#its called faithless electors

[v5hadow]

So it might be the bargaining phase of grieving talking but I think it would be fucked up but hilarious if the Electoral College electors just decided to vote for Harris.

Since, like, they can do that. Granted only some can do that technically. But they can do that.

[mariacallous]

Recent elections have given Americans a refresher course on how our presidents are chosen. We have been reminded that the Electoral College, not the national popular vote, is decisive. We have learned that although nearly every state allocates its Electoral College votes to the electors representing the candidate receiving the most popular votes, the Constitution does not require them to do so. (Maine and Nebraska award some of their electoral college votes to the winners of each congressional district.) We have been surprised to learn that the Constitution does not specify the details of how the electors are to be certified and counted—and dismayed to discover that the law passed to do so more than a century ago was vague and outdated, which is why Congress came together across party lines in 2022 to rewrite it.

Now it is time to focus on the destabilizing possibility that some so-called “faithless” electors could disregard the will of the people and cast their votes for a candidate who did not win the most votes in their state. This has happened 90 times throughout our history, so far without changing the outcome of the presidential contest.1 But because we live in an era of close elections with a handful of swing states, the chances are higher today that such electors—indeed, just one—could do so, with potentially disastrous consequences.

Let’s see how this could happen in 2024.

Unless there’s a political earthquake, Joe Biden will comfortably carry 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district, for a total of 226 electoral votes, while Donald Trump will prevail in 24 states plus Maine’s 2nd district, with 219 votes. The remaining 93 electoral votes are controlled by seven swing states—the famous “Blue wall” (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania), two southern states (North Carolina and Georgia), and two states in the southwest (Arizona and Nevada).

Although Biden now trails in all seven swing states, he is doing significantly better in the three Blue Wall states than in the others.2 Indeed, it is not unlikely that he could gain enough ground by Election Day to carry Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, with 44 electoral votes, while losing the other four. This would give him 270 electoral votes, just enough to win, leaving Trump with 268—or so it would seem.

But then an elector from a state Biden carried decides that they can’t in good conscience vote for the president and on the appointed day instead casts their ballot for Robert F. Kennedy Jr, leaving Biden one vote short of the needed majority.

What happens then? It depends on which state this elector represents.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives each state the authority to appoint its electors as it chooses. The result has been a patchwork of laws dealing with faithless electors. In 15 states, a renegade elector’s vote is voided, and a replacement is named. But in 19 others, their votes would count, including 11 states Biden won in 2020. Some of these laws specify enforcement mechanisms; others don’t. And some states—including Pennsylvania—have no laws bearing on this question. Chaos would ensue if a Biden elector from the Keystone State jumped ship.3

The Supreme Court offers only limited guidance on such controversies. In 2020, the Court ruled that states may enforce laws to punish faithless electors—if they have such laws. But the U.S. Constitution does not require any state to enact one, and a federal statute to that effect probably would be held unconstitutional.

It’s easy to predict that the campaign facing a razor-thin Electoral College loss—in this scenario the Trump campaign—would do everything it could to pry loose at least one vote from the winner. The Trump forces surely would target all the states that allow the votes of faithless electors to be counted—and those whose laws are silent on the matter—and probably those whose laws are vague about how to enforce their prohibition on faithless electors as well. With such high stakes, any campaign would be tempted to resort to unseemly tactics against vulnerable electors. As bare-knuckled combat raged across the country, a political system that is already under severe pressure would suffer an additional blow to its legitimacy.

There’s no chance that many state legislatures will act on this matter before Election Day, so if I were an election lawyer or a senior political operative working for the Biden campaign, I’d prepare myself for this issue. If I were working for the Trump campaign, I’d do the same thing. And if I held a leadership position in a state legislature with no law or a vague law on this matter, I’d be urging my colleagues to act now or, if it’s too late for this cycle, in time for the 2028 presidential election. 

[thedawningofthehour]

Believe me I understand you, not only because the US is one of the most influential powers in the world and Trump winning it's not something we need right now, but we are also living a complicated political situation in my country too, all because our president coff coff coff dictator coff coff coff Maduro and his pals decided that they really like their seats and simply proclaimed themselves winners of the elections even though he did not show the acts and 80% of the country hates him. For now we are all waiting for January to see if at least something happens or if we will have to endure for another 6 years or maybe more.

Oof. I'm not super knowledgeable about South American politics, but I know the situation in Venezuela is...not good.

That's the thing, y'all have your own problems and shouldn't have to follow American politics, but on the other hand everyone else really does because America makes itself everyone else's problem. Either through directly fucking with and sabotaging other nations for its (or its lobbyists') own interests, or just bringing them down with us because so much is tied up in the US. Also, like, if the US goes to war with China or whoever-that's fucking it man, everyone's dead. We're 90 seconds to midnight on the doomsday clock and that's everyone's problem.

And I know the shit going on in Venezuela has been going on longer than Trump has been a figure in American politics, but there's a lot of authoritarianism and wannabe-fascist movements popping up all over the world and I honestly do think that they are at least partially emboldened by the batshit right-wing nonsense going on here. (I know Maduro is left-wing but I believe in horseshoe theory, they're all power-grubbers and scam artists and just use different words and methods to achieve that) And that shit is backed by Russia. I mean, the good news is that Putin doesn't have a clear successor, and he has to die at some point. So if we can hold out long enough then we might have an easier time putting out these fires, but in the meantime people are dying.

Oh yeah, Trump is going to declare himself the winner no matter what the outcome of the election is. And he's put actors in place who he thinks will act as faithless electors in the event he loses a state and award those votes to him anyway. So even if more people vote for Harris. Even if she wins in the right places to counteract the fact that rural, conservative votes are counted sometimes four times as much as a California vote. It might just not fucking matter.

For fuck's sake, they were talking about 'slaughtering' Democrats tonight. And apparently Trump insinuated that he might reinstitute slavery? They've talked about repealing the laws that protect interracial marriage, like. There is only one country on the godforsaken planet that has miscegenation laws, and it's North Korea. And you bring this up and his supporters are like "oh, he wasn't serious! He just called Mexicans subhuman animals who are poisoning the blood of our country and said we needed to clean them out as a joke!"

I'd say it's 'last one in the oven' syndrome, but that's really not a thing. The Jewish Nazis who stayed with the party because they thought Hitler 'wasn't serious' and was just using antisemitism to 'rile people up' were the first ones deported to the death camps.

[edward-cabrini]

It's still wild to me that America became a de facto elective monarchy in my lifetime. All the right components for it have always been around, just that since Trump got elected America has been speed running the death of its democracy.

The supreme court has upheld that any official act by the head of state is not prosecutable and gave no guidance and what is or is not an official act. Beyond a few broad strokes, such as commanding the armed forces.

The electoral college system means there's essentially a voting noble class that decides who gets to be the monarch of America. Whilst typically they vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state, faithless electors have no punishment for not voting with their state. Meaning that if a presidential candidate was charismatic or corrupt enough, they could secure the electoral college votes and ignore the popular vote entirely.

During the attempted insurrection on Jan 6th, the local police force allowed insurrectionists into the capitol building and didn't call for aid from the national guard until much later. With a couple of notable exceptions, the police force was ready to throw the last vestiges of democracy out the window.

I'm yet to even mention the various executive powers of office the American monarch has, but let us quickly discuss pardoning criminal acts. In the UK, the act of pardoning someone is done by pardon review committee. No one person has the authority to overturn the decisions made in a court of law. In America, the president can pardon you for a crime you have committed; have allegedly committed; or even one you will commit/are committing. Whether or not you can get a pardon is, very much so, determined by how much the monarch likes you.

Anyway, all this to say that it's been very useful in my own writing to follow the nonsense. Fiachra's journey from charcoal burner to Earl and candidate for a crown. Has been informed in no small part by the troubles in America.

Somewhere I saw a post that was like, "any state can turn blue if enough people vote."

This is very true. And with so much at stake here, you shouldn't assume that people won't turn out in droves to vote blue even in red states.

Project 2025/Agenda 47 isn't the kind of thing that normal, everyday Republicans actually want. Trumpers are a weird bunch. As we raise more awareness, your Republican swing voter types are going to be like, "hey uh, wait, this isn't what I want" and a lot of them are going to start eyeing Harris.

So even if you live in a red state, don't assume that your vote is meaningless. Do not. For one minute. Assume this.

[wmproprt]

Victor Davis Hanson @VDHanson

The Colorado Insurrection

@realDonaldTrump is being erased from the Colorado primary (and general?) ballot, by warping the 14th Amendment, and in a way never envisioned by its creators.

So now can one be guilty by fiat of Confederacy-like “insurrection,” when he has never been charged with, much less convicted of, such a crime?

How can a buffoonish January 6th riot become an “insurrection,” when no one was armed, there was no plan to seize power, and protestors were advised by the purported insurrectionist leader “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”?

As far as election insurrectionary interference, why did liberal journalist Molly Ball label the leftwing effort to defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election a “cabal” (e.g., “That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”)?

And why did Ball double-down and further call it a “conspiracy” (“There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans, of CEOs, Silicon Valley billionaires, street protestors…Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears.”)?

As far as efforts to nullify the popular vote, do we remember the pathetic 2016 ensemble of C-list Hollywood celebrities (e.g., Martin Sheen, Debra Messing, James Cromwell, BD Wong, Noah Wyle, Freda Payne, Bob Odenkirk, J. Smith Cameron, Michael Urie, Moby, Mike Farrell, Loretta Swit, Christine Lahti, Steven Pasquale, Dominic Fumusa and Emily Tyra)?

They were drafted by leftwing groups to cut commercials urging the electors to reject their constitutional duties of reflecting their states’ popular votes, and instead, as faithless electors, to vote instead for Hillary Clinton, the loser in their respective states’ popular votes.

How did they rationalize that anti-constitutional gambit? Well, remember Martin Sheen’s shameless sophistry to ignore the Constitution and the election results?

“As you know, our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue, and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

So what makes a high elected official an insurrectionist?

Current or past advocacy for using violence against the government, as represented by, say, the Supreme Court?

Or urging on more protests that had already turned violent, eventually leading to 35 deaths, 1,500 injured police officers, $1-2 billion in property damage, and a torched courthouse, police headquarters, and iconic church?

Attempting to break into the White House grounds? Sending the president into a secure underground bunker?

If so, remember Kamala Harris’s summer 2020 boasts about the protests that, she knew (contrary to “fact checkers”) had already a long history of violence:

“But they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not.”

What was the Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer intending, when in 2020 he incited a throng at the very doors of the Supreme Court, warning of violence to come to two justices whom he called out by name?

“I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

“Hit you”?

Now we have ballot suppression to add to the long list of farces, hoaxes, and lies all designed to destroy a candidate who otherwise might win popular support for an agenda the majority of Americans have consistently supported.

So the leftwing Colorado Justices join the “Russian collusion” spectacle, the Alfa Bank “pink” hoax, the “Russian disinformation” laptop ruse, the precedent breaking two impeachments of a president in his first term, the caper of trying an ex-president as a private citizen in the senate, and the ploy of raiding an ex-president’s home.

What exactly is the Left doing?

They accept they have no majority support for the current President or his agenda. They fear the voters will elect a Republican. They are horrified that it might be Donald Trump, whom they especially loathe. And they are terrified that Trump might do to them what they would certainly do if they were in his position.

The Left is mightily frustrated that after controlling all the sources of information, communications, and institutions (e.. CEOs, traditional and social media, entertainment, the Internet, Silicon Valley, academia, K-12, foundations, sports, and popular culture, etc.), and having a vast advantage in fund raising and money, they still cannot stop the will of the majority.

And the Left wages lawfare because they assume the Right is either too timid, too incompetent, too preoccupied, or too principled to reciprocate in kind—especially given they gloat that there were never any consequences for all the past hoaxes and ruses they perpetuated.

But this time they may have jumped the proverbial shark and shown themselves to be the true and only insurrectionists that will face the consequences of any angry public in November 2024.

9:28 PM · Dec 20, 2023

@VDHanson

https://x.com/VDHanson/status/1737661200866136571?s=20

[duhragonball]

Cult Classic

I had a really exhausting week, so I’m going to try to chill out by writing this thing about cults that’s been bouncing around in my head since... oh, like January 6th?   For some reason?     But it’s also about my insanely long OC fanfic slash vanity project slash concept album.  Join me, won’t you?

Okay, so back in... geez 2018?   Has it been that long?   Around October 2018 I started working out the details for the big climax of the “1000 years ago” section of my fanfic.  From the start I had this idea that the Legendary Super Saiyan would be locked into a death struggle with pretty much the entire Saiyan population, led by a Saiyan King who just can’t handle being upstaged.   But I had to figure out a lot of details to make that actually work.   What I finally ended up with was the Jindan Cult. 

Why a cult?  Because I wanted my King character to be the main villain, but also be physically weaker, but also he needed to be powerful enough to challenge the heroine. I came up with all these different ways to beef up his power level without making him a Super Saiyan himself, but ultimately I wanted him to have an army of Siayans at his back.   That led me to consider some sort of magic elixir that would make them all stronger, but especially the king, since he’s ultimately in this for himself.  At first, I considered having him mind-control all of his goons, but I spent the mind control nickel in earlier arcs, and I’ll have to use it again later, because Towa and Demigra use it.   Then I thought of drug addiction, which is sort of like mind control but not literal brainwashing or anything like that.  And that led me to the cult concept.  

One major inspiration for me was the real-life cult called “NXIVM”, which made the news back in 2018 when their leaders started getting arrested, including “Smallville” star Allison Mack.   Every time I read about it, it felt like something from a movie, but it was real.   I guess the celebrity angle made it more bizarre to me, because it’s sort of like ��Hey, this isn’t just some group of randos; someone you’ve heard of is in this thing.”   Not that I ever paid much attention to “Smallville”, but you get the idea.  She didn’t just join NXIVM, she eventually became one of the top recruiters.   Some of the character arcs in my fic were my own attempt to understand how a person goes from Point A to Point B. 

The big plot hole, though, in my mind, was that I came up with this whole master plan for the bad guys, but it involved sending wave after wave of Saiyan cultists to die in pointless, unwinnable battles against Luffa.    I couldn’t have them win much, because if they beat her, they’d just kill her, and the story would be over.    It struck me as fishy that these Saiyans would sign up for a war where the casualty rate is 100%, but I tried to lampshade it as best I could.   “Yeah, all those other chumps couldn’t beat Luffa, but I’ll pull it off because I’m special!”   It still seemed a bit unlikely.  

But then 2020 happened, and I guess the main thing I learned from that year was that people will accept almost anything in order to believe a comfortable lie.  The joke I’ve seen on the internet is that we need to retire the expression “avoid it like the plague”, because it turns out a lot of people don’t actually avoid plagues very well at all.   The horrifying thing about COVID-19 is how easily people will accept the climbing death tolls.   “Oh, well this person was already in bad health, so they would have died eventually anyway.”   I don’t want to get too political here, but I’m pretty sure a lot of the anti-mask, coronavirus-is-a-hoax crowd are the same people who made up tall tales about “death panels” in Obamacare.    “They’re gonna euthanize your grandma!” they would say, but now they say your grandma is acceptable losses if it means reopening bars and restaurants.

Actually, I do mean to get political, because holy fuck, Qanon stormed the Capitol Building.    Look, if you don’t believe Joe Biden won the election, I don’t know what to tell you, except please get far away from me, right now.  If you’re not familiar with Qanon, a few years ago some guy on an image board posted a bunch of cryptic messages and claimed to be an important government figure who would know about important things.    People started “deciphering” his “clues” and when he stopped posting new ones they started inventing their own “clues” and interpreting them any way that suited them.    This led to an overarching narrative that Donald Trump was actually part of this massive sting operation to arrest hundreds, maybe thousands of left-wing politicians, celebrities, and whoever else.    Any day now, he was supposed to have Hilary Clinton arrested, and also JFK Junior would somehow show up and help him, even though he’s been dead for 22 years.  Every day, these Qanon guys would add on more bizarre lore to their “theories”, and every day none of their predictions would come true.  Then Trump lost the election, which put them in a bind, because their whole mythology is based on the idea of him saving the world as POTUS, and now he wasn’t even going to be POTUS for much longer.  

I’m pretty sure this had a lot to do with the lies about election fraud.    Trump himself refused to accept defeat, and his supporters didn’t want to accept it either, so they all told each other that it wasn’t real, and they believed each other so much that they dug in their heels.   But then they’d take this stuff to court and the judge would be like “Uh, what evidence do you have of mass voter fraud?” and they would just be like “lol nvm!”  I mean, if there was proof for any of this, why would they not want a judge to see it?   But for Qanon, it was more than just being sore losers.    They needed all their whackamaroo predictions to come true, and Trump losing re-election would upset the applecart.  

So then they started telling themselves that they could win this thing through the boring certification process.   I think it was like, December 14 when all the states had to certify their results.   So they held out hope that nothing was over until then.    Then they pinned their hopes on the Electoral College, and that there would be enough faithless electors to hand Trump the victory, in spite of the voters.   I found this one amusing, since I used to see tumblr suggesting the same thing back in 2016, when they were still trying to come up with ways for Bernie Sanders to win.  

Then they decided Mike Pence could fix everything, because on Jan 6, Congress would officially count the Electoral Votes and formally declare the winner, and Mike Pence would step in and overrule the whole thing, because the Vice-President oversees that process.    Except he just oversees it, he can’t legally change the outcome, especially on a whim.    And then the riot at the Capitol happened, and I’m pretty sure all these Qanon types thought it would mark the beginning of a nationwide uprising, with all seventy-odd million Trump voters going apeshit, but it... didn’t work out that way.  

Then they convinced themselves that everything was building to January 20, because the innauguration was actually a clever trap, and once Joe Biden took the oath of office, he could then be arrested for treason, so you see, they had to make it look like Trump lost the election, because it was the only way to fool Joe Biden into incriminating himself... or... something.   But Jan 20 came and went, so the latest fallback position I heard was that there’s a double-secret REAL inauguration day, and it’s in March, and the January 20 one isn’t legitimate, even though Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2016, but whatever.    That, or the guy we see in the White House now is actually Trump disguised as Joe Biden, or a Joe Biden android or something.   

I think I sort of understood that Qanon is a cult, but I didn’t really put the pieces together until the events of January unfolded.    Pre-November, it just seemed like a conspiracy theory, without any real timetables or prophecies, like Flat Earth.    But once the end of the Trump Administration was in sight, it really started to look like all the doomsday cults I’ve heard about over the years.  The predicted events wind up failing to come true, and they invent new predictions to explain away the old ones.   It’s not about the veracity of the claims as much as the claims themselves.    People want to believe there’s this whole elaborate explanation for everything.    They wanted to believe that Trump was this hypercompetent superheroic messiah, because the alternative is to face the uncertain reality: that he had no idea what he was doing, and real people were going to suffer for it.  

I think I sort of worked that idea into my fictional cult, but I backed into it.   NXIVM was a sex cult, not a doomsday cult, or an elaborate conspiracy theory, so I was mostly fixated on all the depraved things the cult could do to its members.   But they all share the same lure: a belief system that promises to make everything fit. I’m not sure what the hook was for NXIVM, but Allison Mack didn’t go in thinking about how much fun sex trafficking would be.   That came later, after she was convinced that NXIVM had all the answers, and one of those answers involved sex crimes, apparently.   In the same vein, Qanon attempted to explain mass arrests and executions by claiming that Hilary Clinton eats babies or something.   “Well, I don’t want babies to get eaten, so I guess breaking into the Capitol building seems like a reasonable course of action.”  

Weighed against real life, a bunch of Saiyans accepting a 100% casualty rate doesn’t seem so outrageous.   It also helps that sometimes the leaders of these groups can buy into their own hype, and think they’re infallible when they’re really not.    This week, I started reading the Darth Plagueis novel again, and I’ve seen the Sith from Star Wars referred to as a cult, but I never gave it a lot of thought until I noticed that Plagueis buys into the whole Dark Side of the Force thing a little too hard.   At times, he’ll wax philosophical about how the Jedi are the real bad guys when you think about it, and he’s not just saying that to be manipulative.   He honestly believes that the Sith can save the galaxy from decline, which is stupid and hypocritical, because they’re the ones causing all the decline.    I always got the impression that Darth Sidious understood that it was all about accumulating power as an end unto itself, and any high-minded talk of necessary evil was just to keep the rubes in line.    Rise of Skywalker plays into that idea nicely.   He somehow survived Episode VI, but he let the Empire collapse, because if he can’t rule it, he doesn’t want it to exist at all.   But he’s still playing himself, because he thinks he can win by following the same failed ideology that got all the previous Sith Lords killed.   

That’s pretty much all I have to say about it right now.    I need to move on to other topics, because Towa’s not doing a cult thing, so my fic is moving in a different direction.   But I feel better for getting this out of my head.

[zumpietoo]

All 538 electors voted Monday in the Electoral College, formalizing President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election. Their votes will next be sent to Washington to be counted by Congress on January 6. Hawaii's four electors voted shortly after 7 p.m. to make the final tally 306 Electoral College votes for Mr. Biden to 232 for President Trump. At 5:30 p.m. ET, California's electors cast their state's 55 Electoral College votes for Mr. Biden, putting him over the 270 needed to win. Mr. Biden spoke Monday night after the count had concluded, urging Americans to move forward after the election. While he struck a unifying tone toward the end of his speech, he also highlighted some of Mr. Trump's many legal challenges and his refusal to concede, calling it an "assault on democracy." Mr. Trump's last-ditch legal attempts to overturn the results have been quashed in the courts. On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that sought to stop electors in four key battleground states from voting Monday. What happened prior to December 14? Election Day is set by law as the Tuesday that follows the first Monday in November, which in 2020 fell on November 3. When people cast their ballots, they are actually voting for an elector committed to supporting their choice for president and vice president. After the polls close, the states count and, eventually, certify the votes. All states have certified their results. California was the last to do it, on December 11. The U.S. Code says that if any state has enacted procedures to settle any controversies over electors before Election Day and if the results have been determined six days before the electors meet, they qualify for "safe harbor." Congress is required to consider those results as "conclusive." This date is known as the "Safe Harbor" deadline. What exactly happened on Monday? Federal law dictates the electors meet on the Monday in December that follows the second Wednesday, which in 2020 falls on December 14. There are 538 electors. The number from each state is based on population and is equal to the number of members of Congress the state has in the House and Senate, meaning the minimum any state can have is three. The state with the most electors is California, with 55. Washington D.C. has three electors even though it is not a state. New York Electoral College members, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, vote for President and Vice President in the Assembly Chamber at the state Capitol in Albany, New York, on Monday, December 14, 2020. / Credit: Hans Pennink / AP New York Electoral College members, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, vote for President and Vice President in the Assembly Chamber at the state Capitol in Albany, New York, on Monday, December 14, 2020. / Credit: Hans Pennink / AP All but two states, Maine and Nebraska, give all their Electoral College votes to the candidate who got the most votes in the state. Maine awards two of its four electoral votes to the statewide winner but also allocates an electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of its two congressional districts. Nebraska gives two of its five electoral votes to the statewide winner, with the remaining three going to the popular vote winner in each of its three congressional districts. Based on the outcome of the November election, 306 electors will vote for Mr. Biden and 232 will vote for Mr. Trump. The electors will cast ballots, individually and on paper, for president and vice president. The electors count the votes and then sign six certificates, known as the Certificates of the Vote. The certificates are paired with the Certificates of Ascertainment provided by states' governors and are signed, sealed and certified. The six copies are then sent via registered mail to the president of the Senate (aka Vice President Mike Pence); two are sent to the secretary of state of the state in which the electors met; two are sent to the archivist and one is sent to judge of the U.S. district court of the district in which the electors met. The votes will take place at different times throughout the day, starting at 10 a.m. ET and concluding with Hawaii at 7 p.m. ET. In Michigan, state House and Senate offices are closed because of "credible threats of violence" — not because of "anticipated protests" — and as a result, electors will have police escorts from their cars to the capitol building, according to a spokesperson for state Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey. Michigan's Electoral College members cast their ballots for Mr. Biden, who won the state despite Mr. Trump's efforts to challenge it in court. Electors are not necessarily bound by law to vote according to the state's results, and there were 10 "faithless electors" in 2016. But most states have laws that nullify the votes of "faithless electors," and the Supreme Court ruled in July that states can punish them. FairVote found that since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 167 faithless electors. Who are the electors? Sometime between May and August, states' political parties and independent candidates nominate electors for each ticket. The Constitution doesn't state how states must pick electors, so most candidates are nominated by state party committees or at a state party convention. Electors may not be U.S. senators, members of Congress or anyone holding an "Office of Trust or Profit under the United States." Most of the electors are not famous, but there are a few big names this year. Former President Bill Clinton, 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo are all Democratic electors for New York, and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem was set to be an elector for South Dakota but bowed out last week. Stacey Abrams, the 2018 Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate, is a Georgia elector. She was selected to preside over the meeting that backed Mr. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield issued a statement Monday saying that the state House will not be choosing a new slate of electors. A GOP lawmaker had indicated he was part of a group that supported choosing new electors, according to the Detroit Free Press. Michigan Representative Gary Eisen also would not rule out the possibility of violence. Chatfield said he "fought hard" for Mr. Trump, but he "can't fathom risking our norms, traditions to pass a resolution retroactively changing the electors for Trump simply because some think there may have been widespread fraud to give him a win." Can Mr. Trump still challenge the results after the electors vote? It is possible for Congress to challenge the results in a state that did not meet the December 8 deadline. Congressman Mo Brooks, of Alabama, has said that he plans to challenge electoral votes for Mr. Biden when Congress reconvenes on January 6. He would need to be joined by one senator and present his objection in writing, and then both houses of Congress would debate the objections and vote on whether to sustain them, according to The Associated Press. In a statement last week, attorneys for the Trump campaign quoted the dissenting opinion in the 2000 Supreme Court Bush v. Gore ruling that January 6 is the date of "ultimate significance." "Despite the media trying desperately to proclaim that the fight is over, we will continue to champion election integrity until legal vote is counted fairly and accurately," attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis said. What are the next major dates?December 23: All copies of the electors' votes must be delivered to the recipients.January 6: Congress will count the votes of the electors. Procedure calls for Pence to open each state's "certificate of ascertainment" — documents prepared by the state after it has completed its vote count and ascertained the official results. He will then present the certificate to four "tellers" who announce result tallies. Once a candidate reaches 270 electoral college votes, Pence will declare the winner.January 20: Mr. Biden will be inaugurated.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/presidential-electors-voting-monday-heres-084828382.html

Except the legal opinion on Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with any of this. It was entirely to stop the recount in ONE state (Florida) and was issued as NON-precedent setting.

Rudy and Jenna are the two worst attorneys on the planet.

And even if the objection is debated, it still passes.

Bye

Otherwise, again, this is literally removing the people’s will

[rwmhunt]

Leviticus, Chapter 24

1. 'Lore', said Leviticus, With a legal pomp, dropp'd, As it was, so betaken unto him, From somewhere Within the rhyzome's matrix.

2. I mean, there's always going to be An equivalence isn't there? A kind whose cause is dead before They've ever been set to support it, And sometimes They may outweigh, with number Or else, with bluster, but still, Bound are they to be deracinated From the slow, Long, occidental logic of the rhyzome, And lads, never shall you turn out the lights That are burning outside of the tent of meaning.

3. And zoonotic disease prediction Relieth on surveillance and on a preparedness; Thus, a wise man chooseth to keep me to his forehead, When in regards, as all else, to the flux of the hypostasis. No, I didn't understand where that was coming from; again, sometimes It's only a miracle that a meaning falleth out of anything we think to say at all.

4. But, by lamp and by candlestick, My feelings about what I am reeling in Ring deftly clear as unto some inner ear, A place where there be of no self, and so, Are betokened of nothing, by that 'bell'.

5. It's pancake day, Set into an ad-hoc corps of medical supply manufacturers- The report called the self-organised effort Involving industrial-design students and teachers a “distributed factory”, which is fine.

6. Let the table so be dressed unto a matrix For the medical episode's 'hot cake' occasion, And shouldst the virus be mooted As 'mortality accelerant', as I know a man, grown Very old, and that the Open Wounde go thither- Where underpinning is a social contract, So ours is fraying and riven, yet Opportunistics, willing to spread empathy with the gathering hesitance, Have found a vertiginous excitement At reaching out to a wider audience; Then lo, that the virus hath gain'd Your blueprint for its future.

7. Frankincense, set Vaxxing unto a data vacuum, Selection pressure bringeth out The dangerous signature, Though afraid of opening Its own 'can of worms', Is thus brung unto with a flux.

8. Each sabbeth, for the covenant With a lot riding on the outcome- Try 'vaccinated at gunpoint;' So facts are being irrelevant.

9. Aaron and Sons eat on it in perpetuity, Deeming what I connive To be unnecessary, Even should it work, and thus, Is rendered doubtful and debtered; O entropy, my kilowatt hours, Everything ends up grift. And yet, the end is never that of risque, For, the other shoe is always about to drop.

10. An Israelitish Egyption, Whose name be prefixed with the classical standards, Who's vetted and found, numerous times, One way or tuther, to be A runaway youth with a mouth on him; So the taunted outsider Hath taunted back with some jibe at the god- I'll go further; I'll tell you what it was- - 'Bet your mamma screamed For big ol' Akhenaton.' - 'Yeah? well atleast big ol' Akh Knew a bit about imaginary gods.' The corollary was only e'er assumed, Though later, under oath, outlined as fact, For then, unto the nun of the stern order, To whom they'd run, that, 'madam, This is the real world, here; I am not one of your deferential flock, for here, We have the same power over each other; here, You're just a man to me.'

11. And the Israelitish woman's son Blasphemed the name of the lord; That his mother was a cleaning lady, And he was hauled up before Moses, Who noted how I focussed on His half-cast status, So as to pre-empt, Then negate it as a basis, For fie!, shouldst you think That it be, in some way, Racist.

12. And they put him to a ward, And all for a word agin the thin-skinned lord.

13. And the lord spake dunya unto Moses, Who otherwise didn't have a clue. LET'S GET WILD, All in caps, So that it went, as a spirit flashes, through the rhyzome, And brother, I'd never steer you wrong.

14. So god said take him out back And have him softened up with stones, And Mose thought this seemed reasonable enough, Because Moses was a fucking prick.

15. Then go and crowdsplain it, douchebag, So suffer your own precarity- If The whole congregation set forth on the lynching, You can call it false flag, without reproof, And how should I curse God whom he hath not cursed? For, how should he grant himself be so?

16. But as well the stranger as the local greengrocer Be lynched for a word at that Ejit god, the dulled idea of a lord; as drag The entire neighbourhood into culpability- And clear about that; For lo, so be it, as living with the rhyzome.

17. Thus, by that- murder, So fomenteth a capital crime, All shall wind up equal, With Kalil, an associate, Found here with Leviticus, And meaning 'entire'. To the congregation thus, 'Lord save me I perish.'

18. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good. For the agents of welfare– The workers who art on the frontline- So let it live on in infamy, A stain on the Open Wounde that can never, Never be washed away; The spirit of the radio take him.

19. If beast for a beast, So blemish for blemish, Lord save me I perish. All your ill-sympathy, Warn, deep in the mouth of god.

20. And breach for breach, Eye eye, tooth tooth, And then the unseen viral threat; For I've been careful; course I have, You believe me. Again. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, Unless it does.

21. So that's A dead beast to be restored, A dead man's killer killed, But don't go raising men again; The congregation, as a quorum, Is a reaction, is a reason, Is aware and also watching; Isn't what you would call human, With christ's rood harrowing, The sought-for Faithless electors' Chronic activation of Systemic inflammation as Fretting at the Open Wounde; An immune system overreacteth In what is called a cytokine storm.

22. Law to strangers and locals Alike, I keep protesting, for it's me; That we would make vulnerabilities In the rhyzome to leave opportunity For a vessel that can sail into view, And carry you the sheol out of here; As ariseth in moments of crisis, by Influence and anxiety; go then, Rere Ward.

23. So Moses spake unto the kids, saying, That they should murder a man At his word, with- - 'Be there; For I wager- t'will be wild!' And they were; And it was; And they did. Don't look- O, WikiHow, how might I curse the lord, So that he should knock me down?

Lo, and his words became their actions.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Last month the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging state laws that bind Electoral College electors to vote for the presidential candidate they are selected to support. The case was brought in response to four 2016 electors — three from Washington and one from Colorado — who tried to vote against their state’s popular vote winner, and, in the case of the Washington electors, faced fines for having broken their pledges.

These so-called “faithless electors” have long been a feature of American presidential elections, but it’s possible that the Supreme Court could shake up the Electoral College system, striking down state laws that try to guarantee electors’ votes by replacing or punishing those who don’t vote as they promised to. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the overall lack of enforcement of electors’ pledge to vote for the winner of their state troubled her, saying, “I made a promise to do something, but that promise is unenforceable.” But Justice Samuel Alito said that overturning the state laws could “lead to chaos where the popular vote is close.”

There is some truth to that. In a system where a close national popular vote can produce a close-but-different Electoral College outcome, a handful of electors refusing to uphold their pledges could indeed sow chaos. There is already controversy surrounding the Electoral College and its election of George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 — neither won the popular vote. Adding in a few faithless electors who could flip the outcome of the election might pose a significant threat to the Electoral College’s continued legitimacy. Yet, the history of presidential elections is not exactly littered with faithless electors.

In fact, during the presidential elections of the 20th century just 15 electors broke their pledge and voted for someone other than their party’s nominee.1 That means, on average, there was less than one faithless elector per election during this period, and none of them altered the course of any one election. This trend continued into the 21st century as well, with just one faithless elector in the 2000 presidential election and one in 2004; however, in the 2016 presidential election, there was a sharp uptick. Ten electors from six different states attempted to break ranks.2 That’s still not enough to have changed the outcome of the 2016 election, but it is nonetheless a significant jump in the number of defections.

So perhaps this is a sign that something has changed in our era of hyper-partisan politics and faithless electors will become more common. Then again, Hillary Clinton and Trump both faced long, drawn-out nomination battles,3 and they were the two most unpopular nominees in modern history. Those factors alone could have been the impetus behind some of the faithless electors’ moves in 2016.

But let’s say the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the 2016 electors and says faithless electors can’t be penalized. Would chaos ensue?

First of all, not every state has laws in place to hold Electoral College electors to their pledges. In fact, just 29 states and the District of Columbia had any type of rule on the books in 2016. The rules are inconsistent, too. In some states, like Washington, a penalty is levied, and all of the faithless electors were made to pay a $1,000 fine. And in other states, like Michigan, the votes of faithless electors are not counted; instead, those electors are replaced with someone who will vote for the nominee. That provision obviously has more teeth to it, but again, many states don’t have any such provisions at all, and yet there aren’t countless faithless electors.

And that may be because the state parties are already selecting activists who are likely to be loyal to their presidential nominee, so electors are motivated to vote as instructed even without a law punishing or removing them if they don’t. But the national parties are not powerless in this process. The Democratic National Committee, in particular, ramped up its efforts to fend off faithless electors after 2016, adding a new requirement to its convention rules that state parties’ delegate selection plans not only include their process for selecting electors, but also the steps the state will take to ensure that those electors vote for the Democratic nominee. Those measures, like the rest of the delegate selection process, had to be approved by the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee as part of the delegate selection plan.

The elector selection process still differs from state to state, but ultimately, it’s fairly centralized under the party, which helps ensure faithful electors are selected. In states like Florida and Pennsylvania, for example, the presidential nominee and their campaign select the Democratic electors. And in states with smaller Electoral College delegations, like Oregon and Utah, state party officers like the state party chair, vice chair and treasurer automatically serve as the electors from those states. There are, however, a number of states where the elector selection process is a bit more free-range. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, it was the states that selected their electors by more decentralized means that had faithless electors in 2016.

The six states where an elector tried to cast a faithless vote in 2016 — Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Texas and Washington — all selected electors using congressional district and state conventions, which don’t receive as much oversight as other selection methods and can be dominated by supporters of candidates other than the eventual nominee. And unlike the process for selecting delegates to the Democratic convention, the elector selection process does not give the candidate the right to review electors.4

In Washington, where the faithless elector problem was the most acute in 2016 — there were four defectors — state Democrats made the process much more centralized for 2020, moving the selection process from state and congressional district conventions to the party’s state central committee. But 17 state parties will still select electors via conventions in 2020, with 154 electors at stake in those meetings. And only seven of these 17 states (worth 53 electors) voted Democratic in 2016.5 So it’s possible that if there were enough defections and the vote was close, it could matter.

That said, few electors chosen this way are actually faithless. Few electors are faithless, period. It’s true we don’t know if 2016 signaled a change in norms around faithless electors and if, therefore, we might see more defections in 2020. But the bottom line is that even if the Supreme Court were to strike down state-level laws, chaos is unlikely to erupt. The guidelines put in place by parties to ensure most electors are faithful serve as a backstop.

[lying-parables]

2016...

2016 Election Facts

Issues of the Day: Health care costs, Economic inequality, Terrorism, Foreign policy (Russia, Iran, Syria, Brexit), Gun control, Treatment of minorities, Immigration policy, Shifting media landscape

One of only 5 elections (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016) where the popular vote winner was defeated

Hillary Clinton first female presidential nominee of a major political party

Clinton won Maine but Trump earned an electoral vote by winning the popular vote in the 2nd Congressional District. This marked the first time that Maine has split its electoral vote since it moved away from the winner-take-all method in 1972.

Independent Evan McMullin received 21.5% of the vote in Utah; best '3rd party' performance in any single state since Ross Perot in 1992

Libertarian Gary Johnson received over 3% of the nationwide vote; best 3rd party performance nationwide since Ross Perot in 1996

There were seven faithless presidential electors. Aside from 1872 - death of Horace Greeley - it is the greatest number since electors began casting one vote each for president and vice president (12th Amendment, 1804). Three additional faithless votes, one each in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, were disallowed.

Clinton won Washington; however three electors cast votes for Colin Powell, one for Faith Spotted Eagle

Trump won Texas; however one elector cast a vote for Ron Paul, another for John Kasich

Clinton won Hawaii; however one elector cast a vote for Bernie Sanders

Electoral College

Popular Vote

Turnout

President Trump

Why Hillary Lost

Herself: In her book, Hillary blames her "damn emails," her remarks about putting coal miners out of business, and calling Trump's supporters "deplorable."

Russia: "What Putin wanted to do was...influence our election, and he's not exactly fond of strong women, so you add that together and that's pretty much what it means."

The DNC: "I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. It was bankrupt...I had to inject money into it - the DNC - to keep it going."

Sexism and misogyny: "Sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won."

A Democratic predecessor: "It's really difficult to succeed a president of your own party who has served two terms. That is a historical fact."

Bernie Sanders: "His attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

Wikileaks: "The comey letter, aided to great measure by the Russian WikiLeaks, raised...doubts again. And so even though I won the popular vote, enough people in a few states...were just raising all these questions."

Her "traditional" campaign: "I was running a traditional presidential campaign...while Trump was running a reality TV show that expertly and relentlessly stoked Americans' anger and resentment."

TV coverage of the campaign: "When you have a presidential campaign and the total number of minutes on TV news...was 32 minutes, I don't blame voters. Voters are going to hear what they hear...and if they don't get a broad base of information to make judgements on."

Low-information voters: "You put yourself in the position of a low-information voter, and all of a sudden your Facebook feed, your Twitter account is saying, 'Oh my gosh, Hillary Clinton is running a child trafficking operation in Washington with John Podesta.'"

James Comey: "The determining factor was the intervention by Comey on October 28...but for that intervention, I would have won."

[patriotsnet]

Why Do Republicans Want To Impeach Obama

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-want-to-impeach-obama/

Why Do Republicans Want To Impeach Obama

Obama A Republican Congress And Impeachment

GOP Faithful Want Obama Impeached, Why? He’s Obama, That’s Why

Some Republicans are eager to impeach the President. Some are so eager that they go on the record saying that impeachment would probably pass the House. Representatives Barletta , Farenthold , and Senator Cruz say that the only obstacle is the Democratic Senate, which would not convict the President. The Washington Posts Jonathan Capehart took this a step further and argued Republican control of the Senate could result in President Obamas impeachment.

Regardless of who controls the Senate, the rationale presented by Cruz, Barletta, and Farenthold makes no sense. In no immediate future will Republicans control enough votes two-thirds of the Senate to remove the president from office. In order to reach the 66 vote threshold, Republicans need to win every single Senate election in November. Democrats may lose the Senate majority. However, no one believes Democrats will lose every single Senate race. More reasonable forecasts suggest Republicans will gain 5-6 seats. That is enough for a majority but not close to the amount necessary to remove Obama from office. In sum, there is no situation in which not having the votes is the reason impeachment has not been pursued.

There is a reasonable argument that the Republican Party, with a House majority insulated from electoral pain through a combination of safe districts packed with conservative constituents, would not hesitate to impeach Obama. He has been enemy number one since he stepped into office.

Efforts To Impeach Barack Obama

This article is part of a series about

e

During Barack Obama‘s tenure as President of the United States from 2009 to 2017, certain Republican members of Congress, as well as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, stated that Obama had engaged in impeachable activity and that he might face attempts to remove him from office. Rationales offered for possible impeachment ranged from Obama allowing people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity, to the 2012 Benghazi attack, to Obama’s enforcement of immigration laws, and false claims that he was born outside the United States.

Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that a near supermajority of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, though a bit more than a simple majority of Republicans did support such efforts. For example, CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported impeachment, but in general, 65% of American adults, disagreed with impeachment with only 33% supporting such efforts.

How President Obama Will Be Impeached

Writing about Rep. Eric Cantors  stunning primary defeat last week, I warned Democrats that the House majority leaders loss was as much a wake-up call for them as it was for the GOP. Well, now I want to warn them about a very real possibility: President Obama will be impeached if the Democrats lose control of the U.S. Senate.

Yeah, yeah, I read Aaron Blakes astute piece in The Post on the impeachment process. He says probably not to the question of whether the House could impeach Obama. But probably is not definitely. And with the way the impeachment talk has gone, probably not could become absolutely if the Senate flips to the Republicans.

Rep. Lou Barletta became the latest to openly discuss impeaching the president. In response to a question from a radio host on Monday, the two-term congressman who was swept in during the tea party wave of 2010, said, Obama is just absolutely ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the laws and ignoring the checks and balances. Articles of impeachment, he added, probably could pass in the House.

In a later interview, Barletta said one of the reasons he wouldnt vote for impeachment was because a Democrat-controlled Senate would never convict the Democrat president. Blake also mentions this parenthetically in his piece. Others who have talked about impeachment point to this as the reason not to pursue the extraordinary political rebuke.

Follow Jonathan on Twitter:

Recommended Reading: What Is The Pin The Republicans Are Wearing

Reasons John Boehner Opted To Sue Obama Rather Than Impeach

While most Republicans favor impeachment, John Boehner recalls the losses that Republicans sustained in 1998 midterm elections, during the Clinton impeachment.

Loading…

In a near party-line vote, House Republicans on Wednesday approved 225 to 201 a resolution to sue President Obama or other administration officials for actions inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution.

Translation: Republicans accuse the president of executive overreach exceeding his constitutional powers and unlawfully going around Congress.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi calls the lawsuit “perilous and meritless.” President Obama dismissed it as a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. “Stop being mad all the time. Stop just hating all the time. Come on,” the president said during a speech in Kansas City, Mo., earlier in the day.

Some Republicans, such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, want the House to go further and impeach the president. A CNN poll last week shows that the majority of Republicans favor impeachment. So why would House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio opt for a lawsuit instead of impeachment?

Here are three reasons why:

Republican Voters Want To Impeach The President Good Luck With That

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and other Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama might want to take a look at the history books and the U.S. Constitution before getting too excited about the idea.

Congress rarely uses its power to impeach, and when it has, impeachment has only infrequently — and in the case of a president, never — resulted in removal from office. Congress has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times in the history of the United States. Just 19 of those cases have been tried by the Senate, and only eight federal judges have ever been convicted and removed from office.

Although House Speaker John Boehner has maintained he is not interested in pursuing impeachment, a top White House aide said Friday that he expected House Republicans to do just that. And a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll shows that one-third of Americans and two-thirds of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached. These numbers reflect an increasingly popular view in conservative circles, which Palin gave voice to earlier this month when she claimed the recent surge of undocumented immigrants at the border was an example of the president’s “rewarding of lawlessness.”

So, why do some conservatives appear to think this would be more of a Nixon than a Clinton situation?

Rep. Bob Goodlatte , chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, earlier this month offered perhaps the most sober rebuke to the calls for impeachment.

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Are Against Trump

Hundreds Of Historians Join A Call For Trumps Impeachment

More than 300 historians and constitutional scholars have signed an open letter calling for the impeachment and removal of President Trump. They say his continuation in office after encouraging supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol posed a clear and present danger to American democracy and the national security of the United States.

Those who signed the letter, released on Medium on Monday, include best-selling authors like Ron Chernow, Taylor Branch, Garry Wills and Stacy Schiff, as well as many leading academic historians. A number of the signatories had joined a previous letter in December 2019, calling for the presidents impeachment because of numerous and flagrant abuses of power including failure to protect the integrity of the impending 2020 election.

Since November 2020, the new letter says, Trump has refused to accept the results of a free and fair election, something no president before him has ever done.

Politically, the condemnation by historians may carry less weight than the presidents loss of support in recent days from business groups that once supported him or his policies. But David Greenberg, a historian at Rutgers who drafted the new letter, said that historical expertise mattered.

In September, the American Historical Association issued a statement condemning the first White House History Conference, held at the National Archives .

Public Debate Over Impeachment Demands

In terms of background, U.S. public opinion widely opposed efforts made to impeach previous Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland has stated that their organization found that 69% opposed impeaching President Bush in 2006.

According to a July 2014 YouGov poll, 35% of Americans believed President Obama should be impeached, including 68% of Republicans. Later that month, a CNN survey found that about two thirds of adult Americans disagreed with impeachment efforts. The data showed intense partisan divides, with 57% of Republicans supporting the efforts compared to only 35% of independents and 13% of Democrats.

On July 8, 2014, the former Governor of Alaska and 2008 RepublicanVice Presidential nomineeSarah Palin publicly called for Obama’s impeachment for “purposeful dereliction of duty”. In a full statement, she said: “Itâs time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.”

Andrew McCarthy of the National Review wrote the book Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case For Obama’s Impeachment, which argued that threatening impeachment was a good way to limit executive action by Obama .

Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans Are There

Is The Supreme Court Likely To Save Obamacare

The Supreme Court is likely to leave in place the bulk of Obamacare, including key protections for pre-existing health conditions.

Conservative justices John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared in two hours of arguments to be unwilling to strike down the entire law a long-held Republican goal.

The courts three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety and presumably would form a majority by joining a decision that cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it.

Leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, California and the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place.

A decision is expected by late spring.

Meet The Impeachment Crowd: 6 Republicans Who Want Obama Out

Trump Asks Why GOP Didn’t Impeach Obama for IRS Scandal, Obamacare Promise, Iran Cash Payment

From Sarah Palin to Tom Coburn, several Republicans are calling for impeachment.

— intro: Has President Obamas use of the pen and phone to circumvent Congress gotten out of hand?

Some members of the GOP seem to think so.

Even as the embattled president fights criticism over the escalating humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border, the release of Arm. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in return for five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, a mounting chorus of Republicans are calling for impeachment.

Heres a list of the high-profile Republicans who want to kick the president out of office:

quicklist: 1category: title: Sarah Palin url: text: Who Is She: 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, former governor of Alaska, sometime reality show host.

What She Said: Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, No mas. Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. Its time to impeach.

When She Said It: July 8, 2014

media: 21159508caption: related:

quicklist: 2category: title: Tom Tancredo url: text: Who Is He: Former candidate for Colorado governor, 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, former congressman representing Colorados 6th Congressional District.

When He Said It: Valentines Day 2014

media: 24494513caption: related:

When He Said It: June 4, 2014

media: 24494378caption: related:

Recommended Reading: How Do Republicans Feel About The Wall

Clyburn: Gop Will Try To Impeach Obama

Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn is predicting that Republicans will try to impeach Barack Obama so that they can put an asterisk next to the name of the first black president.

There will be some reason found to introduce an impeachment resolution, the South Carolina congressman said Tuesday on MSNBCs The Ed Show. These Republicans have decided that this president must have an asterisk by his name after he leaves office, irrespective of whether or not he gets convicted. It is their plan to introduce an impeachment resolution.

He continued, is to put an asterisk next to this first African-American president in the history of the country to put an asterisk next to his name when the history books are written.

Clyburn, a high-ranking member of Democratic leadership in the House, argued that Republicans are aiming for impeachment as a way to keep the country focused on foolishness rather than on what we need to do in order to move an agenda forward.

As far as what will spur the call to impeach, Clyburn pointed to the heated debate on immigration reform.

Obama has warned Republican leaders in Congress that if they do not act quickly on a plan to reform immigration laws, he will issue executive orders aimed at changing the system. Speaker John Boehner has said that executive actions will poison the well on any attempts to reform the laws.

Obama Administration Immigration Policy

In June 2012, Senator Jon Kyl mentioned impeachment when discussing the Obama Administration policy on immigration. He said on the Bill Bennettradio show, “if itâs bad enough and if shenanigans involved in it, then of course impeachment is always a possibility. But I donât think at this point anybody is talking about that”.

In August 2013, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma responded to a questioner in a town hall meeting, who had asserted that Obama was failing to carry out his constitutional responsibilities, by saying that “you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president… and that’s called impeachment”. Coburn added, “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’, but I think you’re getting perilously close”. Coburn did not specify what grounds he felt would support impeachment, but NBC News noted that Coburn “mentioned that he believes Department of Homeland Security officials have told career USCIS employees to ‘ignore’ background checks for immigrants”. Coburn mentioned no evidence that substantiated his belief.

Also Check: Did Republicans Block Funding For Election Security

Trumps Former Secretary Of Veterans Affairs Says He Would Vote To Remove The President From Office

David J. Shulkin, the former secretary of veterans affairs under President Trump, said on Monday that he would vote to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office if he were still in the cabinet, saying that Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he is a threat to the nation.

Theres no doubt I believe that this is the time to put the countrys interest first, and I do not believe the president should any longer be serving, Dr. Shulkin said in an interview. I believe that this is an extraordinary time of danger and challenge to the country, and I would support removal from office.

Dr. Shulkin, who said he would also support impeachment but worried it was not an efficient enough mechanism, went further than most other former Trump cabinet secretaries have gone in calling for the presidents removal from office. John F. Kelly, who served as Mr. Trumps secretary of homeland security before becoming White House chief of staff, has also said he would support invoking the 25th Amendment while other Trump cabinet veterans like former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and former Attorney General William P. Barr have offered scathing criticism without explicitly calling for Mr. Trumps removal.

Trump’s Former Chief Of Staff Is On Capitol Hill To Meet With The Impeachment Team

From CNN’s Kristin Wilson

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told reporters that the Democrats opening argument was pretty much what I was expecting and that its hard to make a good case when you have an unconstitutional process.

He said hes spoken with former President Trump on a regular basis but had not spoken with him about the opening arguments at the Senate trial.

When asked why he was on Capitol Hill, he said, I’m just coming over to meet with the impeachment team and said that he will be with them sporadically over the course of the trial.

Recommended Reading: Why Did Republicans Lose The Election

But It Would Be A Boneheaded Move For Numerous Reasons

When Congress heads off on its upcoming five-week recess, some Republicans, at town halls with constituents, will bring up the “I” word: impeachment. Barack Obama, they’ll say, needs to be removed from office. The reasons, in their view, are many: Benghazi. The IRS. An inability to control the Mexican border, to name but three. The constitutional standard for removal from office in Article II, Section 4 is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and to the far right, Obama more than qualifies.

Talking tough about impeachment is what constituents in gerrymandered Republican districts want to hear. It’s good red-meat politics. But back here on planet Earth, the reality is this: There’s about as much chance of Obama being removed from office as there is of Nancy Pelosi throwing the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl. It’s just not going to happen. The probability is literally zero.

Here are some numbers: A CNN poll last week said one third of Americans want Obama impeached. Just a liberal media poll, you say? Well, a Fox News survey last week said the same thing. And that one third just happens to coincide more or less with the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans. Fact is, vast majorities of independent voters and Democrats oppose removing the president from office.

So the Republican dream of Obama being forced from office making Joe Biden the 45th president simply isn’t going to happen.

President’s Constitutional Duty To Faithfully Execute The Laws

On December 3, 2013, the House Judiciary committee held a hearing formally titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws”, which some participants and observers viewed as an attempt to begin justifying impeachment proceedings. Asked if the hearing was about impeachment, the committee chairman responded that it was not, adding, “I didn’t mention impeachment nor did any of the witnesses in response to my questions at the Judiciary Committee hearing.” Contrary to his claims however, a witness did mention impeachment rather blatantly. Partisan Georgetown University law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz said, âA check on executive lawlessness is impeachmentâ as he accused Obama of âclaim the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.â

Recommended Reading: How Many Seats Do Republicans Hold In Congress

The State Department Labels Cuba A State Sponsor Of Terrorism In A Last

The State Department has designated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, a last-minute foreign policy stroke that will complicate the incoming Biden administrations plans for dealing with Havana.

With this action, we will once again hold Cubas government accountable and send a clear message: The Castro regime must end its support for international terrorism and subversion of U.S. justice, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement.

The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Pompeo was weighing the move and had a plan to do so on his desk. The action, announced with just over a week left in the Trump administration, reverses a step taken in 2015 after President Barack Obama restored U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba, calling its decades of isolation an archaic relic of the Cold War.

Once in office, President Trump acted swiftly to undermine Mr. Obamas policy of openness, which Republicans said Havana forfeited by failing to implement promised reforms and continuing to crack down on political dissent. The designation requires a finding that a country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, according to the State Department. The move automatically triggers U.S. sanctions against Cuba, including limits on U.S. foreign assistance, export controls and financial restrictions.

What Did Trump Say About Obamacare

Why Republicans want Hunter Biden to testify in Trump’s impeachment trial

President Trump has been actively trying to repeal the healthcare law since he campaigned for the 2016 presidential election.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to revoke Obamacare because it’s been an “unlawful failure.”

A brief filed in June asked the court to strike down the Affordable Care Act, arguing it became invalid after Congress axed parts of it.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “President Trump and the Republicans campaign to rip away the protections and benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the coronavirus crisis is an act of unfathomable cruelty.

“If President Trump gets his way, 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions will lose the ACAs lifesaving protections and 23 million Americans will lose their health coverage entirely.

“There is no legal justification and no moral excuse for the Trump Administrations disastrous efforts to take away Americans health care.”

Republicans also argue that some people are better off without Obamacare due to the fact that it does not cover those who need it most.

According to the provisions, people who earn just slightly too much to qualify for federal premium subsidies, particularly early retirees and people in their 50s and early 60s who are self-employed are not covered.

Trump endorsed a replacement to Obamacare in 2017 but fell short of passing the Republican-controlled Congress.

You May Like: Are Republicans More Wealthy Than Democrats

Trump’s Rhetoric On Impeachment In 2014 Becomes Relevant Anew

In his unhinged letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, Donald Trump told the congressional leader, “You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!” The president went on to suggest via Twitter this morning that he’s concerned about impeachment being made “trivial.”

He appears to have arrived at these concerns quite recently.

It wasn’t long ago, for example, that Trump wanted Pelosi to impeach George W. Bush for having launched the Iraq war. “He got us into the war with lies!” Trump said in 2008.

His attitude toward impeaching Barack Obama was even more cavalier. “Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?” Trump wrote on Twitter in June 2014.

Several months later, after Republicans took complete control over both houses of Congress, Trump appeared on Fox & Friends and was asked what he’d like to see the new GOP majorities do. Trump replied that he wanted Republicans to impeach the Democratic president.

“Do you think Obama seriously wants to be impeached and go through what Bill Clinton did? He would be a mess. He would be thinking about nothing but. It would be a horror show for him. It would be an absolute embarrassment. It would go down on his record permanently.”

It wasn’t altogether clear what it was Obama did that Trump saw as worthy of impeachment; Trump simply seemed to like the idea of trying to rattle Obama on a personal level.

Does this sound like anyone else you know?

Donald Trump Claims Republicans ‘never Even Thought Of Impeaching’ Barack Obama History Tells A Different Story

President Donald Trump claimed that Republicans “never even thought of impeaching” Barack Obama, despite the record showing that many spoke of doing so over multiple issues.

In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump called on Republicans to get tougher and said that while he thinks Democrats are bad politicians with lousy policies he respects that they stick together. And, Trump said, Democrats are vicious.

“They’re much more vicious. We would never do a thing like this,” Trump told Hannity of the current House impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine affair in which the president is accused of soliciting the help of a foreign government in the 2020 election.

” could’ve impeached Obama for the IRS scandal, they could’ve impeached him for the guns or whatever, where guns went all over the place and people got killed with guns, Fast and Furious. They could’ve impeached him for many different things. They didn’t impeach him. They never even thought of impeaching him.”

In fact, Republicans in Congress did raise the impeachment of Obama multiple times.

Ex-GOP Congressman Predicts Republicans Could Flip on Trump Over Doral

In 2010, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa called the alleged White House job offer to ex-Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak if he dropped out of a Senate primary “a crime, and could be impeachable” for Obama, Fox News reported.

Read Also: What Republicans Are Running For President

[dipulb3]

Why Joe Biden went to Wisconsin -- and will be back

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/why-joe-biden-went-to-wisconsin-and-will-be-back/

Why Joe Biden went to Wisconsin -- and will be back

Arguably, no state tells us more about Biden’s or any president’s political standing in the last 30 years than Wisconsin. It’s also likely to tell us whether his party does well in the 2022 midterms.

If you wanted to know who won the presidency in the last three elections, you needn’t look further than the Badger State. It was one of just three states that voted for Biden in 2020, Donald Trump in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2012 (the other two are the key battlegrounds of Michigan and Pennsylvania).

But Wisconsin’s importance goes deeper than just this fun tidbit of trivia.

Wisconsin was the state that put Biden to the 270 electoral vote threshold in the Electoral College. Had Biden carried every state he won by more than his 0.63 point margin in Wisconsin, he’d have been at 269 electoral votes. Put another way, Wisconsin got Biden the presidency.

Similar math holds for Trump in 2016. Wisconsin was the state that got him to and over 270 electoral votes, unless we count faithless electors.

Now, look at every election since 1992.

We’ll do so by comparing the margin in every state in every presidential election to the margin in the state that put the winning candidate over the top in the Electoral College in that same election (just like Wisconsin has done in the last two elections).

We’ll call this measure the swing state index. A swing state index close to zero in any election means a state is really important in a given presidential election.

Since 1992, the absolute value of Wisconsin’s swing state index has averaged 1.3 points. No other state has had an average absolute swing state index closer to 0, which equates to Wisconsin being the state that has told us the most about where the Electoral College stands on average since 1992.

Further, Wisconsin is one of only two states (along with Pennsylvania) that has had no election in which the swing state index has been larger than +5.0 points or smaller than -5.0 points since 1992. This is another indication that Wisconsin has pretty much always been a state that you can count on to give you a good read of the presidential election.

If Wisconsin is close in an election, you can bet the overall election is also close.

The ability to be a consistent swing state is rare. For instance, the swing state index in Tennessee in 1992 was 0 (i.e. the state that put Bill Clinton over the top in the Electoral College). In 2020, Tennessee’s swing state index was -24 points (i.e. way more Republican). Georgia’s swing state index swung wildly from -4 points in 1992 to -14 points in 2004 to -0.4 points in 2020.

Wisconsin has maintained its swing state status, even as coalitions within the state have changed dramatically.

In 1992, the swing state index was -0.3 points or very close to being the state that put Clinton over the top in the Electoral College. Clinton’s coalition spread across the state from urban to rural areas with 36 of the state’s counties voting more Democratic than the state as a whole and 36 voting more Republican than the state as a whole.

But just as tiny populated rural areas became more Republican and highly populated urban areas became more Democratic nationally, so too has this been the case in Wisconsin.

In 2020, just 14 of the state’s 72 counties were more Democratic than the state as a whole. Biden won in large part by crushing it in Dane (which contains Madison) and Milwaukee counties.

Of course, there won’t be any presidential elections for a while.

Beyond the battle for the top spot in our nation’s government, Wisconsin has proved a useful barometer in down ballot races over the last 15 years and could be a key state in the 2022 midterms.

The state elected a Democratic governor in 2006 and 2018, which were both good years for Democrats. In-between, Scott Walker won terms in the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014.

We’ll see if Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is able to win reelection in 2022.

Likewise, the state has gone back and forth in who it elects to the Senate. Senate Democratic candidates have won in 2006, 2012 and 2018, which were all good years for Democrats. Republican Sen. Ron Johnson emerged victorious in 2010 and 2016.

Johnson, if he chooses to run, is on the ballot in 2022, and it’s a state Democrats are hoping to flip. Johnson losing could signal that Republicans are in for a long night.

Ultimately, Wisconsin could hold the key for Biden in the final two years of his first time. A Biden presidency with a Republican-held Senate will be far more difficult for him to navigate.

[almasixsoul]

McConnell Congratulates President-Elect Biden On Senate Floor |

WHAT HE IS DOING  IT'S CALLED MISDIRECTION, NOT MISINFORMATION. HE WILL BE RETIRING, OR BECOME ONE OF THE ELECTOR'S  VOTING ON THE NEW ELECTOR'S? HE KNOW'S THIS INFORMATION: The (United States Electoral College) is the group of presidential electors required by the Constitution to form (Every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president.) Each state appoints electors according to its legislature, equal in number to its congressional delegation (senators and representatives). Federal office holders cannot be electors. Of the current 538 electors, an absolute majority of 270 or more electoral votes is required to elect the president and vice president. If no candidate achieves an absolute majority there, a contingent election is held by the United States House of Representatives to elect the president, and by the United States Senate to elect the vice president. On January 3, 2021. The proceedings of this first day follow a well established routine. Having presented their credentials to the Senate, newly elected and reelected senators are sworn in by the vice president. The Senate is divided into three classes for election purposes, and every two years one-third of the Senate is elected or reelected. For this reason, only a third of the senators will take the oath on January 3,2021 Currently, the states and the District of Columbia hold a statewide or district wide popular vote on Election Day in November to choose electors based upon how they have pledged to vote for president and vice president, “Their are state laws against faithless electors.” What is a “faithless” elector? Electors generally have pledged to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in their state. However, there have been 165 instances of “faithless” electors voting for someone else, most often to protest the system or because a candidate died. In 2016, Trump lost two electors and Clinton lost five, changing the electoral college outcome to 304 votes for Trump and 227 for Hillary Clinton from the expected 306 to 232 tally. All jurisdictions use a winner-take-all method to choose their electors, except for Maine and Nebraska, which choose one elector per congressional district and two electors for the ticket with the highest statewide vote. The electors meet and vote in December and the inauguration of the president and vice president takes place in January 20, 2021!!!!!

[rwmhunt]

Leviticus, Chapter 23

1. Substitute day, and a return unto A sender of something, as to another place, That hasn't the wherewithal to get there either; I will open it again and learn That which is already known to be such As isn't so much.

2. And it's not mine, but a, And is the right way round. For as I set the seasons, I reprise, reply, replay; It's substitution day.

3. And Sabbath is the seventh, Whence the lord, in all thy dwellings, Is up for doing nothing; Or Sabbath is the sixth; I don't care.

4. And welcome to my channel, It's great to have each of you still with me- A man who speaks of people By their purpose, Himself as his own singer, With- such are the seasons, Even, holy convocations, For want to be sure of a constant, It's Senhal, An obscure term For an old friend.

5. Love, love, lo, this is not Of a cloven love, Leviticus, I will speak of it Unto sundry strangers and neighbours, As just one more month's dusk Then it'll be passover, Not once. Not twice, Not once. Love. So we can still imagine a time When all of this will go again;

6. But a day will approach When, if there is something That can look back, Could think that 'here' and 'then' Are really very close;- And I wonder if they saw The strings of direct attachment, Lining their behaviours; Just flour and water, But I don't think so; Still, anytime was closer to history than this one, So what do I know?

7. If I were to put the onus On to the impossible, Then what was light-hearted and playful, Would be wont to become ridden and surly; Lord, being an influencer is a serious endeavour, For how many unsuccessful oblations are there That are out there? Lo, state your appreciation; Don’t just wing it. Plan it out in kalends, Of which are reckon'd to be backwards; so, To start, do nothing.

8. After a week, Let's go- Gift your influencers' grift, For, when you so do this, It strokes the ego of the flames, Who then add unto the savour of sacrifice, Thus, get me it up; Make it smolder, Then, use its fatal nature To activate the future.

9. And simple: These are nacks, To muster control Over gods; Are junk and have been; That we all have interest vested- Let ignorance of it control Hereafter, same, so anon and amen.

10. Crowdsplain- First fruit the priest Hard and long, Find the tunnels, Writing what's impossible For the brain to conceive, That it may then be read back of, To supplant and supersede; So become possible.

11. And thither, the Wheatchief Will wave the sheaf Tomorrow- See how it goes? Ol' Cathode Ray, and Non-mathmatical aesthetic identities, The spirit of the radio take her.

12. That once the sheaf And all the while Be specific unto thy niche- Nativize unto thy platform, For, the experience shall follow The rhyzome's swerve and function, So that the user-expectation be wrought From whence the contents be placed- In this case, Add in a lamb shank ponzi scheme to my platform; Smells wonderful.

13. So unto the titular character, Exerting such low level leverage as Begetteth me of an ephah cake, And a quarter hin of wine; I don't need the free stuff, I am a successful influencer, But shouldst you want me to advertise for suckers On my platform that I have built myself for free; Well, we're all getting along so good.

14. Then it's me first, And simple: see- That our boldest endeavours, And most exciting adventures- They have not yet even begun; That, in spite of all the detritus, In the teeth of all that we've done, my boys, I tell you: The best Is yet To come.

15. Then, 49 days later, Seek whence Thought might come in sequence, And I'm really so blessed and thankful to you all for being here; So, as thought comes  in sequence And thus, it wasn't known where We are going here as we begun. O tensions, retensions- I use to used to run.

16.  Know, influencers, I am the hype; So on-brand that I can give unto you, And through you, the trick- Pyramid that still stands For the thousands- Round it up; So nice.

17. And, super relevant- Optimize continuously, also, Compensate me handsomely; while Sacrifice may seem like a quick-success marketing strategy, It isn’t so. Such are the things that keep not happening; More food please.

18. Lots more, This is why the burden of proof for rhetorical claim Shall falleth shortly As among the Open Wounde who should maketh of such a claim; It is not upon the world to provide him a fallacy, But he, who's to prove the world its truth; which, Across all channels, He, rerewise, hath been completely unable to do.

19. So suffer him his own precarity; And then some; Think back to when, Twirrup twipip,-pwiwip, Suwee, psu, swoo swsoo, So sweepeth they in song, As we, quiet, Through our blossom comedown, That hideth our tiny singers, And the bulgence behind the wiltage, In the verges, Be of burgeoning seed.

20. And everyone wave; All this- so good as is it to be; And though under a hail Of black tormentors, Our torment, And through its over-drone, With no one remembering it happening, But, who'll remember the photograph?

21. Sit back; You've lost everything, So lo, olah, you remember how mother died- Bringing cow parsley into the tent of meaning; For she went by the umbels as we'd walked on the plain, And they had reminded her of those lace cushions That her ladies-in-waiting had carried, And so gave them the name.

22. Embassadors, Leave thy corners to disillusion; A true influencer ideally keeps doing What they genuinely gain of a passion for. They know their value and their need is not to shew it, So spend a lot of time reading news and sharing opinions with others online. By buying-up dozens of potential plots, They help to plot the exodus to less, And stake an astronaut over the shape of a woman. But politics isn’t about the weird worship of one dude, So his words became their actions.

23.  Is it worth your time To try and ignore that, if, What you are listening to Is  the most effective form of advertising- A babbling of a technique That hath impostulated language, Then, should things go well, We may even be able to rend a cross-paracleation With phantom trust-collaborators, Interested in guest-posting for backlinks and exposure, Thus, marrying into micro-influencers, And so tap into our y.

24. But be consistent: For my favourite casts come out the same- Here, crowdplain how a seventh month is a Sound the trumpet month; See how it goes? Lo, but half of me struggles with the whimsy Of the other side that's yet so entranced; No, I'm not sure why, it's just the way I feel.

25. Down tools, more please. Gnaw your own head off. All things positivity- and It is always negotiation; Not: You bring it to the tabernacle, I sing- There is no shortness of spirit In opinion To be cut down. Equal positives, so unto Those things that keep not happening.

26. There are voices you hear of, As quoted as begetters of insightful opinion, Who art themselves never made extant, Being only reported hereto as sources, And lo, that they are the influencers. And I'm super curious as to know what you guys think; Please be sure to leave your comments amid the margins.

27. Thence, afflict thy souls, For, tis atonement day- We're ten into the seventh, And the snap's back when I was An offensive lineman, And the pass sent over- The big lie, long, long to the long deceiver, Ah, burnt offerings- How original, Best look unto the analytics, And if they give you not access there unto , Verily, you are going to have to fight, Fight as peaceful as Sheol, Down, deep down and dirty- I'm not going to call it off.

28. Down tools; Atone to the dial tone, No one calls; Let Ladder Capital Createth of the sponsored post- Like many on the medium, To use an ode- I used to play the role; To laugh and laugh; Laugh til I despised all there was to laugh at, And then I stopped, And in the silence, saw what I had done.

29. But laughing is not so bad.

We've been a good wee band. Yes we have. No one is coming after us. And if you're alright, mack, You'll get cut off.

30. So workers got destroyed That day, And Aaron was frustrated, And livid. Reach round; Feel thy spine. The way people stop you From being helpful When you are helpful, So that you cannot be helpful, So that they can cut you From your people.

31. Tardiness in perpetuity, Aye, today, it is Yplangenday- Well, I'll have to put myself Through some more adamantine Paces than god allows, else I'll never get enough done.

32. And be bold, For, you'll need to deracinate; Chancers are toxic vocations Within the tent of meaning; It's content; it's all content- Divide and game, so- Focus and grow. I mean to make sure That you are a consistent- Start of the ninth evening , End of the next.

33. God doesn't eat though, That I can see- For all that we give him, God doesn't eat.

34. Crowd, 15/7, and tabernacle feast week; Still his words became their actions, Shrill, until the doctrine of laches, When the searched-after Faithless elector went libertarian, Like many on the medium, Clade unto such bolled and novel obstacles What stretched where chance was slim, And slim was still in quarantine.

35. To start again, down tools, For, lo, if you want to be in a prison camp, You needst allow yourself the luxury Of being stupid enough to get captured.

36. Sacrifice? Spluttereth the LORD: But I'm fed up with so much burnt rubbish, I wish for forced fresh rhubarb, So shunt and jive; I've Optimized, and optimize continuously.

37. Drinks break; take life indicting, Gratify all at a local craven hire scheme, Go abroad singing, so merrylike, To slough off the whole As one enormous rhyzome. Deus Hic! God is drunk! I heard that, Brian Leg-Coverall.

38. O well done Jehus, And good to be with you, Yes you, Who are good in a crisis; A reminder- I'm working with mischief.

39. Wait, rest again, To live is to live through An embarrassment of times, Damarkated as meaningful riches, That will not be well remembered. Really, I am so blessed.

40. But try to ask of a question; So that thy congregation Might make communion in answer, See how it goes? Say, But why, isn't it A bit like palm sunday? The stream changeth its name As it passeth through each neighbourhood. I knew it as; Well it doesn't matter- You're not reposting, nor liking my banal repartee, So, unfollow.

41. And it goes; for I have giv'n unto them a scapegoat, But they cast it not out; So shall there be a reaving that will follow, and Themselves, they shall be cut off from.

42. Then all ye home-born booth dwellers In dwelling booths, Shall dwell in booths seven days and know That you are living in the rhyzome..

43. And everyone will know that I made you do this- The old booth dwellers, needing my rescue out of Egypt, So weakened,  the Open Wounde stayeth open; And remember to tell us what you think, Way down, deep down, down in the margins.

44. And Mose went about with the crowdsplaining Old loud-haler; A simple fellow out of storybook glen, From the tent of meaning, From the twilight men, He ran and told- And the thing is, They were too clever To not know what they were doing- So the target becomes bios; Is the common psychle, The answer- How would you like it? Is - 'I didn't'. And that therein has a hold and salience, As before tends to be the best time to regret- It is a kind of nonsense. I'm so merry

I'm so merry and sad.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Our perception of U.S. politics wouldn’t be the same without the Electoral College. Thanks to most states’ winner-take-all rules (Nebraska and Maine can split their votes), the Electoral College turns states into red and blue Legos. We comfortably call California a “blue state” even though it’s home to millions of Republican voters, and we refer to Alabama as a solidly “red state” despite the fact that a third of its voters preferred Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Plenty of Democrats are interested in changing that. Elizabeth Warren has called for the abolishment of the Electoral College, and a handful of states have signed on to a plan that would essentially bypass the Electoral College — members of the National Popular Vote initiative have pledged to throw their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner no matter who their state voted for, but the agreement won’t kick in until the states involved have enough electoral votes to guarantee that whoever they vote for will win. But the chances of either idea getting enacted are still pretty remote.

One way to understand just how skewed the Electoral College can be is by rearranging the states inside of it. We know what would happen if the Electoral College were gone, but what would happen if it were simply different?

Our current state borders are fairly arbitrary. Throughout American history, people have been proposing new states, but most don’t appear on the map today, either because they once existed but were later redrawn, or because they simply never caught on. But what if some of these would-be states were around today? Would moving those state borders, without changing any votes, change our political reality?

The short answer is probably not, at least in 2016: Of the 13 maps we tested, none of them flipped the outcome of the last presidential election. These new maps did shift the Electoral College vote margin by as much as 38 votes, but since President Trump won by more than 70 votes, it wasn’t enough to swing the election to Clinton.

Play around with the maps yourself to see what I mean:

(Please don’t write in to tell me about how, if any of these states had actually come to be, our politics would be different, the butterfly effect, blah blah etc. This is a thought exercise! I ignored some other realities as well: Faithless electors and split electoral votes don’t exist here, for example; all electoral tallies assume electors voted for the person who won their state. We redistributed all Electoral College votes based on 2016 population, which means some real states have one or two more or fewer votes than they did in reality that year, when the Electoral College was based on 2010 population. Adding and removing senators also changes the total number of electors, so not all maps will add up to 538, the current total number of electors. In one map — The Republic of Texas — Texas’ representatives were simply removed, dropping the total number of electors to 498. And since Americans have proposed and rejected more maps than one person can draw, I used Wikipedia and my own interest level to decide which fake states to include. If you want more details about the technical process of producing these maps, a) God bless, and b) check the methodology section below.)

While none of those fake maps would have produced a different outcome in 2016, there is a relatively easy way to rewrite the past — if we free ourselves from the constraints of history and instead do a little strategic shuffling. By reallocating two protuberant state parts (the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the Florida Panhandle) to their neighbors (Wisconsin and Alabama, respectively), we can flip the outcome of 2016 with a single click.

This is all fun, but the states won’t be shifting their borders anytime soon. For better or worse, we will return to the same old red-and-blue map on the next election night, and we’ll simply be watching to see if any states change color. But even if the Electoral College isn’t going anywhere, it’s still worth remembering that nothing about our political map is inevitable.

[patriotnewsdaily]

New Post has been published on PatriotNewsDaily.com

New Post has been published on http://patriotnewsdaily.com/politifact-its-false-that-democrats-never-accepted-trump-as-president/

PolitiFact: It’s “False” That Democrats Never Accepted Trump as President

A few days after the election, Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) made a point about the left’s hypocrisy in wanting our political divisions to simply go away in the wake of Joe Biden’s victory.

“We’re hearing a lot from Democrats that all Americans need to ‘unify,’” Hice tweeted. “If they truly wanted unity, they wouldn’t have spent 4 years refusing to acknowledge Trump’s 2016 victory.”

This is an excellent point, and it’s one that ought to be well-heard and deeply considered by anyone in the Democratic Party and/or the media who is pushing this narrative. You can’t spend four long years ripping Trump as an illegitimate president and then expect everyone to hug and shake hands now that the political tides have turned. It doesn’t work that way.

The moment Trump was elected, leftists were in the streets of New York City chanting “Not My President”.

Immediately, there were articles drawn up about how “faithless electors” could take Trump’s victory away by voting for Hillary Clinton in defiance of their state’s results.

Blue states entered into compacts through which they agreed to base their state’s election results on the nationwide popular vote.

The FBI – urged on by Democrats in Congress – embarked on a long, expensive effort to delegitimize President Trump through an absurd, baseless investigation into his campaign’s associations with Russia.

And then, of course, there was the impeachment – where by Nancy Pelosi decided that Trump needed to be thrown out of office because he mentioned Joe Biden in a phone call with the president of Ukraine.

Even if we put all of that aside, we can use our common sense and see that Hice was speaking rhetorically. He wasn’t literally saying that the Democratic Party refused to acknowledge the fact that Trump was president. He wasn’t suggesting that Democrats have been living in an alternate reality where Hillary Clinton is the president. He was merely pointing out the degree of resistance and opposition to this president makes it very hard to take their calls for “unity” seriously right now. We’re pretty sure that even a smarter-than-average goat would be able to understand this.

But PolitiFact doesn’t hire goats to write for them, they hire Trump-deranged liberals.

“While there were some dissident voices that questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s election, top Democrats acknowledged Trump’s win and referred to him as the president-elect less than a day after election results became clear. Those leaders included Clinton, Obama, Democratic leaders in Congress and the DNC,” they wrote. “Hice goes too far in his claim that Democrats spent four years refusing to acknowledge Trump’s victory, and provides no evidence for it. We rate this claim False.”

Once again, we have PolitiFact answering questions (wrongly) that no one actually asked. With this fact-check (and many others), they are slowly morphing from a biased liberal outlet into an absurd parody of themselves. And yet, they’re still taken seriously – which shows you how twisted our political/media landscape has become.