I just tweeted David Plouffe and Chris Hayes to stop saying that it takes 100,000 swing state voters to decide our next president because it disincentivizes the rest of the voters. I’ve never tweeted before, so if I can do it, so can everyone else.
You are correct about the extreme importance of voting - each and every one of us. And this very matter is why I have stepped away from mainstream media - even the good ones! Too many talking heads - I prefer the facts and that is why I turn to you and others. This is not a reality show, nor any other kind of entertainment, in spite of the fact that the Orange One is successfully making a mockery of our justice system as well as all of democracy. When will he be forced to stop?
Keep up the great work of clarification and hope - thank you!
Because of conversations in this space I have become more acutely aware of how often there is a picture and a story about Donald Trump on the first page of the NYTimes and the Washington Post, and not nearly as many photos of Joe Biden. So every time there is a photo of Trump I am writing a letter to the editor to ask why they are so intent on giving him free publicity. I don't expect to be published but Robert made the point that if enough people write, it could influence editorial policy. BTW, the same thing happened when Obama was President, but I think this is worse.
Hi Robert and readers.... I'm listening to a RUBI briefing "Understanding How the Diploma Divide Shapes American Politics” with Joan Williams, which will help me a lot when I talk with voters in my native state, Wisconsin, from my perch in metro Boston. RUBI, Rural Urban Bridge Initiative, which I learned about via the Swing Blue Alliance, "invites liberals and progressives to think differently, talk differently and act differently in order to understand the causes of the rural-urban divide and then do something to repair it." https://ruralurbanbridge.org/
Excellent Robert. For now, I offer another link report by NPR. Although it seems every citizen/voter who is paying attention should be aware of what this report tells us. We must get our good news stories out but concurrently clearly speak to the malice Trump is planning and telling us.
How Trump's promise to pardon Jan. 6 rioters raises the threat of extremism
Kind of the needle in the haystack syndrome at work. We sometimes tune in to the CBS show with nothing else to do at that time of day. I agree…nice to look at, sometimes low on substance, but that’s entertainment for you. Re: Chris Hayes, I saw him in a one-on-one with Rachel Maddow to discuss her new book, “Prequel”, which is an amazing read. If you had not read the book it was a good overview of fascism in the US and its underpinnings at the end of the 19th century. Should be required reading for anyone interested in voting for Trump.
Yesterday you misstepped in urging people whose friends persist in mishuggenah unsubstantiated views to dump them and find new friends. No no no. Please dont advocate adding to the dreadful polarization and demonising of "the others". We've GOT to keep trying to talk and to LISTEN to our misinformed misguided friends, not ridicule them and send them further into the embrace of the nutters.
Here's my layman's take on Section Three, to be published in my weekly newspaper column in the Everett (WA) Herald:
If the concept of constitutionally disqualifying Trump from running for president is complex, multi-layered, and controversial, one aspect isn’t. The wording of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is unambiguous:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President,” says Section Three, “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
It couldn’t be more clear: if, after taking an oath, you participated in insurrection or rebellion against the US or any state, or aided or encouraged people who did, you are barred from federal or state office. Period. It’s the Constitution. It’s the law. It can’t be selectively enforced, can’t be ignored for any reason, including applying it to a former or current candidate. Political impact isn’t a consideration. In a constitutional republic, the law is to be enforced, undisirregardlessly. Must be.
None of which is to pretend the particulars are clear-cut. Whereas some claims from the right are specious at best – questioning whether a president is an officer of the United States, for example – others deserve consideration. There’s plenty of thoughtful discussion out there, and even non-lawyers should be able to sort through it.
The fundamental question may be who defines an insurrection; it’s at the heart of a related question: is Section Three self-actualizing or does it require some sort of enabling legislation from Congress? Must Congress define the word and state by what standards it’s applied, and by whom? Courts? Secretaries of state? These are fair questions. Coincidentally, they provide a way for the Supreme Court to escape adjudicating Trump’s eligibility to become “president” again. Or, in his case, a dictator as promised.
Looking for a place to hide, the SCOTUS Six may rule that, absent enabling legislation, Section Three is unenforceable. Credible legal scholars, both liberal and conservative, have concluded otherwise, some going so far as to predict an unlikely 9-0 decision that disqualifies Trump. (8-0 if Clarence Thomas, whose wife actively attempted to overturn the election, recuses, in an uncharacteristic display of integrity.)
Unlike the compelling erudition of the preceding link, a lower-court Colorado judge, before she was overruled by its supreme court, stated that Trump engaged in insurrection but, bizarrely, that presidents aren’t “officers” of the US, as described in Section Three. That, to say the least, is hard to defend, given that the Constitution specifically prescribes the presidential oath, beginning thus: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States...” (My emphasis.) It’s an office, by Constitutional definition. People in office are officers. And Trump took the oath.
Less compelling than the enabling argument is the political one: it’s dangerous; it’ll inflame Trump voters, cause an uprising. Same with “let the voters decide,” which they have, twice rejecting Trump by majority vote. Here’s his lawyer, Christina Bobb, on topic: “The president is elected by the entire nation and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not.” Right. Except for, you know, what the law says. About insurrection.
Maybe it shouldn’t be judges who define or decide who participated. (Note that Section Three includes “rebellion.” If January 6 wasn’t that, what is?) On the other hand, we remember Justice Potter Stewart’s response when asked for a definition of obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” In trying then and now, many times, many ways, to overturn a Constitutionally valid election and, therefore, the Constitution itself, Trump is disqualified, by law. Call it insurrection. Call it rebellion. We know it when we see it. Or make it really easy: “Aid or comfort.” His continuing election lies, called out even by his own people, are at the heart of it. That’s a slam, as they say, dunk.
Would there be violence? Is Fox “news” like a bear in the woods except in our brains? Probably. But unless you believe in selective application of the law, based on status or politics, meaning you don’t believe in law at all, what choice is there? The NRA doesn’t believe the Second Amendment has exceptions. Per the Third, no one’s being forced to quarter troops. Trump pleaded the Fifth hundreds of times. If the Fourteenth is different, how exactly? It’s not politics. It’s the law.
Can we add that the 147 congresspersons who aided and abetted the insurrection -- esp. giving comfort and support -- should be barred from office per 14th Amendment, Sec. 3? That would clean out the House plus several senators. How could we go about making that happen?
So much to comment on and so little time. Yet fundamentally each of these issues, and no doubt more, offer the opportunity to wreak havoc with Republicans running in the next election; particularly the issue regarding immigration wherein the do-nothings of the Republican caucus are using their own intransigence to win votes. But it isn’t just immigration. There are a bevy of issues where Republicans have failed to pass needed legislation and blame it on the minority party, the Democrats. The answer? Elect new representatives, Democrats or Republicans who will take their oaths of office seriously and when they don’t toss them out. That means there are a bunch of Republicans who do nothing that can be targets to swing control of the House, in particular, but let’s not forget about the Senate, either. Once there are members of both House and Senate who are willing to talk to each other and come to a reasonable middle ground on any and all issues which come before them. And, most important, stop making the liar and loser Donald Trump the go-to guy when it comes to making important decisions.
But really lastly, Trump comes from a long line of public servants from the 19th century which were called the “No Nothings”. His meddling in the court responses is encouraging but knowing his stubbornness he’ll just keep on with his idiocy.
Here is a discomfiting thought: We are in this judicial crisis in large part because Democratic and non-conservative/MAGA Republican Senators went along to get along.
Repeatedly, they muted their concerns about Republican nominees for judicial posts out of “respect” for the sitting President who nominated unfit people to judicial posts – unfit in the sense that the nominees’ *judicial/legal philosophies* were objectionable or worse. They did not have the courage of their legal convictions. They were open-minded to a fault.
So here we are: jabbering about how many judges should be on the Supreme and other Courts, when the problem has been and is more fundamental: having the courage and brainpower to conceive, articulate, and insist upon the kind of judiciary that America needs.
I just tweeted David Plouffe and Chris Hayes to stop saying that it takes 100,000 swing state voters to decide our next president because it disincentivizes the rest of the voters. I’ve never tweeted before, so if I can do it, so can everyone else.
You are correct about the extreme importance of voting - each and every one of us. And this very matter is why I have stepped away from mainstream media - even the good ones! Too many talking heads - I prefer the facts and that is why I turn to you and others. This is not a reality show, nor any other kind of entertainment, in spite of the fact that the Orange One is successfully making a mockery of our justice system as well as all of democracy. When will he be forced to stop?
Keep up the great work of clarification and hope - thank you!
They did and I think it took it's toll. I've great hopes for his doggedness, kind heart and common sense to make a real difference!
RNA, mRNA, or any kind of RNA simply does not and cannot be "incorporated" into DNA, ever. It doesn't fit. Simple answer.
Because of conversations in this space I have become more acutely aware of how often there is a picture and a story about Donald Trump on the first page of the NYTimes and the Washington Post, and not nearly as many photos of Joe Biden. So every time there is a photo of Trump I am writing a letter to the editor to ask why they are so intent on giving him free publicity. I don't expect to be published but Robert made the point that if enough people write, it could influence editorial policy. BTW, the same thing happened when Obama was President, but I think this is worse.
The Texas Taliban is alive and doing everything in its power to subjugate women. I'm so sad to be a resident of the Lone Star State right now!
You, of all people, please quit calling Donald Trump “President!” He is NOT President.
Our President is President Joe Biden. Donald Trump is Former President Trump. Quit
appeasing his enormous ego.
Hi Robert and readers.... I'm listening to a RUBI briefing "Understanding How the Diploma Divide Shapes American Politics” with Joan Williams, which will help me a lot when I talk with voters in my native state, Wisconsin, from my perch in metro Boston. RUBI, Rural Urban Bridge Initiative, which I learned about via the Swing Blue Alliance, "invites liberals and progressives to think differently, talk differently and act differently in order to understand the causes of the rural-urban divide and then do something to repair it." https://ruralurbanbridge.org/
Excellent Robert. For now, I offer another link report by NPR. Although it seems every citizen/voter who is paying attention should be aware of what this report tells us. We must get our good news stories out but concurrently clearly speak to the malice Trump is planning and telling us.
How Trump's promise to pardon Jan. 6 rioters raises the threat of extremism
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/04/1218672628/the-trump-campaign-embraces-jan-6-rioters-with-money-and-pardon-promises
Kind of the needle in the haystack syndrome at work. We sometimes tune in to the CBS show with nothing else to do at that time of day. I agree…nice to look at, sometimes low on substance, but that’s entertainment for you. Re: Chris Hayes, I saw him in a one-on-one with Rachel Maddow to discuss her new book, “Prequel”, which is an amazing read. If you had not read the book it was a good overview of fascism in the US and its underpinnings at the end of the 19th century. Should be required reading for anyone interested in voting for Trump.
Yesterday you misstepped in urging people whose friends persist in mishuggenah unsubstantiated views to dump them and find new friends. No no no. Please dont advocate adding to the dreadful polarization and demonising of "the others". We've GOT to keep trying to talk and to LISTEN to our misinformed misguided friends, not ridicule them and send them further into the embrace of the nutters.
I predict that Trump will be unable to contain himself, and will brag that he got much more money from China than Hunter Biden did.
Here's my layman's take on Section Three, to be published in my weekly newspaper column in the Everett (WA) Herald:
If the concept of constitutionally disqualifying Trump from running for president is complex, multi-layered, and controversial, one aspect isn’t. The wording of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is unambiguous:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President,” says Section Three, “or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
It couldn’t be more clear: if, after taking an oath, you participated in insurrection or rebellion against the US or any state, or aided or encouraged people who did, you are barred from federal or state office. Period. It’s the Constitution. It’s the law. It can’t be selectively enforced, can’t be ignored for any reason, including applying it to a former or current candidate. Political impact isn’t a consideration. In a constitutional republic, the law is to be enforced, undisirregardlessly. Must be.
None of which is to pretend the particulars are clear-cut. Whereas some claims from the right are specious at best – questioning whether a president is an officer of the United States, for example – others deserve consideration. There’s plenty of thoughtful discussion out there, and even non-lawyers should be able to sort through it.
The fundamental question may be who defines an insurrection; it’s at the heart of a related question: is Section Three self-actualizing or does it require some sort of enabling legislation from Congress? Must Congress define the word and state by what standards it’s applied, and by whom? Courts? Secretaries of state? These are fair questions. Coincidentally, they provide a way for the Supreme Court to escape adjudicating Trump’s eligibility to become “president” again. Or, in his case, a dictator as promised.
Looking for a place to hide, the SCOTUS Six may rule that, absent enabling legislation, Section Three is unenforceable. Credible legal scholars, both liberal and conservative, have concluded otherwise, some going so far as to predict an unlikely 9-0 decision that disqualifies Trump. (8-0 if Clarence Thomas, whose wife actively attempted to overturn the election, recuses, in an uncharacteristic display of integrity.)
Unlike the compelling erudition of the preceding link, a lower-court Colorado judge, before she was overruled by its supreme court, stated that Trump engaged in insurrection but, bizarrely, that presidents aren’t “officers” of the US, as described in Section Three. That, to say the least, is hard to defend, given that the Constitution specifically prescribes the presidential oath, beginning thus: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States...” (My emphasis.) It’s an office, by Constitutional definition. People in office are officers. And Trump took the oath.
Less compelling than the enabling argument is the political one: it’s dangerous; it’ll inflame Trump voters, cause an uprising. Same with “let the voters decide,” which they have, twice rejecting Trump by majority vote. Here’s his lawyer, Christina Bobb, on topic: “The president is elected by the entire nation and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not.” Right. Except for, you know, what the law says. About insurrection.
Maybe it shouldn’t be judges who define or decide who participated. (Note that Section Three includes “rebellion.” If January 6 wasn’t that, what is?) On the other hand, we remember Justice Potter Stewart’s response when asked for a definition of obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” In trying then and now, many times, many ways, to overturn a Constitutionally valid election and, therefore, the Constitution itself, Trump is disqualified, by law. Call it insurrection. Call it rebellion. We know it when we see it. Or make it really easy: “Aid or comfort.” His continuing election lies, called out even by his own people, are at the heart of it. That’s a slam, as they say, dunk.
Would there be violence? Is Fox “news” like a bear in the woods except in our brains? Probably. But unless you believe in selective application of the law, based on status or politics, meaning you don’t believe in law at all, what choice is there? The NRA doesn’t believe the Second Amendment has exceptions. Per the Third, no one’s being forced to quarter troops. Trump pleaded the Fifth hundreds of times. If the Fourteenth is different, how exactly? It’s not politics. It’s the law.
Excellent!
Can we add that the 147 congresspersons who aided and abetted the insurrection -- esp. giving comfort and support -- should be barred from office per 14th Amendment, Sec. 3? That would clean out the House plus several senators. How could we go about making that happen?
If only!
So much to comment on and so little time. Yet fundamentally each of these issues, and no doubt more, offer the opportunity to wreak havoc with Republicans running in the next election; particularly the issue regarding immigration wherein the do-nothings of the Republican caucus are using their own intransigence to win votes. But it isn’t just immigration. There are a bevy of issues where Republicans have failed to pass needed legislation and blame it on the minority party, the Democrats. The answer? Elect new representatives, Democrats or Republicans who will take their oaths of office seriously and when they don’t toss them out. That means there are a bunch of Republicans who do nothing that can be targets to swing control of the House, in particular, but let’s not forget about the Senate, either. Once there are members of both House and Senate who are willing to talk to each other and come to a reasonable middle ground on any and all issues which come before them. And, most important, stop making the liar and loser Donald Trump the go-to guy when it comes to making important decisions.
But really lastly, Trump comes from a long line of public servants from the 19th century which were called the “No Nothings”. His meddling in the court responses is encouraging but knowing his stubbornness he’ll just keep on with his idiocy.
You can comment to Chris Hayes: msnbctvinfo@nbcuni.com
I just sent him my comment:
Chris Hayes made the foolish comment that “100,000 voters in seven swing states will decide the 2024 election.”
C'mon, Chris....you know that is not true, and a very dangerous thing to say given the stakes and the nature of the opposition (i.e. tRump).
You chose click-bait over truthful reporting; not worthy of your own values or those of MSNBC. I'll be looking elsewhere for reliable, truthful news.
You have fences to mend.
SIncerely-
Tom Keefe
W. Cornwall, VT
Here is a discomfiting thought: We are in this judicial crisis in large part because Democratic and non-conservative/MAGA Republican Senators went along to get along.
Repeatedly, they muted their concerns about Republican nominees for judicial posts out of “respect” for the sitting President who nominated unfit people to judicial posts – unfit in the sense that the nominees’ *judicial/legal philosophies* were objectionable or worse. They did not have the courage of their legal convictions. They were open-minded to a fault.
So here we are: jabbering about how many judges should be on the Supreme and other Courts, when the problem has been and is more fundamental: having the courage and brainpower to conceive, articulate, and insist upon the kind of judiciary that America needs.