He's still pissed about that swan looking at him.

I'm not a serious stakeholder in the debate, but I always disliked the argument that being anti-abortion necessitates being anti-death-penalty or the like.

Seems to me there's intellectual consistency in saying that it's the purely innocent life of the unborn that's being protected, and that's different from the life of a person with agency who has committed acts worthy of retribution.

I basically disagree with both of those views, but I don't see them as inherently contradictory. The left tries to play a gotcha with this, I don't buy it.

Right. Pointing out double standards and extreme hypocrisy but I’m the extreme ass. Fact is, the point stands and the religious zealots constantly imposing their morals into government are the problem, not the ones calling them out.

I’m sure Ben is an otherwise great guy. Unfortunately his post was the one that forced the point to be made. Nothing personal.

It's more the phrase 'right to life' as sometimes the right likes to imply that the left doesn't care about life.

The complicated factor, though, is that we know some percentage of those executed were innocent.

Do people really think that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that some states won't stop there? It isn't a big leap to getting to the point of miscarriages being investigated for potential manslaughter charges. Before abortion became a hot political topic, miscarriages were called "spontaneous abortions".

And birth control pills.

I do. As Edward says, meanings matter. It matters whether something is racist, or just bigoted, or merely meanspirited/unkind/insensitive. Distinctions matter and things have degrees. With the new slanted version we're in Orwellian territory, and I guess while I still very much consider equality to be important, I don't need to be concerned about racism anymore since that definition shows it's not a concept to be treated seriously.

[edit--was talking about abortion on the internet. Deleted post.]

So your argument is that A) People lie to pollsters, but only about things we want to think they believe. When it's about issue important to us then they tell pollsters the truth. And B) You can't be anti-immigration etc. for any reason other than racism.

If that's the case then you truly have an irrefutable position - in the sense that it isn't tethered enough to sound logic to even be coherent, much less refutable.


They are measuring something I wasn't talking about - economic dissatisfaction isn't the big issue. It's constantly being insulted and apologized for by their leaders, governing by focus group, a perceived lack of strength of leadership, etc. In other words, it's beyond policy to a brashness of approach or however you want to term it, which is why you constantly see things cropping up in the polling along the lines of people basically not liking what Trump said but liking how he said it, and responding to that part of it; the refusal to take any crap from anybody or whatever. It's more intangible than any of this.

But also, correlation does not equal causation. The fact that members of a specific group support candidate X or why does not necessarily tell us why they do so. I.e. the fact that the Democratic party is split on socialism while Republicans and Independents strongly oppose it does not mean that the Democratic party is a socialist party or that they are campaigning on socialism or that their supporters favor them because of that ... it's just one factor.

Seems fair to say the stimulus talks officially died with RGB too. Sure feels like Dems gonna fuck this chicken....like the Republicans appear to be going scorched earth under the assumption that Trump will lose, but the Dem response is somehow "We can scorch our earth too!!" Noooooo motherfuckers! What are you doing??

Remember when legal immigration was going to be expanded.

Nope.

Trump WH is rushing to take advantage of Ginsburg's death. They've asked for an October ruling asking that undocumented immigrants be excluding from congressional reapportionment.

Just so we're clear, I did not say that. Ben said that. Not sure why the quote had my handle in there

I think it's natural that people aren't honest in regards to labels they don't want. If you ran a poll and asked people if they were pedophiles, I imagine the response rate would be significantly lower than reality.

Racists also don't believe they are racist and come up with other justifications. Birthers didn't consider themselves racists, just strict adherents to truth and the constitution. Confederate supporters created the Lost Cause narrative to absolve them of supporting something unconscionable. And racists today latch on to a comically hypocritical "law and order" mantra to justify oppression and state-sponsored killings of political opponents and other races.

The best evidence for this is looking at his campaign. It is almost entirely centered around race. His speeches are mostly about race and his personal gripes. Little to no policy mentioned.

If you truly think people are not voting for him because of the race stuff, then tell me what they like about him? He has no real positions. Everything changes based on what somewhat said to him on Fox News that day. His campaign message can be described with 14 words.

In fairness to Ben, if you truly believe abortion is a form of murder, then anyone is justified in stopping it. Regardless of what your religion is, limiting abortions should be your goal if you believe life begins at conception (which many non-religious people believe too).

With that said, most (not all) of the pro-life movement doesn't care about abortion. It's a tool to control women. Which is why they don't support contraceptives, sex education, health care, or child care which would dramatically limit the number of abortions in this country.

I have no clue what Ben's stance is on the other stuff. But if he supports birth control and other measures that reduce abortions (or miscarriages), I would consider him sincere in his beliefs and not have an issue with it.

I am pro-choice but think we should do what we can to limit abortions.

I really don't think people lie to pollsters as much as they lie to themselves.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Yep. There's a lot of self-delusion going on. It's easier that way not to have to look hard at your beliefs and reactions to people and things, and realize some uncomfortable truths.

I have. The most recent post in which I did so is six posts previous to yours, the one you quoted a different part of. It's not a take unique to me by any means - it was either Time or Newsweek that was talking about this while the '16 primary was still being contested.

Your point about polling is true, but irrelevant - sort of strawmanish. When people do polls about white nationalism and racism, etc, they usually don't ask the questions in terms of 'are you a white nationalist/racist'. They're a lot more subtle than that. And yet you still only get 6-10% of respondents fitting the profile.

Look at Trump's convention speech. He talked about Biden some, about what he has done and intends to do vis a vis covid, about continuing his track on trade, about cutting taxes, about continuing work on immigration, about sanctuary cities, about charter schools and vouchers, etc. A lot of it was pure and unadulterated hogwash. But it's just not true to say he just talks about race and personal gripes. It just isn't.

100% sure this didn't happen.

There is no consistent plan on trade. It changes every week. Covid has been an utter disaster and the rest of the world made us look like fools. The immigration stuff is so tied into the racist/bigot stuff that you can't separate that.

I suppose there are people willing to look past the white supremacist stuff because he is for school vouchers. And if you're rich, another tax cut sounds sweet. But the vast majority of his voters aren't rich and don't have kids attending private schools. Wonder why they are voting for him.

If you'd like to see what I'm talking about, sign up for his mailing list. You'll get about 3-4 e-mails a day talking about the minorities coming to the suburbs to get you. Not a lot of talk about taxes or other issues. They know their audience well.

The weird thing is that I don't think anyone in his campaign would deny what they're doing. It's a dogwhistle campaign and they have pushed it to the extreme. Not sure why you are so adamant to say it is not when they have been pretty open about what they are doing.

Reminds me of when Trump says something bad, people defend it by saying "that's not what he meant" and then he turns around and admits that is precisely what he meant.

B-b-but he mentioned taxes a few weeks ago in a speech he didn't write.

President Trump: "How about Omar of Minnesota? We're going to win the state Minnesota because of her, they say. She's telling us how to run our country. How did you do where you came from?" pic.twitter.com/yYb9c2I6S4

— The Hill (@thehill) September 23, 2020

When you think what's on his mailing list is more important than what he said at the convention, which is the most important and most-watched speech a candidate gives during the campaign, I don't know what to tell you. I think that's right in line really with not believing what people are saying during polls that you don't think reflect reality (similarly with the claim there are no undecideds when there are, etc). I don't disagree that Trump has been a disaster on COVID etc. but that isn't the point. The point is that he spent significant time talking about it and he has an approach to the virus that he's been touting, calling Biden's a surrender. The sheer idiocy of that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Anyone can cherrypick, but I'm specifically and intentionally going to the most important evidence that's available when I talk about the polling, the convention speech, etc. And then this:


Yes, you absolutely can. But again, if one assumes there's only way to look at an issue you can convince yourself of pretty much anything. It's not a way to determine what reality actually is though.

I'm not saying Trump doesn't appeal to racists at all. I'm saying that's not where the majority of his support comes from.

The problem I have with repeatedly insisting all of these individual things don't meet someone's personal definition of racism is the underlying suggestion that it's entirely binary and if a particular piece of policy can not be judged absolutely & explicitly racist than that policy is absolutely not racist.

Instead of IF Trump's policies are racist, let's consider HOW racist are Trump's collective policies? Whatever scale you want to use, the answer certainly isn't zero.

It actually is.

65% of Trump supporters think Obama is a Muslim
59% of Trump supporters doesn't think Obama is an American

GOP Quickly Unifies Around Trump; Clinton Still Has Modest Lead | Public Policy Polling

Just catching up on the last few pages, we're still talking about trump, trump supporters, and racism/bigotry, and we haven't even gotten around to addressing the "good genes" in Minnesota.

That statement is so fucking terrifying it should have taken over the entirety of discussion for a week and should have swung polls by 10 points, but my bet is that instead, even among the much more intelligent than average folks here, we won't even be able to agree that those comments are even racist. 2020, man. (If we can all agree on the meaning of Trump's comments I'll be the happiest wrong person on the entire internet, by the way).

I think everyone knows the intent, some won't admit it. It was obvious when he followed the line up by talking about how Biden is going to send a bunch of Somalis to their neighborhood. Atwater would be proud.

It's just eugenics speak for "don't let Biden infect your superior white genes with those inferior black genes".

Having been a Minnesotan at one time, I learned that the large Somali population is from Catholic missionaries that brought them in as refugees. Always found it ironic that Trump is blaming left-wing politicians for something a bunch of religious folks are doing.

This is evidence of people being stupid. It is not evidence of them being racist. Muslim is not a race. American is not a race.

On this one I agree with you. When you talk about an entire state having good genes, it's horrifying and it's pretty clear what you're saying.


FWIW this isn't what I'm saying. It's more that the amount of racism is unknowable. I said so earlier in the thread. I.e. if something can be supported for racist reasons, can be opposed for racist reasons, and can also be supported & opposed for reasons that aren't racist, then how much racism is involved is going to vary so widely as to defy being determined. Not being able to know how much racism is involved in the decision to support something is not the same as saying there isn't any of it; it does mean though that it's not correct to presume racism as the driving force.

Considering how 2020 has gone so far, I saw #DoomsdayDevice was trending on Twitter and extremely relieved to find out it was about wrestling (sadly, however, it was about the passing of one of the Road Warriors)

SI

So most of you guys are smarter than me, especially when it comes to this stuff. Other than the fact it is Obamas magnum opus, why does the Trump admin and republicans want to eliminate ACA and why would the supreme court rule in their favor? Assuming of course there is no alternative, which despite Trumps claims we all know there isn't. Is it just the preexisting conditions?

I won't go as far as saying this post is evidence of you being stupid, but quit being obtuse. Obama is Black, and has a funny name, therefore he is Muslim and therefore not an American. Everyone should know full well where this "not American" thing stems from.

Right, when someone starts arguing that Birtherism isn't racist then they really aren't being serious about the matter at all.

you honestly think these people differentiate between the two?

/waits for the "well actually by the ADL definition of 'racism'" poppycock*


* for everyone's sensitive eyeballs

It kind of reminds me about the narrative around Nixon. Nixon used a TON of racially coded language and when he was called on it, his supporters would say that's BS, you just see racism in everything. The Silent Majority isn't about racism. He's not pushing policies because they are racist - it's because they are good policies.

Of course then the White House Tapes came out and showed that Nixon was a massive racist and were pursuing policies for racist reasons just like people on the left were saying.

Of course the difference is that Trump openly says he's doing things for racist reasons (he's not as bright as Nixon).

I'm not being obtuse at all. I personally know a number of people who fell for the birther thing who aren't racists in any way I can discern; they don't use racial slurs or treat minorities noticeably different than they treat others, etc. As with all such things the origins are complicated. There are racists who push such things, there are propagandists who could give a crap about the truth or falsehood of something as long as it suits their purposes, there are people who fall for the propaganda because anything negative about the opposition must be true, there are people who trust the wrong sources for information, and so on.


Here we are again with the 'there's only one way to view the issue' nonsense. 'Anyone who thinks liberals really care about all Americans isn't being serious about the matter'. See how that works? There's no end of ways to play that game, and it's a counterproductive exercise (as well as just being unfair at a basic level).

You are fully entitled to believe anything you want. I just don't treat people seriously who think Birtherism isn't racist. I think people who state that are either stupid or deliberately obtuse and do not believe them when they claim otherwise. Do with that what you feel like.

Honestly, this sounds more applicable to the radical left here. It's binary - racist or not racist, I have not read anything that (I can remember) from the radical left that shows any grey.


There are policies that may seem racist to some but really are driven by other factors. When merit-based immigration came up, some said it was racist. Because Miller drove it, sure racism is a factor, but it's also IMO good policy and helps the US economically in the future (ask Canada). I'm definitely okay if the radical left see both in the argument but they don't, it's automatically a racist policy.


FWIW, I think this is a very fair question and I'd like to continue the discussion if you are game. However, I think it needs to be broken out vs "collective policies". Come up with the list of policies for consideration and would want your "grading" also. If not interested, np.

Some of the reasons are bad ones, such as the whole 'Obama did it' thing. Others are traditional conservatism; freedom is good, the government having more control of health care is bad, health care can't be a human right because goods and services aren't a human right, etc. Some of it is the impact it's had on small business, personal choice of health plans, etc. I think there's a lot of factors there.

It's hard for me to see what SCOTUS would find objectionable enough to rule against it at this point, but I'm not super well-versed in that area of the law.

Trump wants to get rid of it because of Obama. And I'm sure a bunch of Republicans feel similarly as they made Obama into a boogeyman. However, a number of Republicans don't like that the ACA increased regulations on insurance companies - group health plans have to cover preventive care procedures with no cost sharing (and there are questions as to what is preventive), they cannot assess annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and then, pre-existing coverage (which even if the GOP passes an anti-pre-existing coverage exclusion bill, there are the other regs).

The Supreme Court may rule to strike down the ACA for the same reason the 5th Circuit did - the idea that the individual mandate was unseverable from the ACA. I think it's a silly concept when the individual mandate was removed by legislation and not a court ruling (where severability is mostly applied) - because if one is looking at intent and concludes that the ACA Congress thought the mandate was essential, one should also look at the Congress which removed the mandate and explicitly did NOT intend to end the ACA. On the other hand, sometimes SCOTUS doesn't care about precedence when it wants to reverse - and with Barrett or Lagoa they don't need to worry about Roberts saving the ACA.

That sounds like putting a bunch of effort into arguing against my own point.

Sorry, didn't mean it that way.

I guess my point is after your come up with a "collective policies" grade, the next obvious question is "why" and to answer that you would need to know the policies that made up the "collective policies".

Contrary to what they said at the time of the ACA, plenty of conservatives don't believe should should have healthcare if they can't afford it. There are plenty like the staffer in Tillis' office that told a woman she can't have healthcare unless she can afford it.

I always get flack for this, but a lot of Republicans really do think, I've got mine, fuck you.

And surprisingly, the same things are true for Ilhan Omar.

Yes, the tens of millions of Trump's constituents who had excellent health care plans prior to ACA who are livid for paying higher deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket maximums has nothing to do with it.

How long were Republicans using Obama's middle name to scare people?

There's also a number of Trump's constituents that are perfectly happy with the ACA as long as they're not told its Oamacare.

Indiana just opted to fully reopen in a Stage 5 return to normalcy

Stage 5 dictates:

• Restaurants, bars, and nightclubs may operate
at FULL capacity
• Conventions, sports events, fairs, festivals and like events may resume

— Zack Guzman (@zGuz) September 23, 2020

Indiana just quit.

Fucking quitters.

Americans used to actually be willing to sacrifice. Or, at least, that was the story we told ourselves.

Now we aren't even telling the story anymore. We're a nation of weak-ass quitters and don't even care who knows about it.

And every single expert I've seen have said that we are headed for a spike in October. And the flu is also coming. People having the flu and Covid at the same time is going to be a disaster.

Were the stories of the United States sacrificing during wartime in the 40s just that? Like 40% of the people sacrificed while the other 60% didn't do jack but we integrated that 40% into the mythos because it sounded good and American? I mean, I have no idea and only one of my relatives who was alive then is alive today.

(EDIT: I should ask grandma. That said, people were more "insulated" in a way then - you couldn't see beyond your local town except what was broadcast on the news so I'm not sure what she'd "know". Now, I can see some dimwit on the other side of country or world broadcast to the entire world that he doesn't want to wear a mask and how proud he is of that)

SI

Flu might conceivably be skipped this year with how little circulation the Influenza Viruses had in the southern hemispere (due to a) covid measures in place and b) almost no travel in their autumn). Not smart to be counting the proverbial chickens yet but there's hope here
Especially since even basic precautions by a decent chunk of people would make a big dent. Remember that Influenza is much less explosively spreading by default, so takes less to impede (which makes it kinda shameful we don't make the effort as a society but instead are cool with people going to work sick etc).

Everyone around here has been good. Masks on at stores, good social distancing. Barely any spread in my neighborhood. Doesn't seem that difficult.

Well that does give me some hope. I know the doctors and hospitals here are dreading flu season (we aren't doing a great job in the US state of Georgia).

This is sobering from the latest Atlantic issue released:


Later...


And


What If Trump Refuses to Concede? - The Atlantic

Our country is fucked. It's like watching the fall of democracy and sanity die in slow motion.

That is scary, but stuff like this story can also be counter-productive. You keep telling people their vote won't matter before an election, they won't vote.

Yep. Ideally, you want people to know their vote will count, but not overconfident that their candidate will win.

Counterproductive to report on a subversive plan by the President and his office to undermine election results and stage a coup? Yea, let's just bury our head in the sand, plug our ears and say "la la la" knowing that norms will be upheld and our votes will be counted fairly. Trusting the Republicans to do the right thing and respect the system has worked SO well the last 4 years...

The republican house in Pennsylvania is flat out insane. There are a shit ton of members so all these little outposts get representation. Guys were in session all throughout the early part of the Covid restrictions attempting to ratfuck the process. I don't doubt that some shithead like Russ Diamond won't become a hero when he flat out attempts to ignore the election results.

Also, how does one deal when his cousin attempts to impeach the governor of your state? I'm still kind of pissed off about it.

I get that with rumors and speculation, but when high level GOP folks are willing to go on the record it has to be reported.

There's a lot of truth in this. The missing part is that a lot of those who believe that health care is only for those who can afford it (and other similar mindsets) isn't just about **** those who can't afford it. There's also the belief that such an approach is better for everyone by not encouraging dependency on the government.


Agree with this completely. It's important that people know we have a President who is considering doing such things, instead of letting the system sort through any potential fraud issues and return an accurate and correct result on the election. It's always better to get information like this out there, even if it results in people reacting in bad ways.

lol the people who love freedom so much just had their President say he wouldn't commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses. Trump has expanded government health coverage by heavily regulating what they are forced to cover during the pandemic. Signed a bill that would provide billions in government health services to Americans.

Absolutely none of the shit you mentioned matter to his voters. Stop the dumb charade.

All those people shut the fuck up real quick when he signed the CARES Act and pushed a bunch of executive orders to provide government health care to people. Almost like this is a completely bullshit reason they voted for him.

It's not a charade. Stop assuming motivations and thoughts of other people whose minds you can't read.

Oh, and btw the original question here was about why people want to get rid of ACA, not about why people support Trump. Nowhere did I say ACA is a major reason why people voted for him. Go back to what I said about that not being policy-based and more about the opposition than what they are actually for. This is a totally different question. Not to mention that most of the country agrees that what you do during a pandemic is not the same as what you do during normal times, etc.

I get that it's a lot more comfortable to think of the opposition as a cross being Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc, pure evil incarnate. Reality is always more complex than that.

It is a charade. I'm showing you all these things you claim these people are for is bullshit. They don't really care about any of it.

There was no backlash from Republicans on what Trump just did with health care. Why is this if they truly don't want the government involved in helping uninsured people? Where are these brave patriots you speak of?

The rest of the answer is even worse.

JUST IN: Asked if he'd "commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferral of power after the election," Pres. Trump says, "Well, we're going to have to see what happens." https://t.co/M5slGfPrE2 pic.twitter.com/1g1xuzqeLt

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) September 23, 2020

It's also worth pointing out again that this isn't a game of absolutes. Given the dominant binary lesser-of-two-evils mindset, which I remind everyone is endorsed by most posters on this forum, it's not as if there was/is choice for small-government types between Trump and and an arch-conservative. Conservatism wasn't on the ballot in 2016 and isn't there in 2020. So if you're somebody who thinks that way, your choice is between bad and worse on those issues. You're picking Trump over Clinton or Biden doesn't mean you like what Trump says on health care or whatever. It means only that you think you're going to get a less-bad result from him.

No you're not. You're setting up an absolutist standard which is not the way things work in modern politics for better or worse. I never said anything about 'brave patriots'. If you want to address yourself to what I've actually said instead of mashing things together from different parts of the discussion in a distortionist fashion and now moving into flat-out making things up, I'm all for that.

Good God, Trump is asked what he wants to say to the country about the Breonna Taylor decision and he says I have to take an emergency phone call and walks out. He's not even pretending anymore. This, after refusing to commit to a peaceful transition if he loses.

Everything is totally normal!

You literally gave an explanation for why people would vote for him because of a stance on health care that he contradicted just a few months back.

If you truly believe that people voted for him because he would keep government out of health care, where are these people who should be irate now?

Trump and the GOP ran on the "get rid of Obamacare" plank and then won the presidency and both houses of Congress and did nothing in 2017-18, unless you count Trump's "We're going to have a beautiful healthcare plan with coverage for pre-existing conditions at no cost to anyone, plus I may throw in gold-plated toilet seats for everyone with the money leftover that we save after dismantling Obamacare" BS.

The GOP's entire "plan" was not a healthcare plan but an election plan - Repeal with absolutely nothing to replace it with, so they couldn't repeal.

No, I did not. Lathum asked why people wanted to remove the ACA. That's the question I answered. I made no statement about how much this factors into Trump's support. On that, I refer you to my more recent post about the comparison between Trump and Biden/Clinton, but more importantly my still-ignored statements on where I think the evidence shows Trump's support primarily comes from.

I hope to hell tonight's press conference is plastered all over the news. This crap cannot stand. But damn if this ain't the truth...

"On the one hand, Trump vows to ignore election results unless we get rid of "the ballots." On the other, Biden stuttered." - The American media, obsessed with its "on one hand, on the other hand" approach that they will only regret when Trump's thugs are storming their offices.

— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) September 23, 2020

Missouri Governor Parsons and the first lady test positive. Ironic.

It amazes me people are so blind they can't see Trumps whole strategy is to try and invalid an election he already knows he is going to lose.

And the Supreme Court is going to rule 5-4 to stop counting the ballots after he declares victory on election night. Thomas, Alito and the 3 Trump appointees. Robert's can't save us anymore.

I actually think he's not going to get the court to do that. He'll have 3 votes, probably, but I'm not sure about 4 and 5.

Yeah, he'll have Alito, Thomas, and this 3rd appointee. Maybe Kavanaugh. But I don't see Gorsuch going for that at all.

I'm not denying that's what he's banking on. I just don't think he'll be successful.

At that point you're not really living in any sort of democracy so who cares?

I think the idea of state legislators appointing electors is a bigger issue. The whole party is a Trump cult and I could easily see a couple of states doing that because of "voter fraud."

Maybe the real impressive accomplishment is that we've managed to get by for 200+ years with only two elections where "the guy who got the most electoral votes gets to be President" was an issue--even though we've had all of these anti-democratic mechanisms in place the whole time. (Bush/Gore and Tilden/Hayes).

It won't happen, but it sure would be awesome to have an omnibus amendment that fixed a lot of these issues that Dear Leader is bringing to the surface.

Nah, who needs regulations?

Correct, and that's a good thing. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected. In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

Yeah, we all know this is not a pure democracy, so I don't know if you think that's some stunning insight, but it isn't.

Right now what's happening is the rights of the majority are being infringed by the will of the minority. Is that what the Constitution is supposed to protect?

The US is a democracy. It is a representative democracy. No one argued it was a direct democracy, so I'm not sure what the point of your post was, unless you thought you were actually being insightful with your attempt at a 3rd grade civics lesson as taught by Newt Gingrich..

But if we upgrade to a democracy I'll get another purple card slot.

I love this so much. Will you be my internet best friend?

WaPo released what I think is a pretty fair breakdown on Trump's race record:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...49c_story.html

This line sums up his true feelings for black Americans perfectly

"Trump regretted reducing prison sentences when it didn’t produce a spike in Black voter support."

It was never about anyone but him which is why the momentum of his justice reform quickly subsided as soon as he realized it would hurt him with his base more than it would help him with a group he truly couldn't give 2 shits about.

I hope to hell this cop is ID'd and fired. He's not even riding his bike, he purposely walks it over the dude's head/neck! And appears to push down on the back wheel as it goes over.

The police at the #seattleprotests just ran over an injured mans head with their bikes. @SeattlePD is this how you train your officers? pic.twitter.com/c4e146tsmi

— Martin Banks (@WarlockBranis) September 24, 2020

That said, it's a really good law. His motivations might have been cynical, but the result has been lots and lots of guys spending a lot less time in prison than they would have otherwise.

Yeah, it has been one of the few things he has done right. Of course, there is still more to be done in that area as well.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

And I totally agree with that, just a shame his intent was not honorable. Also doesn't seem like it will advance any further than it has.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/polit...hts/index.html

Here is what a state representative said when the State Legislature passed the bill that required the debts be paid.


The debt will be paid off, Rep. Grant. It will no longer exists. It is almost like the problem was not the financial debt in the first place.

Until they take voting away from people late on their taxes or other fees the objective is crystal clear.

Good for you McConnell.

McConnell pushes back on Trump: 'There will be an orderly transition' | TheHill

I don't think Trump has the support in Washington he believes he does. If he loses the election and tries to cause problems he's going to find out really fast most Congressional GOP only supported him as a GOP president.

I've said McConnell would likely give up the Presidency to someone like Biden if it means he keeps Senate control. I think if he gets this justice pushed through he won't even be too concerned about that. Give him his justice and get Trump out of Washington and he probably couldn't be happier.

This is so much less than what it might appear to be. He's leaving room for a scenario where Trump could be winning on election night and then the counting is stopped by the courts. He certainly isn't saying that all the votes will be counted.