And declared the loan on his taxes, reducing his tax burden. For a campaign loan.

What a dumbass.

Holy shit, you can see how your neighbours voted in the US? WTF?

Colour me stupid if it’s the same in England, but that is nuts...

How they are registered to vote, not how they voted. In some states you register for a party, so you can vote in closed primaries (primaries only open to those declared "Democrat" or "Republican").

Not how they voted. When you register to vote, you can declare a political party (required to vote in primaries in some states).

edit: Beat me to it.

President Donald Trump is scheduled to host his first in-person event since testing positive for the coronavirus on Saturday at the White House discussing "law and order," despite evidence of a growing coronavirus outbreak at the White House this week.

The event will feature "remarks to peaceful protesters for law and order" by the president

^ that should be a doozy.

OK, so it’s effectively a virtual yard sign... I thought that was a little too much!

It's also a "who to call for money" registry.

Would be something else if 35 people showed up.

Pence requesting an absentee ballot in Indiana: Vice President Mike Pence had requested absentee ballots by mail

Doesn’t own any property in the state and used the governor’s mansion as his address.

So... him cancelling the trip yesterday was because he can't vote in person because he grabbed an absentee ballot which, of course, you can't trust because of all that mail fraud or whatever?

Did someone tap him on the shoulder and say "Uh, Mr. VP, you can't vote twice"?

SI

Does anyone in this administration really think he won't screw them at some point?

Trump personnel office weighs asking appointees to offer their resignations - POLITICO

Letters of resignation? I'm surprised he doesn't demand they all carry cyanide capsules.

It wouldn't surprise me if that was one of the demands from trumpenfuhrer.

I love how even the anonymous official admits they've risked their reputation working for this administration.

I suspect we will see a lot of "I felt it was my responsibility to stay on and try to minimize the damage he was doing" excuses.

Glad to see the clown is hosting another super spreader event tomorrow. Keep on digging that grave.

oh good...like The Supreme Court...

Texas order limiting absentee drop-off sites to 1 per county blocked by federal court.

This is a good site to track early voting:

2020 General Election Early Vote Statistics

I have been participating in an online survey that is tied in with Facebook. They paid me to shut down Facebook for one week (they could have done up to 6 weeks), and asked me answer a survey questionnaire right before the shut down. They are also going to ask me several surveys through November.

My first one was today, and it had a question that disturbed me. "If one of the candidates refuses to accept the election results and claims victory, how justified is violence to enforce the correct results?"

I participated in a survey with the exact same question (ERP?). I think that question depends on what is the minimum consideration for violence - does the military coming in and dragging Trump out forcefully = violence?

If Trump does try to take the government by coup, I'd hope the military would rise up and depose him - violently if needed.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Is Lindsay Graham trying to lose? I get whining on Fox about getting outfunded, but during a debate? Also, his comment about blacks going wherever they want in SC as long as they are conservative not liberal is just ridiculous.

ISiddiqui, that's what hung me up about it. Are they asking if I think civilians should resort to violence (which is a firm no), or should law enforcement if needed use violence to enforce the law (which is yes). I don't believe it would be military involvement, but I can totally see the Secret Service having to drag Trump out of the White House.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I think he just doesn't care anymore if people see the real Lindsay Graham. All the money pouring into the state isn't going to his campaign, and for the very first time he knows that he can (will?) lose this election. He's a spoiled baby crying to his mother.

Edit: I will be very curious how the next couple of polls in SC go and we maybe can breathe a little easier about him being gone.

Having helped design a couple of these sorts of surveys, my best guess is that it is this vague on purpose. It's not about getting a result to that question or gaugin what measures people find acceptable, just seeing how each person changes their answer or not (relative to their own Definition), no matter where they slide on a scale initially with regard to what they would see as/allow as violence.
Because the survey seems pretty clearly aimed more at how facebook/no facebook changes answers and less about gauging response to issues as such.

Finally, an endorsement they won't take!

"Trump might be ridiculous for the rest of the world, but he is sane and wise man for the Taliban," a Sr Taliban member told @Samiyousafzai of hope for a Trump 2020 win. @TimMurtaugh told @CBSNews that the campaign rejects the endorsement. #campaign2020https://t.co/Okffh088yE

— Margaret Brennan (@margbrennan) October 10, 2020

Kellyanne, you aren't going to fix this yourself. If you haven't already, get some professional help. I don't give a flip about you (or George) but your daughter needs professional help and/or much better parenting which you haven't provided.

Claudia Conway, 15, says her oxygen levels are low amid COVID-19 battle | Daily Mail Online

Just a dumb teenager, Duh

My daughter saw a picture of Chris Christie and said he looks like a young, fat version of Huckleberry Hound (that's what my kids call Roy Williams) and now I can't unsee it.

AHAHAHAHAHA

I just hope someone does something when he tries to launch nukes

Everything's a con.

People stopped him when he wanted to illegally fire people. I don't think we have to worry about him launching nukes.

My guess is odds of a stimulus deal before elections has gone way down. I don't understand why some GOP senators think the newly counter $1.8T is a death knell & would deflate the base but that fills in some blanks for me on why there's not been more momentum.

Futures are still strong positive right now but have to wait till Sun evening to get a better indicator.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/10/polit...ump/index.html

I do wonder what Biden is thinking regarding stimulus, economy & spending.

Hmmm, okay we passed first stimulus at $2T+, we are going to pass another stimulus right after I'm elected for another $2T+. I'm doing away with the $1T+ in tax breaks, I'm still down $3T+. And oh yeah, we still have the regular deficit stuff to worry about & our debt will be over 100%+ of GDP soon. And have to fix SS and Medicare somehow.

Anyone know who is on the short-list for Biden's Treasury & State slots?

I wonder if this is just a sign the GOP is breaking from Trump because they know he is toast.

My favorite moment which I'm sure you'll fall in line on is when the dial flips to be concerned about the deficit. I love when the Fiscal conservatives do that.

The signs of Fall:

Cooler weather.
Pumpkins
Changing leaves
GOP politicians conveniently forgetting that "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter" whenever they fear that a Democrat might come into power.

GOP Senators are already pivoting their campaigns to account for an expected Trump loss by arguing they need to keep the Senate to check a Biden presidency.

Also, I think the Dem's "court-packing" line of argument is bad. What the GOP is about to do may be a lot of things, most of them not good, but it's not court-packing. To keep repeating that statement sounds dumb and/or disingenuous. I understand they are trying to turn the GOP's message against them, but it's apples or oranges. Take it on on its merits (or lack thereof).

Oh yeah. I mean Rand Paul was all over approving that tax break that took a trillion out of revenue, but now he's 'very concerned' about spending again. He's always got to jump to his newest high horse, when he can.

Is this real life?

Trump wanted to wear a Superman shirt to surprise people - Business Insider

I don't believe it's true. Mainly because if he came up with that idea, there's no way he wouldn't have wanted it to be a T instead of an S.

SNL needs to kill the 12+ minute opening sketches featuring meh impressions. Can't wait til the election is over. Feel like we're losing at least 1 sketch.

Would 2 meh sketches be better than 1?

eh, 2 shots are better than 1 at the end of an NBA quarter.

People still watch SNL?

They invented a precedent to justify abrogating Constitutional responsibilities for a year - and to be clear, I'm not saying that their responsibility was to approve Garland, but I AM saying that Mitch McConnell saying "eat my entire flabby ass Obama" does not constitute "the advice and consent of the Senate." Refusing to schedule hearings is the advice and consent of an overweight turtle fucker, not the Senate - and then invented another one to justify rushing a nominee through less than a month before the election.

All while ignoring the actual literal precedent from 1864 where Lincoln went "hey we just had a SCOTUS death a month before an election and we're in control of both the White House and the Senate because most of the Democrats who'd be here are in absentis because whee rebellion but yanno? Let's wait until after the election to do this shit."

Is it "court packing"? Not in the most literal "imma add justices" sense. Is it craven political calculation designed to ensure that the Supreme Court is set up to thwart any Democratic political initiatives for at least a generation, and maybe to roll back any gains they've made in the last 10 years?

You betcha.

I agree with you. Should the Dems take the Senate they need to add 2 seats, not because it's right, but because they can, and it's the same expression of power whose use has been justified against them for the last decade.

4 seats*

May as well go for that 7-6 majority.

I don't think so. I think they can successfully argue to the American people that the two seats are to balance GOP hypocrisy with Garland and Barrett. Any more than that just looks like a power grab.

In fact, I'd argue they should make the number of seats 11 and propose a Constitutional Amendment capping it there to prevent further funny business. Maybe throw in a clause that a SCOTUS nominee can't be denied an up and down vote?

You'd have to do something about funny business getting them out of committee, too.

Also, wasn't it when FDR proposed packing the courts that some of his wild popularity started to wane (though that may have corresponded with fatigue around the Depression or just because he got stymied in Congress not necessarily with the public, at large)?

SI

Yes. If they keep the house and win the Senate and WH, they need to do everything the R’s would and have done in recent years. And then pass legislation preventing those same shenanigans moving forward.

Hypocritical. You bet it is but that’s the game the R’s under McConnell have been playing and the rules they have laid out to follow.

I think if there was an up and down requirement, that would by definition guarantee they get out of committee.

The Dems took some heavy hits in the 1938 midterm elections after the court packing plan was defeated, but FDR did end up winning two more presidential elections.

The difference is that FDR was packing the court because it was ruling against his legislative proposals. Also, he was trying to increase from 9 to 15. This is why I think the Dems should avoid going for more than 11, because at 11 they can at least directly tie the 2 seats to the Republican hypocrisy on Garland and Barrett.

My problem with two is that some Dems are going to demand less than what was proposed. Demand four, settle for two.

And I'm not sure how much of the 1938 election you can pin on the court plan. There was a nasty drop in the economy that certainly impacted more people.

Mind-blowing stuff at this Trump rally with @jordanklepper pic.twitter.com/K4qirgceDV

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) October 9, 2020

https://twitter.com/mtsw/status/1315...698481665?s=19

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

There's no "less than 2" that makes sense. No one is going to argue for an even number of 10 justices.

I fear if the Dems go for 4, they'll lose the public sentiment right away. This will cause reluctant Dems to drop support for any increase.

I guess I could perhaps see 4 working if they agreed to make it 2 now and 2 after next presidential election. But arguing for 4 right away will almost certainly backfire.

I'm on board with this. I think two is where it should be.


The problem with this is there's nothing to stop the escalation we've seen since at least the early 1980s from just continuing. Whatever legislation you want to put in place, the other party can just repeal it when they get back in power. At some point somebody has to be an adult and decide to put the brakes on the escalation for the long-term health of the Republic, or there's no end to it. It's obvious the Republicans have no intentions of doing that anytime in the forseeable future, which leaves only one party who can. This is why they are getting my vote this cycle.

If they don't govern responsibly, they won't get it again. I'll just go back to voting third party.

That person was Obama and the GOP said, "Fuck You!"

One side adhering to norms without holding the other to account only makes them more brazen. I don't want the Dems to do anything they can get away with, but I'm all in favor of them breaking norms in an effort to restore majority rule. In the long run, that is the only way to bleed off some of the extremism. As long as 40% can control the government, there isn't any electoral need to moderate policies.

Republicans in the Senate under Obama continued the escalation in dealing with judicial nominees after it had been escalated by Democrats under Bush, which came after previous escalations, etc. This issue isn't about who the president is; it doesn't matter who the president is if the Senate doesn't behave itself. That's where the norms have to come into play if any semblance of responsible governmenet is to return.

What stops the GOP from doing what they are doing now if Dems are "responsible"? That's what happened with Obama. Dems went back to the blue slip rule and the GOP refused to accept any nominees from TX. Obama nominated the exact person they said would count as a moderate and they wouldn't even meet with him.

One side following norms while the other doesn't only encourages that side to break more and more norms, knowing there is no consequence.

It's probably also worth pointing out again that it isn't 40%, it's never been 40%, that's just a false number. Trump had 46% of the vote in 2016 and over the last three elections comprising the current Senate, Republicans have gotten 52%, 42%, and 39% of the vote, which averages to 44%. In '18, they got 45% for the House (and lost it). If those numbers hold they'll lose the Senate and the Presidency and we'll have a unified Democratic government.

I'm not saying Democrats should just follow norms. I'm for them breaking them by packing SCOTUS by two seats as a corrective. I'm also saying they are the only chance the country has right now to put responsible governance on the ballot. That means they need to not go too far with it, which was the point of my initial response to another poster.

I think the logic you are using bends the other way just as easily. I.e., if they take breaking norms too far, they are only encouraging the GOP to up the ante next time they are in power. And if national history is any guide, there will be another time and it won't be that long. A decade at most.

I'd go right now for a SCOTUS appointment every two years and term limits. That probably takes an amendment, though, so I don't see it happening.

If the GOP sees adding 2 justices as a reason to add more, fine. Each seat currently is too consequential, so a 99 person court is fine with me.

Bet online one of the big offshore books just moved the line to Biden -220/ Trump +180.

If Clinton Wins, Republicans Suggest Shrinking Size of Supreme Court : NPR

wild huh

And still they see no hypocrisy

You are asking people with no shame to have shame.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Not a gambler can you translate for us dumb asses that don’t know what that means? Is this good for Biden or is he losing according to this.

-220 means that you'd have to bet $220 to win $100

+180 means that if you bet $100 and win it pays out $180 (+150 would be 3:2 odds by horse standards).

This type of line signifies a clear cut favorite, but not one so far ahead that it couldn't swing the other way.

Anything closing in on -400 (as in you have to bet $400 to win $100; or 1:4 odds with horse racing and such) and lower people are basically saying that yeah, that other guy doesn't stand much of a chance.

Thanks Pilotman!

If you want some free money right now, you can bet $1,245.28 on Biden at -165 and bet $687.29 on Trump at +191, and you’ll pocket $67.43 regardless of who wins the election.

He is crazy unhinged this fine morning

I will not abide this Jo Jorgensen slander. :)

The ACB hearings should be some generally good press for his campaign. If he stayed quiet, the news narrative would basically remind his base about the importance of judges with a hint of "crazy Dems might pack the Court!"

This is the perfect week for him to go radio silent and let the news cycle help him out.

But he can't stand to not be the center of things even when it is good for him.

From the "seeing consequences from this Administration's pettiness" department:

Apparently there was an Executive Order last month to halt any sensitivity training in the government. It had this doublespeak title of "Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping" :
Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping | The White House

One of my family members who works for a government institution received an email this week that they had to get rid of the following at their workplace (pending review by the legal department):

• Removed any racial sensitivity training (and this person had a scheduled class cancelled "until further notice")
• Removed Tweets talking about racial diversity
• Removed any past newsletters about diversity
• Removed resource links for things like Hispanic Heritage month, Black Lives Matter, and disability awareness

SI

In what should come as absolutely no surprise technical issues with the polls in Fulton County Georgia. How many times have we been down this road in that state?

too many.

That was not reported nearly enough if it slipped past you, considering how damned obviously backwards that is. It's classic strawman (might not be the right term here) to frame sth identifying and avoiding discrimination as "stereotyping". We are all happy little bunches of atoms to be treated equally so long as we don't insist on being different.

Part of a broader attack as well (see that bill by Cotton for example or Trumps speeches over the summer), trying to create a narrative that racism wouldn't be an issue if people would only stop talking about it or studying it.

Good thing is it will only last a few months hopefully, bad news it is emboldens those in power at institutions to not only make that particular call themselves going forward but also in a host of other areas.

It's basically censorship, too.

I'm sure there are no issues in Gilmer, Fannin, and the other non-urban counties.

Proclamation on Columbus Day, 2020 | The White House

His Columbus Day proclamation is similarly hateful. Stephen Miller must be really proud of himself for that one.

SI

Of course he is. he wrote and Trump never got past the first paragraph reading it.

5 hour waits in "some" communities in Georgia to vote today.

lol

Antiabortion groups say they stand behind Trump's use of a drug tested on cells derived from an aborted fetus because the president 'was not involved with that abortion' https://t.co/VwLHpzgByV via @businessinsider

— Nicholas Carlson (@nichcarlson) October 12, 2020

Jesus Christ, apparently Webster's is soliciting more definition examples of hypocrisy.

Given that the abortion doctor never does the research, I guess fetal tissue research is okay now.

The best part (which we'll never know) will be if it turns out that it was actually an abortion that Trump demanded after getting someone pregnant.

I have a feeling it will be bad again real soon.

But, wait, that would be hypocrisy!

In some states (NC and SC among them...didn't check when I lived in Georgia,) you can see if they voted in a primary, and if so, which one.

About halfway through I thought there was about a 50% chance he was going to mention pussy grabbing.

I don't even know what to say. SMH.

He sounds like a drunkard trying to relive his days as the guy who peaked in high school

I refer back to what someone posted earlier in one of the political threads "Remember, when a candidate lost because if a scream?"

He loves the rallies.

He's not really trying to win anymore. He's just gonna go on a tour around the country getting adulation.

He will be the first President in history who continues to hold rallies after he is defeated.

I had never thought about this. But you may be right.

SI

Or Trump rallies Big Corporations, Big Pharma, Big guns, and Big insurance and becomes Chairman of the Board for the USA Corporation and they strangle the country and Trump rallies his base and they cut off the cities, and shit hits the fan?

Thats a scary scenario,