Elections; 2024
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Friday, November 21, 2025 00:12
VIEWED: 206031
PAGE 490 of 514
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
It looks as though the votes that CNN already had counted that Google didn't have counted have shown up today. Both sides have gotten quite a few more.
I'm glad I kept track of this because we can one day go back and see what the ratio of votes for Harris vs. votes for Trump were as the last 3 Million votes were counted. It's been INANELY lopsided in favor of Harris.
I mentioned when Harris hit 74 Million that it was possibly the last 1 Million barrier anyone would hit. With a huge head start, Trump eventually did get over the next 1 Million hump, but Harris has gotten so many in the mean time she's about to lap him and do it again.
POPULAR VOTE:
77,151,288 for Trump (49.9%) / 74,788,460 votes for Harris (48.4%).
Total votes counted: 151,939,748
Trump's lead: 2,362,828
Holy shit they are not even pretending to hide the fact they're counting all the fabricated votes for Harris right now.
74,898,009 votes for Harris (48.4%) / 77,193,105 votes for Trump (49.9%)
Just since writing this last update only a few hours earlier today, they've given less than 42,000 for Trump and Harris has gotten an additional 120,000 votes. There is not a single district in the entire country that gave Harris this much of an advantage.
Looks like they're going to magically push her over 75 Million before the mail-in fraud ballots are finished.
Go back and look at the history of the last few weeks and see for yourself.
Once the votes are finally finished, I'll go back and lay out the details.
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
I can't wait until we're done counting and I can make an actual graph out of this data showing just how much the vote counting swung in Harris' favor after they started counting the pallets of mail-in fraud ballots.
Looks like Harris should cross 75 Million easily now.
If you look back to the night she crossed 74 Million I thought that might be the last Million barrier crossed on either side, even though Trump wasn't that far away from hitting 77 Million.
Since then, Trump got his 77 Million, but Harris is just about to lap him and hit 75 Million in the same time.
Current Popular Vote count on Google:
77,234,090 for Trump (49.9%) / 74,936,918 (48.4%)
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Republicans just won a permanent Senate majority
By Ilani Nurick, opinion contributor - 12/05/24 1:00 PM ET
Ilani Nurick is pursuing a juris doctorate at Yale Law School.
https://thehill.com/opinion/5022750-democratic-party-senate-loss/
Kamala Harris’s defeat was damaging to the left. But her loss overshadows the true scope of the damage wrought on the Democratic Party: the permanent loss of the Senate.
Democrats have lost the Senate before, but this loss is different from 2014. This time, it may well be for good. For the first time in a century, there is not one Democratic senator from a reliably red state.
We have entered an era of one-party rule — at least where the Senate is concerned.
Today, the Senate map mirrors the national electoral divide. Democratic senators in blue states, Republican senators in red states, and swing states up for grabs. That’s grim news for Democrats. Simply put, there are more red states than blue states.
For decades, Democrats relied on popular Democratic senators in deep-red states — for example, Tom Daschle in South Dakota (lost in 2004), Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas (lost in 2010), Mary Landrieu in Louisiana (lost in 2014), Claire McCaskill in Missouri (lost in 2018), and Jon Tester in Montana (lost in 2024). In recent years, these red-state Democrats were critical to holding the Democratic majority.
The final nationalization of the Senate in 2024 with the ousting of Tester and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and the retirement of Joe Manchin in West Virginia, shifts the path to a Democratic Senate majority entirely to blue and purple states. This makes the Democrats’ task nearly impossible.
Republicans, in contrast, can compete in many more states. Even if Democrats sweep every swing state contest (and oust Susan Collins in Maine), they can win at most 52 seats in the Senate. That includes both seats in North Carolina. If Republicans were to win all the Senate seats in all of those same swing states, they would control 62 seats.
Considering that only a third of swing state seats will ever be up for election any given cycle, the odds of Democrats winning all 14 races are almost a statistical impossibility. Susan Collins’s hold on blue Maine makes the task even tougher.
There is a historical analog to this emerging phenomenon: the Permanent Democratic Congress. From 1954 through 1994, Democrats controlled the House for 40 out of 40 years, and 58 out of 62 years until 1994. Only recently have we entered an era of congressional oscillation between parties, an era that came to an end this November.
This new permanent Republican Senate has three profound consequences for the Democratic Party and the institution of the Senate.
First, any incoming Democratic president will enter the White House with a severe handicap, limiting the enactment of broad campaign promises. Instead of enjoying a mandate reflected by majorities in Congress, the far likelier scenario is a Democratic president immediately vying against a confident and combative Republican Senate. Any partisan campaign promise — from a public option to progressive tax reform — is dead on arrival. The same hostility President Obama faced after losing the Senate in 2014 will be the presumptive landscape.
The implications for effective governance are severe: structural reforms would be almost unattainable, further entrenching the perception of dysfunction in Washington. For the Democratic Party, the consequences are graver: this hyper-gridlock would be inextricably linked to Democratic presidencies, deepening voter disillusionment during their time in power.
Republicans no longer have any incentive to confirm Democratic judicial nominees, knowing a Republican-controlled Senate can outwait a Democratic president.
The precedent for this is very recent: Merrick Garland. Republicans opted not to vote on a lame duck Democratic president’s nominee to the Supreme Court, betting on the chance to confirm a Republican nominee instead. Now, it’s more than a gamble; it’s a near certainty. With the p
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup. You lost Joe Donnelly in Indiana after he came out against Brett Kavanaugh.
#MeToo cost you the Senate permanently. Nice job.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Without any realistic fear of losing their majority, Republicans have no further use for the filibuster. Rather than serving as a safeguard, it now only stands in their way. It no longer provides commensurate prospective protection. Both parties have already weakened the filibuster through the Nuclear Option when it suited their needs and the benefits outweighed the backlash.
You want me to dig up all the times you and Ted were cheerleading the prospect of removing the filibuster when Dems were in control and how I warned you that this wouldn't always be the case?
AREN'T YOU FUCKING GLAD DEMOCRATS DIDN'T DO THIS NOW?
I sure hope Republicans think about the future and how bad that could be for them if they did it now. That's only something you do when you're sure that you're going to be in power forever. And an opinion article from a no-name of your opposition saying that you're going to be in power forever doesn't qualify for reality.
In any event, maybe you'll stop trying to force men who should be in a loony bin from whipping out their dicks in front of women and young girls. Especially in all of the red states that severely outnumber the blue states.
Everything you do is unpopular with the majority. Maybe stop fucking around with everyone's lives and trying to force the rest of the country to become California and maybe you can win the Senate back one day.
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The filibuster exists only to avoid making decisions in the Senate. Not making decisions is fatal in the military, for a very real example. Oh dear, the American generals can't decide whether to attack or retreat, and so the enemy wins. You think that is over dramatizing the situation? Not so.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I sure hope Republicans think about the future and how bad that could be for them if they did it now. That's only something you do when you're sure that you're going to be in power forever. And an opinion article from a no-name of your opposition saying that you're going to be in power forever doesn't qualify for reality.
In any event, maybe you'll stop trying to force men who should be in a loony bin from whipping out their dicks in front of women and young girls. Especially in all of the red states that severely outnumber the blue states.
Everything you do is unpopular with the majority. Maybe stop fucking around with everyone's lives and trying to force the rest of the country to become California and maybe you can win the Senate back one day.
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
The Senate has refused to pass a Declaration of War since the last one in 1942, but the American Army has been in numerous wars since then and pretty much lost every damn one of them. Since there was NO Declaration of War, the generals and Presidents were free to dither back and forth between attack and retreat and running around in circles while screaming and shouting. And that is why the United States keeps losing war after war. The Senate won't even commit to Declaring War on a piece of paper, so why would the United States actually win a war that nobody in the Senate will put their signature to a document demanding a victory?
By the way, the Constitution requires a Declaration of War by Congress, but Congress has stopped obeying the Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/war_powers
Declarations of War by Congress
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm
Lists of Wars in the 21st Century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
#21st-century_wars
To summarize, the filibuster has always been a bad idea that the Senate has used to avoid making life-and-death decisions.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:The filibuster exists only to avoid making decisions in the Senate. Not making decisions is fatal in the military, for a very real example. Oh dear, the American generals can't decide whether to attack or retreat, and so the enemy wins. You think that is over dramatizing the situation? Not so.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I sure hope Republicans think about the future and how bad that could be for them if they did it now. That's only something you do when you're sure that you're going to be in power forever. And an opinion article from a no-name of your opposition saying that you're going to be in power forever doesn't qualify for reality.
In any event, maybe you'll stop trying to force men who should be in a loony bin from whipping out their dicks in front of women and young girls. Especially in all of the red states that severely outnumber the blue states.
Everything you do is unpopular with the majority. Maybe stop fucking around with everyone's lives and trying to force the rest of the country to become California and maybe you can win the Senate back one day.
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
The Senate has refused to pass a Declaration of War since the last one in 1942, but the American Army has been in numerous wars since then and pretty much lost every damn one of them. Since there was NO Declaration of War, the generals and Presidents were free to dither back and forth between attack and retreat and running around in circles while screaming and shouting. And that is why the United States keeps losing war after war. The Senate won't even commit to Declaring War on a piece of paper, so why would the United States actually win a war that nobody in the Senate will put their signature to a document demanding a victory?
By the way, the Constitution requires a Declaration of War by Congress, but Congress has stopped obeying the Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/war_powers
Declarations of War by Congress
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm
Lists of Wars in the 21st Century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
#21st-century_wars
To summarize, the filibuster has always been a bad idea that the Senate has used to avoid making life-and-death decisions.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Until Biden*, in the last 24 years Trump was the only President that didn't start another unconstitutional war.
Maybe if the Biden* administration didn't fuck up Ukraine and the Middle East so much that might have meant something in the end.
It certainly meant nothing at all once Joe Biden* gave the directive to Ukraine to fire US missiles at Russia last month.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-at
acms-missiles.html
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The wiki article shows a dozen wars you never heard about that Trump let run out of control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Until Biden*, in the last 24 years Trump was the only President that didn't start another unconstitutional war.
Maybe if the Biden* administration didn't fuck up Ukraine and the Middle East so much that might have meant something in the end.
It certainly meant nothing at all once Joe Biden* gave the directive to Ukraine to fire US missiles at Russia last month.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-at
acms-missiles.html
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
#21st-century_wars
Since Congress had not made a declaration of war for any of those wars, Trump could have instantly ended all the wars, but he didn't. Trump let the wars pointlessly run on and on and he let his generals run around in circles, accomplishing nothing. Oddly, the Senate has never had a problem ignoring what was happening.
If a Senator opposed a wacko war, and Trump accidentally stumbled into a "victory" (note the quotation marks around "victory" ) the Senator would look bad for not supporting the troops.
The reverse situation, a Senator supporting a wacko war and Trump stumbling into a defeat (note the lack of quotation marks around defeat) the Senator, again, looks bad for sending troops to die in vain.
Either supporting or opposing wacko wars can make a Senator look bad. That's why the Senate has NOT passed a Declaration of War since 1942, despite that being the most important responsibility the Senate has.
The Senate's filibuster has the same motivation as the Senate never declaring war. A filibuster allows Senators to not make a decision about some minor policy (minor compared to war) in the same way as the no declaration of wars allows Senators to not decide either for or against going to war. The Senators push their Constitutional responsibility to make decisions onto the President which is about the worst possible way to run a country, by moving all policy decisions into the wrong department. The worst run countries in history have the top guy, a Hitler or a Chairman Mao or a Stalin, making the biggest decisions that kill millions all by himself.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:The wiki article shows a dozen wars you never heard about that Trump let run out of control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Until Biden*, in the last 24 years Trump was the only President that didn't start another unconstitutional war.
Maybe if the Biden* administration didn't fuck up Ukraine and the Middle East so much that might have meant something in the end.
It certainly meant nothing at all once Joe Biden* gave the directive to Ukraine to fire US missiles at Russia last month.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-at
acms-missiles.html
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
#21st-century_wars
It's a list of a dozen wars that ain't any of our business and I give zero fucks about.
The only reason anybody gives a fuck about Ukraine is because we've got so much taxpayer dollars invested in it. You dumb assholes are in the vast minority in December of 2024.
Nobody ever gave one single actual fuck about Ukraine. 2 months after that started they all proved that by taking their Ukraine flags out of their bios and never bringing it up again because it wasn't cool to talk about anymore.
I don't begrudge Biden at all for not ending the conflict. It wasn't any of Biden's fucking business in the first place. Yanno... if you pretend that he and his family haven't been doing shady shit in the Ukraine for over a decade now.
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And I really don't understand what you're going on about right now.
Are you actually campaigning for Republicans to remove the filibuster in the Senate?
That's what it looks like you're doing when you post 3 articles in a row calling it shit.
You sure you don't want to think about that and maybe sleep on it for a night or two before you put what you think is your two cents in on the issue?
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, you are very smart. Yes, I do want the filibuster ended. I do want the Senate to make decisions, which it avoids because there is a filibuster.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And I really don't understand what you're going on about right now.
Are you actually campaigning for Republicans to remove the filibuster in the Senate?
That's what it looks like you're doing when you post 3 articles in a row calling it shit.
You sure you don't want to think about that and maybe sleep on it for a night or two before you put what you think is your two cents in on the issue?
--------------------------------------------------
Trump is fine.
He is also your current President.
The malfunctions of the Federal government arise because Congress refuses to do its job, with the biggest and most obvious refusal being the Senate refusing to make Declarations of War. (The Pentagon gets a big budget from the Senate because it is careful to distribute its bases and weapons contracts across 50 states, which is the Pentagon's way of bribing Senators to vote for overly expensive weapons without voting for war.)
The President definitely should NOT be starting wars, but Presidents have, and the Senate should be removing such Presidents from power, which it has NOT been doing because the Senate is full of irresponsible individuals who are simultaneously greedy for Pentagon spending in their states. Sending aid to Ukraine is a perfect way to increase military spending in the states without taking any responsibility for winning a war. It’s a win/win for Senators who want money for their states but don’t want responsibility for results in a war. Since Trump is Putin’s buddy, he doesn’t want Putin to lose, which means Ukraine will no-longer be a conduit for the Pentagon transferring money to Republican Senators’ states.
The Federal government has been kept half-way running by having the President personally making decisions that should have been made by Congress. Another absurdity that is caused by the irresponsibility of elected Senators is the Supreme Court has started making decisions that should only be made by Congress.
And the silliest thing going on in Washington DC is the idea that Only-I-Can-Fix-It from foolish people who worship Presidents. The real examples of Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Stalin should make sane people afraid of Only-I-Can-Fix-It Trump making all decisions. Countries like China, Russia and the USA have drifted into one super-powerful man making all decisions. That is an insane way to run a government.
A government ends up being the expression of the peculiarities of one man, and when that man falls ill (see Biden followed by Trump) or even dies (see JFK followed by LBJ), the government becomes the playground for the peculiarities and emotional illness of the next super-powerful man (see Richard Nixon's mental breakdown).
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You can stop filing tax returns after Trump is President
Thu, Dec 5 2024, 5:10 PM EST
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/05/irs-crackdown-on-wealthy-americans-fac
es-roadblocks-.html
A quirk in federal tax law is incentivizing wealthy people who want to avoid paying taxes to simply not file their returns. That’s because it’s a felony to file false tax returns but only a misdemeanor not to file a return at all.
And due to limited IRS and Department of Justice resources to pursue misdemeanor violations, a person who does not file a return is unlikely to face prosecution. As a result, many millionaires could simply be taking their chances, betting that they will face few consequences for not filing their tax returns.
In early 2024, the IRS began an effort to contact people it calls “high income non-filers” and urge them to file returns to the tax agency.... Notices were mailed in February in 125,000 cases targeting wealthy taxpayers who had not filed tax returns since 2017.
I'll bet it will get easier pretty soon as Donald Trump and his handpicked IRS commissioner ease up on those pesky new Democratic rules aimed at collecting more unpaid taxes from the rich. They'll probably reallocate the agents to go after people who cheat the feds out of $50 on their EITC returns.
Also, it sure seems like someone should have told Hunter Biden about this. If he had not filed his 2018 return (he did not file in 2017) the case against him would have been entirely misdemeanors.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME