Is he also implying all the other current active right leaning posters like @Trader_Jorge are trolls that don't represent his views with that post?
I think the execution risk is THE SAME for the states that have no excuse absentee voting and the state that doesn't (but chooses to). States do need to do something - if they foresee a rapid expansion to absentee voting (who wouldn't at this time) and need more man power and fund, but one or both of those are limited, well, they better get their act together instead of waiting around for a disaster. Not doing when you know what's coming is riskier than doing the necessary work to prepare for what's coming.
Disliking Donald Trump and wanting him out of office as soon as possible has very little to do with party lines at this point. Any sensible human being (Republican, Democrat or Independent) can see that he is a threat to our democracy and needs to be stopped. Today, Trump is actively trying to tear down the system of checks and balances that our government was founded on. First, he goes on Twitter last Friday to try and strong arm Governors into opening churches for in-person services ahead of Memorial Day Weekend, even though the president has no authority to do that. Then, when Twitter introduces a fact-checking feature that denounces Trump’s claim that Mail in Voting leads to rampant fraud, he signs an executive order this week designed to censor social media. For the record, I don’t identify with any political party, and, yet, I’m 100% behind the Democratic nominee come November. Why? Because that’s the way to remove Trump from office. I also say this as someone who thought Trump was a better choice than Hillary in 2016 on the basis that he would be able to help achieve some level of political reform in Washington, D.C. I was wrong.
Ellen Weintraub is the Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission... its a 66 tweet thread, but here are a few key tweets...
Unfortunately, hyperpolarization will continue this trend as those lifetime Conservative appointments make their mark in the next 20-40 years. The most simplistic act for Americans to promote checks and balances was splitting the legislative and executive. I doubt that's what's on people's mind these days.
You're asking the wrong person. And the answer is no. You're playing a game of "So, what you're saying is..."
You said you are the only active conservative poster. There are definitely other active posters who express conservative/right wing ideology and defend the president incessantly in the D&D. I'm just wonder if you just don't know they exist or whether you consider them bad faith posters.
I think Warren's the best choice, by far, regardless of the senate--much more for governing than electability though I think she's the best choice there too. But the main knock on her is that we need to take back the senate and she'd be replaced by Charlie Baker (R) for the 90 days it officially takes to hold a special election. And those 90 days are vital. There are a few reasons not to fear this: 1. Baker is a moderate Republican who will have to stand for re-election in a blue state. There's precedent for a moderate governor to replace an outgoing senator with one from the same party. 2. There's precedent for the legislature to vote to shorten the waiting period. 5. Warren could leave the senate early enough to spend down those 90 days early enough to avoid this problem. Still, it's a concern. Baker could refuse to name a Democrat or to shorten the waiting period, and maybe even deny the leaving early thing--I don't know enough to know. And winning back the senate may well come down to one vote. BUT... My post was about the likely pickup of a senate seat being good for Warren's chances because it would get us closer to taking the senate even if Warren is replaced by a Republican. And that would supersede the main objection raised about her being named as a running mate. Earlier in this thread, somewhere, I made my arguments for why Warren blows away all competition in the current environment. But, if it's not her, Biden could wait the 90 days and appoint her to a newly created czar-like position to place her in charge of the economic recovery and possibly the overall recovery.
That was the same reason I voted for Trump. Now I realize what a HUGE mistake that was, and how dangerous a man like him is in leading our country. I feel like I am watching a Psychopath with power doing and saying things that are as so ego driven, thoughtless, and dangerous to the people he was chosen to lead. My only hope now is that he loses his power once and for all.
Oh how I hope there are a lot more of you (and @DVauthrin) out there. I know there are some. I hope there are enough. I appreciate you both.
I said or meant I was the only active poster during that time of the day, yesterday, so that's why my posts were getting so much attention. There's only a handful of conservative posters that I'm aware of. I have no opinion as to if they post in bad faith.
This might kill Klobuchar's VP chances.... Amy Klobuchar didn't prosecute officer at center of George Floyd's death after previous conduct complaints https://news.yahoo.com/amy-klobuchar-declined-prosecute-officer-183728902.html
I just find this post pretty dishonest to be honest with you because multiple posters have posted linking (including myself) showing you that your opinions were based on misconceptions. You didn't click on any of those and then you turned around and complain about people not debating in good faith.
This is deceptive journalism. Klobuchar was elected to the Senate in 2006, so if the complaints about Chauvin are sorted by date (which they appear to be), then all of the “closed - no disciple” examples occurred while she was in the Senate. The Senate doesn’t control the court system. Chauvin was reprimanded for offensive language or something to that effect during Klobuchar’s time as Hennepin County Attorney. Are we really suggesting if Klobuchar was somehow tougher on him for those offenses that it could have spared George Floyd’s life 20 years later? Placing that question aside, let’s be practical. I’m willing to bet the last thing a prosecutor sees or cares about is, what I can only assume, would have been a police or internal affairs issue that didn’t result in charges and never came across her desk. Did the offensive/demeaning language complaint result in charges? She probably had no knowledge of any of this prior to joining the Senate. Am I missing something? You have a writer blabbing about TEN complaints and implying Klobuchar overlooked them. Meanwhile, she was in the Senate for 7/10 of them, and the other 3 were likely issues she was never made aware of.
