Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
B402, Regardless of what the future holds Bates would be totally right here:
"White House spokesperson Andrew Bates told Axios: "In every administration, there are individuals who would prefer to spend more time with the President and senior officials. President Biden fights hard for families every day, working with a wide range of team members at what he is proud is the most diverse White House ever - and achieving historic results for the American people because of his determination, values, and experience."
Your - https://www.axios.com/2024/06/30/top-aides-shielded-biden-white-house-debate
It's the programs and policies which should be important.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174690210
Too bad you and millions of other don't appreciate that.
Oh, and btw your lie of being an independent is clearer every day.
hap0206, Your reply .. "Number 1 — it is not trump responsible for the security of DC — No2 Biden, for sure is POTUS for the next 6mos - you are dreaming of you think he is capable of dealing with Putin — we are in grave danger — 11/5 cannot get here soon enough"
is 100% non-responsive to the one you replied to ..
Really, Hap, you are no longer mentally okay. First of all, His Majesty wasn't talking about third trimester abortions. He said, and has said dozens of times, "abortions" that take place "after birth". THAT is how stupid he is. And how stupid his followers are, for imagining such a person is qualified to be president.
Nancy responsible for DC security -- admitted as such -
She did no such thing. There's video of her and Chuck Schumer calling nearby governors and other officials, begging them to send the National Guard. Finally they got lucky with Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174690249 . Totally.
Suggesting all said to you there is fact you are either unable or unwilling to deal with.
B402, That is a real B402 nasty. Now back it up with some
evidence as i've never seen her do what you assert there.
livefree_ordie, You are pushing the boundaries of dumbest post of the week.
"Yes I have read most all those refuting it which means it really is true. Just my two cents on the special links you all live to post. Written by folks with bias or an A.I. dumb bot. Not true or true that went out the window quite a few Presidents ago. All subject to opinion just how you all deal with Trumpy’s story times."
That first sentence is a zinger. And so you know that particular two cents of yours isn't worth a razoo.
You really should take heed of blackhawks reply to janice...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174690031 , and of her reply.
LOL, hilarious if this turned voters against Trump -- Roberts’ Rules: Presidents can kill like despots
"Possible delay and crime incentives: key takeaways from Trump immunity case
"Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump’s Immunity in Unexpected Direction
[...]The court is unlikely to draw those lines itself, instead returning the case to Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan, of the Federal District Court in Washington, for further proceedings."
[...]The remand might look something like this: Chutkan would have to review the indictment and take out any overt acts she determines as “official”, Trump would probably appeal to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit to get more acts taken out, sending it back to Chutkan."
Marshall H. Tanick
July 1, 2024 5:23 pm
Photo by Sarah Yenesel-Pool/Getty Images.
Regrettably, but not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has now unleashed SEAL Team Six to murder anyone the president directs it to kill.
By focusing only on whether the president’s actions fall within his “official” constitutional duties, rather than the nature of the underlying conduct itself, the majority decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in the presidential immunity case, Trump v. United States .. https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/07/01/presidential-immunity-extends-to-some-official-acts-supreme-court-rules-in-trump-case/ , gives carte blanche to the ex-president, the current one and future Commanders-in-Chief.
It’s not only political rivals who can be killed at the whim of the president regardless of motivation and without recourse. That indulgence also would extend to anyone he or she wants eliminated.
It looks like ex-President Trump was correct when he famously said he could “shoot somebody” in the middle of Fifth Avenue “and not lose any voters.”
It not only would be devoid of deleterious impact on his supporters, but it would bar any legal consequences as long as it’s done by the military at his behest — even if the militia considers it to be unlawful.
Indeed, if a president, now or in the future, is upset by a ruling of the Supreme Court, he or she could order the Seal Team or other SWAT commandos under his authority to charge into the Supreme Court’s chambers — across the street from the site of the Jan. 6 insurrection, by the way — and slay the justices. It’s all within his “official” duties as Commander-in-Chief.
The Chief Justice wove together his six-member majority with two gimmes: Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. The former was indisputably in the bag and flying his flag high in favor of even broader full-scale immunity based upon his remark at oral arguments in April that a president needs to be free of legal constraints to assure that he (or she) will follow the law without fear of being prosecuted by later administrations.
That’s probably one of the grossest non-sequiturs issued from that once-exalted body since it declared, before the Civil War, that a Black person is not a “person” in the eyes of the law. Or, nearly 40 years later, that segregation of people of color constitutes “separate but equal” treatment.
As for Thomas, he joined the majority opinion despite it not engaging in the three-pronged analysis that he deems talismanic to constitutional adjudication: text, history, and tradition.
Criminal immunity for a president lacks all three: nothing that says so in the Constitution, although it does refer to potential criminal prosecution in connection with impeachment offenses; there is no historical analog for immunity ever since King George III’s statute was toppled 248 years ago this week following adoption of the Declaration of Independence; and no tradition exists of any president seeking or obtaining immunity for criminality, even the venal Richard Nixon, who didn’t need one after his pardon by his successor, Gerald Ford.
Yet, the absence of all three of those features didn’t deter Thomas from subscribing to the decision by the Chief Justice — perhaps before taking off for another all-expense paid luxury vacation provided by a right-wing billionaire “friend” or a jaunt around the country with his MAGA wife, Ginny, in the ultra RV furnished to him by his wealthy pal.
But the logical extension of Roberts’ rationale has broad tentacles in addition to permitting outright murder. Since the president’s constitutional authority includes providing pardons, nothing would prevent — or penalize — him from taking bribes for granting them.
By the same reasoning, the chief executive’s constitutional authority to appoint ambassadors and other officials and employees of the federal government could be used to solicit pay-offs to the president, the President’s party, family members, friends, or anyone else for that matter, auctioning the positions off them to the highest bidders. That could make for an engaging reality television show: “We’re Making a Deal” or “America’s Got Graft.”
There are a myriad of other illegalities that could occur within the “official” presidential duties enumerated in Article II of the Constitution or implied from them that are given free passes by the deplorable ruling that might go down in infamy as Roberts’ Rules of Disorder.
One of the justices, Neil Gorsuch, remarked at oral arguments that the Court’s ruling would be “one for the ages.”
This one is not going to age well.
https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/07/01/roberts-rules-presidents-can-kill-like-despots/
Snagged at the beginning re mobile number. Sod knows why options are only for
the US and the UK. Eventually i will get around to a chat with a DK bot, or whatever.
Bullshit. He stole the documents, otherwise law enforcement would not have gone after them to get them back. And otherwise Trump would not have failed in his obstruction of said law enforcement.
You are saying in a president asking his VP to kill someone he would have immunity. If sanctioning the murder of a political opponent is a result of this verdict it is a travesty. The United States would never be seen as a leading democratic country again.
"Those questions are corrupted -- did not steal documents -- talking to his VP about anything is immune -- likely those charges will be dropped -- a dispute over document classification cannot happen because obviously such classification is part of his presidential duties"
You say likely those charges will be dropped. I'd say you are wrong re Smith's case. Asking Georgia to find more votes is likely the charge in the most danger, i would guess.
If i have to use VPN i won't. I would see that as wrong for this sort of thing. I can't complete some registrations, whatever, because for geographic position the options are only US states. If i can enter honestly i will - eventually. If, when, i get in what day - your day - do picks have to be in? Your idea of a chat is a good one if needed too.
rooster, If your responses are measured and justified, fair enough. You have never been called for any like that. That said, yours often have not been fair and justified in the past. Particularly, as one example, when you accused people on this board of cheering for Hamas which was obvious, in the very minimum, totally unjustified misinformation. I reckon it was a lie, but don't know 100% what you believed on that score. I do know that post of yours was sloppy as hell.
Just remember we are not your fucking enemy and that you don't have any reason at all to hate us. We just disagree on things is all. Like we believe the truth as we know it, and the facts as best we know them come first.
Your attitude to the board need not be aggressive in the slightest. There is no good reason why it should be.
That goes for all the asshole trolls who ride in here like Rambo. They should be jerking themselves somewhere else.
That actually is one of the main reasons i wasn't going to bother trying. Will have a look when more time feels free. When you first put it up i did appreciate your effort.
Thanks.
hap0206, What president has ever not had total immunity for presidential acts set out by the constitution. Trump asked for total immunity and didn't get it. Trump lost. Of course he would get total immunity for constitutional acts. Next question is should he get immunity for obstructing law enforcement people from regaining the classified documents he stole. Surely the answer there is no. And in telling his VP to not recognize a fair and legal election result. Surely the answer has to be no.
"And he got total immunity for official acts carried out in accordance with his duties under the constitution -- big cheer for our nation and the supremes -- the rest of it is guidance for the lower courts if the POTUS is accused of things like J6, record acquisition problems, telephone calls about election rigging -- hey maybe even ignoring the supremes on loan forgiveness -- ya think "
The decision does make it harder for prosecutors to prove Trump broke the laws that he broke. No cheers for the the liars McConnell allowed Trump to get there. Yes, they lied about their position on Roe.
rooster, Trump will be immune from little more than he was before. if anything of much consequence. I
wouldn't expect he will be immune from obstructing the recovery of classified documents he had stolen.
Oh, and thanks again for pulling in the more negligent
and nastier, rooster, we saw a couple of days ago.
Much appreciated. Seriously.
Grr, how can i resist. Will have a go at getting in today or tomorrow or...sometime and figuring it out.
Any such challenge at more fun is more fun. What day do picks have to be in??? Your day.
And congrats, Eli, for regaining the overall Diehard lead. Go PGA, lol.
HughsBest, And congrats again for your super snag of Cam Davis. A beaut pick.
Heard it was 6-3 so wouldn't think so -
Conservative bloc - Alito .. Barrett .. Gorsuch .. Kavanaugh .. Roberts .. Thomas
Liberal bloc - Jackson .. Kagan .. Sotomayor
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174681428
The power of the word. I'd reckon most believed as you have. I definitely do remember now the Strait of
Mackinaw and that in geography early we were told Huron and Michigan lakes were actually one lake
https://wkfr.com/lake-michigan-lake-huron-one-lake/ .
LOL that's not at all what i expected from the cute image inside. Will leave it as i've never seen such a stark difference.
hap0206, Forever the integrity-free perennial defend the assholes boy. You seldom disappoint. Trump asked for total immunity, you supported that, and SCOTUS at least laughed at it. I like the Freudian of yours that sortagreen mentioned, the suspremes.
"Cannot be happier —the suspremes have saved the country with its immunity decision— enjoy "
Your people on the court your goons have managed to stack are bloody suss, for sure. Anyway, no big deal as the result was always a forgone conclusion. See:
“For the Ages”: The Supreme Court Hears the Presidential Immunity Defense
"Judge Rejects Trump’s Effort to Delay Jan. 6 Civil Cases"
[...]P - this Supreme Court is making my fucking head explode — again any sane SCOTUS would have quickly slapped Trump down
[...]
any sane Supreme Court would have quickly slapped Trump with a writ of go fuck yourself, and we’d be having a DC trial right now. but we don’t have a sane Court. we have four bought-and-paid for Federalist Society hacks who sit snugly in the pocket of the plutocrats who tell them how to vote — and we have Neil Gorsuch, who just fucking hates government and is deliberately out to create as much chaos as possible.
P - so this Supreme Court said hmm, laws are bullshit and Donny should be allowed to crime all he wants? yeah, we should def look into this.
P - sigh.
[...]
Despite the nearly three hours of oral argument, only a portion of that time was spent on the particulars of the Jan. 6 case or its procedural posture. That’s because the justices were, as Justice Gorsuch put it, writing a ruling “for the ages.” The Court grappled with the distinction between private acts and official acts—everyone seemed to agree that private acts could be prosecuted—and then wrestled with which subset of official acts, if any, could be prosecuted. Several justices further focused on which criminal statutes can apply to the president without conflicting with his Article II powers. There did not appear to be much consensus on these questions, and the justices seem poised to issue a splintered decision rejecting Trump’s maximalist arguments, while establishing at least some presidential criminal immunity for at least some types of official acts.
[Insert: Impulse reaction WOW. It appears the presidential can/could in his/her official capacity act criminally. Sanctioned
by the Supreme Court of the United States. I hope that impulse reaction of mine is tempered in consideration
of the further reading below. It feels Alito and others here are taking America down a very dangerous
authoritarian path. Dangerous to democracy in America. Dangerous to democracy worldwide.]
[...]
Dreeben’s opening remarks .. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24609863/23-939_l5gm.pdf%23page=68 .. offered a counterbalance to Sauer’s vision of a strong executive. “This court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official,” he observed. Trump’s “novel theory would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power.”
[...]
ustice Samuel Alito
For much of the argument, Justice Alito seemed concerned about the practical effects of absolute immunity on the functioning of the presidency. Initially, he questioned Sauer .. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24609863/23-939_l5gm.pdf%23page=21 .. as to “whether the very robust form of immunity that you’re advocating is really necessary” in order to allow the president to perform the duties of the office, as Sauer argued. At one point Alito suggested a rule under which immunity would not extend to acts for which “no plausible justification could be imagined” for the act’s official character.
P - But the justice also asked Dreeben about how the absence of immunity might negatively affect not only the presidency but the country as a whole. “[P]residents have to make a lot of tough decisions about enforcing the law,” he said—doesn’t that put them in a “peculiarly precarious position” if they might face prosecution after leaving office on the basis of decisions made “about questions that are unsettled” and based on potentially limited information? (Dreeben responded that the president also has unique “access to legal advice about everything that he does,” and is bound “to be faithful to the laws of the United States and the Constitution of the United States.”)
[...]
Less dramatically, Sotomayor also pondered how jury instructions might function on remand, along with the reasoning behind the clear statement rule. In a colloquy with Dreeben, she suggested that the separation-of-powers concerns animating the rule might not be implicated by lawbreaking activity, because it is “[H]ard to imagine that a president who breaks the law is faithfully executing the law” as required under Article II—and therefore, no Article II powers would be conceivably infringed upon. She also argued that overreliance on the clear statement rule to avoid applying criminal law to the president would make the possibility of prosecution after impeachment meaningless.
As is being said by serious well-informed people the facts still stand. Also, though long understood it's
still nice to read it is not the huge victory Trump and his toadies as you scramble to proclaim. Again:
You're breaking out your party hat too soon.
Trump immunity ruling hands big decisions to Judge Tanya Chutkan
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174687818
.
Homebrew, Hey, " GOP = Goons Of Putin, or Grifters Of Putin" is purrfect. It knocks
my Gross Old Party to the sideline. Goons and/or Grifters is perfect for the present
leaders of the party. Toss Putin in for good riddance. Well done, sire!
It is so obvious now, yet i don't recall seeing it before. Interesting world.
Ah, yet another Superior which isn't, Trump friendly maybe, but no that wouldn't be fair to the water. Interesting
how in decades of non mention things slip from recall, but are not lost from memory. In this case the word
Mackinac itself definitely rang a long lost bell. And, now that you mention
it, the Huron-Michigan one lake does too ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Michigan%E2%80%93Huron
*
And yet again the idea that north is up, and/so superior, raises its dodgy head.
Lake Superior
Early explorers gave various names to the lake, the first being “Grand Lac.” Father Marquette called it “Lac Superior De Tracy." Longfellow, in his poem “Hiawatha," says the Chippewa Indians called it “Gitchee Gumee." The French explorers called it “Superior”, because it is above or higher than the chain of lakes. Regardless of how the name originated, Lake Superior is the greatest Great Lake--the largest freshwater lake in the world by surface area and the third largest by volume.
Area
Superior is not only on the border of the vast inland sea, Lake Superior, but it is bounded by three bays and two rivers: St. Louis Bay, Superior Bay, Allouez Bay, and the St. Louis and Nemadji Rivers.
Incorporation
City of Superior was founded November 6, 1854, and was incorporated March 25, 1889, and “Where Sail Meets Rail” became the City’s slogan some years later.
As one observes Superior, the first impression is of the supreme beauty of its situation. Second are the immense possibilities for commerce and industry.
The approximate population of Superior is 27,224 and the area consists of 45 square miles. The altitude is 601.6 feet above sea level.
https://www.superiorwi.gov/57/History-of-Superior
*
What's in a name? Learn about the Great Lakes through Indigenous languages
By Krystyn Tully & Meghan Callon
Published February 26, 2019
[...]Within the Great Lakes region, the most commonly spoken language groups are Algonquian and Iroquoian.
Algonquian can can be broken down into Ojibwe (Anishinaabe), Oji-Cree, and Cree (including Cree,
Swampy Cree, Northern East Cree, and Moose Cree). Iroquoian can be broken down into Mohawk,
Oneida, and Cayuga.
https://greatlakes.guide/ideas/the-great-lakes-through-traditional-languages
Just heard, as expected, SCOTUS went the damningly dangerous official vs unofficial presidential duties
route, opening the possibility of dictatorial-type action and or criminal acts being seen as a presidential duty:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174312374
LOLOL Ok, bolaigneasyum will do. Have a good night.
And the apprentice who is wet due to lack of experience. Yes, let's stick with Lake Superior who as janice said is definitely superior. It's not water which is wet but wet is whatever we mean it to be. Within accepted meanings that is. Umm, not sure if Lake Superior would say that, but i've gotta get out to buy some Feed and Weed in an effort to help my little lawn through a colder than normal July coming in. Here's where a 5 min drive would be a tremendous substitute for an 20 min walk, one way. And the pub is in the middle of the route, so cu youse later. Also due to invigorating interest in here, nothing to eat at all today either yet, is good they say to go without even more, sometimes too.
Good post. brooklyn13 does his best to ignore today's reality. He has nothing left but to draw interminably silly would be parallels, or whatevers, from the past. What was is all he has to defend the excess barbarity of the worst of his Zionists today. Though the world says stop he remains blind to what most others abhor. As is a Trump supporter who ignores all else, brooklyn13 ignores all else when it comes to the dirtiest war Israel has ever fought.
Agree totally, on both counts.
Yes, from six years ago, i put it in to just illustrate again it hadn't been a quick, all Trump thing,
as so many still think. That actually goes to the fact Trump, though a relative newcomer
to politics, is not an outsider as he has conned his supporters to believe he is.
Used to use beef always, now pork is cheaper so have tried it, seems just as good. I've never tried mixing the two. It would mean defrosting two lots at once, or i guess buy both and mix before freezing would work. Don't see it as being worth the hassle but will try for fun. I have tried it with chopped carrot, didn't like as much. Celery would be same, taking away from the real tomato/meat taste i love. i use all the other ingredients there but one, tomato paste, not puree. Why use both i don't know. I like adding mushrooms. Even beans too, to have it a bit like chili con carne spaghetti. Always mix the sauce and the spaghetti, last night put the parmesan on, then mixed it all up. Yum with a burned taste. It's been better. lol
I must get out of the habit of spelling it with the French flair ..
https://anitalianinmykitchen.com/bolognese-sauce/ .. in light of Le Pen's success.
Many of us are in the same boat.
Is good. Would be better for all if hap and B4 were happier. Oops, thought only Claire's would be here
This is great! Just goes to show Biden's honesty, and substance over trump's rants and lies..... WINS! Joe Biden is the trustworthy one, and NOT a hater and traitor as is his *unworthy* opponent!
— Claire S🖤🩷🖤 (@SaintLaurant) June 30, 2024
Class act. Snuck up on me out of the relative blue.
5 min. update: LOL I was lucky enough to learn of the Edmund Fitzgerald three years ago.
I would be remiss not post this in your honour; as Canadiana as it comes..
It's the party, the GOP. McConnell gave America Trump's SCOTUS. The Heritage Foundation gave America political
Trump. Trump's lie of being an outsider has been one of his most disingenuous, dangerous and successful lies.
"SPECULATION: The horrible thing is the scrotus is cherry picking cases and it is obvious."
Project 2025: How Trump Win Would Imperil Worker Organizing Gains Under Biden's NLRB
""B402, H/t sortagreen -- Project 2025 poses threat to democracy
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174633177"
It's an evolutionary process. Erosion .. to six years ago ..
Meet the American congressman who’s a champion of European neo-Nazis
Steve King of Iowa shows that the Republican racism problem didn’t start with Donald Trump.
By Mehdi Hasan
(Photo By Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Did you know that neo-Nazis have a champion in the United States Congress? Meet the eight-term Republican congressman Steve King of Iowa. In June, King retweeted self-described “Nazi sympathiser” Mark Collett, a former British National Party official, who had said: “65 per cent of Italians under the age of 35 now oppose mass immigration. Europe is waking up…” The congressman, in his retweet, added an ominous question of his own: “Europe is waking up… Will America… in time?”
King later claimed that he had been unaware of Collett’s neo-Nazi views but refused to apologise for the retweet – and has yet to delete it. Then again, why would he? The congressman has repeatedly declined to deny he is a white nationalist or white supremacist – despite being lauded both by the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, which described the Iowa representative as “King Steve”; as “basically an open white nationalist” and “our guy”.
King also has a long history of jaw-dropping remarks. In June, he told Breitbart Radio that Somali-American Muslims should be prevented from working in meat-packing plants in Iowa because, he claimed, they want pork eaters to “go to hell”. Three months earlier, he told CNN he wanted “an America that’s just so homogeneous that we look a lot the same”. And, in 2016, King told MSNBC that white people have contributed more to civilisation than “any other subgroup of people”.
These are not so much dog whistles as sirens. The modern Republican Party does not lack for xenophobes or Islamophobes, but what makes King stand out is his refusal to mask his bigotry. In recent years, the leaders of Europe’s far-right parties have been able to count on the public support of this high-profile, outspoken member of the US Congress. In September 2016, when the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party was standing in the German regional elections, King tweeted a picture of himself with then AfD leader Frauke Petry – who has called for the shooting of “illegal” immigrants – with the message: “Wishing you successful vote. Cultural suicide by demographic transformation must end.” In February 2017, ahead of the French presidential election, King tweeted a picture of himself with the National Front leader, Marine Le Pen, hailing their “shared values”.
In March 2017, three days before the Dutch parliamentary elections, King endorsed the anti-Muslim Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has called Moroccan migrants “scum”. “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny,” tweeted the congressman. “We can’t restore our civilisation with somebody else’s babies.”
[Insert: Att: B402 - Understanding Today’s Populism as Ethnic Nationalism
"Far-Right Extremism Is a Global Problem
[...]We are in a populist moment .. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2017.1294700?scroll=top&needAccess=true . Populists are making startling gains in support and access to power across the West. The election of Donald Trump and the vote for Brexit in 2016 signalled the arrival of this new reality. The success of Trump and his European compatriots is particularly striking because they bucked the trend: while Europe has long had populist radical-right parties, they were largely relegated to the margins .. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02065.x?casa_token=wohmx4o6qxIAAAAA%3Ay-qbYbF1lHPNyHHQLxKRsZOzZODniKT0WKhAp7YBIb3vCuGO7RmuvVsZbdaKa330fOXQn47G4z6zm0U .. and kept far from government. Today, one in four Europeans vote for a populist party and more than 170 million Europeans .. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/nov/20/revealed-one-in-four-europeans-vote-populist ll are governed by a cabinet that has a populist member.
P - It is almost becoming rote to note and lament this trend. If it weren’t such a serious problem, it would be tempting to turn our attention to other pressing matters. But the reality is that today’s populism represents an existential threat to our liberal democracy. This is because, in most cases, populism is underpinned by a virulent ethnic nationalism.
[...] What is more surprising is that a close reading of all of Trump’s tweets over the 2016 campaign shows that these are not mere utterances or occasional slips: ethnic nationalism is the foundation of Donald Trump’s political strategy. It was by far the most common theme in his 2016 Twitter campaign (see Figure one).
[...] Throughout his campaign, Trump presented himself as the protector of the majority group in America – his so-called silent majority – against the threat of outsiders. He followed a long-used practice of identifying those that do not fit the mould of “true” Americans. His main targets were Mexican migrants, Muslims and political elites, presenting these groups as threats to the survival and interests of the white majority. Indeed, his entire campaign was set up as an argument that America needed to rid itself of these groups to return to glory – to make America great again. The centrality of this idea to his campaign strategy is clear when looking at his favoured topics: about 2000 tweets contained overt ethno-nationalist messages, whereas he tweeted about core policy issues like healthcare, taxes and the Supreme Court only 59, 32 and 12 times, respectively.
P - Trump did regularly rail against the elites and the establishment (over 500 times on Twitter). He also liked to attack people, something he continued throughout his presidency. Interestingly, though, he often combined populist and ethnic nationalist themes. He would say that the establishment needed to be overthrown to return power to the majority, and that elites were soft on threats like illegal immigration and terrorism. In short: Trump’s populism was underpinned by ethnic nationalism. His tweets show that his “real” America is white, European and Christian.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174490843]
Somebody else’s babies? This is the narrative of white nationalism, plain and simple. It is a core component of the “white genocide” conspiracy theory popularised on far-right blogs and online forums, which says a combination of mass immigration, inter-marriage, low fertility rates and abortion are destroying the West.
So, why hasn’t King been drummed out of the Republican Party? Which other mainstream conservative political party in the West would tolerate this kind of noxious rhetoric and bigoted behaviour from one of its elected members? In July, HuffPost reporter Christopher Mathias asked the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Republican National Committee, the Republican governor of Iowa, Kim Reynolds, and the Republican senator Ted Cruz – whose presidential campaign King co-chaired in 2016 – to comment on the Iowa congressman retweeting a neo-Nazi.
Their response? Radio silence. Mathias also reminded readers of the speaker Paul Ryan’s craven statement on King’s earlier racist tweet about “somebody else’s babies” in 2017: “I’d like to think he misspoke.”
The GOP’s refusal to condemn or censure King, who chairs the House’s judiciary committee’s subcommittee on the constitution and civil justice, poses a real danger to minority communities in the US. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of US hate groups has soared by 20 per cent since 2014, with neo-Nazi groups seeing the biggest increase of all. The words of King, like Trump, encourage and embolden such groups.
Yet King, unlike Trump, has been a fixture both in the conservative movement and in national politics since his election to Congress 16 years ago. He was vice-chair of the House judiciary committee’s immigration subcommittee back when Trump was hosting beauty pageants and reality TV shows. He is, therefore, a stark and toxic reminder that the Republican Party’s white nationalism problem did not begin with Trump. His presidency is a symptom, not a cause, of the GOP’s decades-long normalisation of racism and bigotry.
There may, however, be a bright spot on the horizon: five weeks out from the November midterms, King is facing a stiff challenge from his Democratic opponent, JD Scholten, a former professional baseball player. A recent poll showed the Republican incumbent with only a 6 point lead in a state where Trump trounced Hillary Clinton in 2016 by more than 10 points.
So will Iowa Republican voters turn a blind eye to King’s far-right, neo-Nazi-aligned views and send him back to Congress for a ninth term? Will his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill continue to shrug their shoulders and allow him to continue chairing House subcommittees? If so, Steve King will be undeniable evidence that the modern Republican Party has much, much more than Donald Trump to answer for. l
Mehdi Hasan is a writer and broadcaster based in Washington, DC and a New Statesman contributing editor
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2018/10/meet-american-congressman-who-s-champion-european-neo-nazis
One glimmer of hope.
Steve King, House Republican With a History of Racist Remarks, Loses Primary
Mr. King, one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, saw his power in Congress curtailed last year after he questioned why white supremacy was considered offensive.
Representative Steve King of Iowa has long made racist remarks about immigrants, and Republicans had worried before the primary election on Tuesday that he was an electoral liability. Hilary Swift for The New York Times
By Trip Gabriel
June 3, 2020
Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.
Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.
[...]
In interviews over the years, voters in Iowa’s most conservative region downplayed Mr. King’s incendiary comments. His loss after 18 years in office was mainly because opponents painted him as ineffective after party leaders in Congress stripped him of his committee assignments last year.
That move came after comments that Mr. King made in an interview with The New York Times in 2019, in which he asked, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”
The remarks caused an uproar. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, told Mr. King to “find another line of work.”
Instead, Mr. King clung to his seat, claiming to be the victim of Republican insiders and of the news media.
Now Mr. Feenstra, a political and social conservative in a deep-red district in northwest Iowa, is the odds-on favorite to hold the seat against J.D. Scholten, who nearly defeated Mr. King two years ago and ran unopposed in the Democratic primary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/steve-king-iowa-primary.html
IPR News
Feenstra Defeats Scholten In Iowa's 4th Congressional District
Iowa Public Radio | By Katie Peikes
Published November 4, 2020 at 2:17 AM CST
Sen. Randy Feenstra will be headed to the U.S. Capitol in January to represent Iowa's 4th District. John Pemble /IPR file
https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2020-11-04/feenstra-defeats-scholten-in-iowas-4th-congressional-district
And Trump's conning and cheating and lawbreaking and nastiness and blatant disrespect for other human beings he sees as beneath himself. And his disrespect for woman. And his disrespect for the democratic process. First American president to refuse to accept the result of the 2020 election. It's mind-boggling actually that a candidate whose policies predominately favor the very rich, and who is totally lacking as a decent human being, can be seen to be worthy of the American presidency.
Australians in general are very thankful that a failed human being as Trump could never be head of Australia. Most laugh at your situation, just sadly don't see the seriousness of it.
"Yes. Like Hap, he seems to think Trump's flood of lies is okay."
While eating it last night i was working to convince myself of that. It was still delicious, but tomorrow will
make another lot just to see how much better it tastes. Anyway, was missing bay leaves for this one. LOL
HughsBest, Cole will come through one day, as LOL Cam Davis crunched
it in the crunch today. You were the only one. Great snag. Congratulations.
rooster, Wrong again. It's most likely 99% demonstrators from across the political spectrum protesting
against Israel refusing to accept any progress to a two state solution. And so prolonging the war.
More Democrats likely, as there was in the anti-Vietnamese protests.
Trouble-making agent provocateurs would be there, if only a few.
You are welcome to dispute facts, just lay off the unwarranted personal attacks.
Your relative quiet today is appreciated by all.
Exactly. Seems B402 can't agree because he appears to be
incapable of agreeing even though he cannot argue the facts.
Exactly. "France, like some other European countries, is turning to authoritarians. Even fascists. Marine le Pen has alway taken a portion of the vote there, but she's not making significant inroads. I'm sure your hero's applauding, to the extent that he's able to understand what's going on.
Fascism and authoritarianism should worry you much more than a bad debate night by the candidate who opposes that stuff. "
Thanks, Hadn't got there -- US supreme court ruling could make it harder to prosecute January 6 rioters – and Trump
Court rules prosecutors overstepped in bringing obstruction charges against Capitol rioters
Robert Tait and Sam Levine
Sat 29 Jun 2024 01.09 AEST
Last modified on Sun 30 Jun 2024 04.26 AEST
Voted with the: Majority Minority
Conservative bloc - Alito .. Barrett .. Gorsuch .. Kavanaugh .. Roberts .. Thomas
Liberal bloc - Jackson .. Kagan .. Sotomayor
The US supreme court has narrowed .. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf .. the statute that prosecutors have relied on in the cases of hundreds of rioters who took part in the January 6 Capitol attack .. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/us-capitol-breach .. for obstruction of an official proceeding – a ruling with profound implications for participants on that day in 2021.
The 6-3 ruling in the case of Fischer v United States could also affect the federal criminal case against Donald Trump, who is charged with similar offences in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the assault. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the conservative justices in the case, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The decision stems from the conviction of Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer, who took part in Trump’s so-called “stop the steal” rally on the morning of January 6 before then entering the Capitol with the mob.
Fischer was one of about 350 people federal prosecutors charged under a federal statute, 18 USC section 1512(c)(2), which says any person who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” can be fined or punished with up to 20 years in prison. The 350 people charged with the crime represent about a quarter .. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965472049/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories .. of all those charged in connection with the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
The central question in the case was what kind of conduct exactly the language prohibited. The previous section of the law, 18 USC section 1512(c)(1), is more specific, saying anyone is guilty of a crime who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding”.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts zeroed in on the word “otherwise” in the second part of the statute.
“Complex as subsection (c)(1) may look, it simply consists of many specific examples of prohibited actions undertaken with the intent to impair an object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding: altering a record, altering a document, concealing a record, concealing a document, and so on,” he wrote. “Guided by the basic logic that Congress would not go to the trouble of spelling out the list in (c)(1) if a neighboring term swallowed it up, the most sensible inference is that the scope of (c)(2) is defined by reference to (c)(1).
[INSERT: Hang on. Isn't (c)(1) talking about documents or objects only while
(c)(2) is more about other actions of perpetrators. It's a first-look impression.]
“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” he added. The majority sent the opinion back to the court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit for further consideration.
Trump, meanwhile, faces four criminal charges in the case, one of which is a violation of 18 USC section 1512(c)(2). He is also charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. His lawyers could now argue that those two charges fall under the narrower standard the supreme court announced Friday. Some experts have argued that the evidence against Trump would allow the charges to stick even under a narrower standard.
“It will be a much tougher case to argue that he impaired an official proceeding if the prosecution must also show that it related to the destruction or alteration, or related activities, of documents,” said Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.
“It may be more about whether paperwork submitted to Pence relating to other electoral votes, or what to do with those votes, rises to the level of criminal activity in the statute. We’ll see whether the Department of Justice keeps this charge against Trump, but it may fall back to some of the other charges and rely more heavily on them instead.”
While the statute has been used to charge hundreds of people in January 6 cases, it rarely is the sole charge they face. The charge against Fischer, for example, was one of seven criminal charges filed against him.
Writing in dissent, Barrett said the majority had done “textual backflips to find some way – any way – to narrow the reach of subsection (c)(2)”.
“Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress’s joint session on January 6th. Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction,” she wrote. “There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute.”
[YAY. Exactly as i saw it, Justice Barrett.]
Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of the left-leaning watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the justices had helped “insurrectionists dodge accountability once again”.
“If attempting to block the certification of the 2020 election isn’t obstructing an official proceeding in the court’s eyes, then what is?” he said in a statement. “This is another example of the court failing to stand up for our democracy and enforce the plain text of the law.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/jun/28/supreme-court-january-6-rioters
Thanks, Zorax. Didn't know.
Out now.
LOL On first catching it and trying a fork scrape on bottom i thought
exactly that, 'a little barbecue taste won't hurt.' Serving to myself.
OT for you guys, i guess - Does the Coalition’s case for nuclear power stack up? We factcheck seven key claims
"Coalition opposes Australia tripling renewable energy, backs nuclear power pledge at Cop28
"UNSW busts myth on energy returns, says renewables will boost economy
"We must halve our energy use to avoid climate catastrophe: new modelling"" "
Cheaper electricity, less emissions and ready by 2035 are some of the Coalition’s
core promises on nuclear energy, but are they backed by evidence?
Adam Morton Climate and environment editor
Thu 20 Jun 2024 01.00 AEST
Last modified on Thu 20 Jun 2024 10.44 AEST
VIDEO - Where in Australia would Peter Dutton's nuclear reactors go? – video
The Coalition has made a range of claims about what nuclear energy could
do for Australia, and why it is better than building solar and wind.
What is the reality? We factcheck the key claims.
Would nuclear power provide cheaper electricity?
No evidence – such as economic modelling – has been produced to back up opposition leader Peter Dutton’s main argument about nuclear energy: that it would make Australians’ electricity bills cheaper than under a renewable energy-run grid and bring down other costs. As things stand, it is a baseless claim.
The CSIRO [ .. https://www.csiro.au/en/ .. ] and the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) [.. https://aemo.com.au/en .. ] have assessed the cost of different electricity sources and found that solar and wind backed by storage energy, new transmission lines and other “firming” – what the country is building now, in other words – were the cheapest option.
They found nuclear generation would be significantly more expensive – the most expensive technology available – for consumers. They suggested Australia’s first large-scale nuclear power plant (1GW capacity) could cost about $17bn, not counting finance costs. If a nuclear industry was established, that might eventually drop to $8.6bn.
‘Raises red flags’: Coalition nuclear power plan met with widespread scepticism from business groups
Read more > https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/19/coalition-austrailan-nuclear-power-plan-energy-sector-business-scepticism
Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), a developing technology that the Coalition has suggested could be used in South Australia and Western Australia, are likely to be far more expensive again. They do not exist anywhere on a commercial basis. The leading proposal for an SMR in the US was last year cancelled due to rising cost .. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/09/small-modular-nuclear-reactor-that-was-hailed-by-coalition-as-future-cancelled-due-to-rising-costs .
Confronted with this, the Coalition argues the nuclear experience in Ontario, Canada, demonstrates that nuclear energy is cheaper than Australian renewable energy.
This is not a relevant comparison. Like France, Ontario runs on nuclear plants built decades ago. Construction costs in the 1980s tell us nothing about the costs in the 2030s and 2040s.
Even then, the claim electricity is cheaper in Ontario is misleading. Wholesale electricity prices – the only part of the bill that is affected by the cost of generation – in Ontario are actually higher than the cost of new firmed renewable energy in Victoria and Queensland.
A more relevant comparison may be the ongoing construction of the large Hinkley C generator in the UK. It was initially expected to open in 2017 and cost about A$34bn. That has now been pushed out to 2031, and up to A$89bn .. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/16/edf-hinkley-point-c-delays-cost-overruns .
Will using more gas until nuclear comes online cut costs?
There is no evidence it will.
Gas is the most expensive form of electricity generation currently used in the National Electricity Market, connecting the five eastern states and the ACT.
The price of gas is set on the international market – what fossil fuel companies can get by selling the gas in Asia. Nearly all Australian gas is exported. Opening a couple of new gas fields is not likely to materially change this.
Currently, gas is used in “peaking” plants that are turned on only when needed, at times of high demand. This is expected to continue for at least the next couple of decades. Gas-fired power provided less than 5% of total generation last year.
The Coalition has not explained how it would get more gas into the electricity grid. Would taxpayers pay to build several new gas power plants? It has also not explained how the resulting power could be as cheap as renewable energy.
Will the Coalition’s plan be ‘cleaner’, as it claims?
No. Using more gas, less renewable energy and extending the life of coal-fired power plants will increase Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The Coalition admits this. It wants to abandon the country’s 2030 emissions target and allow significantly more heat-trapping pollution while arguing it is still committed to net zero by 2050.
Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley, NSW. Outages at ageing coal power plants
have been attributed to increasing wholesale electricity costs in Australia last year.
Photograph: Mark Baker/AP
Could Australia have nuclear energy by 2035?
Again, no evidence has been released to explain how this would be possible. The experience in developed democracies internationally is that it would take much longer.
The Coalition says if it decided to build SMRs there could be “two establishment projects” in place by 2035. If it opts for large-scale plants it says first power would be in 2037.
CSIRO found an initial nuclear power plant of any size would not be possible until after 2040. Other analysts, including the pro-nuclear Blueprint Institute .. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/19/australia-needs-drastic-renewables-boost-as-nuclear-not-an-option-for-decades-says-centre-right-thinktank , agree.
That’s just the technology challenge. The Coalition would also have to get legislation through both houses of federal parliament to overturn a nuclear energy ban. Labor and most of the crossbench oppose lifting the ban, and the Coalition is 20 seats short of a majority in the lower house and hasn’t had a majority in the Senate since 2007.
It would also need to persuade three states that ban nuclear energy – and remain strongly committed to their current position – to change their laws.
VIDEO - Should Australia go nuclear? Why Peter Dutton's plan could be an atomic failure – video
Have renewables caused a big increase in power bills?
No. It has a much smaller effect than factors related to fossil fuels.
Tony Wood, the energy and climate change program director for the Grattan Institute, says there was a 20% jump in wholesale electricity costs last year for four reasons: the war in Ukraine pushing up the price of gas; gas shortages; outages at ageing coal power plants reducing competition; and extreme weather causing flooding at coalmines. Prices have since started to come back down.
The renewable energy in the system has a smaller effect on price as the cost of incentive schemes is passed on, but it also helps reduce costs by increasing capacity and competition in the power grid.
Peter Dutton names seven potential nuclear power station sites but avoids questions on cost
Read more > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/19/coalition-nuclear-plan-peter-dutton-power-station-sites-australia
The coal-fired power plants in the grid are ageing, increasingly have units offline and need to be replaced. Evidence from government agencies and most independent experts is that renewable energy plus firming is the best path to an affordable, reliable, clean grid.
Is it true that “Labor can’t keep the lights on today”?
No. The lights are still on.
Coalition MPs making this claim were referring to the findings of Aemo’s “electricity statement of opportunities” report, which was portrayed as warning blackouts were imminent.
This misrepresents what the statement does. It is a message to the industry about how much more generation will be needed over time. This year’s statement found there could be reliability gaps .. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/21/eraring-coal-fired-power-station-closure-delay-renewable-energy .. in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria unless there was faster deployment of renewable energy and batteries.
This is consistent with other warnings that investment has slowed and needs to accelerate. But Aemo did not say blackouts were inevitable, or that renewable energy would cause them.
Is it true that you can’t run an industrial economy on renewables?
No – again, based on evidence from experts and industry .. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/19/coalition-austrailan-nuclear-power-plan-energy-sector-business-scepticism .
The energy and economic transformation is challenging whatever technology is used. But the electrons are the same, regardless of the source.
Industry leaders have repeatedly welcomed renewable energy investment. Rio Tinto this year signed what it called Australia’s largest renewable energy power purchase agreement to run its operations in Gladstone.
BlueScope Steel applauded the creation of an offshore windfarm zone in the Illawarra, saying it had the “potential to supply significant quantities of renewable energy to help underpin BlueScope’s decarbonisation of iron and steelmaking in Australia”.
Aemo has repeatedly found an optimal future power grid, including one that would power new green industries, would run on more than 90% renewable energy.
Other countries, including those with some nuclear power, have similar goals. Both the US and Germany are targeting 80% renewable energy by 2030.
VIDEO - Peter Dutton announces Coalition's nuclear power plan – video
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/20/does-the-coalitions-case-for-nuclear-power-stack-up-we-factcheck-seven-key-claims