I want to thank Jill, link below, for this and her grand post. Biden is doing great, do not let republican / Russian propaganda make you doubt. Vote blue. Hugs.
Illustration by The Atlantic. Source: Science Photo Library / Getty.
Millions vote for a candidate, propelling him to victory. Before the voters’ decision is formally certified, people who don’t like the outcome demand that the election results be thrown out and a different candidate selected in a closed process. That was America on January 6, 2021. And now, some in the Democratic Party want to follow a similar script.
The Democratic Party held 57 primaries and caucuses; voters in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories had their say, as did Democrats abroad. Joe Biden won 87 percent of the total vote. He lost one contest, in American Samoa, to the little-known Jason Palmer. Suddenly, there are cries in the Democratic Party that, as goes a single territorial caucus, so should the nation.
I worked in five presidential campaigns for Republicans and helped elect Republican senators and governors in more than half of the country. For decades, I made ads attacking the Democratic Party. But in all those years, I never saw anything as ridiculous as the push, in the aftermath of last week’s debate, to replace Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee. For many in the party, the event raised genuine concerns about the incumbent’s fitness for a new term. But a president’s record makes a better basis for judgment than a 90-minute broadcast does. Biden has a capable vice president, should he truly become unable to serve. The standard for passing over Democratic voters’ preferred nominee should be extraordinarily high—and has not been met.
The fundamental danger of Donald Trump is that he’s an autocrat who refuses to accept the will of the voters. So the proper response is to throw out millions of votes, dump the overwhelming choice, and replace him with someone selected by a handful of insiders? What will the message be: “Our usurper is better than your usurper”?
What is it about the Democratic Party that engenders this kind of self-doubt and fear? At a moment when Democrats’ instinct should mirror what Biden declared in a rally the day after the debate—“When you are knocked down, you get back up”—some in the party are seized by the urge to run, not fight. Think about how this would look: Hey, I guess Donald Trump is right; our guy isn’t fit to be president. We’ll give it another shot. Trust us, we’ll get it right eventually.
Madness.
After decades of losing the image wars as Republicans positioned themselves as the “party of strength,” Democrats are on the verge of a historic self-redefinition. When Biden traveled to Ukraine, he became the first president to visit an allied war zone not controlled by U.S. troops. A Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, defied China and visited Taiwan. A Republican Party that was once defined by Ronald Reagan demanding “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” is now the beating heart of the pro–Vladimir Putin movement, led by a former president elected with the Russian dictator’s help.
For generations, Republicans succeeded in labeling Democrats the “blame America first” party. Today, it’s the Republican nominee who calls America a “third-world nation … an uncivilized country.” Republicans used to describe Democrats as “victim shoppers” who always hold others at fault instead of accepting personal responsibility. Donald Trump sees America as a nation of victims, with powerful forces taking advantage of our weakness. As president, Trump labeled Canada a national-security threat. Really? Picture the horror: an invading army of Canucks driving snowmobiles over the border to the martial soundtrack of Celine Dion.
Given a huge opportunity to project more self-assurance than Trump’s Republicans, these Dump Biden Democrats would ensure that their party once again slips back into the quicksand of doubt and second-guessing. No major American political party has thrown a presidential nominee overboard, so leave it up to some geniuses in the Democratic Party to hatch a scheme to make history.
What makes them believe that replacing Biden increases the chances of defeating Trump? How many times have candidates with impressive state-level records crashed and burned in a presidential race? The last time a party held on to the White House without the benefits of incumbency was 36 years ago. Recent polls show none of the fantasy replacement Democrats beating Trump. There are polls showing Biden defeating Trump. Say what you will about the Biden campaign’s organization, but four years ago it defeated an incumbent president—no easy thing.
Clearly, something was off inside the Biden campaign that allowed this debate debacle to occur, starting with the choice even to debate Trump. The Biden team easily could have insisted, as a precondition for a debate, that Trump first publicly acknowledge that he is running against a legally elected president who won a fair vote. Also, why did Biden look like an undertaker had done his makeup? But those breakdowns do not negate the substantial evidence that the Biden campaign knows how to defeat Trump. Do Democrats really want to throw that aside and reconstruct a campaign from scratch months before an existential election?
Presidential campaigns are billion-dollar businesses open to customers for a limited time. Right now, Democrats have a huge advantage over a GOP apparatus gutted by Trump in a power play that installed his daughter-in-law as co-chair of the Republican National Committee. What are the Dump Biden Democrats thinking? That Trump’s mob-boss takeover of his party gave them an unfair edge, so it’s only sporting for them to emulate him?
Trump is the candidate of chaos, uncertainty, and erratic behavior. Democrats can win a race against him by offering Americans the opposite: steady, calm, and confident leadership. Joe Biden has provided that. His record is arguably the most impressive of any first-term president since World War II. My advice to Democrats: Run on that record; don’t run from one bad debate. Show a little swagger, not timidity. Forget all this Dump Biden nonsense and seize the day. Now is the worst time to flinch. Your country needs strength. You can crush Donald Trump, but only if you fight.
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Tuesday, July 02, 2024 at 2:03:10a EDT
I read a story, not here, today saying that the majority decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts which gave immunity to US Presidents for actions which they take while undertaking Official Acts; was based on NOTHING in the Constitution.
They just made it up.
I agree with that idea, because the Constitution says they can’t do it.
Issue #1:
Granting Immunity to a sitting President for all actions which they take while undertaking Official Acts
a) conflicts directly with Article II, Section 4 and
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Presidents, like all other civil Officers of the United States are subject to be removed from Office on Impeachment for… high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
A Senate affirmation of a House Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold any Office under the United States again.
BUT — the Party convicted of same, shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
So, in plain English, a President is Impeached and removed from Office for a crime WHILE President and removed from the Office, once removed from Office they can still be indicted and prosecuted for the crime.
The John Roberts Court just said that isn’t true. But to my knowledge, no one has altered those portions of the Constitution, which means they remain in effect and the SCOTUS decision today is in conflict with the Constitution. When something new in Law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. Every time.
Issue #2
The decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts creates immunity out of thin air.
The problem is, there is a very good reason to believe that Presidents have no immunity because the founders never meant them to. The proof?
So I've been thinking for nearly 8 years now, that Donald Trump was the most dangerous man in America.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
You are free to peruse the entirety of Article II at this link:
There is not an iota of a hint of Immunity for the President in Article II. In fact when referring to behavior which might be corrupt, the only mention is of Impeachment and the reasons why a President might be impeached, in Article II, Section 4 (as noted above).
If the Constitutional Convention attendees of 1787 meant to provide Presidents with immunity, seeing as how they noted the immunity for Congress in Article I, wouldn’t they have ENUMERATED the form and style of immunity they meant for Presidents to have?
Since they absolutely did not enumerate any such immunity — it follows that the Founders never meant Presidents to have immunity.
As an aside, the Supreme Court is an appellate court, the Court of the last resort for appeals from the lower Federal Courts.
They are not empowered to create new law or to ALTER the Constitution with one of their decisions.
The only path to cure this damage is to limit the power and authority of the US Supreme Court via Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That to my knowledge is the only place wherein the SCOTUS bench is liable to regulation, by Congress.
To make that happen?
The Democratic Party and President Biden need to rile up the Liberals and Moderates across America to come out and vote in numbers high enough to scare the living daylights out of the conservatives, in the Congress and the Legislatures. To come into power on Jan 3, 2025 with such a large majority in both Houses of Congress that the first 100 days of the new Congress will see such legislation as is necessary to rein in this corrupt and dangerous Court Bench.
Add seats to the Bench ( four to bring it to 13 seats to match the number of Circuit Courts) and force them to abide by the same Law which currently guides the actions and ethics of all the rest of the Federal Judges by updating The Judiciary Act.
This will bring balance back to the court (which would be 7 (D) appointed and 6 (R) appointed Justices), and prevent future overreach like that committed by the majority in the John Roberts Court in 2024.
Former President Donald Trump canceled an interview with military reporter Mike Gooding after the campaign asked what questions the reporter was going to ask Trump.
Trump held a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia on Friday — the day after a CNN debate with President Joe Biden at which Trump rattled off as many as 50 falsehoods that went unchallenged by the moderators.
During that debate, President Biden also challenged Trump about his reported remarks calling U.S. military casualties “suckers” and “losers” — remarks that were confirmed by Trump’s then-Chief of Staff John Kelly.
Gooding, military correspondent for ABC affiliate WVEC’s 13News Now — was scheduled to interview Trump after the rally. On Friday morning, they even teased the interview on the air.
But when 13News Now’s Preston Steger and Alex Littlehales covered the rally online, they noted that Trump abruptly canceled the interview — after asking for questions in advance:
It was a winding speech, meandering back and forth on a lot of different talking points and policies.
After the rally, 13News Now’s military reporter Mike Gooding was scheduled to interview Trump, but his campaign team canceled the interview after asking Gooding what his questions would be, and telling him there was no more time and Trump only wanted to talk about the debate.
Ahead of Trump’s visit, WVEC covered Virginia Democrats who held a press conference with veterans to denounce Trump over the “suckers” and “losers” remarks.
The Biden campaign flagged the cancellation and tied it to the debate in a campaign memo:
Here are just a few questions Donald is running away from answering – many of which he either dodged or lied about on the debate stage:
Why can’t you commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election?
What do you say to voters who believe that you violated your oath through your actions and inaction on January 6 and worry that you’ll do it again?
What do you say to the service members who you insulted as “suckers” and “losers”?
Do you think women forced to give birth in states with total abortion bans, risking their lives, is still a “beautiful thing”?
13News Now’s reporting doesn’t say what questions Gooding was going to ask Trump, or whether they provided the subject matter for the interview to Trump’s team — although the reporting notes the campaign said “Trump only wanted to talk about the debate.”
Mediaite has reached out to Gooding for comment but has not received a response as of this writing.
CNN HOST PAMELA BROWN: “You’re saying that the teaching of the Bible in the classroom is a must, that every teacher must accept that. The bible includes beheading, rape, and incest. Do you support teaching children about those topics?”
RYAN WALTERS: “I support teaching children our history accurately and what we’ve seen is the radical left and the teachers’ union have driven the bible out of schools.
“You can’t talk about our rights coming from God, as Thomas Jefferson referenced, you can’t talk about Abraham Lincoln talking about being on God’s side in what he does and that inspires him?
“You can’t talk about the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr., who routinely referenced examples from the bible, including from a “Letter from Birmingham Jail”?
“I’m doing the things I’m doing is because of the tenets taught to me by the bible, so it’s essential that our kids understand our history and we’re going to put it back in and the left is going to continue to try to censor our history. Well, we’re not gonna allow it here in Oklahoma.”
BROWN: “Okay, you didn’t answer my question. We’re going to get to the history and everything, and by the way, Thomas Jefferson, he advocated for freedom of religion, actually not the establishment of a religion for one, but are you okay with all teachings of the Bible? If you want to bring it back into the classroom, rape, incest, beheading. Is that acceptable to you?”
WALTERS: “Again, I’ll answer your question, you might not like to answer, but it is the answer. It is our history is referenced, the bible was referenced multiple times in American history. It had a profound influence on American history.
“It was the bestselling book in American history, to not teach that in the classroom is academic malpractice. Our kids have to understand our history and we’re not going to hide that from them.”
BROWN: “Okay, so will you allow teachers to teach all aspects of the Bible? How are teachers supposed to know what of the bible to teach and what of the Bible not to teach? It’s a simple question, given the fact that the bible includes, also, you know, pornographic material, something you’ve come out against and actually took a teaching certificate away from a teacher for giving access to students— pornographic material. That’s in the bible.”
WALTERS: “Yeah, let me be crystal clear. The bible is not on the same plane as Gender Queer and Flamer. These are pornography, the bible is a book that was referenced throughout American history.
“We have academic standards that tell our teachers that you are to talk about the bible in reference to the Mayflower Compact, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” the Declaration of Independence, so these are all very clear.
“It’s very clear from primary sources that these individuals reference history— in our history, they referenced the bible. So look, when it’s historically accurate, we’re absolutely going to include that.
“I mean, think about how absurd it would be to teach about the Pilgrims if you don’t mention their intention for moving to the New World, it’s crucial and we’re not gonna allow the radical left to continue to push a false history on our kids that said that faith played no role, well, just read the history. It’s clearly there.”
The moment that the words “the radical left “comes out of someone’s mouth, I stop listening because I know that they can’t be taken seriously and engaging with them is pointless.
The Bible isn’t history, ours, or anyone else’s. We teach history, including the use of the Bible by historical personages by reading their primary documents. Teach the Mayflower Compact, teach the Declaration of Independence, teach the Letters from the Birmingham Jail, teach On Walden Pond, teach a wide variety of English literature that uses Biblical themes, none of which is teaching “from” the Bible, nor teaching the “full story” of the Bible.
Exactly, the Bible is a tribal scrap book from the bronze age. It contains, myths, legends from various traditions. laws, and strategically placed and conveniently discovered historical forgeries. In our 8th grade Ancient Semitic History class we began learning what the various sources from specific books and verses were. It included spending a lot of time with Gilgamesh and Enkidu before reading the Song of Solomon.
It was an inoculation against the fundamentalism prevalent in Utah.
I don’t think that’s what Ryan Walters has in mind for kids in Oklahoma
“I support teaching children our history accurately…”
Since you can’t really compare the Babble with anything peer reviewed or that can be otherwise corroborated factually, the implication here that using the Babble to teach history to children “accurately” is ludicrous.
Even his attempt to tie the Babble to early American history is pushing the envelope, by a LOT. The hubris alone of automatically implying that a mention of Gawd somehow means specifically the Gawd referred to in his Babble is breathtaking.
“I mean, think about how absurd it would be to teach about the Pilgrims if you don’t mention their intention for moving to the New World,”
Oh yes, go ahead and teach kids how they were religious bigots who thought the Dutch were corrupting their youth and so set sail to establish an intolerant theocracy (see how the puritans treated Quakers as just one example).
John Oliver discusses Donald Trump’s plans for a second term, why it could be much worse than his first term, and what Trump has in common with a hamster.
Scottie's Playtime 