Patterico's Pontifications

9/23/2020

Trump: Yeah, I’m Not Going To Commit To A Peaceful Transfer of Power If It Comes To That

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:10 pm



[guest post by Dana]

This afternoon after being asked whether he will commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses:

“We’re going to have to see what happens, you know, but I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. The ballots are a disaster,” Trump told reporters at a White House briefing when asked if he would commit to making sure there is a peaceful power transition.

When pressed, Trump said there would be no need for a transition of power without mail-in ballots, suggesting he believes he would win the election without an expansion of mail-in voting during the pandemic.

“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful, there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”

This guy.

Reportedly, the Trump camp is already hard at work prepping desperate contingency plans, if the situation makes them necessary:

According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires…

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.

Personally, I think Trump loves dropping these bombs of confusion and feeds off of the ensuing frustration and anger. This is Trump clapping his fat, little hands in glee knowing he is sowing the seeds of Trumpism. His loyal followers believe that the resulting chaos is evidence of his power play against the Swamp, or the Deep State, or Big Media, or whatever imaginary beast he conjures up as his latest enemy. His loyal base – the deluded – believe that his is a righteous cause, and his words and deeds are being nobly done on their behalf. Because that’s how necessary denial works.

I know this post deserves a deeper analysis, but honestly, there’s really nothing new to it. He is who he is, and the closer the election, the more this sort of stuff is just going to happen. I almost feel that by posting about it and being outraged, I’m feeding the insatiable attention whore, who devours negative attention as much as he does positive attention, as long as it’s about him. Anyway, here’s a more in-depth look at Trump’s statements on the election results.

By the way, the President of the United States is now literally begging me to vote for his opponent on November 3. And, in spite of my decision to vote for neither candidate, he is really moving the needle. Hard.

–Dana

296 Responses to “Trump: Yeah, I’m Not Going To Commit To A Peaceful Transfer of Power If It Comes To That”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (292df6)

  2. Like chumming for bluefish on Long Island Sound…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  3. Ali velshi peaceful or real peaceful. Forgot about transition integrity project, that integrates the military in their scenarios.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  4. “Get rid of the ballots.”

    LOL

    This is the guy we MUST re-elect to preserve freedom in America!

    TWELVE MORE YEARS

    Dave (1bb933)

  5. Weve spent four years of democrats not accepting campaign results egging on the ‘resistance’ bailing out rioters.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  6. Trump’s gotta go. It’s simple. Ignore the extremists, expect to be manipulated with fear. Trump has got to go.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  7. It is flopsweat. He is in a panic, and it is only going to get worse.

    The problem is, this is also his decision-making process. Throw ideas at the wall, see what the sycophants around him say. The stuff he’s throwing at the wall just keeps getting uglier.

    john (cd2753)

  8. Every time now, it’s always about “what if the President doesn’t accept the vote.” They said it about Obama, Hillary said it about Trump (then had trouble herself), the said it about W in 2004, and in 2000 Gore and his posse (Mayor Daley? Really?) did his best to destroy the integrity of the Florida ballot. This was particularly funny in hindsight because what the state was doing before he interfered would have handed him the White House, but he tried to cherry-pick.

    No one is going to go to the wall for Trump. A military coup is as likely (and they have 5 or 6 weeks to trot that one out, too). The revulsion of such an attempt would be great, legislators would be recalled, or killed, and we’d be at tanks-in-the-street in places.

    It.is.not.going.to.happen.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  9. You forgot about foval and creamer and the j 20 riots already

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  10. It.is.not.going.to.happen.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/23/2020 @ 5:50 pm

    True, but still…

    Dustin (4237e0)

  11. Suppose that Trump wins the electoral vote narrowly. 272-266 or something, and Minnesota’s legislature flips their electors. Or New Hampshire. Or New Mexico (you should SEE the Trump signs).

    Biden-Harris win in the electoral college. Is THIS acceptable? Democratic partisans were trying to get GOP electors to switch to Hillary in 2016, and I don’t remember the level of horror then for something that actually happened compared to what a few reporters say they hear. Reporters who are just fine with the Court being packed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  12. TWELVE MORE YEARS

    Well, the Democrat plan is 2 years and a day for Biden, the 10 years less a day for Harris. I hope they forget to count the leap year days.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  13. Kevin, as Allahpundit ruefully notes, 60+ million people, including maybe you, are going to vote for him despite his saying things like this.

    Anyone who votes for Trump is voting for what he says he’ll do.

    I do have a faint hope that he will crack up so completely by Election Day that even some of the dead-enders will have second thoughts. But a lot more are going to crack up along with him.

    Dave (1bb933)

  14. Dana, I could never vote for Biden. But P.J. O’Rourke voted for HRC, saying that the kinds of dumb mistakes she would make were ones with which he was familiar. I don’t know if I feel that way, but it’s an interesting thought.

    I think DJT has what I call “Michael Jackson Disease.” Jackson apparently never had anyone around who said, “you know, that is a bad idea.” If DJT did not act like this, he would get much more support. So strange to me.

    But then, the whole planet seems insane to me now.

    Simon Jester (41c481)

  15. cupcakes need to suk it up
    & vote heels up

    mg (8cbc69)

  16. Losing peacefully isn’t in the DNA of a huge chunk of Biden supporters. If we’re really concerned about violence, the question was asked of the wrong campaign.

    beer ‘n pretzels (e2c090)

  17. “ Breaking911
    @Breaking911

    DEVELOPING: Rioters appeared to set off fireworks before someone opened fire on police in Downtown Louisville, striking at least one officer; The FBI’s Louisville division is sending in a SWAT team.”
    __ _

    All Lives Matter – anyone who doesn’t understand this is the only successful way forward is part of the problem.
    _

    harkin (b55be8)

  18. Ot having killed off cbs all access discovery is coming back to cbs.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  19. Settle down:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eZFWDh8ZjFw

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  20. Q Mr. President, real quickly: Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here, today, for a peaceful transferal of power after the election? And there has been rioting in Louisville. There’s been rioting in many cities across this country — red and — your so-called red and blue states. Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferal of power after the election?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re going to have to see what happens. You know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster. And — and —

    Q I understand that, but people are rioting. Do you commit to making sure that —

    The question becomes nonsense when the intrepid reporter inserts the “riot” threat.

    BuDuh (bdfdb0)

  21. Context is for closers,

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  22. I think DJT has what I call “Michael Jackson Disease.” Jackson apparently never had anyone around who said, “you know, that is a bad idea.” If DJT did not act like this, he would get much more support. So strange to me.

    Astute observation, Simon Jester. But it seems that Trump has spent his entire life surrounding himself with mediocrities and hangers-on.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  23. The question becomes nonsense when the intrepid reporter inserts the “riot” threat.

    Fair point. One area where the left is really shooting themselves in the foot is by pushing this whole “the streets will be flooded with rioters if Trump wins” nonsense. If states like Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had halfway competent governors, they would nip this in the bud by announcing that local police and the national guard will be on-hand to immediately quell any attempts at insurrection. But hey, we’ve got to meet Trump’s stupid threats with stupid threats of our own, right?

    JVW (ee64e4)

  24. Well $hit, you people. Do you think Biden (or his puppetmasters) are going to “commit to a peaceful transfer of power” should they be the ones who lose on election day? This is a pretty bald, transparent bias on your part to be emphasizing this question asked of Trump when it almost goes without saying what the Dems already have planned.

    Gryph (f63000)

  25. Last time they decided against poisoning delegates but set limos on fire and that was in dc. Conneticutt avenue to be exact

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  26. So they are doing a hellstrom series but no satan or other elements.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  27. I think DJT has what I call “Michael Jackson Disease.” Jackson apparently never had anyone around who said, “you know, that is a bad idea.” If DJT did not act like this, he would get much more support.

    The thing is, as soon as someone tells Trump no, they are no longer around him.

    Dana (292df6)

  28. Meanwhile we have ‘peaceful protests’ based on a false narrative again.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  29. The Democrats can’t even commit to a peaceful grand jury verdict.

    beer ‘n pretzels (4b6ea9)

  30. Why would they when the media covers for them

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  31. @29. Michael Jackson?? Nah.

    You really should have caught that Frontline PBS doc., on Trump and Biden that’s making the rounds. Though it overlooks Biden’s brain surgeries, it pretty much explains the Trump “no” thing– his ‘church’ time w/Norman Vincent Peale in NYC and embrace of Peale’s “power of positive thinking.” Trump wants positive people around him- go negative, start with the ‘nos’ – and you’re gone. That’s the Peale influence: the power of positive thinking. It’s worked for Trump all his life.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  32. Do you think Biden (or his puppetmasters) are going to “commit to a peaceful transfer of power” should they be the ones who lose on election day? This is a pretty bald, transparent bias on your part to be emphasizing this question asked of Trump when it almost goes without saying what the Dems already have planned.

    I don’t doubt that the Democrats are going to be in the streets if Biden loses, but I don’t believe Biden would want any part of it, and I think he would tell people to knock it off. I think he has enough respect for the office and for a couple of Articles to do anything but accept an honest loss with some sense of decorum.

    Dana (292df6)

  33. 34. That’s being awfully charitable to a man showing symptoms of advanced dementia.

    Gryph (f63000)

  34. but I don’t believe Biden would want any part of it, and I think he would tell people to knock it off

    Like when he told his staff to stop bailing out rioters and looters.

    beer ‘n pretzels (69efb6)

  35. He has made it clear that he wins. Period. Damn the Constitution or the popular will or anything else. He wins.

    Who would tolerate his “continuation” despite losing the election? Well, let’s try to think of a better way to address this before it gets out of control.

    I believe that the real problem is the counting procedures. States, especially swing states, need to count ALL of the ballots in a precinct before releasing those precinct results. Mail-in, early and in-person ballots all counted at once. And have enough staff to do it efficiently.

    It would be dangerous to count same-day votes which no doubt will be heavily Republican and then only later count the Democratic leaning mail-in votes. We know Trump will claim victory based on those initial results. Why give him that weapon?

    Ballots that arrive after Election Day are not likely to matter on a national scale. Those will have to be counted at a later time in states that allow ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later.

    As for Trump’s challenge of mail-in voting in general. I have not seen much support for him on that one. Yet.

    noel (9fead1)

  36. 36. Confirmation bias, amiright? 😛

    Gryph (f63000)

  37. They must be taking the blue pill to come to that conclusion

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  38. One defense of Trump here is that the military, the police, the lawyers, the secret service, they aren’t going to go along with some insane power grab. But that’s a defense to Trump actually being a clear and present danger to our way or life. It’s not a defense to Trump destabilizing and delegitimizing our democratic process, ruining the USA’s reputation.

    Trump says and does a lot of dumb stuff. He’s gotta go. The only way to beat the notion our president is fixing the election, at this point, is for Biden to win. Country first.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  39. Gryph writes: “Do you think Biden (or his puppetmasters) are going to ‘commit to a peaceful transfer of power’.”

    Yes. As I recall, in 2016, it was Trump who was threatening to not abide by the election…until he won. She did concede.

    Dangerous. Trump is a threat to our democracy. What more can he do to prove it?

    noel (9fead1)

  40. 40. So we’ll replace him with a doddering old demented fool. Jeebus, I just don’t get the thought processes here. (And I don’t even like Trump!)

    Gryph (f63000)

  41. Remember, Biden is associated and blamed for the work of the Obama administration. Therefore we know for sure his cohort do support the peaceful transition of power. Trump was an unpopular president from election day on, and Biden never said he shouldn’t be installed on inauguration day, and Obama never prevented that.

    Do you think Biden (or his puppetmasters) are going to “commit to a peaceful transfer of power” should they be the ones who lose on election day?

    Of course. This is the one benefit of career politicians. These guys are living large either way.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  42. 40. So we’ll replace him with a doddering old demented fool. Jeebus, I just don’t get the thought processes here.

    The thought process here is simple. Trump has repeatedly made clear it’s not a fair election, he won’t let it be if he loses. Hopefully he’s full of crap. If he loses, that’s proof.

    Under your view, the price of this is that the president is old and crazy. But Trump is old and crazy anyway. So yeah, obviously Biden must win.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  43. 41. If I was running for president and I had any reason to believe my opponent wasn’t playing by the rules, you bet your sweet a$$ I wouldn’t promise to abide by results that could be illegitimate.

    What I would have liked to hear Trump say, and which he has not yet said to my knowledge, is something along the lines of:

    I just don’t know what’s going to happen on November 3rd. We have a system in place for determining the winner of a presidential election, and it is not the popular vote. We successfully used that system in 2016, and I can only hope that my opponent will abide by the rules now.

    I don’t like Trump. I think he’s skeezy. But quite frankly, I fear Biden more than I fear Trump. Trump is an egomaniac out to preserve the brand by pandering to the American people. Biden’s base is the “Burn it all down” BLM crowd. And if you believe that’s really not the case, feel free to try to change my mind.

    Gryph (f63000)

  44. 44. Where and when did Trump say it’s not a fair election if he doesn’t win? Show me the video, or at least show me somewhere he’s quoted. Besides, that’s essentially the argument Al Gore made back in 2000 and I don’t remember Republican voters in a panic over some kind of existential crisis then — even though the same argument was being made by the opposition party.

    Gryph (f63000)

  45. 44. My view is not that Biden is “crazy.” It is that he is clinically demented. Literally physically and mentally unable to perform the duties of the President of the United States of America. Trump has at least shown himself capable of running a campaign and answering questions.

    Gryph (f63000)

  46. So quaint that we need to be alarmed about Trump violence, as Democrats burn Louisville down. With blog posts, timing is everything.

    beer ‘n pretzels (69efb6)

  47. 48. I’m beginning to think that many of the folks here have a fundamentally different definition of “peaceful transfer of power” than I do.

    Gryph (f63000)

  48. Where and when did Trump say it’s not a fair election if he doesn’t win

    “We’re going to have to see what happens, you know, but I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. The ballots are a disaster,” Trump told reporters at a White House briefing when asked if he would commit to making sure there is a peaceful power transition.

    When pressed, Trump said there would be no need for a transition of power without mail-in ballots, suggesting he believes he would win the election without an expansion of mail-in voting during the pandemic.

    “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful, there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”

    http://patterico.com/2020/09/23/trump-yeah-im-not-goin-to-commit-to-a-peaceful-transfer-of-power-if-it-comes-to-that/

    I could provide so many examples of Trump suggesting the election is rigged. Hell, let’s put that in quotes. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-accuses-democrats-rigging-november-election-during-nevada-rally-n1239969 Trump thinks an election he loses is “rigged.” Always has.

    He’s gotta go.

    Biden will be better than this. He won’t be any good, but better than this. If Trump can replace RBG first that would be cool.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  49. BLM, BLM. Rioters. Over and over.

    Riots have killed about 20 people, last I checked. Too many, of course, but Trump’s ignorant virus blunders kill more Americans than that every hour.

    noel (9fead1)

  50. 51. Yeah, a whole 12,000 people when you don’t count comorbidities that could have killed people anyway…

    Gryph (f63000)

  51. 50.

    Biden will be better than this.

    SMDH

    Gryph (f63000)

  52. Gryph,

    Biden has all of the symptoms of…. getting older.

    Nothing more.

    noel (9fead1)

  53. Comorbidities?

    Well, Gryph… if I am standing at the edge of a cliff and you push me over, it is not my proximity to the ledge that killed me.

    noel (9fead1)

  54. “Yeah, a whole 12,000 people when you don’t count comorbidities that could have killed people anyway…”

    If I have high blood pressure and someone shoots me, what’s my cause of death?

    Davethulhu (c5e21e)

  55. #34 – wrote in pertinent part:
    I don’t doubt that the Democrats are going to be in the streets if Biden loses, but I don’t believe Biden would want any part of it, and I think he would tell people to knock it off. I think he has enough respect for the office and for a couple of Articles to do anything but accept an honest loss with some sense of decorum.

    Biden has respect for the office? Really?
    Biden was in that 1/5/17 oval office meeting, with Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Yates & Rice, where they conspired to continue the plot to get & overthrow the newly elected president, Donald J. Trump. It was Biden plotted to get General Flynn on a bogus Hatch Act violation.
    See This Oval Office Meeting Attended By Obama and Biden Was Key To the Anti-Trump Plot https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/05/09/this-oval-office-meeting-attended-by-obama-and-biden-was-key-to-the-anti-trump-plot-n389501
    and Obama, Biden Oval Office Meeting On January 5 Was Key To Entire Anti-Trump Operation
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08/obama-biden-oval-office-meeting-on-january-5-was-key-to-entire-anti-trump-operation/

    As Justice Louis Brandeis so simply, eloquently & wisely stated, If we desire that the law be respected, we must first make the law respectful.
    That quote applies equally to ALL of government. GLZ.

    Gary L. Zerman (a1521c)

  56. Kevin M – you have more faith than I do.

    A surprisingly large number of people believe Trump won the popular vote in 2016 and that the only reason he appeared to lose the popular vote is that millions of people voted illegally.

    When Trump is winning in early returns on election day and then turns out to lose due to absentee ballots which were received – but not counted on election day, and he stands up and denounces the process as fraudulent and a Democrat attempt to steal the election, what are those people going to believe, and what are they going to do?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  57. If I have high blood pressure and someone shoots me, what’s my cause of death?

    If someone shoots you in your little toe, I’m going with high blood pressure.

    beer ‘n pretzels (6bbc17)

  58. > If states like Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had halfway competent governors, they would nip this in the bud by announcing that local police and the national guard will be on-hand to immediately quell any attempts at insurrection

    If the “normal” election results result in a victory for one candidate and the legislatures of certain states intervene by abandoning the normal election process and simply appointing electors more to their liking, is there not a valid *reason* for an insurrection?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  59. @58:

    What Trump says or Biden says isn’t going to amount to a hill of beans come election day.

    Answer this question. It’s easy.

    Violence and mayhem is more likely to happen if:
    A. Republicans feel the election was stolen.
    B. Democrats feel the election was stolen.

    Pick one.

    beer ‘n pretzels (6bbc17)

  60. > Mail-in, early and in-person ballots all counted at once. And have enough staff to do it efficiently.

    this is physically impossible in many precincts.

    when i worked as a poll worker in precincts with touch screen voting machines, the machines tabulated the results for the precinct *when we closed the polls*. We were required to post a copy outside the precinct. Mail-in ballots got counted by a different process.

    Maybe that’s good, maybe it’s bad, but it’s *way* too late to change it. We’re stuck with the existing systems at this point.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  61. > 40. So we’ll replace him with a doddering old demented fool. Jeebus, I just don’t get the thought processes here. (And I don’t even like Trump!)

    I didn’t vote for him in the primary. But my vote in the general election this year is cast using the precise same thought process that I used when I cast my vote in both the primary and general election in 2016: whoever is the most likely candidate to defeat Trump gets my vote. He is an existential threat to the country.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  62. beer ‘n’ pretzels, at 61 — you are missing my point. my concern is that when trump is in the process of blatantly stealing the election, he has a huge base of people who will support him in doing it because they’ll believe his lies. and the risk of that is that the net result will be that elections no longer matter.

    i’d like to believe it’s impossible for trump to get away with stealing the election. but the behavior of the republicans in the senate and in state legislatures has convinced me that it isn’t.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  63. @35.Speaking of “advanced dementia”: Romney condemns Trump’s comments. Takes the bait.

    Willard’s such a pucker-tailed twit.

    “I’ll have a lemonade. In a dirty glass!” – Chester Hooton [Bob Hope] ‘Road To Utopia’ 1946

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  64. > If someone shoots you in your little toe, I’m going with high blood pressure.

    If I have HIV and die of pnuemonia, what’s the cause of death? If I have cancer and die of the flu, what’s the cause of death?

    The argument that there’s some large scale misreporting of deaths-due-to-other-causes as covid deaths is based on the presumption that the standard way deaths have been determined and reported for the entirety of my life is a scam.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  65. The thing is, as soon as someone tells Trump no, they are no longer around him.

    Miles Taylor said that a lot of boneheaded ideas from Trump simply weren’t carried out, fortunately. Mattis said he quit when he was asked to do something that wasn’t just stupid, but “felony stupid.”

    For most of Trump’s life, his worst qualities have been rewarded — first by Fred Sr., and most recently by all the voters and cultists who chose to see his vices as virtues. They agree with his declarations that an election he loses has to be fraudulent, and now some of them are saying that if he does refuse to concede a loss it’s because he’s righteously fighting back, or he deserves another term because the Dems have been hurting his feelings for the last 4 years.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  66. A Secretary of State can release the results in a manner of their choosing. They need to wait to release the results until all votes in a precinct are counted. It is dangerous to do otherwise in a time like this. Trump has made it so.

    This would be a more accurate reflection of the results. It will be slower in some respects but much more representative of the final outcome than counting overwhelmingly Republican ballots first.

    There is still time to get it right.

    noel (9fead1)

  67. Name a scenario in whichTrump accepts a loss. There isn’t one. Even if it’s a blowout for Biden, Trump won’t accept the loss. He will fight that loss just as much as he would if the loss was by a close margin. I not only think he’s deluded, but he’s deluded enough to believe that he *deserves* to be the president. He has said as much. He will fight any loss, no matter the percentage. And he will fight it in any way possible.

    Dana (292df6)

  68. Noel, the best thing is to get both sides and the media(s) to agree not to cover election results until at least Friday the 6th. Ideally I’d wait until the weekend before Thanksgiving but that would be a non starter.

    urbanleftbehind (1da1fe)

  69. >A Secretary of State can release the results in a manner of their choosing

    That depends on the state. I’m speaking from *direct experience as an election official in the State of California*. Here, in at least some precincts, precinct inspectors are required BY LAW to release results of an in-precinct count, and they are not authorized to open absentees because they don’t have the ability to check the signatures.

    Furthermore, a federal law passed in response to 2000, among other things, requires states which didn’t already have them to have provisional ballots — ballots which by definition can’t be counted on election day.

    >They need to wait to release the results until all votes in a precinct are counted.

    In many jurisdictions this is either illegal or technically impossible because absentees and in-precinct ballots are counted using different physical systems.

    > There is still time to get it right.

    In some places maybe. In others, no. Imagine a state where in general a new law doesn’t take effect until January 1, but new laws can go into effect if passed by a supermajority threshold pursuant to an emergency declared by the governor. If the Republicans control either the governorship or 1/3 of one house of the legislature, it’s too late to make the change successfully.

    Your comment here is a lot of wishful thinking. I wish it were true.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  70. Dana, i’m sure in his mind fraud is the only way he can lose.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  71. I had last seen him in that teen wolf film

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/michael-hogan-fund

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  72. @69. Name a scenario where Trump “accepts a loss.”

    Howzabout six scenarios:

    Trump Taj Mahal craters; Atlantic City, NJ. 1991
    Trump Plaza Casino craters; Atlantic City, NJ. 1992
    Trump Castle Hotel Casino craters, Atlantic City, NJ, 1992
    Trump Plaza Hotel craters; NYC, 1992
    Trump Resorts Hotels & Casino craters, Atlantic City, NJ, 2004
    Trump Entertainment Resorts cratrers, Atlantic City, NJ, 2009

    Reaganomics. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  73. In Trump’s “defense”– probably the stupidest place the mob picked to build casinos was Atlantic City. Unlike Vegas, the weather prtty much sucks there 8 months of the year- especially in winter- making it hard to get to by bus let alone plane. It’s charming on a Monopoly game but Boardwalk itself is a salt-water-taffy-stained dump.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. I hear you, aphrael. I know that state laws vary on this. States that can count all votes in a precinct before releasing those precinct results, should.

    I am not an election expert. But I believe that this can be done in most jurisdictions. If I am wrong, there needs to be extensive education as to counting procedures so that the public is not fooled by Trump’s deceptions.

    noel (9fead1)

  75. Granted that all of my experience is in California, but in no jurisdiction among the three counties where I’ve worked as a precinct election officer would that be *either* technically possible *or* legal.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  76. I remember when conservatives where outraged about Dem-aligned election officials presuming to divine voters’ intent from ambiguous ballots.
    Today’s “conservatives” apparently plan to take it upon themselves to decide what the will of the people really is, regardless of what the vote count says (via the Atlantic):

    The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

    “The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  77. @78: I remember when conservatives were skeptical of left wing media quoting anonymous sources to put their thumb on the scales.

    beer ‘n pretzels (25a6f2)

  78. @79 — When the “anonymous sources” are reported to say things that align pretty well with what Trump has been saying quite publicly, the only reason for skepticism is the will to defend Trump at all costs, even if it means disregarding what Trump has actually been saying.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  79. Once again: it’s funny to see regular defenders of Donald Trump pretending to have any real concern about honesty and integrity.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  80. @79: Now that I think of it, there was a time on this here blog where just about every other post was a pointed jab at the “dog trainer”, NYT or any of a host of left wing rags. Now, they’re reliable sources. I can’t remember when the jabs stopped.

    Oh well, that was back before us fake conservatives changed so radically.

    beer ‘n pretzels (25a6f2)

  81. Dana, i’m sure in his mind fraud is the only way he can lose.

    He has said that the only way he can lose is if the election is “rigged.” He frequently declares himself the best ever, at everything.
    In the mind of the pathological narcissist, a great injustice is done when the world doesn’t grant him the adulation he believes is his right.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  82. @82 — I have never made such a comment on this blog. I have spoken of media bias before, but I’ve never believed that everything said in the NYT or WaPo or the Atlantic must be false.

    Seeing one after another right-wing media outlet keep bending over backward to defend the vile absurdities of Donald Trump has made me rethink where to place my confidence when it comes to seeking the truth.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  83. In April, Politico reported that Trump pledged to leave if he loses: “‘Certainly, if I don’t win, I don’t win,’ he told Fox News’ Harris Faulkner in an interview that aired Friday. If he doesn’t win the election, Trump continued, ‘you go on, do other things.’”

    He’s been consistent about the fact that he’ll leave if he loses. He also knows that if the election is close then shenanigans are likely, so why not wait and see what happens? I don’t think he should leave just because Jim Acosta says he lost!

    Andrew (8b5697)

  84. This is happening now imagine another confrontation on election day or the day before.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/violence-erupts-in-louisville-after-breonna-taylor-grand-jury-decision/

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  85. Transcript of relevant section of press conference:
    https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-white-house-press-briefing-transcript-september-23

    Right here, Mr. President, real quickly. Win, loser, draw in this election. Will you commit here today for a peaceful transfer of power after the election, either-

    Speaker 2: (09:03)
    Transferal of power after the election. And there has been rioting [inaudible 00:00:07], there’s been rioting in many cities across this country, your so-called red and blue states. Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferal of power after the election?

    President Donald Trump: (09:16)
    Well, we’re going to have to see what happens. You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster.

    Here all Trump has done is refused to buy into the reporters assumption that he’s going to lose, and then complain about the ballots that are being indiscriminately mailed out in some states. Nothing wrong here. If anything is in error here, it’s the reporter is trying to blame Trump for the rioting.

    Speaker 2: (09:23)
    I understand that but people are rioting. Do you commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferal of power?

    President Donald Trump: (09:29)
    We want to have… Get rid of the ballots and we’ll have a very peaceful… There won’t be a transfer frankly, there’ll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.

    (again with the rioting)
    But then Trump goes into Trump-speak, where he assumes that the listener will understand his context. He’s been complaining about these ballots for weeks, he views them as a fraudulent conspiracy in certain states to have the ballot boxes stuff themselves. He believes that, without fraud, he will win and is therefore not at all interested in the “if you lose” discussion.

    I do know that the Supreme Court in my state refused to let the Democrat administration here mail out unsolicited ballots due to JUST this concern. So, my question here is “why aren’t people concerned about fraud?” Why aren’t they asking Biden what he will do if he’s told he won by fraud?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  86. Breonna Taylor:

    This is what I get putting several source together.

    1. Breonna dumps drug dealer boyfriend a while back.
    2. Cops, looking for drug-dealer boyfriend are told that he’s often at Breonna’s.
    3. Cops, with no-knock warrant, pound on door, announce themselves and then forcibly enter.
    4. Breonna and new, non-felon boyfriend, wake and come to the front room, and ask who it is.
    5. Apparently not hearing these are cops, they are startled when the door breaks in.
    6. Boyfriend fires one or more shots, striking an officer in the leg. He says later he thought it was old boyfriend returning, which was a worry. Charges against boyfriend for shooting cop are dropped.
    7. Cops return fire, missing boyfriend entirely but hitting Breonna 5 times, with fatal results. Three cops empty weapons, one more or less at random.
    8. Cops, who had send a stand-by ambulance away, now summon help for the injured cop. Breonna bleeds out, ignored. It is 20 minutes before anyone thinks to help her.

    Actions taken: no-knock warrants no longer issued. Random firing detective terminated and charged with criminal endangerment (he did not hit anyone). Other two officers cleared.

    Except for the utter lack of concern for the woman who is bleeding out, I have trouble faulting the officers. The insanity of serving no-knock warrants in the middle of the night has been handled by not doing it any more. I expect the city to settle with Breonna’s family, as it was their screwup, but I also understand why people are pissed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  87. Dana, I think that you ought to consider that you have incorrectly stated the question he is responding to. “We have to see what happens” has to do with the “win, loose or draw” preface to “will you leave gracefully” (and yes, the reporter’s question is crap).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  88. When the “anonymous sources” are reported to say things that align pretty well with what Trump has been saying quite publicly

    I hope that you aren’t referring to the press conference today, because it would mean you haven’t watched it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  89. He didn’t say what he said when he said what he said.

    Dave (1bb933)

  90. Trump has a better plan to get re-elected. Trump will get republican controlled state legislators to appoint pro trump electors in swing states where they control the legislature and the popular vote went to biden. Mark levine on his show pointed out this is perfectly constitutional as it says states can appoint electors anyway they see fit. Mark points out this will destroy the democrat leadership discrediting them as al gore was discredited when the supreme court handed the 2000 election to bush. Anti trump rino’s will have nowhere to go.

    asset (696a01)

  91. “Get rid of the ballots and there won’t be a transfer of power, there will be a continuation…” Trump said.

    Hmm. Sounds a lot like his “if we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases”.

    So, I look at quotes like that and wonder what I can say to convince Trump voters of the delusional nature of the man. And then it hits me… again… there is nothing. And that is the really scary part.

    noel (9fead1)

  92. Kevin, Those facts look accurate, but should include the reluctance of the city to hold people accountable for the tragedy. If the City had reacted promptly there would have been less outrage. I also think that if there hadn’t been protests and a national attention the fixes that did happen either would not have happened or taken longer.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  93. He’s such a terrible leader.

    I understand sowing doubt about the election serves his political goals.
    I understand that he never takes responsibility for something unless it’s already happened and was successful.
    I understand that he’s terrified of losing. For his own peace of mind he needs a way to pretend a loss only happens because he was cheated.
    I understand that he and many of his followers love conspiracy theories and will happily substitute a plausible theory with minimal evidence for proof.
    I understand how all of these work together.

    But the right thing for the country is for Trump and Biden to both express faith in our election process. To do what is within their power to ensure we have one. To bound that by the fact that we have LEO agencies that enforce laws to ensure a fair election and to express faith in them and their independence.

    Democracy works by the consent of the governed. If you work hard to destroy that and leave the US with a large and growing pool of people who believe, without proof, that elections are being stolen you make our country worse.

    Trump’s statement really shows that the ongoing success of the country I love isn’t a priority for Trump.
    If he meant something other then what he said, possible since the question was messy, he needs to strongly clarify it. A written press release or a few words from his press secretary doesn’t cut it.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  94. 96.

    Trump’s statement really shows that the ongoing success of the country I love isn’t a priority for Trump.

    I could have told you that back in the 1990s when he was wading through bankruptcy court. Trump’s priority is TRUMP. Not Trump the man, but TRUMP the brand. And if it seems like he’s willing to entertain violence to maintain power (I don’t believe he is, but that’s certainly what it reasonably looks like), remember what his supporters say about him: “He fights.”

    Gryph (f63000)

  95. This afternoon after being asked whether he will commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses

    You know you linked to the actual words that were said and we can see that those were not the words, right? The reporter did not ask if Trump would agree to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses, in fact the reporter specifically asked “win, lose or draw” and followed that up with “after the election”. Why would Trump agree to a peaceful transfer of power if he wins the election?

    Jerryskids (702a61)

  96. @97, Does he fight? Or does he bluster? It seems like he fights a lot harder on twitter then in meatspace.

    @98, what an amazing parsing of the question that Trump clearly didn’t do.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  97. I think the bluster is also dangerous. It strengthens the idea that the system is broken and that ‘fairness’ can be restored if people just ‘fought’ harder. I makes it easier for a more competent leader to come in and do the strong man things Trump wants, but has been unable to do.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  98. “Or New Mexico (you should SEE the Trump signs).”

    – Kevin M

    LOL. Maybe in Rio Rancho.

    Leviticus (fb8982)

  99. Did no one pick up on the leading question…

    Q Mr. President, real quickly: Win, lose, or draw in this election, will you commit here, today, for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?

    whembly (c30c83)

  100. …edit, just goes to show I should read the whole thread before responding. Need some coffee…STAT!

    whembly (c30c83)

  101. Whembly is your theory that the question as asking him to commit to giving up power in the event he won? Doesn’t it seem more likely that “win lose or draw” was being used synonymously with “in the even that you lose…”

    Time123 (c9382b)

  102. I’m with you on this, Dana. My inclination is not to vote at all, because I really can’t stomach either one of these doddering fools. But things like this make me think I should just hold my nose and vote for crazy Uncle Joe (and use strong mouthwash afterward).

    Roger (a5bda3)

  103. @104

    Whembly is your theory that the question as asking him to commit to giving up power in the event he won? Doesn’t it seem more likely that “win lose or draw” was being used synonymously with “in the even that you lose…”

    Time123 (c9382b) — 9/24/2020 @ 7:05 am

    No. To me, “win, lose or draw” means that the outcome of the election doesn’t matter.

    Don’t get me wrong, its his boilerplate response about everything that constantly gets him in trouble.

    To me, this is another Rorschach test.

    whembly (c30c83)

  104. I don’t think it is…seems like a poorly worded question. But it doesn’t seem like there was confusion about what they were asking.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  105. @107 I’ve never understood “win, lose or draw” to be synonymous to “in the event that you lose”. That doesn’t make sense to me.

    Frankly, this doesn’t animate me much because the media, former Obama admin officials, Democrats and #NeverTrumper has never accepted that Trump legitimately won in 2016, and acted that way for the last 4 years.

    The simple fact is this: If Trump loses, his Presidency ends on Jan 21st. There’s nothing Trump can say/do to stop that.

    whembly (c30c83)

  106. @96: But the right thing for the country is for Trump and Biden to both express faith in our election process.

    Biden can’t even express faith in our grand juries:
    “In the wake of her tragic death, we mourn with her mother, family, and community and ask ourselves whether justice could be equally applied in America”

    beer ‘n pretzels (bfe6a2)

  107. Until the leftist Democrats commit to,and follow through with, a system that assures only confirmed legal votes count, why would anyone agree to abide by the reuslts of any election they have a role in?

    MJN1957 (0140eb)

  108. No. To me, “win, lose or draw” means that the outcome of the election doesn’t matter.

    ?

    the question was whether Trump is committed to the peaceful transition of power that he received from the Obama/Biden team when Trump won, if Trump loses. It’s putting aside whether this team or that team won, and if the principle of letting the voters decide a lawful result is more important than who wins.

    To almost everyone, the answer is a yes. It’s not a complex question requiring much analysis. It’s just yes.

    If you’re saying the reporter was asking Trump if he will give his office to Biden peacefully if Biden clearly loses, that is not what Trump’s answer was, nor is it what the reporter meant. Win, lose, or draw simply refers to any outcome.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  109. Democrats are claiming that unconfirmed illegal votes should be counted? Since when?

    Victor (661f31)

  110. Biden can’t even express faith in our grand juries:
    “In the wake of her tragic death, we mourn with her mother, family, and community and ask ourselves whether justice could be equally applied in America”

    beer ‘n pretzels (bfe6a2) — 9/24/2020 @ 7:41 am

    Biden is an idiot. He probably doesn’t understand how a grand jury works. Either that or he’s just pandering for votes.

    Hoi Polloi (093fb9)

  111. @107 I’ve never understood “win, lose or draw” to be synonymous to “in the event that you lose”. That doesn’t make sense to me.

    Win, lose or draw = Regardless of outcome.
    It’s sloppy to use it to mean ‘in the event you lose’. But commonly is because your actions in the event you win are obvious.

    Frankly, this doesn’t animate me much because the media, former Obama admin officials, Democrats and #NeverTrumper has never accepted that Trump legitimately won in 2016, and acted that way for the last 4 years.

    I’ve seen oppose him, which is to be expected. I’ve seen investigations about corrupt actions of his (i know we disagree here). But I haven’t seen them openly defy his authority and encourage other to do the same because he wasn’t the lawful president. I’m genuinely curious about what you mean here. Is it about rhetoric and respect?

    Time123 (b87ded)

  112. @96: But the right thing for the country is for Trump and Biden to both express faith in our election process.

    Biden can’t even express faith in our grand juries:
    “In the wake of her tragic death, we mourn with her mother, family, and community and ask ourselves whether justice could be equally applied in America”

    beer ‘n pretzels (bfe6a2) — 9/24/2020 @ 7:41 am

    I guess he’s one of the people who thinks the resolution of this situation doesn’t look like ‘justice’.

    But here’s what he didn’t say.
    -He didn’t say the grand jury was corrupt.
    -He didn’t say the process wasn’t followed.
    -He didn’t concoct an elaborate conspiracy without any proof.
    -He didn’t say our Criminal Justice system was controlled by a shadowy cabal.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  113. A terrorist who tried to blow up the capitil building in 1984, who was sprung by bill clinton, has extorted 2 billions from corporations as her war and propagandafund.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  114. Now that I think of it, there was a time on this here blog where just about every other post was a pointed jab at the “dog trainer”, NYT or any of a host of left wing rags. Now, they’re reliable sources. I can’t remember when the jabs stopped.

    Oh well, that was back before us fake conservatives changed so radically.

    I guess one way you could look at it, bnp, is that since Trump became the President, more often than not, once reliable conservative media outlets started carrying water for him while ignoring or trying to justify his corruption and dishonesty. Whiel there is no doubt that the NYT and WaPo, etc., have their biases, it is still possible to find good reporting. It is frequently necessary to corroborate it elsewhere or finding actual video of interviews or quotes used in posts. In other words, since so many once reliable right-leaning sources have thrown their lot in with Trump, those who haven’t and remain steadfastly committed to being as complete as possible have seen the job become that much more difficult.

    I want to mention too, that The Atlantic and other non-newspaper outlets have some great writers. However, they also have a few stinkers. It then becomes necessary to weed through to find the gold. But, if I were to go to The Federalist – which I once respected – the vast majority of the writers there are pro-Trump and the published material reflects that. Because it is single-minded in that way, I don’t go there anymore. They have shown their true colors, and I’m not interested.

    Dana (292df6)

  115. @116, up your dosage.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  116. What he said:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-peaceful-transition-hysteria/#pq=SGIbxD

    Not a single journalist or politician in hysterics on the social media right now — most of them having spent four straight years delegitimizing the presidency and the attacking constitutional order — actually believes Trump won’t leave office peacefully if he loses the election. It’s all an act. Trump, of course, gives his opposition endless ammunition to engage in these group fantasies with his reckless answers. For four years now every dumb tweet and comment turns from a legitimate opening for criticism of Trump into a hyperbolic Resistance fever dream about HITLER. The asymmetrical reaction is unbearably hypocritical. Democrats have spent weeks — years, really — contending that Trump simply can’t win the election legitimately. They claimed, without any genuine evidence, that he never won it in the first place. Hillary Clinton instructed Biden that he shouldn’t concede “under any circumstance.” In their “war games,” Democrats were happy to let the military decide the election after convincing governors to threaten secession. During the impeachment trial, Democrats argued that if Republicans didn’t remove the president, the 2020 seat was already stolen. So spare us the theatrics.

    whembly (c30c83)

  117. Why do they ask him these questions?

    To hope he says something that can be attacked? To get him to commit himself not to challenge any
    results? (which is not the same question)

    the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.

    This can’t e done, because the constitution says all electors must be appointed on the same day throughout the United States, That means, at a minimum, that the process in a given state cannot be changed after November 3, 2020.

    We do allow early voting both by mil and in person on the premise, I suppose that the act of voting does not take effect until Election Day, or that partial parts of the process can be done, but the process must be completed on Election Day. And we allow late arriving ballots on the grounds that the vote was already cast on Election Day – we just didn’t find out till later what it was.

    Now what Trump might push to have done is to have some states missing from the Electoral College on the grounds Electors were not appointed there on November 3.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  118. Thats the cold reality of things. You deny the transition integrity project, the ignore the firestorm fanned by the media, the way the dems have popped every surge protector.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  119. Biden campaign declared another “lid” today.

    This man is not physically able to handle the job of President. It’s really just that simple.

    whembly (c30c83)

  120. @107 I’ve never understood “win, lose or draw” to be synonymous to “in the event that you lose”. That doesn’t make sense to me.

    What do you understand this to mean?

    “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful, there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there will be a continuation,” Trump said.

    That was Trump’s response to the “win, lose or draw” question.” I.e. he will remain in power in any case — regardless of what the ballots say.

    Is it your position that we must apply the most exacting interpretive standards to a reporter’s question but it’s unfair to believe that Trump really meant what he said in response?

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  121. the vast majority of the writers there are pro-Trump and the published material reflects that. Because it is single-minded in that way, I don’t go there anymore. They have shown their true colors, and I’m not interested.

    The problem isn’t that they have a conservative POV, Tim Carney has that. The problem is that they’ve become dishonest in their reporting of facts.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  122. most of them having spent four straight years delegitimizing the presidency and the attacking constitutional order —

    What does this mean in practice? What have they been doing?

    Time123 (c9382b)

  123. “What have they been doing?”

    They’ve been saying that he’s not actually an American citizen and is ineligible for the position he holds.

    Oh wait, sorry, that was Trump regarding Obama.

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  124. @123

    What do you understand this to mean?

    “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful, there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there will be a continuation,” Trump said.

    That was Trump’s response to the “win, lose or draw” question.” I.e. he will remain in power in any case — regardless of what the ballots say.

    Is it your position that we must apply the most exacting interpretive standards to a reporter’s question but it’s unfair to believe that Trump really meant what he said in response?

    Radegunda (e1ea47) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:25 am

    I have no problem with Trump’s response.

    He’s reiterating his hobby horse about mail-in ballots, and assuming that he’ll win.

    whembly (c30c83)

  125. The atlantic promoted coates one of whose books was on the mantlepiece of the murderer of the dallas cops, it pushed another bogus police story just months ago.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  126. @125

    most of them having spent four straight years delegitimizing the presidency and the attacking constitutional order —

    What does this mean in practice? What have they been doing?

    Time123 (c9382b) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:27 am

    Are you kidding me? Please take a breath and think about this. Just take Trump out of the equation a bit, and really think about this.

    whembly (c30c83)

  127. Democrats have spent weeks — years, really — contending that Trump simply can’t win the election legitimately.

    Trump has been telling us that he simply cannot lose the election legitimately. But that doesn’t matter, I suppose. He’s only the president, and it would be wrong to take his words seriously.

    Trump, of course, gives his opposition endless ammunition to engage in these group fantasies with his reckless answers. For four years now every dumb tweet and comment turns from a legitimate opening for criticism of Trump into a hyperbolic Resistance.

    Meanwhile, the Always Trumpers and the anti-anti-Trumpers have seized on every bit of Dem hyperbole as a way of arguing that the no criticism of Trump is really legitimate. The more vile and absurd he is, the more indulgence he gets, because people keep criticizing him and poor Donald’s feelings are hurt.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  128. @115: But here’s what he didn’t say.

    Ah yes, great. He didn’t say that. Come to think of it, nobody of prominence did. So, yay, Biden exceeded some imaginary low bar.

    So, near as I can tell, you don’t have a problem with what he said about the grand jury. Let’s project that to a statement after an election loss:

    “In the wake of this tragic outcome, we ask ourselves whether fair elections are possible in America.”

    Sound great, Time123?

    beer ‘n pretzels (28100a)

  129. Like obama bringing the gas can in ferguson in baltimore, we see the bigger picture now.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  130. That was what kingman brewster said about the panther trial in new haven, where the latter tortured and killed alex rackley for reasons

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  131. Why do they ask him these questions?

    Well cynically, Trump often answers easy questions in terrible ways, creating no room for doubt or bias. This question is something Joe Biden will be able to answer in 20 years, easily, and it’s something a ten year old child could answer, easily. Trump’s answer, that no, he can’t commit to peacefully transitioning power at the end of the day, follows his ‘says something bad enough to get impeached every day’ pattern.

    Trump likes to poke the bear when asked easy questions, perhaps the way some kids like to have a shocking brilliant answer that’s outside the box. I think it’s a solid strategy to just ask Trump about the very foundational principles of right and wrong in government. It would be absurd to ask a normal president these questions (until now).

    We need to start seeing, big picture, that Dave’s quote of Allahpundit is a pretty good point. Tens of millions will abide a president who doesn’t submit to democracy (with the defense of dictators, that his opposition is never right or legitimate). Even a decisive loss doesn’t solve that, but it is absolutely necessary at this point.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  132. @125
    most of them having spent four straight years delegitimizing the presidency and the attacking constitutional order —
    What does this mean in practice? What have they been doing?

    Time123 (c9382b) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:27 am

    Are you kidding me? Please take a breath and think about this. Just take Trump out of the equation a bit, and really think about this.

    whembly (c30c83) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:34 am

    I see them trying to stop his policy goals, trying to harm him politically, and pushing that he be investigated for corrupt acts. That seems pretty normal.

    I’m asking what you see because I respect your opinion and honestly don’t understand. Unless this is just a new way to crank up the rhetoric.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  133. I saw this real-time. The question is being misunderstood and this is a dishonest framing.

    The the question was framed assuming there was going to be violence and implying that the only way to avoid it was for Trump to “transfer power”. This is more of the “if we don’t get what we want we’ll burn it down” nonsense.

    frosty (f27e97)

  134. I have no problem with Trump’s response.

    So: you believe it’s right for Trump to “continue” in power, “win, lose or draw.”
    Or at least you think it’s completely acceptable for Trump, as president, to declare that any fair election must necessarily make him the winner.

    I will interpret all your comments in light of that viewpoint.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  135. Oh wait, sorry, that was Trump regarding Obama

    A legitimate point of doubt, which came to an end in oh say 2011 as a result of proof. It only lives on in your head.

    People today, even here on this blog, still hold to Trump Russia collusion. If Trump wins, they’ll still hold to it until January 2025.

    beer ‘n pretzels (3aa1a1)

  136. Dustin (4237e0) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:39 am

    Trump’s answer, that no, he can’t commit to peacefully transitioning power at the end of the day, follows his ‘says something bad enough to get impeached every day’ pattern.

    But Trump didn’t “answer” that “no, he can’t commit to peacefully transitioning power”.

    What’s the point of lying about this when the quote is included in the post?

    frosty (f27e97)

  137. “A legitimate point of doubt, which came to an end in oh say 2011 as a result of proof. It only lives on in your head.”

    Are you seriously saying that birtherism ended in 2011?

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/411247268763676673

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  138. @115: But here’s what he didn’t say.

    Ah yes, great. He didn’t say that. Come to think of it, nobody of prominence did. So, yay, Biden exceeded some imaginary low bar.

    So, near as I can tell, you don’t have a problem with what he said about the grand jury. Let’s project that to a statement after an election loss:

    “In the wake of this tragic outcome, we ask ourselves whether fair elections are possible in America.”

    Sound great, Time123?

    beer ‘n pretzels (28100a) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:35 am

    I figured the parallel was obvious, but since you missed it I’ll spell it out.

    -He didn’t say the grand jury was corrupt.
    Trump said the election process was corrupt.
    -He didn’t say the process wasn’t followed.
    Trump said millions of people voted illegally.
    -He didn’t concoct an elaborate conspiracy without any proof.
    Trump has provided no evidence of these claims, despite spending millions looking for them.
    -He didn’t say our Criminal Justice system was controlled by a shadowy cabal.
    DEEP STATE…

    Further, if on Nov 4 we found some obvious tragedy (all the ballot records in Ohio are destroyed for instance) I think the situation will be different. But nothing like that has happened yet.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  139. Oh my, Davethulhu, I didn’t research that. So, it’s a seven year old concern of yours instead of a nine year old. My bad.

    beer ‘n pretzels (ff0e11)

  140. To quote Sam Spade as played by Humphrey Bogart: “I don’t mind a reasonable amount of trouble”, if the result is Mussolining the corrupt criminal traitor and his corrupt kith and kin. And that is what will happen, if he loses the official count and does not go away quietly.

    But it will not come to that. Trump is a coward. He’ll bluff, bluster, cry, and whine, and slink off with his tail between his legs.

    nk (1d9030)

  141. I saw this real-time. The question is being misunderstood and this is a dishonest framing.

    The question was posed after Trump had repeatedly declared that the only way he could possibly lose the upcoming election is by massive fraud, and that the election probably will be fraudulent.
    It was also after he (or at least his spokesmouth) had already hedged on a straightforward question of whether he would accept the election results.

    Trump himself made this a legitimate issue of concern.

    And again: if being dishonest is bad, why does Trump always get a pass? If it’s wrong to “misunderstand,” why do Trump defenders so often insist that his words should not be taken literally? Do they have the secret decoder ring for Trump-speak?

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  142. “Oh my, Davethulhu, I didn’t research that.”

    Gosh, imagine my surprise.

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  143. Time123 (b87ded) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:09 am

    But here’s what he didn’t say.
    -He didn’t say the grand jury was corrupt.
    -He didn’t say the process wasn’t followed.
    -He didn’t concoct an elaborate conspiracy without any proof.
    -He didn’t say our Criminal Justice system was controlled by a shadowy cabal.

    He didn’t cndemn the demonstrations, and especially he leaders, as attempting to pervert justice. He didn;t say they were wrong, and they should at least be ashamed of themselves. And if they got what they wanted any convicted policemen would have a good grounds for overturning the verdict.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheppard_v._Maxwell

    hat is different than arguing that perhaps the authorities in Louisville should have been more disturbed by the outcome of the raid, and you could argue that was because they felt that nobody they knew lived anywhere near there and neither did they feel that anybody important lived there.

    The police did nothing wrong. They only fired when firedd upon. Maybe the people who obtained the warrant did and they weren’t thinking

    The situtation was they were goin after a big drug dealer. This drug deaker had been in the habit f receiving opackages at other addresses. he search warrant called for raiding all of them and seizing any contraband.

    Now as to Brianna Taylor the information was out of date. She was no longer his girlfriend. Even if she had been there would ave been no more than one or two packages there waiting for him to get and there was no need for tis no-knock raid.

    Her new boyrriend did not think “Oh, no need to worry, it’s the police!” when he saw that someone was trying to break in. He thought it was his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend, maybe with members of his gang. Something may have indicated to him the situation was dangerous and he fired one bullet through the door without determining what it was (if I am right)

    He may have been wrong to do so but they let him go partially because of pressure and partially because in Kentucky a person has the right to use lethal force against a break-in.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  144. I would have said “Y’all think that Louisville picks its prosecutors and grand jurors any better than it picks its cops?”, but I guess that’s why I’ve never been elected to anything.

    nk (1d9030)

  145. He already tried to cheat an election once, involving Ukraine, and got away with it. Of course he’s going to try to cheat it again.

    Paul Montagu (39c87e)

  146. @142: Time123, you’re avoiding simply saying whether you like what Biden said about the jury decision.

    As for the statements you attribute to Trump, you don’t provide links, but it sounds like things he said in response to attempts to sow doubt about the 2016 result, or to change the result through impeachment. In which case, these are simply the whirlwind that was reaped by others you won’t call out.

    beer ‘n pretzels (69efb6)

  147. Youre still chasing that rabbit

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1308846309311471624

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  148. Trump is a coward. He’ll bluff, bluster, cry, and whine, and slink off with his tail between his legs

    I think you’re right. That’s one reason why the Hitlerian analogies have always been misguided.
    Trump openly admires the tough guys who put down opposition brutally. He admires Kim Jong Un, for goodness’ sake, He would like to be an all-powerful dictator like Kim:

    “He’s the head of a country, and I mean, he’s the strong head, don’t let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”

    He doesn’t hesitate to abuse power or hurt people for his own benefit. And there’s ample reason to get him out of power ASAP. But he’s unlikely to put much at risk to hang onto it.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  149. Wanton endangerment that directly causes the death of a person is either involuntary manslaughter or murder, depending on the degree of depravity (I would say involuntary manslaughter here), so, yeah, that indictment sucks big chitlins. Fried in pork fat. With grits.

    nk (1d9030)

  150. But Trump didn’t “answer” that “no, he can’t commit to peacefully transitioning power”.

    What’s the point of lying about this when the quote is included in the post?

    frosty (f27e97) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:43 am

    It’s not lying. Trump simply is a babbling moron. I’m not obligated to babble when pointing out that Trump’s answer was obviously a no. A ‘we’re going to have to see’ when asked if you agree with peaceful transitions of power, and a bunch of babble, that’s actually crystal clear.

    That’s why Trump’s gotta go.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  151. The “context” video doesn’t really give the context, which is this:

    Reporter: “Win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit, here today, for a peaceful transferal of power after the election? There’s been rioting in many cities across this country. Would you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferal of power after the election?”

    It’s a badly worded question which literally asks if Trump will commit to a transfer of power even if he wins or there’s a “draw” (which would presumably send it to the House). The digression about rioting is also off-topic and confusing; can Trump commit to a “peaceful” status for the country given that riots are not peaceful?

    David Pittelli (9b8381)

  152. Radegunda (e1ea47) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:55 am

    And again: if being dishonest is bad, why does Trump always get a pass?

    Admitting that you being dishonest is a good first step. Before it was called “whataboutism” the rule was two wrongs don’t make a right.

    But before you can get to that, if you’re being dishonest in your initial claim it undermines the claim. This used to be common knowledge but here we are. Why don’t Trumpers just agree with you? I’ll ask a different question. Why do anti-Trumpers have to be dishonest and after being so dishonest for so long why are they surprised when people dismiss their arguments?

    frosty (f27e97)

  153. Now this drooling corrupt with the coked up son taking bribes from chinese oligarchs and the wife of moscows mayor thats who youre riding shotgun with with alngela davis and bob avakian on the running boards

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  154. I would have said “Y’all think that Louisville picks its prosecutors and grand jurors any better than it picks its cops?”, but I guess that’s why I’ve never been elected to anything.

    nk (1d9030) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:01 am

    Blows my mind they would serve a warrant with their bodycams off. That they would choose to knock on a no-knock warrant, and have no real way to show it. Or that a no-knock warrant, or a warrant service, would be better for the city if there’s not something urgent at stake.

    The vast gulf between reckless and murder is lost on the folks calling to burn Louisville down, though.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  155. nk (1d9030) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:12 am

    Wanton endangerment that directly causes the death of a person is either involuntary manslaughter or murder, depending on the degree of depravity (I would say involuntary manslaughter here), so, yeah, that indictment sucks big chitlins. Fried in pork fat. With grits.

    The wanton endangerment charge wasn’t related to action that directly or indirectly caused the death of anyone. But I suspect you know that already.

    frosty (f27e97)

  156. @142: Time123, you’re avoiding simply saying whether you like what Biden said about the jury decision.

    As for the statements you attribute to Trump, you don’t provide links, but it sounds like things he said in response to attempts to sow doubt about the 2016 result, or to change the result through impeachment. In which case, these are simply the whirlwind that was reaped by others you won’t call out.

    beer ‘n pretzels (69efb6) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:06 am

    Didn’t know you were looking for my take on that. Happy to provide it.

    I do not think that Breona Taylor got justice. IANAL and don’t know due process was followed by this resolution doesn’t look like Justice to me.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  157. @136

    I see them trying to stop his policy goals, trying to harm him politically, and pushing that he be investigated for corrupt acts. That seems pretty normal.

    I’m asking what you see because I respect your opinion and honestly don’t understand. Unless this is just a new way to crank up the rhetoric.

    Time123 (c9382b) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:40 am

    When the media outright lies about Trump, particularly applying the thin veneer of “sources says” and later was debunked…they’re undermining any ounce of credibility such that when they report on actual legit issues on Trump, it’s get lost in the shuffle because of #FakeNews. Originally, I hated that mantra as I thought it was overwrought, but now? It’s a moniker well earned and I’m a fervent believer now that most journalists are advocates.

    When you have holdover officials of previous administrations participating in #Resistance “because Trump!”, abusing their office to try to criminalize politics…the cancer will spread. I know you don’t think Crossfire Hurricaine is an abuse of power, but what it does is opens doors to let the opposition party investigate their opponent on thinly veiled suspicion. Here’s why it’s bad: Not all gutter politics breaks criminal law. Gutter politics is part and parcel of politics, and to try to criminalize politics would do lasting damage that would be extremely difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.

    Would you support the FBI opening up the same sort of investigation on Hunter Biden recieving $3.5 million dollars from a Russian oligarch (former wife of Mayor of Moscow)??? That’s hinky as all fuck, and those who absolutely lost the minds over the Trump Tower meeting, which amounted to nothing, don’t get to hand wave this.

    When you have a political party who trivialize the impeachment process, breaking norms in effort to politically harm your opponent, not out of sincere desire of oversight…you’re opening the barn door for response in the future.

    When you have the opposition party inviting the AG for an oversight hearing, but refusing him time to respond all because the opposition party would rather score political points instead of actually doing oversight stuff… such that, now the DOJ refuses any further cooperation in future hearings.

    The Kavanaugh hearing was beyond disgusting that will forevermore be that “rallying cry” for GOP to flex their muscle. 1000x more prominent than “what about Garland?”.

    The number of national injunctions by liberal leaning courts should tell you something. Lawfare has been turned to 11 in recent years.

    Post inauguration 2016 there were actual riots, not peaceful protests. How is any of that normal?

    These are the things I’m talking about, particularly my animus are reserved to those who’s willing to throw any any/all principles just to get Trump. That is, the end justifies the means.
    I’m here to tell you, be careful what you wish for… because, the other side gets a chance too at some point.

    whembly (c30c83)

  158. It’s a badly worded question which literally asks if Trump will commit to a transfer of power even if he wins or there’s a “draw” (which would presumably send it to the House).

    This very odd argument is being repeated by a lot of people, suddenly. No one really believes the reporter was asking Trump to give Biden the White House if Biden loses. The same people parroting the aggressively dishonest talking point will claim 80 percent of the people talking about this are dishonest.

    Nope. Stop carrying water for the people destroying your country. Trump was asked if he supports democracy, the peaceful transition of power the Obama/Biden team showed Trump (which is hardly more than their basic obligation). Trump said no. We can pretend he didn’t say no. We can pretend the question was something it wasn’t. We can muddy the waters again and again.

    Or we can remove the cancer.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  159. “The wanton endangerment charge wasn’t related to action that directly or indirectly caused the death of anyone. But I suspect you know that already.”

    The bullets blindly fired into another apartment were bad, but the ones blindly fired into Breonna’s apartment were good.

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  160. The wanton endangerment charge wasn’t related to action that directly or indirectly caused the death of anyone. But I suspect you know that already.

    No, I don’t. I am not a Trumpkin, I don’t say things I know are not true.

    nk (1d9030)

  161. Aw… crud… my lost post stuck in moderation due to swear word. My bad. Here’s my post w/o it:

    @1

    36
    I see them trying to stop his policy goals, trying to harm him politically, and pushing that he be investigated for corrupt acts. That seems pretty normal.
    I’m asking what you see because I respect your opinion and honestly don’t understand. Unless this is just a new way to crank up the rhetoric.

    Time123 (c9382b) — 9/24/2020 @ 8:40 am

    When the media outright lies about Trump, particularly applying the thin veneer of “sources says” and later was debunked…they’re undermining any ounce of credibility such that when they report on actual legit issues on Trump, it’s get lost in the shuffle because of #FakeNews. Originally, I hated that mantra as I thought it was overwrought, but now? It’s a moniker well earned and I’m a fervent believer now that most journalists are advocates.

    When you have holdover officials of previous administrations participating in #Resistance “because Trump!”, abusing their office to try to criminalize politics…the cancer will spread. I know you don’t think Crossfire Hurricaine is an abuse of power, but what it does is opens doors to let the opposition party investigate their opponent on thinly veiled suspicion. Here’s why it’s bad: Not all gutter politics breaks criminal law. Gutter politics is part and parcel of politics, and to try to criminalize politics would do lasting damage that would be extremely difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.

    Would you support the FBI opening up the same sort of investigation on Hunter Biden recieving $3.5 million dollars from a Russian oligarch (former wife of Mayor of Moscow)??? That’s hinky as all heck, and those who absolutely lost the minds over the Trump Tower meeting, which amounted to nothing, don’t get to hand wave this.

    When you have a political party who trivialize the impeachment process, breaking norms in effort to politically harm your opponent, not out of sincere desire of oversight…you’re opening the barn door for response in the future.

    When you have the opposition party inviting the AG for an oversight hearing, but refusing him time to respond all because the opposition party would rather score political points instead of actually doing oversight stuff… such that, now the DOJ refuses any further cooperation in future hearings.

    The Kavanaugh hearing was beyond disgusting that will forevermore be that “rallying cry” for GOP to flex their muscle. 1000x more prominent than “what about Garland?”.

    The number of national injunctions by liberal leaning courts should tell you something. Lawfare has been turned to 11 in recent years.

    Post inauguration 2016 there were actual riots, not peaceful protests. How is any of that normal?

    These are the things I’m talking about, particularly my animus are reserved to those who’s willing to throw any any/all principles just to get Trump. That is, the end justifies the means.
    I’m here to tell you, be careful what you wish for… because, the other side gets a chance too at some point.

    whembly (c30c83)

  162. The bullets blindly fired into another apartment were bad, but the ones blindly fired into Breonna’s apartment were good.

    One apartment was pumping bullets at officers, and one apartment wasn’t. Amazing how that works.

    beer ‘n pretzels (bfe6a2)

  163. If I randomly shoot my gun into a room where I know people are, without specifically intending to kill them, that’s common law murder.

    If I get a warrant that could easily go wrong, and it does go wrong, that’s just not the same level of depravity. The fact that innocent people can and do die because of poor warrant service should factor into what the cops did. And in my view, the lack of camera footage these days weighs heavily against them, though couldn’t prove much. Even without the BLM movement, what happened to Ms. Taylor should piss everyone off, everyone in the chain of command of those cops, the judge who signed the warrant, they should all have no career, the same way a Naval captain has no career after his ship hits another ship.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  164. Thank you, Davethulhu. So they went that far to “Klan lynching” whitewash it. Let them enjoy it while they can. Trump getting reelected will protect them from federal prosecution for four more years, but there’s no statute of limitations for homicide.

    nk (1d9030)

  165. Dustin (4237e0) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:14 am

    Here’s your original quote:

    Trump’s answer, that no, he can’t commit to peacefully transitioning power at the end of the day

    But now?

    It’s not lying. Trump simply is a babbling moron. I’m not obligated to babble when pointing out that Trump’s answer was obviously a no.

    It’s only “obviously a no” to people who need their regular rage fix.

    frosty (f27e97)

  166. “One apartment was pumping bullets at officers”

    At an unidentified intruder. And one shot is not “pumping”.

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  167. they knew who the cops were, they weren’t an undercover unit, like when civilians get caught in a drone strike, where terrorists are hiding,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  168. “they knew who the cops were”

    No they didn’t.

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  169. Davethulhu (07bb18) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:24 am

    The bullets blindly fired into another apartment were bad, but the ones blindly fired into Breonna’s apartment were good.

    What is it with the lies on top of lies. Mattingly and Cosgrove had clear line of sight at what they were shooting at. I’m saying saying they were “good” shots but the lies around this are ridiculous.

    frosty (f27e97)

  170. Wanted to be more clear

    I do not think that Breona Taylor got justice. IANAL and don’t know for sure, but i expect due process was followed. But this resolution doesn’t look like justice to me.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  171. “What is it with the lies on top of lies. Mattingly and Cosgrove had clear line of sight at what they were shooting at. ”

    So they deliberately shot Breonna 5 times?

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  172. nk (1d9030) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:25 am

    No, I don’t. I am not a Trumpkin, I don’t say things I know are not true.

    Then that leaves uninformed or willfully blind.

    frosty (f27e97)

  173. It’s only “obviously a no” to people who need their regular rage fix.

    frosty (f27e97) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:29 am

    Actually it’s crystal clear that Trump’s answer was no. He was asked a very simple question. Regardless of election outcome, peaceful transitions right? His answer was to freak out and say ‘not so fast, we don’t know’

    When asked ‘do you commit’ and your answer is ‘well maybe I don’t’ there is only one logical answer to whether you are committing.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  174. Even under UCMJ goals, military discipline, competence, and effectiveness, this sucks. These “civilians [] caught in a drone strike” were not enemy non-combatants in a war zone. They were American civilians, on American soil, theoretically these cops’ bosses.

    Actually, there’s no military analogy at all, here.

    nk (1d9030)

  175. Now this drooling corrupt with the coked up son taking bribes from chinese oligarchs and the wife of moscows mayor thats who youre riding shotgun with with alngela davis and bob avakian on the running boards

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:17 am

    Why “now” though? You’re right. These are really late october surprise scandals. They make Joe Biden’s kiddo look like a whoremongering traitor. Why would we only hear about this right before the election? Can we trust this kind of information?

    Like all good lies, this one is rooted in truth, so to many Team R guys, it doesn’t matter. Hunter was being paid lots of cash because of who his dad was, therefore all scandals about him are now accepted.

    I’m only surprised it’s not darker. But it’s coming. By election day, Joe Biden will be accused of something out of the old testament.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  176. frosty, you are the lucid light in my darkness. Bless your heart!

    nk (1d9030)

  177. @173: Time123, I guess that’s a fine statement to make from where you sit, but for a national leader it’s destined to be interpreted by many as a sanction for riots, looting and violence.

    I think if Trump makes a similar statement regarding an election loss, 100% chance you will be calling him out.

    beer ‘n pretzels (5de2d9)

  178. Whembly. Thank you for explaining what you meant. I know it took some time to write that and I appreciate it. If you’re interested I can explain where I disagree, but i wasn’t trying to have you spell something out so i could argue with you.

    You did ask a few questions and I’ll try and answer.

    Would you support the FBI opening up the same sort of investigation on Hunter Biden recieving $3.5 million dollars from a Russian oligarch (former wife of Mayor of Moscow)???

    Yes, if there’s reason to believe it broke US law, or has an impact on national security I would have no problem with an FBI investigation. It clearly looks corrupt. Haven’t seen evidence that it was illegal. Didn’t see evidence of specific crimes in the recent senate report. But I think it would be great if the FBI regularly looked into the business practices of under qualified & over paid family members of high ranking government officials.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  179. @173: Time123, I guess that’s a fine statement to make from where you sit, but for a national leader it’s destined to be interpreted by many as a sanction for riots, looting and violence.

    I think if Trump makes a similar statement regarding an election loss, 100% chance you will be calling him out.

    beer ‘n pretzels (5de2d9) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:47 am

    He’s the president and the question was about the election results. Had he said “The US runs free and fair elections. Unless there’s some serious and obvious wrong doing, like Ohio doesn’t get to vote, I will of course accept the results.” I wouldn’t object.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  180. Frosty, don’t forget that Trump was even given a second chance in a follow up. I know he’s incredibly stupid, but if he had any awareness at all, he had every chance to commit to peaceful transitions of power.

    So the analysis is simple. Is Trump obligated to state his commitment to this concept? Did Trump do so, or did he decline to commit?

    Yes, Trump’s oath of office, the constitution, centuries of common sense, they all show Trump is actually obligated, required, must be committed to peaceful transitions of power. He doesn’t have a choice in the matter, if he is a lawful president. He swore an oath to uphold this stuff.

    And no, Trump did not commit. His answer can only be honestly interpreted as a refusal to commit, and even on follow up, Trump refused to do what he was obligated to do.

    He broke his word. That sounds like a minor thing for this person, but in this case he must be impeached, right now, the GOP must remove him from office, right now. Trump is a cancer. Defending him is making the right worse every day, and opposing him is making the left worse every day.

    This is a loser who didn’t even win the support of most voters against Hillary of all people. He lost our choice by millions, winning because the rules say so, and despite this slap in the face, he got power peacefully, then refuses to commit to the same adherence to our rules that benefited Trump in overriding the will of the American voter.

    Trump is a cancer and should be removed from office today. No one should vote for him.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  181. Great link, GG. I tend to agree. Trump seems incapable of coherent thoughts or speech, so this may not mean much compared to what it would signal if any other modern Presidents had said it.

    It is gratifying to me when people are willing to parse, dissect and analyze the meaning of a reporter’s words and hold him accountable. That is how political discussions and self-governing societies should work. It is disappointing when people are unwilling to hold Trump to the same standard.

    DRJ (aede82)

  182. Davethulhu (07bb18) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:38 am

    So they deliberately shot Breonna 5 times?

    Yes, they deliberatly shot her 6 times. No one is asserting that the officers who shot Taylor unknowningly, negligently, or recklessly discharged their weapons. The wanton endangerment charge is for the guy who shot into covered windows, i.e. he couldn’t see what he was shooting at. But at this point you’re just deliberatly twisting words and attaching a context that isn’t honest or accurate.

    I’ve been outspoken on no-knock warrants. But the Taylor situation is of a kind with the other things BLM has latched on to. There are lies on top of lies that are being used to push things out of control.

    Davethulhu (07bb18) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:35 am

    No they didn’t.

    The witness testimony is that the cops knocked and announced themselves. On the other hand the boyfriend is making claims about his state of mind at the time? Are the reasonable? I don’t know and I don’t think you do either. We’d need more facts, aka those things you are doing your best to ignore.

    frosty (f27e97)

  183. “Yes, they deliberatly shot her 6 times. No one is asserting that the officers who shot Taylor unknowningly, negligently, or recklessly discharged their weapons.”

    Actually, a lot of people are. That’s why there’s a protest. Based on your scenario, the cops had eyes on an unarmed person (Breonna) and still shot her 5 times.

    “The witness testimony is that the cops knocked and announced themselves. ”

    One witness’s testimony. Eleven others said they didn’t hear anything.

    “On the other hand the boyfriend is making claims about his state of mind at the time? ”

    “I don’t know what’s happening,” Mr. Walker said on a recorded call to 911. “Someone kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend.”

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  184. Dustin (4237e0) — 9/24/2020 @ 10:01 am

    Bold claims need solid support. The notion that any POTUS would resist being removed “by force” is a bold claim. Supporting that claim with “but Trump” and “he didn’t not say he wouldn’t resist by force” isn’t support. It’s a vivid imagination.

    That sounds like a minor thing for this person, but in this case he must be impeached, right now, the GOP must remove him from office, right now.

    A reasonable reading of that conversation would be that it was about contesting the results. Who doesn’t think both sides will contest something odd. But you can’t setup these rage bait situations by asking whether Trump will challenge something like FL in 2000 because any reasonable candidate would. He didn’t “answer the question” so he needs to be impeached? Are you listening to yourself?

    He lost our choice by millions, winning because the rules say so, and despite this slap in the face

    Because the rules say so? Rules like the Constitution and US Code? It’s a slap in the face that Trump became POTUS like every other POTUS? Again, are you listenging to yourself? You’ve built a house of cards. This slap in the face depends on your “honest” interpretation of an answer asked at a press conference and rests completly on “but Trump”.

    Let’s play this out though. How do you expect Trump to resist by force? Is he going to grab a Secret Service agent’s sidearm and pull a Blazing Saddles? You think the Marines are going to start shooting people?

    frosty (f27e97)

  185. I took a really oddball course where we got into the weeds of why computers use binary code. I thought it was because 1s and 0s have useful logic. True or false.

    But my professor (an NSA programmer who was honestly incredible but never once mentioned the law, even though this was a law class) thought it was mostly because 1s and 0s are mechanically convenient. If a 12 volt computer gets .0032 volts, that’s zero. If it gets 13.20 volts, that’s one. Binary choice turns the imprecision of an object in the real world into precision in software, over and over again.

    It’s the same way with Trump’s answer to this question. There is no ‘maybe’ when asked if you commit to something.

    Trump’s getting way too much benefit of the doubt because he rambled. He is a ‘no’ on his own oath of office.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  186. Davethulhu (07bb18) — 9/24/2020 @ 10:17 am

    Actually, a lot of people are. That’s why there’s a protest.

    A lot of people who don’t seem to understand the legal context of words like deliberate, with knowledge, negligent, and reckless. You are correct, I should have chosen my words more carefully.

    Based on your scenario, the cops had eyes on an unarmed person (Breonna) and still shot her 5 times.

    More lying and word twisting. I didn’t say the cops knew Taylor was unarmed and I’m not saying they intentionally shot an unarmed person.

    frosty (f27e97)

  187. oh it was brian karem, the playboy reporter who was ‘white knighting’ miss treeple, who came up wth the question,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  188. 88. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/23/2020 @ 11:41 pm

    I expect the city to settle with Breonna’s family, as it was their screwup,

    They already did last week.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/city-louisville-reaches-settlement-breonna-taylor-s-family-n1240115

    City of Louisville reaches $12 million settlement with Breonna Taylor’s family

    “As significant as today is,” said Breonna Taylor’s mother, Tamika Palmer, “it’s only the beginning of getting full justice for Breonna.”

    I also heard on the radio (from Curtis Sliwa) that a confidential informant they reliedo had also told them there was all kinds of drugs (and money or gold?) in her apartment.

    They found nothing.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  189. There was all kinds of wrong information (about people injured) entered into official records at the time of the incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor

    The police filed an incident report that claimed that Taylor had no injuries and that no forced entry occurred. The police department said that technical errors led to a nearly entirely blank malformed report.[24]

    Footnote 24 is this:

    https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2020/06/10/breonna-taylor-shooting-louisville-police-release-incident-report/5332915002

    The four-page report [as released to the public in June] lists the time, date, case number, incident location and the victim’s name — Breonna Shaquelle Taylor — as well as the fact that she is a 26-year-old black female.

    But it redacts Taylor’s street number, apartment number and date of birth — all of which have been widely reported.

    And it lists her injuries as “none,” even though she was shot at least eight times and died on her hallway floor in a pool of blood, according to attorneys for her family.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  190. as usual you need to check what they left out,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  191. > Not a single journalist or politician in hysterics on the social media right now — most of them having spent four straight years delegitimizing the presidency and the attacking constitutional order — actually believes Trump won’t leave office peacefully if he loses the election.

    The author knows people don’t believe this *how*?

    To be clear here, a large percentage of my social circle *does* believe this — Trump has shown a complete lack of interest in either the rule of law or in political norms. Why would he change now?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  192. Funny observation from Twitter: if we can’t manage a peaceful transfer, how about a “mostly peaceful” transfer?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  193. 93% of transfers of power in America are peaceful!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  194. Trump is a cancer and should be removed from office today. No one should vote for him.

    I think this it up perfectly.

    Dave (1bb933)

  195. If the voters vote in Biden, then in the unlikely (I still think it unlikely) event that Trump refuses to leave and has to be removed by force, the next stop should be a detention facility.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  196. Patterico, is it binary? If a 1 member of the dirtbag left/right get pissed and throw rocks at the courthouse in Portland/Boise after the election was there violent resistance?

    Time123 (b87ded)

  197. the next stop should be a detention facility

    I hope he reaches for something that looks like a weapon.

    Dave (1bb933)

  198. If a 1 member of the dirtbag left/right get pissed and throw rocks at the courthouse in Portland/Boise after the election was there violent resistance?

    We already know that if one cop makes a bad choice that means there’s systemic racism.

    beer ‘n pretzels (eb4086)

  199. Dave (1bb933) — 9/24/2020 @ 1:07 pm

    the next stop should be a detention facility

    I hope he reaches for something that looks like a weapon.

    Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

    frosty (f27e97)

  200. @203. No. If the system fails to hold that officer accountable in a way there prevents further harm, and does so on a broad basis there is systemic problem. If a racial minority is disproportionately impacted by that it could be called systemic racism.

    Time123 (36651d)

  201. Patterico (115b1f) — 9/24/2020 @ 12:45 pm

    Funny observation from Twitter: if we can’t manage a peaceful transfer, how about a “mostly peaceful” transfer?

    The mostly peaceful protestors have shot two cops in KY. Does that make any of this mostly funny?

    frosty (f27e97)

  202. Patterico:

    93% of transfers of power in America are peaceful!

    91% There have been 44 transfers of power and 4 assassinations (though not by the people who gained power, and that includes 1963, because if the Texas theory is correct, LBJ was not in on it and neither was Governor John Connally, but only the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Texas Democratic Party Eugene Locke. (and the man did not originally rest on Oswald – fooling him into thinking he was working for the KGB)

    If you include the transfer of power from President Buchanan to President Lincoln as one that was not peaceful we would have 88.6%

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  203. He lost our choice by millions, winning because the rules say so, and despite this slap in the face, he got power peacefully, then refuses to commit to the same adherence to our rules that benefited Trump in overriding the will of the American voter.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 9/24/2020 @ 10:01 am

    I have italicized the important parts (for my purposes) of this deeply, deeply misguided passage.

    I have argued previously on this forum about “the will of the American voter.” It is a nonsense phrase. When taken as an aggregate, the American voter wants low taxes and high spending. He wants unbridled liberty and cradle-to-grave security. He wants the State to leave him alone, but is happy to sic the State on his opponents. And every few years, like clockwork, he hands the mechanisms of government over to whichever group of people has recently aggravated him less. To whatever extent “the will of the American voter” exists, it is a schizophrenic will, beset by dissociative identity disorder. It is Legion.

    Fortunately for all of us, “the will of the American voter” does not pick the president. It never has. The members of the Electoral College do that. And although they may be selected by the votes of the people, that’s a distinction with a real difference to it. Because perhaps, just perhaps, the members of the Electoral College will one day find themselves facing an unpleasant choice between obeying the will of the people (such as it is) and overriding it for the sake of the people (such as they are), lest we reap what we have sown. That may have been made more difficult by the Supreme Court this year, but if the opportunity ever arises, they will hopefully be both able and willing to do it.

    Of course, once they do, “the will of the American voter” will redesign the process to insist on a national popular vote, which will leave absolutely no barrier between the single most powerful position on Earth and the schizophrenic, dissociative will of a decaying and trifling people. At which point we might as well just pack up the whole federalist experiment, form a unitary nation, designate the states as super-counties, and slide finally into King Mob’s gaping maw.

    Hopefully, we’ll still have enough substance left to be a hearty meal…

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  204. The mostly peaceful protestors have shot two cops in KY. Does that make any of this mostly funny?

    Not remotely. I’m sorry you mistook sardonic humor directed at those minimizing the violence of the protests, and misunderstood it as making light of the protests. It’s confusing to me how someone could mistake my meaning so badly, since my opinions of the protests and the rioters is well known, but I guess I should get used to being misunderstood if I’m going to continue to be on this here Interwebz.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  205. 91% There have been 44 transfers of power and 4 assassinations (though not by the people who gained power, and that includes 1963, because if the Texas theory is correct, LBJ was not in on it and neither was Governor John Connally, but only the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Texas Democratic Party Eugene Locke. (and the man did not originally rest on Oswald – fooling him into thinking he was working for the KGB)

    If you include the transfer of power from President Buchanan to President Lincoln as one that was not peaceful we would have 88.6%

    Sometimes I think I’m too prone to interpreting stuff in a hyperliteral and humorless manner but then I see a comment by Sammy and I feel better again

    Patterico (115b1f)

  206. Maybe I misunderstood frosty, on reflection, and “mostly funny” means “not funny” the way “mostly peaceful” means “not peaceful.”

    NOW who’s being hyperliteral and humorless PATTERICO?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  207. You dont seem to get it, who is on the side of the rioters who are planning to intervene the military into the election as a result of the chaos they are planning the province of the like of creamer and i dont have to spell it out any further

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  208. Mr Trump, the TV celebrity, could have said he would follow the good example of TV Celebrity Al Franken. Whatever the outcome of the initial count — re-appraise the ABSENTEE ballots and bring in the ones you like. Make sure the felons’ votes are counted. And if it takes from November to the following July, well, that’s just what it takes to ensure the integrity of the election process.

    pouncer (b0e023)

  209. Little doubt Twitter is a funny medium.

    Mostly.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  210. “the will of the American voter.” It is a nonsense phrase.

    It is not. Most Americans rejected Trump. Our system permits most voters to be overridden by the electoral college. It’s not unfair, necessarily, but it is a simple fact that most voters rejected Trump.

    This is relevant to my point, which you completely ignored for some reason and I won’t repeat beyond saying if Trump benefits from this kind of law, and gets a peaceful transition of power despite most the voters saying they don’t want him to be president, it’s really something that he’s feeling entitled to ‘maybe we won’t’ ing such a transition in the future.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  211. Look! No canes! No walker!!

    Trump dancing to ‘Y-M-c-A’ as Jacksonville rally ends. It’s nice to see a candidate acting alive.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  212. Yes the folks who give us harris and newsom, schumer and cuomo.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  213. Trump has not been funny, “funny ha-ha” that is, for a while.

    nk (1d9030)

  214. You need to be to get through this acme products level idiocy.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  215. Speaking of peaceful….

    Ian Miles Cheong
    @stillgray
    ·
    Seattle police released these photos of a cracked helmet belonging to the police officer who was viciously attacked with a baseball bat tonight by Black Lives Matter and Antifa militants during a riot.
    __ _

    Nightglider
    @_Nightglider
    ·
    Thats not a pool noodle. Thats a baseball bat. A METAL Baseball bat. Had that cop not had a helmet, that would a cracked his skull – He’d be dead. This is legitimately attempted murder.
    __ _

    Chris Fergen
    @ChrisFergen
    ·
    Thank god for the helmet!! Hopefully the feds catch that guy instead of local police….
    __ _

    Michael Watson
    @watsonmd
    .
    @brianstelter more of those “mostly” peaceful protests your network promotes. Will we see this video on @AC360 or @CuomoPrimeTime by chance?
    __ _

    Alex Panthea Flag of Greece Flag of Cyprus
    @realAlexPanthea
    ·
    Remember a few months ago when police and national guard were kneeling with blm, how did that turn out?
    __ _

    DorseyIsAClownAssBeeyatch
    @DorseeM
    .
    Children of the high fructose corn syrup

    _

    harkin (886e13)

  216. About as well as rose and finn meeting up with dj not well

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  217. I did not and will not vote for him. Calm down.
    @jtLOL

    Here’s the video she posted. Lefties hounded her into taking it down because they don’t want anybody to get arrested for trying to kill people.
    __ _

    I did not and will not vote for him. Calm down.
    @jtLOL
    ·
    The reporter who posted the video of the Antifa guy smashing the cop in the head with an aluminum bat has deleted her account.

    __ _

    Nothing new about that. Antifa has been threatening people with cameras for months.
    _

    harkin (fabd28)

  218. Sometimes I think I’m too prone to interpreting stuff in a hyperliteral and humorless manner but then I see a comment by Sammy and I feel better again

    Indeed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  219. LOL. Maybe in Rio Rancho.

    Maybe anywhere outside of ABQ south of 40 or Santa Fe.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  220. Everyone seems to ignore that Trump’s quote was NOT to the question that people say was asked. Dana, too:

    This afternoon after being asked whether he will commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses:

    This was not the question he was asked.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  221. 91% There have been 44 transfers of power and 4 assassinations (though not by the people who gained power, and that includes 1963, because if the Texas theory is correct, LBJ was not in on it and neither was Governor John Connally, but only the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Texas Democratic Party Eugene Locke. (and the man did not originally rest on Oswald – fooling him into thinking he was working for the KGB)

    If you include the transfer of power from President Buchanan to President Lincoln as one that was not peaceful we would have 88.6%

    Sometimes I think I’m too prone to interpreting stuff in a hyperliteral and humorless manner but then I see a comment by Sammy and I feel better again

    Patterico (115b1f) — 9/24/2020 @ 4:53 pm

    Sammy, Why is Patterico saying humorless and hyper literal like it’s a bad thing?

    Time123 (daab2f)

  222. One of the oldest press methods of distortion and slant is to do an interview and then change the questions in a way that changes the meaning of the answers. I say this not to protect Trump but out of a probably neurotic belief that things should not be distorted, even to make a valid point.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  223. Dustin (4237e0) — 9/24/2020 @ 5:23 pm

    It is not. Most Americans rejected Trump.

    Well, if it comes to that, in 2016 “most Americans” rejected EVERYONE. In four of the last seven presidential elections, no candidate has been selected by a majority (“most,” if you prefer) of the actual voters. And If we’re talking about eligible voters, the picture is even worse… since in every single one of those elections, roughly 40% of eligible voters did not even bother to cast a ballot. So I cannot fathom how you believe these election results indicate some choate, discernible “will of the American voter.”

    Our system permits most voters to be overridden by the electoral college.

    Our system IS the Electoral College. As currently incarnated, the Electoral College expresses the will of the voters, in the several states. That is because we are a federal republic, not an absolute democracy. You have never voted for president. Neither have I. God willing, both will remain true. The members of the Electoral College do not override our “will,” as you would put it. They express it, as I just said. And they express it correctly, because the president is the chief executive of a union of states, not a union of citizens.

    This is relevant to my point, which you completely ignored for some reason…

    I ignored it because it wasn’t relevant to my point. Of course, your broader point was correct. Trump should endorse the process. It would be the statesmanlike thing to do. But of course, he won’t, because why would he? He didn’t last time, and he’s not a statesman. Plus, he’s worried that if he does this time, the Democrats will win (or steal) the election and then use his words against him. For all I know, he’s right about that. The Democrats, for their part, seem equally eager to preemptively delegitimize a Trump victory…which is why I see major media outlets publishing dark rumors about Trump’s people working behind the scenes with state legislatures, to steal electoral votes in the event of a disputed election. For all I know, they’re right about THAT. It’s 2020, after all. No disaster should surprise us this year.

    However true your point, though, it rested on an incoherent assertion of voter will and a disingenuous interpretation of our presidential electoral system. Which was my point. The strongest building in the world will still collapse in on itself if its foundation is sufficiently weak. And if enough people start to believe your bizarre nonsense about “the will of the American voter,” it will be one more crack (possibly the fatal one) in our national foundation.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  224. I’m pretty sure that if Trump loses, and tries to hold on to power, it will still be mostly peacful once the cuffs are on and his sh1t is out in the street.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  225. Did you miss the transition integrity project, they mean to not report electors.i wouldnt be surprised if they targeted red precincts on election day. Just an extension of what the panthers were doing 12 years ago.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  226. The braintrust in thr party seems to be that idiot anbulance chaser who figuratively ‘screwed his client out of her illgotten loot.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  227. As currently incarnated, the Electoral College expresses the will of the voters, in the several states.

    And it is not without reason we do it that way. Do you trust the way the vote is counted in Chicago? In Philadelphia? In some parts of Texas or California? We all know they’ve got spit for brains in Florida.

    But in this system you do not have to trust the actual count. You do not have to worry that criteria for registering or voting or examining mailed votes are consistent across state lines. All that matters, most of the time, is the gross count. If it is very close in one state, you only have to recount ONE state, not fifty. If it is very close in 50 states yo — oh, wait, that doesn’t matter because we aren’t doing that.

    The electoral college provides some less populated areas more clout, but this could also mean that people in NY who want Montana strip-mined for their benefit cannot make it happen as easily. Sure, there is some problems there, and we should probably break up states like CA, TX, NY, IL and FL so that they can be more reasonably represented in the Senate and so that their several large and distinct cultures (e.g. South Florida and the panhandle, NYC and upstate, several sections of TX and CA, etc). But that’s a separate issue. The Electoral College solves more problems than it creates.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  228. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/24/2020 @ 7:34 pm

    I second everything in this post.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  229. i wouldnt be surprised if they targeted red precincts on election day.

    If you did that to the inner city or immigrant neighborhoods it would be racist (historical fact). But even if you take all white people out and shoot them, it’s never racist to do so.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  230. “The braintrust in thr party seems to be that idiot anbulance chaser who figuratively ‘screwed his client out of her illgotten loot.”

    Considering the circumstances, she more than earned it.

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  231. Most Americans rejected Trump.

    Most Americans reject voting.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  232. You want to know who is preparing for a peaceful transfer of power? The West Wing.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/24/trump-presidential-transition-421465

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  233. One of the things that i’ve been thinking about lately is that the anti-electoral-college crowd is missing a partial solution which is less difficult to implement:

    they can dramatically increase the size of the Congress, which would have the *effect* of reducing the maldistribution of electoral votes by reducing the relative importance of the two electors who represent Senators.

    This requires nothing more than an act of Congress to do. No constitutional amendment, no legally dubious interstate compact that acts as an invitation to bad faith on the part of a state which is part of the compact but whose voters vote the opposite way of the majority … just an act of Congress.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  234. aphrael @230:

    One of the things that i’ve been thinking about lately is that the anti-electoral-college crowd is missing a partial solution which is less difficult to implement:

    they can dramatically increase the size of the Congress, which would have the *effect* of reducing the maldistribution of electoral votes by reducing the relative importance of the two electors who represent Senators…

    Well, first of course, they don’t want to make Congress unwieldy. hey froze the size of the House of Representatives in 1911, after the reapportionment after the Census of 1910, and that was one of the causes for why Congress was not reapportioned after the 1920 Census – they had always disagreed on how to handle fractional seats, and the size of the House of Representatives had always been increased to a number that made no difference and that tended to preserve House seats.

    Other reasons there was no reapportionment after 1920 was the southern state claimed the absence of some African Americans (to use one name used now) was temporary and due to the war (a political and not a legal argument – and false too at that) and the reluctance of Republicans to lose rural seats. (at that time, 40 years before Baker v Carr a state didn’t have to make each congressional district within a state approximately equal but they could lose some if the state lost a seat.)

    And a second reason for why this would be of no help is that the two extra seats for the Senate is not the only distortion of the popular vote cased by he Electoral College system just compare the *number* of states carried by each candidate – there are some small states – and DC- that tend to be carried by the Democratic candidate.

    Another is the general ticket system, used almost everywhere, with the recent exceptions of Maine and then Nebraska.

    This would seem to help the Democratic Party now because of California, but Democratic votes are more concentrated nationwide so more Democratic votes for president are wasted overall than Republican votes for president. Hillary’s entire popular vote margin in 2016 was smaller than the popular vote margin just in the state of California.

    Because it was so large, and because in most other states it was not so large, a below average percentage of voters were outvoted in California.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  235. “ By the way, the President of the United States is now literally begging me to vote for his opponent on November 3.”
    __ _

    JERRY DUNLEAVY
    @JerryDunleavy
    ·
    NEW: Durham discovered FBI knew by December 2016 the Steele Dossier primary source had been investigated by FBI as possible “threat to national security” due to Russian intel contacts & more, but FBI kept using dossier & never told FISA Court.
    __ _

    David Harsanyi
    @davidharsanyi

    Reporters now complaining that DOJ is releasing too much information. Completely normal.
    __ _

    David Harsanyi
    @davidharsanyi
    ·
    If you can’t take some out-of-context leak and write up a partisan hit piece, what is it really worth?
    _ _

    Stephen L. Miller
    @redsteeze
    ·
    Wondering how all of this factors into that peaceful transfer of power discussion.

    __

    harkin (fabd28)

  236. So, here’s an ethics question:

    In PA, the courts have ruled that “naked” absentee ballots cannot be counted. These are ballots that are placed directly into the mailing envelope (which has the signature), but do not have the inner “privacy” envelope (otherwise blank).

    From what happened in the primary, where these votes WERE counted, it’s estimated that about 100K votes will be disqualified this way, even though the voter has been validated by their signature.

    So, the question: Should a voter who either did not use that inner envelope, or is unsure if they did, go to the polls and attempt to cast a vote in person?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  237. NEW: Durham discovered FBI knew by December 2016 the Steele Dossier primary source had been investigated by FBI as possible “threat to national security” due to Russian intel contacts & more, but FBI kept using dossier & never told FISA Court.

    So he was lying about where he got his information from? And it wasn’t people sitting around and speculating, like he told the FBI, butgenuine Rusian disinformation, which is what I’ve been assuming all along.

    Hillary never did get the truth as to why Putin supported Trump, but the main reason was probably that he opposed Hillary because he mistakenly thought Hillary hated him. And before Trump, Putin had been in favor of Biden (that would be why he funneled so much money to Hunter Biden) but Biden decided not tin run in 2015 so he had to find another horse to back.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  238. Kevin, don’t most states have a way for you track if you ballot was accepted or not?

    Time123 (53ef45)

  239. 240. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/25/2020 @ 7:46 am

    So, the question: Should a voter who either did not use that inner envelope, or is unsure if they did, go to the polls and attempt to cast a vote in person?

    Yes, and he should vote early because maybe they’ll log it in before Election Day (I don;t know what the system is in Pennsylvania) and remove him or her from the list of people eligible to vote in person.

    If you vote in person you know whether or not you successfully signed in.

    No state election system would permit anyone to vote two times from the same exact address or registration. This can’t possibly operate on the honor system, But they don’t have any trouble causing people to lose their votes altogether.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  240. If you did that to the inner city or immigrant neighborhoods it would be racist (historical fact).

    TGhe consent agreement limiting what poll watchers can do in majority minority prvcincts has expired.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/gop-recruits-army-poll-watchers-fight-voter-fraud-no-can-n1217391

    After the Democratic National Committee sued the RNC for allegedly sending armed, off-duty police officers to patrol the polls in minority neighborhoods in a 1981 election, a federal “consent decree” put in place a year later sharply curtailed the Republican Party’s ability coordinate poll watchers by requiring prior judicial approval.

    But that consent decree was allowed to expire at the end of 2017, and a judge in 2018 declined to extend it.

    “What we haven’t seen in a long time — in decades — is large-scale efforts to try to question and challenge voters’ eligibility at the polls,” said Wendy Weiser, who directs the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “The reports and the announcements that the RNC has been making suggest that that is part of the program that they’re trying to mount.”

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  241. Kevin, don’t most states have a way for you track if you ballot was accepted or not?

    Until they open the outer envelope they will have no idea. I don’t think any state is counting absentees in advance.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  242. @246:

    Damn, but that was a near-perfect point-missing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  243. In the crazy-like-a-fox department, I think that Trump’s suggestion that people vote twice will improve the integrity of the vote count. Not only will they have to be sure that no one is voting twice, but the validation of the signatures will be better than I hoped.

    Why? Because if it was just the normal political-machine shenanigans, the fix might be in. But the danger of TRUMP voters double-voting will concentrate the bureaucracy’s mind wonderfully.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  244. 247. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/25/2020 @ 8:06 am

    I don’t think any state is counting absentees in advance.

    No, they are. I think the states that don;t do that are in the minority.

    But I think no sate announces any election results before polls close on Election Day

    https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx

    In many states, processing of absentee ballots can begin before they are actually counted. “Processing” means different things in different states, but typically the first step is comparing the affidavit signature on the outside of the return envelope against the voter’s signature on record to ensure a match, or otherwise verify the voter’s identity. See the section titled, “Processing, Verifying, and Counting Absentee Ballots.”

    In some states once the signature is verified the envelope can then be opened and the ballot prepared for tabulation. In essence, states that begin processing before Election Day can “tee up” absentee ballots so that they are ready to be counted as soon as the law allows. By permitting election officials to do a lot of the work ahead of time, the counting process on Election Day (and election results reporting) are quicker. Results are not released ahead of time.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  245. Thanks for that link, Sammy. In PA, it’s 7AM on election day, so at least here I’m mostly correct.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  246. I bet you that Drudge has leaks before election day.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  247. In New Mexico:

    Any time after mailed ballots have been sent until the fifth day before the election, the county clerk may convene an election board to meet during normal business hours to qualify mailed ballots that are returned. If more than 10,000 absentee ballots are sent, they may be opened and inserted into an electronic voting machine two weeks before Election Day. If fewer than 10,000 absentee ballots are sent, processing may begin four days before the election.

    Absentee ballots are inserted into vote-counting machines to be registered and retained before Election Day, but votes are not counted until after the polls close. It is unlawful for a person to disclose the results of a count or tally prior to the closing of the polls or the deadline for receiving mailed ballots.

    In Pennsylvania they can be processed and counted starting at 7 am on Election Day, but the votes may not be recorded or published until after the polls close
    (This doesn’t tell you what, if anything, removes the voter from the pollsite poll list. Is it requesting an absentee ballot? There’s important missing information here.

    In California:

    Signature verification for all-mail jurisdictions can begin 29 days before Election Day. Processing can begin 19 days before Election Day. Jurisdictions that are not all-mail can start processing at 5 p.m. the day before Election Day. A vote count can be accessed or released at 8 p.m. on Election Day.

    In New York: Processing can only start on Election Day and counting after the polls close on Election Day.

    In Illinois:

    Signature verification must begin within two days of receipt. [Counting] at 7 p.m. on Election Day.

    So there they strike you from the polls if they receive a prima facie valid absentee ballot. But what if it;s mailed the Friday before Election Day?

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  248. There are probably some rules not enacted into law that deal with preventing a person from successfully voting both ways.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  249. We could expect to hear more details in the news coverage on Election Night, particularly by John Dickerson of CBS, and particularly if there is any controversy.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  250. The inconsistency in processing and validation is yet another reason why the Electoral College is such a great buffer. Questions about the relative weight of votes under different rules never have to be asked.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  251. Entered link on wrong thread:

    Absentee voting rules for this electioo:

    https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/absentee-and-mail-voting-policies-in-effect-for-the-2020-election.aspx

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  252. Today’s paranoia: At Pentagon, fears grow that Trump will pull military into election unrest.

    President Donald Trump gave officials no solace Wednesday and Thursday when he again refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power no matter who wins the election, and Thursday, he doubled down by saying he was not sure the election could be “honest.” His hedging, along with his expressed desire in June to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act to send active-duty troops onto American streets to quell protests over the killing of George Floyd, has incited deep anxiety among senior military and Defense Department leaders, who insist they will do all they can to keep the armed forces out of the elections.

    “I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military,” Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in written answers to questions from House lawmakers released last month. “In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law, U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military. I foresee no role for the U.S. armed forces in this process.”

    But that has not stopped an intensifying debate in the military about its role should a disputed election lead to civil unrest.

    [italics mine]

    Leaving aside the nonsense about a “transition” if Trump doesn’t lose, the whole idea that Trump might order the military to interfere in the election is made up out of whole cloth. Conflating dealing with insurrection AFTER the vote with altering the outcome is either stupid or dishonest.

    The press is in a feeding frenzy and building on its own speculation. It’s disinformation of the worst sort. Aren’t there enough actually terrible things to attack Trump on? It would seem to be a target-rich environment without manufacturing more.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  253. Let’s say that some cities erupt in violence on or before election day, with the consequence that voting is not safe. This would be a first for America and a terrible thing. If you add to that violence that is directed at presumed GOP voters by presumed Democrat voters, someone will really have to step in. Suppose the governors fail to do so?

    I guess I’m buying in to the same paranoia stream, but I’m also wondering if we’re seeing battlespace preparation.

    This is such an ugly election. Someone is going to get shot at.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  254. It could be the other way around, too, I suppose.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  255. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/25/2020 @ 9:02 am

    Let’s say that some cities erupt in violence on or before election day, with the consequence that voting is not safe. This would be a first for America and a terrible thing.

    Well, it did happen before, but the places where it happened weren;t participating in the election anyway

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_in_the_American_Civil_War#Destruction_of_military_assets_(Nov._7–16,_1864)

    On October 19, 1864, General Sherman notified Maj. Gen. H. W. Halleck that he “now consider myself authorized to execute my plan to destroy the railroad from Chattanooga to Atlanta, including the latter city (modified by General Grant from Dalton, & c.), strike out into the heart of Georgia, and make for Charleston, Savannah, or the mouth of the Apalachicola”.[79] On that same day, he notified Col. Amos Beckwith in Atlanta that “Hood will escape me. I want to prepare for my big raid. On the 1st of November I want nothing but what is necessary to war. Send all trash to the rear at once and have on hand thirty days food and but little forage. I propose to abandon Atlanta and the railroad back to Chattanooga, and sally forth to ruin Georgia and bring up on the seashore. Make all dispositions accordingly. I will go down the Coosa until sure that Hood has gone to Blue Mountain.” Additionally, he notified Col. L. C. Easton in Chattanooga, “Go in person to superintend the repairs of the railroad, and make all orders in my name that will expedite its completion. I want it finished to bring back to Chattanooga the sick, wounded, and surplus trash. On the 1st of November I want nothing in front of Chattanooga save what we can use as food and clothing and haul in our wagons. There is plenty of corn in the country, and we only want forage for the posts. I allow ten days to do all this, by which time I expect to be near Atlanta.”[80][81]

    …On Nov. 7, 1864, [the day before Election Day] General Sherman sent a message to Maj-Gen. Slocum in Atlanta telling him that “All houses used for storage along the railroad are to be destroyed”. In a second correspondence, Gen. Sherman told Gen. Slocum that Capt. Poe would be in charge of the destruction of Atlanta’s military assets.[77]

    sent instruction to Capt. Poe to:

    If you add to that violence that is directed at presumed GOP voters by presumed Democrat voters, someone will really have to step in. Suppose the governors fail to do so?

    I guess I’m buying in to the same paranoia stream, but I’m also wondering if we’re seeing battlespace preparation.

    This is such an ugly election. Someone is going to get shot at.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  256. They lie about everything:

    Trump administration rescinded ‘Courage Award’ for woman who criticized Trump and gave false explanation for decision, watchdog finds

    The Trump administration rescinded an award recognizing the work of a journalist from Finland last year after discovering she had criticized President Donald Trump in social media posts, then gave a false explanation for withdrawing the honor, according to a report by the State Department’s internal watchdog.
    […]

    After the State Department withdrew Aro’s invitation and the story became public in a report by Foreign Policy, the department’s press office told reporters that Aro had been “incorrectly notified” that “she’d been selected as a finalist. This was an error. This was a mistake.”
    The department also told Congress that Aro “ultimately was not selected to receive the award, due to the highly competitive selection of candidates.”

    But the IG ultimately found that the decision to give her the award was not a mistake and was included in a memo approved by Pompeo.

    It also noted that the decision to withdraw the award was due to the discovery of the social media posts despite public claims otherwise. “Every person OIG interviewed in connection with this matter acknowledged” that had her social media posts not been flagged, “Ms. Aro would have received the IWOC Award,” the report said.

    So they lied brazenly to the American people, and lied brazenly to Congress, all because somebody said something unflattering about President Snowflake.

    Just another day at the office in TrumpWorld…

    Dave (1bb933)

  257. Let’s say that some cities erupt in violence on or before election day, with the consequence that voting is not safe. This would be a first for America and a terrible thing.

    That would be news to the countless blacks beaten, whipped or lynched for trying to vote, for almost a hundred years.

    Dave (1bb933)

  258. > So there they strike you from the polls if they receive a prima facie valid absentee ballot. But what if it;s mailed the Friday before Election Day?

    In California, when I worked as a precinct inspector, they would call me Monday night and direct me to update the book by striking LIST OF PEOPLE PROVIDED RIGHT NOW who had been sent ballots after the book had been printed.

    Anyone so struck would be allowed to vote provisionally if they showed up, and then their provisional would be counted if no absentee had been received.

    *This year*, when everyone is mailed an absentee, I have no idea how it might work.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  259. you ask for a miracle,

    https://gothamist.com/news/local-anarchists-miffed-trumps-designation-nyc-anarchist-jurisdiction

    it’s called overwhelming the system, there isn’t a chain of custody with mail ballots as opposed to absentee, and the links are a little loose there, I imagine there will be many provisional ballots will be requested, because of new reapportionments,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  260. “https://andmagazine.com/talk/2020/09/24/the-rich-people-who-rent-u-hauls-for-riots-in-louisville-where-cops-get-killed/”

    I mean, it’s one U-Haul Michael. How much could it cost? $10,000?

    Davethulhu (07bb18)

  261. Trump is campaigning like Truman.

    Biden… like Dewey. Dresses like him, too. ‘The little man on the wedding cake,’ as Alice Roosevelt Longworth noted. Sports a tri-tipped handkerchief in his breast pocket in an ill-fitting suit coat — just like my grandfather did –in his coffin– when buried in 1988. Bet JoeyBee still tips Amtrack cnductors and Skycaps a dollar, too… ‘pork chop’ money.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  262. “Coup-Coup-ka-choo, Mister Donald Trump; Voters love you more than you will know…”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  263. If Trump loses, I think it’s far more likely that he;s is indicted in NY on Jan 21st, arrested and held without bail. My only question is: do they jail his Secret Service detail, too? And I’ll bet that’s been thought through at the Secret Service.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  264. I mean, it’s one U-Haul Michael. How much could it cost? $10,000?

    It’s the mileage that costs. The last time I rented a U-Haul F-150, it was $31/day, all taxes, fees, and insurance included, but it was $0.59 per mile, plus gas.

    nk (1d9030)

  265. I did a 300-mile round trip the other day. Gas was $27.00 (full tank to full refill.) In a U-Haul, it would have been another $208.00. $239.00 if I’d stayed overnight, and so on.

    nk (1d9030)

  266. Here’s another article, referencing the outcomes anticipated by Barton Gellman in the Atlantic, that similarly predicts chaos after Nov. 3.

    https://theweek.com/articles/939396/2000-presidential-election-steroids

    The great fear is that we could descend into anarchy. The greater fear is that we, the American people, could prove to the world that our system of government is no longer a functional democratic republic.

    And Putin didn’t just smile. He laughed out loud, as the great American experiment in freedom and liberty failed to confirm its hypotheses as valid theories.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  267. One of Trump’s white supremacist buddies shot a sheriff’s deputy after fleeing from a routine stop near San Luis Obispo.

    They found a total of eight fire-arms, including four assault-type rifles, a shotgun, a hunting rifle, two handguns (not counting the one he used to shoot the deputy) and a thousand rounds of ammo in his vehicle. You can see the whole arsenal this guy was driving around with – probably waiting for Trump’s orders after the election – here.

    When they searched his home they found he was manufacturing illegal weapon parts.

    The wounded deputy is recovering. The goober is room temperature.

    Dave (1bb933)

  268. And here’s another. Train wreck coming indeed.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/25/everyone-sees-the-train-wreck-coming-democrats-brace-for-trump-challenging-results-421468

    I’m not so sure Biden is the engineer who can take control of the train and avoid disaster, but I do know he’s outraised Trump (despite outspending him 2-to-1), because Trump wasted his war chest on rallies and travel expenses to the tune of $1 billion. I also know that the DNC is taking this election very seriously, strategically planning for every outcome in battleground states.

    The RNC, meanwhile, is going off track. Anyone else see Lindsey Graham pitifully begging for donations on Fox News? Yeah, he’s being outraised by his Democratic opponent, and he’s not the only one.

    More money is going to be spent on this election than any other in history. Most of that money will be spent on litigation after Nov. 3.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  269. when democrats don’t get their way, it’s a trainwreck, when they do, it’s just the way it is,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  270. 272-nk, “Caterpillar U” or “State Farm U”?

    urbanleftbehind (4b159f)

  271. It’s sad, but according to my daughter, there is a cottage industry of Ben Shapiro inpersonators/impersonations on the interwebs.

    And yet half of Trump universe will ask “has the Jewish electrician of conservative pundits renounced or apologized for his Never Trumpness back in the day?”

    urbanleftbehind (4b159f)

  272. Somewhere else, urbanleftbehind.

    I understand your question, but we’re not all friends here anymore, unfortunately.

    nk (1d9030)

  273. The point was the link, now mallory archer or jessica bluth might not be aware of w hat she meant thats on her.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  274. One of Trump’s white supremacist buddies shot a sheriff’s deputy after fleeing from a routine stop near San Luis Obispo.

    Never mind that if the perp were a BLM supporter, the deputy would’ve magically transformed into “Trump’s white supremacist buddy”.

    Only a real conservative takes a CNN report which didn’t even take the bait of mentioning Trump, and make it all about Trump.

    beer ‘n pretzels (f7d9bd)

  275. “I mean, it’s one U-Haul Michael. How much could it cost? $10,000?“
    __ _

    Depends on pick-up and drop-off point.

    Last month a U-Haul truck from Seattle-to-Boise was $1,300 while the same truck Boise-to-Seattle was $103.
    __ _

    harkin (5c8ee7)

  276. “Any commments”

    You’d think a Harvard Law graduate would understand how defamation works.

    Davethulhu (7f094c)

  277. irony is crunchy isn’t it,

    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/09/25/dossier_source_was_russia_spy_suspect_and_the_fbi_knew_it_125358.html

    bolivar de gris (7404b5) — 9/26/2020 @ 8:53 am

    The who done it aspect of political lying would work a little better if Trump didn’t beg Putin for help on national TV and then give Putin a bunch of bizarre awesome wins.

    Mccain and everyone who tried to warn us should get statues in plazas.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  278. if Trump didn’t beg Putin for help on national TV“
    __

    Hillary wiped her server.

    Reporters say Putin is working for Trump.

    Trump says maybe Putin can find her emails.

    The mob goes berserk.
    _

    harkin (5c8ee7)

  279. Yet the Steele Dossier (“actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages”) has held up well.

    DRJ (aede82)

  280. But not the Carter Page FISA warrant.

    DRJ (aede82)

  281. The FBI misused the Dossier. That doesn’t make the Dossier the problem.

    DRJ (aede82)

  282. except for the particulars, like concerning carter page, michael cohen, etc etc,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  283. bolivar de gris (7404b5) — 9/25/2020 @ 11:10 am

    there isn’t a chain of custody with mail ballots as opposed to absentee,

    There’s no difference between the two. The question that’s been raised about ballots is that they will mailed without being requested in a state or county where you could also vote in person.

    Not too many people will request an absentee ballot fir two different addresses, and not too many will request one in the name of a dead person (in New York someone can be on a permanent list for getting absentee ballots and that resulted in 1998 many votes being cast for dead persons. Maybe only one out of ten such ballots will be voted, but it adds up.

    (In 1998 in New York State there was a recount for Attorney General and people doing the recounting noticed that some ballots were voted by people whose signatures did not match, who were dead)

    I imagine there will be many provisional ballots [that] will be requested,

    Provisional ballots are cast in person by people who are not on the list on the poll site. It can’t replace a spoiled mail ballot but it can replace, I think, a ballot that was not properly signed or something, depending on the state.

    because of new reapportionments,

    Reapportionment are changes in boundaries or number of districts. I don’t understand what you are getting at.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0068 secs.