“You’re damn right we’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November,” former Trump advisor Steve Bannon said on his podcast on Feb. 4.
GOP lawmakers, like Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), have said there is nothing wrong with ICE appearing at the polls to question voters.
Dems won’t crush anything if all women who took a spouses name have to have it changed back to the one on her birth certificate just to vote! How many woman are going to pay for that?? How many woman will have the capacity to get a birth certificate which could take months- luckily I have mine handy. How many women have their marriage and divorce papers? Luckily I have mine. Who has $150 to have a legal name changed? That's the price in my state. Luckily their is a waiver form on my states website. But I’m resourceful. It’s a skill I acquired. But how about if a woman has a controlling or abusive husband? There is one vote gone right there. Nah, women are getting fucked and you can forget a big chunk of those votes. That’s the point.
Yes! I've been screaming this from the mountain top- steal the immigration narrative. It's not even hard: Establish and publish quotas, build a point system, dedicate funds to clear out the backlog, Separate out amnesty integration and put it on a two year renewal basis, Balance rules with heart. And don't apologize.
The Democrats need to start planning now for how they will exercise power if they obtain the trifecta in '29. Probably they should write up a vision statement and plan of action akin to MAGA's Project 2025.
The key question that needs to be addressed now, is what will be the theme of Democratic leadership in 2029: should it be Rapprochement with MAGA, or should it be Reckoning?
Put me in the camp calling for a Reckoning. The general public is not particularly political, and takes its cues for what is normal and acceptable political conduct, from our leaders - particularly the leaders at the top. When those leaders engage in outrageous norm-breaking, even open lawlessness, and face no consequences from the opposition, this conduct becomes normalized. And on the contrary, when the reaction to these abuses is unequivocal and robust, that can serve as an education for the public in what lies within the scope of proper political conflict, and what conduct is *unacceptable.* An adequate response is also vital in shaping the perceptions of future generations, of what has gone on here.
David Frum has made a very pertinent argument here, one drawn from Game Theory: in a two-player game, when your opponent apparently breaks the rules of the game and directly violates your basic interest, the best initial response is forbearance in your response - the retaliation you engage in should be moderate, allowing for the possibility that your opponent didn't intend the transgression, but merely made an error. But after this moment of forbearance (which we can all agree the Biden Admin. and particularly the Garland DOJ indulged against Trump and his henchmen), if your opponent doubles-down on the aggression, when the time comes to respond the response must come in kind.
What does an "in kind" response against MAGA forces look like, in 2029?
Democrats should begin the campaign of reckoning - a campaign which should be their *top* domestic policy focus, barring any acute national emergencies - by making *a direct assault on Trump's pardons.* There can be no calling MAGA to account if they are outside the reach of the law.
The Article I Branch of Congress has much greater potential power than people are today accustomed to think, given the way that party-solidarity has subordinated the People's Representatives to the Chief Executive. Under conditions of the trifecta, the Democrat President should assist Congress in every effort to rewrite the law on the pardon-power and to *cancel* Trump's pardons - ALL of them.
The broad-based conceit is that this can't be done without a Constitutional Amendment. But there is no reason that the Democrats in Congress have to accept this. Democrats can argue - on the basis of any philosophy of jurisprudence you like - Originalist, Textualist, Incrementalist, or the Living-Constitution approach of "the spirit of the law" - to assert that prior assessments by the High Court of an "absolute" power of pardon for the Executive are *illegitimate* and *invalid,* and that the Constitution affords the Congress the ability to clarify the *meaning* of the Article II provision, to give Congress a veto on individual pardons, if they deem the pardon in question to have been conferred by corrupt-bargain.
It might be the case, that suit would be brought in any circumstance where a Trump-pardon was cancelled; but over and above the ability of Congress to make a case on the merits before the Supreme Court and the public that the legislation is consistent with the Constitution, Congress as the Article I Branch *also* has many tools to go at the Judiciary *directly,* to bend the Justices to the will of the People's Representatives on this question.
This is a radical proposal, yes - but in 2029 the United States will be in the midst of a radical phase of our history, and will be in need of a new period of Reconstruction where the Congress reclaims authority that has been lost both to the Executive and to the Supreme Court, over the last seventy-five + years.
This new era of Reconstruction cannot proceed without a reckoning for MAGA lawlessness, and a law-abiding democracy CANNOT survive after allowing the precedent to be set where corrupt-bargain pardons are normalized. Democrats must act, and not be hamstrung by the claim that they can't act without a Constitutional Amendment.
Amendments are a practical impossibility, today. New precedent set by the Supreme Court has replaced them. But the Court is hostile territory, captured by the Conservatives after a generations-long effort.
For Democrats, to dream means to get the trifecta (as I said at the outset, 'Project 2029' depends on getting it). With that in hand they need to exercise the FULL power that the Constitution grants the Article I Branch of government. Congress *seems* like a totally ineffectual branch of government, but this is the result of the Executive's party in Congress suborning itself to the Executive, and - above all - the abuse of the filibuster. The *very first* task for the Democrats is to nuke it. (Many claim that this will intensify partisan rancor all the more, but analysts like David Frum think it will have the opposite effect).
The point is this: Democrats need to make the argument that *the Constitution already gives them the power* to limit the Executive's pardon-power. And part of the way they *make* that argument, is to proceed to assert it by *codifying* it.
Nice. But Trump's approval rating never changes always around 40% +/-. Also, they are prepping ICE to "protect" elections and also trying to pass the ID law at the polls. If this happens there will be no Democrats winning at the polls.
Concerning IDs will someone tell the Federal government that in order to register to vote you need to prove citizenship. So you dont need to check it when voting.
Also they will try to confiscate mail in ballots because the Post Office is controlled by the Federal Government.
Im just a citizen, but I can see this clearly. Why can't political officials and pundits see this? When ICE first went to Minneapolis, I said they are training to go into cities and disrupt voting. Months later I start reading it in the news. People need to wake up.
Epstein's Russian connections, as well as Trump's, were obvious to anyone watching the New York real estate market. Russian oligarch money has been laundered through New York crooks for decades. Epstein and Trump didn't make money off legitimate businesses.
As the tidbits of the Epstein Class continue to leak past the Guardians of Amorality we see how this web of wealth and sexual predation plays into international politics and decision making. As we all stand with our faces hanging open the Epstein Class keeps telling us to move on there is nothing for us to see here. Frankly, from their POV what has happened is an internal affair that they have taken care of. Some innocent people may have been harmed but they are willing to accept that. It isn’t over by a mile.
1st set foot in Oxford on family trip when my eldest sis took grad classes 60 years ago. During the '90s had occasional business there, recall stress on campus about the name change. Seemed odd to me that johnny come lately anglos (MU founded 1809) felt that team name heritage (dating to ~1920s) should outweigh the wishes of native peoples whose roots went back much further. We didn't have the word 'woke' back then, just recall people saying the tribe should get over it, the nickname was meant as an honor so the tribe shouldn't take it negatively, etc. Basically: smile more
Just readvthis:
“You’re damn right we’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November,” former Trump advisor Steve Bannon said on his podcast on Feb. 4.
GOP lawmakers, like Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), have said there is nothing wrong with ICE appearing at the polls to question voters.
Dems won’t crush anything if all women who took a spouses name have to have it changed back to the one on her birth certificate just to vote! How many woman are going to pay for that?? How many woman will have the capacity to get a birth certificate which could take months- luckily I have mine handy. How many women have their marriage and divorce papers? Luckily I have mine. Who has $150 to have a legal name changed? That's the price in my state. Luckily their is a waiver form on my states website. But I’m resourceful. It’s a skill I acquired. But how about if a woman has a controlling or abusive husband? There is one vote gone right there. Nah, women are getting fucked and you can forget a big chunk of those votes. That’s the point.
Yes! I've been screaming this from the mountain top- steal the immigration narrative. It's not even hard: Establish and publish quotas, build a point system, dedicate funds to clear out the backlog, Separate out amnesty integration and put it on a two year renewal basis, Balance rules with heart. And don't apologize.
The Democrats need to start planning now for how they will exercise power if they obtain the trifecta in '29. Probably they should write up a vision statement and plan of action akin to MAGA's Project 2025.
The key question that needs to be addressed now, is what will be the theme of Democratic leadership in 2029: should it be Rapprochement with MAGA, or should it be Reckoning?
Put me in the camp calling for a Reckoning. The general public is not particularly political, and takes its cues for what is normal and acceptable political conduct, from our leaders - particularly the leaders at the top. When those leaders engage in outrageous norm-breaking, even open lawlessness, and face no consequences from the opposition, this conduct becomes normalized. And on the contrary, when the reaction to these abuses is unequivocal and robust, that can serve as an education for the public in what lies within the scope of proper political conflict, and what conduct is *unacceptable.* An adequate response is also vital in shaping the perceptions of future generations, of what has gone on here.
David Frum has made a very pertinent argument here, one drawn from Game Theory: in a two-player game, when your opponent apparently breaks the rules of the game and directly violates your basic interest, the best initial response is forbearance in your response - the retaliation you engage in should be moderate, allowing for the possibility that your opponent didn't intend the transgression, but merely made an error. But after this moment of forbearance (which we can all agree the Biden Admin. and particularly the Garland DOJ indulged against Trump and his henchmen), if your opponent doubles-down on the aggression, when the time comes to respond the response must come in kind.
What does an "in kind" response against MAGA forces look like, in 2029?
Democrats should begin the campaign of reckoning - a campaign which should be their *top* domestic policy focus, barring any acute national emergencies - by making *a direct assault on Trump's pardons.* There can be no calling MAGA to account if they are outside the reach of the law.
The Article I Branch of Congress has much greater potential power than people are today accustomed to think, given the way that party-solidarity has subordinated the People's Representatives to the Chief Executive. Under conditions of the trifecta, the Democrat President should assist Congress in every effort to rewrite the law on the pardon-power and to *cancel* Trump's pardons - ALL of them.
The broad-based conceit is that this can't be done without a Constitutional Amendment. But there is no reason that the Democrats in Congress have to accept this. Democrats can argue - on the basis of any philosophy of jurisprudence you like - Originalist, Textualist, Incrementalist, or the Living-Constitution approach of "the spirit of the law" - to assert that prior assessments by the High Court of an "absolute" power of pardon for the Executive are *illegitimate* and *invalid,* and that the Constitution affords the Congress the ability to clarify the *meaning* of the Article II provision, to give Congress a veto on individual pardons, if they deem the pardon in question to have been conferred by corrupt-bargain.
It might be the case, that suit would be brought in any circumstance where a Trump-pardon was cancelled; but over and above the ability of Congress to make a case on the merits before the Supreme Court and the public that the legislation is consistent with the Constitution, Congress as the Article I Branch *also* has many tools to go at the Judiciary *directly,* to bend the Justices to the will of the People's Representatives on this question.
This is a radical proposal, yes - but in 2029 the United States will be in the midst of a radical phase of our history, and will be in need of a new period of Reconstruction where the Congress reclaims authority that has been lost both to the Executive and to the Supreme Court, over the last seventy-five + years.
This new era of Reconstruction cannot proceed without a reckoning for MAGA lawlessness, and a law-abiding democracy CANNOT survive after allowing the precedent to be set where corrupt-bargain pardons are normalized. Democrats must act, and not be hamstrung by the claim that they can't act without a Constitutional Amendment.
If we are really going to dream, can we dream of having the votes to pull off an amendment?
Amendments are a practical impossibility, today. New precedent set by the Supreme Court has replaced them. But the Court is hostile territory, captured by the Conservatives after a generations-long effort.
For Democrats, to dream means to get the trifecta (as I said at the outset, 'Project 2029' depends on getting it). With that in hand they need to exercise the FULL power that the Constitution grants the Article I Branch of government. Congress *seems* like a totally ineffectual branch of government, but this is the result of the Executive's party in Congress suborning itself to the Executive, and - above all - the abuse of the filibuster. The *very first* task for the Democrats is to nuke it. (Many claim that this will intensify partisan rancor all the more, but analysts like David Frum think it will have the opposite effect).
The point is this: Democrats need to make the argument that *the Constitution already gives them the power* to limit the Executive's pardon-power. And part of the way they *make* that argument, is to proceed to assert it by *codifying* it.
https://youtu.be/Ci_0PAObc4A?si=6XYFIFDV6M14Xcla
Nice. But Trump's approval rating never changes always around 40% +/-. Also, they are prepping ICE to "protect" elections and also trying to pass the ID law at the polls. If this happens there will be no Democrats winning at the polls.
Concerning IDs will someone tell the Federal government that in order to register to vote you need to prove citizenship. So you dont need to check it when voting.
Also they will try to confiscate mail in ballots because the Post Office is controlled by the Federal Government.
Im just a citizen, but I can see this clearly. Why can't political officials and pundits see this? When ICE first went to Minneapolis, I said they are training to go into cities and disrupt voting. Months later I start reading it in the news. People need to wake up.
Epstein's Russian connections, as well as Trump's, were obvious to anyone watching the New York real estate market. Russian oligarch money has been laundered through New York crooks for decades. Epstein and Trump didn't make money off legitimate businesses.
Tricia McLaughlin, however she presents publicly, is just another piece of Trump's malignant machine.
If ICE facilities are so comfortable, might I suggest that Tricia and her hubby take their Manhattan digs for ICE splendor?
As the tidbits of the Epstein Class continue to leak past the Guardians of Amorality we see how this web of wealth and sexual predation plays into international politics and decision making. As we all stand with our faces hanging open the Epstein Class keeps telling us to move on there is nothing for us to see here. Frankly, from their POV what has happened is an internal affair that they have taken care of. Some innocent people may have been harmed but they are willing to accept that. It isn’t over by a mile.
Go SLU! From my outpost in New Hampshire, I'm very excited to finally see them in person on Tuesday in Rhode Island!
Free idea for campaign slogan: America, we're better than this.
Love & Honor to Miami!
Go Big Reds 😊
1st set foot in Oxford on family trip when my eldest sis took grad classes 60 years ago. During the '90s had occasional business there, recall stress on campus about the name change. Seemed odd to me that johnny come lately anglos (MU founded 1809) felt that team name heritage (dating to ~1920s) should outweigh the wishes of native peoples whose roots went back much further. We didn't have the word 'woke' back then, just recall people saying the tribe should get over it, the nickname was meant as an honor so the tribe shouldn't take it negatively, etc. Basically: smile more