... you can write about whatever you want.
And please think of supporting this blog by doing your shopping through the Althouse portal to Amazon, which is always right there in the sidebar. Thanks!
१० डिसेंबर, २०२०
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६४ टिप्पण्या:
If you rely on power to obtain your goals you are just vulnerable to a greater power.
Lovely photo...
Everyone knows there was widespread fraud. How else to explain that trump, who everyone knows is the most corrupt, evil, and incompetent president in 230 years, managed to garner 11 million more votes than in 2016. The odds of that is one zillion trillion to one
Everyone knows.
"trump, who everyone knows is the most corrupt, evil, and incompetent president in 230 years "
Headline from the BBC: "Morocco latest country to normalise ties with Israel in US-brokered deal"
Facebook may be about to ban comedian JP Sears.
What sort of thing gets you banned on Facebook?
JP Sears: Why small businesses should stay closed forever!
steve uhr said...
Everyone knows there was widespread fraud. How else to explain that trump, who everyone knows is the most corrupt, evil, and incompetent president in 230 years, managed to garner 11 million more votes than in 2016. The odds of that is one zillion trillion to one
Everyone knows.
You chose to appeal to authority rather than reason with facts.
Now you try to mock people that reasoned with facts.
You fail.
Governor Andrew Cuomo has been given the prestigious Ted Kennedy 'Inspired Leadership' Award, presumably for killing more nursing home patients than any governor in US history. A record that is sure to stand test of time.
It reminds one of Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama dropping more smart bombs than any Peace Prize winner in history.
An award named for Edward (Ted) Kennedy is mischaracterized when called "prestigious". At least that is what Mary Jo Kopechne would say if she were available for comment.
Donald Trump is the most demonstrably pro-American, pro-America president since Ronald Reagan. As judged by his actions and accomplishments.
Did Smallwang Bang Fang Fang?
Coming up: Arnold Ziffel falls in love with Cynthia the Basset Hound.
Ted Cruz: "More than once, I’ve said 'screw the Chinese communists, little did I know how closely Swalwell was listening."
The odds of Steve Uhr having a working set of neurons, ganglia, and axons is one zillion trillion to one.
If I had a dollar for every brain Steve Uhr *doesn't have* I would have...ONE DOLLAR.*
**stolen from Squidward on SpongeBob)
Morocco-Israel normalization was corrupt. In return, Trump administration agreed to recognize Morocco's longstanding illegitimate claim to former Spanish colony Western Sahara. Just like earlier recognitions were in return for Trump agreement to sell F-35--something Israel against and US Congress balking at.
Ted Cruz: "More than once, I’ve said 'screw the Chinese communists, little did I know how closely Swalwell was listening."
Did he really say that, Humperdink? Love it. Ever since Cruz grew a beard he's like a new man. Why he wasn't named AG is beyond me.
I second Mockturtle's question.
Cruz needed to develop the ability to joke and appear human. This seems out of character.
These guys came up on a cafe last week:
Modern English - I Melt With You (from Quarantine)
Oh
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israels-second-constitutional-revolution
Why China? And Why Now? I think I cracked the Code.
I've been asking myself why the Democrats, the Professional Liar Media, Big Tech and Chris Wray's FBI (but I repeat myself) who wouldn't allow any discussion of Hunter Biden's Chinese Cash Take-Out a month ago are now focusing on it non-stop.
The FBI has been investigating Hunter since 2018. They could have done this in 2018. Or 2019. Or 2020 before November. They even sent out 50 Intelligence Professionals before the election to call it all Russian Dizinformation.
But they waited 'til after the election--yet before Inauguration--to push this China story. It's very curious.
To be clear, I believe President Trump will be inaugurated on Jan. 20th. But they don't.
Here's another question: who were the Obamas candidates?
A: That would be Kamala Harris and Corey Booker. They were supposed to pushed into the spotlight by their collusion with Jussie Smollet for an Anti-Lynching bill. But that fell apart like Smollet's fairy tale in Chicago's frigid night air.
I think Obama is using Hunter as a means to retire Parkinson's Joe, elevate Kamala Harris and have her pick Corey Booker as veep.
After all, even Democrats know Joe will crack under pressure. Already, he slips up and says true things, much to everyone's shock and dismay. Like the other day when he said: "But, and, like I told Barack, if I read something where there's a fundamental disagreement we have based on a moral principle, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll developed some disease and say I have to resign."
Like the moral principle of, say, taking payoffs from China? No, clearly old Joe can't be allowed anywhere near power.
I think the FBI threw in Swallwell's five-year-old Fang-Wang-Bang story just to chum the "China! China! China!"-waters.
When we ask "Cui bono?"--Who benefits?--the answer comes up the Obamas, who would get their favorite candidates installed without their fingerprints at the crime scene.
Except, of course, for President-Elect Donald J. Trump.
Fan fiction.
"A: That would be Kamala Harris and Corey Booker. They were supposed to pushed into the spotlight by their collusion with Jussie Smollet for an Anti-Lynching bill. But that fell apart like Smollet's fairy tale in Chicago's frigid night air."
Whatever happened to that case?
I still believe there was collusion between Harris, Booker, and probably Obama to set it all up. Would love to see the emails.
Achilles: Cruz really did say that. I looked it up.
The defendants in the Texas lawsuit argue, among many other things, that Texas lacks standing, that is has not suffered an injury by the defendants' departure from the state legislatures' election rules, that Texas has no interest in how another state conducts its election.
But is that right? Texas did not agree to join a nation where state courts or governors choose the manner of appointing presidential electors. Instead, Texas, like every other state, joined the Union on the understanding that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" for President. Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 3. But now PA, GA, MI, and WI have broken that agreement. Why doesn't that injure Texas every other state?
I mean, it's not like Texas (and all the other states that have joined it) is asking the Supreme Court to enforce another state's traffic laws or its laws against, say, murder. There's nothing in the Constitution about those things. But I would think each state has an interest that the constitutionally-prescribed manner of choosing the nation's chief executive officer be followed.
"... trump, who everyone knows is the most corrupt, evil, and incompetent president in 230 years ...",
I think LBJ has the inside track on that one, but this does raise an interesting point. I constantly hear the anti-Trump making this sort of sweeping attack on Trump. What are they talking about? Or, what do they think they are talking about? Corrupt how? Evil how? If incompetent, how, and how is his being evil and corrupt a problem if he is incompetent?
I have concluded that the Swamp basically felt that they had things sewed up, and then Trump came along, and wrecked their plan. They are beside themselves with rage because their beloved Hillary-Monster did not mount the Throne as planned. That's why they hate Trump. But what does a thing like steve uhr have against Trump?
I suppose that depends on what kind of thing steve uhr is.
"Corrupt how? Evil how? If incompetent, how, and how is his being evil and corrupt a problem if he is incompetent?"
Trump is the most transparent and investigated POTUS in history. His record certainly does not point to incompetence, he was able to accomplish at least to some degree most of his platform despite extreme opposition from both his own party and the opposition. Uhr is plagiarizing readering's style and substance with that nonsense. If I was readering, I'd be pissed.
LOL- TIME.
so predictable.
Kennedy and Cuomo share the distinction of hastening people's death via gasping for breath.
Well then
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q5yoXwpXdC8
Sorry i meant this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i1v0oBgMZ4U
I miss this guy!
Expanding on the theme of horror stories in unexpected places: The Merchant of Venice is (for Portia and Bassanio anyway) a romantic comedy, but poor Shylock is stuck in some sort of horror movie. Gregor Samsa never had a worse day. Antonio spits on him in public. His daughter runs off with a penniless Christian and takes his money chest with her. When he wails about his misfortunes, the larger world finds his misery mirth provoking.....The famous courtroom scene where Portia pleads "the quality of mercy is not strained" is not an example of the quality of mercy but rather of the quality of injustice. Shylock seeks a disproportionate revenge on Antonio but instead a slightly less disproportionate revenge is visited upon him.....Shakespeare gives Shylock a few good lines and the character can be played sympathetically, but there's something horrible about how all the other characters go on to their happy endings and he is left with a life not quite worth living.
Justice Thomas has the most stringent view of standing of any current justice.
He will vote to dismiss the Texas case.
As I recall there was a movie with Diana Rigg & Vincent Price where Price was enacting all the murders from Shakespeare and Rigg had to stop him. When they got to "Merchant of Venice" Price actually took the pound of flesh and Rigg was angry above and beyond the murders at his rewriting Shakespeare..
McCullough
Not on standing grounds I think. Direct injury to Texas since VP presides over Senate.
Blogger mockturtle said...
Ted Cruz: "More than once, I’ve said 'screw the Chinese communists, little did I know how closely Swalwell was listening."
Did he really say that, Humperdink? Love it. Ever since Cruz grew a beard he's like a new man. Why he wasn't named AG is beyond me.
Cruz used to be honest about Donald but now agrees to present the Texas case to SCOTUS and stupid Trump believes he would do a good job.
Cruz: "Maybe it is the case that Donald, there have been multiple media reports about Donald's business dealings with the mob, with the mafia. Maybe his taxes show those business dealings are a lot more extensive than has been reported"
Cruz: Trump is a "narcissist" and "serial philanderer" and "morality doesn't exist" for him.
Cruz: "This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies — practically every word that comes out of his mouth."
Cruz: "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father. ... that pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander and attack Heidi, that I'm going to nonetheless come like a servile puppy dog and say, 'thank you very much for maligning my wife and my father.'"
Gadfly said "blah blah blah..."
Tell us some of what Kameltoe said about Biden in the debates, Gadfly.
Blogger mccullough said...
Justice Thomas has the most stringent view of standing of any current justice.
He will vote to dismiss the Texas case.
12/10/20, 11:08 PM
I haven't seen much discussion of the standing issue and I've been looking for it.
I wish there were a constitutional scholar around here who could discuss it.
They were looking for responses from the sue-ees by 3:00pm Thursday I thought. Did they get them?
Cruz was very close to being defeated in his Senate race against Beto O'Rourke. O'Rourke had massive financial support from outside Texas as well as Hollywood celebrities/Obama.( wiki: According to the 2018 third-quarter report from the FEC, his campaign spent US$7.3 million on digital advertising alone (in contrast with Cruz's $251,000... O'Rourke raised $80 million for the campaign, which was the highest amount ever raised by a U.S. Senate candidate.)
Finally Cruz asked Trump to come to Texas to help Cruz's campaign and Trump did. He tweeted: "I will be doing a major rally for Senator Ted Cruz in October. I’m picking the biggest stadium in Texas we can find. As you know, Ted has my complete and total Endorsement. His opponent is a disaster for Texas - weak on Second Amendment, Crime, Borders, Military, and Vets! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2018 There is no doubt that Trump saved Cruz's job.
I just reviewed a clip from the 2016 debate for the Republican primary where Trump and Cruz go after each other and I think Cruz was actually amused by Trump -- it's quite entertaining.
Cruz is smart enough to not hold on to grudges. That is to his credit.
Gosh - Councilman Swalwell met with a nothingburger Chicom sweetie back in the day when it could not have mattered.
Then there was Russian spy Maria Butina’s publicly known activities during the 2016 campaign. She was allowed to ask Donald Trump a question about Russian sanctions at a public event in which Trump, in fact, conveniently asked her if she had a question. She later met Donald Trump Jr. and Russian Banker Alexander Torshin at an NRA dinner, and reportedly made “gun-related small talk” but two weeks later, Don Jr. would get an emailed offer of information that would incriminate Hillary Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
Blogger Rt1Rebel said...
Gadfly said "blah blah blah..."
Tell us some of what Kameltoe said about Biden in the debates, Gadfly.
I gave actual quotes, you did nothing but make personal attacks. I am unimpressed by the stupidity of your dumbass nonsense. BTW, I don't watch debates but I'll bet that you attend Trump rallies.
gadfly: "did nothing but make personal attacks"
..."blah blah blah" counts as a personal attack? WTF is wrong with you?
BTW, can someone remind me, wasn't it rendering who was convinced that Republicans were corrupt because of their evil plan to gerrymander state wide elections? And had to have it explained why thats impossible like 3 times before he got it, claiming it was we who didn't understand his brilliance all the while? Pretty sure it was.
Gibberish
Pretty much any prominent Republican has lots of disparaging quotes about the Donald before he locked in the nomination in 2016.
Ah, so it was then.
Unless... maybe he *still* doesn't understand why you can't gerrymandering statewide elections?
Holy shit. I think he still doesn't.
Biden and Harris being awarded TIME Person of the Year is like honoring the race car for winning a NASCAR race, rather than the driver.
I picked the election fraudsters as the award winner, and I was not wrong.
“I mean, it's not like Texas (and all the other states that have joined it) is asking the Supreme Court to enforce another state's traffic laws or its laws against, say, murder. There's nothing in the Constitution about those things. But I would think each state has an interest that the constitutionally-prescribed manner of choosing the nation's chief executive officer be followed.¨
Here is a thought. Justice Alito authored the concurrence in Bush v Gore (joined by J Thomas) that would have also found for Bush on Article I Elections and Article II Electors Clauses basises, along with the 14th Amdt Equal Protection basis used by the 7-2 majority. He was also the Justice for the 3rd Circuit who ordered late ballots in PA sequestered, which was ignored. But then he (along with Thomas, again) voted to deny Cert to the PA case. I would have expected at least their two votes for Cert. they only needed two more votes (e.g. Gorsuch and ACB) for Cert. Yet, the vote was apparently 9-0 against Cert. what is/was going on there? Are six Republican nominated Justices going to give the Presidency to Senile Joe Bien, won through massive election fraud, without a fight? Certainly at least one of the six would have dissented, and written a scathing dissent. What’s going on there?
Here is my thought. I think that it is more likely than not that they knew about the Texas case, and prefer it to the alternative cases. Everything is tied up in a nice little bow for them. They vote for the plaintiffs, and the fraud is put to the side, their legislatures get to select their slates of electors, Trump wins, and the Dems don’t get a chance to pack the Court. They vote for the Defendants, Biden win by massive election fraud stands as precedent (legal and, more importantly, practically), due to his diminished mental capacity, Biden is almost immediately replaced by the much more radical Harris, and the Republicans on the Court get to retain their power for the meantime by delaying the expected Dem Court packing. This case is much cleaner, with a lot of the side issues put to the side, and the Constitutional issues brought to the foreground. The very same three Constitutional issues voted for by Alito and Thomas twenty years ago.
My prediction right now is Cert and. 5-4, 6-3, or even. 7-2 victory for Trump, with Alito and Thomas as very safe votes, Gorsuch and ACB almost as safe, Kavenaugh the swing vote, but swinging behind Texas out of loyalty to Trump, who nominated him, Roberts swinging in after Kavenaugh, to keep the decision as narrow as he can (and Thomas or Alito from writing the decision) and to protect the reputation of his Court, and to keep it from being packed, and possibly Breyer joining on Equal Protection grounds, as he did in 2000.
"My prediction right now is Cert and. 5-4, 6-3, or even. 7-2"
How many predictions have you been making and how many have come to pass? What was your prediction on that Pa case? How did that turn out?
And when all these decisions turn out the same way it's because the courts are corrupt or cowardly and not because you are wrong, right?
"Justice Alito authored the concurrence in Bush v Gore (joined by J Thomas) that would have also found for Bush on Article I Elections and Article II Electors Clauses basises,"
WTF? Alito was not even on the Supreme Court at the time.
You got me there, it was Thomas, Scalia, and CJ Rehnquist who would have also found for Bush on Article II Electors Clause basis.
Someone above suggested that the lawsuit would be thrown out on standing grounds. And, I agree that is the most likely way to kill it. But making that more difficult, Republican lawmakers in various defendant states are joining in, claiming to have been essentially disenfranchised. Article II, § 1, ¶ 2 gives plenary power to select electors to the state legislatures, and that is precisely what the lawsuit claimed didn’t happen this year in the four defendant states. The executive and judicial branches in those states unconstitutionally took that power away from their legislatures, by waiving or modifying portions that would have prevented, or at least minimized, the election fraud that was committed in these states. If they are allowed to intervene, they can show that they suffered actual harm.
Ted Cruz wants to argue the case. He is one of Texas’ favorite sons, is skilled and experienced at appellate argument at this level, and put him on the inside track, along with Pence, in 2024, esp if he wins. It should be interesting.
gadfly asserted: "Councilman Swalwell met with a nothingburger Chicom sweetie back in the day when it could not have mattered."
So Swallowswell, as a mere councilman, met (read: slept with) with Little Chitty Fang Bang, a confirmed ChiCom spy and gadfly whisks it away.
Does it give you pause regarding Swallowswell's judgement? Or how about Pelosi granting a seat on the intel committee after she was outed and fled the country? Or how about Swallowswell going after Trump for being a Russian agent?
We are in the theater of the absurd.
“ How many predictions have you been making and how many have come to pass? What was your prediction on that Pa case? How did that turn out? ”
Only one I have made - if it gets to the Supreme Court, the vote is most likely 6-3, with CJ Roberts swinging in with the majority in order to control the writing of the decision. After the CJ, the next most senior Justice is Thomas, who DID join in the A II, § 1, ¶ 2 concurrence, who tends to write with a very broad brush, and thus is the last Justice whom Roberts would want writing the decision. Working backwards, assuming that Roberts would try to minimize the impact of whatever side wins the vote, and will vote, himself, accordingly, is why I thought that Kavenaugh would be the real swing vote. Alito appears to be pissed. Thomas did join the Electors Clause concurrence. Gorsuch grew up in a Sagebrush Rebellion household - his mother was one of its higher visibility leaders. Growing up, those were the radical Trumpsters of his formative years. Ultimately, I expect that he will be as radical, to the right, as Thomas has been. And, ACB is likely still loyal to Trump who put her on the Court. And was likely well vetted for loyalty before being nominated.
Adding a little mustard to gadfly's nothingburger: "According to Axios, she (Little Chitty Fang Bang) raised money for Swalwell’s congressional reelection campaign in 2014 and placed an intern in his congressional office."
Helped place an intern in Swallowswell office? Who might that be?
We celebrate firsts all the time, so it’s strange how no one is celebrating the First Person with obvious symptoms of Dementia to be elected President....
It would also be a huge shame if first woman President came to power this way, involved in massive fraud.
We celebrate firsts all the time, so it’s strange how no one is celebrating the First Person with obvious symptoms of Dementia to be elected President....
It would also be a huge shame if first woman President came to power this way, involved in massive fraud.
Harris screwed her way to the top from CA. You really think voter fraud is gonna be an issue historically? She'll be a shining example of the "progress" women have made. Remember the phrase "by any means necessary".
Bruce-
I think you will be disappointed. The Founding Fathers did correctly is create an independent judiciary with lifetime tenure. I genuinely doubt that the justices give a flying shit about petty partisan politics. ACB is not going to find a constitutional violation because she really wants Trump to win. It doesn't work like that.
Not even the Dems wanted her as President. She had to drop out before the first primary. So while I see your point, she’s no one’s choice.
Rosalyn C observes: Cruz is smart enough to not hold on to grudges.
As is Trump. There is a lot of mutual respect there and they both understand the realities of politics. Unlike, say, John McCain or John Kasich.
Excellent article today re: C-19 at WUWT.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/10/essential-facts-about-covid-19/
Everything is tied up in a nice little bow for them. They vote for the plaintiffs, and the fraud is put to the side, their legislatures get to select their slates of electors, Trump wins, and the Dems don’t get a chance to pack the Court.
This, of course, will cause the blue cities to explode. I wonder if Roberts has the stones to do this? Will the legislatures be willing to risk the credible threats already being made against families and children? This is a huge decision, comparable to those that led to civil war. Democrats cannot accept loss, any more than they did in 1861. The cheating was a huge effort. As usual, the left is dismissing it.
I genuinely doubt that the justices give a flying shit about petty partisan politics.
They think stealing elections is all in a day's work.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा