#if we go into another GOP presidency and they make due on their promises? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

maswartz · 6 years ago

Link

“

Bernie Sanders suffers from Great Man syndrome. It afflicts all white men, some worse than others and it can’t be cured. In Bernie world Hillary’s popularity was only “because she was a woman.” Bernie’s followers lap up this hogwash because they don’t know any better, because they too have been conditioned to believe what the Great Man says no matter what. But Hillary, of course, was speaking up for the Obama coalition, that was black mothers of shooting victims (she was criticized for this, of course), women and children all over the world and here in the US (and criticized for this). She offered practical solutions to difficult problems that were actually workable. She didn’t make false promises like a false prophet, like a god. Hillary had a great plan for dealing with college debt, and wanted to extend and improve the Affordable Care Act. Hillary actually knew she could do the job well but like so many of us women know, not only aren’t we trusted to do the job, no one believes we CAN do the job.

I’m sorry that Bernie said what he said about Hillary and women. It fed into the warped frenzy of misogyny that overtook his so-called revolution. He still thinks, and his followers think, that he would have beaten Trump. He couldn’t even win in the primary. There was no rigging, there was no collusion. She won four million more votes that he did. The people chose HER and not him. All Bernie did was help Trump win. He knows this, which is why he’s now on a desperate speaking tour to not become Ralph Nader in he public’s eyes. Blame Hillary, blame the democrats. Do anything BUT blame Bernie. And Bernie is exactly who deserves much of the blame for what he’s done, what he is still doing, to ensure the democrats lose and lose again in four years.

Would Bernie have beaten Trump? The answer is no one can say for sure but I would guess that absolutely no, he could not have. Here are the reasons why.

But first, you might be inclined to say, “we’re fighting a fascist, why aren’t we uniting against Trump?” he reason is that we can’t unite because we are deeply and sharply divided still. 2.5 million more votes than Trump is what Hillary Clinton will have had by the end of the election. He won but just barely. He won the electoral college by going after the Bernie voters and counting on third party voters to sabotage Hillary’s lead and it worked. Bernie Sanders must take responsibility for his part in this or there will be no moving forward. You can’t lie to people when the evidence is right in front of them.

Historically speaking, this election was always the Republican’s to lose. The pendulum swing of American election cycles is maddeningly predictable: Both parties find it hard to hold onto the White House for more than 2 terms in a row. Reagan did it. But he’s really the only one in recent history. JFK and FDR both died in office and that’s the only way we ever got a successor elected, since the 1800s. We had one shot to win for the Democrats and that was to make the case that the last eight years were working for Americans, that Obama’s policies and presidency had been a success, and that we wanted four more years to finish what he had started, to overcome the obstructionist roadblocks, and buttress the Obama legacy with a Supreme Court that would work to uphold his great strides. But Bernie Sanders ran a campaign as a newly minted Democrat against the Democrats! With that reckless miscalculation, he lost this election for himself and for Hillary before it even started. His entire campaign became a beta test commercial for Trump’s candidacy, as Trump noted which Hillary attacks had traction and adopted every single talking point (minus the free college and free healthcare) that Bernie had hammered her with. Bernie helped Trump immeasurably. Bernie knew could not have beaten Trump unless he’d been Obama’s chosen successor and be handed the baton to continue Obama’s policies. Since that wasn’t happening, Bernie’s only option was to tell voters that nothing about the past two terms was good enough for the American people. He made that case that the Democrats had fallen short. A ridiculous claim, but several thousand people in key states fell for it. Sure, after he lost the nomination Bernie tried to change horses mid-stream but it never really worked for him. By then, he had convinced a few million voters in his flock that Hillary was too corrupt to deserve their vote. 3 or 4 million of his most fervid supporters could never snap out of their brainwashing. If anything, some felt doubly betrayed, and many of them turned on Bernie, called him a “sellout” when got behind Hillary.

The Republicans had major opposition research ready to launch on Bernie Sanders that would have made his numbers drop quickly significantly in the polls. But Bernie was never attacked by Hillary’s team, nor by the GOP. Ask yourself why and the reason is obvious. The GOP wanted to run against Bernie. They knew they had far more volatile stuff to dump on him that the whimpering “emails, emails, emails” chant that had lost all its pizazz. Their strategy was to leave Bernie alone because the better Bernie looked, the worse Hillary looked. Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald laid out some of that oppo research and this is what he found:

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it — a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone reallyattacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Unfortunately, Sanders supporters think he’s god-like and thus, they rely solely on those inflated poll numbers. Nate Silver would tell them that you can’t really trust polls until you’ve seen the candidate “punched” completely by the opposition party. Silver thinks now it was a mistake for Hillary not to attack him because now no one will ever believe he could have been attacked the way she has been for decades. To them, Hillary had it coming but the truth is Bernie has never been considered a threat enough TO ATTACK in the first place.

3. Bernie is Jewish (as am I in case you want to start blamesplaining). He’s a socialist. And he’s an atheist. Do I need to explain this one? Obama might have been black but he was Christian. A man of faith. And though he was accused of being a socialist he is not. Bernie actually is! Has always been a socialist, bragged about being one, has expressed an affinity for Fidel Castro on video, and hates the Democratic party for not being leftist enough. The Jewish part is a touchy subject, but we have to be realistic about the American “heartland.” Is flyover America ready for a Jew in the White House? Let’s ask Joe Lieberman. Or how about ask voters in 40 states who have never sent a Jewish senator to Washington D.C. Ever. 40 states. Never Elected. A Jewish Senator. In 230 years. Are Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, suddenly ready to see a Jew in the Oval Office? I do not believe they are. Not in the America that just elected Donald Trump. They aren’t even ready for a woman. The Bernie people don’t seem to know this other half of America exists. To Bernie and his supporters all those people who just voted for Trump are did so because Bernie wasn’t on the ballot. Seriously, that’s what they think.

4. Bernie Sanders promised to raise taxes on just about everyone, even a small amount on the middle class. If you think any politician can win a national election by saying they are going to raise taxes on the middle class, you have another think coming. Yes, Bernie’s ideas on trade, and certainly on the climate, are appealing to most but his platform was predicated on making the government pay for everything. When you put together his own history of never having a job for his first 30 years as an adult, never really earning a paycheck that wasn’t from the government, you can fill out the bubbles from there, right? You can visualize the Republican TV ads, yes? Please tell me you can.

5. He couldn’t win the primary. In the Land of Nod , the sad fable is that Bernie was cheated by the DNC. That’s what the Republicans wanted the Berners to believe, that’s the story they seeded, nurtured and harvested, and so it was! The most hardcore Berniacs threw one hissy fit after another, stoned Wasserman-Schultz, threatened to bust up the convention all because Hillary Clinton won more votes. He lost. Not by a little, by a lot. 55% — 43%. But for a huge number of his sullen supporters, if Bernie couldn’t have the prize, the no one could. That was their attitude. But the fact is Bernie’s supporters simply didn’t vote in large enough numbers. They didn’t even vote down ballot during the primaries. They didn’t vote for any of the progressive candidates Bernie had anointed, like Russ Finegold and Zephyr Teachout. For all their demonizing of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, they couldn’t even be bthered to vote for her Bernie-certified opponent Tim Canova. The “revolution” was failing at every level, all across the country. The giddy crowds showed up at rallies but apparently standing in line to vote wasn’t exciting enough. Maybe no one ever taught these people about government. They certainly don’t seem to know much about safeguards the three branches help ensure. Bernie Sanders lost so badly in the South he never could have won the general election with those kinds of numbers even with Hillary out of the way. His excuse? “Oh, they’re just too deeply conservative in the south.” And worse: “Oh, they’re not educated about the issues.” Great way to connect with black voters, there, Professor Sanders! Dismiss them as being too ill-informed to know what’s good for them. Charming. Perhaps if Bernie had one more year of campaigning to strengthen his weaknesses, he might have got a better toehold. But he didn’t. The theory is that good reasonable Democrats would shunned him the primaries would have come ‘round and voted for him in the general. But I’m betting many would have fled altogether and voted for Trump, for the three following reasons.

6. a) Isis. If you didn’t get that Isis was a big part of this election you were living in a bubble, a fantasy bubble where your biggest fear is fracking. But the news that most people watch like CNN or Fox News? It’s all Isis all the time. Fear of Isis is pumped into their living rooms around the clock and it’s become ingrained in our national reality. These voters aren’t staring at Facebook and reading biased boutique news sites that tell progressive liberals what they want to hear (gluten free water cures cancer!). They’re looking around at the world from their own homes and they’re scared. Whether Bernie and his minions thought Isis was a threat is irrelevant. The voters clearly did and they thought it in a big way. It’s an issue much more important to a truckdriver than free college. And there are millions of longhaul truckdrivers. Trump and Hillary Clinton both mopped the floor with Bernie Sanders on Isis and terrorism and foreign policy. Remember the Daily News interview? Bernie forgot to study for that exam. 6. b) Economy. Trump pretended to be Bernie’s best friend because it made Hillary look bad. He used Bernie like a bar rag, sopping up the stale foam of angry white dudes, hipster or otherwise, who could not believe their Feel-the-Bern icon of virtue had been beaten by a girl. 6. c) Immigration. See 6a) and 6b) Because the greatest trick Trump ever pulled was convincing a stunningly large swath of white Americans that all their terrorism fears and the economic woes would magically evaporate if we could only Build That Wall. So it was all about Isis, the economy, and immigration. It was in the beginning, it was in the end, and it is now. Trump would have crushed Sanders on those key points alone and it wouldn’t have even been hard.

7. Bernie is in it for Bernie. He probably would have chosen Cornel West as his running mate, but it’s pretty clear he would not have chosen anyone he would want to share the stage with, because he didn’t like sharing the stage with anyone, not even his poor wife. (“Don’t stand next to me!”) So his veep would have been… who knows. Certainly not dynamo Elizabeth Warren. She would have swooped in like Bernie’s charismatic caregiver. Although in the dreamland of liberal utopia it would have been Sanders and Warren. But even that duo would have lost and lost badly to Trump. Outside the major cities where most of us dwell, the majority of Americans saw Trump and Sanders as different species of outsiders. That’s both funny sad, because Bernie only seemed like an outsider, because nobody in 49 states had ever heard of him before last year, despite his decades in public office. So given that choice, to those voters, Trump would have been basically Bernie except glitzy capitalism instead of scary socialism, Trump was Bernie except with a strong hand against terrorism instead of weak one. Trump was Bernie except with the sultry MILF by his side. None of this would have sat well with a man as vain as Bernie Sanders. Bernie would have been pressured by his all-or-nothing followers to pick a progressive veep so now you’ve got the Bernie progressive vote, you’ve got some of the loyalist Democrats, but you’ve lost ALL of the moderates who are too freaked out about taxes and Isis to take a chance on a radically left ticket.

8. Change in America is incremental and slow. It does not come quickly. After two terms of a Democratic president, the American people have never and will never move farther to the outer reaches in the same direction of the party in power. America is populated by mostly moderates who care more about paying taxes (or not) than just about anything else. Whatever Bernie is offering, this is an electorate that could barely accept Obamacare because they thought it was socialism — what kind of a crackpot does one have to be to think Americans would be ready to veer all the way to 100% government-run health care? They wouldn’t. They won’t. Not yet. I’m so sick of having this conversation with people and if Bernie Sanders runs in 2020 then and only then will they understand, just like the McGovern supporters learned and the Nader voters. You learn that ugly lesson once. For those of us who have lived through people learning that lesson, to watch it learned over again is not just frustrating, it’s tragic. All the left seems able to do is put republicans in power, until they get a clue about what America is and what America isn’t.

9. Liberals were living in a bubble of illusion, including and especially the Berniecrats. They were following what the media kept saying and the media focused entirely too much on Sanders — only when he hurt Hillary. They never focused on his policies. They didn’t want to talk policy. Policy is boring. Let’s watch the scrappy senator take down the powerful woman. Let’s watch Trump take Hillary down. That’s what they were invested in. And they lulled Americans into falsely believing the democrats had it in the bag. This is true now and it would have been true if Bernie won. The only difference is that now Bernie would have to find another scapegoat to explain what would have been a landslide loss for him. But the polls, they would cry, the polls! Because the polls were all they had and the polls were wrong when it came to Trump. They were wrong. Liberals need to break out of that bubble because the joke is on us. America is laughing at us and our hysteria and in order to save the environment, fight for civil and LGBT rights we have to get smarter about it and getting smarter about it does not include living in a deluded fantasy that “Bernie would have won.” No, he wouldn’t have.

10. You can’t lead the democratic party and focus only on the white working class as Bernie did. You can’t lead the democratic party by not acknowledging the success of its two term president, Barack Obama. You can’t lead the democratic party by perpetuating the false notion that Hillary Clinton was only where she was because she was a woman. The democratic party is not the party of the white working class. It stands for a bigger, broader group than that. Bernie writes it off as “identity politics” but it’s bigger than that because America, and the world, are changing. Hillary has more of a record of action than Bernie ever had in 30 years. To discount that is to tell a lie. If you tell enough lies sooner or later they catch up with you and Bernie’s would have caught up with him. He should never have divided the democrats the way he did. He should never have influenced so many young people not to choose pragmatism.

On top of our deep sense of sadness (and yes, everlasting anger) over the way this election was manipulated by the FBI, by WikiLeaks, by Putin, by news media both slanted and fake — it’s just exhausting two weeks later to have to listen to Bernie’s simplistic lectures about the Democrats “failure to connect” with the white working class, and scolded for not seeming to know what people in America care about. It has become depressing and tiresome to watch Bernie continue to blame Hillary even now. Had he ever tried to discourage the character assassination against her early on, we would have had a chance. But Bernie could not stand it that Hillary was beating him. He still can’t stand it and he still can’t believe it. It’s time for him to stop already. Just stop.

“

#bernie sanders #donald trump #hillary clinton

2 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Who Were The 7 Republicans Who Voted To Impeach

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-were-the-7-republicans-who-voted-to-impeach/

Who Were The 7 Republicans Who Voted To Impeach

Here Are The 7 Rino Republicans Who Voted To Impeach President Trump

US Senate votes to acquit Donald Trump as impeachment trial concludes

Write these names down, remember them.

They are not fit to continue serving in office in the Republican party.

Actually.I feel like we need a new party altogether.

I dont really want to be a Republican.

But I want nothing to do with the RINOs.

President Trump was acquitted today in a historic SECOND sham impeachment trial.

He soundly defeated the action, as the Democrat House Managers suddenly caved in a surprise turn of events after Trumps team put Nancy Pelosi on the witness list.

Very interesting!

The New York Times

ACQUITTED!

Watch:

Former U.S. President Trump declared not guilty at the post-presidency impeachment trial.

Senate vote was 57 Guilty & 43 Not Guilty. 67 was needed to impeach. Donald Trump can officially run for U.S. president in 2024 despite acts of treason & insurrection. #TrumpImpeachment

Here are the 7 RINO Republicans who voted with the Dems:

7 GOP senators voting guilty so far *updated*-Sen. Burr

Olivia Beavers

Never EVER vote for these people again!

Primary them, get them OUT!

BREAKING : Senate acquits Trump of impeachment charges, by a vote of 43-57, which is short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.

From CBS:

Here Are The 7 Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump

Seven Republican senators voted to convict former President Trump on the charge of incitement to insurrection, joining Democrats to make it it a far more bipartisan vote than Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial. But the final vote of 57-43 fell short of the 67 votes that would have been needed for conviction.

The Republicans voting to convict were Senators Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Romney’s vote was all but a given, and the votes from Collins and Murkowski weren’t unexpected. Perhaps the most surprising vote came from Burr.

But something distinguishes most of the Republicans who voted to convict Mr. Trump most of them aren’t up for reelection soon. Murkowski is the only one of the group facing reelection in 2022. Burr and Toomey aren’t running for another term.

Collins and Murkowski asked some of the most probing questions on Friday when senators had the chance to pose questions to the defense and to the House impeachment managers.

Collins, Murkowski, Romney and Sasse also joined Democrats in voting to call witnesses Saturday, as did Repubilcan Senator Lindsey Graham. But Democrats ultimately backed off on calling witnesses.

Several of the senators released statements explaining their decisions following the vote Saturday.

Graffiti Painted Outside Trump Attorney Van Der Veen’s Chester County Home

But by joining all 50 Democrats who voted against Trump, the seven GOP senators created a clear majority against him and provided a bipartisan chorus of condemnation of the former president. Trump was acquitted of inciting an insurrection for riling up a crowd of his supporters before they attacked the U.S. Capitol last month.

In an emailed statement, Toomey was critical of some treatment of Trump since 2016, calling the mainstream media “unrelentingly biased and hostile to the president.” He claimed news outlets and the Democratic Party “overlooked violent riots when perpetrated in favor of causes they found sympathetic last summer.”

However, these facts do not make President Trumps conduct in response to losing the 2020 election acceptable,” Toomey’s statement says. “He began with dishonest, systematic attempts to convince supporters that he had won. His lawful, but unsuccessful, legal challenges failed due to lack of evidence. Then, he applied intense pressure on state and local officials to reverse the election outcomes in their states.”

Toomey said he voted for Trump in 2020 but said the former president “betrayed to confidence millions of us placed in him.”

The six other Republicans who voted to find Trump guilty were Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Voted For Impeachment

Republicans Vote To Convict Trump In The Impeachment Trial

In this image from video, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, speaks after the Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Saturday, Feb. 13, 2021. Trump was accused of inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and the acquittal gives him a historic second victory in the court of impeachment.

WASHINGTON Seven Republicans voted Saturday to convict former President Donald Trump in his Senate trial, easily the largest number of lawmakers to ever vote to find a president of their own party guilty at impeachment proceedings.

While lawmakers acquitted Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, they voted 57-43 to convict him – short of the two-thirds majority needed to find him guilty. Still, with seven Republicans joining all 50 Democrats in voting guilty, the Senate issued an unmistakable bipartisan chorus of condemnation of the former president that could have political implications for a GOP conflicted over its future.

If I cant say what I believe that our president should stand for, then why should I ask Alaskans to stand with me? Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told reporters.

Besides Murkowski, other Republican senators voting against Trump were Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Sponsored

Ben Sasse Of Nebraska

Mr. Sasse, 48, a senator since 2015, was just re-elected. He has been a frequent critic of Mr. Trump and had signaled that he was open to convicting the former president.

On election night 2014, I promised Nebraskans Id always vote my conscience even if it was against the partisan stream, Mr. Sasse said in a statement. In my first speech here in the Senate in November 2015, I promised to speak out when a president even of my own party exceeds his or her powers. I cannot go back on my word, and Congress cannot lower our standards on such a grave matter, simply because it is politically convenient.

Also Check: Is There Any Republicans Running For President

Party Leaders Rip Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump

Several GOP senators came under withering criticism back home for failing to toe the party line.

Sen. Bill Cassidy talks with a staff member on the fourth day of the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. | Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via AP, Pool

02/13/2021 08:51 PM EST

Link Copied

The seven Republican senators who voted to convict former President Donald Trump of inciting the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection are already feeling the heat back home.

Several state Republican parties moved quickly to discipline or criticize home-state senators for breaking with the 43 other Senate Republicans who voted to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial.

The Louisiana GOP immediately censured Sen. Bill Cassidy, while state party officials in North Carolina and Pennsylvania issued sharp statements expressing disappointment over the votes cast Saturday by Sens. Richard Burr and Pat Toomey.

The moves are the latest in a series ofcensures and disciplinary actions doled out to lawmakers deemed to be critical of the former president in the wake of the Capitol riot. Trump, acquitted Saturday of inciting the insurrection, still has broad support among Republican voters and state and local parties have lashed out at elected officials who have been critical of his actions.

Yet it was Cassidy who received the harshest rebuke Saturday.

Cassidy defended his vote in a two-sentence statement.

Lawrence Tabas, Pennsylvania GOP chair, was also critical of Toomey’s vote.

Mcconnell Says House Prosecutors Proved Trump Incited Attack On Capitol Though He Voted To Acquit Because Trump Is No Longer In Office

9:10 AM on Feb 13, 2021 CST Updated at 5:12 PM on Feb 13, 2021 CST

WASHINGTON Donald Trumps historic second impeachment trial ended Saturday with acquittal on a 57-43 vote, with seven Republicans and all Democrats voting that the former president incited insurrection.

Though 10 votes shy of the two-thirds needed, it was the most bipartisan vote for conviction in any of the four presidential trials in U.S. history and, by far, the shortest.

Democrats insisted the trial would leave an indelible mark on Trumps legacy. The 45th president is the only U.S. president impeached and acquitted twice.

He has been discredited in the eyes of the American people and in the judgment of history, said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat.

Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz voted for acquittal.

The Republicans who voted to convict were Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

One year and one week ago, at Trumps first trial, Romney had been the only Republican voting to convict and remove him from office on a charge of abuse of power.

President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it, McConnell said, accusing Trump of peddling a wild myth that he had won the election and engaging in unconscionable behavior before and during the Jan. 6 attack.

Don’t Miss: Can Republicans Vote In Iowa Caucus

The Seven Republican Senators Who Voted To Impeach Trump Say It Was Their Constitutional Duty

On Feb. 13, 2021, seven Republican senators voted to convict former president Donald Trump for his involvement in the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021. but 17 were needed to find Trump guilty to meet the two-thirds majority rule.

All seven Republicans that crossed party lines to vote alongside the Democrats faced criticism from voters and other factions within the party, according to CNBCbut who are they and how will the decision affect them?

Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina

Senator Burr first began his Congressional career in 2004 when he won North Carolinas Republican Primary. He has now served in the Senate for nearly two decades but is facing censorship from the GOP as a result of his defiant stance in the impeachment trials.

Censorship is a formal statement of disapproval from the states party, therefore it has no direct repercussions such as removal from office but it can have lasting effects on the senators reputation, thus affecting his or her chances of being reelected. Senator Burr, however, will not be running next year, though there are no reports of the censorship having any influence on this decision.

In his trial statement, Senator Burr asserted Trump was responsible for the events that took place at the Capitol, stating, The evidence is compelling that President Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection against a coequal branch of government

Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana

Senator Susan Collins of Maine

Trump Calls For ‘no Violence’ As Congress Moves To Impeach Him For Role In Riot

Senate Acquits Trump; Seven Republicans Vote To Convict | Morning Joe | MSNBC

This time, there will be more. Some Republican senators have called on Trump to resign, and even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he is undecided at this point.

Trump’s impeachment won’t lead to his removal even if he is convicted because of the timeline. The Senate is adjourned until Tuesday. The next day, Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president. But there’s another penalty the Constitution allows for as a result of a Senate conviction that could be appealing to some Republican senators banning Trump from holding “office” again.

While there is some debate as to the definition of “office” in the Constitution and whether that would apply to running for president or even Congress, that kind of public rebuke would send a strong message that Republicans are ready to move on from Trumpism.

Recommended Reading: When Is The Last Time Republicans Controlled Congress

Former Us President Was Convicted By House And Acquitted By Senate

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

American Crime Story, FXs anthology series, will soon be back with a new season.

Titled Impeachment, this instalment is a dramatisation of the circumstances that led to former US president Bill Clintons impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1998 .

Clinton was revealed in 1998 to have had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. This was the subject of a report by Independent Counsel Ken Starr, which was delivered to the US Congress on 6 September 1998.

Starrs findings led the House of Representatives to impeach Clinton on the grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice on 19 December 1998.

Out of 435 voting members in the House of Representatives, 228 voted to impeach Clinton, a Democrat, on the perjury charge. This included 223 Republicans and five Democrats. Another 206 voted not to impeach, including five Republicans, 200 Democrats, and one Independent. One person did not vote.

Seven Gop Senators Vote To Convict Trump

Seven Republican senators voted on Saturday to convict former President Trump

The GOP senators joined with every member of the Democratic caucus but still fell short of the two-thirds majority 67 votes need to successfully find him “guilty,” the question before the Senate.

The support from Republicans is more GOP support than the impeachment effort received in 2020, when only Sen. Mitt Romney voted for one of the articles.

With 45, and subsequently 44, GOP senators voting to say that Trump’s trial was unconstitutional, the number of GOP senators open to convicting was limited to a handful of must-watch Republicans.

Burr, who had previously said he wouldn’t run for reelection, previously voted that the trial was unconstitutional but then voted to convict Trump on Saturday.

Addison Mitchell McConnellSome governors are mismanaging COVID and misunderstanding FederalismOvernight Defense & National Security: Terror in Kabul as explosions kill and injure hundredsMORE , who had kept his colleagues guessing for weeks, told reporters in an email on Saturday morning that he would vote to acquit Trump.

The GOP support in the Senate comes after 10 House Republicans supported the impeachment effort last month, making it the chamber’s most bipartisan vote to impeach a president.

Don’t Miss: How Did Republicans Gain Control Of Southern Governments

Patrick J Toomey Of Pennsylvania

Mr. Toomey, 59, a senator since 2011, is not seeking re-election in 2022. He had denounced Mr. Trumps conduct; in a statement on Saturday, he said had decided during the trial that the former president deserved to be found guilty.

I listened to the arguments on both sides, Mr. Toomey said, and I thought the arguments in favor of conviction were much stronger.

Here Are All Of The House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Donald Trump

Ten members of the GOP joined with Democrats in the vote.

President Donald Trump impeached for ‘incitement of insurrection’

The House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump — making him the only president in American history to be impeached twice.

Unlike his first impeachment in 2019, 10 Republicans joined Democrats to charge Trump for the “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol with a final vote of 232-197.

Some Republicans may have feared for their own safety if they voted for impeachment, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of those who voted against Trump, said. Kinzinger told ABC’s “Powerhouse Politics” podcast that some members of his party are likely holding back from voting for impeachment due to fear of highlighting their own participation in supporting the president’s false claims of election fraud.

Democrat Jason Crow, of Colorado, relayed similar thoughts in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday morning.

“I had a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues last night, and a couple of them broke down in tears talking to me and saying that they are afraid for their lives if they vote for this impeachment,” he said.

Here is a list of the 10 Republicans who took a stance against Trump:

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.“It’s not going to be some ‘Kumbaya moment’ on the floor — it’s going to be an awakening by the American people to hold their leaders accountable to their rhetoric,”

Recommended Reading: Which Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump Today

‘a Win Is A Win’: Trump’s Defense Team Makes Remarks After Senate Votes To Acquit

Despite the acquittal, President Joe Biden said in a statement that “substance of the charge” against Trump is “not in dispute.”

“Even those opposed to the conviction, like Senate Minority Leader McConnell, believe Donald Trump was guilty of a ‘disgraceful dereliction of duty’ and ‘practically and morally responsible for provoking’ the violence unleashed on the Capitol,” Biden’s statement read in part.

The president added that “this sad chapter in our history has reminded us that democracy is fragile. That it must always be defended. That we must be ever vigilant. That violence and extremism has no place in America. And that each of us has a duty and responsibility as Americans, and especially as leaders, to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Saturday’s vote the largest and most bipartisan vote in any impeachment trial in history,” but noted it wasn’t enough to secure a conviction.

The trial “was about choosing country over Donald Trump, and 43 Republican members chose Trump. They chose Trump. It should be a weight on their conscience today, and it shall be a weight on their conscience in the future,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor.

With control of the Senate split 50-50, the House managers always had an uphill battle when it came to convincing enough Republicans to cross party lines and convict a former president who is still very popular with a large part of the GOP base.

Rep Jaime Herrera Beutler

While Beutler admitted that she did not vote for Trump in 2016, she did back the president for a second term in 2020.

On Tuesday, the congresswoman announced she would vote to impeach, saying: The Presidents offenses, in my reading of the Constitution, were impeachable based on the indisputable evidence we already have.

I understand the argument that the best course is not to further inflame the country or alienate Republican voters, she added. But I am a Republican voter I see that my own party will be best served when those among us choose truth.

Read Also: Why Do Republicans Hate Ted Cruz

The 7 Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump

Seven Republicans joined Democrats and Independents in finding Donald Trump “guilty” of inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, but the Senate failed to reach the two-thirds majority necessary to convict the former president.

The Republicans who voted to convictincluded: Sens. Richard Burr , Bill Cassidy , Susan Collins , Lisa Murkowski , Mitt Romney , Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey .

What they’re saying:

Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler

Trump acquitted in 2nd impeachment trial; 7 Republicans vote to convict I ABC7

Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington State said that she would vote to impeach because she believed that the president had acted in violation of his oath of office.

I understand the argument that the best course is not to further inflame the country or alienate Republican voters, she said. But I am a Republican voter. I believe in our Constitution, individual liberty, free markets, charity, life, justice, peace and this exceptional country. I see that my own party will be best served when those among us choose truth.

Don’t Miss: How Many Seats Do Republicans Hold In Congress

Susan Collins Of Maine

Ms. Collins, 68, a senator since 1997, was just re-elected to a fifth term. She has long been critical of Mr. Trumps actions, extending to the Capitol riot.

That attack was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence, Ms. Collins said on the Senate floor after the vote. Rather it was the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by President Trump that were aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election.

While The Majority Of Republican Senators Sided With Trump And Backed His Acquittal Seven Republican Senators Joined The Democrats And Voted To Convict The Republican Former President On The Single Charge

Donald Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trialon Saturday on a charge of inciting insurrection in a Jan. 6 speech to supporters just before hundreds of them stormed the US Capitol.

While the majority of Republican senators sided with Trumpand backed his acquittal, seven Republican senators joined the Democrats and voted to convict the Republican former president on the single charge. One of them, Richard Burr, had previously voted that the proceeding was unconstitutional because Trump left office on Jan. 20, a motion rejected by the Senate.

RICHARD BURR

Burr said while running for office in 2016 that he would not seek re-election in 2022. The senator from North Carolina had already been unpopular with Trumps allies for his work heading the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had probed Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Trump had opposed the investigation.

BILL CASSIDY

The senator from Louisiana on Tuesday joined five Republican colleagues in voting that the proceeding was constitutional, reversing his stance from an earlier vote on the issue. Cassidy told reporters after the House impeachment managers presented on Tuesday that they had a very good opening.

BEN SASSE

LISA MURKOWSKI

MITT ROMNEY

PAT TOOMEY

SUSAN COLLINS

The Maine centrist was the only Republican senator re-elected in 2020 in a state also won by Biden. She said Trump had incited the Jan. 6 riot.

Tags:

Also Check: What Republicans Are Saying About Trump Now

House Impeaches Trump A 2nd Time Citing Insurrection At Us Capitol

This vote could expose some of them to potential primary challenges from the right as well as possible safety threats, but for all of them Trump had simply gone too far. Multiple House Republicans said threats toward them and their families were factors weighing on their decisions on whether to impeach this president.

Ten out of 211 Republicans in the House is hardly an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and clearly, most Republicans’ sympathies still lie with Trump and his ardent base of followers. But the 10 represent something significant the most members of a president’s party to vote for his impeachment in U.S. history.

Seven Republican Rebels Who Voted To Convict Feel Trumpists’ Fury

Immediate backlash from powerful rightwingers reveals the strength of Trumps grip on the Republican party

The seven Republican senators who broke ranks by voting to convict former president Donald Trump at his impeachment trial faced immediate hostility and criticism from fellow conservatives revealing the potentially high cost of opposing Trumpism within the party.

These senators North Carolinas Richard Burr, Louisianas Bill Cassidy, Maines Susan Collins, Alaskas Lisa Murkowski, Utahs Mitt Romney, Nebraskas Ben Sasse, and Pennsylvanias Pat Toomey brought the total number of guilty votes to 57. That was not nearly enough to secure a conviction, but easily enough to ensure instant attack from fellow Republicans and others on the right.

The reaction was a powerful illustration of the strength of Trumps grip on the Republican party even though he is out of office.

Lets impeach RINOs from the Republican Party!!! Trumps son and conservative favorite Donald Trump Jr said on Twitter, using the insulting acronym for Republicans In Name Only.

The instant backlash came from powerful rightwing media figures also.

Conservative Fox News host Laura Ingraham : Prediction: none of the Republicans who voted in the affirmative today will speak at the 2024 GOP convention.

For Cassidy, there was almost instant retribution in his own state. Jeff Landry, the Republican attorney general of Louisiana, tweeted: Senator Bill Cassidys vote is extremely disappointing.

Read Also: Why Is There Republicans And Democrats

0 notes

thecounterplan · 7 years ago

Text

There Are No “Never Trump” Republicans Anymore

(Image: The New Republic)

#NeverTrump isn’t a real political category. It’s a rhetorical strategy designed to give the GOP a pre-emptive chance to absolve itself once Trump is out of office.

It seemed for a moment in the arduously long, reality TV charade that was the 2016 election -- which, like all recent US presidential elections, took place over what felt like years instead of the one it was supposed to be -- that conservatives in the Republican Party were really going to fight the rise of Donald Trump. In March 2016, with Trump’s candidacy looking quite likely, Mitt Romney gave a speech in Utah condemning Trump on all fronts. “After all,” Romney said, reasonably, “This is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.” Within just one year, captured in a now-infamous photo, Romney would meet with Trump in a fancy restaurant, where on the agenda was the possible scenario of Romney coming onboard the Trump cabinet. Romney didn’t get the job, which is probably for the best, but he did get spectacularly dragged by Trump, who by inviting him to dinner and then giving him nothing in return (except, one expects, the promise of tax cuts that would massively benefit people like Romney) made him out to be a “cuck,” to use the parlance of the Trump crowd.

The National Review, the long-standing conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley, took what appeared to be a bold move in devoting a whole issue to opposing Trump’s nomination for the GOP. (The cover is the splash image at the top of this piece.) Popular conservative commentators like Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson, and Mark Helprin launched attacks at Trump from all angles, declaring him an opportunist taking advantage of a party with a long-standing intellectual and cultural tradition that Trump, according this argument, exploits solely for his personal gain. Hell, Beck even correctly presaged that if Trump were to win, “there will once again be no opposition to an ever-expanding government.” (I can think of dozens of families torn apart by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement [ICE] who would agree with Beck -- although probably for different reasons.) Beck even later confessed to fomenting the political paranoia that in part produced Trump. The National Review frequently peddles in party-loyalty lines of reasoning and the vacuous rallying call of “As long as it’s not the liberals!”, so it was surprising to see them adopt a firm anti-Trump stance so early into the primaries in January 2016. It appeared, for a moment, like a cautious self-reckoning on the part of these major conservative figures and, perhaps, the movement itself.

Two years later, in his Blaze studio, Beck sported a Make America Great Again hat and declared that he would happily vote for Donald Trump in 2020.

I could go on. “This person said Trump would ruin conservatism.... barely into his presidency, they’re already defending his every move!” is a story so common now that each new iteration feels like something barely worth mentioning.

The behavior of the conservative political scene made sense at first, even amongst those who expressed worry about Trump. People like Ben Shapiro made a big stink about how they could never vote for Trump, but then once in office, with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, Shapiro and his colleagues in right-wing media weren’t going to use the boost in social and political capital afforded to their end of the political spectrum to damage the president. The Shapiros of the world expressed their misgivings about Trump -- he’s a liar, he’s really a New York liberal at heart, etc -- but they knew that in order to get any modicum of legislation out of their newfound control in Washington, they’d have to go through Trump. I remember tracking the posts and op-eds by the conservative commentariat in the first half year of Trump’s presidency and finding the temperature of the room pretty consistent: they could all tell he was bad news, but they weren’t about to sound the alarms just yet. After all, there are still libs to own -- and “owning the libs” is really all that can be said of the “philosophy” behind people like Shapiro, as Nathan J. Robinson so brilliantly put it -- and maybe if the GOP could ride Trump out and pick up a Gorsuch here, an Obamacare repeal there, the giant gamble of 2016 will have all been worth it.

Indeed, these “turning point” moments, where ostensible #NeverTrumpers realize just how good a conservative he is, are pretty easy to predict. The second Trump lands the GOP a mostly unqualified political win, like he did by appointing Neil Gorsuch to replace the Supreme Court seat vacated by the passing of Antonin Scalia and totally stolen from Merrick Garland, suddenly the #NeverTrumpers see the light. Immediately after it was announced that Anthony Kennedy would be stepping down, giving Trump the chance to fill another Supreme Court seat, conservative YouTuber Steven Crowder stated on Twitter, “I was pretty clearly a skeptical-optimist once Trump was nominee. And I readily admit now, that despite personal disagreements, @realDonaldTrump is absolutely the right man for THIS job at this time in history.” Like the conservatives in the executive and legislative branches of government, Crowder’s sudden enthusiasm for Trump makes sense, for now the GOP has a better shot of enshrining their increasingly unpopular policies through the least democratic of the three branches of government. (This is not to say that the Democrats haven’t liked the democratic insularity of the Supreme Court when it works to their advantage, as many astute commentators have pointed out in the wake of Kennedy’s departure announcement. Over-reliance on the judiciary, like so many problems with the US government, is a bipartisan problem.) And unlike the grueling and ultimately futile attempt to wholesale repeal Obamacare in Trump’s first year, the president’s general lack of professionalism -- to say nothing of human decency -- didn’t stop Gorsuch from getting his lifetime seat. Sure, Trump sounded weird when he introduced Gorsuch as his nominee; it seemed as if he skipped the part of Schoolhouse Rock where the Supreme Court gets explained. But at the end of the (supposed to be) perfunctory confirmation hearings, Gorsuch picked up where Scalia left off, and Trump, in the eyes of the GOP, couldn’t mess that up.

Since Trump will almost certainly get to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Kennedy -- anyone who thinks the likes of Susan Collins will fall out of the Senate ranks on the confirmation vote must have been asleep the past two years -- I fully expect that additional Trump skeptics will decide that in the end even the thin veneer that is their “Trump criticism” isn’t worth keeping up if it means that Roe v. Wade gets repealed. Shapiro, who in what seems like a half-joke offered himself up as a Supreme Court nominee to Trump, Tweeted,

There are so many interesting things about Shapiro’s characterization of how the two major parties have interacted with the Supreme Court, including the pervasive conflation of “Democrats” with “the Left” that renders the “criticism” and “comedy” of people like Shapiro and Crowder unintelligible most of the time. First and foremost, conservatives have been happy to use the highest court in the land to produce legislation (see Second Amendment jurisprudence, which over the course of the 20th century reads increasingly like NRA ad copy rather than sound legal scholarship) and even invent whole new nonsensical ontological doctrines (like the notion that money is speech). Secondly, Shapiro continues in the regrettably persuasive rhetorical trend of framing originalism, a doctrine that is as “forced into” the Constitution as any living document theory, as simply “returning the court to its constitutional boundaries.” Thirdly.... ah, crap, I’ve gone off topic. Some arguments are so bad that they must be rebutted immediately. I digress. I quote the Tweet merely to say: for all of his anti-Trump posturing, I get the sense he will end up intellectually prostrating just like the rest of his colleagues in conservative media. To quote George V. Higgins, whose slept-on 1974 novel A City on a Hill reads like a study of the cronyistic governance we now find ourselves under, Shapiro “is like the rest of the horses: they’re getting thirsty, but they won’t drink till they’re ready.”

Despite these ongoing series of conversions to the Trump cause, the phrase #NeverTrump, originated by conservatives in 2016 who refused to vote for Trump even after he became the GOP nominee, persists in the discourse. After a series of Tweets in which he contradictorily described “preventing illegal immigration” as “not racist” while also describing such policy as “slowing massive demographic change,” Andrew Sullivan qualified his opinions on immigration policy with this admission: “Trump is not Hitler; I am not Neville Chamberlain; i’m a passionate Never-Trumper who wants to solve a problem that is empowering white nationalism everywhere.” Writing for Bloomberg, Albert R. Hunt calls the post-Kennedy retirement moment as “a hard time” for “Never Trump Republicans.” Emerald Robinson’s analysis of Never Trumpers in the present moment offers a similarly glum prognosis: “The Never Trump intellectual crowd has no momentum and no popular following these days.” Just two years ago, the thought that the host of The Celebrity Apprentice could come to define contemporary conservatism seemed laughable, even following his 2016 win. Most had the sense that Trump would fumble through whatever time he had in office, either until he was voted out, removed from office for any number of reasons (violations of the emoluments clause or Russia, take your pick), or if he got bored and quit. But in 2018, President Trump is finally winning.

“Never Trump” does, to some extent, accurately characterize the internecine squabbles amongst the conservative side of American politics. Some have been openly critical, and some, like George Will, have even called on Americans to vote for the Democrats to hold the Republicans to account. (Some have decided not to run for re-election in 2018, having successfully completed their life’s work of kicking poor people further down the curb to further enrich the already money-drenched upper strata of American society. Er, I mean, to spend time with their families.) But the term really should have died on November 8th, 2016. Since that day, the category of “Never Trump” has dwindled. What we really have that comes closest to “Never Trumpers” in the present day are “conservatives who occasionally criticize Trump.” Perhaps it’s just me, but I feel that “Never” carries a firm, imperative force that occasional criticism cannot live up to -- especially when that criticism becomes increasingly occasional. Admittedly, my point here is not novel: conservative commentator Jonah Golberg pronounced the Never Trump movement to be “nevermore” and over just a month after the Trump/Clinton election. Yet the name persists. Why?

One must question what “never” means in this context. Leading up to the election, the name made sense: it identified conservatives who would never vote for Trump. Clear enough. But once Trump won, what could “never” be describing? Never talk to him? Never support his policy decisions? Never identify with a party that christens Trump its leader? However one defines the “never” of “Never Trump” in the post-2016 political landscape, one thing unites all possible definitions: none of them accurately account for what the conservative movement in America has done to “counter” Trump. Anyone watching what’s happened to the GOP after 2016 could not come to any other conclusion that the GOP is Trump. That supposedly bold National Review issue feels like it was written decades ago.

As David Roberts convincingly argued earlier this year, the kind of Never Trump editorials that still get published by the “moderate” class of conservative -- your Sullivans, your Brookses, your Stephenses -- aren’t actually representative of the conservative movement by and large. The things that the Republican base likes about Trump -- his brashness, his vulgarity, his tough-guy attitude -- are anathema to the virtues prized by the conservative commentariat: civility, reason, balance. A columnist like David Brooks wants to present conservatism as a stable and philosophically considerate tradition: present-day conservatism in the GOP base wants to own the libs.

Now, I’m generally not the kind of person to tell someone that they can’t identify themselves politically however they wish. Moreover, though I grew up in an extremely conservative city, I no longer am a conservative myself, and as such I can’t say I have the insider’s knowledge of the movement as a whole. But I do feel comfortable in pointing out inconsistency, and like Goldberg I have a hard time accepting the continued usage of Never Trump outside of the very narrow conception “would never vote for Trump.” With Trump as president, and the GOP as his party, conservatives who still ally with the Republican party must ask themselves: “What does never really mean?” Without a bold proposal like Will’s call to vote for Democrats in the 2018 midterms, “never” in the current-day “Never Trump” reads a lot more like “Never Trump... until he does something we like.” Had there been a mass exodus of Republicans following 2016, maybe with the formation of a new conservative party, Never Trump would have felt like a true movement in the real sense, not merely a single “yes or no” choice at the ballot box. If one truly identifies as “Never Trump,” they have to maintain a pretty intense level of cognitive dissonance to continue identifying with the party that is increasingly being emblazoned with the all-caps, gold-colored name of Trump.

Some of the Never Trump crowd position their “never”-ness in superficially reasonable terms, as Shapiro attempted to in a recent interview with Bill Maher (11 minutes of unbearable smug which I would subtitle: “Alasdair MacIntyre was Right”). The argument goes something like this: “Look, I’m going to be level-headed about Trump. I’ll criticize him when he does something bad, and I’ll praise him when he does something good.” At first pass, this seems reasonable: it doesn’t have the intensity of a dogmatically negative or positive view of Trump, and it exhibits a rational standard of treatment. No one’s perfect, so you should criticize them when necessary, but when those same people do good, they should be rewarded. Sensible, no?

Not in the case of Trump. The same motivation that caused The National Review to publish its Against Trump issue is the same reason why Never Trump can’t exist in a world where “Never Trumpers” are either (a) still largely supportive of the Republican party or (b) likely to eventually turn over to Trump if he gives the party and its base enough of what they want. What the authors in the Against Trump issue saw in Trump -- the same thing that Romney and Shapiro and other conservative commentators saw -- is that if Trump was to become associated with the Republican party, its image would be irrevocably damaged. The reasons for this are obvious: the party of “family values” would be nominating a sleazy, New York media mogul who bragged about cheating on his wives (he’s now on his third); the party of the “heartland American people” would be backing a big-city Hollywood figure with numerous instance of screwing over the employees of his companies; the party that markets itself as having a philosophical heritage dating back to the Founding Fathers would be asking a guy with a comically paltry vocabulary to espouse its ideology; the party most committed to supporting the troops would have as its spokesman a guy who mocked a leading GOP senator who spent time as a POW in Vietnam for “being captured”; and, most damningly of all, the party which claims a monopoly on faith in America (and by faith I mean Christianity) would be throwing its weight behind a guy who embodies everything that Jesus Christ teaches against, what with his unrepentant egotism and love of gold idols. Nominating Trump, the Never Trump Republicans rightly recognized, would not merely be a political failing: it would be an act of hypocrisy whose magnitude had never been seen in the modern GOP, a moral collapse of such catastrophic proportions that anyone who continued to tie themselves to the GOP after a Trump nomination would be tacitly admitting that their political principles are easily expendable if short-term political gain can be actualized.

Well, Trump got the nomination, and rather than take a bold stance against that moral collapse of the GOP, the Never Trump crowd... waited. Never Trumpers knew that with all three branches of government under GOP sway -- with the takeover of the judiciary imminent -- that even an incompetent political figure like Trump could possibly manage some real conservative victories. Maybe those tax cuts would go through. Maybe Roe would be overturned. After a rocky start, the GOP started accruing political wins, gaining some traction in the process. Never Trumpers criticized the GOP on many occasions, but writing posts or issuing stern condemnations (cf. Senators McCain, Collins, and Flake) isn’t the same thing as holding one’s political party to account, particularly if, like those aforementioned Senators, they end up voting for all of the things the Trump-led GOP wants anyways. A quick look at FiveThirtyEight’s helpful data which tracks how often the current group of Senators votes in alignment with Trump is telling with regard to the political reality of Never Trump as a real movement:

That’s the lowest end of Republican support for Trump. Libertarian Rand Paul, who fashions himself an outsider in his own party, votes with the president two-thirds of the time. Republican “Trump critics” like Lindsey Graham and John McCain follow the party line at a rate even higher than that, as does “Conscientious Conservative” Jeff Flake. (Most interesting of all to me is the data showing several Democrats voting half or nearly half of the time with Trump, a clear reminder to the DNC that it isn’t the #resistance that it thinks it is, and to the conservative pundit class that the Democrats aren’t a far-left party, or even a left party.) 40 of the 51 Republican members of the Senate vote with Trump over 90 percent of the time. If that isn’t empirical proof that the Republican party isn’t the party of Trump, I don’t know what is. Perhaps the Never Trumpers could have never stopped the GOP embrace of Trump; in fact, I think that was always the likely scenario. But the turn from Against Trump to the full-throated endorsement of Trump in the GOP doesn’t just highlight the party’s desperate grasp at power as its popular support continues to dwindle: it shows the Never Trumpers that their political party was never really what they thought it was. Trump, as a friend of mine put it, didn’t say anything new to change the Republican party: he merely “said the soft parts loud and the loud parts soft.”

Now, at this point I’ve largely staked my claims on hypocrisy and moral failings. As I wrote in my inaugural piece for this website, hypocrisy lost any moral force it might have ever had in Washington a long time ago, so merely saying to a political party, “Hey, you’re not living up to your ideals!” doesn’t do much politically and feels cheap at the level of accusation. For me, the reason why we must sternly rebuke any attempt to keep the Never Trump brand active in political discourse is because of the obvious rhetorical strategy inherent to it: namely, once Trump is out of office, it gives Republicans a built-in apology tour, one that I regret to say will likely be persuasive to many people.

At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul Ryan nonspecifically admonished his party to realize the err of their ways in the GW Bush years: “The Republican victories that began in 1980 were inspired here at CPAC. But as a conservative, I admit my party took success for granted. The Republican Party disregarded its roots - losing direction, sacrificing principles and failing to offer a vision relevant to most Americans.” After the rise of the Tea Party and the subsequent Republican electoral successes in the 2010 midterms, it became immediately unclear what policies Ryan thought represented the GOP’s abandonment of its principles. The policies that characterize the Bush years -- military interventionism and the expansion of the imperial United States, supply-side economics, to name a few -- remained party orthodoxy in 2010 onward, albeit in a much more intense, anti-government incarnation than had existed before. Still, the GOP may not have really tried to course-correct in the way that Ryan suggested in 2009, but at the time Ryan’s words made sense, given Barack Obama’s sweeping 2008 electoral victory and the general feeling that Bush would go down as one of the worst presidents in recent memory, in large part for the perpetual warfare his administration brought to the Middle East and the increasingly invasive security state. I remember people applauding Ryan’s words back then, and it’s easy to see why. After a massive failure, you should own up to it. For a minute it seemed like Ryan, then a rising star in his party, was actually doing that.

Flash-forward to when Trump is out of office, whenever that might be. I can already see the reams of teary-eyed mea culpas that will wallpaper the op-ed sections of magazines and newspapers nationwide: “We lost our way!” “We abandoned our principles!” “A few brave souls in our party spoke out, but not enough of us listened to them!” So long as the phrase “Never Trump” exists in the political discourse, it allows Republicans of all stripes to claim that the party was not monolithic under Trump, and that many did actually try to resist his agenda. If there are pleasant New York Times columnists who claim to be conservative and from time to time call Trump out for his degradation of the office of the president, the GOP can pivot to those types as speakers for “a new direction in conservatism.” The Never Trumpers can see this too: reading the work of people like Shapiro, it’s easy to detect that the minute Trump is out of office, they’ll perform some entirely undeserved grandstanding, claiming that the “rough times” are behind the GOP and that now they can focus on enacting government policies based on conservative principles -- all the while relishing those victories the party won under Trump.

Never Trump Republicans don’t exist anymore. To label oneself a Republican in 2018 is to take on the burden of knowing that whatever policy wins you claim between 2016 and 2020 are largely owed to Trump being in office. Remember, the reason why Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016, to the shock of just about every prognosticator on both sides of the political spectrum, was precisely because he bore no resemblance to nice-guy party rubes like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. As was the case in the Tea Party-dominated 2010 elections, in which a gaggle of largely inexperienced (politically speaking) small-government types took over Washington, the Republican base was tired of Republicans. With Trump, those voters have gotten what they wanted in 2016: to remake the party in Trump’s image. (Note that the title of this article and the thrust of my argument is that there are no Never Trump Republicans; this does not mean that there couldn’t be Never Trump conservatives, though in order to be consistent politically those conservatives would either [a] need to form a new coalition and caucus with the Democrats, which shouldn’t be too difficult given how much to the right Democrats have drifted since Bill Clinton’s first term, or [b] form a new party entirely.)

A simple if absurd analogy can help boil down my point here. Suppose a presidential candidate knocks on my door tomorrow to let me know about their vision for America, which looks a lot like mine. To name a few policies: they’d eliminate the Electoral College, they’d advocate for Medicare for All or some other form of universal healthcare, and they’d set in place much easier and more direct policies for immigration and asylum seeking. All of it sounds great, and I’m almost immediately on board with them. But then, right as they’re preparing to wrap up their pitch, they say, “I will also personally ensure that every single person named Ryan in the United States is executed by public hanging.”

Now, for 99 percent of their spiel, I’m on board. It’s only the whole Ryan-killing business that really puts me off. But the Ryan-killing thing is a massive, unacceptable moral catastrophe, one that would not even be worth it if this candidate actually was able to pass all of those policies that are so important to me. Even if my primary political identity was centered on those policies passing, it would be unacceptable for me to align myself with someone who would in the process of pursuing those other policies murder countless innocent people. If the political party I identified with (full disclosure: I’m an independent) saw it fit to nominate this person for the presidential ticket, I would renounce my membership immediately. I could not associate with such a party, even if I agreed with it on the overwhelming majority of things. This is why comments like Crowder’s “despite personal disagreements, @realDonaldTrump is absolutely the right man for THIS job at this time in history,” or Shapiro’s “I’ll criticize him when he’s bad and praise him when he’s good” strategy are extremely disingenuous. Not coming to a consensus on whether or not the 1997 John Woo action film Face/Off is “so bad it’s good” or just straight-up good is a “personal disagreement,” one that doesn’t necessarily impinge on other agreements you might have with a person or group. The things one has to own up to with Trump -- and since he was christened the party’s president, yes, Republicans must own up to it -- cut deeply against the party’s ethos, to a degree that the very credibility of the party itself is completely rubbished. If you’re willing to call that a “personal disagreement” that you’d put up with to get a Supreme Court seat, then you’d put up with just about anything.

When it comes to Trump, of course, the hypothetical Ryans of America can rest easy, unless they happen to be trying to seek asylum for Mexico or are any woman that has to live with the fact that the man deemed worthy to lead the country has profoundly little respect for women, and has on multiple occasions made sexually creepy comments about his adult daughter. But the party leadership of the GOP and their supporters in the media class should have stopped resting easy the moment Trump won the party’s nomination. RNC delegates should have been faithless if they really believed the core worldview of the Republican party: small government, family values, the Judeo-Christian tradition, among many others. Trump believes in none of that. Above all else, he believes in himself, and to believe in Trump is to believe in wealth, and accruing it in whatever means is most expedient. (As it turns out, treating a private, for-profit property you own into a “Winter White House” that gets directly funneled taxpayer money is a pretty good way to do that.) By nominating Trump and spurning the principles that it touts as its intellectual and moral tentposts, the Republican party showed the world that it stands for nothing other than political gain. Such a (tacit) admission may seem old-hat, given just how cynical most people’s view of politics actually is, but even my cynical eye was stunned by everything about Trump and his ascendancy. Surely, I thought, if the GOP actually greenlit Trump’s candidacy, there would have to be defections unlike any we’ve seen before in either the Democratic or Republican parties -- not enough to totally cripple the GOP, mind, but defections nonetheless. But then they didn’t happen, and that’s when I knew.

From the moment Trump won that fateful night in November 2018, “Never Trump” disappeared as a real description of anything resembling a moderate conservative wing of the GOP. Now, Never Trump exists as a rhetorical and intellectual life raft for a party that finds itself simultaneously with all the political power it could possibly want and out to sea. Once Trump is gone and the rest of the party leaders are left thrashing in the choppy waters they’ve caused with their recklessness, they will cling on to “Never Trump” in the hopes that it will get them back ashore and in the good graces of the American public. Some will welcome them back out of sympathy. Some may even think, seeing the people bobbing amongst the waves, that the GOP will have learned the error of its ways. But none of us should be so naive. While forgiveness is a virtue, if moral and intellectual consistency mean anything at all, they would tell us that there comes a point at which a political party crosses a line from which it can never come back. By accepting Donald Trump, the GOP communicated that there are no lines which it would cross in order to advance its political agenda, even if that means fundamentally betraying their self-professed core convictions. It is our task as responsible citizens of a republic to remind the Republican party that there are no take-backs in Faustian bargains. Nor should there be.

#Donald Trump #NeverTrump #Mitt Romney #Ben Shapiro #The National Review #Glenn Beck #Jeff Flake #Susan Collins #Republican Party #GOP #Steven Crowder #John McCain #conservatism

2 notes · View notes

temenosjournal · 7 years ago

Text

Photo by Public Domain Photography on Pexels.com

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The one and only younger sister unit and I are in her truck a few nights ago, getting ready to get out and head over to Museum London, where her younger one was getting an award for her grade 8 Heritage Project, and we’d arrived a tad early.

The niece #2 unit, the one getting the said award, is in the back, nose in her phone, as we await the return of her mother from her entanglement with the new-fangled parking meter.

Seeing she has now enlisted the help of some group of strangers she met whilst waiting for her, I say your Mother doesn’t really get technology, does she, and she laughs her quiet laugh and replies: No, no she doesn’t.

Grandma J would be over the moon with that chicki-poos grand achievements and admire her laid-back goalie ‘tude that her teacher told her intimidates the bullies.

So once Lex had finished overpaying the machine and relaying the turn of events, something about options, and math equations, and I guess at one point everyone had their phones out doing calculations, well, just as we’re finally ready to get out some song came on that reminded us of Mom, well reminded Lexi, which we both believe is her way of letting us know she was present.

Her project had been about the Tragically Hip, great tellers of Canadian stories, tales of events and people otherwise many would never know even existed.

Our history has been often overshadowed by the giant history-making machine on our southern border, and such we have struggled to teach the next generation all the finer details of our own, as most Canadians are far removed from Mounties on horseback, Polar Bears, Dog sleds and Inuit Seal hunters.

The awards being given out were a myriad range of topics, from sports figures in history to The Highway Of Tears because of so many missing indigenous women, and stories of scientists, discoveries, artists, leaders and war heroes that have defined our hearts, and/or minds, maybe our shame, and all the grand and uncomfortable details of our past.

The awarded were from all over the regional school system, with students of many races, religions and creeds, as one by one they came forth to receive their due reward for a job that had been well done, above the fray, and one by one proud parent’s smartphone cameras captured something for posterity.

Does give me hope, that perhaps some of these young people I saw will carry with them the things they learned, because, god help them, cause “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

Those lessons are in jeopardy today I believe, as many leaders in North America, and throughout the world, conveniently believe themselves above the law, maybe even beyond it.

For some, the means now justifies the ends, long as the economy looks the part, the job numbers rock around the clock, and who cares if the cops are still called because some guy has the audacity to stand outside a coffee shop while black, whatever, details details, because I suppose white lives matter more, still, sadly in some places way to near and dear.

Now, just getting your party in power is the be all and end all, and so what if some shady dudes making shady deals with foreign powers, and maybe he did after all payoff the porn star he bopped while his new wife nursed their infant son, or what if some little pay to play was arranged with the Prez? Pft. It’s Washington, and everyone’s on the take.

As the dictator wannabe goes on another ranting tweet fest, on his unsecured phone, cause it’s inconvenient to keep switching.

Oh really??? Inconvenient?

Ask Hilary about inconvenient.

So, GOP, hypocrite much?

Pft. Who cares if he lay’s his loyalty down for a little one on one time with some Russian Oligarchs, and who can possibly keep track of all that fake news?

Anyway, some would say, aren’t all politicians corrupt?

And if Billy jumped off a cliff would you?

But whilst all the snowflakes are continuing their witch hunt against that, apparently, faithful Christian and Greatest Leader in 30 years (read Reagan era), and over on friendly Fox they are all in a tizzy over the farce of SPYGATE.

And that was just last week.

We’re on to something new, another reality, another day, revelation after revelation, follow the money as it tweets and twists itself through the streets of Washington DC, and out to feed the best swamp people one can buy off, and, oops, another one bites the dust, and on with the show, don’t you know, bulldozing everything as they go.

Blind eyes? As the U.S. Congress turns its back on the very constitutional checks and balances THEY are supposed to, um, BE! Just learned that one yesterday, btw.

And with an awkward silence from the Great Old Party, their President runs amok and admits that he discredits and demeans the media and institutions that get in his way so that people don’t know what to believe, with a modicum of success.

Now, here in Canada, as so-called progressive conservatives throw their alt-right ex-drug dealing leader up the political charts, and watch as he slides back down through his own slime of corruption and freewheeling promises, through layers of hand-picked misogynists, racists, science deniers and identity thieves left over from the last guy they turfed out. All the while, a rich man himself, he marches his troops against the very people he sells himself to.

And watch the shadows as the elitist snobs rub their dirty palms in glee at the many rules and wages he’s promised to rescind, whispering quietly in his ear make it so.

I suppose, hear no evil, see no evil, long as you get what you want and who blawdy cares a toot if no one gets hurt, much, well, physically, ya snowflake.

And what if some fragile ecosystems are put in jeopardy, what rules you bend and break, what laws are ignored, what backdoor deals are made for personal gain, politics is politics, with nationalist desires, he leads them forth.

As someone said to me last night “the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives want a leader, liberals want a representative“, and maybe so, however, far-right conservatives apparently prefer rich autocrats. To each his own, I guess, but good god does it have to be in my backyard?

This is where we are, and it saddens me to think of the world my nieces’ generation is in for.

As she plies the waters of the teenage years, I hope, with her athletic swagger and confidence in training, that she tries not to let those pucks of popularity and other predators into the net, too soon, or ever.

That she learns she can dance like no one is watching, cause they ain’t.

And to listen to all those old cliches, and then throw them all away, just go and do whatever she wants anyway. And go with the flow, whenever possible.

Maybe she is ahead by a century, and who knows the places she’ll go, see, and what she’ll know, what new tales she’ll have to tell of her own, someday, it’s all to play and she’s got game, and bristol board.

~~~*~~~ ~~~*~~~ ~~~*~~~ ~~~*~~~ ~~~*~~~

for more of The Hip see: Gord Downie: 10 essential tracks to remember him by Tales She Told On Bristol Board The one and only younger sister unit and I are in her truck a few nights ago, getting ready to get out and head over to Museum London, where her younger one was getting an award for her grade 8 Heritage Project, and we'd arrived a tad early.

#bethechange #American Politics #Canadian History #Canadian Politics #Growing Up In Interesting Times #Lessons From History

1 note · View note

braindamageforbeginners · 7 years ago

Text

The apocalypse is here

Pictured above: Either the I5 North or the current political races. I’m no longer sure. So, this will take a bit of time to get to, but I promise it’ll be good. I guarantee that, I’ll be quoting directly from candidate statements/descriptions (we’ll get back to the abyss soon enough, and the time a DIY project almost killed/crippled Dad)(the man attempted an electrical project, I’d like to point I quietly though this was a bad idea). Anyway, I’m certain that decent, kind, honest, noble, and educated and mostly-human Congresscritters must exist - people do vote for them, after all. However, having met one Congressman and, being lied to the staff of another (pro-tip; no matter how pro-military or manly and awesome you like to think you are, it’s not a reassuring thing to your constituents if there’s an explosion on a large photo in your office. So I have rather low regard for them, as a group (I know, that’s baseless stereotyping).

So you can imagine my surprise at coming to rest in Daryl Issa’s old district, a man so loathed even by his own party that they quietly told him to go away. I’ve seen a lot of strange political events, but, believe me when I say I’ve never seen anything like this; a completely vacant Congressional seat that could be inhabited by a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or even some type of salamander (the salamander would’ve been an improvement over Jerry Lewis). Anyway, since there are also assorted state assembly judicial races at stake, they’re all included in this pamphlet (and potentially included in this oversized piece). As usual, I will be selecting choice quotes, and, remember, candidates may include an age and/or occupation.

Kistin Gaspar: “[...] A mother, small business owner, and the mayor of encinitas, she has the get-it-done approach we need in Congress.” Fantastic, just as I start to enjoy the peace and quiet of life without Larry the Cable Guy in the public light, there’s this call-back. Or so I thought, until I found out that the “Get It Done” app is used in our area to report “non-emergency problems to the city.” Now, I hate potholes as much as any American (possibly more, since I used to live in a country where drivers used them to help corner while going 80 mph on unpaved roads). Still, “Fixing potholes” seems a little below the pay-grade of a pre-conviction congresswoman.

Diane Harkey: Healthcare: Diane will worke for policies that increase choice, costs, and allow patietns and doctors to decide what care is best. No, no, she isn’t. Diane’s endorsed/puppeted by the American Independent Party, so she has about as much chance of winning as a large rock. But, more importantly, I’m pretty sure the AIP is only concerned with healthcare as a business that sends them money. The big take-away here is less what I say, and more the fact that third party-associated candidates with little-to-no chance of winning feel compelled to tell everyone their healthcare system will be fine, even if it won’t.

David Medway: “I want to protect working families from increasing taxes, healthcare bills, and gun violence (while protecting our right to bear arms). I want to prevent national catastrophes like pandemics (which I wrote a book about) and environmental disasters (such as protecting our coastline from nuclear waste and oil spills that would devastate our shores). I support women’s rights and the melting pot of cultures tha tmake up California. I support lower taxes, less government and the best healthcare and education in the world for all Americans at reasonable prices. Please define “reasonable,” sir, I suspect our answers will differ. Also, you’ll notice he’s making the classic math mistake - better, improved services at a mere fraction of the tax cost! Which is a bullshit political statement/proposal. You might be able to get a great vaccuum cleaner for a fraction of the name-brand because slavery is still totally legal in some parts of the world (meaning the company saves a lot on payroll), and wholesalers/transportation will give bulk purchase discounts. Unless your local police and firefighters are staffed by robots (always a possibility), imagine City Hall telling them that they now have to do the same job, only much better, and with a pay cut. Oh, and we’re firing one-in-three of their employees. Society tried hat in Silicon Valley (with choppy results), I don’t think you want to try it with ambulances.

Crag Nordal: “I am an Evangelical Christian who will defend and protect Israel, protect innocent human life from conception to birth, and to natural death, defend and protect marriage between a man and a woman, restore Christian and Jewish morals and ethics to our public schools, and protect religious freedoms. I vow to enforce and enhance border security, build that wall, protect and defend our 2nd Amendment as an NRA life member, and wok to shrink government daily and drain that swamp. I believe I have a conviction from God, to enter this race. I ask that you consider my moral character and conviction above any other experience or attributes. Nothing is more important in selecting our leaders in in the Congress of the United States of America. Our country is engaged in a spiritual battle between the guiding force of moral law and those that are working to remove God from every aspect of our society. We need Christian moral leaders to stand up and fight for the God given rights that our Founding Fathers based our Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. In the creation of this great country God and His laws were relied on to form the greatest founding documents of any country ever formed by men, and thereby the greatest country ever conceived. The United States was formed to be God’s hammer in this world to contain and destroy evil.” Holy shit (almost literally), is there a lot to discuss - I included all of it because every time I thought I’d gotten to the funny/pertinent point, it went on, like a Harry Potter book . First of all, even though you get looney-tune candidates like this and parts of the GOP that always like to nod to the idea of instituting a theocracy, let’s get that out of the way; this is basic civics, First Amendment expressly forbids the idea of instituting a state religion. Speaking of which, even if that were legally possible, whose religion? When he simultaneously restores Jewish and Christian ethics to the schools, will bacon be allowed in those schools? You get a different answer depending on if you go to church on Saturday or Sunday (which is also something different Christian sects have different ideas on). For the purposes of brevity, I’ll have to just say, everyone’s welcome to their own religion, but the institution of a theocracy - while appealing in theory - would be horrific, brutal, and possibly genocidal (I’ll admit I like the idea of communism, in theory, but I’ve seen enough of the results in the real world to know it’s not a good idea). Also, I appreciate his desire to look after Israel, which is always a positive attribute when you’re voting for someone to look after your own country’s interests (I know there’s a tenuous Biblical connection, but, come on, guys, Isarel’s gotta start fending for itself)(the flip side of hat sentiment would be, “We can talk about Israel when every American has a job, home, and healthcare”). And there’s “I believe I have a conviction from God.” We all have convictions, maybe some of them come from God, but most are personal. Unless he means “I believe I have a mission from God.” Which is more grammatically correct, and, compared to the rest, no crazier or dumber. BTW, I feel like I have to put out a disclaimer about religion and say that I don’t really care if you’re religious, or, as long as it’s not hurting anyone to what extent your religion informs policy proposals (and I wouldn’t expect anyone to be able to determine exactly where one ends and the other begins; our minds just aren’t built that way) - there’s a massive difference between that and standing up in the middle of church (let alone Congress) and shouting, “GOD COMMANDS ME TO CAST OUT THE UNWORTHY.” I do like his demand that we judge him exclusively on his faith and not on what he says, does, or anything else that might involve objective reality. Oh, and that bit about “God’s hammer in this world” really upset me when I first read it, and I couldn’t figure why, until I remembered this quote, “ "I am the Flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you. “ which is attributed to Genghis Khan (even if you think the temporary stability and increased trade in Asia as a result of the Mongol Empire is awesome, remember that 40-60 million people died due to his campaigns and policies)(the Mongols tended to obliterate cropland, so whoever they didn’t kill usually starved).

Robert Pendleton MD, PhD - Surgeon/Biochemist/Small Businessman/Visual Artist: “ My name is Robert Pendelton Md PhD and I feel a calling to awaken the apathetic and unite disenfranchised moderates. I am an eye-surgeon, biochemist, small businessman, and visual artist, and the K9USA Party is my vision for a better world. K9 is a political party and philosophy of decision-making based upon the attributes of dogs that make “man’s best-friend” so special: Unconditional Love, Simple Needs, and Readiness to Defend. Adapted to national politics, international politics, and our personal lives, these attributes become the nine K9 principles: Socially Progressive, Fiscally Conservative, and militarily prepared (national, Altruistic, Sovereign, and United (international), and Loving, Lean and Strong (personal).2020 Application of K9 Principles yields the “six results” of Tolerance, Security, Health, Happiness, Peace and Freedom. My “2020 Vision” is for the K9USA Party to elect a majority of representatives (50% women) to the United States Congress and Presidency by the year 2020... Donkeys and elephants have failed. It’s time for dogs to lead.” I have only just heard of this man and I love him.

#quie

1 note · View note

keywestlou · 4 years ago

Text

BIDEN NOT SCREWING AROUND WITH STIMULUS BILL

You could tell from my writings the past few days of my concern that Biden was waiting too long towards moving the Democratic version of the stimulus bill and the Republicans would take advantage of him

My concerns were misplaced.

The Democrats yesterday began the voting procedures required to get things done in due course basically Biden’s way. What has been undertaken is the path to passing COVID-19 without threat of a GOP filibuster.

All 50 Democratic Senators voted as a block. Vice President Harris broke the tie vote with the Senate by casting her vote. Democrats won 51-50 as it should be with with an equally divided Congress.

Trump’s impeachment trial now gets in the way. Further voting on the stimulus package will have to await the end of the trial. Senators cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. It is expected the final package will be voted on in late February or March.

Many Republicans complained Democrats were resorting to “aggressive tactics.” I smile. What have the Republicans been doing for the last 10-12 years.

There is a flaw in the ointment from my perspective. Biden was willing to give on the $1,400 to satisfy Republican demands. Republican demands mean nothing now.

Two Democrats are playing politics, however. They want significantly less than $1,400. How much not certain. But nowhere near the $1,400 number. Based on some convoluted scheme.

The two Democratic Senators are West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Krysten Sinema.

I have my own opinion why Manchin wants the number cut significantly. I do not understand why Sineema does.

Manchin has been a Senator for many years. Governor of West Virginia before. He has been able to consistently win in a Republican state.

I think Manchin is flexing his muscles in this instant. Biden needs all 50 Democratic votes. Manchin is playing tough guy. Willing to provide Biden with his vote if Biden lowers the $1,400 number significantly.

Biden will have no alternative but to accede to Manchin’s demand. I suspect Manchin will play this game from now on. The situation has given him a power he previously did not have.

This morning’s Citizens’ Voice carried 2 interesting comments.

The first is “…..today’s Republicans are the weakest, wimpiest, most pathetic crop of needy nincompoops in American history.”

The second concerns Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. A mental case. The comment referred to Greene as “…..a O Anon-promoting female version of Trump-only without the charm…..Greene embraces the conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and the slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School…..were staged. The woman is a CREEP.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene was marked a loser yesterday. The House voted to remove her from all committee assignments.

In my opinion, they should have removed her from Congress. Though I am not sure if the House has such power.

The woman lies. Continuously. Changes her stories more times than Trump did. She seems to get mixed up. The American people likewise seem to get mixed up hearing her.

A very large block of Republicans supported her. Only 11 voted with the Democrats to remove her committee assignments.

Such Republicans are crazy, also. However in a different fashion. They know better, but do not have the courage to stand against Trump and his supporters in the House.

The entertainment group SAG was preparing to throw Trump out of the organization because of January 6. Trump got wind of it. Beat SAG to the punch. He quit.

Those against Trump continue to surface each day. Makes me wonder if he would get 70 million plus votes today as he did November 3.

DAY 10…..Greece the First Time

Posted on June 6, 2012 by Key West Lou

Hello world!

More of Louis from Santorini, Greece. Santorini is as close to God as you can get on earth. What a place!

Yesterday, I had major problems with DAY 9. I lost most of it in never never land. Today, I had intended to play catch up. Instead things are moving on the euro front and I have decided to take a day off from reporting my trip to share the euro situation further with you. It is important not only to Greece, Spain, Italy and Germany, but most nations of the world. Including the United States.

I will play catch up tomorrow regarding the trip.

This euro problem is constantly fomenting. A bit more each day. The Greeks unquestionably hate the Germans. The Germans think the Greeks are stupid and know not how to manage money.

I compare the present euro situation to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. It was a German invasion with bullets and planes. Here it is an economic intrusion and the euros have replaced the bullets and planes.

The result is the same, however. War. Presently an economic one. It could turn into bullets, etc. One nation cannot deprive another of the sustenance required to live properly. Recoupment and retaliation are the result.

The Greeks are hurting economically.

Santorini for example is back where Key West was three years ago. For several years, Key West experienced unbounded prosperity. Everyone working. Most making more dollars than they ever had. Real estate prices going through the roof. Hotel and restaurant prices constantly on the rise.

There was no end in sight as to this ever escalating prosperity. Then came the mortgage crash. Primarily inspired by the banks. And persons who were greedy enough to think they could own a home costing more than they could afford were in trouble.

Santorini is in that place today. This is year one. The economic crash hit big time this year. Hotels and restaurants are learning they have to lower their prices. Tourists are not coming in the numbers they used to. They either have no money or have a fear of not having any. Everyone working for less. Every one doing whatever it will take to keep the business they have and encourage new business.

I had dinner the other night with a friend I met here. We dined at one of Santorini’s better restaurants. Each of us had an appetizer, five drinks between us, and a whole fresh fish each. Bill time arrived. A robust 40ish woman brought it to our table. She introduced herself as the owner’s daughter, thanked us for coming, asked that we return another time, and told us the two appetizers and five drinks were on the house.

I read this morning on the BBS news network that the Greek islands are in trouble. Santorini was not mentioned. Other islands were. Business dramatically down. One hotel having 20 rooms had only 3 occupied. Bad days not ahead. Bad days already here.

I read a long article on the euro problem also today. By the multi billionaire, maybe trillionaire, George Soros. It was well written. Soros basically said the present problem is of Germany’s making. They are the only nation that prospered under the euro situation. Everyone in Germany making more and more money. Germans buying up everything. Even real estate. Prices going up like there is no tomorrow. But so what, the German’s believe their money making will go on forever.

Soros says no way! He gives the present situation three months before a severe economic crisis hits. Unless the right thing is done, of course. Which I think means Germany becoming more liberal and cheaper with its loaning programs to other European nations. Germany is the bank. The other nations the borrowers.

Soros thinks there will shortly be a short term solution. A band-aid one. Lasting about three months also. At that time most of the European nations will not be able to make their loan payments to Germany. Then the shit will hit the fan! Germany will also hurt because they are not being repaid. Eventually and soon there after there could be a European economic collapse leading to a world wide one.

Everyone will suffer. Including once again the Germans since the paper they hold evidencing the loans will have become worthless.

I got a manicure yesterday. At Hair & Soul. I spoke with the owner Catherine Risvani about the economic situation.

Think Key West as I share her comments with you.

The rent on her beauty parlor has gone up. The rent on her home has gone up. The price of beauty supplies has gone up. In the meantime, her business has gone down. Fewer visitors. Fewer locals being able to afford her services. How much can she raise her prices and still attract business?

Catherine’s attitude was good. We have had problems before. We are having them again. This too will pass.

Encouraging. Hopeful. However, I am not sure she is correct. The devastation of the economy as suggested means businesses out of business. 1929 and the present U.S. recession all over again. But worse.

When people are without work, when parents cannot feed or educate their children, violence can occur. I sense that possibility here in Greece.

Enough for today. I have a ton of things which I wish to share with you. I am now two days behind. I promise to get caught up tomorrow. This euro thing captivated me.

Tomorrow you will read of a cold front. Yes, even here in the Greek Isles. Just like Key West. The story of Nikos and Maria. It will blow you out how they have succeeded and are now doing everything to make sure they can preserve that which they earned over the years by hard work.

How about solar panels for power? Yes, here in Santorini. And apparently not expensive. No cable TV. Antennas on the roofs. A restaurant called something Katina sitting on a shelf in the water surrounded by a gigantic mountain of lava remaining from the volcano 3,500 years ago. Steps. More steps. A nude woman swimming. The story of a former Onassis property which sits right next door to Niko’s property. A description of my cave’s bathroom. Cheap alcohol.

And more.

Join me. Read me again tomorrow. All this is too good to miss.

In the meantime, enjoy your day!

BIDEN NOT SCREWING AROUND WITH STIMULUS BILL was originally published on Key West Lou

0 notes

weareinstrangetimes · 4 years ago

Text

This Day In History - Jan 20, 2021 | a work in progress...

Immediately after the inauguration of Joseph R Biden as the 46th President of The United States of America, the Republican Party, along with the right wing disinformation network and their allies abroad and whatever nook and cranny they can be found in will attempt to re-write history. They will point the finger of blame for everything they are responsible for including their complicity in the corruption, deceit, atrocities, breaking of all norms, denigrating the Constitution, insurrection and attempted sedition based on the lies and conspiracy theories by their nice leader and traitor-in-chief.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A post from October with a lot of research, graphs, and links, topped with a video from Meidas Touch

The Trump Depression: The Economy Does Better Under the Democrats

One of the rare occasions when DJT has told the truth.

https://weareinstrangetimes.tumblr.com/post/633392690647711746/the-trump-depression-the-economy-does-better

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The National Debt.

Trump’s most enduring legacy could be the historic rise in the national debt

COVID-19

One Year, 400,000 Coronavirus Deaths: How the U.S. Guaranteed Its Own Failure

Cremation Limits Lifted In LA Due To 'Backlog' As COVID-19 Deaths Skyrocket

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I continuously see posts in FB, and shared from one person to another, in many edited forms, that are to be their “reminder” of where we are currently, for posterity. Most of them will have some personal points of fact in them such as the current price of gasoline in their area. Most of them contain the usual false or misleading talking points used by the GOP and the right wing disinformation circles. They aren’t outrageously nonsensical enough to have come from the duck pond people, so they mostly are just the usual disinformation from the Republicans. Case in point: Facebook post I am making this post so it will show back up as a future memory on my timeline:Today is Biden's Inauguration ...Gasoline is currently $2.17 per gallon in Checotah OK. Interest rates are 2.25% for a 30 year mortgage. The stock market closed at 31,188.38 +257.86 (0.83%) today even though we have been fighting COVID for 11 months. Our GDP growth for the 3rd Qtr was 33.1 percent. We had the best economy ever until COVID and it is recovering well. We have not had any new wars or conflicts in the last 4 years. North Korea has been under control and has not been testing any missiles. ISIS has not been heard from for over 3 years. The housing market is the strongest it has been in years. Homes have appreciated at an unbelievable rate and sell well. Wood prices are high with 2x2x8' going around $5.66/stud at Home Depot... And let’s not forget that peace deals in the Middle East were signed by 4 countries—unprecedented! Unemployment sits at 6.7% in spite of COVID.

Point - Counter Point

My reply: The 33% gain in GDP is true. That is still 10% below the Q1 level after the 31.4% drop in Q2. And even farther below the Q4 2019 level. The reason for the 33% gain from a 31.4% loss is due to the stimulus pumped into the economy from the Cares Act that Nancy Pelosi worked so hard on getting. https://www.brookings.edu/.../dont-let-flashy-3rd.../

Below is a running tracking of the GDP from 1947 to the latest data. There are two major drops in the GDP. One starting in Q3 2008, and another dramatic one beginning Q1 2020.

Reply to me: plus adding manufacturing that was outsourced to offshore manufacturing, lowering tax rates on business, and a multitude of other things. If you think this new stimulus bill they passed will benefit us we'll see since they seem more interested in sending money to other countries including enemies.

My Response:

Which manufacturing jobs were those? I know there has always been a lot of "talk" about it. Many corporations took advantage of their tax windfall to buy back their own stocks. Some who did upgrades added automation which resulted in loss of jobs for human workers, that robots could do. Some of those high profile corporations that were on display at the White House who gave out $1000 bonuses (to high ranking employees) laid workers off and scaled back which more than made up for it. Many CEOs and upper management received raises and very little went to the working class employees. There were a few companies that actually did increase wages and benefits to their employees, and Kudos to them. But I think they were in the minority.

The money going to foreign countries is not anything new and it was also included in the previous years budgets. It was part of the annual budget, in the defense portion, and was not part of the stimulus bill. They combined voting on them to try to get them both passed. The House voted on them separately and the Senate was to vote on the combined bill. The talking points are merely political, knowing full well that the majority of the population were not going to do any research.

N Korea? While exchanging love letters they were continuing their nuclear war head development under the cloud of a love affair. They had already perfected and tested their long range missiles within the last 4 years. Missiles that could reach the Western United States.

Peace treaties between non-warring countries? A nice political ploy. Bebe was returning the favor for the previous administration's help with his re-election. The two peoples still at odds are Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians were left out. The Palestinians want the same thing that Israel has always wanted and rightly so. Their own homeland/country and recognition on the world stage. The conflicts in that region, aside from with Iran, were with Qatar, (where we have a strategically shared air base and thousands of troops, and the other strategic partners in the region. Why? Because Jared Kushner got turned down when he was asking Qatar to bail out his failing 666 5th Ave property. It was revenge. So, that's like throwing gas on a pile of wood, lighting it, and then offering water to put the fire out. Those "peace treaties" were nothing more than normalization and cooperation agreements with some promised "deals" thrown in.

Point - Counter Point Another post being passed around in FB.

I've heard everyone else's hatred, rhetoric and blatant lies for the past four years, so now I'm expressing my opinion. If you don't like it, you know where the delete button is. Let me be clear, I'm not a Biden fan. I think he's corrupt, a liar, a racist fanatic, he's in bed with China and probably suffers dementia. He has done nothing to improve anything in his 47 year political career. But what has Trump done in the past 4 years?The ′′ arrogant ′′ in the White House negotiated four Middle East Peace Accords, something that 71 years of endless political intervention and war failed to produce.The White House ′′ buffoon ′′ is the first president to not involve us in an outside war since Eisenhower.The ′′ racist ′′ in the White House has had the biggest impact on the economy, bringing jobs and reducing unemployment among the black and Latina population of ANY other president. Never. Ever.The ′′ liar ′′ in the White House has exposed profound, widespread and long-standing corruption in the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Republican and Democratic parties.The White House ′′ White Supremacist ′′ turned NATO around and made them start paying their debts.The White House's ′′ dumb ′′ neutralized North Koreans and prevented them from sending missiles to Japan and threatening the Western US.The ′′ xenophobic ′′ in the White House changed our relationship with the Chinese, brought hundreds of businesses back to the US and revived the economy.This same ′′ clown ′′ reduced taxes, increased the standard deduction in his IRS statement from $ 12,500 to $ 24,400 for married couples and prompted the stock market to rise to record levels, positively impacting retirement accounts of tens of millions of citizens.The ′′ idiot ′′ in the White House accelerated the development of multiple COVID vaccines that are now available or will be soon. And yet we still don't have a vaccine for SARS, bird flu, ebola, or a number of diseases that emerged during previous administrations.The ′′ orange man ′′ in the White House rebuilt our military, which the Obama administration paralyzed and fired 214 key generals and admirals in their first year of term.Got it you don't like it. Many of you hate and despise him completely. How special of you. He is serving you and the WHOLE American people. What are you doing besides insulting him and laughing that he got the China virus Some of you even expected COVID to be the cause of her disappearance. (Ah, the left. The party of ′′ tolerance ′′Please re-educate me on what Biden has accomplished for America in his 47 years in office, as well as enriching the entire Biden family. BTW where's Hunter?I'll take the ′′ clown ′′ any day versus a corrupt, hypocritical, racist, fork-tongue liar. I want a strong leader who isn't afraid to kick butts when necessary. I don't need a father figure. I don't need a liar. That's what Hollywood, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and The New York Times are for.Call me dumb, racist, super diffuser or part of the basket of deplorables. I don't care!God bless Donald Trump, the best and least appreciated president in US history.

Reply:

Counterpoint part 1: I realize you are not the author of that post. I have seen this post re-posted many times in various forms here in FB including by friends and I didn't respond. But since this is my post I will. I have also seen it at a site where gamers, musicians, music enthusiasts and creative folks hang out. It did not originate from there. The origin I believe is in part anyway from the same conspiracy theorist group that also makes up wild and crazy claims of former heads of state and officials being arrested, that never are. And people dying, who are still alive. And a dead person secretly being alive and running a crusade, who is still dead. And pizza joints having basements with trafficking rings, that have no basements. And miracle cures for COVID that are not proven and can cause more damage if not used for what they were intended for, even if you have a really cool pillow and a clean aquarium. And, and, and ... 5G, windmills, George Soros, Bill Gates, Forest Gump, Mr. Magoo, and voodoo doctors doing it with little green men in their dreams.

Do they ever question why everything they believe is bunk? Do they ever get angry for being deceived? Do they ever feel foolish for looking foolish for posting such foolish nonsense? No. They just pass it off and wait for the next wild tale to spread and swear by.

There are those who praise so-called Peace Treaties between nations that are not at war, leaving out the 1 culture that is affected and wants their own sovereignty and homeland, in every one of those so called "peace treaties". They suggest he should get a Nobel Peace Prize, and some even think he has been awarded it because he puts a fake facsimile of the medal in some of his posts. Those "peace treaties" I don't think were any more than cooperation and normalization agreements, and in some cases containing agreements to make financial transactions.

The guy they tout as not having involved us in any wars has brought us very close to nuclear conflicts with his loud mouth and nasty tweets. The one guy who was the most imminent danger learned quickly that he could dupe the the mad Tweeter by giving him praise. In turn, he received what his father and grand father, also dictators before him, could never get from a U.S. President. What they got, with very little in return, was their most coveted prize, an audience with the Tweeter which gave them credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of their own subservient population. And they got an end to our annual readiness maneuvers with their Southern neighbor and our other strategic allies which was their second most coveted prize. Then while exchanging love letters with the mad Tweeter, they were able to secretly continue with their nuclear warhead development. And since they already have long range missile capability to reach the United States (tested during the mad Tweeter's reign) they are not only a major threat to our allies in the South Pacific, they are an imminent threat to the mainland U.S.

The "buffoon" (referenced in the list of fables) in question also abandoned our allies that were instrumental in fighting ISIL (who is not completely eliminated) leaving them to be threatened with genocide (our betrayed allies) by another despot whose country hosts real estate developments the mad Tweeter has his name on (Trump Towers), and another crazed dictator who has been guilty of genocide and using chemical weapons in his own country on his own citizens. Those allies were also guarding the prisons that the ISIL prisoners were housed in, and they were allowed to escape. In fact his claims of completely eliminating ISIL himself 100% can be debunked by his own State Department. https://www.factcheck.org/.../trumps-isis-claim-goes-to.../ That was in 2017 and 2018. So, if ISIL (ISIS) was 100% defeated by 2018, why were we still fighting them in late 2019? Trump walks back claim of defeating ‘100% of the ISIS caliphate’ https://www.rollcall.com/.../trump-walks-back-claim-of.../ The claims by the right wing propagandists and Trump regarding unemployment for Blacks, and Latinos can be corrected by simply doing some research. AP FACT CHECK: Trump on unemployment for blacks, Latinos https://apnews.com/article/e1afa3f19a054540a7c34ca193bdd9ae Quote from the fable: "The White House ′′ White Supremacist ′′ turned NATO around and made them start paying their debts." What he did was weaken our alliances, playing right in the hands of one of our most dangerous adversaries, the guy who helped him to get into office. Something he has done throughout his term. And, his alt-facts and those of the right wing deceivers are easily fact checked. FactChecking Trump’s NATO Remarks https://www.factcheck.org/.../factchecking-trumps-nato.../ Trump made many claims about bringing jobs back to the U.S. and creating new jobs. Many of those things he was taking credit for early on were things that were already in the works long before he was helped into the White House. 2017: https://www.factcheck.org/.../trump-jobs-returning.../ 2020: We can reshore manufacturing jobs, but Trump hasn’t done it https://www.epi.org/publica.../reshoring-manufacturing-jobs/

There are a lot of claims around the GOP tax cuts. Sure, the standard deduction was increased. So has the cost of living due to illegal trade wars and prices sky rocketing. And many deductions for those who itemized were eliminated. Many are still waiting for their "post cards" so they can file their taxes. Those who really benefitted were those who are not in a month to month struggle to make ends meet. The corporate tax cuts that the Trump and GOP promoters said would trickle down and benefit the working class family wage earners was not realized. Corporations used their GOP granted socialism to buy back their own stocks. And many of those who touted handing big bonuses out in turn laid other workers off or eliminated jobs which more than made up for it.

The stock market has been used by Trump and his mouthpieces as an economic indicator. While some people do benefit with returns on their retirement plans and stock portfolios, it is not a barometer of how working families are getting along, many who have to work multiple jobs just to pay rent and eat. And not everybody dabbles in the stock market. There have been ups and downs in the market. There was one period in March of 2020, where all gains in the market were wiped out back to February 2017. What happens in that type of situation? Those companies that can wrangle it buy back their own shares at lower prices which artificially gives the market another instant boost.

Counterpoint part 2:>>> Let's talk about infrastructure week. Still waiting on that one since February or March of 2017. We'll have to wait until real President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

How about Operation Warp Speed and vaccine development. Accelerated vaccine development is a good thing, and because there were decades of research behind it and technological advances it was possible to accomplish. Joe Biden even acknowledged Trump, or at least Operation Warp Speed as a positive move. We can at least give him credit for that, since he botched the response with delays, denial, disinformation, and creating a herd mentality to push back on safety and mitigation in order to recklessly reach herd immunity through infection and death.> It should be noted that the first vaccine that was approved was from Pfizer, and they did not participate in Operation Warp Speed where the others received funding. They funded themselves although Trump deceitfully takes credit. And those 20,000,000 vaccine doses that Trump, Pence and the Trump administration were promising by the end of December 2020? As of January 8th, 6.6 million initial doses have been administered according to NBC News MAP Covid-19 vaccination tracker across the U.S. https://www.nbcnews.com/.../map-covid-19-vaccination...

After Trump "wanted to play it down" the U.S. as of Friday, January 8 2021, has surpassed 22 million COVID-19 cases, with a record 269,420 new cases, and over 372,000 deaths (Jan 9). https://www.nbcnews.com/.../u-s-covid-19-cases-hit-22...

Trump and his enablers and apologists often talk about how he rebuilt the "depleted military" that he inherited from President Obama. As with most Trump claims, it is Mostly False. Quote from the fable: "The ′′ orange man ′′ in the White House rebuilt our military, which the Obama administration paralyzed and fired 214 key generals and admirals in their first year of term. "Regarding the firing of the Generals, I saw another figure, 197, that was posted in a publication for retired folks in The Villages in Florida. Others have said it first appeared in the alt-right fake news Breitbart site. As with most things that roll around like a marble in an empty box in the right wing disinformation arena things are just made up, or facts spun and twisted like a taffy pretzel. In 2010, President Obama did replace his top Afghanistan war commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal due to in-bickering in his national security team. He replaced McChrystal with his boss and mentor, Gen. David H. Petraeus. https://www.nytimes.com/.../24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html There have been other firings, replacements, and retirements. Most absences are for good reason and there is no wholesale purging as the right wing conspiracy theorists would lead you to believe. https://skeptoid.com/.../24/president-obama-purge-military/ Quoted from Snopes: "The U.S. national defense budget was slightly reduced during Obama's second term, in large part due to efforts by Congress to limit government spending and the withdrawal of troops from the Middle East. "Who controlled both the House and Senate? The Republican Party. https://www.snopes.com/.../trump-inherit-depleted-military/ AP FACT CHECK: Trump's Overblown Boasts About Military, Vets https://www.usnews.com/.../ap-fact-check-trumps-overblown... General Michael Flynn was also fired in 2014 from his position as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama. Too many connections with RU it seems. And something I didn't previously know, was after he was fired he became a contributor to RT (government funded, Russia Today). https://themoscowproject.org/collusion/flynn-fired-dia/ I had always thought he was fired due to his overt Islamophobia which didn't sit well with some of our allies. He was advising Trump in 2016 on foreign policy and national security and subsequently during his campaign transition. Then he was appointed National Security Adviser in the administration (despite warnings not to), and he brought much of his baggage with him. It was discovered that he had previous contacts with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. and was accused of trying to undermine U.S. policy. He was also accused of being a lobbyist for the same country where Trump's name is licensed on the Trump Towers Istanbul (that's 2 of them). All this while receiving classified briefings. He was fired or asked to resign just 3 weeks into Trump's term. https://apnews.com/article/ce90066b4e20483da79adf21910da0c7

Another quote from the fable list: "The buffoon in the White House has exposed the deep, widespread, and long-standing corruption in the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the Republican and Democratic parties." While there have been some procedural errors and some ethical issues, most of them are small compared with the real issues at hand. Now, the "buffoon" has not exposed anything. All the noise is to cover up and deflect from the corruption and high crimes and misdemeanors of said buffoon and his accomplices, enablers and apologists. That is the way the GOP does things.

"47 years" seems to be one of the fall backs when they run out of any other fables, or simply can't think of anything else to say. That would bring us back to 1973 making him 31 years old at that time. Joe Biden was a U.S. Senator representing Delaware from 1973 to 2009, re-elected several times. He was Vice President in the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2017, two full terms. He ran for president in 1988 and 2008.He has been on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In his early years he worked on consumer protection, environmental issues, and greater government accountability, arms control. He has worked as a public servant most of his adult life. He has probably done a lot more in his 47 years since being elected U.S. Senator than most people asking what he has done. While some of his views and policies in the past were controversial at the time, like most people, he has evolved and adapted to the changes in culture and public opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden...

The person who wrote the fable list states he will take the ′′ clown ′′ any day versus a corrupt, hypocritical, racist, fork-tongue liar. The Impeached "clown" in fact is all of the above and has been identified as a pathological liar and probably the most documented liar in history. The "clown" is also labeled as racist, corrupt, a con-artist, a xenophobe and a bigot among other things too numerous to list. Many people have said that. Also, unindicted co-conspirator, Individual 1, in crimes another person is serving prison time for. Individual 1 was only ‘not indicted’ due to Justice Department policies on not indicting a sitting president for crimes committed.

to be continued....

#national debt

1 note · View note

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Did Republicans Vote To Pay Federal Employees

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-republicans-vote-to-pay-federal-employees/

Did Republicans Vote To Pay Federal Employees

House Unanimously Approves Back Pay For 800000 Furloughed Federal Workers

Verify: Did Democrats vote against a plan to pay government workers during shutdown?

The House on Saturday unanimously approved legislation to provide retroactive pay for furloughed federal workers after the government shutdown ends. The vote was 407-0.

Approximately 800,000 government employees have been furloughed during the shutdown, although the Pentagon announced Saturday that it will call 300,000 of its furloughed civilian employees back to work.

Although the White House has said it “strongly supports” the legislation, it’s unclear how the Senate will proceed on the measure. The upper chamber was not expected to vote on it Saturday, and the Senate will not be in session Sunday.;

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor that it is “cruel” to promise pay in the future but not allow federal workers to go back to work while the shutdown continues.;

“It’s really cruel to tell workers they’ll receive back pay once the government opens and then refuse to open the government,” he said. “Let’s open the government.”;

Reid said the message being sent to federal workers is: “Stay home. Watch TV. Play chess. Whatever you want to do, because we won’t let you work.”

Throughout the federal government, workers deemed essential and who are currently on the job will be paid for their work during the shutdown, although their paychecks could be delayed. But furloughed employees need congressional approval to receive back pay.

United States Federal Government Shutdown

This article is part of a series on the

From October 1 to October 17, 2013, the United States federal government entered a shutdown and curtailed most routine operations because neither legislation appropriating funds for fiscal year 2014 nor a continuing resolution for the interim authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2014 was enacted in time. Regular government operations resumed October 17 after an interim appropriations bill was signed into law.

During the shutdown, approximately 800,000 federal employees were indefinitely furloughed, and another 1.3 million were required to report to work without known payment dates. Only those government services deemed “excepted” under the Antideficiency Act were continued; and only those employees deemed “excepted” were permitted to report to work. The previous U.S. federal government shutdown was in 199596. The 16-day-long shutdown of October 2013 was the third-longest government shutdown in U.S. history, after the 35-day 20182019 shutdown and the 21-day 199596 shutdown.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted several months following the shutdown, 81% of Americans disapproved of the shutdown, 86% felt it had damaged the United States’ image in the world, and 53% held Republicans in Congress accountable for the shutdown.

Another Extension For Federal Contractors

The COVID-19 relief package also provides yet another extension of a provision known as Section 3610, which allows agencies to continue paying federal contractors if they cant work for any reason due to the pandemic.

The provision was originally part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, which Congress passed nearly a year ago.

Members have since extended protections for federal contractors several times. The provision was due to expire at the end of this month, but the new COVID-19 relief package extends those protections through Sept. 30.

Sens. Mark Warner and Marco Rubio pushed for this latest extension through an amendment, which cleared the chamber over the weekend.

Were really delighted that Congress, the Senate actually voted, had 94 votes in favor of the amendment on the floor on Saturday to extend section 3610 through Sept. 30, David Berteau, president of the Professional Services Council, said earlier this week in an interview on the Federal Drivewith Tom Temin.

Don’t Miss: Trump Democrats

House Legislative Rule For The Appropriations Continuing Resolution

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia’s inclusion policy.

A new rule for the consideration of the Senate’s amended version of the continuing resolution was approved by the House October 1, 2013, at 1:10 AM . The rule, House Resolution 368, was reported to the House floor for a vote by the Chairman of the House Rules Committee, Rep. Pete Sessions , and the vote had 228 voting for the resolution and 199 against adoption of the rule.

H.Res. 368 changed the Standing Rule for the procedure for consideration of the Continuing Resolution . It states that “any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee,” which at the time was Eric Cantor or his designee, H.J. Res. 59 being the bill returned from the Senate to end the shutdown with continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014.

Only Federal Postal Employees

The House also passed H.R. 828, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act, sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz , which could get federal and postal workers fired if they fall behind on their federal taxes. The bill, approved on July 31 by a vote of 263 to 114, would only affect federal and postal employees; it would not apply to federal contracting jobs or other private-sector work that is paid for with federal funds.

Perhaps acknowledging that almost all federal employees pay their taxes, Rep. Darrell Issa , a supporter of the measure, conceded that the bill is almost pure symbolism. The bill is pending before the Senate.

This is the most hostile Congress has ever been to federal employees, Rep. Gerry Connolly told Politico in March. The other side has decided theyre an easy punching bag, and it is outrageous on many, many scores. Connollys northern Virginia district houses the third largest concentration of federal workers nationwide.

Postal workers should set their sights on November, President Guffey said.

Don’t Miss: Donald Trump Calls Republicans Stupid

Senate Republicans Propose Stripped

Republicans in Congress have taken a lot of heat over the past few years for repeatedly blocking Democrats‘ equal pay legislation, so this year GOP women senators are proposing a bill of their own to combat the gender wage gap. But the GOP’s stripped-down version of the Paycheck Fairness Act has so far garnered nothing but eye rolls from across the aisle.

Sen. Deb Fischer , joined by GOP Sens. Kelly Ayotte , Susan Collins and Shelley Moore Capito , introduced the Workplace Advancement Act last week, which would make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for talking to each other about their salaries. The retaliation provision is one of many in the Democrats’ Paycheck Fairness Act, which would also require employers to report wage data broken down by gender to the federal government, set up negotiation skills training programs for women and girls, and help women sue for back pay once they realize they’ve been earning less than their male colleagues for the same work.

Republicans have blocked the Democrats’ bill three times in the Senate, claiming that it would cause job losses. Now that the GOP controls the Senate, Fischer is challenging Democrats to support her bill, since it’s the only one with a chance of getting a vote.

This post has been updated with a statement from Fischer’s office about support for the senator’s equal pay amendment.

Both Chambers Have Separate Plans To Fund Agencies These Plans Are Not Likely To Become Law But Could Jumpstart Negotiations

Senate Republicans this week will for the first time hold a vote to reopen all of government after a month of a partial shutdown, though House Democrats are pushing their own plan and neither one is likely to make it to President Trumps desk.

The Senate released a plan to fund federal agencies through fiscal 2019, including Trumps requested spending for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and significant changes to immigration policy. Democrats have objected to the latter provisions, which correspond to an offer Trump made over the weekend to reopen government, and are not likely to provide the support necessary for the measure to surpass the 60-vote threshold.

The bill includes a three-year extension of legal status for non-citizens in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival and Temporary Protected Status programs, as well as restrictions on asylum applications. It also includes a 1.9 percent pay raise for federal employees. House Democrats have also included that across-the-board salary increase in their proposals to reopen government, making it more likely that any eventual deal to end the shutdown will include the raise. The federal workforce is operating under a pay freeze due to an executive order Trump signed in December .

Both bills largely mirror compromise legislation the Senate agreed to on a bipartisan basis last year, but they still contain some differences on spending levels.

You May Like: Why Do Republicans Really Want To Repeal Obamacare

Federal Employees’ Thrift Savings Plan

The Thrift Savings Plan is a retirement plan for federal government employees and members of the military.

Get help with life events that affect your TSP account;- What to do if you have personal or career changes or changes to your active duty status.

If you have questions about the TSP or your TSP account, call the participant service line at or TTY at .

Note: There are a number of third-party mobile applications that refer to the Thrift Savings Plan and may ask you for your TSP login information. Providing your information could result in a security risk to your account. If you want to access your TSP account, log in directly at;TSP.gov.

What Did Democrats Vote To Repeal

Rep. Crenshaw: House GOP Voted to Pay Federal Employees; Dems Opposition Says They Dont Care

Hyde Amendment:;

The most prominent policy that was repealed by Democrats appropriations bills last week was the Hyde Amendment, which was introduced by Rep. Henry Hyde in 1976, three years after the Supreme Courts landmark decisions on abortion rights in Roe v. Wade and in Doe v. Bolton.;

The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funding to provide abortions except in cases when the abortion is sought to protect the life of the mother. It was first adopted in 1976 as part of the annual Dept. of Health and Human Services funding package and restricted federal Medicaid funding.;

The provision has been reenacted annually since then, but the language has evolved over the years. As it applies currently, the Hyde Amendment includes exceptions for abortions in cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest in addition to those intended to protect the mothers long-term health.

Democrats voted to repeal the Hyde Amendment through the HHS appropriations portion of a seven-bill minibus spending package for FY2022 along party-lines.

Helms Amendment:;

First enacted in 1973 as part of a foreign aid package and named for Sen. Jesse Helms , the Helms Amendment prohibits the use of foreign aid funds to motivate or coerce individuals to practice abortions.

House Democrats left the Helms Amendment out of the FY2022 state and foreign operations appropriations bill they passed along party-lines.

Kemp-Kasten Amendment:;

Mexico City Policy:

Smith Amendment:;

Also Check: Who Lies More Democrats Or Republicans

Pa Republicans Vote To Pay Federal Employees

WASHINGTON;;Today, every member of the Pennsylvania Republican Congressional Delegation supported an amendment to pay Department of Homeland Security employees for their work to date. This includes Transportation Safety Administration employees and members of the U.S. Coast Guard, essential employees working without pay during the partial government shutdown.Pennsylvania Republicans voted on three separate occasions over the past week to pay federal employees the paychecks they are owed, but the measures were blocked by Democrats.

Pennsylvania is home to nearly 60,000 federal civilian workers, many of whom have gone without pay since the shutdown began last month.

It was disappointing that Speaker Pelosi directed a majority of her members to vote against this commonsense measure and therefore ignore the hardworking men and women who are doing their jobs but not getting paid, said U.S. Rep. Glenn GT Thompson, Dean of the Republican Delegation.Rather than playing politics and rejecting offers by the President before theyre even delivered, or canceling the State of the Union, Nancy Pelosi should come to the table and negotiate for the good of this country and the men and women who keep us safe in Pennsylvania every day, Rep. Thompson continued. I am pleased to see that House Democrats continue to join Republicans on these commonsense votes. This represents a path forward with or without the support of Mrs. Pelosi.

VOTES TO PAY FEDERAL WORKERS

Isan Fight Brews As Forecaster Warns Us Could Hit Debt Limit By Fall

WASHINGTON, July 21 – The U.S. Treasury Department is projected to exhaust its borrowing authority in October or November, the Congressional Budget Office said on Wednesday, as a partisan fight over raising the nation’s debt ceiling erupted in Congress.

“If that occurred, the government would be unable to pay its obligations fully, and it would delay making payments for its activities, default on its debt obligations, or both,” the non-partisan CBO said in a statement.

A failure to work out differences over whether government spending cuts should accompany an increase in the statutory debt limit, currently set at $28.5 trillion, could lead to a federal government shutdown – as has happened three times in the past decade – or even a debt default.

The White House urged Congress to resolve partisan differences, even as Republicans seized upon the debt limit issue to attack Democrats for pushing legislation that they say has led to inflation and escalating public debt.

“We expect Congress to act in a timely manner to raise or suspend the debt ceiling as they did three times on a broad bipartisan basis during the last administration,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters.

President Joe Biden’s fellow Democrats narrowly control both the Senate and House of Representatives. No senior Republicans have threatened a shutdown in recent public statements. Democrats are insisting on a “clean” debt limit increase unfettered by a fight over spending reductions.

Recommended Reading: What Do Republicans And Democrats Believe In

Paid Family Leave Gains Momentum In States As Bipartisan Support Grows

While she said she sees the measure for federal workers as a first step, a national program involving the private sector is a bigger lift. The concept of parental leave polls well, but proposals from Democrats and Republicans about how to do it are vastly different. Democrats also want paid family medical leave for helping older parents or dealing with a sick child.

Most Americans support the idea that employers should cover the costs for parental leave. But there are divisions over whether the government should require employers to offer the benefit.

NPR congressional reporter Claudia Grisales contributed to this story.

At Last More Funding For Technology Modernization

The final COVID-19 relief package also includes $1 billion for the technology modernization fund , in addition to $650 million for cybersecurity and another $350 million for other related IT modernization efforts.

Though the funding is far below the presidents original request of $9 billion for the TMF, its the biggest boost the fund has ever received.

The TMF has never received more than $100 million at a time, and Congress injected just $25 million into the fund in fiscal 2020.

Rep. Gerry Connolly , chairman of the Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations, said the additional TMF funding will help agencies better respond to the ongoing pandemic.

Throughout this global health crisis, millions of Americans facing illness, unemployment, food insecurity and an inability to pay their mortgages or rent have looked to the federal government for help, he said. Yet despite urgent congressional action to provide unprecedented levels of economic assistance, those in need have had their misery exacerbated by a broken IT infrastructure that has prevented them from receiving timely support.

Beyond the TMF, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency will receive $650 million, the U.S. Digital Service will receive $200 million and the Federal Citizen Services Fund will get $150 million through the COVID-19 relief package.

Read Also: Did Any Republicans Vote For Trump Impeachment

Verify: Did House Democrats Vote Down Federal Employee Pay During Shutdown

Did most House Democrats really vote down a deal to pay federal employees while the shutdown goes on?;

Its a question several viewers have emailed to KHOU Verify.

Sharon writes, Last week House GOP voted on a measure that would pay federal employees their paycheck despite shutdown. Only 6 Dems voted yes. Is this true?

On Jan. 17, there was a vote where six Democrats voted yes on whats called a motion to recommit. Basically, its one last chance for members to debate and change a bill before a final vote.

In this case, Rep. Kay Granger wanted to change the bills date from Feb. 28 to Jan. 15.

My resolution will allow employees to get the paychecks they recently missed, said Rep. Granger during a hearing on the measure. It provides relief for some employees while we wait for Democrats to come to the negotiating table. We need to start working on legislation that can be enacted into law.

Immediately afterwards, Rep. Nita M. Lowey spoke out against the amendment because it wouldnt end the shutdown, arguing for H.R. 28 to stay as-is.

This would pay employees, Rep. Lowey testified. The order of business is very simple: reopen the government, pay federal employees, and then negotiate on border security and immigration policy.

Rep. Grangers amendment failed, and on Jan. 23, the House passed H.R. 28 with Feb. 28 as the date.

Any House bill also needs to clear the Senate before heading to President Trumps desk.

Va Irs Get A Big Funding Boost

The Department of Veterans Affairs will also receive an additional $17 billion through the American Rescue Plan.

The bulk of the funding will go to VA health care. The department has said veterans have routinely delayed routine appointments and major procedures during the pandemic, and VA anticipates demand for its services will surge as COVID-19 subsides.

Since the on-start of the pandemic, 19 million appointments have been changed, canceled or deferred as a result of the pandemic, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said last week during a press briefing at the White House. Obviously weve been able to compensate for that through telehealth programs, but not for all of them. As a result of deferred care, which were actually seeing across the health care system and not just in VA, were going to see increased costs.

Other provisions would provide VA with an additional $272 million to help the department address its disability claims backlog, which grew during the pandemic. Another provision sets aside $100 million for VA supply chain modernization efforts.

The IRS will also receive an additional $1.8 billion to pay for a variety of IT upgrades needed to help the agency process a third round of stimulus checks, as well as a new tax credit to families with children.

Also Check: How Many Presidents Were Democrats And Republicans

0 notes

megacircuit9universe · 4 years ago

Text

Fly Boy

WED OCT 07 2020

Tonight we had the Vice Presidential debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris. And as such debates go, it felt pretty unremarkable... except for the fact that a fly chose to land on Pence’s bright white head and stay there, unnoticed by Pence, for over two minutes.

TikTok had videos of people’s cats at home, trying to get the fly off Pence’s head... because, you know... HD television these days, and... a black fly in a sea of snow white hair is impossible to miss.

And you might be thinking, you’re just pickig on some random act of nature, to embarass Pence, rather than dealing with the substance of his arguments, because you’re lazy and biased!

But I would answer that this fly on his head was incredibly symbolic of what made this debate truly unique and remarkable... because the fly is a symbol of death. And death... is now the central issue of the election.

Return with me in your memory to eight days ago... the Tuesday night Presidential debate between Trump and Biden. That was the last night, in which we did not yet know that Trump, most of the white house, and a good many more GOP elites in other high seats... were all positive for Covid.

A few entries back, after the conventions, I wrote that the tone of the two campaigns was now set in stone. Biden/Harris would focus on the pandemic, while Trump Pence would ignore the pandemic, and focus on the lawless chaos of protests and rioting.

We’ll set aside the absurdity of blaming Biden for protests and rioting that are happening on Trump’s watch... as the result of the great civil and economic unrest created by Trump’s incompetence in the face of a crisis...

...and focus on the fact that now, in the first full business week of October, and just 8 days after the first debate... Covid19 is undeniably, inescapably front and center.

Not because the numbers are ticking up again, due to the fall weather creeping in (but they are).

Not because Biden/Harris have been banging the drum about it to any exceptional degree.

Rather because Trump himself is now positive... was hospitalized... and has since become a roid-raging lunatic about it... at the same time as it’s spreading like wildfire through the White House, and beyond... to GOP elites in other branches of government.

The massive failure of leadership, this betrays, could not be more obvious to the public, and cannot be overstated.

With more power than any other human on the planet... Trump could not protect himself, or the White House, or congressmen and governors who attended a White House event... from Covid19.

And like a black-light at a rave, exposing all the invisible stains on your clothing and your skin... this White House outbreak has all of their hands glowing very brightly, with the blood of the two-hundred and ten thousand Americans who have died of the novel virus over the past seven months.

If your arrogance, and ignorance are so blinding... that you can’t even keep yourself and the White House (or Pentagon!) safe... then you haven’t a leg to stand on when pretending you did anything at all to save a single life out there in the electorate.

The fly, in everyday life, is seen as a harmless nuisance... but occasionally we’re reminded that... oh yeah... they do really love dead bodies, don’t they? And for that reason, they are occasionally portrayed in movies as attendants of evil.

And tonight, just as they could not keep Covid from breaching the White House... Pence and his team could not keep out every last fly from the debate space... and could not keep the one who got through, from attending to his evil master’s side.

But lest you think I’m getting overly dramatic, let’s look at tonight’s debate from a different angle...

If the Trump/Pence administration had done everything exactly the same, through 2017, 2018, and 2019... with all the controversey they created...

...if they’d simply dealt with Caronavirus in 2020 the way any other previous administration would have; giving the CDC the reigns and taking credit when the curve flattened... leading by example, by simply wearing masks in photo ops... encouraging congress to write up some fat stimulus bills to help the public survive quarantine, and keep small businesses afloat... and preaching a little unity in times of adversity...

...they would be untouchable, here in October of the election year!

The Biden/Harris ticket would look like a white flag of surrender from the Democrats... just a token ticket of losers to run for the sake of running... that everybody would understand, were gonna be steam rolled under the momentum of another incumbent administration getting it’s God-given second term.

Both last weeks Presidential, and this week’s Vice Presidential debates would have been walks in the park for Trump and Pence, who would have both been relaxed, jovial, and 100% Covid free... because the death toll would be low, the virus would’ve been under control for months, there would never have been any protests, much less rioting, and even if the economy wasn’t booming... people would still feel confident that the government was doing their best to have their backs.

They would be untouchable... despite... babies in cages being lost to human trafficking... cover ups of endless criminal scandals... amassing executive power while deconstructing checks and balances... and all the other atrocities and naked power grabs of their first three years.

Instead, here in October 2020, the only issue is Covid, and it’s death toll.

Nobody cares right now about last summer’s protests and riots. And nobody cares about illegal imigrants, for God’s sake, in a world where Americans are barred from flying to any other country on the planet, because we’re the filthy diseased losers... and even our President is a defiant super spreader.

A defiant super spreader who, two days ago, shut down any hope of a second stimulus package until he’s reelected... which is another way of saying he’s taking the nation hostage, demanding reelection.

The first stimulus was extremely disappointing... at first promising everyody 1200.00 a month until the crisis was over... but then only being a one time payment of 1200.00 last April, which did virtually nothing to help... and left us all hanging out to dry for five long months.

Here in October, no sign of any further aid... and only the promise to withold all aid until a reelection? How monsterous!

This, from a crazed, steroid-addled lunatic who can’t possibly win without Wisconsin, Arizona, and Florida. He needs all three to have any chance, and they’re all leaning blue, which means any one of them will definitely flip, if he’s fucking over the working class voters of their big cities by promising zero stimulus.

And while it DID look, as recently as last September, and last August, like these strong man tactics could actually prevail... like Trump might just bully himself into a second term through relentless intimidation... well, the firm ground he stood upon has lately turned to quicksand.

It was less than two weeks ago, I was writing that people need to lose the superstition about Trump being magical... and fated to win against all odds.

A day later, was saying that the New York Times had gotten a single drop of blood from the Mad Titan, by publishing his tax returns and showing he was not a billionaire, but in fact, billions in debt... and that this was a good sign, because it exposed a bit of weakness.

But since then... the house of cards has collapsed very quickly. And not because of another expose’... but because he got Covid... which has exposed him as not only mortal, and non-magical... but also pathetically weak when it comes to the basic self preservation abilities we would attribute to any strong man worth his salt.

And since then he’s just been slipping and sliding... crashing the stock market with a single tweet... floundering desperately to get any political footing at all, while Biden is running further away with the lead every day.

God’s not just bleeding... he’s on the floor, reaching out for a grab bar that nobody installed, because those are only for invalids.

How he comes back from this to win four more years... with less than one lunation before Election Day*... is difficult to fathom.

We could learn tomorrow that Pence too, is Covid positive... or that the stock market is finally falling over a cliff... or that the pandemic is raging back with a vengeance... or that civil unrest is sparking anew... or any combination of the above... making life ever more insecure and intolerable for average Americans as we get closer to November 3rd.

Could we learn tomorrow that things are instead turning around?

Nearly impossible.

But, we’ll see.

Go to bed.

*October 2020 began with a full moon on the 1st. It will end with another full moon on the 31st. On November 3rd, it will be a slightly waning gibbous moon... still close to being full.

At the time of writing, the moon, that was full on the 1st has already waned to a half moon... which means that the election is less than one lunation away. We will be at new moon on the 16th, and after that... the ever growing crescent will count down the nights to D-day.

It’s coming fast, and the poll results now... and the events that transpire now... mean everything for the outcome.

And nobody and nothing... can halt the moon in it’s phases.

0 notes

christianitywithouttheinsanity · 4 years ago

Text

Opinion: Believing your vote doesn't matter because "both sides are the same, equally corrupt" or that you have the option to vote for an alternative party as a "protest" or "to make a difference" because the results of your vote really won't change much for you... Is probably this highest, most obvious form of 'privilege' I can point out to you. Some of us are literally looking at things that are directly affecting our ability to LITERALLY SURVIVE THE NEXT 4 YEARS - maybe literally survive the next calendar year and some you literally don't honestly care if we live or die because it doesn't affect you. Some of you literally laugh in my face when I say "A second Donald Trump term might mean my death." And I literally mean a second Donald Trump term might mean my death. But now, with the passing of Justice Ginsberg, it might not even take that. With the upcoming case against the ACA (Obamacare) in the Supreme court, with the court as it now stands, there's a pretty good chance of a split vote, meaning the lower court ruling, overturning the ACA, would stand. A Trump appointee would guarantee it's overturned. Obamacare is dead. Another thing directly affecting me is the current defunding of social security through Trumps "payroll tax holiday" which is keeping money from going into Social Security. Granted right now that money is due to be paid in through "double dipping" in first quarter 2021, but Trump has already promised through executive order to waive the payback, meaning billions have been effectively stolen from Social Security... Andy that was by design. The GOP set out to break it and it's working. People like me that depend on disability are going to be the first to lose that income. So between the insurance I need to keep the medicine that is literally keeping me alive and the income I need that is literally keeping a roof over my head and food in my mouth, what do you think a second Trump term means? I will not survive. And if you think you have the privilege of a protest vote, or of not voting at all because the outcome of the election won't really affect you or that Trump and Biden are "the same" or whatever ridiculous belief you hold about the two party system... Then I really don't know what to say to you. Why do I bring all that personal stuff up now when I rarely talk about it here? Because it shouldn't be about me. I shouldn't have to make an appeal for my own life. I shouldn't have to literally beg you to have the human decency to look beyond your social-media-formed opinions and look around you at your fellow man and make a choice based on other people and not propaganda. Loving other people should be your default mode. I'm done ranting for now. Vote for who you want, that's what you'll end up doing in the end anyway, but I ask you, sincerely, to try to see beyond the ads and social media posts and other things and really, honestly LOOK at what presidents and congressmen in both parties have ACTUALLY done (not what they have claimed or the 'other side' claimed they've done - look at the actual bills and executive orders that are public record) during the time they were in office and make a real decision based on those actions and how it affected this country and the world, and how you think the next 4 years will be affected. I'm done. Talk more later.

from Christianity Without The Insanity https://ift.tt/1fM4rVh via IFTTT

#Christianity #Religion

0 notes

dipulb3 · 5 years ago

Text

States say federal coronavirus help still falling short

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/states-say-federal-coronavirus-help-still-falling-short/

States say federal coronavirus help still falling short

Washington state’s attempts to order personal protective equipment are mostly going unfilled amid global competition.

In Ohio, doctors are unsure whether federal shipments of remdesivir — a drug that can help shorten the duration of coronavirus symptoms — will continue past June.

As states try to take the lead on the coronavirus response, many are still turning to the federal government to help shore up critical supply shortages, only to find the federal response hit-or-miss. The White House has dropped its daily briefings with health experts and announced no new initiatives to ramp up supply production, even as top administration officials acknowledge the shortfalls persist.

The haphazard federal response has not only left states wondering whether critical medical supplies will be available month-to-month, but it has also increased anxieties that the US could be once again caught flat-footed if the virus resurges in the fall.

“We have, as a nation, I think been behind the eight ball from the beginning,” Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer told Appradab in an interview. “Testing, testing, testing is crucial and this supply chain issue remains a major problem.”

In Michigan, the state is struggling to hit its goal of running 25,000 coronavirus tests per day. The labs have the capacity to do so, but the state only has enough swabs to run about 15,000 tests per day, the Democratic governor said.

The federal government has responded to many of the state’s requests, but the deliveries often include different types of swabs than were requested — which can throw a wrench in the state’s testing strategy — and the timing of deliveries is often erratic.

“I know that the DPA (Defense Production Act) has been used, but we really need to use it, I think, more aggressively when it comes to PPE and additional production of swabs and reagents,” Whitmer said. “All of these are critical components to our ability to keep Covid-19 from growing exponentially again.”

A senior administration official said the Defense Production Act and other extraordinary measures were designed to address the peak of the coronavirus crisis and were never designed to be permanent.

“Many Americans would bristle at the notion of nationalizing production of large amounts of medical supplies in perpetuity,” the official said. Besides, the official said, “the private sector has risen to the challenge.”

A ‘complete lack of guidance’

While Vice President Mike Pence and some members of the coronavirus task force continue to hold calls with governors on the response, multiple state officials from both parties described it as increasingly useless, with some governors now skipping the calls.

Governors and staffers were shocked earlier this month when a conference call slated as a coronavirus check-in with President Donald Trump quickly devolved into a lengthy tirade from the President on how many of the governors were weak and needed to “dominate” and take back the streets during protests across the country over the killing of George Floyd.

This week, Pence — the head of the coronavirus task force — has insisted that increased testing is contributing to the appearance of new coronavirus spikes and has claimed the media is overblowing the problem. In fact, more testing helps identify and contain outbreaks. And it doesn’t account for the recent uptick in some states, according to health experts.

“It’s frustrating that the administration is not even acknowledging the increase in cases,” said Casey Katims, the director of federal and inter-state affairs for Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee.

He described a “complete lack of guidance” on how states should be responding and added that public health experts don’t support the White House narrative that recent spikes are due to increased testing.

“Epidemiologists and public health experts reject that narrative,” Katims said. “It’s fair to say we are highly concerned.”

The spikes in some states are also coinciding with efforts to reopen economies across the country. The combination has added more demand for personal protective gear while underscoring the need for widespread testing.

On critical supply issues, governors have worked to bolster their own state stockpiles, partner with local manufacturers to shift production to medical supplies and form coalitions to purchase supplies as groups of states rather than individually. But even with those efforts, some state officials said they’re still not getting what they need.

Last week, Inslee sent a letter to Pence imploring the administration to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up PPE production. He noted the state has tried to independently order $400 million worth of protective gear but has received less than 10% of those supplies as states compete against one another, the federal government and foreign nations in the global scramble for PPE.

Rear Adm. John Polowczyk — who leads the administration’s supply chain task force — acknowledged in congressional testimony this month that the government has made strides to increase the production of N95 masks but is still working to stock up on supplies like gowns and gloves

“We’ve turned to our textile industry to make textile gowns, non-disposable gowns and so those are, you know, that’s 50% there but on a ramp to be there by the fall,” Polowczyk.

Some health officials — burned by the administration’s sluggish response at the outset of the pandemic — aren’t buying the promises of preparedness.

“We’re kidding ourselves if we don’t think we’re going to have a massive second wave of infections,” said Megan Ranney, an emergency room doctor who helped found the group GetUsPPE to facilitate donations to health care systems. “One of the things that really worries me is I don’t see anyone planning for the next phase.”

Doctors are still conserving and reusing protective equipment and GetUsPPE receives tens of thousands of requests each week from health care systems with less than a week of PPE on hand, Ranney said.

Doctors are also struggling with access to drugs that can help treat coronavirus patients. The federal government took the lead on distributing remdesivir, but doctors found it difficult to get clarity on who would get shipments and when supplies would be replenished.

“When that all runs out, the real question is when will we have it available in the future?” said Dr. Thomas File, who practices medicine in Akron, Ohio, and is the president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “It’s almost like right now, when we see patients and we want to use it, if I use it on a patient now does that mean we’ll have limited supplies when a patient comes in four to six weeks from now?”

Earlier this month, Dr. Robert Kadlec, a US Department of Health and Human Services official, told Appradab that the remdesivir supply would run out at the end of June.

Reluctant Republicans

For the most part, Republican governors — eager to stay on the President’s good side and preserve reputations as fiscal conservatives — have been less outspoken about the coronavirus challenges they continue to face. Some have downplayed spikes in their states and moved forward with reopening plans in spite of case increases.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, praised federal officials for their regular contact with governors in a recent press conference and made a veiled request for federal assistance commensurate with other emergency responses.

“As I look to the future in terms of the federal government’s role, I just want to make sure that the federal government continues to maintain their posture,” Reeves said. “Natural disasters have to be managed in the same way, and that is state managed, locally executed and federally supported.”

Democrat governors have been most blunt about the situation.

“Provide Covid money to the state government and local government so that we can function and not go bankrupt,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told Appradab’s Mark Morales. “All the studies, all the economists will tell you, you don’t get the economy back if you don’t fund state and local governments.”

Meanwhile, the National Governors Association has made it clear that governors from both sides of the aisle are at least privately pressing for additional assistance. High on its lists of asks for Congress is an assistance package that includes $500 billion in direct federal aid to states and territories to plug budget gaps.

In Arlington, Texas, the city is furloughing employees, dipping into cash reserves and reducing services across the board to make up for the budget strain from coronavirus.

“Without a doubt, the revenue loss that is being experienced by most cities is the direct result of the coronavirus,” said Jeff Williams, the city’s GOP mayor. “Cities are a major part of it. They can’t be left out.”

This story has been updated to include response from the Trump administration.

Mark Morales and Janine Mack contributed to this story.

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Did Republicans Pass Health Care Bill

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-republicans-pass-health-care-bill/

Did Republicans Pass Health Care Bill

If The Us Adopts The Gops Health

Despite campaign promises, Senate Republicans fail to pass new health care bill

Save Story

Save this story for later.

Save Story

Save this story for later.

The fundamental thing to understand about Senate Republicans latestattempt to repeal Obamacare is that the bill under consideration wouldnot just undo the Affordable Care Actit would also end Medicaid as weknow it and our federal governments half-century commitment to closingthe countrys yawning gaps in health coverage. And it would do sowithout putting in place any credible resources or policies to replacethe system it is overturning. If our country enacts this bill, it would be an act of mass suicide.

The Republican bill currently being rushed to a vote was put forward bya group of senators led by Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and BillCassidy, of Louisiana. As has become the apparent rule for Republicanhealth-care bills, there have been no hearings or committee reviews ofthe Graham-Cassidy bill. And, this time, lawmakers and the public do noteven have a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the effects the billwould have on the budget, insurance costs, or the uninsured rate.

The Senate Rejected Five Different Obamacare Replacement Bills Not Just One

Its important to remember that the Senate did not just reject one health care bill during this process. It rejected, depending on how you count, three, four, or maybe even five.

There was the American Health Care Act, which passed the House but was considered dead on arrival in the Senate.

There was the original version of Majority Leader Mitch McConnells Better Care Reconciliation Act, which would have failed on the floor and so was yanked back for revisions.

There was the Ted Cruz-ified version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act, which gutted insurance regulations and was defeated in a 43-57 vote.

There was the Obamacare Repeal and Reconciliation Act, which would have repealed Obamacare without specifying a replacement, and which failed 45-55 on the floor.

And then there was skinny repeal the Health Care Freedom Act, which would have repealed the individual mandate but left the Medicaid expansion. Last night, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, and every Senate Democrat sent the bill to a 49-51 defeat. But that likely overstates the bills support, given that many of the Republicans who voted for it only did so under the assumption that they would move to negotiations with the House and nothing like the HCFA would ever become law.

Why Did The Republicans Block The Bill

They blocked the bill for the same reasons they always do. They have had the House and Senate for some time and are yet to support our veterans with the spending really required.

Most Republicans said it was too large, too costly and would burden a Department of Veterans Affairs already struggling to keep up with promised benefits.

Sen Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent and chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee who authored the bill, argued that many provisions in the bill have won bipartisan support in other pieces of pending legislation before Congress.

Republicans complained about how to pay for it. Sanders’ legislation had more than 140 provisions costing $21 billion over 10 years.

You May Like: Did Donald Trump Really Say Republicans Are Dumb

What The Aca Means For You

The Affordable Care Act is perhaps the greatest overhaul ofthe US health-care system, and it will provide coverage for over 94% ofAmericans. In addition, one of its key reforms includes health coverage for adultswith pre-existing conditions, which generally had not been available up untilnow.

These great changes in health-care insurance can benefit you and your loved ones. However, it is still essential to find the best plans at the best price to ensure your family is properly covered.

To learn about the specific Obamacare-compliant health insurance plan options available to youplus see if you are eligible for a government subsidy to help pay for a plancompare ACA-compliant health insurance plans with eHealth today.

But Wouldnt People Still Get Help To Buy Insurance

Yes and that was one of the reasons the health plan was always going to be difficult for a broad base of Republicans to support. Giving Americans tax credits to buy health insurance looked to conservatives too much like Obamacare, while huge overhauls to Medicaid public health insurance for the poor left moderate Republicans worried about constituents who depend on those services.

Further, Republicans last-minute amendments actually increased the price tag of their bill, without insuring more Americans. A Congressional Budget Office analysis found that the changes still left 24 million Americans without insurance and reduced savings over the next decade, from $337bn in the first draft, to just $150bn.

Recommended Reading: What Is The Lapel Pin Democrats Are Wearing

Moving Down The Agenda

After the original bills failure, both Trump and McConnell wanted the Senate to vote on a bill to completely repeal the Affordable Care Act after a two-year delay. This gambit was essentially Republican leadership playing chicken in two ways.

First, leadership dared rank-and-file Republicans to vote against a repeal bill because most Republicans campaigned on the premise that the ACA should be repealed. However, doing so could potentially create chaos in the health care market.

Second, if Congress failed to pass a replacement health care bill within the next two years, chaos would ensue. Congress often gives itself such incentives in order to promote compromise. The major problem with this tactic is that Republican leadership would still have to find a way to placate both moderates and extreme conservatives, and potentially Democrats as well. While legislative compromise used to be a regular occurrence, it is becoming rarer in recent times due to increased polarization. Legislative productivity is near an all-time low.

In order to repeal and replace Obamacare, Republicans needed to strike a deal that pleased both moderates and conservatives. It seems unlikely that such a deal exists.

So Will There Definitely Be A Vote This Week On The Graham

Its looking less and less likely.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said a vote would be held this week, and over the weekend White House officials said they expected one on Wednesday.

But Monday, amid dimming prospects, McConnell would not commit to a vote. He is not likely to want to endure another embarrassing failure on the Senate floor, so he may not call a vote unless hes sure he has the support. Thats unlikely with three Republicans now opposed to the bill.

Recommended Reading: What Percent Of Republicans Approve Of Trump

Gop Health Care Bill Passes In House Moves To Senate

“They’re not even doing it for the party,” he said as he stood flanked by Republican leadership and rank and file in the Rose Garden. “They’re doing it for this country because we suffered with Obamacare.”

Ryan took to the floor ahead of the vote to argue that Obamacare was failing. “We can continue with the status quo or we can put this collapsing law behind us and end this failed experiment,” he said.

Related: Trump, GOP Leaders Take Victory Lap

Still, the bill’s passage was arduous. Republicans had been working to piece together a GOP-only coalition of votes ever since their attempt to repeal and replace much of the Affordable Care Act failed nearly two months ago

The measure barely made it through, with 20 Republicans splitting with their own party to vote against the bill.

Of the dissenting Republicans, nine represent districts that voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016. An additional four lawmakers reside in districts that only narrowly voted for Trump, making them top targets for Democrats seeking to unseat them in next years midterms.

Republicans erupted in cheers when the measure passed, and Democrats erupted in song, singing “na, na, na, na, hey, hey, hey, goodbye,” alluding to their political futures after the vote.

Four Senators And A Bill One Year In The Making

House Passes GOP Health Care Bill

While Republicans had worked on various proposals to overhaul the tax code for decades, Republican senators began strategizing their latest attempt to reform the tax code not long after Trump stunned the country and won the White House. Republicans had a President ready and willing to sign a bill if they could manage to send him one.

According to a source familiar with the tax negotiations, as far back as December 2016, a small group of Republican senators all on the Senate Finance Committee and guided by Chairman Orrin Hatch and his staff began hashing out the Senates course.

The group included Sens. Rob Portman, formally the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Sen. John Thune, a member of the GOP leadership, Pat Toomey, a fiscal conservative and a member of the Senates Budget Committee and Sen. Tim Scott, a rising conservative star in the party. Over the next several months, the senators held what the source said must have been hundreds of meetings as they sought to find a way forward not only among fellow senators but in cooperation with the House of Representatives and Trump who lawmakers widely acknowledge was more engaged and interested in tax reform than he had been on health care.

Theres been an enormous amount of work done. The reason you see everybody looking so tired is because we are, said Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican. They did a great job of keeping us apprised so we wouldnt be surprised.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Need To Vote For Impeachment

If Dynamic Scoring Is Good For Tax Cuts Why Not For Our Veterans

Republicans do not generally mind using clever accounting methods like dynamic scoring to justify ‘budget friendly’ tax cuts. However, to support the veteran, they refuse to accept plausible funding.

Most of that money was to come from billions of dollars the government projected it would be allowed to spend on wars overseas in the fight against al-Qaeda.But Republicans argued that this is “phony” budgeting because U.S. participation in the Iraq War is over and operations in Afghanistan are winding down.

Attempts To Change Or Repeal

Read Ballotpedia’s fact check »

The Affordable Care Act was subject to a number of lawsuits challenging some of its provisions, such as the individual mandate and the requirement to cover contraception. Four of these lawsuits were heard by the United States Supreme Court, resulting in changes to the law and how it was enforced. In addition, since the law’s enactment, lawmakers in Congress have introduced and considered legislation to modify or repeal parts or all of the Affordable Care Act. Finally, between 2010 and 2012, voters in eight states considered ballot measures related to the law. This section summarizes the lawsuits, legislation, and state ballot measures that attempted to change, repeal, or impact enforcement of parts of the law.

You May Like: How Many Republicans Are In The House Of Representatives 2012

Gop Health Care Bill Collapses

Senate Republicans will shelve their bill to replace Obamacare, dealing a major blow to Trump’s agenda.

By BURGESS EVERETT and JENNIFER HABERKORN

07/17/2017 07:53 PM EDT

07/18/2017 12:12 AM EDT

President Donald Trump’s top legislative priority was dealt a potentially fatal blow Monday night as two more Republican senators announced their opposition to the party’s health care overhaul.

Trump quickly called on Republicans to simply repeal Obamacare and begin work on a new health care plan, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced he would try to do so.

Regretfully, it is now apparent that the effort to repeal and immediately replace the failure of Obamacare will not be successful,” McConnell said.

The Kentucky Republican said he planned to hold a vote in the coming days to take up the House-passed bill to replace the 2010 health care law and then call up an amendment to eliminate major parts of Obamacare, such as the Medicaid expansion, insurance subsidies and fines for the employer and individual mandates.

Republicans passed a similar bill to effectively repeal Obamacare in 2015 under reconciliation the fast-track budget procedure the GOP is using to thwart a Democratic filibuster but it was vetoed by President Barack Obama.

“Republicans should just ‘REPEAL’ failing ObamaCare now & work on a new Healthcare Plan that will start from a clean slate. Dems will join in!” Trump tweeted shortly before McConnell’s statement came out.

House Republicans Pass Healthcare Bill In First Step Toward Replacing Obamacare

Partisan approval with one vote to spare sends American Health Care Act to uncertain fate in Senate, after negotiations reveal cracks in Republican party

First published on Thu 4 May 2017 19.20 BST

House Republicans narrowly approved a controversial plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, taking a significant first step toward fulfilling a seven-year promise to repeal and replace the 2010 law that served as a landmark overhaul of the US healthcare system.

Republicans passed the American Health Care Act with one vote to spare, following a dramatic series of negotiations that exposed deep fissures between the partys moderate and conservative wings over how to replace Barack Obamas signature legislative accomplishment.

The bill passed 217 to 213, with 20 Republicans voting against and no Democrats voting in favor. Republicans burst into applause when the bill passed the 216-vote threshold, a feat that had seemed insurmountable just days before.

Democrats too saw a reason for celebrating. After it passed, they sang the 60s hit Na Na Hey Hey appearing to suggest Republicans would lose their seats if the repeal proved unpopular.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to face serious difficulties.

What a great group of people, Trump said, referring to the Republican congressmen, and theyre not even doing it for the party, theyre doing it for this country because we suffered with Obamacare.

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Won In Tuesday’s Election

They Underestimated How Ideologically Varied Their Party Has Become

Republican leaders have been grappling for years with a growing bloc of principled conservatives who are politically rewarded in their conservative districts for not compromising.

But it feels as if they;were caught off guard by an equally influential, somewhat larger and just as intransigent faction of moderates.

Those moderates campaigned on repealing Obamacare, but when it came;time to pull the lever that would take away health care for hundreds of thousands of their constituents, they just couldn’t;politically do it.

As for Thursday’s late-night vote in the Senate, conservatives had made peace with just getting rid of Obamacare’s individual mandate, but two moderates, Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski , along with Sen. John McCain , sunk that proposal early Friday morning.)

Now, this group seems to be suggesting it would be better to work within the existing structures of Obamacare than take its benefits away.

In a no-holds-barred speech on the Senate floor earlier this week, McCain ripped apart Republicans’ repeal strategy: “Weve tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them its better than nothing, asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition. I dont think that is going to work in the end. And it probably shouldnt.”

Why The Health Care Bill Passed The House This Time

The House passed a new version of a health care bill to replace the Affordable Care Act after the first one failed to get enough Republican support in March. The bill still needs to pass the Senate before becoming law.

By Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear

May 4, 2017

WASHINGTON The House on Thursday narrowly approved legislation to repeal and replace major parts of the Affordable Care Act, as Republicans recovered from their earlier failures and moved a step closer to delivering on their promise to reshape American health care without mandated insurance coverage.

The vote, 217 to 213, held on President Trumps 105th day in office, is a significant step on what could be a long legislative road. Twenty Republicans bolted from their leadership to vote no. But the win keeps alive the partys dream of unwinding President Barack Obamas signature domestic achievement.

The House measure faces profound uncertainty in the Senate, where a handful of Republican senators immediately rejected it, signaling that they would start work on a new version of the bill virtually from scratch.

To the extent that the House solves problems, we might borrow ideas, said Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate health committee. We can go to conference with the House, or they can pass our bill.

Read Also: How Many Times Did Republicans Vote To Repeal Aca

House Republicans Narrowly Pass Gop Health Care Bill

The Republican-sponsored American Health Care Act passed the House 217-213 Thursday, with one vote to spare, although it will face an uncertain path in the Senate.;

No Democrats voted for the bill, and 20 Republicans voted against it. The bill largely repeals and replaces Obamacare.;

Speaking to reporters after the vote, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, said he knew they had the votes on Wednesday and he said if they hadn’t passed it, it would have impeded “the rest of our agenda.”;

“We proved that we could accomplish something this big,” he said. “I can’t thank the president enough. President Trump and Vice President Pence have been directly engaged,” adding that Pence called him twice on Thursday to check in about individual members.;

House Republicans left the Capitol after the vote, headed to the White House on buses. Scalise said they were invited to the Oval Office or the Rose Garden.;

As soon as Republicans cleared the threshold to pass the bill, House Democrats began singing in unison, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, hey, hey, goodbye” toward the Republicans.;

Rep. Chris Collins, R-New York, said he’s not worried about Republicans’ prospects for the 2018 midterm elections.;

“If we weren’t able to repeal and replace Obamacare, it would have been a bad midterm for us. I think we will hold our own, if not pick up seats,” he told reporters.;

0 notes

theliberaltony · 7 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

There is a ton of hype about a potential government shutdown — just like there was in April and in September. Current government funding expires on Friday. In these moments, it’s always a little hard to tell how seriously to take the prospect of a shutdown. Chances are it won’t happen — unless Democrats make a big strategic shift in how they approach these funding negotiations. So, don’t panic, but also … here’s what to watch for so you’ll know if the time to panic comes.

Why is a shutdown unlikely? Because government funding is, weirdly, an issue on which Republicans and Democrats tend to work together fairly well. Why is that weird? First, Democrats and Republicans, as a general rule, don’t work well together. And in theory — as the debates on Obamacare repeal and tax policy this year showed — the two parties have very different philosophies about the issue that underlies the government funding debate: the role and size of the federal government. Whenever funding is due to expire, it’s easy to imagine that a Washington that’s so dysfunctional in other ways will also break down and fail to fund the government. That explains all the shutdown hype.

In reality, more moderate members in both parties keep reaching deals and avoiding shutdowns, perhaps because there are real, immediate consequences if they don’t: Important functions and services would stop.

Last September, for example, at the tail end of Barack Obama’s presidency, a bill to fund the government for the last months of his tenure passed easily, even as Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress. In the House, 172 Democrats and 170 Republicans voted for the funding bill, while 75 Republicans (many from the House Freedom Caucus) and 10 Democrats voted against it. A bipartisan majority (40 Republicans, 32 Democrats) also approved the funding bill in the Senate.

Donald Trump is president now and Republicans still control all of Congress. So in theory, Republicans could pass a funding bill along largely partisan lines. But the funding bill that Congress passed in May had a coalition of 178 Democrats and 131 Republicans in the House, while 103 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted against it. In the Senate, 47 Democrats and 32 Republicans voted yes. The vote was fairly similar to the September budget vote at the end of Obama’s presidency, and to the one a year later, in September of 2017, that passed another government funding bill through both chambers with bipartisan support.

So, all else being equal, we’d expect the same thing to happen again.

How much power do Democrats have? Government spending bills can be blocked via a filibuster, so they require, in effect, 60 votes in the Senate. That gives Democrats much more power in this process than they had in the Obamacare repeal and tax reform debates.1 Ultimately, while a government spending bill can pass in the House without any Democratic votes, at least eight Democrats must back such a bill in the Senate.

As I’ve noted, though, the last couple of times Congress dodged a shutdown (in April and in September), Republicans didn’t pass a GOP-friendly bill by peeling off the necessary Democratic votes. Instead, Congress passed more moderate spending bills that had more opposition from Republicans than Democrats. This is odd considering that Republicans control both chambers of Congress.

So what’s going on here?

Well, a large bloc of Republicans, both in the House (think the Freedom Caucus) and the Senate (think Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul) want large spending cuts in exchange for supporting a funding bill. Republican congressional leaders, instead of trying to force those cuts through Congress and demand some Senate Democrats sign onto them, have instead usually settled on passing bills that call for spending levels that some Republicans and most Democrats can live with.

Since these bipartisan deals have been reached without too much drama, we don’t have a great sense for which party has the weaker hand. Could House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell get 218 Republicans in the House and 52 in the Senate behind a more GOP-tilted spending bill, basically daring Senate Democrats to shut down the government? (A shutdown could hurt the re-election prospects of Democrats in red states.) Or are these bipartisan deals masking the fact that the more conservative and more moderate GOP members are so deeply divided that they could never actually agree on a spending deal? (Under this theory, people like Paul and the Freedom Caucus in some ways prefer that GOP leaders reach deals with Democrats, which leaves the most conservative members free to vote against the compromise bill and attack it to show their right-wing bona fides.)

So why don’t the same Democrats and Republicans who voted for a government funding bill in April and September just do that again? Ultimately, I think that will happen — either in a series of short-term funding extensions or in one big one. That’s why a shutdown is unlikely.

But some Democrats are saying that the party should no longer participate in this informal bipartisan government funding pact. Democrats have a few policy priorities right now, such as extending funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program and protecting people who signed up for Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Some key liberal lawmakers, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, are promising that they will not vote for a government funding bill unless it includes some kind of replacement for DACA.

The resolution here probably comes down to the House. If the House can pass a spending bill with only Republican votes, that makes it risky for Senate Democrats to refuse to vote for government funding unless DACA is included. The public might blame Democrats for any resulting shutdown. Also, Democrats are the more pro-government party, so it is hard to see them pushing a strategy that would help facilitate a shutdown, even if people like Sanders and Warren prefer more hard-line tactics.

But only 133 House Republicans voted for the spending bill in September, while 90 opposed it. If those same 90 Republicans and about two-thirds of the Democrats opposed a spending bill, it would fail. That would be a bipartisan failure, but mostly a Republican one, since they have the majority in the House.

So the most likely outcome from December and January is that there will be even more hype about a shutdown, but then Congress will pass funding bills that authorize spending at about the current levels and do not include a DACA fix — bills that will be opposed by the more partisan members of each party (like Paul and Warren). That would be the status quo and the easiest way to prevent a shutdown. But it’s hard to be sure whether this scenario will play out, because we don’t know (i) how many House Republicans will back a government funding bill, or (ii) whether Senate Democrats are really willing to stop government funding over DACA.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Perry Bacon Jr.

2 notes · View notes

go-redgirl · 5 years ago

Photo

Exclusive — Kevin McCarthy: GOP Aims to Retake House After Impeachment by Turning Out 8.5 Million Trump Voters who Stayed Home in 2018

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy told Breitbart News exclusively that Republicans think they can retake the House majority in 2020 by turning out millions of voters who backed President Donald Trump in 2016 but stayed home in the 2018 midterm elections.

In fact, in his latest exclusive interview on Breitbart News Saturday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel, McCarthy explained that Republicans would currently be in the House majority had these voters turned out in 2018—and that the GOP would have held at least 28 more seats than the party currently has.

“There were 8.5 million Trump voters who voted in 2016 who did not turn out in 2018,” McCarthy said. They’re identified. If they turned out in 2018, and we know exactly where they live, we’d still be in the majority. We would have won 28 seats that we currently don’t have.”

Having the president atop the ticket in 2020, McCarthy said, will help the GOP turn those nearly nine million voters out who didn’t vote in 2018 but did in 2016.

“The one thing I’ve seen in intensity level and others, is they will show for the president,” McCarthy said. “They just don’t cross over to show up in the off years. It’s a challenge that President Obama, something that he had.

But what I think and see is they’re going to show up for this president and there’s going to be even more who show up. If you look at the rallies and who shows up at the rallies, the number of first-time voters and the number of minorities inside those rallies and others, proportionally much higher than showed up for the president the first time in his campaign in 2016. So I think the turnout is potentially even going to be greater.”

To retake the majority in 2020, Republicans need to, at this stage, win a net 19 seats back from the Democrats. There are currently 31 districts represented by Democrats that President Trump won in 2016, and another 20 or so that Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton won in 2016 that are considered battlegrounds.

With the likely embarrassing-for-Democrats defection of Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ)—an ardent opponent of impeachment who is reportedly quitting the Democrat Party to join the GOP—that drops the magic number for the GOP to flip to retake the majority down to 18.

A special election upcoming in California’s 25th congressional district from which Democrat Katie Hill resigned amid a sex scandal in her office offers the first major opportunity for the GOP to make progress on the road back to the majority.

In a coup for Republicans, former GOP Rep. Steve Knight—who lost in a close race in 2018 to Hill—is running again for that seat, which Clinton won in 2016 but was previously held by the GOP, in the special election. If Knight is successful in the spring, it would drop the magic number to 17 along with Van Drew’s defection.

McCarthy added that GOP recruitment of candidates is far ahead of schedule. After Breitbart News specifically mentioned former Oakland Raiders Super Bowl champion Burgess Owens—who is running in Utah’s fourth congressional district against vulnerable Democrat Rep. Ben McAdams (D-UT)—and Nicole Malliotakis, who’s running on Staten Island against Democrat Rep. Max Rose (D-NY), McCarthy cited several more rising GOP stars around the country.

“Just those two you named—then you look at Wesley Hunt in Houston, Young Kim and Michelle Steel in California, Ashley Hinson in Iowa, Maria Salazar in Florida—there’s so many,” McCarthy said. “If you measured our current recruitment based upon the 2010 class that ended up beating 63 Democrats, we’re so much further ahead.

We have more women, we have more minorities running. But more importantly, we have more candidates—about a hundred more candidates—running than we did before. I attribute a lot of that to what the Democrats promised they would do and the promises they have broken.

There’s no ‘Squad’ of AOC and others—look at Beth Van Duyne down in Texas, or Genevieve [Collins] down in Texas as well—we have such an amazing group of candidates. It’s so impressive. Look at Michelle Fischbach who’s running in Collin Peterson’s race, first woman ever to be a president of the Minnesota Senate and former Lieutenant Governor. There’s so many others. Tom Kean in New Jersey.

This is Leonard Lance’s old seat. This is a Republican seat, he’s raised over a million dollars. I think New Jersey is going to be a very good state for us.”

Impeachment, McCarthy said, has caused Democrat poll numbers to plummet and offered Republicans opportunities for pickups well beyond those original 31 Trump districts that Democrats currently hold.

“It’s not just me who thinks it, if you just look at the polling in their own districts,” McCarthy said when asked if the impeachment drive is hurting vulnerable Democrats. “You remember what Nancy Pelosi was telling these Democrats, that it was going to get more popular. They go into the press. They control the entire meeting.

They make it different than we’ve ever seen impeachment before. No due process. No ability for the minority to ask for witnesses. Controlling of the time. And it’s become less popular. If you look at the polling today, a number of these Democrats—Kendra Horn [from Oklahoma] and others, they’re going to become upside in their districts. New Mexico, 37 percent of the state only supports impeachment, where a majority does not support it. There is more places to play than just those 31 seats.”

McCarthy said that the reason impeachment is hurting the Democrats politically is because they do not have a case against the president, as George Washington University law school professor Jonathan Turley demonstrated in his testimony.

“If you listened to Jonathan Turley, who is a Democrat but more importantly is probably the highest respected constitutional attorney in the land, he says it’s the thinnest, weakest, and fastest impeachment in the history of America,” McCarthy said. “And it is. In history, when you look at him, now this is an individual who did not vote for President Trump but believes he should not be impeached based upon the Constitution.

He even goes as far as to say when you talk about abuse of power, the only abuse of power here really is the Democrats themselves by moving forward and not allowing the administration to go through the judicial branch on the subpoenas and what they’re saying. So, here we are, knowing that the Democrats—and the Speaker admitted she’s been planning this for two and a half years.

You got a chairman of the committee who ran for the position on he’d be the best to impeach the president, and you’ve got Democrats who captured the majority with freshmen who on their first day of being sworn in said they’d impeach the mother—. And then you got Al Green who started it, who goes on to say if they’re not successful now, they’ll just keep impeaching him. This is what the American public has to understand: If they are able to maintain the majority, this is more of what we’ll get. Through all of this, the president is so successful—pushing USMCA, pushing it with House GOP members. They mentioned it more than 91 percent of the time it’s been mentioned. Now, getting an agreement with China.

We got a stock market at an all-time high and an economy that’s the strongest it’s been in the last 50 years, and it’s nothing that the Democrats have accomplished. The only record they have is they’ve issued more subpoenas than they’ve produced laws.”

Republicans have a plus seven intensity level over the Democrats,” McCarthy said. “Their polling numbers have dropped. They’ve dropped with the independents. And what do they have to show that they’ve accomplished? Show me one thing they’ve accomplished. I think they’ve got a real problem.

Even when the Washington Post is now writing that they’re afraid of Democrats abandoning ship. We know that the only bipartisan vote will be against it. Remember what Speaker Pelosi told the entire nation this year in March: that impeachment is so divisive to the nation that, one, it has to be compelling. Two, it has to be so overwhelming. And three, it has to be bipartisan for them to move forward. They set the requirements to move forward, three items—and not one of them was met.”

McCarthy said that Republicans in the House will be unified against the impeachment vote, and will be joined by some Democrats for a bipartisan vote against Articles of Impeachment against Trump. Only Democrats will vote for the partisan impeachment push.

“We will be very strong, Republicans against this, simply because of the facts, not because we’re Republicans,” McCarthy said. “It’s because we put our hands up and swore that we would uphold the Constitution. This does not rise to the level of misdemeanors and high crimes. The other level too, this is purely what Alexander Hamilton warned us about.

That one party would get control to try to do this. What the Democrats have done has not only weakened the office of the presidency, making him release a transcript for any future president talking to any other world leader; the other item here too is: Is this going to be the new norm? If we use impeachment for the lowest levels of things for their own political gains.

So, in the future, yeah there will be a Democrat who wins the White House again and the Republicans will be in the majority. But is that the call, just to impeach him? To work for 22 months ahead of time to put a timeline together and then, if you have no facts, to just put it through anyway because it’s what you ran for the office for? I think it’s wrong.”

A U.S. Senate trial, he added, will be much fairer than the rigged process in the House.

“The thing that could happen in the Senate is you could have a fair process,” McCarthy said. “If you have a fair process, I think it’ll be a much bigger bipartisan vote over there. Could you only imagine if you had fairness and we had the Inspector General’s testimony be brought forth? If you didn’t have Adam Schiff lying continually in the process? This will be very, very interesting. If you were able to have the whistleblower and not have Adam Schiff protecting this individual? We could really get to the bottom of all this.”

McCarthy looks across the pond to the United Kingdom, where the Tories just won a historic majority for Prime Minister Boris Johnson a few years after the original Brexit vote. That majority win comes in the face of opposition from a socialist leftist movement in the Labour Party, but also came after the globalist power structures in the U.K. attempted multiple times to undermine the will of the British people’s votes to Leave the European Union, against those who sought to Remain.

A similar effort by deep state forces here in the United States has attempted to undermine the will of the people in the 2016 election through impeachment and other efforts to hurt President Trump, and McCarthy sees a potential rehash of 2016 where Brexit paved the way for Trump’s win. In 2020, it could be the historic Conservative Party majority in the U.K. that paves the way for a GOP and Trump victory in the U.S.

“It could because remember: what’s the underlying issue here,” McCarthy said. “The underlying message is about freedom. Those in the U.K., do they want to be a part of the E.U. or do they want to be a part of the U.K.? Do they want a better future for their own children? Do they want their own country to grow at an economic level where they can determine their own future? I think that answer is overwhelming yes—it’s the same thing that President Trump ran on, about America First and that we can have an economy that grows at more than three percent, whereas Barack Obama thought it needed a magic wand, yet here we are with the strongest economy we’ve had in over 50 years. Think about how much more we would achieve if we didn’t have a majority party in Congress only investigating but actually working and doing their jobs.”

Playing right into GOP hands, too, is the fact that Democrats have zero legislative accomplishments since they took the majority in the 2018 midterms—something McCarthy first noted in a summer Breitbart News radio special and again pointed out here this weekend—and that’s why they’re now rushing to pass the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement after initially holding it up for a year. But, McCarthy noted, it’s been a similar refrain on basically every other issue too: Speaker Nancy Pelosi has nuked deals that would result in policy wins for the country in order to push partisan priorities she and her far-left flank believe in.

“They get no credit for that [USMCA],” McCarthy said. “She waited more than a year. This is something that the president—people will study in business class, the art of the deal and the way he negotiated this. Another promise that he made in the campaign that he kept – and it’s only the Speaker that had the power to pull it up, but she held it making our country weaker.

She waited until we had an agreement with China, when Mexico and Canada are our number one and two trading partners. Had we had the USMCA already done, our negotiations with China would be stronger. For all the mishaps again, to show how the Speaker has mismanaged her ability.

Remember what she promised: That she would be different. That she would work with the other side. None of those issues have been kept. Any time we had a bill—we had a prescription drug bill, three times we had a bill come out of committee where every single Democrat and every single Republican voted for it.

But what did she do? She put a poison pill in it after it came out of committee before it came to the floor so it could not become law. These are the things that are happening that the American public has to know about.”