I suppose the counterpoint is Kasich, who we presume sees a lane as being aggressively anti-Trump, and hoping what remains as an actual party will forgive him for betraying this party during these times. I guess I see that as a reasonable play as well, even if it is merely 100% tactical (and for him I don't believe that it is).

And watched on more than one TV.

And then you have this guy:



The competition to be the most racist Trump is fierce.

But Melania is making a strong last minute push.

Y'all please don't le this distract you from all of Melania Trump's important work. pic.twitter.com/7fBC6LCg36

— Andrew Fleischman (@ASFleischman) October 16, 2020

That's a line I wont cross!

I don't think it's stupid in the sense that it will hurt his prospects, honestly, I'm not sure there's much of anything that could change his good prospects in MD and his poor prospects nationally. I just think it's a dumb stunt to broadcast how cleverly he found a way to be against Trump but for the GOP. Not only is Reagan dead, but Reaganism is dead. If the best you have to offer is a rather hollow outreach to a mythical past, just keep your vote to yourself.

And this is being said with a firm belief that the country would be much better off if the GOP was built around people like Hogan and Baker, Scott and local GOPers like my county executive.

Reconsider for future competing events or you may find yourself removed from Antifa Chapter 62954. We're watching.

Ever seen Anchorman 2 ;)

Looks like I really didn't think this one out. I better change my way of thinking or those Soros checks are going to stop showing up.

Isn't that the same group who cosplays as the 501st Stormtrooper legion?

If you had played Wasteland 3 you would know why this was a brilliant move. He is just getting ahead of the future.

Bonzo for VP

This country is doomed.

In a heated exchange during Thursday night’s town hall, Pres. Trump once again refused to denounce the QAnon conspiracy theory.@GaryTuchmanCNN speaks to Trump supporters at the President’s rally in Macon, Georgia, about how he is addressing QAnon. https://t.co/PgbiVBA3Xm pic.twitter.com/5ZQTBGDLBp

— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) October 17, 2020

Pretty amazing you can get that many idiots in one place

Screw 'enlightened' Europe, in NZ even the sorta right wing populist party's (right in the name "New Zealand First") leader is doing this when he heard the "what virus ?" question once to often:

Twitter

"Sorry sunshine, wrong place." Like that.

This is just too scary:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/15/us/qa...7T11%3A31%3A06

It really has so many parallels with the "third wave" social experiment, taken to a blown up, national level. It hits all those sweet spots for the same people who want to separate one group from another, a strong, secret leader who will bring everyone together and lead the uprising, while stamping out the enemy of the people.

Many religions in general also insist on deference to an unseen authority, with promises of deliverance, good v. evil, so it makes total sense that there are people involved in both. It simply fits their worldview. It's a major threat to our political stability.

{edit: I'll add that when you combine it with the quality to manipulate audio/video, and create successful deep fakes, you now have the ability to make anyone say anything you want. The more confusion, the more uncertainty, the better the place to fertilize the sorts of things that we see with Q. The similarities to recruiting techniques used by ISIS is striking.}

I’m Joe Biden and I approve this message. pic.twitter.com/TuRZXPE5xK

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 20, 2020

That was pretty satisfying.

My wife: "Aw, we've become the butt of the world's jokes"
Me: "We deserve it, in this case"

SI

The shame. But well deserved.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I am more than willing to chip in on a ticket, as long as it is somewhere without cameras or internet.

+1

So Trump said he might have to leave the country if he loses to Biden. I still say there's a non-trivial chance he goes to a non-extradition country in early January and simply never comes back.

I would love to see the dude punished but I don't think it will ever happen. He's managed to avoid it for this long.

Serious question re: Transmission of power. If Trump is send packing, do his cronies at agencies stay till Inauguration ? When can Biden et al actually start influencing the Covid response ?

Because guys like Scott Atlas seem to be gearing up big time for some good old scorched earth with his Herd Immunity and anti-mask push, quoting 'science' in the form of pseudo-scientific garbage mashing up new age shit with some big words and pullink rank and/or unsubstantiated annecdotal 'evidence'

(Fun thing today: in a twitter thread discussing it someone brought up how "thousands" of suicides were caused in Australia, which for once was easily disproved because they keep track of those and it'actually been the same this/last year through september)

If Team Trump doesn't want to cooperate with Team Biden, there's not really anything that can be done unless it's somehow so egregious that the R Senate would agree to do something.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

SI

Hey, I said "somehow!" :D


(Seriously, though, if there's some nonsense with the transition, I could see lame duck R Senators saying "Eff this Trump clown. I stuck with him and now my career is over. I'll help bring him down.")

I have heard this tossed around, and until rather recently completely discounted the idea.

However... I guess with the relative success he's had with hits like "the fake news is out to get me" and "the deep state" and "i don't pay taxes because i am teh smart" -- maybe there's a legit angle here. He dodges out, blames everything on Sleepy Joe or whatever, and convinces the faithful that he's a great guy and just being persecuted unfairly. And then he launches the media stuff, without setting foot on US soil any more. Sure, I guess, could happen. JFC

If that happens, then I think they underestimate how much they can put that genie back in the bottle.

SI

Like a low IQ banana republic Rupert Murdoch?

SI

The movies that are made about this administration, provided they aren't propagandist movies touting our 'Great Leader', are going to be stunning.

Short answer; yes. Until Biden officially takes office he can't appoint anyone, even the people that don't need Senate confirmation. He can plan and interview and vet I'm sure he will do all of those things much better than Trump barring a reversal of fortunes for the election itself, but Trump is still the POTUS until the inauguration with all the authority and responsibilities that go with that.

Art of the Deal

Inside Foxconn’s empty buildings, empty factories, and empty promises in Wisconsin

Ho hum. Just another day where the clown talks about how he accepts/would accept bribes

Weird how those originalists sided with overriding a state Supreme Court. Almost like the "originalists" is just an excuse to side on certain issues.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...m_npd_nn_tw_ma

By that logic a state Supreme Court could cancel the election and pre-emptively certify the electors in favor of one candidate or another. There's no judicial philosophy that holds there's never a reason to override a state.

When a state supreme court interprets the laws of the state constitution, it should be a pretty high bar for SCOTUS to rule that interpretation invalid. That certainly doesn't seem to be what happened here. It's hard to see what federal law is being violated by allowing ballots postmarked before or on election day to be counted even if they arrive after election day.

Based on what I know about the case I agree, though I'll wait to see the decisions before making a firm conclusion.

The GOP talking points are getting out quickly on this one, I see. They are so far ahead of the Dems on spinning issues related to the courts. :-(

Anyway, to the extent it matters, this argument is not correct. If a state supreme court took the action you outlined, it would violate (at least) the Guarantee Clause and the Equal Protection Clause (see Baker v. Carr).

So a couple of "break glass in case of emergency" clauses exist to help prevent the extreme situation you posit.

Of course, the current right-wingers on the Court do not want to invoke these clauses because they imply a right to vote and for everyone's vote to be treated equally. But that does not mean that they don't exist.

Instead, they--much more disturbingly--would rely here on complete deference to state legislatures, without giving any deference to the state's ability to determine the method through which its legislature operates.

***

This shit gets ferociously complicated, so I will try to give a nutshell.

This (almost) ruling seems less unprecedented and disturbing than it is because we are used to the Supreme Court sometimes reviewing and reversing state courts.

But, in those cases, the Supreme Court is reviewing the state courts' interpretation of federal law. Quick example: State X bans flag burning. A citizen burns a flag and is prosecuted. He says that the law is invalid because it violates his Free Speech rights as guaranteed in the US Constitution. So he appeals his conviction all the way to State X's Supreme Court, which holds that the First Amendment does not protect flag burning. The US Supreme Court then hears the case and holds that the First Amendment does protect flag burning.

In that example, the US Supreme Court is reviewing the State Supreme Court's interpretation of the US Constitution. That is well accepted.

But lets change our example a little: Assume State X had a state constitutional provision saying "no law prosecuting the burning of flags shall be valid." And the State Supreme Court overturned that guy's conviction based on that reading of the state constitution without any regard to the US Constitution's First Amendment. Then the Supreme Court would have no place there, even if the state wanted them to hear the case.

States are independent sovereigns, and the federal courts (even the Supreme Court) lack the power to usurp state interpretations of state law.*

Here, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted state law. It did not interpret one sentence, one word, or one letter of federal law. It held that the state constitution, which created both the State Supreme Court and the State Legislature, compelled a certain result. Sure, a state could make its "legislature" a body that is not restrained by its state constitution. But that's not what Pennsylvania did. The "legislature" includes the natural restrictions placed on it by the state constitution. That is a matter 100% for the people of Pennsylvania to decide, and they decided it.

And 4 Justices (soon to be 5 based on everything we know about ACB), would have nonetheless reached down and basically reordered the most fundamental workings of Pennsylvania's state government.

I guess I will have to ask y'all to take my word on this to some extent, but it is hard to convey just how radical and flat-out wrong this theory is.

People lack the imagination to understand just how fundamental a change this 6 justice majority is going to bring to the country.

*That is why, when a federal court has to apply a state law as part of a case, it does not ask "what does this law mean?" It asks "what would the state Supreme Court say this law means?" It is a subtle, but critical, distinction. Like I said, this stuff gets complicated..

Mostly disappointed in Gorsuch here, who I was counting on to prevent any election related shenanigans.

It's definitely a reminder that while every once in a while Gorsuch or Kavanaugh might side with the left, they're still Federalist judges which means they will almost always rule in favor first of big business and second of the GOP.

SI

I'm well aware of this distinction. I was responding to a post that, at least as it reads on the surface, argued that any overriding of a state court was hypocritical.


I'll repeat what I already said in a previous post since it seems to have not gotten through; I don't disagree with a word of this. Pennsylvania should have - and at least for the moment, still does - every right to handle its own elections this way.

Socialism is bad and wrong.

Unless you are a farmer when the GOP is in charge.

Then it is good and right.

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...930048/photo/1

But they promised they'd care about stare decisis!

Isn't it huge just in that you have to have 4 justices vote to take up a case and, in the past, if Roberts said "nope, we're not going to touch it" and took Gorsuch with him, that prevented some of the shenanigans that we're going to see going forward, too?

SI

Cool.

I wish the dissenters (not quite the right term, but you know what I mean) had written explaining their reasoning.

I am kind of shocked that the trump justice department actually filed an anti-trust case. Who would have ever figured that? Maybe they see it as the elimination of the toxic champions of the left, but I think it's more likely that they are replaced by 4-5 companies that simply fulfill the same mindset as Alphabet.

dola

Of course, the administration spins this as ending censorship.

Of course, the only federally protected free speech rules state that the government cannot punish people over speech. Last time I looked the internet, nor social media were government controlled entities.

Smart move by Biden camp to get it out there that Kasich, Flake and Dent are being considered for cabinet positions. To the extent there is any rational person on the fence concerned that the liberals are going to overrun the administration, this might help.