reps, or perhaps are not welcome in the Rep party. There was a lot of discussion on TMF about how demographics are working against the Rep party, and I recall several articles that Rep party leaders/advisers were worried about getting enough minority support as we evolve into a society where there is no racial majority (i.e. where people will decline to less than 50% of the voting public, so they need to attract other minorities to get a majority to win).
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think that's a mischaracterization of the position.
Is it?
For the photo ID, I think almost all Dems would agree to photo ID -I assume you mean for voting- if photo IDs were available for free. Reps usually balk at that. Also, on TMF, one poster who lived in Michigan actually volunteered to help poor people get photo IDs. It's not just black folks, but poor people in general. Often they didn't have their birth certificates, couldn't easily afford to get a certified copy, etc. He helped them with all of that. It's a lot more common than you appear to realize (and more common than I realized until I interacted with that poster on TMF).
Actually most red states that require voter ID already have this. And on TMF, it was the left who vociferously opposed the idea. Ramsfanray even would go and invent corner cases like "What about the 100 year old guy whose birth certificate burned up in a fire in 1920" or some such thing.
All of us...100% in favor.
Besides, most - and by most I mean 99% of the population - has photo ID.
Blue states will give photo IDs out to illegal aliens but for some reason don't want actual citizens to be required to have them. Go figure.
No. of Recommendations: 7
This isn't complicated folks...
The red states fought for slavery. (And voted for Trump & Pence)
The blue states fought for freedom. (And voted for Biden & Harris)
(For the most part.)
No. of Recommendations: 1
My father-in-law is 99 years old. He hates Trump and all that little weasel represents.
My father grew up on a ranch in west Texas. He's gone now but he would never have supported a traitorous little twit like Trump.Thank you for the service of your family during WWII.
My family also served, one killed and another very highly decorated.
Certainly they have a right to their opinions and I respect that.
What are or would have been their opinions be for President Biden, a 5 time deferment during Vietnam, (a collage football hero, the team needed him)?
Also what would they thought of President Biden's disastrous withdraw from Afghanistan and 13 service men were killed?
Did you happen to watch....
'Biden's Gold Star family failure echoes his Afghanistan disaster'
https://nypost.com/2023/08/08/bidens-gold-star-fam...'Family of Marine killed in Afghanistan says Biden rushed US withdrawal for 'photo op': 'He wanted his moment'
Gold Star families expressed anger and frustration at the Biden administration over the lack of information surrounding the tragic deaths'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/family-marine-killed...'Gold Star mom claims Biden callously likened her son's death during disastrous Afghan withdrawal to Beau's'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0W0i1JnhN0How can anyone in their right mind support Biden?
Remember Afghanistan 💔
No. of Recommendations: 1
Abraham Lincoln sure as hell wouldn't be Republican today.
And John F Kennedy is rolling over in his grave cursing today's dem party.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I forgot to add that another dynamic in the polarization of the parties is the urban/rural divide. Which itself is a product largely of education (i.e. the educated tend to congregate in urban centers where jobs suited to their abilities concentrate). - 1pg
---------------------
There is some truth to what you say about the highly educated congregating in the major cities, if you assume that those who know how to raise cattle, or grow crops, or mine for minerals or drive trucks to deliver resources to the big cities, or work in the trades, plumbers, welders, mechanics, electricians. etc are not really as educated in the things that "matter".
We have brainwashed our young to think that a college degree is essential to success and to work in a job where you carry a lunchbox is somehow second class, failing to live up to your potential. We clamor to forgive college debt but but not the loan for the truck the plumber financed to start his business.
I think these rural and blue collar workers have a difference sort of education that is in many ways more important to our country's success than some highly educated activist with a degree in political science.
But setting that aside for the moment, the fact that the "educated" congregate in the cities is fine except many seem to develop an attitude about those smelly Walmart people, who cling to guns and bibles, who live in flyover country etc are really just not smart (educated?) enough to deserve a say in how our country is governed. Not saying you 1pg have this attitude, you seem like a pretty reasonable guy, but many of the coastal elites exhibit a condescending attitude about rural and blue collar America. That attitude is the real problem. not so much where the elites choose to congregate.
No. of Recommendations: 4
We have brainwashed our young to think that a college degree is essential to success and to work in a job where you carry a lunchbox is somehow second class, failing to live up to your potential.
Nonsense.
That's the spin right wing media would have you believe so you and the right winger culture warriors think there's a war or conspiracy against people who aren't well educated.
No. of Recommendations: 0
There is some truth to what you say about the highly educated congregating in the major cities, if you assume that those who know how to raise cattle, or grow crops, or mine for minerals or drive trucks to deliver resources to the big cities, or work in the trades, plumbers, welders, mechanics, electricians. etc are not really as educated in the things that "matter".
There tend to be cities. The trend toward cities accelerated after Depression/WW2. (How ya gonna keep them down on the farm, once they've gone and seen Paris?) It was manufacturing just outside and sometimes in the cities, then came the tech revolution. But make no mistake, successful farmers are usually educated, but they have a high suicide rate.
We have brainwashed our young to think that a college degree is essential to success and to work in a job where you carry a lunchbox is somehow second class, failing to live up to your potential. We clamor to forgive college debt but but not the loan for the truck the plumber financed to start his business.
No. It was us that got brainwashed. There have been plenty of articles, etc., over the past 20-30 years talking about the wages of plumbers, carpenters, cable layers, etc. The younger generations have much more access to information than we did.
I think these rural and blue collar workers have a difference sort of education that is in many ways more important to our country's success than some highly educated activist with a degree in political science.
There are different types of intelligence. I have nothing against people who like to work with their hands. I've had plenty of friends who worked on boats.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It was us that got brainwashed. There have been plenty of articles, etc., over the past 20-30 years talking about the wages of plumbers, carpenters, cable layers, etc. The younger generations have much more access to information than we did. - Lapsody
-------------------
True that they have access but are they actually accessing? and more importantly are they acting on that information?
What I myself see on TV news is frequent references to "college prep" in one context or another but seldom, to the point of almost never", to the good income available to you if you want to learn how to weld for example or the dignity of working with your hands or the benefits of not being cooped up in an office all day. How many High School seniors have heard of Mike Rowe?
No. of Recommendations: 1
fd is my handle. I was a flight doc in the AF, with an F-15 squadron.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Republicans- the party of making it illegal to give water to someone waiting in line to vote.
No. of Recommendations: 2
"What I myself see on TV news is frequent references to........"
Based on your perceptions of "the left" it would appear your TV new sources are Fox and/or OANN, Newsmax, Real America.... cable stations that feature guys like Mike Rowe, Dan Bongino, Gaetz, MTG, and assorted perps from the holding tank of Trump fellow criminals.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Republicans- the party of making it illegal to give water to someone waiting in line to vote.
And also making sure the lines for the poor, and likely Democratic, voters are exceedingly long.
Republicans really don't believe in democracy. And it's not just me saying that. You can hear that on RW media. They like to say that we are a republic, which is their dog whistle code for 'not everyone should get to vote'.
One part minority rule is the GQP way.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Republicans- the party of making it illegal to give water to someone waiting in line to vote.
And you should ask yourself why that is.
Maybe it's because it's illegal to hand somebody a water bottle with BIDEN/HARRIS plastered all over it.
Or how about, we fire all the democrat poll precinct people who make sure there are long lines on election day (since that's when a lot of Republicans vote)?
Every finger you folks point at us...3 are pointing back at you.
No. of Recommendations: 1
As Lapsody pointed out, there has been a general migration towards cities since the Depression. Lots of factors there, also. The jobs generally pay better, and there are more of them. And if you have a more formal education, you have a lot of opportunities in that environment. Farmers and rural area folks may be intelligent, and some of them even well-educated. But for a variety of reasons (including the annual "Farm Bill" I posted about a week or two ago), it's difficult to make a living as a farmer. And we need fewer of them as machines enable efficient factory farms that require fewer people to staff. That's also affecting manufacturing jobs (plus off-shoring). A good plumber can do very well, but we only need so many plumbers. The advantage they have is their job can't be automated or off-shored, though. Even among technical people, we're starting to see off-shoring of design and other "brain" jobs because if they have a computer and a connection, they can work from Romania (or wherever), and corporations can pay them less.
As I said up-thread, it's a complex array of factors affecting who's moving where, and the reasons they are moving, and the opportunities available to those folks. Formal education tends towards cities, tends to better paying jobs**, tends towards broader exposure to new ideas and people***, etc. That's why you can have a solid blue city in a red state. Tucson is very blue, and Phoenix is light blue. The rest of the state (rural) is red.
**I wish I earned as much as a crane operator that never went to college. Those guys make a fortune, there aren't very many of them, and the work is very demanding (which is why they're well-paid).
***Via college and grad school, I was exposed to people from all over the world (especially during my time in the dorm), as well as different regions of this country. Exposure to ideas I didn't even know existed. I wouldn't have had that if I grew up on a farm outside of Topeka.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Maybe it's because it's illegal to hand somebody a water bottle with BIDEN/HARRIS plastered all over it.
Pretty sure that is covered by "no electioneering within 75 feet of a polling place" laws. There was no need to ban ALL water bottles. Unless maybe a candidate is named "Kirkland"? :-|
No. of Recommendations: 3
onepoorguy:
Pretty sure that is covered by "no electioneering within 75 feet of a polling place" laws. Anyone watch "The Good Fight" here? The episode with Luca and Jay as poll watchers? They face off against conservative poll watchers who want to block a long-haired voter who's wearing a marijuana t-shirt, believing he's a liberal. Luca and Jay work to get him into a voting booth. The agreed upon solution is to have the voter remove his t-shirt. He does, but when he goes to vote it turns out there's a huge swastika tattoo on his back. In the end, when a small riot breaks out, the liberal and conservative poll watchers side together and form an alliance against the Nazis.
Shows to go 'ya.
Ya, that episode's a few years old. Probably never happen today.
And I think that's also the episode where Liz and Diane sing a dueling duet of Prince's "Raspberry Beret."
Me, I liked the Hindu Love Gods (R.E.M. side project, Warren Zevon fronting,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRMjSGBHz7E or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heDRZuRZSNc) version better but Liz and Diane did fine.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Maybe it's because it's illegal to hand somebody a water bottle with BIDEN/HARRIS plastered all over it.
That's already covered in the 'no campaigning within 500' of the polls' regulations.
Intimidating right wing "poll watchers", possibly armed, should also not be allowed within 500' of the polls.
Goes without saying that if a line to vote is >500', that's tantamount to voter suppression and there need to be more polls... but then more people can vote and that's not in the interest of MAGA politicians and their poll intimidating thugs.
No. of Recommendations: 1
In California, anyone can observe election proceedings as long as they do not interfere with the process or intimidate voters.
Observers can ask questions of poll workers, but they cannot harass, attempt to coerce or ask personal questions of voters.
Any campaigning must take place at least 100 feet from the entrance to a polling place or vote center.
Electioneering Prohibitions - National Conference of State Legislatures
Apr 1, 2023 Each state has some form of restriction on political activities near polling places when voting is taking place, such as limiting the display of signs, handing out campaign literature or soliciting votes within a pre-determined distance (typically 50 to 200 feet) of a polling place.
No. of Recommendations: 3
California regs:
Within the immediate vicinity of a person in line to cast their ballot or within 100 feet of the entrance of a polling place, curbside voting, or ballot drop box the following activities are prohibited.
WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE PROHIBITED:
DO NOT ask a person to vote for or against any candidate or ballot measure.
DO NOT display a candidate's name, image, or logo.
DO NOT block access to or loiter near any ballot drop boxes.
DO NOT provide any material or audible information for or against any candidate or ballot measure near any polling place, vote center, or ballot drop box.
DO NOT circulate any petitions, including for initiatives, referenda, recall, or candidate nominations.
DO NOT distribute, display, or wear any clothing (hats, shirts, signs, buttons, stickers) that include a candidate's name, image, logo, and/or support or oppose any candidate or ballot measure.
DO NOT display information or speak to a voter about the voter's eligibility to vote.
Yep.... It's very very MAGA, denying water to people waiting in a long hot line; a cruel attempt to dissuade people from waiting in a long hot line to vote.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Pretty sure that is covered by "no electioneering within 75 feet of a polling place" laws. There was no need to ban ALL water bottles. Unless maybe a candidate is named "Kirkland"? :-|
The intent of the law is that politicking doesn't take place in the polling line.
The better question to ask is, "Why is the polling line so long? It's a five minute thing to vote,".
...unless of course it's your *objective* to make it tough on Election Day, which is exactly the strategy that democrats employ. Then they get to complain when Republicans won't allow water or something in response to the very problem they caused in first place.
I can almost admire the subtle touch in that strategy. It's a two-fer.
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<Dope1: So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference.>>
Can you imagine how frighteningly misinformed you would have to be to make that statement?
Reagan?
He's talking about this guy...
RONALD REAGAN: "To see those monkeys from those African countries. Damn them. They're still uncomfortable wearing shoes."
"Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon."
https://www.salon.com/2014/01/11/the_racism_at_the...Is there a single republican left who hasn't lost his/her grasp on reality? (asking for a friend)
No. of Recommendations: 2
...unless of course it's your *objective* to make it tough on Election Day, which is exactly the strategy that democrats employ.
Missed this (was on a road trip to Utah...hot, but beautiful).
I think you mean "Republicans". They are the ones who eliminate polling places in predominantly Democratic precincts, which then creates the long lines. And then they pass the "no handing out water" bills to make standing in lines they created more miserable. And THEN, in some cases, they post election-watchers -occasionally armed with AR15s- to "watch" the election. (Which happened in AZ, at the minimum.)
