Who are the “readers” who unsubscribe because they don’t think the author can have his own opinions? As the Twelve Steppers say, “Take what you like and leave the rest.” The governor of Florida is one of many people we can work to replace. I haven’t had a television since W was “elected” President in 2000, and to my knowledge have never endured a single moment of Fox News. Thank you for your integrity, Robert. You are an example for us all.
Unsubscribed! Seriously? This newsletter (to me anyway) is a family of passionate people looking for other like minded passionate people to save our Country, Democracy and our Constitution. The views, facts and tidbits you gather for us to ponder, debate, share or act upon…give us communal strength. To read “several readers were upset with my acknowledgment of the role that progressive Democrats played in reversing the administration’s position on the eviction moratorium. (One reader “unsubscribed” over the comment.)” shows me narrow mindedness. I am excited that Joe Biden is working hard within the party to hear ALL opinions and trying to seek solutions for all. To Unsubscribe shows an unwillingness to think toward the future. We are a diverse country with diverse representation. Not listening to a progressive idea is what I would expect from the GOP. Closing our minds will get us nowhere in 2022 & 2024.
I do worry about the tensions within the D party--I think they are serious enough with regard to certain issues that there is a more than minimal chance that it keeps portions of the D constituency home on election days due to lack of enthusiasm even knowing that it could lead to a R victory. I wish I didn't "feel" this suicidal tendency among us but pick up hints in personal conversations in addition to what I find in the media. I don't envy Biden, Pelosi, or Schumer having to walk the fine lines they do. Beyond this point, I do want to comment on Jeffrey Clark and on the Colorado attorney fees case. Re the latter, I do believe that only by showing some teeth and inflicting personal pain on insurrectionists and their minions--sad to say, fellow attorneys too often--will it be possible to drive this movement into the ground. However, if the penalties are only about money, I worry that deep pocket right wingers like the Bradley Foundation could actually pick up the monetary penalty of attorneys like these--what I think should be happening is disbarment, something that can't be transferred to others. As for Clark, however hard it may be to make a case against him AND Trump for attempting to overthrow the government, I think there is no choice but to try to make it with this new evidence to make it clear that this kind of crap cannot happen with impunity--which is essentially where we stand now. I also don't think its a bad thing that the news reports I heard repeated over and over that this guy was a Kirkland and Ellis attorney--a law firm making a home for someone like this should be called out for it. Maybe some of these scoundrel attorneys can be driven into the ground if they stand to lose the ability to collect seven figure compensation if firms don't hire them or get rid of them.
If it weren't for reading this daily report, Heather Cox's interesting perspective, and Charlie Syke's frank and honest viewpoint, I wouldn't know what was going on in this country. I have reached the senior stage of life with more interest in watching Shark Tank, old movies, Chopped, and reruns of Columbo and Alfred Hitchcock Presents than watching news. I am mildly interested in what the Cuomo Brothers will do with Andrew's inexcusable perspective that belongs in the 1950's. I guess Andrew has missed the "me-too" movement and the downfall of a beloved Senator, Senator Franken. I wonder what woman he was thinking about that caused him to miss those important events. Really? He thought that in 2021, an elected official in power can excuse touching and kissing women with the excuse that he touches and kisses men and children that way, too. Oh. What a Bozo. He needs to leave without further adieu, and save some honor for the good way he dealt with NY COVID.
As I know Robert is aware, there is no First Amendment issue about individual's calls to starve Tucker Carlson or Fox News of revenue. The First Amendment protects only against government limits on free speech. Individuals are free to try to limit speech, as long as they do so lawfully. And telling advertisers not to support sedition is lawful.
As for Carlson's jaunt to Hungary, would someone please point out to him how well Fascism in that country worked the first time?
"Moreover, the suggestion by Justice Kavanaugh in the June opinion that only Congress can impose an eviction moratorium is disingenuous and wrong. Congress extended the CDC moratorium back in December 2021 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. For Kavanaugh, that is not good enough. In his view, Congress must initiate the moratorium (“via new legislation”), not merely extend it. That distinction is dubious..."
Good point. Likewise, does The Supreme Court reissue and renew past decisions on a regular basis? No. Granted, this court does routinely negate precedence with a vicious regularity, but hey, that's because they can!
Who are the “readers” who unsubscribe because they don’t think the author can have his own opinions? As the Twelve Steppers say, “Take what you like and leave the rest.” The governor of Florida is one of many people we can work to replace. I haven’t had a television since W was “elected” President in 2000, and to my knowledge have never endured a single moment of Fox News. Thank you for your integrity, Robert. You are an example for us all.
Unsubscribed! Seriously? This newsletter (to me anyway) is a family of passionate people looking for other like minded passionate people to save our Country, Democracy and our Constitution. The views, facts and tidbits you gather for us to ponder, debate, share or act upon…give us communal strength. To read “several readers were upset with my acknowledgment of the role that progressive Democrats played in reversing the administration’s position on the eviction moratorium. (One reader “unsubscribed” over the comment.)” shows me narrow mindedness. I am excited that Joe Biden is working hard within the party to hear ALL opinions and trying to seek solutions for all. To Unsubscribe shows an unwillingness to think toward the future. We are a diverse country with diverse representation. Not listening to a progressive idea is what I would expect from the GOP. Closing our minds will get us nowhere in 2022 & 2024.
I do worry about the tensions within the D party--I think they are serious enough with regard to certain issues that there is a more than minimal chance that it keeps portions of the D constituency home on election days due to lack of enthusiasm even knowing that it could lead to a R victory. I wish I didn't "feel" this suicidal tendency among us but pick up hints in personal conversations in addition to what I find in the media. I don't envy Biden, Pelosi, or Schumer having to walk the fine lines they do. Beyond this point, I do want to comment on Jeffrey Clark and on the Colorado attorney fees case. Re the latter, I do believe that only by showing some teeth and inflicting personal pain on insurrectionists and their minions--sad to say, fellow attorneys too often--will it be possible to drive this movement into the ground. However, if the penalties are only about money, I worry that deep pocket right wingers like the Bradley Foundation could actually pick up the monetary penalty of attorneys like these--what I think should be happening is disbarment, something that can't be transferred to others. As for Clark, however hard it may be to make a case against him AND Trump for attempting to overthrow the government, I think there is no choice but to try to make it with this new evidence to make it clear that this kind of crap cannot happen with impunity--which is essentially where we stand now. I also don't think its a bad thing that the news reports I heard repeated over and over that this guy was a Kirkland and Ellis attorney--a law firm making a home for someone like this should be called out for it. Maybe some of these scoundrel attorneys can be driven into the ground if they stand to lose the ability to collect seven figure compensation if firms don't hire them or get rid of them.
If it weren't for reading this daily report, Heather Cox's interesting perspective, and Charlie Syke's frank and honest viewpoint, I wouldn't know what was going on in this country. I have reached the senior stage of life with more interest in watching Shark Tank, old movies, Chopped, and reruns of Columbo and Alfred Hitchcock Presents than watching news. I am mildly interested in what the Cuomo Brothers will do with Andrew's inexcusable perspective that belongs in the 1950's. I guess Andrew has missed the "me-too" movement and the downfall of a beloved Senator, Senator Franken. I wonder what woman he was thinking about that caused him to miss those important events. Really? He thought that in 2021, an elected official in power can excuse touching and kissing women with the excuse that he touches and kisses men and children that way, too. Oh. What a Bozo. He needs to leave without further adieu, and save some honor for the good way he dealt with NY COVID.
As I know Robert is aware, there is no First Amendment issue about individual's calls to starve Tucker Carlson or Fox News of revenue. The First Amendment protects only against government limits on free speech. Individuals are free to try to limit speech, as long as they do so lawfully. And telling advertisers not to support sedition is lawful.
As for Carlson's jaunt to Hungary, would someone please point out to him how well Fascism in that country worked the first time?
It is not a "defense of the First Amendment" to argue that private citizens shouldn't try to get Tucker Carlson off the air.
I hadn't heard that most recent update about Lauren Boebert. Thanks!
"Moreover, the suggestion by Justice Kavanaugh in the June opinion that only Congress can impose an eviction moratorium is disingenuous and wrong. Congress extended the CDC moratorium back in December 2021 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. For Kavanaugh, that is not good enough. In his view, Congress must initiate the moratorium (“via new legislation”), not merely extend it. That distinction is dubious..."
Good point. Likewise, does The Supreme Court reissue and renew past decisions on a regular basis? No. Granted, this court does routinely negate precedence with a vicious regularity, but hey, that's because they can!
I love the quote about the “wheels of justice” and have certainly heard it before. Who said it? I really, really want to believe that it is true…