MSNBC reports at 1320 hrs EST that Trump people went to court to exclude some early voting votes from a Nevada polling station located in a Hispanic neighborhood, claiming people were allowed to vote who should not have been.
The rule is people in line when the polls close are allowed to vote, but people are not allowed to join the line from that time on.
The claim is people joined the line and were allowed to vote.
No idea how many, but clearly the idea is to disallow a bunch of votes that were all but certainly mostly for Hillary.
A game of inches, eh?
Update, there's a question whether somebody at that polling place unlawfully chose to extend voting hours, too.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
OK, we did it
The wife and I just voted.
Three people ahead of us to check in, about a two minute wait for an open machine.
Straight Democratic ticket, both of us.
Why are there lines, anywhere?
Not enough polling places and poll workers, fellas.
Nobody challenged us, nobody who was not a poll worker had any sort of questions for us.
The poll worker just asked who we were and where we lived, and asked us to sign a ticket out of the voter book.
I guess that's their way to track who has already voted and who not.
PS, a laugh watching TV.
A first time millennial Puerto Rican voter in Florida voted for Jill Stein.
The newsie interviewing her asked, "You know she's not going to win, right? It will be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton who wins, right?"
And she replied with skepticism in her voice, well, that's what all the establishment media say, sure, but . . . .
Three people ahead of us to check in, about a two minute wait for an open machine.
Straight Democratic ticket, both of us.
Why are there lines, anywhere?
Not enough polling places and poll workers, fellas.
Nobody challenged us, nobody who was not a poll worker had any sort of questions for us.
The poll worker just asked who we were and where we lived, and asked us to sign a ticket out of the voter book.
I guess that's their way to track who has already voted and who not.
PS, a laugh watching TV.
A first time millennial Puerto Rican voter in Florida voted for Jill Stein.
The newsie interviewing her asked, "You know she's not going to win, right? It will be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton who wins, right?"
And she replied with skepticism in her voice, well, that's what all the establishment media say, sure, but . . . .
Were all four of your grandparents born in America?
Ann Coulter's voting rights rule.
If only people with at least 4 grandparents born in America were voting, Trump would win in a 50-state landslide.
That would exclude a very large part of the Hispanic vote, but very little of the black vote and none of the Hillbilly and DAR vote.
She might be right.
Hmm.
I'm pretty sure my mother's parents were both born in the US, though likely some or all of their parents were not.
Everybody who would know is dead, so I can't ask whether both of my father's parents were born in the US.
And I don't recall, and am unsure whether I ever knew.
Both were already dead by my early childhood, and their siblings did not much outlast them.
Either or both of them might have been born in Canada.
Jake Tapper's tweet is a marvel of the sudden and stupid non-sequitur.
But then Trump couldn't run, since his mom and paternal grandparents weren't born in the US. So, um, yeah.
She said nothing about qualifications for the office.
Nor did she say anything about the definition of citizenship, though that appears to be the connection he made in his head.
No idea why.
There have always been and still are citizens who cannot vote, such as children, felons in some states, the mentally incompetent, and up to about a century ago women.
But none of that affects whether you can stand as a candidate, anyway.
Would Ann Coulter have been able to vote?
If only people with at least 4 grandparents born in America were voting, Trump would win in a 50-state landslide.
That would exclude a very large part of the Hispanic vote, but very little of the black vote and none of the Hillbilly and DAR vote.
She might be right.
Hmm.
I'm pretty sure my mother's parents were both born in the US, though likely some or all of their parents were not.
Everybody who would know is dead, so I can't ask whether both of my father's parents were born in the US.
And I don't recall, and am unsure whether I ever knew.
Both were already dead by my early childhood, and their siblings did not much outlast them.
Either or both of them might have been born in Canada.
Jake Tapper's tweet is a marvel of the sudden and stupid non-sequitur.
But then Trump couldn't run, since his mom and paternal grandparents weren't born in the US. So, um, yeah.
She said nothing about qualifications for the office.
Nor did she say anything about the definition of citizenship, though that appears to be the connection he made in his head.
No idea why.
There have always been and still are citizens who cannot vote, such as children, felons in some states, the mentally incompetent, and up to about a century ago women.
But none of that affects whether you can stand as a candidate, anyway.
Would Ann Coulter have been able to vote?
Ron Chusid urges his readers to vote for a minor party this year
The five percent solution
Voting for Clinton is essentially a vote for war, while Trump has shown no coherent understanding of the issues and the results, of his election are quite unpredictable.
Voting for one of them will only perpetuate the problem.
. . . .
The best solution is to vote third party.
Historically third parties have been among the most effective ways to force the major parties to listen to outside views.
In the twentieth century, Democrats often adopted progressive positions to avoid losing votes to third parties of the left.
Without that pressure, we are seeing the Democratic Party move steadily toward the right.
This year, only third party candidates such as Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party have shown any interest in issues such as reducing foreign interventionism, curtailing the surveillance state, or ending the drug war.
. . . .
This isn’t about whether a third party candidate can win as there are huge benefits for a third party to reach 5 percent, which is possibly achievable even if victory is not this year.
It isn’t even about whether you want Jill Stein or Gary Johnson specifically to be president.
Neither will be, and the vote is really for their party platforms and to influence the direction of politics in the future.
He says Hillary is a sociocon, which is a gross falsehood.
He says she is a neocon and will not put a stop to America's 15 years of war against Jihaders by just stopping it.
Then so is Obama, and so is Bernie Sanders, and so is every politician who refuses to just walk away as the cancer of Jihad eats up ever more of the Muslim world and increasingly threatens all the rest of us, or walk away from our integration with NATO, our alliances in the Pacific, and our commitment to non-proliferation.
And anyway I don't want the Democrats to be more like the Greens in ideology or agenda.
Nor like the Libertarians.
Later today, the wife and I will drive to the rec center and vote for Hillary Clinton and the straight Democratic ticket.
Voting for Clinton is essentially a vote for war, while Trump has shown no coherent understanding of the issues and the results, of his election are quite unpredictable.
Voting for one of them will only perpetuate the problem.
. . . .
The best solution is to vote third party.
Historically third parties have been among the most effective ways to force the major parties to listen to outside views.
In the twentieth century, Democrats often adopted progressive positions to avoid losing votes to third parties of the left.
Without that pressure, we are seeing the Democratic Party move steadily toward the right.
This year, only third party candidates such as Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party have shown any interest in issues such as reducing foreign interventionism, curtailing the surveillance state, or ending the drug war.
. . . .
This isn’t about whether a third party candidate can win as there are huge benefits for a third party to reach 5 percent, which is possibly achievable even if victory is not this year.
It isn’t even about whether you want Jill Stein or Gary Johnson specifically to be president.
Neither will be, and the vote is really for their party platforms and to influence the direction of politics in the future.
He says Hillary is a sociocon, which is a gross falsehood.
He says she is a neocon and will not put a stop to America's 15 years of war against Jihaders by just stopping it.
Then so is Obama, and so is Bernie Sanders, and so is every politician who refuses to just walk away as the cancer of Jihad eats up ever more of the Muslim world and increasingly threatens all the rest of us, or walk away from our integration with NATO, our alliances in the Pacific, and our commitment to non-proliferation.
And anyway I don't want the Democrats to be more like the Greens in ideology or agenda.
Nor like the Libertarians.
Later today, the wife and I will drive to the rec center and vote for Hillary Clinton and the straight Democratic ticket.
Put your game face on!
This Is It! Election Day 2016: A historic moment arrives
A little too much of the phony moral equivalence, but . . . .
Americans are casting their verdicts on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Tuesday after an exhausting, acrimonious campaign that at times revolted the nation and tore at its fabric.
History will be made no matter how the vote turns out. Clinton would become the first woman to win the presidency in the 240-year history of the United States.
A Trump triumph would represent a massive repudiation of the Washington establishment not seen in generations.
Both candidates argue the election presents an unusually significant choice for a divided nation. Democrats warn that Trump, with his rhetoric on race, gender and immigration, would represent a rejection of core American values.
Trump insists his outsider campaign represents America's last chance to drive out a corrupt political establishment that has turned its back on blue-collar workers.
Somebody rang my doorbell this morning at just after 7.
When I went to the door a bit later (I was still asleep) I found no one and no indication what it had been about.
No political flyers, for example.
Odd start to the day.
A little too much of the phony moral equivalence, but . . . .
Americans are casting their verdicts on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Tuesday after an exhausting, acrimonious campaign that at times revolted the nation and tore at its fabric.
History will be made no matter how the vote turns out. Clinton would become the first woman to win the presidency in the 240-year history of the United States.
A Trump triumph would represent a massive repudiation of the Washington establishment not seen in generations.
Both candidates argue the election presents an unusually significant choice for a divided nation. Democrats warn that Trump, with his rhetoric on race, gender and immigration, would represent a rejection of core American values.
Trump insists his outsider campaign represents America's last chance to drive out a corrupt political establishment that has turned its back on blue-collar workers.
Somebody rang my doorbell this morning at just after 7.
When I went to the door a bit later (I was still asleep) I found no one and no indication what it had been about.
No political flyers, for example.
Odd start to the day.
Monday, November 7, 2016
No doubt at all how the lemmings feel about it
Market surges on election news
Financial companies led a broad rally in U.S. stocks in early trading Monday as investors reacted to news that the FBI's review of newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails found no evidence warranting criminal charges against the presidential candidate.
Traders have been anxious in recent weeks over signs that the presidential race was tightening.
The Dow gained more than 350 points, or nearly 2 percent.
The Standard & Poor's 500 rose more than 2 percent after falling for nine straight days, its longest losing streak since 1980.
The Nasdaq also added more than 2 percent.
FBI Director James Comey announced late Sunday that a review of new Clinton emails did not change the bureau's recommendation that she should not face charges.
The market had wilted on Oct. 28 after the FBI notified Congress that it was reviewing newly discovered emails linked to Clinton.
Financial companies led a broad rally in U.S. stocks in early trading Monday as investors reacted to news that the FBI's review of newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails found no evidence warranting criminal charges against the presidential candidate.
Traders have been anxious in recent weeks over signs that the presidential race was tightening.
The Dow gained more than 350 points, or nearly 2 percent.
The Standard & Poor's 500 rose more than 2 percent after falling for nine straight days, its longest losing streak since 1980.
The Nasdaq also added more than 2 percent.
FBI Director James Comey announced late Sunday that a review of new Clinton emails did not change the bureau's recommendation that she should not face charges.
The market had wilted on Oct. 28 after the FBI notified Congress that it was reviewing newly discovered emails linked to Clinton.
Who are the voters?
Still older, whiter, and less educated than was thought in the aftermath of 2008 and 2012.
There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That’s Good News for Trump.
Exit polling serious missed this.
There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That’s Good News for Trump.
Exit polling serious missed this.
A counterpoint to Dolan
Pope Francis Names Joseph Tobin to Lead Archdiocese of Newark
In his latest move to reshape the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, Pope Francis on Monday named a moderate known for standing up for refugees and nuns to be the next leader of the Archdiocese of Newark, a large and troubled diocese.
Francis’ pick is Joseph W. Tobin, currently the archbishop of Indianapolis.
He made national headlines last year when he rebuffed Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, now the Republican vice-presidential nominee, by refusing to stop Catholic Charities from resettling a family of Syrian refugees.
Archbishop Tobin is so clearly in the pope’s favor that he is among 17 churchmen being made cardinals in Rome later this month.
The Archdiocese of Newark has never before been led by a cardinal, the rank of those entrusted to select new popes.
His transfer to New Jersey places a second cardinal in bridge-and-tunnel proximity of the nation’s media capital, where Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York is now the undisputed spokesman on Catholic matters.
In his latest move to reshape the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, Pope Francis on Monday named a moderate known for standing up for refugees and nuns to be the next leader of the Archdiocese of Newark, a large and troubled diocese.
Francis’ pick is Joseph W. Tobin, currently the archbishop of Indianapolis.
He made national headlines last year when he rebuffed Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, now the Republican vice-presidential nominee, by refusing to stop Catholic Charities from resettling a family of Syrian refugees.
Archbishop Tobin is so clearly in the pope’s favor that he is among 17 churchmen being made cardinals in Rome later this month.
The Archdiocese of Newark has never before been led by a cardinal, the rank of those entrusted to select new popes.
His transfer to New Jersey places a second cardinal in bridge-and-tunnel proximity of the nation’s media capital, where Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York is now the undisputed spokesman on Catholic matters.
What sort of Court do Americans want?
Back in February, Pat Buchanan defended the Republican refusal to even consider an Obama nominee to replace Scalia with the ludicrous idea that he was a lame duck and so the seat ought to be left to the winner of the 2016 election to fill.
That, he said, was the right and democratic and legitimate thing to do.
That would be letting the American people decide what sort of court they want.
What kind of Supreme Court do the American people wish to have?
That is a question to be decided in 2016 — not by a lame-duck president, but by the American electorate in November.
Does the nation want an activist judiciary to remake America into a more liberal society, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor would like to see it remade?
Or do the American people want a more constitutional court that returns power to the people and their elected representatives?
Let’s have it out.
Republicans should tell the American people that when they vote in November they will be deciding not only the next president, not only which party shall control Congress, they will be deciding what kind of Supreme Court their country should have.
Which is as it should be.
Of course, when he wrote that he was still taking for granted, and letting us take for granted, the fundamental legitimacy of the electoral process and the right of the majority of the people to make that sort of choice, however indirectly, by choosing their legitimate rulers, the President included, and he has since then abandoned that view when it suited his hero, Il Duce, to do so.
But, anyway, and not that I want to jinx it, I will for the moment assume a Clinton victory and say I can't wait to see whether Pat urges the new senate not only to provide due and formal consideration for her nominees but also to actually confirm enough of them to fill up any actual vacancies on the Supreme Court.
Somehow I don't think so, especially in light of his commitment to the claim that the election, if the people choose Clinton, is rigged and the process illegitimate.
But even putting all that aside, most of the GOP leaders who have said anything about the question have been promising their voters that if Hillary wins the White House they will not allow her to appoint a single judge to the Supremes, anyway.
And throughout the Obama years Pat Buchanan has been a staunch supporter of all of the most radical demands and behaviors of Republicans in Congress.
I fully expect him to go back on his word if Hillary wins and angrily and vociferously urge the Republican senate to refuse to confirm any of her nominees, and perhaps even to refuse to give them proper formal hearings.
Update, 11/15/2016.
A clear majority of the people gave Hillary their suffrage so Trump, an Elector College only victor, has no popular mandate to do anything at all.
The people voted for Hillary.
Will PB now insist that the people have indeed chosen what kind of court they want, and it's the kind Hillary wants, so Trump should let Hillary choose his nominees and the GOP senate should confirm them?
Ho Ho Ha Ha.
That, he said, was the right and democratic and legitimate thing to do.
That would be letting the American people decide what sort of court they want.
That is a question to be decided in 2016 — not by a lame-duck president, but by the American electorate in November.
Does the nation want an activist judiciary to remake America into a more liberal society, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor would like to see it remade?
Or do the American people want a more constitutional court that returns power to the people and their elected representatives?
Let’s have it out.
Republicans should tell the American people that when they vote in November they will be deciding not only the next president, not only which party shall control Congress, they will be deciding what kind of Supreme Court their country should have.
Which is as it should be.
Of course, when he wrote that he was still taking for granted, and letting us take for granted, the fundamental legitimacy of the electoral process and the right of the majority of the people to make that sort of choice, however indirectly, by choosing their legitimate rulers, the President included, and he has since then abandoned that view when it suited his hero, Il Duce, to do so.
But, anyway, and not that I want to jinx it, I will for the moment assume a Clinton victory and say I can't wait to see whether Pat urges the new senate not only to provide due and formal consideration for her nominees but also to actually confirm enough of them to fill up any actual vacancies on the Supreme Court.
Somehow I don't think so, especially in light of his commitment to the claim that the election, if the people choose Clinton, is rigged and the process illegitimate.
But even putting all that aside, most of the GOP leaders who have said anything about the question have been promising their voters that if Hillary wins the White House they will not allow her to appoint a single judge to the Supremes, anyway.
And throughout the Obama years Pat Buchanan has been a staunch supporter of all of the most radical demands and behaviors of Republicans in Congress.
I fully expect him to go back on his word if Hillary wins and angrily and vociferously urge the Republican senate to refuse to confirm any of her nominees, and perhaps even to refuse to give them proper formal hearings.
Update, 11/15/2016.
A clear majority of the people gave Hillary their suffrage so Trump, an Elector College only victor, has no popular mandate to do anything at all.
The people voted for Hillary.
Will PB now insist that the people have indeed chosen what kind of court they want, and it's the kind Hillary wants, so Trump should let Hillary choose his nominees and the GOP senate should confirm them?
Ho Ho Ha Ha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)