Below is my column in the New York Post on a reported plan of the Democratic National Committee and allied groups to try to block third-party candidates from the 2024 ballot. The contradiction is stunning as these groups raise money to “save democracy” by limiting democratic choice. In the meantime, the leading third-party candidate Robert Kennedy, Jr. will be reportedly announcing his running mate this week.
Here is the column:
The last time that the Chicago Democratic Convention was held in Chicago in 1968, the resulting riots led to one of the greatest Freudian slips in American politics. Mayor Richard Daley declared “the policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.”
The Democratic National Committee has now added its own gem: the Democratic Party is not here to preserve democracy, it is here to prevent democracy.
That’s because the DNC is seeking to block third party candidates from ballots — Robert Kennedy Jr., Cornell West, and Jill Stein. All three are liberal and are considered a threat to Joe Biden.
This effort will likely include any ticket put forward by the No Labels group, seeking a moderate alternative to the two parties.
The media does not appear at all alarmed or critical of the effort to limit democratic choice. The Washington Post stated clinically “Democrats are taking third-party threats seriously this time.” Taking it seriously appears to mean using legal means to keep them from the ballots.
It is true that the main political parties have challenged qualification signatures and paperwork in the past. However, the reports indicate a systemic effort geared toward reducing the choices for voters. What is striking is that this is coming from democratic groups and the DNC, which are raising money on the “save democracy” narrative.
The contradiction is spellbinding. On the same sites promising to oppose the third party candidates, the DNC and other groups push the narrative that only the Democrats are working to protect the right to vote.
The Post reports that Democrats have studied the Hillary Clinton campaign and vowed not to allow third party candidates to drain away millions of voters as they did in 2016. Of course, the comparison is particularly telling because in both 2016 and 2024, the DNC chose the least popular Democratic candidates. Polls showed that Clinton was the worst possible candidate for the party, but the Clintons had control over the DNC and state party organizations.
Of particular concern is the fact that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by only 67,000 votes. In just those states, Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Stein received more than half a million votes.
Rather than actually pick a candidate that most citizens want, the DNC wants to replay the 2016 strategy of forcing the choice between two evils in a Biden-Trump choice. That can only work reliably if there is no other choice for citizens tired of the duopoly and the political (and media) establishment. So Kennedy, Cornell, and Stein just have to go.
I am one of those misguided voters. Years ago, I wrote a column saying that I was tired of voting for the lesser of two evils — leaving every election as a moral hazard. I am prepared to vote for candidates from the two main parties in any given election, but I will only vote for the candidate who I believe is the best of candidates to be president. We are played as chumps by a political and media establishment in every election system. Over two decades ago, I pledged to vote for the best candidate, even if they are with a third party.
The DNC is reportedly to be joined in this effort by a well-financed array of groups including the liberal think tank Third Way (which has filed complaints with secretaries of states); American Bridge (a Democratic opposition operation), and Clear Choice (a super PAC composed of “allies of President Biden”).
While these groups work to limit the choice of voters, the effort continues in Florida, Georgia, Washington, and New York to keep Trump in court until the election, including a possible trial running up to or even through the election.
There is hope that this multi-front effort will be the winning ticket, particularly if the ultimate ticket denies voters any other choice.
The open discussion of these efforts in the media illustrates the contempt for voters, who need to be protected from their bad choices. I have previously compared the underlying assumptions to a type of electoral Big Gulp law. Before they were also struck down, these laws sought to take away the dietary choices of citizens because they were making the wrong choice in the view of experts.
Activists are now big gulping the election. Voters cannot be trusted with something as important as democracy.
President Biden has said “make no mistake: Democracy is on the ballot for all of us.” Of course, he could end this effort by denouncing further ballot cleansing (something he refused to do when Trump was removed by the Colorado and Maine ballots). It appears that the last thing that democracy needs is free democratic choice.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
None of what Prof. Turley describes is unexpected. The Democratic party for 200 years has displayed a strong fascistic streak at times: starting with Old Hickory tearing the Cherokee from their homelands in the southeast and putting them on the Trail of Tears; all the way to the Biden regime which now backstabs American allies and refers to Americans, who only a few years were considered mainstream people, as terrorists. I note the recent complaining about rural Americans having too much political influence. You have to laugh at the absurdity of it. It sounds just like the dogwhistle “Jews having too much political influence” — the repurposing of old slanders and libels for a new set of putative enemies.
Cornel West and Jill Stein should rank nicely among the most incompetent of any ticket that could be assembled from the Biden cabinet, or other Democratic party has-beens. RFK seems a decent enough fellow, but his environmental views are within the parameters of the CO2 cult and will probably drive us into energy poverty. “No Labels”? Please.
I’ll not take Turley’s advice, but will continue my long tradition of voting against the worst of candidates, even if the only choice left has countless “indictments” and wears an orange suit.
Kevin T Kilty said: “RFK seems a decent enough fellow, but his environmental views are within the parameters of the CO2 cult and will probably drive us into energy poverty.”
Since it is inevitable that all of my state’s electoral votes are going to go overwhelmingly for Biden, and I am most of the way through RFK Jr’s book “The Wuhan Cover-up”, I was considering casting my vote for him as a protest, in spite of the many issues on which I disagree with him, but his apparent pick of Nichole Shanahan for VP (ludicrous, he must be in desparate need of campaign funds) killed that idea. So my vote probably belongs to Trump. I just fervently hope that the entire election isn’t nothing but a gigantic dog and pony show, and that he doesn’ turn out to be just another poser (better disguised than most) who will reverse course and work the will of the Deep State once he gets into power. In spite of my reservations about him, I don’t currently see any clear indication that he is that kind of fraud, but if he is elected and that turns out to be the case, all meaningful opposition to an openly Fascist Federal government for the foreseeable future will be rendered impotent. His VO selection will be very important to me as an indicator of his sincerity. If that turns out to be Nikki Haley (I asw more rumours to that effect just yesterday), all bets are off.
Number 6 said: ” ”
“VP” not “VO”. although I used to be fond of that…
But not VO 5 I presume.
No soy Alberto.
Wake up America
I made some comments surrounding the SCOTUS and the Electoral College pertaining to the Colorado decision awhile back.
Now let’s take a look:
1st.> Doesn’t this seem to be yet another way to manipulate the Electoral College, through eliminating Third Party Candidates?
2nd.> Hasn’t the attempts of the DNC | Democrats to push out these ‘Road-Blocks’ to the Electoral College yet ‘Proven-to-You’ that there is clearly overt manipulation if the Election schema?
3rd.> The SCOTUS had a once in a lifetime opportunity to Direct correction(s) through Opinion to Congress to address the manipulation schemes of the Electoral College and failed to do so. What does that Tell you? (The SCOTUS is(?) complicit – The Swamp is Airtight).
4th.> Are your Eyes Wide Shut? (You don’t have to answer that – We’ll find out Nov. 5th 2024)
The SCOTUS had a once in a lifetime opportunity to Direct correction(s) through Opinion to Congress to address the manipulation schemes of the Electoral College and failed to do so.
Could you be more specific? What case are you referring to?
The Case is: 23-719 Trump v. Anderson (03/04/2024) (The Colorado Ballot Decision)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
I will try to locate the entries within this Blog.
Here are the the comments to which I refer:
–
The January 6th reactions are another by-product of a defective Electoral Collage system.
I have previously stated the issues (flaws) with EC, as they relate to the Colorado (States et.al.).
After hearing the Sides argument’s, and not finding a single argument made to ‘suspend the EC’ in this election cycle, until such time that Congress can ether dissolve or correct the issues that ‘Players of the Electoral Collage System’ present, and revert to a straight One-to-One Vote Count (i.e.: Popular Vote Count), I resolve myself to believing that after the 2024 Election the Issue(s) will persist and newer by-products of the system will continue to produce problems.
We are coming to the eve of Super Tuesday wherein the Two-Party system will cement their respective Candidates, assuring another battle of manipulation of the EC.
Come January 20th, 2025 We will have all witnessed the conclusion of the battle, with Eyes Wide Shut.
I pray that the SCOTUS can write an Opinion that addresses the problems of the EC and comes to a resolution to solve those problems of the EC, redirecting Congress to enact a resolution upon the Opinion.
To address Colorado narrowly upon ’14th amendment section 3′ will be a monumental and multi-generational loss of opportunity for the Court to settle the root cause of the Issue, that being of the Player’s Battle for the EC.
—
[Re: Response to oldmanfromkansas, I think it was he]
I understand that the SCOTUS is ‘constricted’ to a narrow Constitutional protocol. To that extent I agree with you.
I am suggesting the the Court go beyond the direct opinion of the matter and ‘𝐬𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭’ that Congress re-evaluate the issues of the EC.
This can be done … in writing the Opinion or Dissenting Opinion. I also feel that it is important for the Court to do so, as it reveals the fact that It does not have the power to address the problem (EC defects), and send the message to Congress to take action on it.
Will Congress address it? Probably not, because the Parties enjoy the ability to manipulate, even though they are at different positions.
Secondly, I do not believe that if they did take it up, they could come to a Clean answer.
Finally, I would rather have the SCOTUS address it … not the Congress – I just feel that the Court would come to a better solution.
None the less, the problems with the EC will persist, unless they are addressed. It doesn’t need to be a drawn out multi-generational problem, it can begin with this Case and resolved with intelligent Decisions.
—
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝?
The Founding Fathers had to compromise when it came to devising a system to elect the president.
By: Dave Roos ~ December 14, 2020
[Link] history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲
What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College process?
… Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981. …
By: U.S. Archives – Circa: December 17, 2019
[Link] archives.gov/electoral-college/history
—
I remember that. I think I pointed out that because the EC is baked into the Constitution, Congress’s only ability to “address” it would be through a constitutional amendment. I also noted that it is not part of the Supreme Court’s mandate to (a) suggest legislation that Congress should consider passing, or (b) decide legal issues that are not raised by the case before it. That limitation stems from Article III, Section 2, which only gives the Court jurisdiction to decide “cases arising under” federal law.
“That limitation stems from Article III, Section 2, which only gives the Court jurisdiction to decide “cases arising under” federal law.”
This is where we part ways. I am not suggesting that the SCOTUS opine a Calculus for the EC, I am implying that the SCOTUS can have an ‘Opinion’ that is deliberate upon Congress to address the ‘issues’ surrounding the EC.
Colorado did rise because of a Constitutional issue between Federal and State discrepancies affecting the EC.
IMO: The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., is the 17th Chief Justice of the United States handling of this was weak.
[also We can do better than Chief Justice Roberts, imo]
It is obvious that the EC is a very long standing problem, of which has not been addressed since the adoption of the 12th Amendment.
(I refer you to the Archive webpage: https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history)
Amendment Twelve to the Constitution was ratified on June 15, 1804 – where the EC has since been the single most contested issue to date.
And Congress is content to preserve it by not effectively addressing the Issue.
If Chief Justice Roberts has the balls, He would have opined (suggested) that it has been long enough and the Issue should be addressed.
The Opinion did throw it back to Congress but it did not ‘stress’ why the matter of the problems (Player Games) are Their Problems to resolve.
It is now a missed opportunity, and you now have the Democratic Party back at it again – They couldn’t even wait for 2028 – Fire all the Guns at once.
Kick it down the Road to the next Generation.
oldmanfromkansas – You ruffle my feather today, so please answer me this:
Is the SCOTUS ‘complicit’ (Part of the Swamp) in the parlance of this time, either Wittingly or Unwittingly?
Anon – I only have an opinion on that, not known facts, since I’m not privy to the behind-the-scenes goings on at Scotus. But in my opinion, the answer is “no” – at least not yet.
I say “not yet” because the Dems are trying to pack the Court. That, in my view, is a transparent attempt to capture Scotus and make it part of the swamp.
” are another by-product of a defective Electoral Collage system.”
What of the EC is defective?
The Nutshell: The EC Calculus creates a Game, for Players to Game-It.
(and it has been Played and is being Played in various ways).
The number ‘270’ seems to posses magical powers – Lets unveil the Magic.
Mr. Meyer, My apologies for not finding the direct links within the Blog, however I did find my notes which follow:
{Some maybe response or rebuttal to Other individuals)
—
WE are only focusing on the part of the Constitution regarding the Electoral College, maintain your argument inside those lines.
Your steadfast on keeping the Electoral College intact, My position is to eliminate the Electoral College.
It boils down to:
Keeping the Electoral College with its ‘flaws’ so that those that manipulate the Electoral College can keep their control over the Vote of Population at Large.
Eliminating the Electoral College removes the ‘flaws’ and restore the premise of the original basis of Equality and Neutrality in the Vote of Population at Large.
Take away the Game – and you have raw Vote of Population at Large.
OK lets try another approach.
What would happen if the Supreme Court majority opinion decided that the Because of the Colorado Opinion the Electoral College tally would result in a group of disenfranchised Citizens because their Candidate was disqualified/omitted/banned from the process, and that in turn created Inequality and violated Neutrality in the National Voting System.
Wherefore, It is the Opinion of the SCOTUS that the Electoral College of the2024 Presidential Election shall be Suspended until Congress addresses the situation. The Presidential Election shall proceed upon the One-to-One basis (One Person – One Vote) in the Vote of Population at Large.
[Joy Reid: O.M.G. We have No GAME!!!]
What will happen? Another Insurrection? ATM’s will no longer spit our fiat cash? the Street lights will go dark? -NO-
IMO: I think you Guys want the Game to continue on Flawed, for whatever the reason you benefit.
Equality and Neutrality in the Vote of Population at Large can be restored – and the SCOTUS is in a position to do just that in this Case.
—
Maintaining my position. The Constitution [K] in the whole was designed to be modified as time progresses, and the process of modifying it is set forth within the Constitution.
Where does it prohibit the Judaical Branch from making Modifications to the Constitution, wherein the Constitution specifically established the SCOTUS as the ‘Rule of Law’? -No- it doesn’t, in fact the [K] proclaims the SCOTUS to be the SUPREME Law of the Land (Supreme Rule of Law). It was meant to pass judgement upon the other two Branches.
Respectfully Sir, If the SCOTUS can “Constitutionally” pass a Ruling upon the Executive Office of the United States (The Executive Branch selection as in the Presidential Candidate in Colorado, an ex-President), then I proclaim the it can also “Constitutionally” pass a Ruling upon the Electoral College that prohibits it from issuing the prospected outcome of the National Vote (as previously described – suspend the EC until Congress eliminates it or finds a better way). Further that it can declare the race to be determined strictly by Popular Vote.
The remainder of the [K] stays intact.
[Sidebar IMO: I feel the SCOTUS can ‘Cherry Pick’ this issue in the present matter if it chooses to do so (and I hope Thomas is the one that does)]
We are in agreement that the Congressional Branch has the authority to write an ‘amendment or dissolve’ the EC.
Sidebar: When you see what’s happening here (Colorado et.al. and the Race to 270), do you honestly feel that this is the Original Intent of the Constitution [K]?
—
The intent of the Electoral College is not being used that way (to level the playing field as you suggest).
It had a purpose in it’s time, and now that time has past. Imaginary lines drawn boundaries on a Map to segregate the population into 50+ States and then use a Calculus (The Electoral College) to ‘equalize’ the whole is an archaic method, when it is entirely possible to validate a consensus by gross means (Popular Vote).
Yet because we have this archaic method still in-place, every Election Cycle we have the same Party Battles to gerrymander the electoral count (Delegates) and game the Electoral System. In addition to this, We now have the State(s) at the command of the Parties gaming the Electoral System through Candidate elimination schemas thus eliminating equitable distribution of the State’s Electoral Delegates.
Flawed System – time to get rid of it.
—
OK – We started this conversation off in regards to the treatment of the Electoral College, and have drifted into the division of States and their Constitutional Representative structures (Senate & Representatives).
I still maintain the the Electoral College is an antiquated vestige of our Constitution.
Per the National Archives:
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. …
Who selects the electors?
Choosing each State’s electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election. Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State’s electors by casting their ballots.
The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each State and varies from State to State. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential electors at their State party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party’s central committee. This happens in each State for each party by whatever rules the State party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential electors.
Political parties often choose individuals for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be State elected officials, State party leaders, or people in the State who have a personal or political affiliation with their party’s Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each State.)
The second part of the process happens during the general election. When the voters in each State cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their State’s electors. The potential electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures and ballot formats in each State.
The winning Presidential candidate’s slate of potential electors are appointed as the State’s electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/electors#selection
SO if the Name of a Presidential Candidate is Prohibited or Omitted by some reason (such as whats going on in Colorado, The winning Presidential candidate receives the appointments for the State’s Electors, The Candidate whom is Prohibited or Omitted receives nothing. So there you have the ‘hack’, the gaming of the Electoral system, which denies a portion of People inclusion in the Popular Vote.
Gaming the Electoral College on the National scale, it has been a well establish method of winning the Presidency by winning the States that deliver enough Electoral votes to win the Election. There are currently 538 electors in all, It takes 270 to Win. Win the Key States (Large Electoral States) you will the Election. That’s another game in play.
These ‘moves’ are real, I don’t need to tell you about How many times and Who cried about winning the Popular Vote but not the Electoral College. The problem here having the Electoral College to begin with. I fully understand your ‘Big State-Small State’ equalization argument. However the Forefathers did not recognize that the system would reduce itself to two parties and they would Game-the-System around the Electoral College. They held Us to a Higher Standard of which We obviously failed to reach.
—
END
“for Players to Game-It.”
There is no game. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes and decides how those votes will be distributed, in percentage or in all.
“maintain your argument inside those lines.”
You are not a dictator. Don’t tell people what to do, especially those that carry a name, and remain within the discussion limits.
“Keeping the Electoral College with its ‘flaws’ so that those that manipulate the Electoral College can keep their control over the Vote of Population at Large.”
What flaws? The intentions of the EC system are apparent to those knowledgeable about its history.
“Eliminating the Electoral College removes the ‘flaws'”
No, it doesn’t. Your comments are based on ignorance.
“OK lets try another approach.”
Delete your other approach. It made no sense. Skip the what-ifs and learn how to use English.
The rest of your post is garbage. It matches your rhetoric at the beginning. I cannot believe anyone is so uninformed but this blog has taught me that there are a lot of people who know the alphabet and can type.
You just do not want to accept the outcome of a One Person-One Vote (1to1 popular Vote) for the Office of President.
You would rather want it to be an apportionment scheme (EC). So you keep interjecting the EC premise into the argument.
You must live in a state with only 3 electoral votes, and within the EC scheme your apportionment is balanced.
Hence you refuse to recognize that in a 1to1 popular Vote, a Person in California voting for X and a person in Wyoming voting for X would total Nationally (Collectively) to a Sum of Votes for X-2
or
a Person in California voting for X and a person in Wyoming voting for Y would total Nationally (Collectively) to a Sum of Votes for XY would cancel each other out XY-0.
The Sum of the Votes will come to One-side or Another, because the votes will cancel each other out, until a side becomes dominant.
(This happen in households frequently, The Husband votes X, the Wife votes Y so they cancel each other out, At some point one position becomes more prevalent across the field – Nation)
For Other Election (i.e.: Representatives) the apportionment method (EC) is applicable.
But we are not talking about 435 Seats (The U.S. House of Representatives) we’re talking about 1 Seat, the President’s.
On a National Election basis.
A 1to1 Popular Vote works fairly, the outcome is the outcome with no interference.
And that’s a problem for you, because it eliminates the ability to manipulate the outcome (via the EC Game to 270).
It obvious the outcome of the 2020 election was not received well by a number of people.
But Hey, Biden won the Game to 270 so there you have it. The system work as it should as you said.
Will see come November, 5th – I hope for a Trump Landslide, but again, The Game is still in Play.
“You just do not want to accept the outcome of a One Person-One Vote (1to1 popular Vote) for the Office of President.”
You dream!
My earlier comments need not be repeated. You are unknowledgeable and untrustworthy. Your comment about your hope for Trump is a gratuitous statement that hopes to elevate your comments to that of an intelligent individual. The comment does nothing except demonstrate your lack of moral or ethical strength.
You are full of bull and too stupid even to know it.
Why do they call them: Key Battleground States ?
I’m too stupid even to know it
“Why do they call them: Key Battleground States ?
I’m too stupid even to know it”
You are correct. You are too stupid to know it or much of anything else.
To compound the problems the Dems are creating, the various alphabet agencies have gotten involved. It’s like this award winning symphony orchestra with all the various instrument sections playing in harmony the most beautiful music for 246 years has suddenly lost its conductor. Each section is no longer playing its part as written by its constitution and for the good of the paying listeners.
The players voted to disband on November 6, 2012.
What does your Gut tell you?
IMO: The DNC will switch up Candidates just before or at the Convention. They will make a backroom scene for a decision that has already been made some time ago.
I’m thinking:
Harris-Buttigieg
Newsom-Buttigieg
Newsom-Goldman
Goldman-Buttigieg
Clinton-Clinton (The ‘Gutsy’ Tour – Ha ha that’s a Joke)
My gut says it won’t be Biden on the Ticket – It will have to be someone that can pull in the votes the Dems have already lost by selling Grandpa tickets.
Younger, Maybe Female, Clean Image, Made for Prime Time, Shows Promise ….
Anonymous said: “I’m thinking:…”
I don’t think that any of those tickets has a viable chance for winning without massive vote fraud. If you postulate massive vote fraud, the names of the actual candidates on the ballot are immaterial. Harris has too much national negative baggage. Newsom has a crapload of negative baggage that has so far not had a tremendous amount of nationwide exposure, but that would change immediately upon his proposed nomination. “Clinton-Clinton”? You have to be kidding me to propose that as a viable winning ticket. Goldman is far too unknown, and Buttegg is too much of a wuss to participate effectively in a down-and-dirty campaign. Joe Biden has also apparently reached a combative stage of dementia, and you are assuming that he would ste-aside quietly, and/or that Jill Biden doesn’t relish her newfound power too mcuh to allow that to happen. No, I think that absent massive fraud, the Demons are stuck with Biden at this point; they waited too long to try to replace him. I think that they put nearly all of their hopes on using lawfare to disqualify Trump from receiving sufficient electoral votes, and that effort appears to have failed. Their only other hope, imo, outside of the massive fraud I mentioned already, is the potential refusal of Congress to certify Trump’s victory. As hypocritical as that is, I think the ass-hats are capable of trying it. I’m nearly certain that if they succeeded in doing that, it would trigger an actual armed revolt.
Number 6,
Well said and I am inclined to agree.
Ah, it would be ever so hypocritical for them to attempt to refuse to certify a Trump victory, but they would claim they were doing it to save democracy!
How would the deep state react?
Or would the allow the rioting, arson, looting as they did in 2020?
How would MSM spin it?
Who Then Number 6 ?
Elizabeth Warren – Not
Liz Chaney – Not
Adam Schiff – Not
Nancy Pelosi – Not
A.O.C. – Not
Other than Biden – Who?
Here I’ll give you a hand:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/19/top-democrats-2024-ranked/
The WAPO List:
Pete Buttigieg
Kamala D. Harris
Jared Polis
Gavin Newsom
Gretchen Whitmer
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Josh Shapiro
J.B. Pritzker
Anonymous said: “Who Then Number 6 ?”
I already answered that. I think that unless Biden has some genuinely catastrophic medical event (i.e., massive coronary; or debilitating stroke – although how could we tell for certain in that case 🙂 in the meantime, I think the Demons have saddled themselves with him. I think they originally assumed that Trump would be effectively sidelined by the mainstream GOP, and when that didn’t happen, they were confident that the lawfare attacks would finish his candidacy. Right now, it very much appears that both those initiatives are failing, badly. Maybe they could try to fake a catastrophic illness on the part of Biden, but I don’t think that either Biden or his wife (who appears to very much enjoy her suddenly acquired political power) would go along with that. If the Demons had a well-known VP candidate with broad appeal and few political liabilities, that could potentially change the outcome, and leave them where they would like to be in the event that Biden was elected but failed to make it through his second four year term, but I am unaware of anyone in their party who fulfills those requirements. Right now, I’m reasonably confident that Trump can carry enough electoral votes to win the Presidency outright, at which time the Demons are going to need to find some way to prevent him getting sworn in, or to impeach him immediately after. The Demons’ options are going to heavily depend on how long Trumps’ coat-tails are. If he carries a significant Repugnican majority in both House and Senate into office, the Demons are going to be pretty well hamstrung. That would suit me fine, as long as the neocons in the party don’t get to run the show.
Does anyone here still believe that the powers that be
actually let the citizens decide who their leaders are?
Anonymous said: “Does anyone here still believe that the powers that be actually let the citizens decide who their leaders are?”
At this juncture TPTB must choose between influencing the voters and the vote by unethical means (including facilitating the votes of illegal aliens), or obviously stealing the election outright. They have imo massively effed up their effort to accomplish the former, and if they do the latter, the proverbial shite is really going to hit the proverbial fan, hard, with the ultimate outcome of the resulting chaos in serious doubt. Those powers could conceivably be forced to discard any pretense of allowing citizens to decide, and impose an outright dictatorship. I don’t want to see that happen, but at least the battle lines would be drawn so clearly that hardly anyone could remain blissfully unaware of the situation.
Bless his heart. Even as the good professor was busy preparing for his Idaho speech and backpacking, he took the time to make sure “inquiring minds” had something to read and [discuss] today.
For that matter, and paradoxically, I’m sure that Biden and his team find Professor Turley and his non-partisan honesty to be a looming “threat to democracy.” No, correction, –a looming “threat to Democrats.”
Lin,
My sister is a long time Democrat.
She is even seeing the corruption, the insanity that has gripped the Democrat party. Of all of her Democrat friends, she has had three tell her, her thinking was “wrong.”
And I think that right there, along with your observation of, “I’m sure that Biden and his team find Professor Turley and his non-partisan honesty to be a looming “threat to democracy.” No, correction, –a looming “threat to Democrats.” is what the Biden campaign and the Democrats at the head of the DNC is afraid of.
The Democrat party is down among the Black community.
They have lost the Hispanic community and the Asian community.
Jews seem lost and not sure who to vote for.
The Muslim “uncommitted” movement is a lot bigger than anyone expected and protesters showing up at Biden rallies chanting “Genocide Joe,” is a bad look for Biden.
lin: “non partisan”–are you joking? You surely must be. Turley is nothing but a purchased mouthpiece, he frequently gets his facts wrong, heavily relies on qualifiers for the facts that underlie his rants, and carries the same pro-Trump tropes published by his employer, a media outlet that got sued by Smartmatic for lying about their voting equipment.
What you mean to say is that the progressive left, using the remnants of the democrat party, will do anything within their power (legality and morality aside) to maintain their corrupt and colluded grasp of power. Their obfuscations, mendacity and sheer un-American values are all that they know how to use – a dangerous conglomeration of haters on a mission with more fervor than any islamic jihadis.
Professor….excellent post.
The old, hackneyed saying is still truer than ever: If it weren’t for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at all.
” If it weren’t for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at all.”
(-:
When a party does not represent its voters, voters should seek out a party or candidate that does.
Blindly voting for a party, even when that party abuses their voters is cult like thinking.
The Democrat party is the most anti-democracy, anti-Constitution, anti-rule of law, party there is.
Voting for the Democrat party is voting for more corruption, more war, more assaults on women’s rights, more grooming and sexualization of children and all the other horrors the Democrat party has brought to America.
The Democrat party is the most . . . anti-Constitution . . . party there is.
Upstate – most politicians in Washington give little thought to the Constitution, and when they do think about it, they see it as an inconvenient roadblock to their agenda – an agenda that primarily involves enriching themselves. For an inside scoop on that very phenomenon, you should watch the Tulsi Gabbard interview by Tucker, which dropped last night (she has a new book out about the topic and is promoting it). It is very informative.
Oldman, every person who voted for the 1.2 trillion package is self-serving and cares little about our American Republic.
Any adult with a functioning brainstem knows all about the dem party. Unfortunately, most of their base may well be without that functioning brainstem and are just enslaved tools who have been hypnotized by either free stuff allowing them to remain parasites for ever OR they are rich and intellectually disabused elites who never bother to take their heads out of the clouds of delusions that were pumped into their noggins while pretending to being educated.
We really all need to stop pretending the American democratic party is anything but a regime anymore. They can’t be trusted with power, and we need to get them out. Biden is easily the most corrupt POTUS we’ve ever had, and what the rest of the party has devolved into is straight up disgraceful.
Clearly, your votes DO matter. Write Jill Stein in if you must, do not let them take your agency from you. We blew right past absurd years ago. Love the truth and realize they don’t want you to have it.
Money kinda controls everything, and this is all about money. There are tens of billions of dollars at stake for certain interests, in making sure the military-industrial complex’s cash cow continues its milk production. Nobody lets go of that kind of money without a fight. RFK Jr. is a threat to that, as is Trump. Ballot cleansing is the way these special interests are seeking to preserve their riches. That’s behind why Republican congressmen are dropping like flies – so that the House will revert to Dem control and Congress will remove Trump from the ballot by declaring him an insurrectionist. That’s why the Biden admin never calls for a cease fire in Ukraine. That’s why the DNC and the Biden admin is deep into censorship of all contrary views. It’s all about the money.
Money kinda controls everything, and this is all about money. There are tens of billions of dollars at stake for certain interests,
I feel a need to flesh this out a little.
I think I learned this from a tv show called House of Cards. The main charcters were DC elites, but controlled many of the levers of power in Washington DC
The dialoge was concerning a collection of grift, or the problems surrounding the collection. The minion was in the hotseat for not making the collection and apologizing profusely about the large sum on money and how the money was the goal.
The star of this show, says. ‘Its not about the money. I have more money than I care to spend. But it is about power, and that money is used as leverage to solidify and expand my power. ‘
Us little people think about money as security, for ourselves, and, if we were good managers, for our grand kids.
But they call them “power players” for a reason, that reason is to solidify and expand power.
I just thought of a great piece of history as an example of amassing that power. Ripped from this mornings headlines
Its like being the Mayor of Baltimore, and then leveraging that power to get elected to Congress in DC. then using that power to push your daughter Nancy to the pinnacle of power, Speaker of the House of Representatives. 3rd in line of Succession to President of the United States
Thats power. Not money
It’s a mix. Once in a position of power, they get pressured by the money interests. They become the front men for the money. They like being the front men because there are any number of temporal benefits. But if they for some reason have the temerity go against what the money interests are telling them, they can only sustain that for so long. Trump found that out the hard way.
Look at the shenanigans they pulled to rig 2020. Look at the shenanigans they’re pulling now to steal 2024. That’s the money moving behind the scenes to destroy its most formidable roadblock in a century.
In the present era, most of the moneyed interests are with the Democrats. The Republicans are only backed by old-line industries like fossil fuels.
A well-informed electorate will get its just deserts.
More and more, the right side is beginning to realize how deeply mentally ill the Democrat/Left has become. Today’s article finds Prof. Turley shocked at the blatant contradictions of the Democrats vis a vis, keeping third parties off the ballot. I think if he ever realizes that the underlying problem is not faulty reasoning, but pure dee 100% mental illness, then his shock would change. I mean, are we “shocked” when some nut goes around babbling to telephone poles, or do we realize that person has simply lost his marbles, and that his elevator does not go all the way to the top of the pickle jar?
Here is an article today from Zero Hedge on this same point:
Election 2024: It’s The Psychopathology, Stupid
“Why” is not the question.
When it comes to TDS, facts are the last thing that matter. It’s about feelings so deep that they approach the primordial. Just ask Letitia James, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and the vast majority of the employees of mainstream media.
To call our society unhinged is an understatement. The legal system as originally conceived seems no longer to exist. Its current reason for being is to fine President Trump so many millions or billions of dollars that few of us can remember exactly how much it is without having to look it up, multiple times, just to make sure.
Justice Arthur Engoron’s decisions seem to come not from reasoned legal judgment but straight from the cerebellum, the part of the brain that controls involuntary survival instincts.
We see this survival obsession across the culture as TDS moves from neurosis to psychosis.
The growing attack on the free speech that once defined our country is arguably one of the strongest manifestations of this illness.
The more President Trump threatens to win the election, the further into the realm of psychological disturbance these people will go.
Whether the economy would improve, whether public safety would be better, and whether the world would be more peaceful are all irrelevant to them.
The most rational part of their otherwise aberrant behavior is fear for their jobs. In cases such as Mr. Darcy’s and Justice Engoron’s, that too is irrelevant. Mr. Darcy would do fine, perhaps better than ever, as an opposition journalist, and Justice Engoron, like it or not, has a lifetime position that, despite the highly justifiable enmity of President Trump, is almost certain to be preserved.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/election-2024-its-psychopathology-stupid
Floyd,
Good read!
100,000,000 ballots for Biden have already been printed…and are sitting in the ballot boxes
Democrats are Fascists fighting a Civil War
Republicans are FUNDING IT!
Didn’t you mean the anti-democratic national committee?
“The contradiction is spellbinding. On the same sites promising to oppose the third party candidates, the DNC and other groups push the narrative that only the Democrats are working to protect the right to vote.”
It is not spellbinding at all to the people in the Democrat cult. It does not matter what the Party stands for, or what the Party does, or what the Party says. They will still pull the Democrat lever in the booth. Do you think that someone like DeMac here, votes for Democrats for any rational reason? He doesn’t. It’s a family tradition, and if the Party handed him a glass of Kool-Aid and told him to drink it, he would. He is that brain-dead, assuming that he is not a paid shill.
“I am one of those misguided voters. Over two decades ago, I pledged to vote for the best candidate, even if they are with a third party.”
Throwing away your vote isn’t going to make anything better. Should your grandchildren someday ask you, “What did you do i the war, grandpa?” – Your answer will be, “I refused to shoot Nazi’s because it is so icky!”
Not voting for Trump, is voting for Biden and more corruption.
No, it’s called integrity.
No, it is called, “I will just take my football and go home if I can’t be the quarterback!”
Childish, peckish, stupid and irrational!
Floyd,
I would beg to differ.
It is more like the Biden campaign is in full panic as the Biden admin is one failed disaster to the next.
Their base is leaving them in droves.
A third party has the real potential to divert votes from the Biden campaign.
That is why they are in such a panic, formed up this group to deny American’s a choice.
Frankly I am glad the Democrats have taken this course of action. It puts on full display for all to see how un-democratic Democrats really are.
Floyd, the anonymous poster below has none of what he talks about, integrity. He is part of the Party of the Stupid.
We already know that the Democratic Party is power-hungry, corrupt, and authoritarian. That the Democrat Party wishes to prevent third parties and even the opposing candidate from campaigning is proof that all except the braindead can see.
How can anyone vote for the Democrat Party when the choice is a dictatorship or our Constitutional Republic based on Democratic ideas? The braindead can. The only viable vote is for Trump.
Currently (9:03 AM EDT 03-26-2024) there is no “here” here. Do titles typically get posted before the article text, or is there something else going on?