Do The Democrats Really Want Unity?

Below is my column in the Hill on the increasingly divisive rhetoric and actions taken on Capitol Hill. Rather than plot a course to between greater unity, many are seeking to muscle through extreme measures that will only further aggravate and deepen our divisions.  The media from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times have run editorials encouraging aggressive moves to secure control of the Senate, including the ending of the filibuster. That move would make every vote a muscle play — producing sweeping changes in a country that is clearly divided and seeking political compromise.

Here is the column:

There are times when being a law professor ruins everything. You go to a great movie with your wife and get a sharp elbow after whispering in the theater that the character really cannot question a witness like that. Or you watch a football game with friends and try to explain that the cameraman wiped out by the running back would have a great torts case.

Inauguration are no different as when Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the wording on the oath for President Barack Obama.  Then, this week, in the middle of one of the more beautiful inaugurations in history, I fixated on Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) announcing that she would be the first person to call Joe Biden “Mr. President.” She was wrong, factually and constitutionally. Biden had been sworn into office early, by about ten minutes to noon, and Chief Justice Roberts had just called him “Mr. President.” Yet the true president at that moment was in Florida: Donald Trump legally would remain in office for ten more minutes, under the 20th Amendment.

It will be a fun bit of trivia for constitutional law geeks, but it was also telling. Everyone in Washington, including many in Republican leadership, were a bit too eager to begin the Biden administration and to end Trump’s. However, it should be a cautionary tale, too. Democrats are moving aggressively to muscle through an ambitious agenda in Congress that may raise serious constitutional questions and cause even greater political divisions.

After noon, the real President Biden set to work on a host of executive orders. In the first two days, Biden signed almost three dozen new executive orders, ranging from stopping deportations of undocumented persons to extending a freeze on student loan payments, from mandating mask-wearing to guaranteeing access by transgender children to bathrooms and sports. Some of these executive orders, if implemented directly, could be challenged in court. However, Trump and other modern presidents have increasingly used such orders to set new priorities and policies.

What is happening on Capitol Hill is far more concerning. Democratic leaders are pushing Biden to act unilaterally, as did President Obama when faced with a divided Congress. Obama actually used his State of the Union address to declare his intent to circumvent the legislative branch after it refused to pass his legislation in areas such as the environment and immigration.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats have called on Biden to simply cancel student debt up to $50,000 per student, wiping out billions in debt and potential federal revenue. That is a major unilateral decision when the national debt is approaching $28 trillion — one done without debate or deliberation. (In fairness, students are being crushed by such debt during the pandemic and, more importantly, Congress previously gave broad authority to the Education secretary over debt management.)

Other calls for sweeping new decisions, from immigration to wealth distribution, are more concerning. Democrats insist they won both houses and the White House and, as President Obama once said, “elections have consequences.” However, this election was not an overwhelming victory or endorsement. Rather, it shows a country divided virtually down the middle. While voters clearly rejected Trump and his controversial leadership, they voted widely for Republicans down the ticket. The House saw a significant loss of Democratic seats and has one of the slimmest majorities in modern history. The Senate is divided literally in half, and a majority is only possible with Vice President Harris voting to break ties on the floor.

Clearly, voters did not support the agenda of the far left, and many seem to have preferred divided government. Yet, many on the left do not want to wait for a broader mandate to implement sweeping changes. They are pushing for the District of Columbia to be made a state, likely adding a two-vote majority for Democrats in the Senate. At the same time, there is a push to end the filibuster. Many Democrats are calling for Schumer to end that long-standing protection of minority rights in the Senate. Schumer has refused to guarantee that he will protect the filibuster tradition, even though he demanded that it be preserved during years of Republican Senate control.

In both chambers, Democrats are calling for the possible expulsion of fellow members who voted to challenge electoral votes before the Jan. 6 riot in the Capitol. I opposed that electoral-vote challenge — but it was not “sedition” or “insurrection” to vote for it. Federal law expressly allows for such challenges, and Democrats have mounted challenges in past elections. These calls demonstrate a crisis of leadership in a country that remains a political powder keg. We have seen extreme violence on both the left and the right for four years, from Portland to Washington itself. The Inauguration occurred surrounded by 25,000 national guard troops, due to the Jan. 6 riot by the extreme right, and it was followed by rioting in various cities by the extreme left.  Riots have continued this week in various states.

Yet despite an election that clearly favored compromise and divided power, leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and others are fueling divisions. Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) and others have accused colleagues of possibly giving tours to “insurrectionists” before the riot to provide (in Sherrill’s words) “reconnaissance for the next day.” (The group Sherrill saw reportedly was a representative’s own family.) When confronted with such scurrilous accusations, Pelosi insisted that Republicans were known to have given “aid and comfort” to those seeking to destroy the country. Those words are derived from the Constitution’s provision on treason. Such reckless rhetoric and actions show that leaders in Congress are seeking to capitalize on our divisions, not to heal them.

The greater concern, though, is the total silence of Biden, who has spoken of healing the nation but done little to seek unity. He could, for instance, declare support for the filibuster, which he staunchly defended as a senator — but he hasn’t. That would take real leadership, to support a rule that makes things more difficult for you but could force real compromise and national healing. Many were eager — a tad too eager — to declare Biden president on Inauguration Day. Now he needs to show there was good reason for their hope. To show that he is not just another politician but a president who sees our divisions as a threat to our entire nation. He needs to lead.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

 

277 thoughts on “Do The Democrats Really Want Unity?”

  1. Fox News Figures Greatly In America’s Split

    America’s polarization began in the 1990’s right about the time Fox News hit the airwaves. It was then the Republican party started marching ever rightward. Rush Limbaugh made his debut during that same period spawning a wave of imitators soon soon known as ‘rightwing talk radio’.

    But Fox News, more than any single factor, caused America to split into 2 different realities. One must note, however, that Fox News owner, Rupert Murdoch is a native of Australia who lived most of his life in London. Yet Murdoch has meddled extensively in the politics of 3 different nations on 3 different continents. In other words, the great divide that now splits this country was caused an Australian who never lived a real American life.

    1. Peter’s kvetching that PBS and the networks didn’t get to frame every story during the Clinton years. Try being less shallow. It cannot be that difficult.

      1. Tabby, is Rupert Murdoch your idea of a ‘real’ American?? This is a guy who famously has backdoor acess to 10 Downing Street.

  2. Now the Trump supporters want to reframe what unity means, President Biden used the word to bring us all together to fight domestic terrorism, violent extremism, militias and white supremacy groups. Unity means to Trump supporters our way or no way. Well, maybe I can remind them of what they said when Trump won…..”Fu*k your feelings”

    1. Fishy – do you know when the Washington Post, etc, plan to get that Biden administration “lie checker” up and running? Them lies are piling up now.

  3. “ Yet despite an election that clearly favored compromise and divided power, leaders…”

    Oh please! Turley is full of crap. This election was never about compromise and divided power.

    Republicans never compromised. This election was a referendum on Trump’s incompetence as president. It was a removal from office because Trump was not doing his job and spent the majority of his time sowing division and animosity towards anything that disrupted his alternate reality. One that led to an insurrection inside the Capitol, all because he wanted to be the winner of the election and when it became apparent that we lost he lied to his supporters constantly about winning.

    Trump’s own supporters are now throwing him under the bus because they stupidly believed he would pardon them for their failed insurrection and ultimately violent threats to lawmakers.

  4. I say screw compromise. Use reconciliation to get your way Bernie! McConnell did it for the tax cut. I predict Senator Sanders will too.

    Bernie will do it for the hungry children and the hungry aged in isolation. And it’ll play well in the hinterlands where Gene Autry’s Cowboy Code is paid more than lip service. Heck, what red-blooded American could possibly be against that? What’s more, I bet they take names of how folks vote to use against them come 2022 as they replay it endlessly on television to next, lock down the Senate . . . hahahahaha!

    As for the Republicans, the old adage of lay back and enjoy it is apropos because it’s coming no matter what. And honestly, I don’t blame the Democrats. Could this be why Bernie has been so chill about how he was screwed this second time around? I’ll bet a milkshake that beneath his grandfatherly appeal, Bernie is more ruthless than Senator McConnell. My point? We’re about to watch the biggest political powerplay in my adult lifetime – I was too young to be paying attention during civil rights and Social Security, both – but Sanders was there!

    The most interesting thing for me? How will media once enlisted to browbeat orange-man react when their masters instruct them to begin the Bernie-bad routine? I predict they swallow hard and cooperate. Big league politics vs. oligarchs and their peons – where’s my popcorn?

    Yes sir, elections have consequences!

  5. Turley says, “ Schumer has refused to guarantee that he will protect the filibuster tradition, even though he demanded that it be preserved during years of Republican Senate control.”

    For a lawyer who loves to nitpick at every little detail about an issue he sure has a knack for avoiding it when it contradicts his own narrative.

    Shumer has every right to refuse to guarantee that the filibuster won’t be preserved. Just as Mitch McConnell had unilaterally withheld bills from the floor. Republicans brought this quandary upon themselves when Mitch McConnell decided to be an authoritarian. Now they are concerned about being pushed aside with the elimination of the filibuster? Democrats should get rid of it. It’s going to be abused by republicans just to gridlock congress again. The filibuster is an antiquated rule that needs to be gone. Republicans suddenly want to be…fair. That’s rich. Nothing says it has to be fair and Mitch McConnell never gave a sh!t about fairness. Turley should know better than to be “concerned”. Turley should be pointing out that democrats now hold the majority and they make the rules. Turley should be chastising republicans for not being more “fair” to republicans when they held power, but he justified it as, “they are in the majority so they make the rules, so if democrats want to change that they need to work on getting back the majority”. Guess what? They did. So Turley should be defending the democrats prerogative as the majority.

  6. Such reckless rhetoric and actions show that leaders in Congress are seeking to capitalize on our divisions, not to heal them. The greater concern, though, is the total silence of Biden….

    It is dishonest of you to act shocked at our trend and current trajectory. None of this is shocking. In fact it was all predictable but yet preventable. Americans succumbed to their intemperate minds, their very own appetites. None of this is new information. Perhaps COVID-19 will save us after all.

    Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.

    It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
    ― Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

  7. XI Jinpeng, doesn’t let Chinese billionaires have much to say, but he seems to agree wholeheartedly with the Western billionaires!

    And you think he’s a Communist? Wow, well, only if “Communism” means global free trade, which he says, with his sweet mouth, that he wholeheartedly supports!

    This guy sounds like a broken record repeating the same bromides we’ve heard from Democrats for years now! There must be some kind of agreement between them perhaps?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_OHpilDvBk&feature=emb_title

    Now, I realize Xi is probably lying, and that he really just supports these slogans because they are good for China now.

    Like “barriers to trade.” Ha. Silicon Valley, can’t believe these guys lick Xi’s boots.

    Say, Facebook. hows the “trade” going in China? Is it “free trade?” Cuz you arent online there at all, are ya? What about Google?

    Nah, banned. Really– look it up.

    So why are they pulling for Xi?

    Enemies united by circumstances, that is all. They want to rule America as the CCP rules China. They know they will never be allowed in China, but they also know China will allow them to run the show here, if they lick CCP boots hard enough.

    Like the pathetic sycophant klaus schwab. wow what pathetic worm that klaus is!

    Sal Sar

    1. Kurtz, look at me.

      Your billionaire hero talked tough on China except when in a room with Xi, and his last “deal” has delivered only 1/2 of what was promised in Chinese trade while our trade imbalance with them skyrocketed.

      “….Chinese imports of US goods are now lower than they were before Trump started his trade war with a blitz of US tariffs on Chinese products in 2018….
      Through September 2020, China had bought only 53 percent of what would have been expected by this point in the year (figure 1, panel a).3 Year-to-date imports of all covered goods were only $65.9 billion relative to a target of $124.9 billion. Through three-quarters of 2020, China had purchased just more than one-third of what it pledged in Trump’s deal it would buy this year. (The target for full year purchases is $173.1 billion.) China’s imports from the United States have failed to catch up to pre-trade war levels, running 16 percent lower than at the same point in 2017.

      Trump’s higher tariffs have raised prices for American consumers and costs for American businesses. His politically motivated purchase commitments may have created more problems than they solved….”

      https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/trumps-phase-one-trade-deal-china-and-us-election

      1. Joe, yes, Beijing sanctioned us. In spite of that, America’s economy and wages were finally improving, so we don’t need Beijing.

        We don’t need their reeducation camps either and neither do the Uighurs.
        We don’t need their police state either and neither does Hong Kong.
        We don’t need their occupation troops either and neither does Tibet.

        And we don’t need their censorship. Only their treacherous allies in this country want that.

        1. We don’t need their bullying either and neither does Taiwan.
          We don’t need their meddling either and neither does Australia.
          We don’t need their covid-19 coverups and neither does the world.

          I could go on.

        2. Diogenes, you miss the point, which is we are worse off with regard to China since Trump. The trade imbalance has grown, we pay for the tariffs, and they buy less US products.

          1. You miss the point. If the racists were in Johannesburg and not Beijing you’d be arguing for justice at any price… and you’d be right. But you’re not right now.

              1. Ask the Tibetans and Uighurs. They probably feel Beijing is racist, and they’d believe you’re racist for defending Beijing.

                  1. Ignoring the moral dimensions of trade with Beijing is defending Beijing’s interests.

                    Are you arguing for argument’s sake?

                    1. OK, you’re losing me Diogenes.

                      Are you saying you oppose any trade with Beijing? That wasn’t Trump’s position or anyone who lives in the real world that I am aware of.

                    2. I want less trade with Beijing than we have now. I want to send them a message, yes.

              1. The effects that Joe friday selectively alludes to, are almost entirely due to a monetary system in which the US is the world reserve currency, and as its debt balloons, paradoxically, it becomes even more so. Particularly, as other states which do not float freely, and have strong monetary control such as… China….. keep their valuation down. Trump’s efforts were limited not only by politics but by a global financial system that does not want America to re-industrialize in spite of whatever voters think.

                There are other economic dynamics but some people are not tuned into economics. just talking points. So we won’t belabor them.

                But in case you thought Trump’s trade efforts and the process of decoupling and onshoring had not happened to any significant degree, understand, yes they did, or else Xi would not be making this year’s speech at Davos, which his underlings had done before. And, he hit one point after another which implicitly condemned Trump for doing things that Xi did not like.

                Let’s hear what Xi says is good for us. it isn’t of course, but just listen to the whole thing and see how closely it approximates all the stuff the Democrats have been saying about Trump the past four years, including our respected partner in discussion, Joe.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_OHpilDvBk&feature=emb_title

                Saloth Sar

                1. Kurtz defends his billionaire from the fact that what was wrong in the “deal” was that he was a terrible deal maker who was guided primarily by his vanity, not intelligence. The fact that he went into it begging Xi for personal help in the election tells you what you need to know about who was holding the whip. That anyone kept buying his bragging BS over and over is the confounding part. And these guys complain about colleges and universities today? Kurtz, you went to law school and you believed this clown?

                  1. That poster always ignores how Trump’s stated goal of his trade wars was the ultimate globalist dream of an end to ALL tariffs and trade barriers. If you like tariffs, Trump is the tariff man; if you don’t like tariffs, he’s your free enterprise man. He’s everything to everyone!

                    Of course, it’s a safe wager that Trump’s only real grievance with the globalist billionaire class is their refusal to accept him as one of their own.

                    As for China specifically, the sort-of-decoupling of the economies will probably end up a good thing. I’ll give Trump some credit, even though it was the result of a bait-and-switch after he realized an infinitely patient two-thousand-year-old empire is harder to push around than some building contractor… so Dear Leaser moves the goalposts, declares victory and the cultists cheer and keep extolling him for “keeping his promises”. Now that’s talent!

                    1. “As for China specifically, the sort-of-decoupling of the economies will probably end up a good thing.”

                      China is a debt and demographics bomb. Decoupling will probably be an inevitable thing, and I don’t want our savings being plowed into China by Wall Street. It would be 2008 all over, again, and Beijing has a history of not paying back debts.

                    2. “Trump’s stated goal of his trade wars was the ultimate globalist dream of an end to ALL tariffs and trade barriers”

                      Im not ignoring that. I am not aware of it or your evidence for this assertion. Surely you won’t mind if I ask you for proof?

                      I should like to know if it were so.

                      Sal Sar

  8. Jonathan: I’m all for “unity”. But your call for “unity” requires reciprocity. Don’t recall Trump or Republicans calling for “unity” back in 2016.When Trump took office “unity” was not on his mind. From day one he and his Republican allies stoked racial and ethnic divisions. Trump’s comments after Charlottesville that there were “good people on both sides” and his refusal to condemn racial violence made it clear where Trump’s agenda was headed–divide and rule. Never recall you urging Trump to try to “unify” the country back then. When Covid-19 broke out did Trump try to “unify” the country behind a coordinated fight against the pandemic? Nope. Trump fought tooth and nail with state governors over pandemic restrictions. He fought with his own infectious disease experts. Don’t recall you urging “unity” then in the fight against the coronavirus.

    After Trump lost all his over 60 lawsuits challenging the election results and the state electoral votes were all counted did you urge Trump to concede–to show some “unity”? Nope. Trump and Republicans in Congress continued to support attempts to overturn the election results. In Georgia and other states Trump pressured election officials to illegally overturn the legitimate election. When Georgia’s state election officials refused and the acting AG Jeffrey Rosen refused to intervene Trump hatched a plan. He plotted with a loyalist in the DOJ along with a Pennsylvania Republican Congressman, Scott Perry. to oust Rosen and replace him with someone who would agree to investigate Georgia’s election. The plot failed only because other DOJ officials threatened to resign in masse. In a last desperate effort to remain in power Trump incited his followers to storm the Capitol and overturn the election. That was “sedition” but you called Trump’s speech just another case of exercising his right to “free speech”. A bizarre response coming from a legal scholar and attorney who has taken an oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution.

    Now that Democrats control the levers of power you are already complaining they are going to “muscle” through an ambitious “far left” agenda–like statehood for DC. You are even complaining that Biden is “unilaterally” issuing a host of executive orders that will “cause even greater political divisions”. You mean the one Biden issued declaring the US would rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement that Trump “unilaterally” withdrew from by an EO? Rejoining the Paris agreement is not a “far left” agenda but reflects part of Biden’s platform that the vast majority of voters support. Don’t recall you complaining when Trump ruled “unilaterally” by largely ignoring Congress and ruling by issuing “royal decrees”. Well, that was then. Now you are on the outside looking in. But be careful. Smart people shouldn’t throw rocks at glass houses!

    1. @dennis mcintyre

      Do you really believe “but for” Trump’s election protest that leftists would have stopped calling for censorship, deplaforming, doxxing or destruction of their enemies? Would leftists have stopped calling everyone who disagrees with them “nazi”?

      I think not.

      I want a DIVORCE. You can have your multi-culti,3rd world, BLM, antifa inspired utopia and I won’t even tell you how to live or run things. I simply don’t give a d@@n.

      antonio

    2. The original purpose of Charlottesville was to protest the removal of Confederate monuments and the protestors had a permit to demonstrate. The violence occurred because authorities stood down and let antifa run amuck. The Hutton and Williams law firm issued a report explaining in detail the events of that day. Of course, you won’t read it because it doesn’t fit the leftist template.

      https://www.huntonak.com/images/content/3/4/v2/34613/final-report-ada-compliant-ready.pdf

      IN fact if you oppose the removal of Confederate monuments (or anyone else from America’s racist past) you are a “nazi”.

      Bet you didn’t know that the man who beat Hitler, the 34th President of the United States, Dwight Eisenhower was also a “nazi”?

      Ike praised Robert E. Lee as being a great heroic American and kept his picture in the Oval Office. Ike definitely needs to be “cancelled” by the Church of Wokeness.

      antonio

    3. rom day one he and his Republican allies stoked racial and ethnic divisions. Trump’s comments after Charlottesville that there were “good people on both sides”

      If you want people to take you seriously, don’t traffick in long-debunked memes.

    4. Dennis McIntyre – If in fact there is “majority support” for the Paris Climate Agreement, as you assert, why won’t Biden submit it to Congress for ratification to make it a Treaty, instead of all this back and forth with EOs withdrawing and reinstating Paris Accord….?

      Why? Because they know it would not be ratified. Why is that?

      Man, you’ve been brainwashed and lied to. Too bad you don’t know it.

    5. Dennis says: “when Trump ruled “unilaterally” by largely ignoring Congress and ruling by issuing “royal decrees”.

      Really? Give us a list of all these “royal decrees”….

    1. Across the board, Democrats favor eliminating dark money from politics and Republicans support it. Vote for Democrats if you don’t want rich people paying for our elections. Vote for Republican if you want more unaccountability and owning of politicians by the wealthy. Just because Democrats beat Republicans at the game their own game doesn’t change this fact. Opposing moving the 3 point line doesn’t mean you’ll refuse to take one if it is.

      1. Really? Are you lying or just ignorant? Democrats are the ones who get it, that’s for sure. Time to catch up to the times Joe– please refer to the article at link for an update

        https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democrats-used-rail-against-dark-money-now-they-re-better-n1239830

        And did you misunderstand “CITIZENS UNITED?” The SCOTUS says, with some good reason mind you, that the First Amendment limits campaign finance reform. And they are unelected.

        I suggest we reform the First Amendment to make it clear, that fictitious persons called “corporations” do not have the same first amendment freedoms to contribute money as do natural persons. But that would apparently require an amendment. Let your precious Democrats lead the way, Joe! Start writing them some letters perhaps

        Sal Sar

        1. Thanks for demonstrating the GOP line on money in politics, so found by the GOP majority on our SC.

          If you want less control of our politics by the wealthy, vote Democratic. We appoint judges who don’t protect the billionaires Trump lover Kurtz pretends he hates.

          1. I don’t hate them individually., I don’t know any personally. They are usually all very impressive businessmen and so forth. I particularly admire Elon Musk. And I voted twice for Donald. I suppose there is much to admire about Michael Bloomberg, for his information systems, and even his tenure of mayor of NYC, which was so much better than the current failed mayor guy who is totally incompetent. No, I don’t hate them.

            And yet, it is the GROUP AS SUCH WHICH POSES A PROBLEM. I reiterate that i consider them the enemy of the American working and middle class.
            I guess I could say, I hate what they do, politically, to destroy our nation with their program of globalism, which makes so many things worse for us down here on Earth far from their gated and guarded compounds.

            I am certainly not against “the rich” in general if anybody is wondering. It is the billionaire level group that is an unheard of accumulation of wealth and political and financial control in history which is a problem. Even Billionaire Ray Dalio obviously agrees, it is a problem.

            Not for Joe perhaps. Which is odd. He’s just mad that i supported Trump’s policies and defended him. Because old Joe loved to flog Orange man bad. It is all about personalities to Joe perhaps. I am not interested in personalities. I am interested in policies and interests.

            Sal Sar

            1. And yet, it is the GROUP AS SUCH WHICH POSES A PROBLEM. I reiterate that i consider them the enemy of the American working and middle class.
              I guess I could say,
              I hate what they do, politically, to destroy our nation with their program of globalism, which makes so many things worse for us down here on Earth far from their gated and guarded compounds.

              Kurtz,
              I bolded that portion of your post for an obvious reason. I agree that that group poses a problem. There are a multitude of other groups that also pose a problem and to a large extent, they are funded by the Billionaire “group”. That’s a huge effing problem. Although I’ve tried on numerous occasions to get you to say it out loud, you are obliquely admitting in that bolded portion, that the actual problem is the political class, not the billionaires. Money, whether it’s billions or millions or whatever amount you choose, is just an inanimate object. Put it in the hands of nefarious people and they can do very bad things with it, illegally. But when their money influences government, then they can do very bad things with it, legally. In other words, I consider the political class that is influenced by this money to infringe the rights of the people as the enemy of the American working and middle class.

              1. Olly I guess I agree with that mostly

                But, the political class are mercenary. They always are. They are tools, hirelings. With proper motivation, they could act more wisely for the people.

                This is like saying lawyers are bad. They are mostly just mercenary. Of course as a group they may be more or less corrupted by billionaires and right now Big Law is just AWFUL. But, we can’t get rid of lawyers. Nor the rich. The rich in general will always be with us just as will be the poor, as Jesus said. But the scale of riches at this time are exponentially more and wider than before, at a level which boggles even the mind, grasping at what the large numbers really mean

                The system can however curtail the ways in which billionaires manipulate and control the American political system and use our government to protect themselves and further line their pockets. Billionaires are a group which have a scale of wealth undreamed of in previous history, even in living memory.

                In the days of feudalism, at least we know that the king was probably the richest and also controlled the state. This was at the very least, honest. If not just.

                under contemporary times, we have a hidden aristocracy of billionaires, who are kings in disguise, fooling us that they are just like the rich guys of old.
                No, they are waaaaaaay richer, both absolutely and relatively and the scale of it has made them commanders of the political sphere as well, in ways that were unimaginable when Teddy Roosevelt went to war with the monopolistic behemoths of his day.

                https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/03/this-day-in-politics-december-3-1027800

                sal Sar

        2. Kurtz,
          Your shift, or perhaps it’s simply an amplification of your view that billionaires are our enemy, is not entirely without some merit. My objection to it is not on the threat that billionaires can be, but what enables them to be a threat. Billionaires buy influence. If there were no billionaires, then the influence would come from millionaires, and so on. If political influence was not for sale, or to put it another way, if laws existed to prevent the buying of political influence, then we would eliminate that threat. The challenge of course is getting the very people selling that influence to pass laws to discourage or eliminate the money that wants to buy it. The concluding paragraph identifies two options. I agree to some extent on the first point that I bolded. I don’t agree on the second point.

          So Adelson — through his immense fortune — could remain a powerful force in American life for generations to come. Or not. The rest of us do have an option. We can restore limits on what men — and women — of means can “invest” in the political process. We can, even more crucially, put in place taxes stiff and lasting enough to shear grand private fortunes down to something approximating democratic size.
          https://consortiumnews.com/2021/01/25/the-political-immortality-of-billionaires/

          1. Olly, I like Consortium News.

            I also like Las Vegas Sands, as a casino, or perhaps an investment. One day I hope to be playing baccarat in Macau at their tables. This is not possible at this time. And I know their former boss, who died January 11, 2021,, well, I know Adelson was one of the few billionaires to donate heavily to GOP. I have read that his motivations concerned his support of Israel as a proud Zionist American Jewish person. I don’t hold that against him. I wont talk about my own affinity to the European nations from which my ancestors came, but it wasn’t Kampuchea, in spite of my nom de plume. It’s natural that people feel a tie to the lands of their ethnicity and want those other nations to survive and prosper.

            No, I don’t single out one billionaire. I am identifying the group as a problem. The group not any one of them. This relates to many things, but one that is germane, is their overweening massive political donations which buys off our system.

            Joe wants to insult me here and pretend I am a hypocrite. No, not a hypocrite, but my thinking has evolved. While I agree that Citizens United was properly decided according to First Amendment law, I used to think it was ok. Now I think it is bad. In all sincerity, I think the First amendment is flawed, gravely flawed, because we SHOULD be able to make binding financial disclosure laws about election donations, and we SHOULD be allowed to dispense with the fictitious personhood of corporations which allows them to buy elections.

            I could care less if this is the GOP stance today or not. It certainly was not. Perhaps the GOP will evolve as I have. Joe should welcome that. Instead, he shows his smallness of mind and paucity of good will, by suggesting I am cynically elevating this issue at this time simply because Donald lost. No I started this well before Donald lost, and, what does it matter anyways. If the policy is a good policy, then it is good. It would be good to change first amendment law about donations now.

            I suggest the readers familiarize themselves with this case

            https://casetext.com/case/citizens-united-v-federal-election-comn

            Sal Sar

            1. Kurtz,
              That’s a very good post and I agree with the essence of your concerns. You’re trained in the law and you understand it from the perspective of a scientist or an engineer. I suspect like most non-lawyers, my perspective of the law is more as an observer of how it functions as originally intended to equally secure our lives, liberty and property. This isn’t some imagined perspective, but a studied understanding of what our founding documents said the purpose of our government is. I was a Republican until about 10 years ago when finally understood my enemy is not a political party, but rather politicians in general. All sorts of groups have influence over politicians. We need to root out the politicians that are influenced against the people and then we will be more secure in our rights.

      1. Kurtz, showing how democrats beat the GOP at the rules they instituted does not mean they have stopped opposing those rules. You’re in the party protecting billionaires.

        “Democrats officially adopted a platform at their convention this week that calls for a sweeping overhaul of campaign finance laws, including forcing the disclosure of covert sources of political spending — money that right now is helping to boost the party’s candidates for the House, Senate and White House.

        Big donors, super PACs and nonprofit organizations that may shield their donors’ identities are going all in for the 2020 campaigns, funding ads and other efforts for candidates in both parties.

        Yet if Democrats hold the House and win control of the Senate and White House, activists say they plan to step up the pressure on the party to revamp the nation’s political-money system, even though it would be that system that helped put them in charge. That still will be no simple task: Getting such legislation through the Senate would almost certainly require an elimination of the filibuster, since Democrats are unlikely to hold the 60 seats necessary. …”

        https://www.rollcall.com/2020/08/19/democrats-push-to-revamp-political-money-system-thats-boosting-their-campaigns/

        1. The First Amendment may need revision. It is high time. Particularly as it relates to campaign finance laws and how the First amendment is deemed to restrict them.

          The fictitious persons that are corporate entities do not have the same God given rights as the persons who own them. This is hogwash. Also, there should be more transparency in donations. I welcome efforts by wise politicians to rectify the imbalance between the political power of the people, and the reckless, self-serving actions of the global plutocracy.

          Sal Sar

  9. Turley’s back to echoing Fox News talking points. I heard Tucker give the same speech last week. Your petty nitpicking about Senator Klobuchar calling Biden “president’ 10 minutes early is just that–petty. Americans voted overwhelmingly to reject Trump, so what are Democrats supposed to do–ignore this mandate? When Obama was elected, McConnell announced he would not allow his agenda to succeed, and he did everything possible to make this happen, including refusing to call Merrick Garland’s nomination for a vote. Now, Democrats are supposed to play nice? And, BTW, the Democrats are not “the Left”–that’s another Fox News talking point. All Biden did re student loans was request a grace period without extra interest or late fees. There are so many issues with the guaranteed student loan program, including the high interest rates and compounding of late fees and interest with the principal balance, but Schumer did NOT suggest merely cancelling the loans–he came up with an income-based repayment plan with cancellation after several years of paying. Then there are the for-profit schools that are not certified, so that those thinking they can become, for example, an RN, find out after incurring thousands of dollars of debt that they cannot sit for Boards in any state due to lack of certification of the school. The “credits” from these “institutions” do not transfer to a real, accredited junior college, community college or university, either.

    Federal law is not “clear” that Senators can object to vote results certified by the various states, especially in this case. There were no grounds for such challenges, other than political ambition–tap into support by Trump’s disciples. In the swing states, the votes were counted, re counted, re-recounted, and in Georgia, there was a signature match validation conducted. There were poll watchers everywhere, and the counting was done under scrutiny, including video surveillance. Trump demanded that the Ga. Secretary of State “find” him over 11,000 votes, and made vague threats of criminal prosecution. Over 60 lawsuits were filed, and courts unanimously rejected them. Chris Krebs announced that 2020 was the most-secure election ever, and was fired for telling this truth. Bill Barr announced there were no grounds to Trump’s allegations of fraud, and was fired for telling this truth. To nevertheless “object” to the certified results, with literally no grounds, despite this level of scrutiny, and based on nothing but another Trump lie, violates the objector’s oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Pure politics, but the Democrats are supposed to ignore this and play nice?

    BTW, Turley, a sidelines cameraman would NOT have a great tort case if he got mowed down by a football player for several reasons: 1. as a condition for being allowed to get close to the field, the NFL no doubt required him to sign a waiver; 2. even spectators at baseball games cannot sue for getting struck with a foul ball, because such an injury is foreseeable; the same is true for vendors operating refreshment carts on golf courses; because a cameraman who is right on the edge of the playing field is even more foreseeably likely to get injured, he would have assumed the risk; 3. if he is an employee of any news outlet, then if the preceding reasons wouldn’t preclude a lawsuit, workers compensation would be his exclusive remedy. And, you teach torts?

        1. she sounds like a law grad who never worked in a law firm a day of her life. clinic volunteer, maybe, or political campaign volunteer

          i dont care how fat she is or not. she is the one who cares too much about donald being fat and she can’t stop talking about it. she even obsesses about his “mushroom head” and has grossed us out with that talk here many times. who cares!

          sal sar

        2. Arty said: “She also ignored Mr. Schulte when he asked her what her BMI was.”

          Arty’s an old gossip. A nasty one.

          1. He is off his meds. He is posting like a drunk sailor, an angry queen and a bitter 50+ year old hag all wrapped into a tie dye skirt. Eeegads.

            1. And, just like your hero, you cannot substantively respond to the merits of a dispute without being insulting and personal, lobbing grade-school level insults.

              1. you cannot substantively respond to the merits of a dispute without being insulting and personal, lobbing grade-school level insults.

                That’s an impressive lack of self-awareness on your part. That is precisely your MO and that is undeniable. The evidence exists in the blog archives. Damn.

              2. That was not addressed to me, N., but, perhaps you would receive a more serious take on your remarks, if you yourself did not lard them with grade school level insults towards the former POTUS every single day for the past years.

                I’m going to model good behavior in this regard and talk about POTUS Joe with respect due to his office. I am praying that he has the wisdom and power to lead our nation in this troubled times, and to resist the overweening influence of the billionaires who donated so generously to his election. He has free will and can choose the right thing in spite of that and we all better hope he does.

                Sal Sar

                1. Yes, the office of the POTUS deserves respect, which is why Trump’s wrongful occupation of that position is so outrageous, and why his fomenting of sedition to try to force Congress to invalidate millions of legal ballots and award him the presidency anyway, puts into perspective just how narcissistic and arrogant he really is. He cheated to get in–despite efforts to claim otherwise, including firing Dan Coats because he wouldn’t lie, the Mueller Report proved that his campaign solicited the assistance of Russian hackers to spread lies about Hillary Clinton. She still won the popular vote but lost the presidency because of manipulation of the Electoral College. Trump broke every norm in the book, insulted and alienated our allies, and constantly lied, every single day. He did unimaginable things, like diverting funds from the Pentagon budget to build a wall, separated young children from their parents to punish them for seeking asylum, praised White Supremacists, publicly sided with Putin over Dan Coats, trashed the successful economy inherited from Barak Obama, lied about the pandemic…the list is too long. He is also a draft-dodger but still had the gall to insult American heroes like John McCain.

                  I respect the presidency. I, like most sentient people, loathe Donald J. Trump. Therein lies the difference. Trump is the antithesis of what it means to be an American, a person of integrity who is supposed to be a role model or even a conservative, because conservatives value personal integrity. He does not deserve respect merely because he found a way to get into our Oval Office despite the will of the American people. He is the one who began insulting people based on their appearance, including celebrities–Rosie O’Donnell, Mika Brzynski, world leaders–“little rocket man”, insulting E. Jean Carroll, whom he allegedly raped, claiming she wasn’t attractive enough to rape, insulted his wife by bragging about grabbing women and referring to her as a “good-looking piece of ass”. The list is too long. He deserves the same treatment he dished out. It’s hard not to point out the obvious when he calls women “fat pigs” while claiming to be an “excellent physical specimen” or “a very stable genius in astonishingly good health”.

                  Joe Biden has his work cut out for him, but I don’t know how anyone can lead a country when a substantial percentage of citizens believe the election was stolen based on nothing but a lie from such a thoroughly dishonest person, and despite massive evidence to the contrary.

    1. Natacha says: “When Obama was elected, McConnell announced he would not allow his agenda to succeed, and he did everything possible to make this happen, including refusing to call Merrick Garland’s nomination for a vote. Now, Democrats are supposed to play nice?”

      Let’s change out a few words and try again: “When Trump was elected, Democrats/The Resistance announced they would not allow his agenda to succeed, and they did everything possible to make this happen, including blocking as many Trump appointee confirmations for as long as they could stall them, including sitting Democrat members of Congress inciting violence against Trump Cabinet Secretaries and Appointees (“get up in their faces, go to their homes, make them pay, etc.”). Now, Republicans are supposed to play nice?”

      1. Well, here’s one huge difference: the Democrats, including Joe Biden, didn’t cheat to win their elections. They won the popular vote, and the majority of American voters support their platform. McConnell’s comment was based on his abject racism–he’s an old fart racist from Kentucky, and there was no way he would let a charismatic, attractive and popular black man succeed if he could help it. In fact, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, so McConnell’s sabotaging of Obama’s agenda has been contrary to the will of the American people since 2016, including and especially appointing radically-conservative and in many cases, unqualified federal judges whose views do not reflect the views of most Americans. Democrats didn’t have the power in the Senate to stop the court packing. And, don’t forget, that Republicans held the Senate primarily because of gerrymandering. Republicans have been consistently losing the support of the American people for years.

        Getting in someone’s face and protesting is not inciting violence; on the other hand, lying about an election being stolen without any evidence, and despite multiple investigations and evidence proving the contrary, encouraging disciples to march on Congress and telling them to “fight” when Congress has no power to cancel validly-cast legal votes and award an election to the loser, is sedition. Trump began lying about election fraud before Election Day, because all polls showed him losing, which he did. He announced his “victory” in the early morning hours after Election Day, and then started harping about fraud, filing lawsuits, stirring up the faithful to “fight” for him, to watch vote counting, and the sad truth is, the lies worked. Trump’s massive ego and inability to accept that he lost the election is why there is so much division in this country. It won’t stop because he will never admit the truth, and it doesn’t matter how many “forensic” investigations, certifications, re-counts or other proof that is produced. The truth is Donald J. Trump lost, but his mental illness prevents him from putting aside his ego for the good of America and admitting this truth. Instead, he’s looking for another platform to keep litigating the lie, and the faithful will keep believing. And, therefore, we will not have unity.

  10. Unity? Divorce? Let’s see if our differences are reconcilable.

    One wants to end the fossil fuel industry; the other works in the fossil fuel industry.
    One wants to take the doors off the house; the other wants to install a security system.
    One supports biological boys in girls locker rooms and competing against girls sports; the other wants their daughter in locker rooms and competing with only biological girls.
    One wants to rejoin the WHO; the other doesn’t want to have anything to do with a health organization that lied to protect China.
    One wants to teach our country to hate itself; the other wants to teach why America is the greatest country ever.
    One believes white, heterosexual males are all racist; the other is a white, heterosexual male.
    One wants to adopt illegal aliens into the house; the other wants to protect their own kids and other documented kids that were invited into the house legally.
    One wants to pay minorities compensation for the color of their skin; the other doesn’t.
    One wants to shut the other up and end their ability to disagree; the other wants an equal voice to be heard.

    There’s more, but this is a gaping and unreconcilable divide that is getting wider. A divorce is inevitable.

    1. Those are just absolute bull, or for some reason you think good things are bad (ending the fossil fuel industry should be bipartisan). And also the US is no the greatest country ever. We do not lead in any indicator other then number of prisoners per capita.

      1. Molly you are an idiot. How would you “end fossil fuel industry” any time soon. Half the world population would starve considering how agriculture works. Fossil fuels are used at every stage of agricultural production. Good luck living on your garden.

        Wait, you don’t understand economics or agricultural production, do you?

        Or perhaps you want half the world population to starve.

        after all, that MIGHT slow down “co2 emissions” enough to get your steady state utopia

        Sal Sar

        1. Fossil fuels are horrible for the environment and need to go away. It will take much effort and a long time, but the sooner we start the easier it will be. And the first step is to stop building more fossil fuel infrastructure. The scientists have been sounding the alarm for over 30 years and we have done little in response. Had we started 20 years ago we would be in a much better place now.

          1. You evaded my point. Well don’t evade it in your study. Because agricultural production from mining phosphates to trucking seed to farms to running tractors on the fields to railroads shipping grain or freighters on the sea moving it, all run on fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be a precipitous end to agriculture as we know it. 8 billion people are not going to live on yams grown in the backyards of Africa. We would starve if we ended fossil fuels in agriculture. YOU TOO.

            Wake up and learn about your subject material before you presume to lecture others.

            Or admit that you WANT half the world’s population to starve. Indeed, I have heard credible “sustainability experts” claim the world could only have a “steady state co2 emissions economy at 1 billion or less. Not 8! You ready for what that would entail? Are you ready to watch global genocide in the name of sustainability?

            Or maybe, just maybe, we had better learn to adapt and find a way to avoid the global die-off that “sustainability experts” evasively fail to admit they desire

            Sal Sar

            1. Again, why the false binary? Sounds like you’ve been conditioned by the rhetorical tools of the billionaires, Sal Sar?

              Elvis Bug

          2. @Molly G

            And everyone knows those involved in the extraction of fossil fuels (i.e. coal miners) are blue collar deplorables. They deserve everything that results from their future unemployment.

            antonio

          3. Moreover. if 30 years ago the “environmentalists” had not opposed further buildout NUCLEAR ENERGY we would have a much more decarbonized electrical power grid today …. So be careful how much you trust the “scientists” … or more probably, be careful believing what ‘journalists” CLAIM they say. because, liars!

            Here is a modest encouragement of nuclear power from scientists
            https://www.ucsusa.org/energy/nuclear-power

            sal sar

          4. Fossil fuels are horrible for the environment and need to go away.

            Thanks for the ex cathedra. Always an education.

          5. The scientists have been sounding the alarm for over 30 years and we have done little in response

            The bipolar Dr. Hansen and the mendacious deadbeat Dr. Mann.

            Two things the UEA emails revealed: (1) they’ve conspired to corrupt the peer review process in re a number of academic journals and (2) they’ve lost control of their data. See Steve McIntyre on this point.

            1. they did corrupt the peer review process. and they may be overly certain about their projections. and yet they may be right in spite of the many incidents of fudging and provably false predictions and errors in modeling

              personally, i am convinced there is “global warming” and also convinced that there is a “significant” component of anthropogenic cause from co2 etc.

              what I find most disagreeable about the “activists” are several things

              1. they feign certainty and consensus to a degree which is dishonest– but that is more a function of dishonest & incompetent scientific journalism, than science itself

              2. they are eager to weaponize their predictions into suggestions about laws which will suit the billionaire agenda in ways that will harm most of humanity, such as by an aggressive depopulation agenda, and we can guess that this is because they are corrupted by those billionaires who pay their grants, especially bill gates

              3. they fail to allocate attention in policy to adaptation over mitigation, which is probably because of #2, ie, the billionaires will adapt just fine and in the meantime they want to cull the herd most of all, for their own protection.

              4. they also fail to recommend adaptation because again they are corrupt, and naturally those who are corrupt are also cynical. if they took their own recommendations seriously and were genuine interlocutors then they would admit more openly they are gunning both for depopulation and for lower economic prosperity, because according to their math and logic there is no way to sustainability at this population level or this level of global energy consumption.

              they lie about that last thing and the only one I found who was honest was Ian Hutchinson who admitted both openly in interview with lex fridman. I posted that like 30 times and wont post it again. but if they were honest instead of corrupt, they would come out with it clearly like prof. hutchinson.

              one wonders if they perhaps suspect that they are lying about it and cynically using it to push policy and it wont really happen.

              for people like pelosi, that is my guess. she has no fear of this thing. she prolly thinks it’s all a lie and just bats the slogans around anyhow.

              it’s going to be the workers and middle class who suffer, whether it comes and we have failed in adaptation, or their schemes are realized and they get their big dieoff. in either way, one can be sure, those billionaires like bill gates will be safe and sound regardless

              Saloth Sar

              1. Why the false binary, Sal Sar? Basically adaption and mitigation are two sides of the same coin. Both are necessary. You won’t find a well versed scientist that doesn’t work off of that model. As you mentioned, there are problems in how media portrays science, but focusing on the adaption/mitigation seeming polarity is actually the sort of divide and conquer strategy the ‘billionaires’ not favorable to addressing climate change at all would, and do, employ.

                Elvis Bug

              2. Who is “they” in your screed Kurtz? Climate scientists – among whom there is absolutely a consensus, and if you don;t know that , you are sadly misinformed – or Nancy Pelosi who you call about by name? WTF is this moving target?

                As presumably intelligent and rational humans in an age of advanced information – including a lot of BS by poseurs – we should first acknowledge the most important fact, which is the consensus among scientists on the reality of this threat. What we do about it is the policy area where Nancy Pelosi and others including voters come in to the discussion. Yes, science can inform us on the likelihood of success of various policy choices, but ultimately it is our decision and not one to take lightly. Pretending it is not a serious one – that’s your GOP and favorite billionaire’s opinion – is just ignorant. We may all be dead before the worst of it hits, but our grandkids may not be.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

          6. I’ve always been a fan of requiring any subsidy provided to the fossil fuel lobby be at least equaled on the same projects. I.e. pipeline property right of ways? if granted, they have to populate the right of way with solar panels as well. Or wind. Or hybrid. Because the only advantage fossil fuels have enjoyed are entirely due to their previously subsidized start up capacity. And then they realized controlling the grid is where the real money is.

            Even up, there is literally no way that an energy source that has to generate, collect and distribute power can match an energy source that just has to be collected and distributed. The fossil fuel leans on legacy privilege.

            Elvis Bug

      2. The largest funding source for climate research at one time was Exxon. Then Reagan came along.

        Elvis Bug

      1. We’re keeping the house.

        Yes we are. I’ll get more square footage for me and our kids. You’ll get to keep your hoarding $hitholes to support everyone else’s kids.

    2. Continuing Olly’s theme:

      One side believes that the Constitution means whatever they say it means, and is merely a suggestion. The other believes that the Constitution had a definite meaning, and is the government’s guiding document.

      One side believes that you don’t need the Chief Justice to preside over an impeachment trial. You can recruit Moe, Larry, and Curly. The other side believes that if the Chief Justice refuses to preside, that that should tell you something.

      One side believes that plebs don’t deserve police protection; only the ruling class does. The other side believes that the police should protect the lives and property of all citizens.

      One side believes that election procedures can be altered at whim, to benefit their candidates. The other side believes in election integrity.

      One side believes that laws and diktats don’t apply to them, and as the anointed class, they can go to restaurants, travel, and get coiffed whenever they feel like it. The other side believes that Lady Justice is blind.

      That “one side” is handing the “other side” secession on a silver platter.

      (P.S. Great idea, Olly!)

      1. Buh bye Sam. So you guys are as bad at losing as your hero. He couldn’t face the world at the Capital last Wednesday and scurried out of town on the back road.

        1. Huh? It was a potemkin inauguration with hardly anyone there but the National Guard troops who were compelled to be there (but had no real function).

      2. Good list Sam. In a post asking if our spouse wants to reconcile our differences, our spouse is screeching and doubling down on making sure we remain divided. That spouse is angling to become a bag-lady in the 10% of the country they will get through a divorce.

    3. Olly,
      “One believes white, heterosexual males are all racist; the other is a white, heterosexual male.”

      This isn’t exactly the right counterpoint. Larry Elder, Coleman Hughes, Dinesh D’Souza, Brandon Tatum, and many other men (and women like Candace Owens, and Tulsi Gabbard, among others) would stand against the racist attitude that judges people on their sex and skin color.

      I do not think a divorce is inevitable. There is far too much to be lost if we allow ourselves to be divided and, then, conquered.

      1. There is nothing noble or honorable in those advocating a divorce. Our country is a nation of extremists on both sides

      2. This isn’t exactly the right counterpoint…would stand against the racist attitude that judges people on their sex and skin color.

        Huh? It would appear that you confirmed my point.

        1. Olly,
          It seemed to read that one side was comprised of white, heterosexual males. Rather, it is comprised of anyone who thinks it’s wrong to judge someone based on sex, race, or anything other than character and actual wrong-doing.

  11. The difference between Trump and the Democrats is that Trump said what he was going to do and did it. (Not an endorsement of Trump) Obama said one thing and did others behind the scenes and the complicit media went right along. Biden will be a repeat of the Obama years but with a vengeance.

    1. Correct. Grandpa Earpiece’s team behind the scenes is already full steam ahead. But look! A new dog in the White House! Aww. But look! Grandpa Earpiece and Docta Jill went to church and stopped for bagels! Aww. It’s not as if Joey is new in town. He’s only been hanging around for 50 years now.

  12. CNN removed the irritant named Jim Acosta from his White House reporting post. Isn’t that interesting…there will be no hard-hitting reporting or rude-question-shouting at President Biden or his staff in the way Acosta treated Trump admin? Isn’t CNN allegedly an unbiased “newz” organization holding ‘truth to power’? Why remove hard-hitting “reporter” Acosta from the gig?

    As if Kaitlin Collins will shout out, or even ‘politely ask’ tough questions of Biden, as if. CNN propagandists have thier marching orders: aka CNN will lob only whiffle balls for Biden. Beach balls for Biden!

    CNN gave Biden-insider and Biden-family-lapdog, Fake Jake Tapper a two hour show to cover the Biden administration and all things politics. Is this a joke? CNN counts on the stupidity of its viewers. And it makes them stupider with every minute of its propaganda ingested into feeble minds.

    CNN reporting will be Look how great Joe is doing! Grandpa Earpiece is doing great things! Oh and ‘Call me Docta’ Jill is a fashion icon doing great things, Docta J is oh so great! Look! Biden family has a dog! Wow, now two dogs! One is a rescue dog? Hooray for our First Family! Oh oh look over there! Biden family cat! Oooh ooh.

    CNN is beyond parody.

    1. Where’s Hunter? Where’s Jimmy Biden? Where’s Tony Bobulinski? Has CNN done ANY reporting on Tony Bobulinski? No? Huh, that’s odd. How on earth was that story not “newz-worthy” CNN?

      CNN is proganda Fake Newz for dum dums.

      1. CNN is propaganda state-run TV newz for dupes.

        PS CCP controls Joe Biden and his bought-and-paid-for-international-crime family. Chairman Xi is in charge of the Great Reset. Biden, Inc is ‘all in.’

  13. Who wants unity with a bunch of petty tyrants, perverts and folks who don’t know which bathroom to use? Society’s misfits have a party – you’ve come a long, long way, baby. This isn’t the Democratic Party of old. This is the party of broken home youth, licentiousness Twenty & Thirty-somethings and beyond repair busybodies. Let ’em wallow in it without support from the rest of us.

    1. Good point. The thing is, there are a lot of ordinary bourgeois who continue to vote Democratic. I watch the mental processing of family members and quondam co-workers and it isn’t pretty.

      I just got a meme that a quondam co-worker pulled off some talking-point mill to which he subscribes, He informs me that the U.S. Senate was conceived to preserve white control over “Black Americans”, and it still serves its original purpose. Of course this is absolutely crackers. This man was born in 1949, has two post-baccalaureate degrees, and was a peripheral faculty member for 32 years.

    2. Forbes – BIden won counties produced 70% of national GDP.

      Mespo, your “support” isn’t worth much.

      1. @joe friday

        THEN LET US GO! Why would you want to be tied to such an albatross?

        If Trump had been allowed to win, you would be the first to support California’s or NY’s attempt at secession while simultaneously explaining away the “righteous” and “most peaceful” protests organized by BLM and the Brave Masked Wonderful Warriors of Antifa (TM).

        I am as interested in debate with you and your ilk as you are with me, I care nothing about convincing you of anything, I want a divorce.

        And someday it WILL happen.

        antonio

        1. Yeah antonio, just like Trump winning was going to happen.

          Hey, I’ll bet real money on that. When? How much?

          By the way, no I would not favor secession of any state anytime. You get that the “Union” army is bigger now, right?

          1. @joe friday

            Hate to tell you, most of the recent immigrants who have come into the country in the last 30 years (and have no ties to the historic American nation) won’t lift a finger to force millions to stay in a country against their will.

            BTW – I am Hispanic myself. My background might surprise you…and if I were a bi@@h and moan, leftist Hispanic, you would be k@@ing my a@@ about now in an attempt to suck up.

          1. So trespassing into or socalled besieging a public building with an unruly protest is insurrection now. So we are told. Ok so have the ANTIFA been labelled insurrectionists too?

            Of course they may have already been deemed that by LEO even if not the mass media.

            By now they may have so many law enforcement agents informants provocateurs and undercovers in their ranks that it would dry up if that segment just went on vacation for a while.

            One wonders how so many could have escaped prosecution, if there were not acting with some sort of implicit immunity, or the perception of it.

            Sal Sar

      2. Forbes – BIden won counties produced 70% of national GDP.

        Tell them to show their work. That would only be so if the Biden Counties had a domestic product per capita 2.3x that of the Trump counties. To anyone remotely familiar with production and income statistics, that’s madcap. The most affluent state has a per capita income about 2x the least affluent state. Together, they encompass about 2% of the population. The most affluent commuter belts (there are about 350 or so) have per capita income flows about 3x the least affluent. Comparing 85% of the population inside commuter belts to the 15% outside commuter belts leads to a ratio of 1.25:1. You’re not going to find aggregations comprehending half the population with income levels 2.3 the other half.

  14. Who hates who more – the left towards the right or vice versa?

    Until recently, I would have said most leftists are well meaning but wrong. No leftist would ever say this about a Trump supporter. Why?

    First, Leftists thinks the right is evil.

    Granting for exceptions that all generalizations allow for, conservatives believe that those on the left are wrong, while those on the left believe that those on the right are bad, not merely wrong. Examples are innumerable. For example, Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic Party said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans … (Democrats) don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

    Or take Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who, among many similar comments, said, “I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It’s very simple: We have a conscience.”

    Has any spokesman of the Republican Party ever said anything analogous about Democrats not caring about the suffering of children or not having a conscience?

    Secondly, the left’s utopian vision is prevented only by the right.

    During the Stalin era in the USSR, it was often said, “We would already have Communism, if not for the wreckers and saboteurs.”

    From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion. As Ted Kennedy, famously quoting his brother Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Some (people) see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?” That exemplifies leftwing idealism — imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives. How could a utopian not hate a conservative?

    To put in another way, the famous ’60s left-wing motto “Make love, not war” embodies the problem as the left sees it: The left makes love in the world and the right makes war in the world. How could you not hate the right? The right, with its beliefs in a strong military; in individuals, not the state; taking care of themselves, their families and their neighbors; and in punishing criminals, is the anti-Love, a figure as reviled on the left as the antichrist is to Christians.

    This hatred will only increase if the left feels its programs to greatly increase the size of the government and end “systematic racism” are in any way threatened by the right. The problem is that this hatred does not decrease even when the left is in power.

    Hatred of conservatives is so much part of the left that the day the left stops hating conservatives will mark the beginning of the end of the left as we know it.

    antonio

    1. What’s amusing about that is that Alan Grayson shows little evidence of ever having had a conscience.

    2. The Democratic voters I know well are feckless. Their approach to public affairs consists of self-aggrandizing sophistry or it consists of emotional processing.

    3. The Democrat Party IS the party of HATE. Hateful, nasty, ruthless, unethical, America-hating, liars. All of them.

      1. It was the Rs that went on a massive campaign to lie about the 2020 election, try to install an unelected president, and stormed the Capital to try to kill the VP and members of Congress. By the Dems are bad because they won’t let you lie and have polices you don’t like. And you wonder why the bulk of the country thinks you guys are scum.

        1. @Molly G

          “By the Dems are bad because they won’t let you lie and have polices you don’t like.”

          Who is lying? Let’s see. Last summers protests at the death of St. George of Floyd were “mostly peaceful”

          Last summers “mostly peaceful” protests resulted in 2 billion US in insurance claims.

          If we are SCUM, let us GO!

          antonio

          1. Antonio, “let us go?” Go where? Trump supporters enjoyed “freedom” to be complete d?&ks for four years. Now you expect some sort of reconciliation? No. What you’re experiencing are the consequences of being total d?&ks for four years. Elections have consequences. Lying about fraud and “stolen” elections have consequences. There’s always a time when everyone is held to account for their words and actions. The party of “personal responsibility”. Is trying very hard to avoid…personal responsibility.

            1. svelz, one proposal would be a devolution of the US into a handful of smaller state federations. Perhaps even just 2 or 3. You could be happy in California or New York, have your policies as you like, and we out here in flyover could have it our way. perhaps Chicago can be midwestern “enclave” of the blue coastal regime such as Nagorno Karabak

              we can have a mutual defense treaty or arrangement like we do with canada. and you can have the expensive post US dollar and we will have the devalued US dollar.

              flyover is keeping the nukes.

              obviously, we are going to have to default on the US sovereign degt. this is probably the inevitable way it will all unfold. let’s make a plan for peaceful separation eh?

              Sal Sar

              1. Before we divorce and start splitting up assets, I want my spouse to be given a psych eval using scientific standards that existed before there were more than 2 genders and every white person was labeled a racist.

              2. NIce CJ the righties have here pretending they’re revolutionaries and fantasizing about striking out on their own. None of you are going anywhere and you know it. You can keep camping out in the backyard but you still have to go to school in the morning. So shut up and go to sleep.

        2. It was the Rs that went on a massive campaign to lie about the 2020 election,

          I think of all the people who comment here, Molly may be the most obtuse.

        3. It was the Rs that went on a massive campaign to lie about the 2020 election

          So when Democrats went on a massive campaign alleging Trump/Russia collusion, they spent 2+ years investigating and the facts/evidence now prove it was the Democrats that concocted the pee pee tape hoax. Now we have the 2020 election and Republicans allege election fraud. If all things were equal, Democrats would welcome a thorough forensic audit of the election and prove to the Republicans their allegations are without merit. Do you believe it’s in the best interest of the country to investigate the 2020 election allegations in a similar, robust fashion, as was done for the 2016 election?

          1. Having pulled off their Great Steal, the Democrats now seek to implement measures that would ensure that they will never again be dislodged from power by fair and transparent elections.

            They wasted no time before they began putting safeguards in place. Among the onslaught of initiatives they launched in the first days of the Biden regime, their primary focus is to secure a perpetual lock on the country’s electoral process.

            Their effort is three-pronged:

            Codify and enshrine into law the mechanisms were used to carry out the Great Steal of 2020.
            Officially designate the opposition as “Enemies of the People,” which, in the American context, go by names such as domestic terrorists, racists and white supremacists.
            Import insurmountable numbers of potential voters by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens (estimates run from eleven to twenty-five million).
            As concerns the first point, the Democrats rushed to re-introduce H.R.1, the so-called For the People Act of 2021.

            The bill failed in 2019 when it ran into opposition in the Republican controlled senate. The then leader Mitch McConnell saw right through it and refused to bring it up for a vote. He correctly stated that the bill was a “one-sided power grab” by the Democrat Party. He suggested that it should have been called the “Democrat Politician Protection Act.”

            McConnell’s instincts were correct, but the name he suggested did not do justice to the travesty.

            H.R.1 should rather be called the Democrat Election Fraud Act.

            Because of the Republican resistance, the Democrats were not able to move the bill in their first attempt. In the last election, however, they were still able to make use of most of the fraud mechanisms it sought to legitimize under the excuse of COVID-19.

            Now they want to make sure that no COVID excuses are needed to make the swindle easily and permanently available. Hence their renewed legislative push.

            Here are some of the provisions included in H.R.1 as detailed by the New York Intelligencer:

            Prepaid postage on mail ballots
            Allowing voters to turn in their mail ballot in person if they choose
            Automatic voter registration at an array of state agencies
            Same-day voter registration
            Online voter registration
            Allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register so they’ll be on the rolls when they turn 18
            Allowing state colleges and universities to serve as registration agencies
            Banning states from purging eligible voters’ registration simply for infrequent voting
            Two weeks of in-person early voting, including availability on Sundays and outside of normal business hours
            Ending felony disenfranchisement for those on parole, probation, or post-sentence, and requiring such citizens to be supplied with registration forms and informed their voting rights have been restored
            Notice that these measures were used with good effect as part of the Great Steal of 2020. Tens of millions of mail-in ballots, felon and underage voting, same day registration, dirty electoral rolls and such is how Democrats managed to generate a record number of votes for a doddering candidate who could not draw a crowd of two hundred people.

            The Democrats’ primary focus is to make widespread absentee voting a regular feature of our election process, because this is where massive fraud is easiest to perpetrate.

            In 2005 the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, came to the following conclusion: “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

            Fraudsters that they are, this is precisely why Democrats are so enamored of mail-in voting. They love them so much that they will send out millions of prepaid envelopes even when people do not ask for them.

            And if you do not receive a ballot, no problem. Under the provisions of H.R. 1 you will be actually able to make your own ballot in the privacy of your home. According to Phil Kline, the former Kansas attorney general:

            “HR 1 would allow ballot harvesting on steroids. Voters would — for the first time — have the ability to print out their ballots at home, creating a gaping security hole that could easily be exploited by either domestic or foreign interests. The legislation also allows third parties to collect ballots from an unlimited number of absentee voters and submit them through ballot drop boxes, dramatically increasing the risk that vulnerable Americans could be bullied, bribed, or blackmailed for their votes without the protection of election workers.”

            Emboldened and ruthless, Democrats are intent on ensuring that absentee voting and other tools of fraud are readily available to them in every election henceforth. This is what H.R.1 is really all about.

            Now that they control both the legislative and executive branch of the US government, the prospect of it all being enshrined into law has improved appreciably. All that stands in their way is the Senate filibuster, which at this time they have the votes to do away with. This option is something they are seriously considering even as we speak.

            Their only fear is that the Republicans would use the absence of the filibuster against them in the future should the GOP ever regain power. However, if doing away with the filibuster now should enable the passage of H.R.1 such possibility is unlikely to ever materialize. This prospect must tempt Democrats immensely.

            Every honest voter in this country beware: H.R.1, the Democrat Election Fraud Act of 2021, is the first bill introduced in the 117th Congress of the United States.
            https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/01/vasko-kohlmayer/when-thieves-seek-a-lock-on-power-the-democrat-election-fraud-act/

          2. Olly needs to read the GOP majority Senate Intell Comm report of August which largely confirms the Mueller Report.

            As to the pee tape:

            ” Separately, a former executive at Marriott International, of which Ritz Carlton is a
            part, said that shortly after the 2013 Miss Universe contest he overheard two other Marriott
            executives at a small corporate gathering discussing a recording from one of the elevator security
            cameras at the Ritz Carlton Moscow.4265 One of the Marriot executives who was involved in the
            conversation-previously a manager of the Ritz Carlton Moscow-had clearly seen the video, which allegedly showed Trump in an elevator involved with several women who the discussant
            implied to be “hostesses.”

            According to two former employees of the Ritz Carlton in Moscow, in 2013 there
            was at least one officer ermanently stationed at the hotel. This non-uniformed- officer
            was believed to be a and had access to the hotel’s property management
            system, guest portfolios and notations, as well as the network of “hundreds” of security cameras
            at the hotel.4288 The-was believed to be able to monitor the camera feeds from his office. It was believed that the officer reported both to hisJlll leadership, and directly to the
            owner of the hotel, Bulat Utemuratov ofVemy Captial.428 ‘
            (U) The former employees did not know whether there were cameras permanently in
            certain rooms, but both believed it was possible, and there was awareness of recording devices
            being prearranged in rooms in anticipation of the arrival of particular guests.4290 One of the
            former employees also believed that one of the drivers affiliated with the Ritz Carlton in
            Moscow was from the- and had easy access to a secure government area.4291
            (U) Both former employees also recalled a significant presence of paid sex workers at
            the hotel.4292 One reported that a third-party security firm that was employed by the hotel was
            responsible for managing the women, in addition to its other duties.4293 ..”

            https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

            1. One of the Marriot executives who was involved in the conversation-previously a manager of the Ritz Carlton Moscow-had clearly seen the video, which allegedly showed Trump in an elevator involved with several women who the discussant implied to be “hostesses.”

              As expected, you completely whiffed on my point. This country was put through 2+ years of an investigation into allegations and what the facts and evidence proved was the allegations were baseless. Fast forward to the 2020 election and it’s now the Republican’s making allegations. Of course if the Democrats were principled in their quest to prove allegations true or false, they would support an independent forensic audit of the 2020 election. One of three things would come of out of that: 1. The election had no irregularities and was legitimate. Voters across the political spectrum would have complete confidence in our system. 2. The election had irregularities, but not enough to influence the election. Reforms will be put into place to restore confidence in our system. 3. The election had massive irregularities that influenced the outcome of the election. Massive reforms will be put into place to restore confidence in the system. The only logical reason to not agree to an independent forensic audit of the 2020 election is because the outcome would conclude point 3.

              Now this is where you tell me to believe you, or my lying eyes. LOL!

              1. Olly, we don’t do “forensic audits” of elections, which are run by the states according to the constitution, just because the guy who lost and his fans are poor losers and infants. Are you new here?

                1. Olly, we don’t do “forensic audits” of elections, which are run by the states according to the constitution, just because the guy who lost and his fans are poor losers and infants. Are you new here?

                  No, we do them because we have hundreds of affidavits and security cam video showing ballot box stuffing, among other things.

                  1. Hundreds you say! My god, that’s terrible! I mean Biden only got 10,000 votes total, right?

                    Check please!

                2. we don’t want to do “forensic audits” of elections, which are run by the states according to the constitution,

                  There, that’s more accurate. When the allegations point to states violating their own election laws as codified in their state constitutions, it is the federal governments responsibility to determine the veracity of those allegations. The US Constitution has supremacy and the federal government has a duty to make sure states are not disenfranchising voters. Ironically, it’s the Democrats that have alleged that Republican-controlled states have pushed for election laws that would disenfranchise voters and they have used the federal courts to challenge them. Now that Republicans allege voters are being disenfranchised by states violating their own election laws, Democrats want us to leave it up to the states. I realize you’ve become accustomed to the capriciousness that has infected the Democratic party, but when you reach adulthood, you just might land on one of several guiding principles that used to define our constitutional republic.

                  I know you’re not new here. What’s more likely is you haven’t yet emerged from your self-incurred immaturity. Not my words, but Kant’s. I just happen to agree with him.

                  1. Olly, numerous federal and state courts with judges from both parties – some appointed by Trump – looked at these “arguments” and said they were BS. By our constitution that’s the end of the story.

                    You lost.

                    Next?

                    1. The cases were dismissed on procedural grounds. Tell your handlers to send you better talking points.

                    2. If “insufficient evidence” is procedural I guess so.

                      Hey, how about a believable scenario for how this worked Deco, You can bring us the evidence later. How many thousands across how many states pulled this off?

                    3. “You lost.”

                      That is the height of Joe Friday’s intelligence. Let us investigate who lost.

                      The Russians got Lenin and Stalin… They lost
                      The Chines got Mao…They lost
                      The Germans got Hitler,,, They lost
                      The Cubans got Castro… They lost
                      The French go the French Revolution… They lost
                      The Cambodians got Pol Pot…They lost.

                      We can go on and on.

                      The 13 Colonies won… We got a Constitutional Republic that has lasted longer than any similar Republic throughout the ages.

                      Biden won a leftist style election and fraud … The American people lost.

    4. The “left” today is not leftist in any sense. they are utterly fake sycophants of global capitalism in its late stage of plunder, where it turns on the America it once rode to power.

      They do not respect what they do not fear.

      The billionaires must be taught fear. They must feel the pain of loss, in any and every way.

      Then, their lackeys will feel it too. There will be no respect without fear, and no fear without imposed losses. There is no way out of this, it is a fixed sum game. either be strong or we proceed further into enslavement, of one form or another.

      The good news, is that we live in a target rich environment, where globalists and their malignant servants are concerned. I predict the billionaires will taste pain of one form or another before the end of 2021. It is a sure and certain outcome that they will reap what they have sown

      Saloth Sar

  15. “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.” 1984

  16. This is unity. A man in a wheelchair, a Member of Congress, Rep Madison Cawthorn, providing boxes of pizza to National Guard who were kicked to a frigid parking garage as payback for protecting Pelosi, Biden and Schumer.

    Duktur Jill Biden provided “cookies” in a tiny basket for thousands of members of National Guard but Rep Cawthorn drove his truck during the evening to the parking garage, and handed out dozens of boxes of pizza one by one

    True leadership. True unity

  17. Funny how Turley thinks the GOP won the last election and talks about mandates, when the last president lost the vote by 3 million and the concept disappeared, or was falsely claimed by the GOP. In fact, that 50-50 split in senate seats represents a 41 million + constituency for the Democrats vs Republicans, the Democrats won the House again – sorry, “gains” in seats gets you a participation trophy – and Biden won the Presidency by 7 million votes.

    Now, that’s a mandate.

    1. Biden has no madate.

      Time to Secede! Leave the Democrats to their blighted, ill-considered Californication of America.

    2. @joe friday

      I don’t want “unity”, nor claim a mandate. I want a DIVORCE. I want peaceful separation from you and those like you. I want some form of America as it used to exist. You can have the socialist, BLM, Antifa inspired utopia and I won’t even attempt to tell you how to live.

      antonio

      1. “I want some form of America as it used to exist.”

        Antonio, they don’t get it. They don’t understand that we just want to be left alone, in peace. They don’t understand the motto: “Laissez-nous faire.” They want us to produce, while they control and loot us. And worse, as we’re now seeing in spades, they don’t want us to exist.

        They don’t understand why so many people are moving to two of the most economically free states, Texas and Florida — while fleeing the two most economically oppressive states, New York and California.

        Let them have their Venezuelan states. Move to a freer one. Or, better yet, go on strike. Removing your sanction, and the wealth you produce, is what they most fear.

  18. There’s no unity. Biden can mouth the word ‘unity’ all he wants. It’s a lie. Democrats don’t want unity. They want to censor us, ban us, purge us, wipe away American history like it never happened, and then intimidate us into meekly going along with it all. They want us kneeling and saying ‘thank you’ while they destroy America and the American way of life.

    This Tacoma police officer has the right idea after ANTIFA mob surrounded his vehicle – run them over. Now that’s unity

    1. Understand these mob tactics. They freeze the car with a crowd, with their “human shield” tactics. When the car is frozen, then they jump who’s inside.

      You can’t play that game, roll the dice on their mercy. You just have to keep the car moving slowly. fits and jerks are better to allow them to get out of the way when they see you are serious about not stopping. That cop went a little too fast. But you can’t fault him for stupidity. Real stupidity would have been banking on their compassion

      Sal Sar

      1. “You just have to keep the car moving slowly.”

        Nope.

        Roll down the window, and introduce the barbarians to Messrs. Smith & Wesson.

        1. No you can’t do that or else jail. Even knocking people down moving slowly may get you arrested, but, at least you will make it out alive, and stand a better chance in court than if you had shot or brandished. So just keep the car moving at a safe but determined pace, get past the rioters and try and not hurt them in the process. Don’t lose your cool, in either direction.

          Sal Sar

          1. “No you can’t do that or else jail.”

            And that is the evil of the criminal huggers. They force the innocent into an impossible alternative: Your life or freedom.

Leave a Reply