Patterico's Pontifications

11/20/2020

The Further Division of the Right: The Fraudsters and the Rest of Us

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Trump’s lawsuits are all failing. Increasingly his effort to hold onto power has begun to look less like a legal battle (waged by clownish figures with grand claims but no evidence) and more like a naked extraconstitutional power grab.

President Donald Trump’s strategy for retaining power despite losing the U.S. election is focused increasingly on persuading Republican legislators to intervene on his behalf in battleground states Democrat Joe Biden won, three people familiar with the effort said.

Having so far faced a string of losses in legal cases challenging the Nov. 3 results, Trump’s lawyers are seeking to enlist fellow Republicans who control legislatures in Michigan and Pennsylvania, which went for Trump in 2016 and for Biden in 2020, the sources said.

It’s extraconstitutional because, while the state legislatures have the constitutional authority to decide how electors will be chosen, Congress has the constitutional authority to set the time of the “chusing” of those electors, and Congress chose “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November” which this year was November 3. State legislatures can’t decide on December 8 to adopt a new mechanism that awards the state’s electoral votes to their preferred strongman when said strongman did not receive the electoral votes as chosen by the voters on November 3.

There has been a division on the right, pre-existing Trump but brought into stark relief by his candidacy and then presidency. Before Trump, this division was harder to discern. The folks who advocated conservative principles but disdained unethical tactics were on one side, and the people who cited the example of supposed abuses of the rules by the left as a wafer-thin justification for throwing all rules out the window were on the other side. On the Internet, the latter group was more vocal and numerous. If someone like me from the former group said that the recently elected Democrat was a “good man” who was misguided but was doing what he believed best for the country, he was shouted down by the far more vocal latter group. If someone like me from the former group said that it is wrong to say of the president “I hope he fails” he was shouted down by the more vocal latter group.

Now that Trump has come along, it is easier to describe the two groups in terms of their relation to Trump, but complications still arise. The group of unprincipled worshippers of power, who praise Trump’s worst excesses, are Trump supporters — but not all Trump supporters are fairly so described. I have taken to calling the worst of this group the “Trump superfans” but even that is not completely satisfactory.

With Trump’s attempt to cast democracy aside, we now have a clearer division. Yes, there are the Trump critics and the Trump supporters; the Trump non-voters and the Trump voters. But within the Trump voter/supporter group there are still sane people who simply accepted a lot of bad aspects of Trump for the parts they liked, and some of those calculations were not irrational. But now we have a further division: the fever swampers who are screaming about a stolen election, and the people who have chosen to accept reality. I don’t have Trump’s talent for labeling, so until I hear a better name I will call the “Stop the Steal” crowd the Fraudsters: literally people who claim the election was stolen by fraud, but in reality people who are (knowingly or ignorantly) perpetrating a dangerous fraud of their own.

That amounts to a further division of the right, and a very clear one. Every person supporting Trump remaining in office at this point in time — the Fraudsters — are the worst of the worst, and should never be taken seriously in public again.

You know who these people are. They are the people who were most vocally shouting me down during the Obama presidency. They are the people I have banned from writing at this site and blocked on Twitter. Some of them edit widely read publications and others are bitter failures, but whatever their differences, the thing that unites the Fraudsters now is that they want Donald Trump to remain in power even though he lost an election.

This is a transparent banana republic style attempt to hold onto power despite a clear electoral rejection. The fact that it is hapless and doomed to failure does not make it any less reprehensible, and anybody complicit in the effort has forfeited any future claim on the attention of sane citizens.

152 Responses to “The Further Division of the Right: The Fraudsters and the Rest of Us”

  1. Allahpundit:

    We can function as a society that’s half left and half right. We can’t function as a society that’s half pro-elections and half pro-autocracy.

    And furthermore:

    Something that occurred to me while writing this post: As far as I’m aware, not a single person in the administration or the campaign or Congress for that matter has resigned in protest of what Trump’s trying to do. Not one person. Lunatics and hucksters, all the way through.

    Dave (1bb933)

  2. This is probably a good time to re-read Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer”

    John B Boddie (d795fd)

  3. One of the most clarifying legacies of the Trump era will be the exposure of so many self-styled conservative intellectuals as vacuous hacks with poise, The Federalist being the paradigmatic example.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  4. Good word, extraconstitutional. I couldn’t quite put the nomenclature to it.
    What’s also disturbing is the convergence of the Fraudsters and QAnon nuts, which we saw in perfect display yesterday with Giuliani-Powell-Ellis. Giuliani went from America’s Mayor to America’s Clown.
    I want the Fraudsters and QAnoners out of my party, and I don’t care if we lose elections because of it. This party needs to either blow up or massively restructure.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  5. The Fraudsters have adopted the By Any Means Necessary philosophy that many of them considered evil when it was applied in service of radical-left goals. It’s a logical outgrowth of the “Flight 93 election” mentality.

    Maybe some have deluded themselves into believing that The Only Man Who Can Save America couldn’t possibly have lost a fair election, but others probably just think that accusing the other side of the greatest fraud in history — and whining that Dems were never nice enough to Trump — gives them license to take extreme measures to keep their hero in power. ,

    Radegunda (a847d6)

  6. If anything good can be said about Mr. Trump it is that he has been a very clarifying figure. He has exposed the core of the GOP for what it is–you call them “Fraudsters,” I call them “Banana Republicans.”

    I still have many qualms about the Dems, but I voted their ticket all the way down this year and will so long as a vestige of Trumpism remains in the GOP. The party’s adoption of Mr. Trump cannot go unpunished.

    Barry Jacobs (e757ce)

  7. “waged by clownish figures with grand claims but no evidence”

    1. I don’t think Giuliani is a good choice to lead this effort. I have respect for his previous work as a prosecutor (and also but not relevant here as mayor.) So I don’t mind you classifying him as a clownish figure. But I would not include Lin Wood and Sidney Powell as clownish figures.

    2. Their “grand claims” are a huge number of sworn statements that election fraud occurred. Is that enough evidence to get the job done? I’d say highly unlikely at this point. But it is far, far from no evidence.

    Mike S (4125f8)

  8. Trump supporters, in and out of government, are not conservatives. The sine qua non of conservatism is traditional American values and these people have discarded them for New York fancy boy values.

    nk (1d9030)

  9. 2. Their “grand claims” are a huge number of sworn statements that election fraud occurred. Is that enough evidence to get the job done? I’d say highly unlikely at this point. But it is far, far from no evidence.

    Have you looked at any of these sworn statements? They are literally things like, “What I saw concerned me and didn’t make sense” or were based on hearsay. This is a nice summary of the kind of nonsense presented in those statements.

    johnnyagreeable (1a2d72)

  10. Thank you, johnnyagreeable.

    nk (1d9030)

  11. 2. Their “grand claims” are a huge number of sworn statements that election fraud occurred. Is that enough evidence to get the job done? I’d say highly unlikely at this point. But it is far, far from no evidence.

    If I assert a legal conclusion (“election fraud occurred”) without alleging any facts to support that conclusion (who, what, where, when, how), what I have offered isn’t “evidence.” This is as true for the laypeople signing affidavits to that effect as it is for the attorneys relying on such non-evidence to promote their crackpot claims.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  12. Good points.

    As a footnote regarding the term “Fraudsters,” I think the active Fraudsters like Trump, Giuliani, Powell, the White House sycophants, and their followers believe American politics has become a game where the rules no longer apply and cheating is part of the game. To them, only people who want to lose would play a game according to rules that no one else follows. Far too many Republicans don’t see Trump or his actions as fraud, so IMO Barry Jacobs’ Banana Republicans is a better fit.

    DRJ (aede82)

  13. At this point, however, the only way not to be considered a Fraudster or a Banana Republican is to reject everything Trump and his minions are saying and doing to change the election results.

    DRJ (aede82)

  14. Hi Pat… I’m a Trump voter who doesn’t like the Trump campaign’s effort to engage in extraconstitutional means to win this election.

    I’m okay with all the lawsuits that examines these kinds of challenges to election integrity on the basis of clear cut laws and evidences. It’s incumbent on the Trump campaign to PROVE these allegations, and as long as the courts are adjudicating in good faith, all that does is strengthens the legitimacy of the election. But, its obvious that most of the alleged fraud isn’t enough to make any difference to the election.

    So, it’s GOOD that there’s extra scrutiny for the election we just had, and hopefully this will be a learning exercise going forward to take measures that strengthens the public’s perception of the integrity of our elections.

    You see this now politically, the Trump campaign/supports are saying different things in court than what they say publicly.

    There’s a political COST, just as there was/is a cost for Stacey Abraham refusing to concede claiming that her election was stolen. No one really takes her seriously (accept the rabid left).

    Politically, all these sturm and drang over the futile efforts by the Trump campaign will be short lived. Come January 20th, Biden will be President and the crap we’re seeing now will be relegated to the History dustbin just as the Gore shenanigans in 2000 has been.

    This “fracture” between the MAGA and non-MAGA folks within the GOP party will need to be healed at some point. Just was the Tea Party fractured the party in 2008-2010. Not sure what it would look like and how, but failing to do so will only weaken the party to the point of irrelevance as Democrats would pounce and make systemic changes that would prove difficult to claw back.

    Now is not the time to push purity tests that will only divide us further.

    Now is the time to extend a little grace and re-identify the shared goals both side has and be ready for a Biden Administration. Dan McLaughlin had an NR+ article arguing this very point. Essentially, stop litigating the election and be ready for fight/litigate the Biden administration.

    whembly (c30c83)

  15. Trump’s foray into lawfare is failing miserably.

    Best to concede, the sooner the better — but no later than Dec. 13 so as to let Al Gore keep the record and ignominy.

    Leave extraconstitutional lawfare to the professionals, who have been so adept at it the past four years.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  16. There’s a political COST, just as there was/is a cost for Stacey Abraham refusing to concede claiming that her election was stolen. No one really takes her seriously (accept the rabid left).

    A bit more seriously, now that Georgia has chosen a Dem president for the first time in 28 years.

    Kyle (a00aa2)

  17. To them, only people who want to lose would play a game according to rules that no one else follows

    I see a lot of this from ordinary Trumpers on comment boards. They think that Romney lost (to an incumbent who was still fairly popular) because he’s too nice and principled, and that Dems always cheat. Therefore, someone mean and rough and heedless of rules and norms was needed on the side of saving the constitutional republic.

    Telling yourself that the other side will always cheat might just be a cynical way of rationalizing any cheating you’re inclined to do.

    Trump encouraged this attitude before the election with his assertions that the only way he could possibly lose was if Biden cheated, and with his disgraceful display ever since. The people who have given their heart and soul to Trump go right along with it.

    Radegunda (a847d6)

  18. Regarding Trump exhorting MI legislators to take electoral votes from Biden and give them to Trump, illegal.

    Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    Add that to the list of other felonies Trump committed in office.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  19. Good post. I think it gives too much credit to the fraudsters. I also think it misses the impotent rage that you can see in so many of their comments.

    Whembly, I don’t think you’re a fraudster and I didn’t read the post as expanding the definition to include you, or ppl like you. If he is, I think there’s ample evidence he’s wrong to do so.

    Time123 (db0ebb)

  20. Suppose – hypothetically and very improbably – that the MI and PA legislators emerge from their WH meetings to announce that they will “overturn” the election results, and award their states’ electors to Trump. Assume also that somehow the coup succeeds in either stealing enough electoral votes to elect Trump president outright, or at least to deny Biden a majority and force a contingent election in the House (which Trump would win if the GOP fell remained in line).

    Which comrades will be joining in me in armed resistance?

    Dave (1bb933)

  21. I agree with you.

    And it’s also clear that the overwhelming majority of elected Republicans are at least tacitly and silently acquiescing in the fraud, and the result (for me) is that there is no circumstance in the next five to ten years in which I could even remotely consider voting for a Republican at any level, unless there is clear evidence that they (a) were not politically active this year or (b) had already rejected the fraud before today.

    This may not mean much as i’m on the left, but i’ve always been willing to cross party lines and vote based on the candidate (and in particular, until this election, i’d never voted for Kamala Harris). But the national Republicans have now made it impossible for me to support them, *at all*, by their implicit endorsement of this.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  22. The folks who advocated conservative principles but disdained unethical tactics were on one side, and the people who cited the example of supposed abuses of the rules by the left as a wafer-thin justification for throwing all rules out the window were on the other side.

    That’s kind of loaded, don’t you think? All your opponents are unethical just because Trump is? There are LOTS and LOTS of non-“conservative” Republicans among the rank & file who are just as ethical as you are. You know, the people conservatives of all ethicity call “RINOs.”

    It may be comforting to those who supported the status quo ante in the GOP to think that Trump’s message was “Let’s be unethical”, but that’s not what it was. It was the blindness of both parties to the hollowing out of America and its middle class fired up the political lynch mob that bought us Trump.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  23. “their followers believe American politics has become a game where the rules no longer apply and cheating is part of the game.”

    It is reasonable to say that irregularities should be investigated and appealed if actual evidence compels it. The problem is that too many people don’t understand how thin much of the accusations are. We focus too much on spin and too little on provable facts. This is more labored theater to cement Trump as a fighter. Thankfully the clock is winding down….and the Augean Stables are being readied for a good cleaning.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  24. This is a transparent banana republic style attempt to hold onto power despite a clear electoral rejection. The fact that it is hapless and doomed to failure does not make it any less reprehensible, and anybody complicit in the effort has forfeited any future claim on the attention of sane citizens.

    This however, I agree with. I object to the detour you took getting there, but for the life of me I don’t know why 30 GOP Senators aren’t telling Pelosi to impeach him again.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  25. > I object to the detour you took getting there, but for the life of me I don’t know why 30 GOP Senators aren’t telling Pelosi to impeach him again.

    because they’re cowards who are afraid doing so will cause them to get primaried out of office.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  26. Impeach?!

    You can’t find 3 – much less 30 – GOP Senators with enough guts to even hold a freaking press conference criticizing him!

    Dave (1bb933)

  27. It’s extraconstitutional because, while the state legislatures have the constitutional authority to decide how electors will be chosen, Congress has the constitutional authority to set the time of the “chusing” of those electors, and Congress chose “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November” which this year was November 3. State legislatures can’t decide on December 8 to adopt a new mechanism that awards the state’s electoral votes to their preferred strongman when said strongman did not receive the electoral votes as chosen by the voters on November 3.

    Online here:

    https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/28th-congress/session-2/c28s2ch1.pdf

    There is one loophole:

    And provided, also, when any State shall have held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and shall fail to make a choice on the day aforesaid, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such manner as the State shall by law provide.

    If, by litigation, or by Republicans failing to do what has heretofore been considered routine ministerial tasks, he can prevent the state from certifying a choice of electors, then a way is open for Electors to be chosen by other means.

    It depends, however, on whatever the state’s law says to do in the event an election fails to choose a winner in a vote for presidential electors [unlike other elections you can’t rerun it – there’s no time]

    And the legislatures of Michigan and Pennsylvania can’t change the law from whatever it is now because the Governor of Michigan and the Governor of Pennsylvania are both Democrats and would veto any such bill, if the Republican legislatures were inclined to pass it anyway.

    And there no argument possible that there is a direct grant of power by the constitution, or by Congress, to change these laws to the legislature alone in a way different than the way all other laws in that state are passed (as was the case with the selection of Senators before the 17th amendment where Governors had no role.) Only the Governor of North Carolina has no veto power. (I double checked. He got it in 1996, although only a 3/5 vote is enough to override.)

    Congress also made special regulations.

    Trump’s lawyers are seeking to enlist fellow Republicans who control legislatures in Michigan and Pennsylvania, which went for Trump in 2016 and for Biden in 2020, the sources said.

    Even without Michigan and Pennsylvania, Biden would still have exactly 270 Electoral votes. Trump would need to do something else, such as winning the recount on Georgia or Wisconsin. One more to tie (and then hoe the House elects him) and 2 to win.

    There’s a tricky way maybe (not really) to win a recount in Wisconsin – it’s what Al Gore tried in Florida in 2000 – have on;y selected counties recounted. Exceot that AL Gore wanted counties he carried by large margins to be recounted (with the idea of adding votes) and Trump wants two counties he lost to be recounted (with the idea of subtracting votes he imagines were double counted or something)

    But if all that happened, surely some Republican electors (say in Utah) would vote for Biden.

    He’s checkmated but won’t resign.

    I think Donald Trump doesn’t really have any sense of the odds of anything he’s doing working but he figures you can’t know until you try.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  28. The message that a sane GOP would be making now to Trump’s partisans is that there are better people than Trump to carry out the things they want (rebuilding America’s manufacturing, changing laws that hamper business so that outsourcing doesn’t make as much sense, ending illegal immigration,etc). That Trump was incapable of getting it done. And so forth.

    Of course, some people are just ANGRY and won’t listen, but there is no way to please them so stop trying.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  29. because they’re cowards who are afraid doing so will cause them to get primaried out of office.

    At some point to have to tell the bully to go frik himself. Otherwise they’ll lose in the general election anyway.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  30. You can’t find 3 – much less 30 – GOP Senators with enough guts to even hold a freaking press conference criticizing him!

    And THIS is the thing that will get the rank & file looking for new senators in the next primary. Trump’s people will evaporate anyway, or irrationally blame Trump’s senators for not supporting him enough. They are not going to turn out in droves for, say, Rubio.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  31. In fact the only things I can count on from Trump’s dead-end supporters are rage, hatred and thoughtless action.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  32. What whembly (#15) said.

    I don’t have a problem with Trump’s lawsuits, per se. If there’s evidence to back them up, let them proceed. If not, then they should lose, and perhaps some attorneys need to be concerned about Rule 11 sanctions or their state court analogs. I haven’t seen any compelling evidence yet, and the apparent mixup in that affidavit between results from MI and MN was at best embarrassing and at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead. If that’s indicative of the “proof” the Trump lawsuits have to support them, then none will or should come remotely close to success. And asking state legislatures to step in to undo the results would be appallingly wrong.

    All that said, my gut tells me this election was not fairly decided and there probably was fraud, but unfortunately there’s no section in my copy of the Evidence Code that gives any weight to my gut feelings. So I’m OK with Trump’s lawsuits playing out, but if the claims can’t be proven, then end the battles and accept the results, sooner instead of later. Wherever one is on the political spectrum, the nation has survived 4 or 8 years of whatever president or set of presidents you didn’t like, and there will be another election one day where maybe the people will make a different decision.

    RL formerly in Glendale (fda61c)

  33. Now is the time to extend a little grace and re-identify the shared goals both side has and be ready for a Biden Administration

    The fundamental truth laid bare by the Trump experience is that there are no shared goals between the “principled conservatives”–supporters of a Reagnite agenda of fiscal restraint, robust foreign policy, etc.–and the banana republicans–who just want power to troll the libs with. While there may be fleeting alignments of interest, particularly when in the opposition, the idea that there’s sustainable governing agenda that can reunite these different factions seems fanciful.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  34. “That’s kind of loaded, don’t you think? All your opponents are unethical just because Trump is?”

    – Kevin M

    That’s… not what he said. At all. “People who cited the example of supposed abuses of the rules by the left as a wafer-thin justification for throwing all rules out the window” absolutely does not equate to “all [Patterico’s] opponents,” which he has made crystal clear over and over and over again. Out of a sense of fairness to people like you, Kevin.

    Leviticus (686ad8)

  35. @20

    Whembly, I don’t think you’re a fraudster and I didn’t read the post as expanding the definition to include you, or ppl like you. If he is, I think there’s ample evidence he’s wrong to do so.

    Time123 (db0ebb) — 11/20/2020 @ 10:28 am

    Thanks Time123… I didn’t think Pat threw me in that fraudster bucket either… and if I gave that impression that was unintentional.

    I think there are several different “factions” if you would that describes the support of Trump. As you know, my vote stems from being anti-Democrats than being a gung-ho Trumper.

    whembly (c30c83)

  36. RL, at 33: he has every right to bring the lawsuits, sure, although the quality of the legal work in the lawsuits i’ve seen have been appalling bad, and the judges often seem incredulous in the transcripts i’ve seen.

    The problem for me is the publically saying different (stronger, more inflammatory) things than are being said in the legal complaints (thereby creating a huge false impression of what the evidence is in the public mind) and the refusal to allow the President-elect’s transition team to work with the government.

    That last one, particularly when it comes to covid vaccine distribution efforts, is likely to get people killed for no good reason.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  37. Oh, and the attempt to get the Michigan legislature to overturn the vote is *absolutely disgusting*, a deep violation of democratic norms, and a clear and present danger to the republic.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  38. because they’re cowards who are afraid doing so will cause them to get primaried out of office.

    They’re afraid of the GOP voters who see Trump as the most honest, selfless patriot in politics. When any Republican crosses Trump, or disputes the claims that there was massive fraud in the election, the Trump faithful say it just shows how deep and wide the rot is. While Trump fans like to scold Trump critics for their supposed “purity tests,” the operative purity test in the GOP for the last 4+ years has been: Do you love Donald Trump?

    Radegunda (a847d6)

  39. If someone like me from the former group said that the recently elected Democrat was a “good man” who was misguided but was doing what he believed best for the country,

    Well, this is what I think about Biden: He is basically a good man, but he’s not always doing, or hasn’t till now, what he thinks is best for the country. I’m not sure there’s any politician who does.

    I discovered something I wrote a year ago, (Oct 16, 2019) in an evaluation of the various Democratic candidates for President:

    I kind of like Joe Biden because he is (or was) a Democrat who tried to avoid saying things that were too wrong. But is he still?

    I think he still is.

    Biden is even trying to avoid here making too much out of Trump’s failure to start the transition.

    Biden went along with the idea with regard to the coronavirus, in particular about vaccine distribtion, but it’s not true there either.

    If Biden wants to change the priority list, he still can do with a delay of no more than two or three weeks – what he might stand to lose is input now, but Trump wouldn’t have to listen to him anyway, and he has input anyway through the Governors he’s in contact with, who are themselves in regular contact with Mike Pence.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  40. Whembly, at 15: we can only hope there is a political cost. If there isn’t, this sort of thing will become the norm, and eventually someone will succeed at it.

    Unfortunately, I think there is unlikely to be a political cost. An enormous number of people will believe the false claims (which is damaging to the legitimacy of the system, not just to the legitimacy of Biden), an enormous number of other people will cheer because Trump and his allies are taking the fight to the libtards, and another enormous number of people will accept that however bad this may be, it’s better than the Democrats would be, so they will hold their nose and vote for the people supporting Trump today *anyway*.

    I don’t know which side is going to succeed in doing it, but I now *expect* the collapse of democratic legitimacy and the replacement of the system by a soft dictatorship within my lifetime.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  41. Sammy — imagine that Trump goes right up until Jan. 19 refusing to allow transition activities to begin. There’s no reason to think he won’t.

    In that case, the incoming administration has *no idea whatsoever* how things are *currently working* and we waste weeks or months with them getting up to speed.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  42. @38 — Yes, absolutely.

    When Trump claimed pre-election that the only way he could possibly lose was if the other side cheated (while the polling consistently showed him likely to lose), and announced that his acceptance of the election results would be conditional, it should have caused consternation among supporters who fancy themselves thoughtful and principled people. But too many of them have kept marching along with him as he plays out the kind of response he was signalling back then.

    Radegunda (a847d6)

  43. @41

    Whembly, at 15: we can only hope there is a political cost. If there isn’t, this sort of thing will become the norm, and eventually someone will succeed at it.

    Al Gore and Stacey Abraham has yet to live down their loss…

    Unfortunately, I think there is unlikely to be a political cost. An enormous number of people will believe the false claims (which is damaging to the legitimacy of the system, not just to the legitimacy of Biden), an enormous number of other people will cheer because Trump and his allies are taking the fight to the libtards, and another enormous number of people will accept that however bad this may be, it’s better than the Democrats would be, so they will hold their nose and vote for the people supporting Trump today *anyway*.

    I don’t know which side is going to succeed in doing it, but I now *expect* the collapse of democratic legitimacy and the replacement of the system by a soft dictatorship within my lifetime.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 11/20/2020 @ 11:48 am

    I don’t share your pessimism here.

    My hope, is that the next election that person wins more convincingly so that these close elections concerns are mooted.

    whembly (c30c83)

  44. Biden is also meeting with Soeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chck Schumer to discuss or try to argue eiwith them (particularly maybe with her) about what to insist on or not insist on be in a coronavirus relief bill in the lame duck session.

    Failure of Trump to concede is not really resulting in much loss anyway. There’s a claim that people won;t be appointed fast, and it hurt George W Bush’s response on September 11, 2001, but look, that was eight months in. The problem is that the Senate confirmation process now takes much longer tha it did up to through the 1960s.

    Bush lost only one month, however. Biden isn’t even losing that. He can still look for or select appointees (with little loss as long as most people assume he is going to be president on January 20) and the FBI is going through with background checks and security clearance checks.

    He doesn’t have an office in Washington and he can’t put people on the federal payroll, but his campaign has got money.

    As for himself, he wouldn’t move to Washington anyway until the second week of January at least – Bill Clinton stayed in Little Rock, and Donald Trump stayed in Trump Tower till very late. The week before an incoming president nowadays stays in Blair House.

    Biden and his people don’t get briefings but there are plenty of Democrat in Congress who do. As for embedding in the agencies that anyway wouldn’t happen, or matter, till later. Biden doesn’t even have any people named yet for that, with the exception maybe of coronavirus matters.

    The problem with Trump is his election fraud claims themselves.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  45. @42: December 14th is the date.

    That’s the date when the state’s electors are certified. Once Biden hits 270 electoral votes, bammo he’s the President-elect and transition begins.

    whembly (c30c83)

  46. This is all so pitiful as to be pathetic.

    I wouldn’t call Trump supporters Fraudsters. They’re the Defrauded! They bought the con. They are the marks, not the con man. It is Trump who is a total fraud.

    He is the un-Midas. Everything he comes into contact with becomes bankrupt and corrupt. He is the ugliest American, a complete failure.

    All these lawsuits being thrown out of courts. Entire law firms withdrawing. Giuliani making an ass out of himself. It’s not embarrassing, it’s disgusting.

    Where are the Republicans in this debacle? Nowhere to be seen. That’s what makes this sordid scene such a travesty.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  47. I now *expect* the collapse of democratic legitimacy and the replacement of the system by a soft dictatorship within my lifetime

    This expectation looks too plausible for comfort. It would be a consequence of the belief that the whole system had become deeply corrupt and that one person was uniquely able and willing to fix it, and anything that undermines that person is ipso facto anti-American. It would be a result of identifying patriotism with devotion to one individual who has a hugely inflated sense of self and a solipsistic moral code.

    Radegunda (a847d6)

  48. There has been a division on the right, pre-existing Trump but brought into stark relief by his candidacy and then presidency. Before Trump, this division was harder to discern.

    Not really; Buchanan to Perot to Palin to Trump. The pattern was there to see- and growing.

    More intriguing, to a political science POV, is that rather than shrinking as a signal of philosophical rejection, the number of voters for Trump expanded by 10 million from 2016 to 2020 to 74 million [so far.] In the final analysis he may simply be pegged by history as the wrong messenger w/t right idea to most of those 74 million. And they aren’t likely to abandon their POV after a taste of power . Rejection over personality rather than policy may be key when post-election analysis of the final tallies are completed.

    It may end up being less a ‘division’ and more removing a splinter; rendering the modern ideological conservative movement into irrelevancy has been accomplished.

    Glorious.
    _____

    Today, Joe Biden rolls over his 78th year on the odometer of life. It’s a down hill grade to the Big Garage, Joey. Let Kamala drive when you tire.

    Happy Birthday, Joe. Watch the carbs old fella; too much cake and ice cream makes you- sleepy.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  49. DRJ @14 A lot of them are just trying to avoid commenting on this and hoping this will be over by Thanksgiving, or at the latest, December 8.

    If not, then maybe some people will meet with Trump.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 11/20/2020 @ 11:49 am

    Sammy — imagine that Trump goes right up until Jan. 19 refusing to allow transition activities to begin. There’s no reason to think he won’t.

    In that case, the incoming administration has *no idea whatsoever* how things are *currently working* and we waste weeks or months with them getting up to speed.

    Trump could theoretically, be that stubborn, but Trump administration officials could start talking privately.

    If China chooses to invade Taiwan on January 17 or 18 there could be a problem, but otherwise all you’d have is 3 or 4 days of administrative chaos which won’t matter for most things. There are people Biden can call on whom he can rely on who know how things are going on. Including some holdovers and people who know who should be held over. Lots of information is public, lots is known by members of Congress, lots is known by friends and acquaintances of the people working there now.

    The federal government anyway can close for a few days around Monday holidays including Martin Luther King Day. (this year January 18)

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  50. They’re the Defrauded! They bought the con. They are the marks, not the con man.

    Some of them are actually smart enough that they should have resisted it. Some, it seems to me, have in the past written about the gullibility of intellectuals who become attached to radical ideology, and the readiness to believe the truth of what appears contrary to evidence. And now they’re basically saying “Don’t believe what your eyes and ears tell you about Trump. We the enlightened know he’s not that at all!”

    There are also politicians and media people who used to speak candidly about Trump, but then found it in their interest to do an about-face. Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that they were wrong before and then saw the light. I wouldn’t underestimate the capacity for self-delusion, even among smart people. (Even me.)

    Radegunda (a847d6)

  51. Oh those war year memories; presidential historians will want to know what exactly went on in Scranton, Pennsylvania around Valentine’s Day, 1942. Ask Joe Biden to do the math. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  52. @whembly. December 8 is the day on which the electors are certified. December 14th (the Monday after the second Wednesday in December) is when they vote.

    37. aphrael (4c4719) — 11/20/2020 @ 11:42 am

    The problem for me is the publically saying different (stronger, more inflammatory) things than are being said in the legal complaints (thereby creating a huge false impression of what the evidence is in the public mind)

    eing echoed to some degree by talk radio show hosts and on the Internet.

    Printed media is better. At most t might be empoyees trying to satisfy the publisher. When it’s the audience, either the people at large or donors, they then maybe try to tell that audience what ot wants to hear.

    But one thing I don;t like is that major media like the New York Times don;t want to repeat Rudolph Giuliani’s and Sidney Powell;s exact allegations. They reat it a little like some people treat anti semitic allegations – they are afraid there are people who will believe them.

    and the refusal to allow the President-elect’s transition team to work with the government.

    That last one, particularly when it comes to covid vaccine distribution efforts, is likely to get people killed for no good reason.

    Depends on whose ideas are better. There;s a political element to some Democratic ideas.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  53. I wouldn’t call Trump supporters Fraudsters. They’re the Defrauded! They bought the con. They are the marks, not the con man. It is Trump who is a total fraud.

    GG, I would posit that up to a certain point, not all Trump supporters have been “fraudsters”. However, when they outrightly support his lunatic claims that the election was rigged election and that he won, they too are fraudsters.

    Dana (6995e0)

  54. I wouldn’t call Trump supporters Fraudsters. They’re the Defrauded! They bought the con.

    Not all of them. Many believe themselves to be in on it.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  55. @53 I stand corrected. I was thinking the 14th in case we’d get faithless electoral votes (which I’m pretty sure SCOTUS ruled that cannot happen anymore).

    But, once Biden gets the 270 vote on the 14th, he’s effectively the “President-elect” and transition ought to begin no later than that, but certainly should begin on the 8th.

    whembly (c30c83)

  56. The longer this goes on, the less the chances of Donald Trump making a strong run for the Republican nomination in 2024 – there’s that.

    The New York Times ran a story the other day about people, both in fiction and nonfiction, whom I guess the writer was reminded of as being somewhat similar.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/15/us/politics/trump-concession-books-literature-.html

    What looks like the closest parallel is the Governor of Texas in 1873.

    There was Gov. Edmund J. Davis of Texas, a Republican, who refused to leave office after losing the election of 1873, claiming that he had several months left in his term and barricading himself on the ground floor of the State Capitol. (The newly elected governor and his supporters installed themselves on the first floor, using ladders to enter through the windows.)

    But remember, I didn;t check, the winner might have been supported by the Ku Klux Klan or the Texas equivalent.

    Also in the nonfiction category:

    Hiroo Onoda, the Imperial Japanese Army officer who would not surrender after the end of World War II.

    The entire government of Moldova in 2019.

    Fred Trump. (he had Alzheimer’s. Vanity Fair said he would go to work every day, signing blank papers and using an office phone connected only to his secretary’s line.)

    Emperor Haile Selasse’s at the end of reign in Ethiopia (described in Ryszard Kapuscinski’s “The Emperor.”)

    In the fiction category:

    Pauline Leone,thw wife of the British Ambassador to France, in Nancy Mitford’s 1960 novel “Don’t Tell Alfred,”

    Eteocles, who remained on the throne of Thebes, (and many real kings)

    George from “Seinfeld,”

    The Black Knight in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,”

    Miss Havisham, the jilted bride from “Great Expectations”

    Nellie, the character in “The Office” who one day appoints herself boss.

    Bartleby the Scrivener. who goes to work but does nothing.

    King Lear

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  57. Sammy – it’s not about the *ideas*. It’s about knowing what the situation on the ground is and taking that knowledge into account when making plans.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  58. ‘Fraudsters…’

    Lindsey Graham was just re-elected to another six-year term, by a significant margin.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  59. A trip down memory lane, for all the hand wringing here about the suddenly perilous fate of our fragile democracy:

    http://patterico.com/2016/12/19/as-electoral-college-members-face-death-threats-and-harassment-there-is-silence-from-the-usual-suspects/

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  60. @6. Your invitation was lost in the mail; NR opposed Trump from the get-go so all commentary from that pub on him has been rendered irrelevant.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination/

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  61. I wouldn’t call Trump supporters Fraudsters. They’re the Defrauded! They bought the con. They are the marks, not the con man. It is Trump who is a total fraud.

    Maybe the Fraudsters can split out based on “knowingly” and “ignorantly”, with the real cynics being the Fraudsters and true-believing gullible fools being the Fraud Truthers. Trump is, of course, the Fraud-in-Chief.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  62. SCOTUS ruled recently that electors cannot go rogue anymore

    That is a mischaracterization in the source you cited.

    What they ruled is that state laws enforcing electors’ pledges are constitutional.

    Not all states have passed such laws.

    Dave (1bb933)

  63. If someone like me from the former group said that it is wrong to say of the president “I hope he fails” he was shouted down by the more vocal latter group.

    How about if they said “I hope he fails in turning us into a ‘social democracy'”?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  64. So, it’s GOOD that there’s extra scrutiny for the election we just had, and hopefully this will be a learning exercise going forward to take measures that strengthens the public’s perception of the integrity of our elections.

    What needs to be stressed here is that the existing methods for mail ballots, largely based on absentee ballots of the last century, is not secure. The first clue should be “mail.”

    That there wasn’t appreciable cheating does not mean there couldn’t be, just that there wasn’t. Going forward we should be proactive in securing the vote, which means removing as much subjective decision-making (e.g. signature comparisons) and manual handling of ballots possible. Ideally, a ballot should be as secure as a teller-machine transaction. In fact, that might be he model to use.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  65. Fraud or no fraud, the people who came out of the woodwork for Trump did so because they had genuine grievances. Trump’s inability to perform does not mean those grievances went away and it would be a mistake to think that after Trump exits things can go back to how they were. If these grievances are allowed to fester, the fire next time may make Trump look reasonable.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  66. @66 Whatever we go to, we are very clearly not beyond the point of needing paper ballots. You cannot do a recount on electrons.

    Nic (896fdf)

  67. @64 Are you sure?

    State’s legislator has to certify the slate of electors.

    Note: I haven’t read the SCOTUS ruling, so I’m not super clear how far they went.

    whembly (a500a7)

  68. Questions now that Trump is defeated:

    1. Is illegal immigration OK?
    2. Should illegal immigrants be amnestied?
    3. Should illegal immigrants be given a path to citizenship?
    4. Should trade with China return to the previous state?
    5. Should we rejoin the Iranian deal?
    6. Should we rejoin the climate deal?
    7. Should we now ban fracking?
    8. Should the internal combustion engine be phased out?
    9. Should taxes return to a 70% marginal rate, with capital gains treated as normal income?
    10. What IS our relationship with China anyway?

    Things won’t be the same going forward. The GOP may have changed, but so have the Democrats. Trump did one thing quite clearly: The party system that started circa 1980 is over and a new one is taking its place.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  69. Whatever we go to, we are very clearly not beyond the point of needing paper ballots. You cannot do a recount on electrons.

    I can. Maybe you can’t.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  70. What they ruled is that state laws enforcing electors’ pledges are constitutional.

    They can still vote as they will, though. It may cost them some money.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  71. But the national Republicans have now made it impossible for me to support them, *at all*, by their implicit endorsement of this.

    Yes, but you are not a “Republican.” The real measure of how terrible this is, is how deeply it affects the GOP rank & file. They maybe afraid of pissing off the Trump dead-enders, but there;s a larger number of people like me who they are in danger of losing. And since Trump dead-enders generally didn’t vote before 2016, what they may lose that they don’t see is worse than what they fear.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  72. @70:
    1. Is illegal immigration OK? NO.
    2. Should illegal immigrants be amnestied? I’m willing to have this discussion so long as immigration laws & Border security is improved.
    3. Should illegal immigrants be given a path to citizenship? See #2.
    4. Should trade with China return to the previous state? Probably.
    5. Should we rejoin the Iranian deal? No, unless the Senate ratifies the treaty.
    6. Should we rejoin the climate deal? No, unless the Senate ratifies the treaty.
    7. Should we now ban fracking? NO.
    8. Should the internal combustion engine be phased out? NO.
    9. Should taxes return to a 70% marginal rate, with capital gains treated as normal income? Maybe?
    10. What IS our relationship with China anyway? No clue. Has China accept responsiblity for the COVID handlings?

    whembly (a500a7)

  73. which he has made crystal clear over and over and over again. Out of a sense of fairness to people like you, Kevin.

    He said there were two types of conservatives, honest god-fearing people like himself and the great unwashed willing to do anything because “they” did it first. I didn’t see any grey there.

    Now, sure, he walked that back a bit, but the statement remains risible.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  74. @70

    1. Is illegal immigration OK? Nope
    2. Should illegal immigrants be amnestied? Nope
    3. Should illegal immigrants be given a path to citizenship? Depends.
    4. Should trade with China return to the previous state? Do not know enough to judge.
    5. Should we rejoin the Iranian deal? Depends
    6. Should we rejoin the climate deal? Yes (its good public relations and demands relatively little)
    7. Should we now ban fracking? Nope, but there are some water related safety issues that should be looked at.
    8. Should the internal combustion engine be phased out? If there’s a different way to do it better and/or more efficiently, why not?
    9. Should taxes return to a 70% marginal rate, with capital gains treated as normal income? No, yes.
    10. What IS our relationship with China anyway? Who the hell knows? I understand why Clinton gave it most favored nation trade status, but I thought it was a bad idea at the time and we are still paying the consequences for it.

    @71 So when the argument come up (again) that the electronic voting machine had randomly sometimes changed a vote from candidate A to candidate B, how do you recount that?

    Nic (896fdf)

  75. Whembly, if you go down the path of amnesty (and particularly citizenship), you repeat the mistake and encourage more of the same. I’m OK with amnesty but never ever over-my-dead-body citizenship for the adults who came here illegally. There has to be a cost.

    If we return to our misbegotten trade policies of yore, which hollowed out our country, we are begging for worse-than-Trump next time. We may be done with Trump, but we are not done with the millions of citizens who voted for him in desperation, and may be less choosy next time.

    Taxes at 70%? Are you a communist?

    China: The military views China as our next opponent in a hot war. You cannot put so much as a resistor sourced in China in any defense item whatsoever.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  76. I misread. OK, not 70%, but why should capital gains be treated as regular income?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  77. Nope, but there are some water related safety issues that should be looked at.

    There is ONE case of a water problem at a fracking site, unrelated to fracking. In general though it is a claim made by unscientific people hoping to confuse other unscientific people.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  78. @78 Because not treating it as regular income is a special carve out that disadvantages people who work for their money. It also advantages people who have inherited wealth over people who work. Income is income. I know the argument is that treating it as regular income will cause people to invest less, but that’s bunk. They will still be making significant returns on their investments and since the other option is to let it sit in a bank and do almost nothing, they will keep investing. (and yes, I do from time to time have cap gains.)

    Nic (896fdf)

  79. @23. Agree.

    Just look at the numbers. Say, for the sake of argument, 6 or 7 million so-called ‘conservative’ voters—the hardcore ideologues; the ‘Lincoln Project’ types– and some lesser, ‘let’s-try-the-guy’ voters; the suburban housewife types, entertained by him on NBC TV– became disaffected w/Trump due to his persona and a few elements of his policies. That’s really a small number in contrast to the overall vote tally. The tail that no longer wags the dog. The growth, rather than reduction, of that tally over the 2016 numbers is quite significant. And it has been growing for several cycles.

    These people have tasted victory, power and moved change. They’ll find another vessel to pour their energies into and support. It may even skip a cycle or two. It could be another business type w/minimal or no big government experience. But a traditional, ‘long time’ party pol w/decades making the mess won’t likely get their support. Certainly w/o some kind of courtship.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  80. @79 There have been issues in Wyoming and possibly Utah. The agreement is that some wells and groundspill can be a problem. I don’t see why keeping an eye on it and maybe making some adjustments to make sure it’s safe should be a problem.

    Nic (896fdf)

  81. You can’t find 3 – much less 30 – GOP Senators with enough guts to even hold a freaking press conference criticizing him!

    Don’t confuse ‘guts’ w/smarts: it’s no longer about ‘him.’ It’s about not pissing off the 74-plus million who voted for him.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  82. Between Kavanaugh and Comey, and the senators who wont’ call Trump out even now, there are maybe 3 sentors out of a hundred who aren’t utter POS.

    I’m not sure that’s below average.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  83. It’s about not pissing off the 74-plus million who voted for him.

    Not all those 74 million are raving lunatics. Many just preferred Team R to Team D.

    I love the politician two-step. One: it’s a binary choice! Two: Look at all my support!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  84. This amounts to a political sifting of the tares from the the wheat(Matthew 13), by binding the former and burning it while the wheat is preserved. The tares are those all in on this “Stop the Steal” extraconstitutional fiat, and proven to be absolutely useless. Granted they’ve caused incalculable damage(A sizeable majority of Republicans believe the election was stolen) to the validity of our electoral process. The complicity of most of the congressional GOP is contemptible. I will remember this when it comes time to vote in the 2022 midterms.

    HCI (92ea66)

  85. @85. The numbers tell the story. The trend line is there; Buchanan to Perot to Palin to Trump… they’re going to find a new vessel and it won’t be an old pol.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  86. @87 =blink= You do realize that all callers to Limbaugh are themselves cultists: ‘dittoheads.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  87. Fraud or no fraud, the people who came out of the woodwork for Trump did so because they had genuine grievances. Trump’s inability to perform does not mean those grievances went away and it would be a mistake to think that after Trump exits things can go back to how they were. If these grievances are allowed to fester, the fire next time may make Trump look reasonable.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

    I fear this is true and why Trump may have a substantial GOP following in 2024.

    DRJ (aede82)

  88. Those are good questions, Kevin…
    1. Is illegal immigration OK? No.
    2. Should illegal immigrants be amnestied? No. They need to pay a price, jump through hoops and have a clean record if they seek to move from illegal to legal status.
    3. Should illegal immigrants be given a path to citizenship? No, they have to get legal first and then go to the back of the line and then wait a number of years beyond that, which is the price for their coming here the wrong way.
    4. Should trade with China return to the previous state? No. Get rid of tariffs and target for sanctions those companies and individuals that broke the rules. We should join TPP as a means to lessen trade with China and increase trade with China’s neighbors. We should also sanction Chinese leadership for their mistreatment of Uighers and Hong Kongers. We should revisit inviting Chinese students to college STEM programs. We should restrict Huawei so that we can develop 5G ourselves. And so forth.
    5. Should we rejoin the Iranian deal? If we can, but I think it’s too late.
    6. Should we rejoin the climate deal? Yes, it doesn’t cost much, and it gives us leverage if we stay in.
    7. Should we now ban fracking? No.
    8. Should the internal combustion engine be phased out? Eventually, and slowly.
    9. Should taxes return to a 70% marginal rate, with capital gains treated as normal income? No and no.
    10. What IS our relationship with China anyway? A dog’s breakfast. We trade with them, but they’re geostrategic adversaries.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  89. genuine grievances

    Who doesn’t have grievances of one form or another?

    There is no grievance that could justify putting the country in the hands of a sh*thead like Trump.

    Dave (1bb933)

  90. Two thumbs-up for the coup from GOP congressmen:

    Asked if he’d be okay if state legislatures named electors that differed from the outcome of the vote counts in their states, [North Carolina Rep. Richard] Hudson told CNN, “Yeah, that’s the constitutional process.”

    […]

    [Arizona Rep. Paul] Gosar also said the “state has the ability” to name its own electors to the Electoral College if the results aren’t certified as part of the “system set up by our founders.” And when asked if he would support the state legislature naming its own electors, Gosar said, “I do.”

    Dave (1bb933)

  91. There is no grievance that could justify putting the country in the hands of a sh*thead like Trump.

    Dave (1bb933) — 11/20/2020 @ 5:15 pm

    True, and it’s hard to see the left taking this seriously, because it’s easy to be angry at Trump and a lot of the leaders on the left enjoy being angry to start with.

    But they should listen to Kevin. If Trump really is such a massive threat to the republic, to our values, to our prestige, then making some deals on immigration in particular is worth it.

    A tall walls and wide gates policy, go ahead and finish the wall where it improves safety, that would help Biden and the democrats. They could do a few other things to move to the center. Instead, it’s far lefty stuff about forgiving student loans and honestly who knows what on foreign policy?

    Biden’s comments on energy are particularly disturbing when I think about jobs. I know it’s just talk, but there’s such an obvious niche right now for a political party that just slows down and makes some sense for a while.

    I barely voted for Biden, and solely because I wanted Trump gone. It probably won’t be Trump in 2024 (he is very old, and this has to be a very hard experience in a very easy life). But it will be someone who tries to channel all that. Just compare Ted Cruz, then and now.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  92. But it will be someone who tries to channel all that. Just compare Ted Cruz, then and now.

    Cruz barely won re-election; remains wholly and demonstratively unprincipled– and is thoroughly unlikable.

    Run Snidely Whiplash instead; he’s ‘Canadian,’ too. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  93. Run Snidely Whiplash instead; he’s ‘Canadian,’ too. 😉

    LOL

    I groan now because Ted Cruz made a fool out of me. Which let’s be honest, that is not a difficult task.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  94. That’s a pretty good list Kevin, having a format to respond to is always helpful.

    1. Is illegal immigration OK? No, but the US economy relies on it without actually supporting it, focus on what happens to the people/companies taking advantage of the situation. A shi..crappy job in the US is still better than a crappy, or even decent, job in Ecuador. So, it’s a reality that exists.

    2. Should illegal immigrants be amnestied? Generally no, but it’s really about the next one. Kid’s I’m a bit more open to, but that’s situational as you’re not going to find a lot of 5 year olds stowing away by themselves.

    3. Should illegal immigrants be given a path to citizenship? Yes, situationally again. What’s a path mean. I think there will be multiple swim lanes for those situations, people that have been here a long time and been generally out of trouble, low bar to hurdle (what does long mean? 10 years, 15, 30% of their life), I’d probably lump DACA type folks in this too. Then there is the newer immigrant, higher bar, may require a return, fines or something, but a path. Then there are the criminals, jail, then bounced. I’m sure there are other lanes, and the demarcations could move, but there should be some paths defined, because illegal immigration is happening, it’s reality, and the logistics of deporting 10-20M people just isn’t realistic, and would be bad for the rest of us too.

    4. Should trade with China return to the previous state? I don’t even know what that means, we really haven’t changed that much, the tariffs are on us, not them. We should be trying to create something like TPP again as a hedge on China, and actually try to put a formal trade policy in place. The Trump admin’s un-policy is terrible, but that we haven’t really had a good trade policy with China ever.

    5. Should we rejoin the Iranian deal? It’s probably not an option, but it was better than what we had before, and better than what we have now. If you’re all the other partners what we needed to have the JCPOA how can you trust the US as a partner after the chaos.

    6. Should we rejoin the climate deal? Sure, costs us little, and we need to try to get the US back into the global leadership position if we want to do any of the other stuff.
    So it’s pure PR, doesn’t do much, but sure.

    7. Should we now ban fracking? Generally, I think fracking is one of the less terrible options. Not great, but better than oil sands projects. I think there should be some serious regulation of some the the chemicals that they’re pumping into the ground to get that last 10% of efficiency though, it’s nasty stuff.

    8. Should the internal combustion engine be phased out? Absolutely…should it be mandated by the government? Maybe, but without a massive infrastructure rebuild, any arbitrary date thrown out, short of the year 3000 is not realistic. If batteries and infrastructure were perfectly adequate (range anxiety is real) and cost competitive today, it would still be 20-30 years before IC would be retired. I was driving a Tesla Model 3 Performance today, it’s ridiculously fast, torque is amazing, it’s also put together worse than my 1984 Chevy S10. EV’s are the future, hydrogen isn’t, hybrids are only a bridge to EV’s. So, they’re already being phased out, and the market will probably kill them off in the next decade or two for new sales.

    I’ll throw another energy related one out that can relate to the previous 3, modern nuclear power. It’s less terrible than fracking, in fact I think it’s actually quite excellent. Modern reactor’s are incredibly safe, and are much cleaner than the ancient reactors that we actually have now. It would allow for a more practical move from IC cars, and it’s logistically more attainable in the medium term than solar/wind on an industrial scale.

    9. Should taxes return to a 70% marginal rate, with capital gains treated as normal income? Good lord no, and yes. Our tax policy is shambolic, but 70% is usury.

    10. What IS our relationship with China anyway? They’re one of our largest partner’s in trade, we’re tightly integrated financially/economically, and very loosely connected politically, we have leverage on them, and them on us, but if you want to define it…”It’s complicated” seems to be the best description.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  95. Here’s How Hamilton & Madison, Dead Since the Early 1800’s, Became Responsible For Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Election Loss

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

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  96. Let’s go back to Trump’s bold promises:

    Solve immigration with a “great deal” with the democrats, including a wall
    Crush ISIS once and for all
    End some wars
    Put us on a path to a balanced budget. At least a path.
    Get rid of Obamacare, replace it with something amazing he will have ready in about two weeks.

    What’s stopping Biden from doing all of that? I know he supposedly can’t change Obamacare that much, but he actually should. Imagine if Biden’s inauguration speech was all about unity, and repeated a version of each of these promises, saying he’s willing to meet Trump’s fans halfway right now. They won’t get a better deal, and Biden would be a worthy president, which is a hell of a lot better than being the slob who was elected essentially as a vote of no-confidence.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  97. If anything good can be said about Mr. Trump it is that he has been a very clarifying figure. He has exposed the core of the GOP for what it is–you call them “Fraudsters,” I call them “Banana Republicans.”

    Barry Jacobs:

    You correctly interpreted my post as (in part) a plea for labeling assistance, and when I read your comment I was instantly pleased that someone had come up with a superior label. My pleasure was only enhanced by the fact that, as I continued to peruse the comments, I found DRJ agreeing with me (a common and yet always a very pleasant experience). I first heard that phrase a while ago, from the British organist at my church, and I love it beyond words. I worry that some might view it as an indictment of all Republicans (which I would think unfair) rather than a description of the subset of Republicans that are currently arousing my ire. But as long as I continue to try to make that distinction, I think that is the right term — and frankly, since a clear majority of “Republicans” are apparently “banana Republicans” (if polls are to be believed) I think that the danger of causing inappropriate offense has shrunk considerably — as a result of events completely beyond my control; namely, the outrageous support by large majorities of my former party for the proposition that the current president should be allowed to ignore the results of a free and fair election.

    The correct word for this is an “autogolpe” (thanks to Allahpundit) or a “self-coup” — a “form of putsch or coup d’état in which a nation’s leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances.” And it’s playing out before our very shocked eyes.

    It will not work. But it is no less shocking than an attempt that might work.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  98. Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off. — Recep Tayyip Erdogan

    nk (1d9030)

  99. LOL

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  100. The real issue we should be confronting, amid all this appeasement, is what happens if Trump gets his way.

    Suppose that the legislatures of PA, WI and MI do indeed vote to change their results, giving Trump the electoral vote “due to a continuing contest and allegations of widespread fraud.” The electoral college votes and Trump is the victor.

    What happens next?

    Acceptance? Unlikely.
    Mass protests? At the very least.
    Violent protests? Probably.

    But I think it doesn’t stop there. I can see a dozen states voting to secede, starting with the West Coast and northeast. Some will some won’t. In other states (e.g. Georgia) pitched battles begin, starting with the Klan vs Antifa, but eventually including many others. In states that secede, some areas will strongly object (e.g. “Jefferson”).

    Tee potential is there for a multi-corner civil war.

    Again I ask, what the F is the GOP thinking?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  101. I think the Michigan delegation already told him to go suck a meatloaf. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/20/us/joe-biden-trump

    nk (1d9030)

  102. @105. CNN’s Coop and Lemon would certainly have to swallow hard to accept that. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  103. We’re not seceding. It’s our #$%@* country.

    Dave (1bb933)

  104. The rest of us are mostly democratic voters and those who didn’t bother to vote. Throw in some neo-cons and never trump republicans (mostly wealthy donor class and their underlings) and what do you have left? 74,000,000 strong populist republican party that republican elected officials are rightly terrified of. Jeb bush money couldn’t buy me love in the new populist republican party. Dilemma Donor class and opinion class believe in free trade. Republican working class voters do not!

    asset (101d28)

  105. Kevin M – I’m starting to wonder whether the party leadership *wants* the war.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  106. Dustin, what’s the compromise position on Obamacare which would make Trump supporters happy and avoid a revolt on the left?

    I mean, we’ve been talking about this for a decade and I haven’t heard any viable compromise ideas from anyone. Why would you think Biden has a clue what would work?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  107. Dilemma Donor class and opinion class believe in free trade. Republican working class voters do not!

    That’s because the working class has been lied to by populist politicians on both sides who tell them high tariffs and trade wars will bring back their jobs in coal country and the industrial midwest.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  108. Thank you for your kind words, Patterico. Especially in these chaotic times, it is nice to see we still agree on ideas. It saddens me to see so many Republicans abandon rules and principles and turn to exploitive government designed to benefit specific people. It may feel good to help some and hurt others, but that doesn’t make it good.

    DRJ (aede82)

  109. I think Trump is engaging in this election drama because drama, getting even, and winning (not actual governing) are his games. But I feel sorry for the poor Republican followers who rationalize Trump is trying to limit Biden’s ability to change things Trump did. Trump’s transition was wasted by his own actions, not the prior Administration’s. Trump did not want to plan and let Chris Christie step in, only to fire him and discard his work. Biden actually has a transition plan. Stopping Biden from getting access now gives Biden and his team more time to focus on Trump policies instead of other government programs.

    Trump, the famous gut instinct boss, doesn’t care about or understand the benefits of planning. I suspect his followers live their lives the same way.

    DRJ (aede82)

  110. “That’s kind of loaded, don’t you think? All your opponents are unethical just because Trump is?”

    As Leviticus noted, you are criticizing me for things I never said. As a reminder, here’s what I actually said:

    Before Trump, this division was harder to discern. The folks who advocated conservative principles but disdained unethical tactics were on one side, and the people who cited the example of supposed abuses of the rules by the left as a wafer-thin justification for throwing all rules out the window were on the other side.

    Since I am speaking here of a time before Trump, it is twisting my words to say I am saying all my opponents are unethical because Trump is. Further, you outrageously imply that I disagree with this:

    There are LOTS and LOTS of non-“conservative” Republicans among the rank & file who are just as ethical as you are. You know, the people conservatives of all ethicity call “RINOs.”

    I agree, and I have never said anything different, and I take great exception to your suggestion that I have. You owe me an apology for suggesting that I said otherwise. But instead of an apology, you double down:

    He said there were two types of conservatives, honest god-fearing people like himself and the great unwashed willing to do anything because “they” did it first. I didn’t see any grey there.

    The hell I said that. What I said — which is in the post, quoted in your comment, and quoted in this comment — is that one group deliberately chose unethical behavior and one chose ethical behavior. By definition it is the choice whether to engage in unethical behavior, and justify that by virtue of an argument that the other side did it first, that causes people to be classified as part of one group or another.

    And then you come along and twist my words to make it sound like I am accusing all political opponents or all Trump fans of being unethical, despite all the pains I go through *not* to do that.

    I don’t appreciate that. You kind of swing wildly between saying sensible things and twisting people’s words like this, and you are definitely in the latter mode here. Why you would misrepresent my statements like this, I really don’t know, but I have lost a lot of respect for you as a result of your false attacks on me in this thread.

    Patterico (e76608)

  111. I’m going to edit a comment I just put up which I wrote in anger, which is never a good idea.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  112. Done. Yes, it retains most of its original bite, minus a couple of profanities that did nothing but inflame.

    There are few things more frustrating in online conversation than trying to assert x, which you know that bad faith actors will try to twist into y, and taking great care to explain that you are asserting x and not y — and then to have someone come along and assert you are saying y. It’s conceivable that someone could make such a misrepresentation in good faith, I guess, if they were reading in a sloppy and careless fashion.

    However, as the person running this blog, one simple thing I ask is that, before I am attacked, that the attacker actually read what I have written and consider whether the attack is fair, or whether they are putting words in my mouth.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  113. Patterico is being careful with his words, Kevin M, because he does not want to unfairly criticize any Trump supporter. Reserve your ire for people like me. I have no problem with support for seeking legal relief in courts, but otherwise I strongly believe that everyone who supports what Trump is saying now is unethical and anti-American.

    DRJ (aede82)

  114. Patrick,

    You may think that what you wrote is how it reads, but I read it as a slap in the face of all but the conservatives stalwarts of truth and righthtinking:

    The folks who advocated conservative principles but disdained unethical tactics were on one side, and the people who cited the example of supposed abuses of the rules by the left as a wafer-thin justification for throwing all rules out the window were on the other side.

    If they were not on your side, then they were [dishonestly!] advocating unethical behavior. I don’t wee how this can be read any other way.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  115. Perhaps you did not intend this as a “two Americas” statement. I may have misread, and if I did so, I’m sorry. But it is how I read it. If you wanted to say that there were others besides, rather than simply “a division on the right”, it would have been helpful if you had said such. That you were thinking it does not come across in the words you posted.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  116. I strongly believe that everyone who supports what Trump is saying now is unethical and anti-American.

    And I agree with that completely, and go further in my stated fears about what could happen if they Succeed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  117. At this point, will admit that I probably misread Patterico’s post and reacted to that misreading, and for that I apologize. I have said why I misread it, but I’d rather not go into that again. I will also point out that while some people can reconsider their posts and edit them, not all can.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  118. I have no problem with support for seeking legal relief in courts, but otherwise I strongly believe that everyone who supports what Trump is saying now is unethical and anti-American.

    Unethical. Anti-American. But legal.

    Got it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  119. If they were not on your side, then they were [dishonestly!] advocating unethical behavior. I don’t wee how this can be read any other way.

    Yes: if I say that I identified two groups, one which openly advocated unethical behavior and one which did not, then the group advocating unethical behavior would be the group advocating unethical behavior. As I reject unethical behavior even if lefties “did it first” then anyone who disagreed with me *on that issue* would be perforce advocating unethical behavior.

    I did *not* say anyone who disagrees with me about Trump (or about anything other than the advocacy of unethical behavior) is unethical, and frankly the fact you chose to read it that way is your problem and not mine, except to the extent I feel compelled to waste part of a Saturday correcting the distortions of my statements. But I guess that’s my choice. The fact you bolded language showing I did in fact describe two separate groups does not justify your false redefinition of what I said those groups are.

    Patterico (e76608)

  120. If they were not on your side, then they were [dishonestly!] advocating unethical behavior.

    No.

    If they were not on my side as regards the propriety of advocating unethical behavior, then they were advocating unethical behavior.

    Fixed it for you. Get it yet?

    Patterico (e76608)

  121. Patrick,

    You may think that what you wrote is how it reads, but I read it as a slap in the face of all but the conservatives stalwarts of truth and righthtinking:

    The folks who advocated conservative principles but disdained unethical tactics were on one side, and the people who cited the example of supposed abuses of the rules by the left as a wafer-thin justification for throwing all rules out the window were on the other side.

    Why don’t I publish the same quote, but putting the emphasis on the parts it seems like you didn’t read or comprehend?

    Patrick,

    You may think that what you wrote is how it reads, but I read it as a slap in the face of all but the conservatives stalwarts of truth and righthtinking:

    The folks who advocated conservative principles but disdained unethical tactics were on one side, and the people who cited the example of supposed abuses of the rules by the left as a wafer-thin justification for throwing all rules out the window were on the other side.

    So in what I actually said, I placed on one side people who “disdained unethical tactics” and on the other side I placed people who found a “justification for throwing all rules out the window.” One side says be ethical and play by the rules, and the other says forget the rules (because the other side always does).

    Having made this division, I had the nerve to say the people on one side advocated ethical behavior and the other side advocated unethical behavior (!).

    That is basically a tautology. It’s just restating what I already said.

    I’m irritated because you’re, to a degree, trying to evade responsibility for the misunderstanding and place some blame on me for you utter and total misreading. To which I say: show me what I actually said that justifies your misreading. Don’t resort to the emotion you felt upon reading it or your “reaction” or your “impression” but point to something I actually said.

    You say you “probably” misread it but still attempt to justify your misreading by making reference to previous arguments in which you blamed me (without providing any specific basis to do so).

    That’s a terrible apology, frankly. I kinda sorta accept it to the extent that it was sincere and without caveat, which as I have indicated is not 100% in my view.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  122. There is a civil war coming. Not “out there” but within the former Republican Party. We see some of it already, with Trump’s dead-enders attacking everyone else, and with people like me talking about Trump’s dead-enders. I for one am a little touchy and probably need to consider better my reactions to this general subject, because it is going to get worse.

    After Trump is gone, those of us who want to reconstitute the GOP are going to have to come to terms with those who supported Trump. And they are going to have to come to terms with those of us who did not. Not to mention what I’d guess are the majority — those who recognized that Trump was inadequate but the only game in town, and tired to make do.

    I think that we all need to get a thicker skin, and obviously this includes me, because the things that are going to get tossed back and forth between the various camps are going to get meaner before they get better. Some may just want to drum some faction or other out of the “True Republican” camp, calling them RINOs or fascists or cultists. Others will see those attacks where they don’t exist. Whatever. If there is to be a center-right party opposing the Democrats, we have to learn to get along. Again.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  123. And, I have said this before: If Trump was a ringer, sent in to destroy the Republican Party from within, to fracture it, to neuter it, to cause it to destroy itself in constant infighting, I do not know what move he would do than he has done.

    The way to oppose Trump and Trumpism is not to attack it, but to transcend it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  124. God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. I cannot change whether Kevin M ignores every point I have made about how he has repeatedly misinterpreted my words. It is clear that any attempt to persuade him to reconsider has failed and will obviously continue to fail. I’m not mad enough to ban him (something that falls within the category of “the things I can” change) and therefore I will accept that 1) he doesn’t care that he has misinterpreted my words and refused to take full responsibility for doing so; 2) he will probably do it again, given his stubborn refusal to accept responsibility; and 3) therefore, if I am not going to ban him (and I won’t for this), I just need to cease any interaction with him so as to avoid future negative emotions such as I have experienced today.

    Kevin M, if I never again respond to you, you will know why, because I have just explained it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  125. 58. aphrael (4c4719) — 11/20/2020 @ 12:52 pm

    Sammy – it’s not about the *ideas*.[for vaccine prioritization] It’s about knowing what the situation on the ground is and taking that knowledge into account when making plans.

    It is, I think, about ideas. Decisions pr recommendations about who to vaccinate first Who to vaccinate (going weeks out) are based on general thinking about the virus – these general recommendations aren’t any different in New York or Texas. The CDC intends to come up with them, good or bad, and they cannot enforce them.

    As for what’s going on day to day, there are lots of ways to find out, and the data actually originates in state health departments. And some cities and counties have better data. There’s the testing of sewer water for Covid.

    One thing the Biden people have leaked a little about is that they won’t have access to data. I suppose that means federal government data not released to the public. I thought of two more ways they could that information, or the gist of it, besides personal contact and public information and state governors, which are co-ordinating with Mike Pence, who isn’t being directed very much by Donald Trump, except he held that briefing at the direction of Donald Trump who wanted it made known how much they were doing and maybe that vaccine was coming – Pence took advantage of it to say what he wanted to say and even brought Dr Fauci back to the microphones….(this sentence is too long)

    Besides that they could get information through Congress, and probably, through Freedom of Information Act requests. FOIA responses can be delayed, but if someone wants to be co-operative and get out information they can answered very fast. That’s people working around Donald Trump, but they can and have worked around him for several years, doing only what’s reasonable, and interpreting everything in the most reasonable way, which tends to work out all right most of the time.

    One area in which the Wall Street Journal ran a story was cybersecurity, but the Biden campaign has been very sensitive to that all year and also got some government help and who knows how good the security of government email is. The Biden campaign has taken all kinds of steps to maintain email security.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-team-lacks-full-u-s-cybersecurity-support-in-transition-fracas-11605891470

    The Biden team also is using a set of enhanced protection features on all of its accounts, people familiar with the matter said. It requires that staff use Titan Security Keys, a physical device needed to log into their accounts, and it has limited access to internal information on a need-to-know basis in a series of restricted shared drives, the people said.

    Probably, overall, better than the government system, not worse.

    Then there is office space, but it might not be used too much because of Covid. That’s why email security is so important, according to the article.

    One effect of this delay is that the Biden campaign has started raising money to pay the salaries of people who might otherwise by on the federal payroll.

    Even if things are a little bit irregular, (according to what’s been standard since 1976) it’s not causing too much trouble, let alone insurmountable trouble. Biden and his people, after all, are competent. Competent people can get around little obstacles. Maybe this works even better, at this stage anyway, than the enacted transition plan, because they get diverse sources of information this way, rather than a dog and pony show. The official transition process, after all, is based on the premise that the outgoing administration knows exactly what it is doing, which is really self-serving. An incoming administration would be better off if it took a (potentially) more critical attitude. Of course we don’t want crazy or ignorant ideas brought in and there are plenty of them in the Democratic Party, but the transition process doesn’t prevent that – it only might offer, in some cases, different kinds of wrong ideas which might have the effect f reinforcing the bad ideas they bring with them.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  126. I have no idea where 129 is coming from, unless it is a rehash of the previous resentment. I said that

    At this point, will admit that I probably misread Patterico’s post and reacted to that misreading, and for that I apologize. I have said why I misread it, but I’d rather not go into that again.

    Mainly because why one misreads things isn’t all that interesting.

    As for not responding to anything I write (other than what you feel is critical of yourself), I cannot remember the last time you did that. Certainly not this year. For the most part you seem only to respond to things that piss you off.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  127. If you think that #137 was about what you wrote, or how you responded, it was not. It was about a more general dysfunction on the right.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  128. *127

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  129. @128. You should broaden your perspective from just Trump. There’s a pattern.

    You’re likely old enough to remember Buchanan to Perot to Palin and now to Trump. And on second cycle, even w/his behavior and Covid, Trump’s numbers expanded- they didn’t decrease. That’s significant. It may be less about Trump personally- that’s just immediate ground clutter- though there’s a core fan base, just as there was for Buchanan, Perot and Palin. But the general pattern over that time frame suggests the populism fueling this is steadily growing- which is a real driving force for both major parties to contend with, harness or ignore at their peril. These people aren’t going to just evaporate. They’ve tasted victory and moved change. And they’ll reappear when another vessel – another ‘Trump’ emerges. It may very well be somebody you haven’t even thought of from the private sector. It’s fascinating.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  130. 59. DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/20/2020 @ 1:02 pm

    Lindsey Graham was just re-elected to another six-year term, by a significant margin.

    Lindsey Graham seems to be trying to have it both ways.

    I think he even outright lied (or shaded the truth) when he claimed he had spoken to election officials in Arizona and Nevada. If he did these were minor people. He only spoke to election officials in Georgia. here;s some sort of dispute about what he said.

    Georgia Secretary of State Brad ‘see how many ballots you could throw out’

    Last Monday, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was quoted in the Washington Post that
    ssaid that Lindsey Graham seemed to want him ‘see how many ballots you could throw out’ because of signatre matching. Lindsey Graham says his call was only informational – he wanted to know what could happen. Lindsey Graham probably already knew that there was no way to throw out a ballot that had already been accepted. I think he wanted to get that answer so he could tell Trump that.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-certifies-donald-trump-lost-11605915757

    Another Trump line is that Georgia’s recount didn’t reverify the signatures on absentee votes. But the secret ballot is a hang-up: Once ballots are removed from the envelopes, there’s no way to match them up again. That’s why signature verification comes first. For the record, Georgia says that 0.15% of ballots, or 2,011 votes, were rejected for signature problems this year, compared with 0.16% in 2018.

    You could say: Is this what he learned from John McCain, but you have to remember that Lindsey Graham started out by gaining the support of Strom Thurmond in the Republican primary when he ran for Congress in 1994 and he managed to become his natural successor.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  131. 66. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/20/2020 @ 2:16 pm

    Ideally, a ballot should be as secure as a teller-machine transaction. In fact, that might be he model to use.

    A person can give his ATM card to somebody else to take out money, and the bank is only concerned about the possibility it might be disputed.

    As a matter of fact, somebody can create a duplicate of his credit card with somebody else’s name on it, (the bank prefers it that way rather than lending a card) and it’s all fine with the bank.

    The only thing is the person becomes responsible for any transactions made with his lent or duplicated card.

    Of course it can be reported stolen,

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  132. And on second cycle, even w/his behavior and Covid, Trump’s numbers expanded- they didn’t decrease

    Everyone’s numbers increased. Turnout was about 120% of 2016, mainly because they shoved ballots in everyone’s face for a month. Means nothing.

    Trump made as big a mistake this time as Hillary did last time: he actively discouraged using mail ballots, constricting his vote to what he could get to the polls day-of, while Biden’s GOTV lasted all of October. And so he narrowly lost those states he narrowly won in 2016.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  133. Sammy, you miss the point: it is very very difficult to take money from an account without the card. If it wasn’t they’d fix it so it was.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  134. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/20/2020 @ 3:29 pm

    Between Kavanaugh and Comey, and the senators who wont’ call Trump out even now, there are maybe 3 senators out of a hundred who aren’t utter POS.

    You mean Lisa Murkowsski, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney?

    What would be the point of calling Trump out now?

    But Mitch McConnell and other Republican Senators have to do it before people start voting in the Georgia runoffs.

    The main thing that would drive Republican turnout is the idea that they need to maintain control of the Senate. The main thing that would drive Democratic turnout and cause some voters to vote for the Democrats who otherwise wouldn’t is Donald Trump maintaining his current stance.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  135. @137. You miss the point. It means a great deal. If he was just a flash in the pan, his numbers should have decreased based on job performance along w/personality foibles, etc,. But they didn’t. That’s significant. We know a percentage of the shift came by the out-of-favor Republicans- The Lincoln Project types; and the suburban women/white males who felt disaffected by Trump’s behavior and w/some of his policy decisions. Some likely didn’t vote- other clearly did for Biden. But that overall number shift- 6 or 7 million, is relative small compared to the overall tallies. Something is clearly going on at the ground level. And Trumpism, Palinism’s hockey moms, Perotism or Buchanan Brigadiers – whatever the new label will be, isn’t going away. It is growing. And the next party- or personality who can harness, will win.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  136. 138. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/21/2020 @ 7:23 pm

    Sammy, you miss the point: it is very very difficult to take money from an account without the card. If it wasn’t they’d fix it so it was.

    And the 4 digit PIN. Well the card is needed for cash, or a teller (usually with ID) but to make purchases a check can be used, or logging on online – you might need the not so usually recorded 3 digits on the bank for purchases, or calling on the telephone, especially from a telephone number with caller ID that is associated with the account.

    But people have a reason to keep track of the card because they are using it all the time. If it gets lost, you go into the bank, or for a credit card, call them up, and they will mail it to you. Sometimes priority.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  137. Now if the account is used to pay for something it is easy to trace who probably did it. Someone steals your voting card, not so much. On the other hand not so much of a motive.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  138. a check has a routing number and an account number and that’s enough to take money out of the account in various ways.

    That’s why when ATM machines print receipts of check deposits with a picture of the front of the check, they leave that out.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  139. Unethical. Anti-American. But legal.

    Got it.

    DCSCA

    No, you don’t understand but this helps me understand that you have reading comprehension issues. That is very helpful.

    DRJ (aede82)

  140. Okay, I confess, I got this from a comic book: When the Trump cult splinters, will it be … breakup sects?

    nk (1d9030)

  141. When the Trump cult splinters, will it be … breakup sects?

    I imagine they’ll all get back together with their cousins.

    Dave (1bb933)

  142. Toomey Statement on PA Federal Court Decision, Congratulates President-elect Biden

    “With today’s decision by Judge Matthew Brann, a longtime conservative Republican whom I know to be a fair and unbiased jurist, to dismiss the Trump campaign’s lawsuit, President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.

    […]

    I congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory. They are both dedicated public servants and I will be praying for them and for our country. Unsurprisingly, I have significant policy disagreements with the President-elect. However, as I have done throughout my career, I will seek to work across the aisle with him and his administration, especially on those areas where we may agree, such as continuing our efforts to combat COVID-19, breaking down barriers to expanding trade, supporting the men and women of our armed forces, and keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.

    Make no mistake about it, I am deeply disappointed that President Trump and Vice President Pence were not re-elected. I endorsed the president and voted for him. During his four years in office, his administration achieved much for the American people. […]

    To ensure that he is remembered for these outstanding accomplishments, and to help unify our country, President Trump should accept the outcome of the election and facilitate the presidential transition process.”

    Hit back twice as hard!

    It’s all a continuation of the never ending Witch Hunt. Judge Brann, who would not even allow us to present our case or evidence, is a product of Senator Pat “No Tariffs” Toomey of Pennsylvania, no friend of mine, & Obama – No wonder. 900,000 Fraudulent Votes!

    This claim about election fraud is disputed.

    Dave (1bb933)

  143. It looks like the cracks in the dam are multiplying, Dave?

    Cause, you know, I was thinking, that GOP or Democrat, state officials can’t be all that happy to be accused that they don’t know how to run an election by some New York carpetbagger who cheats at golf even when he’s playing only with himself.

    nk (1d9030)

  144. The GA Secretary of State (a Republican) has certainly set an admirable example of integrity and professionalism. Admirable and lonely.

    The #FAKENEWSBEZOSPOST has more:

    Trump’s quest to overturn election runs into quiet resistance from local and state Republicans

    And so does #FAKENEWSFAILINGNEWYORKTIMES:

    Duty or Party? For Republicans, a Test of Whether to Enable Trump

    Dave (1bb933)

  145. In case anyone misunderstands, my original posts wrt our host’s column were in error, and I regret that.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  146. The danger is not in this election, but that, in future elections, in some states, Republican election officials will not be honest.

    Sammy Finkelman (bc65ac)

  147. The danger is not in this election, but that, in future elections, in some states, Republican election officials will not be honest.

    We should have protocols in place that make honesty of officials immaterial. Although some electoral dishonesty happens long before people vote; witness Kamala Harris’ habit of slanted ballot titles and blurbs on initiatives.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4946 secs.