Elections; 2024
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Friday, November 21, 2025 00:12
VIEWED: 206031
PAGE 99 of 514
The Next Republican President Has a Plan to Ban Abortion Nationwide Without Congress
By Mary Ziegler | Nov 17, 2023
Voters may wonder if Trump will resurrect the Comstock Act, or if the Supreme Court will agree, or if a Trump Department of Justice will prioritize an attack on abortion. Progressives may be skeptical about the importance of a second Biden term when the president has sometimes avoided even saying the word abortion and when the prospect of federal abortion protections is far off. What is clear is that the architects of Project 2025 are confident that a second Trump term could be just as transformative for abortion rights as the first one was. Courtesy of Anthony Comstock, and regardless of whether Congress lifts a finger, an abortion ban is on the ballot — whether or not voters want one.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/11/biden-vs-trump-2024-nation
wide-abortion-ban.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile, in reality...
On this day in 2019, Joe Biden* was up in the polling aggregate by 10.2 points.
On this day in 2015, Hillary Clinton was up in the polling aggregate by 4.4 points.
Joe Biden* only "beat" Trump by little over 3 points. It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, Hillary Clinton lost that match.
Trump is up on Biden* today by 1.3 points.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Punching Politicians and Trump’s Belligerence
Journalists shouldn’t shy away from linking the two.
Nov 16, 2023
https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/punching-politicians-and-trump-belligere
nce
When the 118th Congress got underway, one of the first actions of the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives was to remove the magnetometers that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had had installed outside the House chamber following the January 6th attack.
After Tuesday’s events on Capitol Hill—when deposed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy allegedly sucker-elbowed a fellow Republican who called it “a clean shot to the kidneys” and Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) dared a witness in a Senate hearing to a fistfight—maybe it’s time to bring those magnetometers back.
Remember when, back in September, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) referred to Republican infighting as a “civil war” and everyone understood him to be speaking metaphorically? Maybe not so much.
Before Tuesday’s unhinged Republican behavior recedes from memory, it’s worth emphasizing one aspect of it that has been underappreciated in the press coverage: that it didn’t happen in a void, but rather fits into larger patterns in the world of Donald Trump.
Time and again, Trump has issued permission slips to those who practice violence. His fascination with the use of force, including by violent militias like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, is well documented. Tuesday’s events can only really be understood in that larger context of Trump and violence.
But you’ll search in vain for a mention of Trump in most reporting about Tuesday. The main New York Times article gives room to an excusatory tweet from Mitch McConnell’s spokesman (“Today is another example of why Congress shouldn’t be in session for 5 weeks straight”) and a distracting statement from MAGA Matt Gaetz (Thanksgiving “will allow everybody to go home [and] cool off”) but doesn’t even mention Trump’s name. The same goes for CNN, PBS, ABC, and the Los Angeles Times.
At least the Washington Post made an effort to note a parallel for the violence in the American past, quoting Yale historian Joanne B. Freeman, author of The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War: “If no one speaks up, [violence] becomes representative of what that party stands for.”
The most infamous tale of deadly force on the Senate floor is the 1856 caning of anti-slavery Republican Senator Charles Sumner by Rep. Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democratic congressman from South Carolina. The cane was metal-tipped, and Brooks struck Sumner’s head from the back, nearly killing him.
This was all part of accelerating division in the years leading to full-blown national violence on an unprecedented scale. Now, as before, violence is showing up in the halls of Congress—except this time it follows years of Donald Trump lauding the use of force in remarks that often became memes.
Recall the 2016 campaign rally where, speaking of a protester, Trump told his audience he’d “like to punch him in the face”:
“You’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”
Then in August 2017, from the White House podium, Trump said about the violent Charlottesville “Unite Right Rally” that there were “very fine people on both sides.” One side included James Alex Fields, who drove his Dodge Challenger into counterdemonstrator Heather Heyer, killing her.
Fast-forward to mid-2020 when Trump said of post-George Floyd riots, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” and retweeted a supporter’s video that said, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”
No one can forget the January 6th “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage” tweet after Trump had learned that violence was surging at the Capitol. It was the time when the invaders were shouting, “Hang Mike Pence.”
Nor do we fail to remember Trump’s famous three hours of diddling while the Ca
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump Wants to Use the Military Against His Enemies. The danger that this would pose to democracy cannot be overstated, but it can be averted. Congress Must Act.
Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act — a law that gives the president nearly unchecked powers to use the military as a domestic police force — on his first day in office. Unless Congress acts now to reform this dangerous and antiquated law, there’s little anyone can do to stop him.
As president, Trump displayed a keen interest in using the Insurrection Act to suppress Black Lives Matter protesters in the summer of 2020. Even more ominously, several Trump allies urged him to invoke the Insurrection Act in an effort to stay in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
Federal military forces are usually barred from enforcing civilian laws by the Posse Comitatus Act. This prohibition reflects a tradition in American law and political thought that an army turned inward as an inherent threat to democracy and individual liberty. However, the Posse Comitatus Act is not an absolute rule. It allows federal troops to participate in law enforcement when doing so has been expressly authorized by Congress.
The Insurrection Act provides that authorization. The intent behind the act is to allow the president to use the military to assist civilian authorities when they are overwhelmed by an insurrection, rebellion, or other civil unrest, or to enforce civil rights laws when state or local governments can’t or won’t enforce them. In such cases, a narrow exception to the general rule against using the military for law enforcement makes good sense. The problem is that the Insurrection Act creates a giant loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act rather than a limited exception to it.
The Insurrection Act’s central failing is that it grants virtually limitless discretion to the president. Its vague and archaic language — it was first enacted in 1792, and last updated in 1874 — provides little meaningful guidance as to what situations do or do not warrant deployment. One provision, for example, empowers the president to use the military or “any other means” to “take such measures as he considers necessary” to suppress any “unlawful combination … or conspiracy” that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” Read literally, this would permit the president to deploy the Marines to, say, arrest and detain two people suspected of conspiring to intimidate a witness in a federal trial.
Compounding the problem, the Supreme Court ruled in 1827 that the president alone decides whether invoking the Insurrection Act is justified; the courts may not review or second-guess that determination. As for Congress, if it disapproves of a president’s use of the act, its only recourse is to pass a law ending the deployment. The president would likely refuse to sign such a law, and Congress would then have to muster a two-thirds supermajority to override the president’s veto.
These flaws result in large part from Congress’ failure to update the Insurrection Act to meet the needs of a changing nation. Certain sections still look much as they did when Congress passed the first version of the Insurrection Act in 1792 — except that safeguards in the original law that allowed the courts or Congress to check the president’s authority have long since been removed.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/11/trump-second-term-military
-nightmare-congress.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump is so deep inside all of you Libtards' heads.
You scared yet?
You should be.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. Trump and his Trumptards should be scared of what happens when Biden turns the military against Trump. Trump could disappear into Guantanamo Bay where enhanced interrogation techniques can be used on him to speed up his trials. It is still "perfectly" legal to torture a fatso to death so long as fatso is locked up in Cuba. There is plenty of jail cells for one extra-wide lard bucket. Maybe the Republicans in the House should think about rewriting the Insurrection Act to take that power away from Biden. But Biden would have to sign the law and he might not because he hates Nazis like Trump.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Trump is so deep inside all of you Libtards' heads.
You scared yet?
You should be.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/un-report-criticizes-treatment-of-in
mates-at-guantanamo-bay-as-cruel-and-inhuman
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Trump is so deep inside all of you Libtards' heads.
You scared yet?
You should be.
A judge appointed by President Donald Trump ruled that North Dakota's legislative maps violated the Votings Rights Act (VRA) and must be revised before the end of the year.
The ruling filed Friday follows similar legal action centered around redistricting and discriminatory lawsuits that have succeeded in states since 2022, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina. Lawsuits are still being deliberated in Texas.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-appointed-judge-deals-bl
ow-to-republicans/ar-AA1k6Eqm
Facts boy, stick with the facts. You scared yet?
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Trump is so deep inside all of you Libtards' heads.
You scared yet?
You should be.
A judge appointed by President Donald Trump ruled that North Dakota's legislative maps violated the Votings Rights Act (VRA) and must be revised before the end of the year.
The ruling filed Friday follows similar legal action centered around redistricting and discriminatory lawsuits that have succeeded in states since 2022, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina. Lawsuits are still being deliberated in Texas.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-appointed-judge-deals-bl
ow-to-republicans/ar-AA1k6Eqm
Facts boy, stick with the facts. You scared yet?
T
Here's some facts for you.
Trump won in 2016, long before any redistricting happened.
Also, redistricting means nothing in a Presidential race anyhow. That only effects state and local races.
On this day in 2019, Joe Biden* was up in the polling aggregate by 10.2 points.
On this day in 2015, Hillary Clinton was up in the polling aggregate by 4.4 points.
Joe Biden* only "beat" Trump by little over 3 points. Hillary lost.
Trump is up on Biden* today by 1.6 points.
And he hasn't even started campaigning yet. Or posting on Twitter or Facebook.
He doesn't need to.
He can let the other GOP idiots eat each other alive, while the Democratic Party eats each other alive and Joe Biden* continues to fall on his face both metaphorically and literally.
Everybody else is doing his campaigning for him.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump's plan for Final Solution/Nazi Concentration Camps
Trump’s plan for giant detention camps points to a brutal 2024 reality
By Greg Sargent | November 14, 2023 at 8:00 a.m. EST
https://web.archive.org/web/20231114141238/https://www.washingtonpost.
com/opinions/2023/11/14/trump-mass-deportation-immigration-stephen-miller/
Donald Trump’s advisers have declared that if he regains the presidency, he will launch an extraordinarily cruel crackdown on immigration. Given that Trump lost reelection in 2020 after attempting a tamer agenda, advertising such plans might seem like foolish political malpractice.
But the politics of immigration can be peculiar. The public tends to turn on the president in power when the situation on the border goes wrong, leading voters to seek a diametrically different approach — no matter what policies the incumbent has adopted or what their opponent proposes.
In political science jargon, these wild swings against prevailing policy are known as “thermostatic” public opinion. This is particularly pronounced on immigration given its fiendish complexities, meaning disapproval of the incumbent could allow Trump to win even though he is campaigning on an extreme alternative.
That second-term agenda would revolve around what the New York Times calls “giant camps.” While detention centers already exist, the Times reports that Trump and adviser Stephen Miller envision a vastly expanded network that would facilitate the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants, including longtime residents with deep ties to communities.
Those camps would also enable Trump to dramatically scale up detention of people seeking asylum, which would be subject to shocking new limits. Trump would reinstate his ban on migrants from majority-Muslim countries, invoke new legal authorities to pursue mass expulsions and enlist the military to help carry them out.
Trump and his advisers see an opening to pursue these ambitions. They believe record new migrant arrivals (because of factors throughout the Americas) and the strains this has placed on Democratic cities mean “the political environment on immigration has moved in his direction,” as the Times puts it.
Undeniably, the public has soured on President Biden’s handling of the issue. Voters trust Trump on it by wide margins, support making asylum harder and even back his border wall. This has pundits opining that the issue now favors Trump. But let’s be clear on why this is happening and what it really means for 2024.
Recall that Trump’s handling of immigration was also deeply unpopular. In April 2019, another time when migrant arrivals dominated the news, large majorities opposed Trump’s approach, and very small minorities supported a border wall and wanted to make it harder to apply for asylum.
While disapproval of Trump turned partly on revulsion at his family separation policy, note that even with the border under severe strain, voters opposed restrictive policies across the board. As public opinion researcher Dan Hopkins shows, voters turned strongly against both the wall and deportations. Yet now voters appear open to such policies.
Here’s where thermostatic opinion comes in. Few voters are familiar with the finer points of asylum policy. Nor do most harbor strong ideological opposition to immigration; large majorities have generally regarded legal immigration as a good thing through both presidencies.
Instead, all indications suggest that voters think the border should be managed and don’t understand why that’s not happening. Under both presidents, imagery of disorder and migrant suffering filled the media, creating the powerful impression that the executive was failing to handle the situation. Naturally, in both cases, majorities disapproved of that handling of it.
“When policy is going badly and people see a Democrat in office, they tend to move in a Republican direction, and vice versa,” Stuart N. Soroka, a professor at UCLA who studies thermostatic opinion, told me. Immigration is susceptible to this, Soroka said,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol
It's not concentration camps. It's booting everyone who doesn't belong here and making sure nobody else invades our country.
The Democrat party is even losing the Mexican voters because they came here legally and they don't like what's going on.
Democrats ruin everything they touch.
--------------------------------------------------
Political correctness is just tyranny, with a smiley face.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME