The Frankish Reich

I agree. So simple question. Agree or Disagree: Trump's endorsement of a clearly invalid legal theory that could have kept him in the presidency means that he should never hold that office again. Poke a Trumpie hard enough and he bleeds Q Anon.

Trump did have some of the Republican old guard Big Law firms helping him out at the start. Obviously they weren't comfortable with the crazy ass course things were taking; they also bailed, leaving him with the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. https://www.jonesday.com/en/news/2020/11/jones-day-statement-regarding-election-litigation So why did Trump - with the backing of John Eastman's memos - insist that he did? I've been mainlining Clorox for three years now and I'm still feeling great. Don't knock it till you try it.

I must use the old gypsy curse: "May you live out the rest of your days in Niagara Falls, NY."

🍺 Look at Trump's choice of legal counsel over the years. He ran (by his estimation, and by his obvious accumulation of wealth) a remarkably successful privately held business. Did he use the usual lawyers you'd expect someone like that to use? The Harvard/Yale/Stanford big law attorneys at the top of the profession. No. He used Michael Cohen, a graduate of what is usually thought to be the worst accredited law school in America. Because those big law types actually have some scruples, or at least are afraid of losing their reputation/law license by engaging in the kind of crap Trump wanted (demanded) them to do on a daily basis. Michael Cohen? Not so much. Eastman is interesting because he is intelligent, but he also became so involved with right-wing politics that he found himself bending the law and constitution beyond recognition to aid Trump's selfish agenda.

Correction: Trump pretended he believed it. Or to be more accurate, couldn't care less whether it was a defensible legal theory or not. It was a legal theory that supported him, that supported him remaining president. That's his view of the law throughout his entire career. If a lawyer tells him "you can't do that," he fires that lawyer and hires a scummier one who will concoct a theory that says he can.

Boebert is in a much lighter weight class, but my money is on her and her sidearm.

"All we are demanding of Vice President Pence is that this afternoon at 1:00 he let the legislatures of the states look into this ..." Trump endorsed the Eastman plan. The mob-turned-riot was a pressure tactic to obstruct the functioning of congress and to put the squeeze on Pence to accede to this plan "to let the legislatures of the states look into this ..." Which would be the functional equivalent of letting the legislatures of those states certify "fake electors" (the term the Michigan Republicans themselves used!)

Read the Eastman memos, or the wiki summary of them (which is very good). Who was on the stage with Trump on that rally on The Mall on the morning of January 6? Could it be ... John Eastman??

Storm the Capitol. Force the ceremonial "counting of the electoral votes" to adjourn out of safety concerns. Keep the pressure on Mike Pence to refuse to certify critical electoral votes. Send the competing (real vs. fake electors) slates back to those states where Republican legislatures/governors could certify the fake slates. Remain in office as the "duly reelected President of the United States." It's not like it's a secret: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos Trump wasn't ever expecting the "low class" mob to somehow overthrow the Congress. It was a tactic. A delay and pressure tactic. And again: it almost worked. Only Mike Pence (who did take the advice of his legal counsel that he lacked authority to do what Trump told him to do; note that the implication here may be that IF he'd been told he had that authority he probably would have been willing to use it, despite the lack of evidence of voter fraud, so he's no golden boy himself) stood in the way. And the mob was clear on what it wanted to do with Pence if he didn't capitulate .. "Hang Mike Pence."

You tell me what would have happened if Pence had bowed to Trump's pressure ....

Good point on polls. But two responses: - Trump loves citing polls when they show him in the lead vs. DeSantis, etc. - State-by-state polls are kind of trash these days. Kind of; they're still (amazingly to me, given how many people ignore pollsters) useful, but just barely. And of course we elect presidents state-by-state. National polls are weirdly still pretty good. The consensus of the reliable national polls in 2020 had Biden up by about 7 percent, which is just about what he won by in the popular vote.

I have no problem with the video. It is a kind of red America virtue signaling, but there's plenty of blue America virtue signaling to counteract it. What I have a problem with is the underlying assumption - popular in some circles - that small towns are somehow bastions of community and civic virtue. Have these people actually spent time in America's small towns lately? I see that Jason Aldean grew up in Macon, Georgia (a small city, not a "small town") and that he lives in ... Nashville. Small town America: a great place to visit in country songs, but you wouldn't want to live there ... https://www.usda.gov/topics/opioids In five states, California, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia, the rate of drug-overdose deaths in rural counties were higher than those in urban counties. https://news.ohsu.edu/2022/08/15/meth-use-drives-overdose-epidemic-in-rural-u-s-communities https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/substance-use#:~:text=Rural adolescents and young adults,influence%2C than their urban counterparts. Though often perceived to be a problem of the inner city, substance use and misuse have long been prevalent in rural areas. Rural adults have higher rates of use for tobacco and methamphetamines, while opioid use has grown in towns of every size. Rural adolescents and young adults use alcohol at higher rates and are more likely to engage in high-risk behaviors, like binge drinking or driving under the influence, than their urban counterparts.

2024 GENERAL ELECTION President Biden leads former President Trump 49 - 44 percent in a hypothetical general election matchup among registered voters. This is essentially unchanged from June, when Biden had a slight lead over Trump, 48 - 44 percent. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3876 "I can't believe I'm losing to a guy with advanced dementia"

Because he's a coward. Pence isn't. "We are going to THE CAPITOL." Except he didn't go with them. He watched on TV.

It was embarrassingly awful. Even Trump hated how "low class" the rioters looked. But a reminder: it almost worked. It caused Congress to adjourn the ceremonial act of counting the electoral votes. It amped up the severe pressure Trump was putting on Pence. It almost caused Pence to flee the building on Secret Service advice. It came far, far too close for comfort.

Yeah, he must be using another screen name. You know, the one he uses with that VPN to browse "best S&M pictures."

I get it. He is indicted for you. The Messiah.

Living rent free inside his head. Where I have tons of square footage to enjoy!

OK, I get it. There's a big in-migration into Texas and Florida. But have you looked at the leading red states lately? The ones that voted Republican overwhelmingly in 2020? Places like Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas? There's no "red states are thriving, blue states are dying" thing. Most deep red states are in the bottom third on any socio-economic measure.

And "outraged" about school system eliminating tracking ...

So Trump should've listened to his counsel and made sure that any and all criminal activity he engaged in occurred only in Palm Beach, where he apparently owns the judge, and not in DC, where Joe Biden and the Democrats apparently own the judges? Not a particularly persuasive line of argument ....

And did any of that actually happen? NO. Compare what we now know happened in Michigan. They knowingly put forth a slate of "fake electors," even using that very term. YES.

This is an awful trend. I have some familiarity with educational systems in Europe; very little with educational systems in Asia or other parts of the world. They tend to "track" students much earlier, separating out the high achievers from those that are struggling. We have a more egalitarian focus in America. That continues straight through high school and university. We want to give late bloomers a chance. Unlike the UK, you don't specialize (by taking A levels) in particular disciplines before going to college. And unlike the UK, you aren't accepted into a particular degree program (with some minor exceptions), so you don't even have to declare a major until your second or third year. There's something valuable in all of that. But ... we have to live in the real world too. There are a lot of disciplined/bright kids who will be going into STEM fields who will be adversely impacted by trying to push everyone into an easier math sequence. My perception (and our educators are welcome to jump in here to agree/disagree): we pretty much know which kids may have a STEM future and which kids don't by the time they do hit 8th grade. Tracking shouldn't be a bad word. We should give a kid every opportunity to catch up. But catching up doesn't mean slowing down the talented/dedicated kids. We are in a weird place in America. Nobody ever suggests that the little kid sports team rules - everybody plays on the same team, regardless of ability - should carry through to high school. I would have played varsity football if that had been the rule, and believe me, I had no business even thinking about playing varsity football. Same thing with other skills: ballet, music, theater, whatever. But when it comes to academics we are afraid to admit that different kids have different talent levels in writing/math, etc. My kids' private school even stopped publishing the Honor Rolls (which, taking into account all 3 levels and grade inflation, probably included 85% of all students), but it had no problem publishing individual stats for the basketball teams. Why?

Of course Ukraine won't be admitted to NATO while a war is ongoing. We might as well simply declare war on Russia. Not gonna happen. But Ukraine In NATO (whether/when/under what terms) remains a huge bargaining chip to what will, someday, be a negotiated end to the fighting. May that day come sooner rather than later ...

None of that compares with trying to manipulate the actual mechanics of the electoral process, knowingly putting forth slates of "fake electors" (their term!), etc. Those are all things about trying to influence how people vote. Russian misinformation (which happened), Democrats publicizing a sketchy fake intel report (which happened) - all of that is in the category of dirty tricks to try to get people to vote a certain way. This was a deliberate attempt to ignore the results of those votes. It is not even close to the same thing. It had never happened before in the history of the republic. And I hope it never happens again, but that's what's so dangerous here: one side ignores established norms, next time around the other side says "why not us?"