Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Saturday, November 30, 2024

Four States Could Secede From US and Join Canada to Avoid Trump—Democrat


To avoid President-elect Donald Trump's return to office, Democratic New York State Senator Liz Krueger proposes that her state and its northeastern neighbors secede from the United States to join Canada.
 
"Basically everybody in these states are progressive Democrats."
 
To avoid President-elect Donald Trump's return to office, Democratic New York State Senator Liz Krueger proposes that her state and its northeastern neighbors secede from the United States to join Canada.
 
(Gazette Blog Editor's Note: After reading the article below, this editor humbly suggests a new northwest Canadian province consisting of Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado and New Mexico.  While not contiguous, remember how well the Berlin airlift worked during the Cold War.  And what we have here is a big time cold war.)

Story by Tiah Shepherd
Newsweek 

A prominent Democratic New York State Senator has floated the fanciful proposition that her state and its northeastern neighbors secede from the United States to join Canada to avoid President-elect Donald Trump's return to office.

Liz Krueger, who chairs the New York State Senate Finance Committee, argued that the Empire State, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont, could all suffer under Trump's new administration.

Citing his proposed crackdown on immigration and promise of mass deportation, the Manhattan Democrat believes liberal and sanctuary states such as New York could be threatened with cuts in the amount of federal funding they receive, a move the incoming leader and his cabinet have suggested, should states oppose new policy measures.

This is not the first time the New York Democrat has offered up a radical and improbable plan to counter Trump's policies, suggesting in September, ahead of his election win, that the bloc of blue states should join Canada.

"I thought I would suggest to Canada that instead of us all trying to illegally cross the border at night without them noticing, which is pretty hard because there's a lot of us, that they should instead agree to let us be the southeast province, a new province of Canada.

"And I offered, even though I hadn't gotten agreement from other states yet, that I thought New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, would combine and be a great new province as the southeast province of Canada," Krueger said in an interview with news site City and State New York.

Newsweek reached out to Krueger for comment via e-mail.

New York sends approximately $362 billion each year in tax revenue to the federal government but receives roughly $85 billion in federal funding, much of which is set aside for Medicaid spending, according to Politico.

In order to offset a potential block on federal funding to the state, Krueger has suggested a solution.

"We're talking a lot of money," Krueger told Politico. "We're talking money we couldn't possibly replace unless we started sending the feds a lot less money."

In the wake of Trump's 2024 presidential victory, there has been a surge in interest among Americans interested in moving abroad, with many eyeing Canada as a potential destination.

Searches for "moving to Canada" peaked on Google Trends on the evening of Tuesday, November 5, and the next day. The search engine detected the highest search volumes for terms such as "how to legally move to Canada," "moving to Canada from U.S," and "moving to Canada requirements" from traditionally progressively states including Oregon, Washington, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

"Basically everybody in these states are progressive Democrats. We would fit in pretty well with the political philosophy of at least most of the Canadian elected officials," Krueger said in the City and State New York interview.

However, with questions over the implications of withholding federal tax dollars and a Republican majority in Congress, Krueger's proposition is very unlikely to be realized and has been met with concern from her Democratic colleagues.

"It's not our job to pick up the pitchforks that have been dropped by his many followers," Long Island Assembly member Chuck Lavine said in a recent interview with Politico's New York Playbook.

While Vice President Kamala Harris secured the majority of votes needed to win the Empire state, Trump received 44 percent of the vote, according to The Associated Press, with New York coming its closest to turning red in almost four decades, per reports from The New York Post.



Friday, November 29, 2024

HE'S COMING: In pursuit of Trump's long-promised vengeance agenda

 Trump's Hatchet Woman: Pam Bondi Is Plotting Revenge on the Department of Justice Pam the"Retribution Butcher" Bondi, former attorney general of Florida (of course), is seen at the Fiserv Forum on the first day of Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, July 15, 2024. (photo:Tom Williams/Getty)

"He's no hero, super or otherwise.  Just a shameless, corrupt con artist who has lied his way out of trouble his whole life."

Heather Digby Parton / Salon

Many Americans were sorely disappointed this week when special prosecutor Jack Smith decided to drag up and withdraw the Jan. 6 indictment and the appeal of the classified documents case dismissal against Donald Trump. Smith said in his filings that the government stood by the charges but because of the Justice Department's (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel's rule that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, he had no choice but to drop the charges.

The judges in the cases acceded to his requests and dismissed them both without prejudice although the idea that anyone will bring these cases in 2029 when Trump is 82 years old is fanciful. It's over. He got away with it once again.

It's not that we didn't know it was coming one way or the other. In fact, from the moment the Supreme Court issued its shocking opinion on presidential immunity, the writing was on the wall that Trump would face no accountability even if he didn't win the election. It went without saying that if he won, he would order the cases dismissed and that would be that. 

So, this wasn't a surprise but like so much else we've experienced with Trump, not the least of which was this last election, it was just one more depressing, enervating event seemingly designed to drain the fight out of anyone who sees this man's lawlessness and corruption as a blight on our nation.

That's because one of the disturbing consequences of the repeated failures to hold him to account is the fact that he seems invincible, impervious to negative ramifications for his actions and is therefore seen by his followers as a kind of superhero with magical powers. 

It's not true, of course. He's no hero, super or otherwise. He's just a shameless, corrupt con artist who has lied his way out of trouble his whole life. And now that he knows he has immunity from any criminal acts he might commit as president, he is willing to use his power to punish his enemies. He's made it clear that Jack Smith and his team are among them.

On a radio show before the election, Trump said that he would fire Smith in "two seconds" because he now has immunity. He also declared that "we should throw Jack Smith out with them, the mentally deranged people. Jack Smith should be considered mentally deranged, and he should be thrown out of the country." Do you think he bears a grudge at all?

When former Congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew after Trump's daft nomination of the Florida man for Attorney General there was a great sigh of relief that someone so unfit would not be made the top law enforcement officer in the land. It was obvious that Trump had nominated Gaetz with the express purpose of going after his enemies in the DOJ and using the power of federal law enforcement to prove his accusations against the department's alleged "weaponization." He has scores to settle and Gaetz was champing at the bit to help him do it.

Unfortunately for Gaetz, he'd made so many enemies on Capitol Hill that Trump was forced to tell him he had to go. (It almost certainly wasn't because of any concerns about the sordid accusation of underage sex and drug use. Those were more likely considered qualifications since Trump related to his legal travails having a similar history himself.) There was hope after he dropped out that Trump might appoint someone more respectable to this important post and one who would be less likely to become his hatchet man. Fat chance.

He didn't name a hatchet man, that's true. He named a hatchet woman, one of his impeachment defense lawyers and the former Florida attorney general, Pam Bondi.

As David Dayen at the American Prospect has reported, her tenure as Florida's top prosecutor was notorious for her ruthless treatment of Floridians whose homes had been unlawfully foreclosed upon. But America first became acquainted with Bondi during Trump's first campaign when it was reported that as Florida AG she had dropped out of the class action suit against the now-defunct Trump University after having received a $25,000 check from the (also now defunct) Trump Foundation. 

Bondi was an early Trump supporter when he ran for president, eagerly joining him on the campaign trail as one of his most energetic endorsers and making frequent appearances on Fox News. From that moment on she was always hanging around the periphery of Trump World in one way or another.

She gave a singularly unimpressive performance during Trump's first impeachment trial but turned up later with Rudy Giuliani and his motley crew contesting the election results in 2020. She was in Pennsylvania insisting that "cheating" was going on and was among those who gathered at that historically bizarre press conference at the Four Seasons Landscaping office, which they had evidently mistaken for the Four Seasons Hotel.

Bondi has also made it clear where she stands on the idea of seeking retribution for the indictments against Trump. As far back as 2023 she has said that the prosecutors should be prosecuted:

Coming from a former prosecutor and state attorney general that's quite a statement. It's clear that this sentiment is one of the main reasons Trump has chosen her for the job.

One of her most important tasks will be overseeing the mass deportation program. Trump's chosen "immigration czar" Tom Homan, who has been tapped to run it, calls her "one hell of an AG" declaring that they plan to prosecute anyone who stands in the way of their plans:

The Washington Post reports that Trump wants to fire all of the DOJ attorneys who worked with the special prosecutor's office, including the career civil servants. That would require some extraordinary actions on the part of the new AG. And she seems up for the task.

And that's not all. According to the Post:

Trump is also planning to assemble investigative teams within the Justice Department to hunt for evidence in battleground states that fraud tainted the 2020 election, one of the people said.

You can bet that Trump's new attorney general will not make the mistake that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions made when he recused himself from the Russia investigation even though she clearly should, having been involved in his attempt to overturn the election. She's no doubt as eager to prove the Big Lie as he is. (If she isn't Trump will not be happy.)

Bondi is the perfect Trump choice for this particular gig and I'm surprised he didn't choose her in the first place. She has all the credentials Matt Gaetz didn't have and will likely be much more competent in her pursuit of Trump's vengeance agenda. It would be nice to think that she'll be stopped in the Senate but there's virtually no chance of that. It will be smooth sailing for her. She's right out of Central Casting.



Thursday, November 28, 2024

Trump's garish guitar grift hit with cease and desist from famed guitar company Gibson

 Trump Guitars

(Image credit: Trump Guitars)

Donald Trump's latest grift is hawking garishly jingoistic guitars—and now it’s been slapped with a cease and desist order from famed guitar company Gibson.

Gibson claims that the makers of Trump’s gaudy MAGA guitars played too loosey-goosey with their inspiration, according to Guitar World.

“We can confirm a cease and desist has been issued against 16 Creative as the design infringes upon Gibson’s exclusive trademarks, particularly the iconic Les Paul body shape,” the company said in a statement.

After Trump debuted the grift, online commenters were quick to point out the similarities. 

Redditors made fun of the guitars in a post titled “Donald Trump is selling Les Paul copies with bolt-on necks and Trumpbucker pickups,” with many commenters considering the guitar to be a relatively obvious knockoff of the classic Gibson guitar design, frankensteined together with various parts. 

“I can’t wait for Gibson to sue the shit out of him for this,” one poster wrote

The website selling the guitars claims to have sold out of the $11,500 autographed “American Eagle Electric Guitar” and the corresponding $1,500 not-autographed versions. It remains to be seen where that money will go, and whether Gibson will be interested in pursuing it any further.

This isn’t the first time a Trump-related product has run into questions about intellectual property. Shortly after Trump launched his Truth Social platform, many noted that the logo of the Twitter ripoff was conspicuously similar to that of another company 

Considering how almost everything Trump puts his name on is sketchy or an overpriced piece of crap—or both—it isn’t surprising to find out that his “signature” guitars are ripoffs.

Trump’s guitars will now go on the pile of Trump-related gold sneakers, digital trading cards, watches, and bibles that will likely end up on some online auction before inevitably floating on some garbage patch in the middle of the ocean.

A cartoon by Clay Jones.

“I can’t wait for Gibson to sue the shit out of him for this,” one poster wrote.

Wednesday, November 27, 2024

How this stalwart blue state is fortifying itself against Trump’s second term

no image description available
California Gov. Gavin Newsom
 
 

By Morgan Stephens Daily Kos StaffCalifornia is gearing up for a high-stakes clash with President-elect Donald Trump over environmental policy and immigration—and it’s happening before Trump is even sworn into office. 

 On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a bold warning announcing he would intervene if the Trump administration rolls back the federal tax credit for electric vehicle rebates. If the credit is removed, Newsom pledged to provide a state-funded $7,500 rebate for electric vehicle buyers in California. 

“[Z]ero-emission vehicles are here to stay,” Newsom said in a press release. “We will intervene if the Trump administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California. We’re not turning back on a clean transportation future—we’re going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don’t pollute.”

California’s environmental transformation has been nothing short of remarkable. 

Los Angeles was once shrouded in a thick haze of smog, and the state struggled with dangerous air quality into the late 20th century. Following the creation of the California Air Resources Board and the Federal Air Quality Act, both in 1967, the state began to dramatically improve its air quality. And now California is a national leader in the fight against climate change. It recently reached its goal of 100 days with 100% carbon-free, renewable electricity for at least a part of each day.

The state hit another milestone this year, with more than 2 million zero-emission vehicles sold in the state. 

"This milestone comes a little over two years after California eclipsed the 1 million ZEV sales mark," Newsom’s office stated in a press release.

But the fight isn’t just about clean cars. 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is preparing for a legal showdown with Trump over immigration policies, including Trump’s planned mass deportations. 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - NOVEMBER 15: California Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks during a news conference outside of an Amazon distribution facility on November 15, 2021 in San Francisco, California. Bonta announced that Amazon Inc. will have to pay a $500,000 fine after the company failed to adequately notify workers and officials about coronavirus cases at its facilities pursuant to California Assembly Bill 865. The bill also requires companies to share COVID-19 safety plans, benefits and protections with employees. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
California Attorney General Rob Bonta

In a recent interview with The Nation, Bonta made it clear the state will take every available step to protect its immigrant communities—no matter what the Trump administration throws at them.

“I’ve been preparing and readying for this possible moment for months, and in some cases years, depending on the topic,” said Bonta, adding, “They want to do what they want, when they want, how they want it, even if it violates the Constitution or a federal statute.” 

Bonta’s team is also worried about “the harm that will be visited on Americans, including Californians, that will be the result of unlawful activity and, in the immigration space, xenophobia, racism, discrimination, fearmongering, scapegoating,” he said.

Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, has backed plans to withhold federal funding from states that buck mass deportations. Trump himself has also claimed to weaponize the military against states that thwart his immigration policies. 

Fox News host Mark Levin suggested to Homan that federal funding “should be slashed” to states functioning as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.

“To me, you’ve got a powerful weapon among others, which is ‘Okay, no federal funds,’ boom,” said Levin.

“And that’s going to happen, I guarantee it. President Trump will do that,” Homan told the Fox News host on Sunday.

California has the most immigrants of any state in the country. And Trump’s comments have unsurprisingly frightened many in the state.

“I worry about what’s going to happen to my kids,” Chanthon Bun, a California resident, former convict, and Cambodian refugee, told CalMatters. “It’s like you’re not even here. Your mind is in such fear that you can’t even enjoy breathing.” 

The California law was implemented during Trump’s first administration. “Sanctuary states” prohibited local law enforcement from transferring immigration cases to federal border enforcement, where the individual would likely be deported. 

As Daily Kos reported, Homan is setting his target on Los Angeles in particular. 

"If I gotta send twice as many officers to LA because we're not getting any assistance, then that's what we're going to do,” Homan said last week. “We got a mandate. President Trump is serious about this. I'm serious about it. This is gonna happen with or without you."

Bonta, however, is just as serious about protecting California’s immigrant residents. He has vowed to use the full weight of the California Department of Justice to block any unlawful federal actions. 

"As the reality of a second Trump administration takes hold, I know there is a great deal of fear, sadness, anxiety, and panic—especially among our immigrant communities," Bonta said in an email statement on Sunday. He added that "the California Department of Justice is ready to protect and defend our immigrant communities from any unlawful action that Trump takes."

California is gearing up for a fierce battle on multiple fronts. As Newsom, Bonta, and other state leaders prepare to fight against federal overreach, the Golden State is ready to defend its values—whether it’s clean air or immigrant rights—no matter what comes next.

The Trumpster watches as his border czar thug Tom Homan demonstrates with his bare hands what he does to people who are not white.  Trump must be hoping orange doesn't count.

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Repubs blast Denver mayor for resistance plans

Monday, November 25, 2024

New Firestorms Erupt Over Pistol Pete Hegseth's Military Misogyny

'Ukrainian women in the Army – they are incredible. They are the modern Amazons of new military realities. They can be as strong as steel and granite, and they can be gentle, soft, and inspiring. Indomitable, like Ukraine itself.'
Ukraine, fighting for its life, has no problem sending women into combat
Clown Car Escapee: "No one gives a shit if it's a woman or a guy to pull that trigger; you're still dead.” General Mark Milley
 
 

The Mangled Mussolini’s fake masculinity and real misogyny has always driven him to surround himself with like-minded cretins such as the unlamented Matt Gaetz. His choice for Defense Secretary is a classic in the same mold: inexperienced but telegenic, and with a possibly pathological dislike of women. 

He has also been flagged as a possible insider threat, and there is a newly released report of his alleged sexual assault of a woman — not a minor, however. But right now it’s his insistence that woman should not serve in combat that has ignited a firestorm at home and abroad:

Pete Hegseth’s remarks about women in combat are met with disgust and dissent

“I don’t even know how to express the disgust,” said a current U.S. Army colonel, who spoke to NBC News on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation. . . .

The combat arms officer said it would be “shameful” as well as harmful to recruitment and retention efforts if the U.S. changed its policy.

“We already have enough issues,” she said, pointing to sexual harassment and assault as major examples. “I could see how it could hurt a lot of potential on who serves and who stays serving, if policies like that change. It would be like taking back our ability to vote.”

(That last sentence is unfortunately a harbinger of future possibilities.)

Then there’s Trump’s one-time Chairman of the Join Chiefs, who — unlike Hegseth — actually has manged the military and has had to deal with all these issues: Mark Milley disagrees with Trump's pick on women in combat

“Don’t lecture me about women in combat,” Milley said at a national security innovation event hosted by the Pallas Foundation. “Women have been in combat, and it doesn't matter if that 7.62 [caliber round] hits you in the chest. No one gives a shit if it's a woman or a guy to pull that trigger, you're still dead.”

Juliette Kayyem’s piece in today’s Atlantic leaves no doubt that Trump picked Hegseth because of his views on women: What Pete Hegseth Doesn’t Get About Women in Combat:

Donald Trump’s choice for secretary of defense, the former Army National Guard major and former Fox News host Pete Hegseth, has no clear policy or management experience that qualifies him to run the Pentagon. What he has instead is a reactionary streak—one that’s evident in his view that women should no longer have combat roles in the military. In his recent book The War on Warriors, he implies that women service members who have received military honors for their bravery were decorated because of “an agenda.”

Also today, our NATO allies chimed in with their own disgust at Hegseth: US allies repudiate doubts about women in combat

“After 39 years of a career as a combat arms officer and risking my life in many ops across the world, I can’t believe that in 2024 we still have to justify the contribution of women to their defense and to their service in their country,” Canadian military chief Gen. Jennie Carignan said at the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday.

and

Other military officials were even more blunt than Carignan. “If we are not willing to use half the population on something so important, then we are stupid,” Royal Netherlands Navy Adm. Rob Bauer, the chair of NATO’s Military Committee, said at the conference on Friday.

Now, despite efforts by the misogynistic malignant malingerers to erase history, women have not only performed well in combat since the Obama administration lifted the last barriers in 2015 (see this CNAS 2020 report), they have been doing so for hundreds of years. I’ve been reading Philppa Gregory’s book Normal Women: Nine Hundred Years of Making History, and it is full of examples of Englishwomen (she concentrates on England, her area of expertise) defending their castles while their husbands were off on crusade, and not just going into combat but leading it: A main example was the Empress Matilda (1102-67), who led her troops into battle for six years, and when she was defeated (temporarily), it was by another woman, Matilda of Boulogne.

A final counter to Hegseth’s mythology is the current war in Ukraine, in which Ukraine is literally fighting for its survival as an independent nation with its own culture. Ukraine has entrusted its very existence to women soldiers as well as men: Heading platoons, repairing machines and doing twice as much: How the war has changed the lives of Ukrainian women:

Most of the men in Oksana Rubanyak’s platoon are at least 10 years older than her. Before the war, having a young woman in charge of an all-male Ukrainian military unit might have given the troops pause. But as the platoon prepares for a frontline deployment at a time Ukraine is desperately trying to hold off Russian advances, things like gender and age no longer matter that much, Rubanyak said.    

 It’s a huge change compared to when she first joined the army two years ago.  

 “Women are recognized, women are promoted to combat positions, to officer positions. These are no longer just medical or headquarters roles,” she told CNN in a phone interview. Female soldiers are now participating in assaults, she said. “And I am very happy about it.”    

Sadly, it doesn’t look like Hegseth’s views on women in combat will sink his nomination. It is possible that his total unfitness for the job, on top of those sexual allegations (see above) might do so; after similar and credible charges sank Gaetz, it may be that Senate sharks smell blood in the water. 

GOP Senators may not mind putting an incompetent in charge of Health and Human Services and certainly not in Education, but their ability to remain in office depends in large part on the number of military dollars they can snag for their states, plus Defense is the one department they always want to strengthen (in appearance at least).



Sunday, November 24, 2024

Passivity Is the Enemy!

dog.png
This sad life brought to you by a Good German
 
 

Don't ever give "the goons that much power"

I’m watching the first snow in Chicago, fighting an urge to withdraw from national news for a while. Any familiarity with world history makes clear the imperative of resistance before jackboots kick down the door, but watching Republicans’ abrogation of duty in service to a charlatan taxes one’s mental health. I don’t want to give Trump and his unqualified goons that much power.

For me, because the destruction won’t begin in earnest until January, the worst part about the election so far is my own internal dialogue: I don’t want to harbor ill will, or feel contemptuous disgust, for MAGA. I don’t want to anticipate their remorse, if they ever connect the dots between tariffs, mass deportations, and the price of apples come June. But nor do I want to sugarcoat the cruel catastrophe they have unleashed, not just on immigrants and minorities, but on themselves.

MAGA reminds me of chaining a dog

Hearing a dog bark all night while it’s 20º F outside, I realize I feel the same way about MAGA voters as I feel about people who chain their dog(s) outside 24/7. Anyone who has ever loved a dog knows how barbaric this practice is. Neanderthalic and needlessly cruel, dog chainers and MAGA remind me that humans co-exist on a random continuum of evolution. We aren’t all plotted on the same line of the same graph at the same time; the dots veer off in all directions like electrons in an atom. Some countries and some people are stuck in the fifth century, while others show us the future. America’s choppy pas de deux with itself is a blend of forward steps, then backward, intelligent people dancing alongside morons. (Call this elitist, I don’t care, truth has to matter or what are we doing?)

When I see a dog living on a chain, an often hidden and too-common cruelty, I feel simultaneous heartbreak for the dog and contempt bordering on hatred for his jailer. After years in animal advocacy, these unwelcome feelings are nothing new. It is new, however, to feel both things at once for the same group of people. Many MAGA voters-- as distinguished from wealthy Trump oligarchs-- voted against their own self-interests just for the opportunity to hurt others.

If Trump ever figures out how to implement his most hairbrained ideas, economically disadvantaged MAGA voters will suffer the most. A more evolved person than I am would pity them, but, like dog chainers, I consider them victims of their own cruelty and ignorance and find compassion for them nearly impossible.

Putting Trump numbers into perspective

Setting aside the self-defeating motivation of MAGA voters, one pervasive lean among pundits and the GOP alike is to overstate Trump’s support. Here’s the math: there are 258.4 million people of voting age in the US.  A total of 76,733,150 voted for Trump

That means only twenty-nine percent of adults in the U.S. voted for Trump, and most of them were uneducated. Public education has been underfunded by Republicans for many years and many reasons, none of them altruistic. Meanwhile, voters with a college degree broke hard for Harris.

That malice, division and conspiracy theories won the heart of 29% of American adults may reflect the shortcomings of public education (as well as humanity), but it isn’t permanent.

It’s an unfortunate but likely temporary marriage between uneducated MAGA voters voting against self-interests, and America’s power class motivated only by self-interest. With the help of oligarch-aligned Fox News and hopelessly juvenile Elon Musk, MAGA was convinced that Trump would help them, despite four prior years and all evidence to the contrary. They still don’t realize that the deepest pockets in the country are behind Trump due to his recurring promise to make them richer at MAGA voters’ expense.

Don’t be Good Germans

The silver lining, if there is one, in this ungodly marriage of ignorance and greed, is that Trump’s hatred and lust for retribution will eventually clash with the profit motives of his donors. Ridding the nation of immigrants will result in higher costs for factories, hospitals, restaurant chains, corporate farms, and construction companies. Corporate owners won’t go along with anything that threatens their bottom line, and increasing labor costs would do just that. Eroding the rule of law also threatens economic stability, and most Fortune 500 companies need legal stability in order to survive.

In the meantime, Trump’s narcissistic antics are exhausting already; we’re going on ten years of it. But tired as we are, we can’t allow ourselves to become Good Germans-- citizens who didn’t like Hitler’s hateful message, but were too exhausted, delusional, or pre-emptively defeated to fight back while there was still time.  

To anyone familiar with how authoritarians consolidate power, it's hard to watch Republicans and the media bend the knee in cowardice. Passivity is all Trump needs to plunder the treasury, put people in boxcars, and hand the nation’s assets to its richest oligarchs, both domestic and foreign.

For journalists, critics, and Americans of honor, the price of speaking up will be high and uncomfortable, as high and uncomfortable as looking over the fence at the neighbor’s incessantly barking dog, recognizing his desperation, and resolving to help him. But the price of not speaking up, for you, for the dog, and for the nation, will be even higher.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. She writes the Substack, The Haake Take.

Saturday, November 23, 2024

LATEST TALLY: Trump failed for the third time to win 50% of the vote! No mandate yet again!

 By Dem 
Vice President Kamala Harris won more than 74 million votes. She won a greater percentage of the popular vote than Former Secretary Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is below 50% of the vote for the third consecutive election. Most voters don't like him. He has no mandate.
Screenshot_20241120-021936.png

When I was looking at the numbers a few days ago, I predicted that Donald Trump was going to end up with less than 50% of the vote. Unfortunately, I didn't post it. You say who cares, he still won. 

It matters even though it doesn't alter who won. Even after a pandemic and pandemic driven inflation led incumbent parties to lose vote share in every democracy that had an election and with voters angry at President Biden, Vice President Harris, and the Democratic Party because a guy flipped a fair coin and it came up tails, he still could not get 50% of Americans to vote for him despite a massive propaganda network and a campaign of lies by the sociopathic felon. 

It rained yesterday, so voters decided to take it out on the incumbent administration. Even in the most favorable possible environment, more than 50% of voters voted for somebody other than Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is claiming a mandate when his proposals are less popular than Vice President Harris' proposals according to a blind poll. But when your campaign is a torrent of lies   and you win less than 50% of the vote and your opponent's proposals are more popular than yours, then you don't have a mandate. 

I need to say thank you to Daniel Dale for his honesty, hard work, and his exposure of the lies of Donald Trump.

For the third consecutive presidential election, the Republican presidential nominee is running a relentlessly dishonest campaign for the world’s most powerful office. Wildly exaggerating statistics, grossly distorting his opponent’s record and his own, regularly just plain making stuff up, Trump is lying to American voters with a frequency and variety whose only precedent is his own previous campaign... it may help whip up his loyal base

All presidents lie. Historians say, however, that there has never been a president who has lied this much, has lied about so many different things, or made up so many things out of whole cloth. 

Harris, a far more careful speaker than Biden, has made false claims about Project 2025, Trump’s economic record and her own policy shift on fracking. That’s in addition to various disputed predictions about what Trump would do in office if elected.

But when it comes to the facts, the two sides in this election are just not alike.

I have to carefully inspect the transcripts of Harris speeches to see if there might be a claim or two that might be inaccurate. Trump tends to make dozens of obvious false claims in each speech.

In other words, Trump habitually tells more public lies in a single public appearance than Harris tells over the course of a month or more.

Again, you don't have a mandate when you lie like this because nobody will ever know the share of the vote you would have been given if you had been about as honest as a normal candidate. If you believe the respondents in exit polls, then the biggest issue seems to be inflation. They don't say that they voted to get a solution to inflation. However, those who are enduring severe hardship did vote 3 to 1 for the guy who will make it worse. A majority of voters, 54% of them, say that they are doing about the same or better than they were four years ago. About the same, Vice President Kamala Harris won 69% to 28%. She won those who are doing better 82% to 14%. He won those who are doing worse, 46% of the electorate, 81% to 17%. 77% of voters said that they were experiencing moderate or severe hardship because of inflation. The only thing that there's a "mandate" for is to lower inflation. 

​​The reason this matters is that Donald Trump has made it plain that he intends to implement an extreme agenda that is unpopular. But that's not what voters want. Most voters did not vote for him. They don't want his extreme unpopular agenda. 

Voters prefer her policies over Donald Trump's.

As presidential candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are neck and neck in polls. But if the race were solely about their policies, Harris would win handily. That’s because voters — whether they know it or not — overwhelmingly prefer the vice president’s agenda to the former president’s.

These eight questions were drawn randomly from a recent YouGov survey, which blind-tested voters on more than 100 policy proposals. Nearly all of Harris' proposals receive majority support among registered voters. Only half of Trump's did. Trump and Harris are arguably both competitive on immigration, foreign policy and the economy.

Part of Harris’s advantage overall is that her policies appeal to voters across the political spectrum. Maybe this strategy sounds obvious, but it hasn’t been to Trump — at least for most of the campaign. He largely catered to his base, and it shows.

But Harris bests Trump on pretty much everything else, including health care and the environment. Harris' proposals are much more popular among undecided voters. Heck, even Trump supporters like much of her agenda.

Again, voters prefer Vice President Harris' proposals to Donald Trump's proposals. So, this is not because voters prefer Donald Trump's proposals or like them. This was ignorant voters lashing out to punish the incumbent administration regardless of whether they merited it or not and regardless of policy preferences. It is my view that they weren't looking for solutions. They just wanted to punish the incumbent administration and express their bigotry. Therefore, Donald Trump, his incoming cabinet, his administration, his campaign team, and his voters are badly misinterpreting the results if they believe that the election results give them a mandate to carry out his policies.

The Nation puts this in context

As of Monday afternoon, Trump was at 49.94 percent, while Harris was at 48.26, according to the authoritative Cook Political Report’s tracking of results

So, the failure to win a majority won’t cost Trump the presidency. But he’s lost his ability to suggest that he trounced the Democrat. In fact, she’s now trailing him by just 1.68 percent of the vote.

Let’s put this in perspective: Trump is winning a lower percent of the popular vote this year than Biden did in 2020 (51.3), Obama in 2012 (51.1), Obama in 2008 (52.9), George W. Bush in 2004 (50.7), George H.W. Bush in 1988 (53.2), Ronald Reagan in 1984 (58.8), Reagan in 1980 (50.7), or Jimmy Carter in 1976 (50.1). And, of course, Trump numbers are way below those of the presidents who won what could reasonably be described as “unprecedented and powerful” mandates, such as Richard Nixon’s 60.7 percent in 1972, Lyndon Johnson’s 61.1 percent in 1964, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 60.8 percent. As Trump’s percentage continues to slide, he’ll fall below the thresholds achieved by most presidents in the past century.

Harris, on the other hand, is looking like a much stronger finisher than she did on election night. In fact, the Democrat now has a higher percentage of the popular vote than Presidents Trump in 2016 (46.1), Bush in 2000 (47.9), Clinton in 1992 (43), or Nixon in 1968 (43.4). She has also performed significantly better than recent major-party nominees such as Trump in 2020 (46.8), Trump in 2016 (48.2), Mitt Romney in 2012 (47.2), John McCain in 2008 (45.7), George W. Bush in 2000 (47.9), Bob Dole in 1996 (40.7), George H.W. Bush in 1992 (37.4), Michael Dukakis in 1988 (45.6), Walter Mondale (40.6), Carter in 1980 (41), or Gerald Ford in 1976 (48).

no image description available

A cartoon by Clay Bennett

Chattanooga Times Free Press

Daily Kos