Monday, September 28, 2020

Two Things Here...

a) this is just a psychic scream. Trump is losing and he can't accept it. Literally; his psyche/mind/what have you, won't accept such monumental and public failure. So he discredits it like a child on the playground who is losing the game and callinge everyone else "cheaters!"

b) This is NOT evidence of electoral fraud that will get him into any court in the land, much less the Supremes. This isn't even a fact. It's a scream of pure anguish, as valid as a unicorn.

c) (alright, three things.  No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!)  No one is counting ballots yet.  Trump is conflating poll results with vote tallies (it's okay, the AP does it once every four years).  Again, back to a):  Trump isn't "undermining the electoral process," except by being a toddler with a shotgun.  What he says is of no force or effect, except as it mind drive down his own voter turnout.  Then again, his challenges to ballots will affect the GOP, too (and quite blindly), so maybe he should be encouraged in his ignorance.

This Won’t Soon Get Old



Sunday, September 27, 2020

To Shovel or To Be Human


Yes, yes it is.

To God's Ear

Narrator: the debates aren't gonna do jack sh*t. Debates never do. Why, there could be over 400 million reasons.....

That Didn’t Take Long

Even more impressive than the fundraising email I got 1 hour after I learned the news.

I think I need one of those buttons.

Editor’s Note

This suggestion was offered before the NYT tax return story. Shortly before. How long did it take for that joke to be both old and devour itself at the same time?

“Wipe your hand across your mouth and laugh.
The worlds revolve like ancient women
Gathering fuel in vacant lots.”  —T.S. Eliot

“...in the coming weeks.”

Amy Coney who?

Oh, this isn’t the best of it.

To be King of Debt is to rule over a shitpile.
He literally ran for President because he needed the money.

Amy Coney who?

No, No Freak Shows At All

Certainly not from the top down:
If there’s a drug that improves your mental acuity and public performance and makes you more eloquent on demand...where do I get some?
No hypocrisy here! Or in the Senate! It’s the drugs that make you feel that way! The drugs in the water! FLUORIDE!!!!!
Yeah, no freak show here at all!!

Which Is Less A Problem...

...of ideology than it is a problem of “lifetime” appointments.

How much of the politics and policy of the country is going to change in 39 years? And how much will Barrett’s thinking change? Why are we giving anyone that much power and authority? The original answer wasn’t to benefit from their wisdom; it was to protect them from ideology. Now who protects us from their ideology?

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Who Would Have Guessed They Were This Tone-Deaf?

They don’t even get the reference right. They’ve managed to insult both RBG’s fans and rap music aficionados. And all in time for the election.

Wasn’t their biggest problem supposed to be Trump? They make this almost superfluous:
Almost.

Scalia Had A Judicial Philosophy?

I know Scalia was supposed to be the “smart one”. Mostly because everyone kept saying so ( and he said so first, last and always). But I always thought RBG had Scalia by the intellectual (and legal) short and curlies.

It was hard to argue with her reasoning, even when I disagreed. It wasn’t that hard to find the flaws in Scalia’s arguments. They were usually hiding behind his posturing. We need another Scalia on the high court like we need another Thomas. Then again the legal landscape is littered with Judges who deserved a place on that bench and never got it. And with judges on the bench who had no place there.

My judicial philosophy aligns with Learned Hand’s judicial realism, if only because he tried to make the law, not ideology, the center of a judge’s task. Scalia brayed  about a silly idea of “original intent “ which somehow always lined up with his ideology.

The curious thing is, that quote at the top of my blog says the opposite of poverty is justice. That’s an idea rooted in the prophets, and the law of Moses and the teachings of Jesus. Ginsburg (the Jew) seemed to understand that concept far better than Scalia (the Christian). I make no judgement based on that, just an observation: as you are rooted, so will you grow.

2020 In One Story

My sympathies to the family. But this is 2020 in one awful metaphor. A story on all points with what We the People did to ourselves four years ago. Even the name of the acid involved sounds like something out of a bad horror movie.

Then again, doesn’t the whole year seem that way? And haven’t we learned that, at some point, fiction can’t keep up with reality?

Friday, September 25, 2020

The Horse’s Mouth

First, that’s a pretty much from the horse’s mouth tale of the “fraud” in Pennsylvania. I mention that because there are so many reports on this situation slightly older ones are not as accurate as newer ones. And that plays a small role in the analysis that follows:
That op-ed raises a good point. There is a distinction between fraud and error, and that’s a point to keep in mind. Fraud can draw the interest of the court, but is very hard to prove. Error is less important. It can change a vote count; that’s why 9 ballots wound up in the trash. The PA Supreme Court agreed “naked” ballots had to be discarded. Speaking of error, this one is probably going to cost Trump a few more votes.
I suppose he means “cheating “ like the ballots in PA that we’re tossed because of the legal theory he got the courts to accept. (That’s never gonna get old.)

Error is also agreeing to an interview with a non-American journalist.
I still don’t understand why our journalists can’t do this.
Ending on a high note.

Our President Is A Toddler On The Playground

QED. As I was saying...

Because, You Know...

...let’s insult their intelligence further. Always a winning strategy!

We Did Elect A President Based On HIs Reality-TV Show

We have been painting ourselves into this corner for some time now. We aren't going to get there anytime soon: This bill will never make it through the House, much less into law before November 3.  But maybe it's the wake-up call we need.

Or is that already Trump?  I can't decide:  this is either a sign of the decline and fall of democracy in America (nah!), or a sign of how the GOP is going to go down with the Trump Titanic.

I really think even the rats don't have any sense on that ship.

Yeah, Trump Is Gonna Win the Election with Brilliant Legal Strategies!

And an army of lawyers as brilliant as the one still trying to hide Trump's tax returns from the New York grand jury:
We're done for, I tell ya! We're done for!

(As I’ve been saying: courts throw out ballots, not votes. Be careful what you wish for...)

Will Voters Care About This?

Or about who's going to be put on the Supreme Court? By that I mean, will they ignore the fact they're losing more jobs due to coronavirus and government inaction/ineptitude, especially in the GOP Senate?  Or will they be too overjoyed with Trump replacing the most famous Justice on the Supreme Court in decades (if not ever, frankly) with a completely unknown and unvetted woman who's already won approval of the GOP without even being announced yet as the nominee? And done as one of the last things Congress does before November?

Or he’s just stupid....

Or thinks we are. 

I'm going with stupid. And evil.  There's a pattern here.  And Occam's Razor.  Simplest answer is usually the best.  Good enough for highway work, anyway.

Invalidate The Vote!

But only the votes we don’t like. Reupping my old argument: this is not going to be as easy as Trump seems to think it is. He's getting little to no traction in the courts because he has no facts to stand on, just bluster. 0.0025% fraud is not enough to overturn anything.  It's not even enough to bluster on.

Yeah, won't be hearing much about that, either.

Why Lamar Is Retiring

He thinks October still allows for a “surprise.” He thinks people aren’t voting already, or the cake isn’t already baked. By all accounts, undecided voters are a sliver of the voters now. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the first woman in history to lie in state in the Capitol. She was also honored at the Supreme Court, an almost as rare accolade. That kind of “celebrity” is not to be ignored in this equation; but of course, Lamar! and all the GOP prefers to.

The idea that the voting public is going to forget about 200,000 deaths and a collapsed economy or the last almost 4 years in favor of rallying behind a Supreme Court Justice nobody’s ever heard of is so pathetic it’s almost laughable. Almost. The idea the public really doesn’t care about Ginsburg or her still warm seat on the bench is just blindly stupid. And playing a game we all stopped playing 4 years ago.

I’m not saying victory is ours, but man, the opposition seems to be playing the wrong game on the wrong field.

Thursday, September 24, 2020

“It Is The Policy Of The United States...”

“...that all subsequent Executive Orders shall have the force of law and shall be called ‘Royal Proclamations.’ And everyone must wear underwear. And they must wear it on top of their clothes, so we can check.”

Donald Trump Is A Leftist?

A) Trump doesn’t believe in any being superior to himself.

B) He slept with a porn star while his 3rd wife was giving birth to his 5th child. Clearly he has no commitment to marriage.

C) He places no value in family. Ask his niece Mary. Or his 3rd wife and 5th child.

Donald Trump is a leftist. QED.

Huh?

I take three prescription drugs daily (no big deal; been doing it for over 40 years).  My mother, on the other hand, took a shoebox of pills.  She had containers for morning, noon, and evening, and night.  And yet she paid next to nothing for her meds.  I know, I handled her finances for the last 4 years of her life.  She had Medicare and a supplemental drug policy.  I hardly ever paid a medical bill for her, and she had diabetes, congestive heart failure, and a number of other ailments.  Her diabetes was so severe she took insulin four times a day.  That did get expensive in the last year, when insulin prices spiked.

I take three generic cheap medications.  I have Medicare now, and a supplemental drug policy.  My prescription costs are actually lower now than they were on private insurance.  But I've never spent $200 on medicine in a year in my life.  My mother spent that much on insulin, or more, there at the end.  So there's that.

This is a pathetic attempt by Trump to buy votes in October.  It won't mean sh*t to me.  It wouldn't have meant sh*t to my mother.  And in the cases where people need it (my mother would have used it on insulin, when the price was so high), it'll be gone in an instant.  And leave people wondering why we can't have that all the time.*

He really has no clue at all.

*Dan Crenshaw is running ads about letting people choose their doctors, rather than "Big Government" telling them who to go to.  On Medicare, I get to choose my doctors.  On private insurance, I've changed doctors because of insurance changes.  Government is actually more accomodating than private companies.  I think more voters know that than Dan Crenshaw, who clearly doesn't.

Once More, With Feeling

The courts will NOT invalidate an election.  That will involve them even more directly in electoral politics than Bush v. Gore did.  It won't happen.  Period, end of discussion.

And the reason is not just because they don't want to play arbiter of the people's choice (nor do they have that power), but because invalidating the Presidential election invalidates ALL elections, state and federal (the election is run by 50 states, not by D.C.).  You can't invalidate the Presidential race without invalidating all races on all ballots in that state (or states).  Again:  period.  End of discussion.  Again, courts will not involve themselves in that type of politics (determining who won, who lost, up and down the ballot).

Bush v. Gore was a recount issue.  The Supremes said it would overrun the 41 day deadline, which could not be permitted. (That also means Trump can't challenge results up to the Supremes up through January 19, 2021.)  They did not invalidate the ballots or cry "fraud" in the election.  They said Florida had to go with the last final count they had. If you expand that argument to try to invalidate results, you invalidate ALL results.  That's not chaos, it's a democratic mutual suicide pact.  There's a reason there's no such provision for it in law or history.

Trump is not elected by the people on November 3 by midnight.  He is elected when the Congress accepts the tally submitted by the electors.  Nothing he says can change that. Not. One. Damned. Thing.

Fish Are Voting!

​We cannot allow a piscine gap! Probably foreign fish, too! Overseas military ballots? Early voting ballots? Nobody has a clue, because nobody knows what the story is, they just know what the DOJ has said. And the relevant question is: why would the DOJ have these ballots? Or even have a report on these ballots?

I think it's the Aquaman faction.  This is why we need hydrosonic missiles!

We don' need no steenken' evi-dance!

Tough guy:

Trump was seen with his eyes closed swaying from side to side, as a slow stream of boos threaded through the audience growing louder and louder. The crowd then began to chant “vote him out” more and more fiercely.

Trump then hung his head and walked inside the building rather than listen to the jeers.

Isn't he supposed to yell back and tell 'em to get bent, or something?

More useful advice. Granted. But that's not the same as legal authority. It's not even a legal argument. It's just a temper tantrum. Back to Trump being a tough guy.  And it takes a very old person to be freaked out about tattoos.  Then again, all the ads I'm seeing for Cornyn tout things he did 9 and 10 years ago.  He's been re-elected since then!  What's he done in the last 6 years?  And Trump?  Neither Cornyn nor Crenshaw (nor any other Republican running ads in the Houston area) mentions Trump.  They ain't stupid. Always good to keep in mind. "Man bites dog" is old news? Always good to hear from the heartland, too. We don' need no steenken' evi-dance!

Agent of Chaos

 The funny thing is, Trump is trampling all over his own feet.  Remember this, from just last night?

This morning even NPR spent 10 minutes (an eternity on radio!) talking about what Trump said about not respecting the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power (I'm old enough to remember when NPR would spend 30 minutes or an hour on a story.  Now they can't because they have to run entertainment stories or people telling family members charming tales about themselves for the national archives or something.  Don't get me started, I'm a curmodgeon now.).  Why aren't we talking about what the Trump campaign wants in the headlines?  Because Trump stepped all over it so soundly even the GOP has to make noises of support for the Constitution:

Yeah, I'm not real impressed, either.  But nobody's talking about Trump's legal challenges, they're talking about Trump's craziness and (implicitly, at least) how unfit for office he is.

I'll take it.

There is a "tactic" here; but it's not working.
We would do well to keep that in mind. And also remember that while chaos works well in movies where a writer can script the story around a Joker or a Loki, chaos tends to engulf the agent of chaos as well. Trump's money and relative lack of importance in the world has shielded him from that, by and large (what his ego and narcissism didn't shield him from), but those days are over. I want to reiterate this, too, because The Atlantic article hinges on a scenario in which Pennsylvania throws out the vote results and appoints GOP electors because a GOP legislature and the Constitution. But then there's the little matter of PA law: Basically, these are not the droids you are looking for. And rather than run in circles scream and shout, learn a little history maybe? The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. I was 10 years old. We've only been at this 55 years, not since the end of the Civil War or something (despite the fact that's when the 15th Amendment was passed). And the Roberts court gutted the VRA, a statute passed to enact the provisions of the 15th amendment. That's grounds enough, IMHO, to increase the size of the court. I know, I know, that's another argument for another day. But I'm far less enamored of institutionalism than I am of justice, and we don't get justice by ignoring reality. That, in fact, is how we protect and enshrine injustice.

Nobody owes us justice, either.  It's popular now to say we have to fight (militarily is always implied) for "freedom."  It's an idea antithetical to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (we keep our freedom by controlling our government, not by fighting wars), but what good is freedom without justice?  Freedom we can guarantee; justice is a constant struggle.

Keep struggling.

I Have It On Good Authority

That we aren't talking about this anymore. Or about this: Or about deaths from coronavirus. We are only talking about Trump's Supreme Court pick. Anybody here old enough to remember that? Didn't the press conference yesterday pretty much wipe that subject from the headlines?  (This whole meme that Trump is making us dance like puppets would work better if the news would stand still for 24 hours.)  Maybe we should be talking about this: Scott Walker's argument there is Trump's argument: if AP can't call the race by midnight on November 3, it's a fraud and a hoax and a fake and Trump wins by default no take-backs cheater cheater cheater!!!!!

Except that argument has no legal authority whatsoever, and no moral authority either.  It's not even good sleight-of-hand.  It's clumsy, clunky, and childish, the electoral equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum and threatening to take your ball and go home.  Except the election isn't your ball.  It's the people's ball.

We really do need to figure that one out.

Winning Hearts And Minds

Well, so is this:
But pardon me if 8 guys with guns doesn’t scare the piss out of me and assure me the apocalypse has started. It’s more a result of stupid gun laws than Trumpian destruction of our way of life. And yet terror has become paramount.
He may do both. Is your trust in the rule of law and Constitutional traditions so weak you think that means the electoral process will collapse like a house of cards and the Secret Service will rush Trump to the bunker on January 21? Because if Trump can truly delegitimize the vote, he doesn’t just question his election, he unzips the system all the way down to dog catcher. There’s more than a few elected officials quite aware of this.
Trump doesn’t have a strategy. Trump doesn’t even have a plan. He just can’t stand the psychic pain of being a loser. He’s going to claim 3 million people voted illegally. Again. He’s going to claim hordes will descend on D.C. to see him inaugurated again. He’s gonna get about 8 people.
He’s pathological, but that doesn’t make him Stalin.
What also can’t be stressed enough is that we have a system of laws and governance that is not some paper tiger waiting to be shredded by the small hands of Donald Trump.
If 8 randos with guns on the streets of Louisville represents something larger, what does this represent?
I think democracy is quite active, thank you, and still cleaning up the mess we made when this land was discovered. We have a long way to go to undo that. In that context, Trump isn’t even a speed bump.

Facts Matter

There’s some very good stuff in this thread, but I won’t post them all. The thesis is: Trump is good at stirring chaos, not so good at actually accomplishing anything. Haven’t we learned that by now?
“Cui bono?,” is always the right question to start with.



Wednesday, September 23, 2020

The War On Humanity

I really picked that just for the picture. But also because it made me think of a “drug raid” here in Houston a year or so back.

Plainclothes police charged into a house, armed and ready for bear. The warrant alleged the homeowners were dealing in heroin and cocaine. “Black tar” heroin, IIRC, because that’s what they used to call it in the movies to make it sound worse. I don’t remember if Han shot first, but there was a lot of shooting before it was done. Turned out the residents did have some bales of marijuana (again, IIRC), and had guns because of that. But it was not a major drug enterprise, nor was there any pressing need for the raid. There was suspicion of corruption, and the officers were dealt with fairly and charged for their crimes, including the deaths of the people in the house.

No one was charged with “wanton disregard “ for shooting a neighboring house, and no officer involved walked away without consequence. Despite the presence of drugs, the raid was hard to justify. I won’t say it couldn’t be under law, but the deaths could not be defended; or excused. Breonna Taylor died because her boyfriend of two years ago was the suspect, and her current boyfriend fired at armed intruders. How that excuses Ms. Taylor’s death is beyond me. What happened in Louisville is because of Kentucky, and Louisville. And us, and the “war in drugs.” Like most wars, that one has just been another war on humanity.

And we’re still trying to figure out who’s human, and who isn’t.

Let’s Be Honest

This ain’t exactly a courageous stand.
And while I have you here:

They remind us that it is “we, the people “ not “they the office holders.” Think about it: if we didn’t have the power, would they spend so much money trying to get our attention?

The Day I Completely Agree With Cody Fenwick

I really didn't think it was possible, either.

Some interpreted that remark as saying that Trump isn’t committed to a peaceful transition of power. But the question itself was slightly odd. A transition of power would only happen if Trump loses the election to Joe Biden, and the result has not yet been determined. So it’s reasonable for the president not to commit to transferring power when he might still legitimately retain it.


But that technicality aside, any responsible president would want to reassure a nervous country that of course, should any need to transfer power occur, he will ensure that it happens peacefully. He should state outright that he believes in the peaceful transfer of power and that even if his supporters are unhappy with his potential loss, they should accept it and not resort to violence.


He has made it clear, though, that he’s not interested in doing anything to deescalate tensions in the United States. He thinks they play to his advantage. He has even been encouraging violence. So it was no surprise he didn’t utter more reassuring words at the briefing and made comments easily interpreted as ambivalent toward the peaceful transition of power.
Toddler with a shotgun, as I've been saying.  But I interrupt....

He also continued to bush his bogus theory that there are millions of fraudulent ballots being cast in the election, again using awkward phrasing that a careful or thoughtful president would avoid.


“I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster,” he said. “Get rid of the ballots, and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control.”


To someone who has followed his recent rhetoric, the implication is clear that he’s talking about mail-in ballots that he claims are fraudulent. But quite literally, he simply said “ballots are a disaster and “get rid of the ballots,” which is essentially a rejection of the very idea of an election.
Yes, yes he did (Trump, I mean).  And yes, yes it is.  Time for rending of cloth and tossing of ashes, no? Time to scream about the sky falling, what?

What?

It’s a preposterous thing for a president to say and to decline to immediately clear up. And even worse, it reflects a sloppiness in his thinking, suggesting he is so disconnected from reality and the actual facts of the election. He can’t even clearly articulate the conspiracy theory he’s using to undermine the results of the vote. It’s beyond doubt that he has no business commenting on the campaign publicly, let along to be running the federal government or running for president.

Yes, emphasis added.  But that, my friends, is how you stick the landing.  Not by trying to out-Cassandra Cassandra, so that in 2021 you can be the first to say "I told you so!," but by clearly stating what is right in fron of us.  This man is unfit for public office.  Period.  End of discussion. (And, you know, that "conspiracy theory he's using to underming the results of the vote"?  Even the Supreme Court is going to ask for the facts on that.)

Notorious RBG as a Tzaddik


I wonder how many people noticed why Justice Ginsburg was, by Jewish tradition, considered a tzaddik.  Yes, it's because she died on (or just before?) Rosh Hashana, the beginning of the new year on the Jewish calendar.  But that tradition arose because one who dies on that day has been given the full measure of their final year.  That is why tradition says they were righteous.

My father died 4 days after his 90th birthday, but in April, long before January 1 of the next year, or December 31 of that year.  Yet I considered him to have had the full measure of his final year, because I dated his first year from the year of his birth.  It's a bit of individualism we take for granted:  birthdays mark our days on earth, not calendar years, whoever is keeping the calendar.

The emphasis on the calendar, v. the date of birth, is an interesting one.  It's the difference between the emphasis on individual importance, and the importance of the community.  In the Jewish tradition, it is the community that holds the calendar, and those who die at the beginning of the new year, even if it is within days of their birthday, means they had the full measure of the year.  We might think they didn't, because maybe they died just before their birthday, or long before their next one.  We might think the dead have lost something by our measure.  But the righteous are righteous in the sight of God, and the sign of their righteousness is for the community.  And as exemplified in the case of Justice Ginsburg, their righteousness is for the community.  It is not a personal accomplishment; it is a communal one.

Is this of great significance?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not. I think it's just interesting to shift one's perspective now and again, to see familiar or public events from another point of cultural view.

As the E&R church used to say at the eucharist:  "May it be unto you according to your faith."

All For Want Of A Nail (or Mail?)

Dan Crenshaw sent out a flier urging voters like me 65 (or older, who automatically qualify to vote by mail) to...vote by mail.

I've seen a lot of fevered imaginings (even in The Atlantic!) that Trump will somehow replay Bush v. Gore or, worse, get enough Republican state legislatures to decry the legitimacy of the election and directly appoint Trump electors regardless of the vote outcome.  This latter hinges on the idea that, unless AP can call the race by midnight on November 3, 2020, the vote is "illegitimate" and state legislatures will meet on November 4 (apparently) to vote.  The fundamental problem with this is attacking the legitimacy of the vote, because sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If the vote in Texas, for example (a state where this won't happen because the legislature doesn't sit until 2021, and I don't see even Abbott calling a special session to get a slate of electors appointed for Trump if the vote count goes for Biden), is challenged because Trump cries "fraud!", it isn't challenged just for Trump.  What is the legitimacy of the election of any Republican?  I limit this to one party, because the scenarios are that one party will be challenging the vote.  If Republicans say their guy won but "fraud" occurred with counting votes on November 4 or later, how can they say any of their candidates won?  How can they say the vote count on November 3 is even legitimate?  (There is, by the way, nothing magic about vote counts reported by TeeVee or AP on election day.  No law recognizes votes counted on that day as the only legitimate vote count.)

Everyone points to Bush v. Gore, but among other things that case concerned only the recount of the Presidential vote in Florida.  And the real issue was the 19th century law requiring the vote count to be finished within 41 days of the election, something that the Florida Supreme Court said didn't have to happen as the Florida recount plodded its way to completion.  That's why the Supremes said Florida's court had overstepped its authority; the recount in the presidential race couldn't exceed the statutory limit.  If the GOP wants to challenge the legitimacy of the vote in several states, whether or not it involves the DOJ in such cases, how does that not challenge the legitimacy of every GOP race in that state?  If the votes for Biden are "fraudulent," aren't the votes for Trump equally fraudulent?  If the votes for Trump are fraudulent, what of the votes for Crenshaw?  Cornyn?  Anyone else on the ballot?

This is precisely why the courts don't get involved in election challenges to this level.  Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 race because the Court held the statute barred Florida from conducting a lengthy recount.  The consequence of any ruling on any electoral challenge can decide a race, but the courts don't declare a race "fraudulent" en masse and overturn a result.  No court is going to throw out votes legitimately counted within the 41 day window of federal law.  That's how Bush v. Gore affects this election.  And if the GOP does cry "foul" and "Fraud!," they call into question the legitimacy of every elected GOP official on the ballot.  Crenshaw can't ask voters to vote for him by mail, and then decry mail-in votes as fraudulent in court (he can on FoxNews, but not in front of a judge).  And the courts are not going to toss out mail-in ballots not handled according to state and federal law just because the DOJ or the GOP cry "foul!"  And if the GOP does open that Pandora's box, it will apply to them more harshly than it does Democrats, because the GOP will be asking for that relief, but only for them.  Except the law won't be that one-sided, and neither will public opinion.

And there is no federal law requiring a final vote count within 41 days for Representatives and Senators, or for state offices.  If the Republicans do force that door open, Democrats could flood through it.  Every down ballot race could be challenged and the result labeled "illegitimate."  Which, again, is why the courts will not decide this election, especially if the challenge is in several states at once, not just in one state over a slow recount of one race.  But if the GOP wants to play that game, they'll find out once and for all why Everything Trump Touches Dies.  They will do to the country what they did to California:  turn it against them for a generation or longer.

Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Only Interested In Power

Trump wants to be sure he gets attention. Spell his name right, that’s all he asks.
Kayleigh McEnany just wants to be sure he gets it.

Dead People are Nobodies

They're losers. And old people? Better of without 'em. That's Trump's plan to save Social Security and Medicare.

“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”

And Who Realizes...

...this has been going on for decades.

Who’s Going To Mourn Brett Kavanaugh?

Who’s going to put up a statue to him? Sell his swag? Give him an adoring nickname? Quote him extensively? (“I like beer!”) Honor him as a trailblazer? See him lie in state on the steps of the Supreme Court?

Maybe. Someday. But it seems unlikely. And that someday is certainly not today.

Julian of Norwich

Just to make sure they never bother me again.

We Need A National Defense Against A Rogue Aquaman

But, the stock market!
King of Debt, bay-bee!

Well, would she repeal Roe v. Wade?

What will they say in November when the blood is still wet on the floor? And what if Twitter crosses over into meatspace? Or is that only possible in a bad sci-fi movie? F*ck ‘em. They weren’t going to vote for Trump anyway, right?