Trump Holds Indoor Rally in Henderson, NV

Donald Trump's is holding an indoors rally today in Henderson, Nevada.

The campaign rally in Henderson, Nevada -- which will be held inside a facility of Xtreme Manufacturing -- is expected to violate the state of Nevada's restriction on gatherings of 50 people or more.

200,000 Americans have now died from the coronavirus. It is not going away. Cases have risen in 11 states this week: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

While overall, U.S. rates have been declining:

....34,300 new cases a day is alarmingly high, infectious disease experts say, and U.S. health officials fear the outbreak could get worse as the nation enters the fall and winter seasons. Health officials have repeatedly warned that they are preparing to battle two bad viruses circulating later this year as the coronavirus outbreak runs into flu season.

Donald Trump doesn't care. His diehard supporters don't care. They still think masks are unnecessary, particularly outdoors. I guess they can't comprehend even the most basic scientific principle that:

Covid-19 can spread through respiratory droplets that pass when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Studies suggest the masks may serve as a helpful barrier to spreading infection.

Trump supporters have no problem going to crowded places like Sturgis and potentially bringing the virus back with them.

We all have the power to choose in November. I agree with Bernie Sanders who in an interview on MSNBC today, while rejecting Saturday's WashPo article in which he reportedly said Biden isn't doing enough, said basically the same thing, couched as "Biden could do more".

“Trump is a disaster. I think most people know it,” he added. “But we also have to give people a reason to vote for Joe Biden.”

[Sanders] said people wanted to hear “a little bit more” from the candidate on issues such as raising the minimum wage, expanding health care and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.

To me, Biden seems more interested in winning over the conservative Republican suburban voters and groups like the Lincoln Project than the young, progressive, and Latino voters, many of whom, not receiving an indication from Biden he has specific plans to promote their causes, may stay home or vote for a write-in or third party candidate.

I think this is a short-sighted and costly decision by the Biden campaign for the Democratic Party. The conservatives are just Never Trumpers, who will desert Democrats as soon as the votes are counted. If anything, they will demand a payback from Congress for their support of Biden, which will probably extend to the nomination of Supreme Court Justices. Trump's nominees are bad, but the nominees the conservatives will demand (or hold hostage) are not any better.

By comparison, had Biden chosen to align himself even a little with former Bernie supporters and endorse policies embraced by other young, progressive and/or Latino voters, tens if not hundreds of thousands of voters would have become active members of the Democratic party. Think of how much bigger the Democratic tent could have been had Biden not chosen to align with conservatives for their votes.

Biden is ahead in most of the recent polling of swing states. But as we learned in 2016, polls get it wrong. I hope Trump loses, but I think with Biden, it's just about voting for someone who is not Trump, while Trump's base seems even more excited for him this time around. The Democrats started the election cycle being branded socialists. Trump Republicans now call them anarchists and communists. So choosing Biden did nothing to reduce the leftest label Democrats ran from when Bernie and Elizabeth were contenders.

Donald Trump is as toxic as the coronavirus he minimized. He's pathetic and after four years, remains as unqualified to lead this country as he was the day he rode down the up escalator to announce his candidacy.

< So Many Books, So Little Time | Giuliani's Golfer Son Wants to Run for Mayor of New York >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just had a phone call with (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 02:41:59 PM EST
    My Christian evangelical Trump supporting brother.

    He and his wife are terrified by the idea of herd immunity.  He is 10 years older than me.  He seemed to think it was another word for thinning the herd of old people.  Which it actually is.

    But here's the thing.  I avoided direct discussion of politics but I asked him how they planned to vote.  If they were going to vote by mail or on person.

    He thought for a minute and said, we might not vote.

    That could be (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    An Improvement.

    Yes exactly (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    I think it was his way of saying, you were right.  Without saying you were right.

    But definitely a good thing.  I have talked to more than one former Trump booster who did not seem excited about voting or even discussing politics.

    I think many will just stay home.  Some will blame the virus.


    PS (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 03:02:08 PM EST
    I encouraged him to be safe.  Mentioning the redness of the state and how our votes importance is marginal.

    Without mentioning I will crawl over broken glass to vote.


    I have wondered (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    if the polling isn't overcompensating support for Trump supporters since they underestimated his support in 2016.

    All the Trumpers I know are going to the polls unfortunately. Or they say they are. When the time comes they may end up not going. These people many of them have spouses with medical issues. They have convinced themselves that it is the end of the world if Biden is elected.


    My brother and his wife (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 03:07:20 PM EST
    Are not really typical of the Trump herd.  They are more typical of the college educated whites he is losing.  They are both retired teachers with advanced degrees.

    the orange clown (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    gave a speech to the UN today. From USAToday:

    "Tr*** touted his "America First" foreign policy and urged other countries to put their nation's interests above global concerns."

    This is the stuff that starts world wars. As much as the right wants to believe that the USA is a bubble. It is not. The US is part of a global community. A community that needs to work together to keep the peace and save the planet.

    This moron is a clear and present danger to the future of this republic as well as the well being of the entire planet. He must stopped. He must be eliminated.

    I have been wondering (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    why some rich guy hasn't already done this.  

    Bloomberg raises and pays 16 million in fines so felons can vote

    I was wondering the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    a couple of days ago. Great minds think alike! :)

    This is why (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 01:59:11 PM EST
    DeSantis is desperately writing new laws trying to put people in jail.

    The Bloomberg effort, which his aides said will be pooled with about $5 million already raised by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, is narrowly focused only on Black and Hispanic voters who are already registered to vote and whose debts are less than $1,500.

    Bloomberg's advisers identified that group as both likely to vote for Biden and more likely to vote than other groups of former felons.

    That's still a way of registering (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 07:10:43 PM EST
    at least 3500 voters, if my arithmetic holds up. Not bad.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 08:26:21 PM EST
    and rights a wrong for at least these individuals, notwithstanding Judge Barbara Lagoa.

    I don't know what this means. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 11:14:10 AM EST
    The article says they're paying the fines of a specific group of registered voters. Where does the idea of registering additional voters come from?

    My understanding was that until the fines, etc. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 11:48:17 AM EST
    were paid, these formerly convicted Floridians could not register to vote. If the article is correct that the individuals for whom Bloomberg is paying outstanding fines were already "registered," yet not able to vote, then my words were not chosen correctly. Perhaps he is talking about folks who were registered before they were convicted.  If so, then he is re-activating their registration, which might have remained on the books but was of no use to them, as they were barred from voting.

    did so during the two years following the 2018 vote that restored their vote as long as they had satisfied "all their terms of sentence," and before fine, fees, and restitution were recently upheld as part of their "terms of sentence."
    The money is targeted for felons who registered to vote while the law was in question and who owe $1,500 or less.

    Oh, ok, that makes sense (none / 0) (#66)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    Thanks for digging into it and clarifying. That explanation also removes any perception that Bloomberg is in some way paying these people to vote (or worse, to vote one way or another). The group whose barrier he is removing is limited to those who already took action on their own to be in a position to vote.

    Works for me. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 10:08:14 PM EST
    Who knows if there is a relationship but (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 16, 2020 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    This was in the Atlantic about 6:30

    Why isn't Trump trying to win?
     "The 2020 economy is worse than weak; it is, for many, an outright catastrophe. Look beyond the healthy housing market and the stock market, and you will see a depressed leisure-and-hospitality sector, 8% unemployment, and tens of thousands of small businesses on the brink of collapse."

    "The implication seems obvious. President Trump faces an array of obstacles on his path to reelection. But he could do one thing, right away, that would, in all likelihood, immediately improve his odds with almost no downside risk: Call for Congress to open the cash spigot and buoy the lackluster economy on a wave of stimulus."

    "All he has to do is announce his intention to sign a second major economic relief bill--a CARES Act II, essentially--and count on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to muddle through. Such a law would almost certainly improve the financial state of countless families at a time of mass desperation, and just weeks before the election."

    "But, oddly, the White House has expressed practically no interest in supercharging the economic engine that could drive the president to victory."

    Trump tweeted this an hour ago.

    Donald J. Trump
    Democrats are "heartless". They don't want to give STIMULUS PAYMENTS to people who desperately need the money, and whose fault it was NOT that the plague came in from China. Go for the much higher numbers, Republicans, it all comes back to the USA anyway (one way or another!).

    So now it is (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 16, 2020 at 02:42:29 PM EST
    being reported that a number of staff members at the white house have contacted covid likely from Trump's rally in NV.

    Oh my (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 16, 2020 at 04:35:16 PM EST
    NBC said that Jim Carrey will play Joe Biden on the coming 46th season of Saturday Night Live, which begins on October 3, the New York Times reports.

    Barr seems to be almost as desperate (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 08:42:03 AM EST
    More proof (none / 0) (#5)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 08:50:22 AM EST
    that the USA is a failed state. To hell with the election, I am ready for a coup d'etat.

    I think that's what's been happening. (none / 0) (#7)
    by leap on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 09:28:09 AM EST
    The Republican coup d'etat. We need a counter-coup.

    In Trumps case (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 10:11:41 AM EST
    More like a POO d'etat

    We've been experiencing one, (none / 0) (#9)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    in slow motion, for the past 40 years. I can't believe we're in danger of losing the nation to "the gang that couldn't shoot straight."

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    With Barr in charge it is like the gang that couldn't shoot straight led by Voldemort

    They're up to something. (none / 0) (#19)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 08:59:21 PM EST
    They're going to do something, bad.  We'll find out what it is very soon I fear.

    I heard something this morning (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    It has been happening for a long time but Barr knows better than anyone that if Trump loses it's over.

    Certainly for his wretched lifetime.  If they don't come out on top of this the game is over.

    Which makes him really dangerous.


    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 08:50:24 AM EST
    Oh god, here we go (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 17, 2020 at 02:22:16 PM EST

    "A mixup with the first absentee ballots sent in North Carolina caused some voters to receive two identical ballots for the November general election," the AP reports.


    Yeah! Let's do that! (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 18, 2020 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    That will definitely work.

    "The Trump administration on Friday announced $13 billion in additional aid to Puerto Rico to help with rebuilding in the aftermath of 2017's Hurricane Maria," CNN reports.

    "The move is likely an attempt to appeal to Puerto Rican voters who moved to the battleground state of Florida after the hurricane struck the US territory."

    How do you say, "Utterly shameless" (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 18, 2020 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    in Spanish?

    Totalmente Desverganzado (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by RickyJim on Fri Sep 18, 2020 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    I hope this was Trumps idea (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 18, 2020 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    the idea it was anyone else's would be scary.

    completamente descarado (none / 0) (#25)
    by leap on Fri Sep 18, 2020 at 02:11:07 PM EST
    (via google)

    Glad they are FINALLY (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 18, 2020 at 01:11:14 PM EST
    getting some help. Doubt there are many that will be fooled by the Orange Raccoon's sudden love for the people of Puerto Rico.

    Though I agree with your sentiment, (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 18, 2020 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    factually, PR has previously gotten 13. The total now is 26B.

    I have no idea, but rather doubt, that that is enough.


    Drop in the bucket (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 18, 2020 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    .... the overall amount of the damages suffered by Puerto Rico during Hurricane Maria, which have been estimated at $90 billion, making it the third-costliest hurricane in the United States on record.

    Much of the relief money that Congress allocated to PR has been stuck in DC due to Trump's reluctance to send them money.

    This article seems to provide a fairly good overview of damages...dollars actually received vs dollars allocated.


    Hilo got punched in the gut yesterday. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 19, 2020 at 08:50:06 PM EST
    The State Dept. of Health confirmed the deaths of 17 elderly residents and one staff member in the sudden COVID-19 outbreak at the Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home, which is almost exactly one mile down the road from our house. Further, another 68 residents and 30 staff members at the skilled nursing and assisted living facility have tested positive for COVID-19 as of last Wednesday.

    And just like that, our town went from only lightly touched by COVID to ground zero for the deadliest coronavirus cluster in the State of Hawaii. The Dept. of Health and the CDC will now conduct a mass testing and contact tracing of Hilo residents to gauge the level and locale of the outbreak here.

    Everyone, please stay safe. Now is not the time to let our guards down.


    It's now 22 dead and 99 infected. How did COVID get introduced there? And why were Mayor Kim and other county officials not notified by the State health dept. that there was a serious problem at the facility until yesterday afternoon, as though it was a Friday afternoon document dump?

    UPDATE No. 2: (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 29, 2020 at 07:52:11 PM EST
    The COVID death toll at the Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home here in Hilo has since risen to 28, with an additional 12 deaths still pending confirmation by the Dept. of Health as COVID-related. That's about 43% of the facility's resident population.

    This is a heartbreaking disaster.


    It's being suggested by some (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 05:00:33 PM EST
    Biden should make a deal.  Hold the nomination until after the election and I won't expand the Supreme Court.  Apart from the fact I don't think Republicans would do it I think Biden SHOULD make the deal.  He should promise he won't expand the court.  And then he should do it anyway.

    Because it what they would do.

    David French: "Court-packing is dangerous. Yet if the GOP violates its principles to jam through a nominee in Trump's last days in office, the pressure from congressional Democrats to pack the court may well be overwhelming. So Biden should make a deal with the lame-duck Senate. Keep the seat open, and he'll pledge not to sign any legislation packing the Supreme Court while he's in office."

    "This isn't the `unilateral disarmament' so despised by partisans. It's a compromise. Both sides would shed Machiavellianism (for a moment, at least) and do something concrete to actually de-escalate America's toxic political conflicts. America's polarization is growing dangerous. Political violence stalks our streets. Now is the time for true statesmen to step forward, to put prudence before power, and reach a compromise that doesn't just preserve the legitimacy of the court, it helps preserve the integrity of our republic."


    That is the entire point (none / 0) (#33)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 06:47:04 PM EST
    of the "court packing" threat, and always (i.e., for the entire last 48 hours it has been under discussion) has been. It is not a policy proposal; it is a hardball negotiating tactic. Unlike statehood for D.C. by the way, and filibuster reform, which have been advanced in the same terms. (Statehood for Puerto Rico, on the other hand, is not on the same footing as for D.C., as support for that status among Puerto Ricans is not necessarily as widespread as it is among residents of D.C.)

    Trump wants this (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 06:13:32 PM EST
    to go through before the election.  Hence, that is what will happen as far as  Republican senators are concerned. Mitch will let Murkowski and Troubled Collins vote no since he can get by without them.  Romney is likely to follow Mitch's bouncing balls.  

    Democrats have to come to the sad realization that Republicans are not credible and legitimate partners in governance of a democracy.  Republicans are depending on the Courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to do their legislating-- to get things done and undone.

    There is as much negotiating potential with Republicans as two people thinking about where to go for dinner; one has a taste for Italian and the other wants tire rims and anthrax.

    Considering (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    that Cotton and Hawley want a hardliner who will use none of this namby pamby "it's settled law" with regards to Roe V. Wade and want a candidate who will state outright that Roe must be overturned there are going to have to be senators willing to commit outright electoral suicide to get the nominee on the court. Sure. Collins and Murkowski can vote against the nominee but it will probably take down Daines and some other senators in tight races. Or are they going to play chicken and wait until after the election? It seems with Trump supposedly naming a nominee soon it will be on the ballot.

    I doubt most Republicans (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 07:04:10 PM EST
    really want to overturn Roe v Wade. If they abolish abortion, their one issue voters might suddenly realize that being a "Christian" involves more than being anti-abortion.

    Interesting bit on 538 (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 07:19:09 PM EST
    Asking this

    Will Senate Republicans Back Trump's Push To Fill Ginsburg's Seat -- Even If He Loses Reelection?

    Based on what we know right now, here's the most likely way that the dominoes will fall: Trump chooses a nominee this week. The Senate holds hearings in October, but there is not a vote on the nominee before the election. Biden beats Trump. In the postelection, lame-duck Senate session, 50 Republican senators and Vice President Mike Pence combine for 51 votes to confirm Trump's nominee, with the 47 Democrats, Collins, Murkowski and Romney in opposition.

    I'm not predicting all this will happen -- there's plenty of time for things to change -- but that's the picture we have right now. We can expect a lot of drama over the next few weeks, but in reality, only one question really matters: How many sitting Republican senators will prevent a sitting Republican president from adding a sixth Republican-appointed justice to the Supreme Court, giving the party a dominant majority on the court for perhaps a generation? The answer is, of course, not very many. But there might be four.

    I think that (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    Republicans will push through another far right SC judge. Voters rights, voter suppression issues, corporate giveaways and Church and State and anti-worker and ant-immigrant issues are some of the many ways the SC can help Republicans erode our democracy and screw over ordinary people. What I don't think they will do is abolish abortion and jeopardize losing their one issue voters.

    I didn't mean to disagree (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 09:05:49 PM EST
    I think you are right about abortion.  They have done Lucy and the Football with the right wing loons for decades on abortion.  

    But they could outsmart themselves.  If they really got rid of abortion they would be slaughtered politically for a generation.  Just like Obamacare.  They spoke of nothing else for 8  years.  Voted 50 some thimes to get rid of it but only when they knew those votes meant nothing.  As soon as they actually got the power they folded like a cheap suit.

    If they do ram this judge through both could really happen.  Obamacare and choice could be gone by the next election. Resulting in the political death of the party for decades.

    I think that piece might be right.  There might be 4 republicans smart enough to know this.  It might be allowed or even encouraged behind the scenes by others who are smart enough, like Mitch, but can not them selves vote to stop it.

    Which is wild speculation of course.   But I don't think it's impossible.


    If Dems win (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 09:24:44 PM EST
    The WH, get control of the Senate and  do away with the filibuster, they could theoretically quickly pass a new and improved version of ACA making sure it is better written and eliminate the parts that give the courts reason to overturn the legislation.

    Of course, we are dealing with Democrats.


    If they don't (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 03:29:26 AM EST
    hold a vote until after the election and Biden wins, lots of conservatives are going to have the excuse of not voting for Trump's nominee citing the will of the people. That may be 4 that could do that.

    Nothing the Supreme Court does can (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 08:59:33 AM EST
    "abolish abortion." They can -- and I'm not saying they necessarily will -- overrule federal constitutional protection for abortion rights (women's reproductive rights), but no court can "abolish abortion." Abortions will continue, legally in many states, and illegally (and thus more dangerously) in others.

    I Would Very Willingly Give States (none / 0) (#42)
    by RickyJim on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 09:38:02 AM EST
    the right to restrict abortions if they were also given the right to restrict firearms.  I find the reasoning quite specious that the Supreme Court used to not allow either. Of course, I know that what the Supreme Court does can often not be attributed to logical thinking.

    There is no equivalency whatsoever (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    between the two. And we do not trade off one group's rights against another's anyway. Plus I have no idea what you are trying to say by "the Supreme Court used to not allow either." What is "not allowed" is declared by legislatures, not by courts, subject to courts' potentially saying that what the legislature has tried to forbid is in fact constitutionally protected conduct. Perhaps you have something sensible to say, in which event I'd be interested in hearing it. But not what you did say.

    Sorry, I Had Two Points (none / 0) (#54)
    by RickyJim on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 06:01:28 PM EST
    1. If somehow it could be arranged, I would give the states both the power to restrict abortions and restrict firearms.  Just compare the number of deaths from botched abortions to the number of people killed by firearms.

    2.  I don't buy the reasoning the Supreme Court has used to take away the right from states to restrict abortions and restrict firearms.

    The states have plenty of authority to regulate (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 08:04:39 PM EST
    both abortions and firearms, according to the Supreme Court. This power (not what I would call a "right," but never mind that) has not been "taken away." But it is limited, like all other exercises of state power, by the individual rights that are reserved to the people. A state may not deprive a person (a category of beings which includes women, btw) of liberty (which includes the right to make most decisions about what to do with one's own body, including whether to bear a child or carry a fetus) without due process of law (which means both fair procedures and the absence of arbitrary restrictions). There's a class in intro constitutional law for you.

    Okay, Call it Limitations (none / 0) (#60)
    by RickyJim on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 09:44:42 AM EST
    I still believe that the Supreme Court making limitations on individual states making limitations on the abilities of individuals to possess firearms or have abortions was based on perverse reasoning.  RBG's comment that Roe vs Wade decision should have been based on gender equality rather that the right to privacy is an example of clutching at straws to come up with a desired goal.  Scalia's invoking of originalism in regard to 2nd amendment matters has been well refuted by scholars.  I know I will probably not live to see a constitutional convention in the US that would write a more sensible, up to date document than the vaguely worded one from 1787 but why shouldn't I point out worshiping of false idols in a blog like this?

    Who said you couldn't point out whatever (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    you wish to? Plenty of well-informed scholars have made devastating critiques of the flaws in our original (highly compromised) Constitution. My objection has been to the blatant inaccuracy (to choose a polite term) of what you are actually saying.

    Thanks for the References (none / 0) (#65)
    by RickyJim on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    They seem to be along the same lines as a book I have read, J.P Stevens, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution."  I think it better to start afresh with a completely new constitution making use of what has been learned about democratic government in the past 213 years.  

    I don't think think there are any blatant inaccuracies (except perhaps bad syntax) in my comments about the Supreme Court's decisions in regards to abortions and firearms.  I admit that what I say about their abortion rulings are politically incorrect around here.


    I would never criticize your syntax (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 05:40:05 PM EST
    But syntax is not the same as word choice, much less is it the same as saying what you mean. If what you are now saying is that you often write something other than what you mean, I don't know what to say, RJ. If other people simply cannot tell what you are actually trying to say based on what you write, no one will respond to you (certainly I won't), because it will always be a waste of time.

    unexpected pregnancy (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    Is not really a concern for you.

    I assume by the name you are male


    Different viewpoint (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 05:55:41 PM EST
    I don't think this is coming soon, but if enough conservative justices were added to the court, we might get to the point where anti-abortion lawyers seriously think about arguing that there's a right to life. Not just that there is no right to abortion, but that the Constitution protects fetal life. Then you'd be talking about abortion being illegal in New York as well as Alabama.

    How A Supreme Court Vacancy Could Spell The End Of Legal Abortion


    That is a fallacious constitutional argument (none / 0) (#56)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 07:13:38 PM EST
    As I have explained in comments on this site more than once over the years.

    Sadly (none / 0) (#40)
    by jmacWA on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 04:52:23 AM EST
    Democrats have to come to the sad realization that Republicans are not credible and legitimate partners in governance of a democracy.

    The Democratic Leadership of the House, and the Senate, and Biden himself, have NEVER shown that they have the will to state this about Republicans.  Until they do, I will remain skeptical that it will ever happen.


    Ready to Roll. (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    Lindsey Graham, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committtee, said on "Hannity" that "We got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement before the election."

    Romney, of course, and as I predicted, is also ready to go. He voted to convict the impeached Trump as unfit for office and should be removed, but he will vote for his nominee to a lifetime appointment, because Republican.  At least, Romney links his vote to something to do with qualifications.

    To expedite confirmation, Lindsey should start hearings today, and just fill in the blank with the name of the nominee when Trump finishes his Supreme Court casting competition for most TV-ready woman the Federalist Society has offered up to him.

    I hope someone with ad money (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    Will point out to the millions of people who are losing their houses and their lives that republicans really make make things happen quickly.

    If it's their interest.

    I think this is a big mistake for the republicans.  On many levels


    Here is the debate topics (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    "According to a person familiar with the planning, the 90 minute debate will be divided into six, 15 minute discussion areas. They include: Trump's and Biden's records; the Supreme Court; the coronavirus pandemic; race and violence in cities; election integrity; and the economy."


    ... who also previously served as Trump's campaign manager which he renamed colloquially "the Death Star," was detained last Sunday afternoon by Ft. Lauderdale police and has since been hospitalized involuntarily at Broward County Medical Center, following his wife Candice's frantic call to emergency services that her husband was suicidal.

    Now comes word from the UK's Daily Mail - that Parscale is under investigation for having allegedly embezzled $25-40 million from the Trump campaign and another $10 million from the RNC. (The DM also noted that the report has been denied by both the campaign and the RNC, for whatever that's worth.)

    Last June, following Trump's less than enthusiastic reception in Tulsa, OK, A TV / online ad aired by the Lincoln project focused public attention on Parscale's lavish personal spending and opulent lifestyle. The bad optics prompted Trump to demote him as campaign manager the following month and replace him with former Chris Christie operative Bill Stepien, although he still kept him under contract as the campaign's senior advisor.

    Per the Palm Beach Post, "[t]he 2020 [Trump] campaign has been a financial windfall for Parscale's digital consulting, marketing and fundraising company[.]"

    (Sigh!) Grifters just gotta grift.

    this AM...

    Sorry, Sunday. (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 29, 2020 at 07:36:46 PM EST
    I saw the footage of the arrest this AM...

    That's entirely understandable. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 29, 2020 at 07:55:43 PM EST
    This story sure flew under the mainstream radar. Not surprising, given everything that's happening. But that said, it's also indicative of a campaign spiraling into chaos.

    As much as despise Parscale and his grift, (none / 0) (#73)
    by leap on Wed Sep 30, 2020 at 09:37:38 AM EST
    I thought the cops were equally despicable in the way they "took him down." That was so out-of-line, ambush-tackling him to the ground so violently. He kept saying, "I didn't do anything!" He was practically naked, barefoot, shorts, no shirt, beer in hand. No gun. No knife. And surprisingly, not Black. Why did the ACABs do that? Disgusting.

    Apparently Parscale's wife was bruised up. (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 30, 2020 at 12:14:51 PM EST
    And the take down happened after an hour-long standoff...

    As he exited, police ordered Brad Parscale -- barefoot, shirtless but wearing shorts, and holding a beer -- to get on the ground. He didn't comply, so an officer used a "double-leg takedown" to knock him to the ground while other officers handcuffed him.

    The family is worried (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 30, 2020 at 05:54:56 PM EST
    "Parscale's public meltdown happened while he is reportedly under investigation for stealing from the Trump campaign and the RNC. According to the source close to the campaign, the Trump family is worried that Parscale could turn on them and cooperate with law enforcement about possible campaign finance violations."

    Said a source: "The family is worried Brad will start talking."