Take Two
That headline could be applicable to today's post-election situation in a number of ways, I suppose. As a movie director's cry (i.e. "We're starting take number two!"), since we are going to have a Senate race runoff election on December 6th in Georgia. It could be read literally, since at this point both parties need to take two of the three uncalled races in order to achieve a Senate majority. Or just as: "Take two and call me in the morning," the classic punchline to a doctor joke -- because it will probably take quite a while to get all the results in even before the December runoff. Or maybe even as: "I did a double-take when I heard the first results," that could work too. The funniest thing I heard during the extended post-election period in 2020 came out of the mouth of a babe -- some parent's toddler (this was passed along to me as an anecdote) said they were tired of watching television with Mommy and Daddy because "all they wanted to watch was The Map Show." And it looks like we'll all have at least a few more mornings of checking in with The Map Show before we know what Congress is really going to look like in January.
The Senate
Technically, four Senate races haven't been called yet, but in Alaska the only thing in doubt is which Republican is going to win. It has adopted a "top-four" ranked-choice slate from their new "jungle primary" system, which left one MAGAfied Trump-endorsed Republican (Kelly Tshibaka) at (all numbers are "as of this writing," of course) 44.4 percent, while incumbent Lisa Murkowski is pulling in 42.7 percent. The Democrat in the race is below 10 percent, but neither of the Republicans has hit the magic 50-percent-plus-one mark, so it will go into the at least the second round of the ranked-choice votes. Murkowski's still got an excellent chance of winning, but either way it'll leave the seat in the Republicans' column.
This means that the Senate split now stands -- with all the races called last night or today plus Alaska -- at Republicans 49, Democrats 48. Three states remain outstanding: Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia. Both parties need two of these three to assure control of the chamber.
There's a reason why none of them have been called yet, and it is that anything could still happen. It's all going to come down to how many votes have not been counted, from what counties, and what kind of votes they are (mail-in, in-person, provisional, military, etc.). The outcome depends on the mix, and nobody can predict what any of the three mixes will bring.
One thing which seems almost certain is that whichever candidate "wins" in Georgia won't actually prevent the runoff from happening. Right now incumbent Raphael Warnock has a very slight lead, 49.4 percent to Republican challenger Herschel Walker's 48.5 percent. Neither one is likely to go above 50 percent, meaning we'll have to do this all over again in December. [Editor's note: this was confirmed by news organizations while I was writing this, the runoff is now definitely going to happen.]
In Nevada, the Republican challenger is in the lead with 49.9 percent to incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto's 47.2 percent. But a lot of the remaining ballots are very likely to be Democratic, so anything could happen. In Arizona, the Democrat has a bigger lead, 51.4 percent to the GOP challenger's 46.4 percent, but again anything could happen with the remaining votes (they've only counted two-thirds of all the ballots yet).
If either party manages to sew up both states, then Georgia won't really matter (except to Vice President Kamala Harris, since if Democrats sweep all three states she won't be needed for tie-breaking Senate votes any more). I heard one commentator last night noting that whether Georgia is the deciding state in the runoff could matter greatly -- that (as he put it) plenty of Georgians like Warnock and are generally fine with him representing them in the Senate, but they'll vote for Walker if it means a Republican Senate. Could be -- as I recall, when he was speculating this he was even thinking: "say the Republicans have won 51 seats already," as it was still early in the night's coverage. But it could be true if Democrats have already won 50 seats too.
The House
In terms of the overall mood of the midterm elections, or (as the pundits like to say) what "message" it sent, it's hard not to conclude that this time around it was Republicans who were overly optimistic. In 2020 Joe Biden won, but many Democrats (myself among them) were giddy with the prospects of winning up and down the ballot and securing large majorities in both the House and Senate. That didn't come to pass. Last night, the expected "red wave" didn't materialize either.
There will be plenty of time later to analyze why it didn't. I'm still waiting for better data to come in, personally. One thing I suspected all along seems to have come true -- abortion remained a top issue for many voters, even after the pollsters had all but written it off (as having "peaked too early"). Almost as many people in the exit polls yesterday said abortion was their top voting issue as said the economy/inflation was their top issue. But like I said, there'll be plenty of time for data dives later.
For now, people are just having fun with the metaphors. The big red wave became a pink trickle... or a red puddle... or just a rosé ripple. Personally, I would put it differently: Democrats built a much-more-solid-than-anyone-expected "blue breakwater." No matter how high the wave actually might have been, the breakwater held and it didn't get to shore.
Control of the House still hasn't been decided. That is shocking, since most Republicans thought the conversation this morning would have revolved around how many dozens of seats Republicans had picked up. The semantic quibble would have been over whether it was a red wave or a red tsunami.
That, obviously, didn't come to pass. Of course, Republicans are still the odds-on favorite to emerge with control of the chamber, but there's still an outside chance Democrats will hold the line. Even if the GOP does wrest the gavel from Nancy Pelosi though, they may have to deal with pretty much the same situation she's had to for the past two years: a razor-thin, single-digit margin of being the majority. And that's going to seriously limit what they'll be able to accomplish. Selecting Kevin McCarthy as speaker is also going to seriously limit what they'll be able to accomplish as well, because America will go from having one of the strongest and savviest speakers of the last century or so to having one of the weakest and most feckless in quite a while. McCarthy, at every opportunity, demonstrates that he simply has no spine at all -- which we'll all have to live with, for two years.
Both sides got symbolic victories last night. The earliest indications that the red wave was simply not developing were Democrats winning a few key races in Virginia and Rhode Island that the GOP was really hoping they'd win. The head of the House Democrats' election group (the guy who doled out party money to individual candidates, in other words) was defeated in New York -- which is a shocking result for someone in a leadership position. And as of this writing, ultra-MAGA Lauren Boebert is losing her House race in Colorado, with 93 percent of the vote counted.
The MAGA world didn't have a good night, in other words. Neither did Donald Trump. That's one storyline everyone in the punditocracy has already been agreeing upon. It's too soon to say who won overall, but the inescapable conclusion is that Trump lost. Trump was the big loser of the night. His hand-picked candidates in multiple states were quite likely the reason Republicans lost an easy chance to take over the Senate -- for the second election in a row. This may dampen his expected announcement that he's running in the 2024 presidential race (tentatively scheduled for next Tuesday). It has certainly dampened the enthusiasm for his meddling among Republicans, whether they'll publicly admit it or not.
Down-ballot
Democrats did particularly well in one notable category: secretaries of state and other state officials who oversee elections. There were many "election-deniers" on the ballot for these positions in multiple states, and virtually all of them lost. We may have finally reached the limits of Big Lie craziness with the electorate (but only time will tell).
The scariest GOP gubernatorial candidate, in Pennsylvania, was soundly defeated. Democratic governors as a whole did very well last night. They chalked up impressive wins in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado (as well as one outlier, Kansas, where the Democratic incumbent was re-elected in a very red state). They won in other states as well, but none of the rest of the races were predicted to be close or unexpected victories. There are three outstanding gubernatorial races -- Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon -- and right now the Democrat is ahead in two of them (Nevada is trailing, but again there are a lot of votes left to count there). While the Arizona race garnered the most national media attention (because of the charisma of the Republican candidate), the Oregon race was the one that may have been in real jeopardy, due to a three-person race with only one real Republican on the ballot. The margin of the race is only one percent, at this point, with a third of the ballots left to count. Democrats even flipped a few statehouse chambers, which was an unexpected surprise.
While not strictly partisan, Democratic issues were on the ballot in a number of states. South Dakota voted to expand Medicaid, in defiance of their Republican legislature and governor. Two more states (Maryland and Missouri) will legalize the recreational use of marijuana, making a total (by my count) of 21 states and the District of Columbia. But legalization initiatives failed in three other states (Arkansas and both the Dakotas). Colorado voted on whether to legalize psychedelics such as "magic mushrooms," but while the "yes" vote is currently leading, it is by a tiny margin and the race hasn't been called yet.
Abortion rights were on the ballot directly in four states and indirectly in one other. In the three states that voted on whether to codify abortion rights into state law or write them directly into their state constitution (California, Vermont, and Michigan), the ballot measures all passed, overwhelmingly (the closest margin was in Michigan, and was more than 13 points, while the largest margin was in Vermont, at almost 55 points). Kentucky tried the opposite -- putting a measure on the ballot which explicitly stated that the right to abortion was not to be found anywhere within their state's constitution. It failed, 52.4 to 47.6 percent. And Montana had a rather unusual ballot measure that would have granted the right of "personhood" to any infant "born alive" -- despite this already being a right under current federal law. It also failed, 52.4 to 47.6 percent (strangely enough, the exact margin of the Kentucky vote, at least as of this writing). In other words, abortion rights carried the day everywhere it was on the ballot. This should be a wake-up call to Democrats, to put this measure on the ballot in every state they can manage in 2024 -- because it is a proven winner. It is a winner even in states where it is already written into their state constitution -- here is the governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, who just got re-elected last night: "We knew in late June, when the Dobbs decision came down, that it was... horrifically dangerous for women. I think a lot of people made the assumption that people forgot about it or it no longer had the impact that it had. No one forgot about it." Which is what I've been saying all along -- this is the removal of a fundamental constitutional right, this is not some arcane argument about raising or lowering taxes.
There were other measures on the ballot as well. Voters in two states (Michigan and Connecticut) voted to make voting easier and more accessible, while at least two other states (Nevada and Ohio) voted to tighten voting restrictions. Arizona also had one of these, and Nevada had a measure to introduce ranked-choice voting for at least some elections, but both are still too early to call. Voters in three places voted on raising the minimum wage, which won in at least two (in D.C., for tipped workers, and in Nebraska to raise it to $15 an hour). The third one is in Nevada and also remains too close to call.
Conclusions (such as they are...)
America seems to have survived another midterm election. The calm before the storm turned into the calm instead of the storm.
The red wave never materialized. Election-deniers were denied the power of running state elections. Donald Trump was humiliated. Democrats won plenty of races that the pundits had all but put into the Republican column (pre-election). Democrats not only have a good chance of not only retaining but increasing their majority in the Senate, they still have a longshot chance at retaining control of the House as well. Even if they lose the House, Kevin McCarthy will be showing us all how putting a jellyfish of a man in control of things causes utter chaos. All in all, a pretty good night.
Two major precedents were set in this election, that may become more common in future midterms. The first is that the president's approval rating is not so tightly tied to the midterm results anymore. It used to be a leading indicator, but these days the whole Democrat-versus-Republican identity in most voters is the deciding factor. Having a "D" or an "R" next to your name is the only reason a lot of people vote for you, plain and simple.
The second might be called "too extreme doesn't win." Nominating people who openly promise to throw elections to their team isn't the best way to win secretary of state elections, for instance. The voters' tolerance for craziness only goes so far, in other words -- even in some red states. This isn't universal -- plenty of election-deniers won other races, although a healthy amount of them lost as well.
For Democrats, nominating a guy who is too progressive can backfire if the state is deep purple. Picking off Wisconsin's Ron Johnson should have been a fairly easy thing to do -- his approval ratings were in the toilet before the race began and he's one of the dumbest Republicans in the Senate (which is really saying a lot). Primary voters choosing candidates who aren't a great fit for the state happens on both sides of the aisle, although being "too progressive" is in no way comparable to "promising to subvert democracy," just to be crystal-clear here.
Candidates matter. The political pundits relearn this lesson with every election, and report it with astonishment, each and every time. Especially in governors' and senators' races. And especially in races where "democracy itself is on the ballot." People want someone to represent them that won't embarrass them (whatever that means to each individual voter). Anyone seen as inauthentic (and I am looking in Mehmet "Dr." Oz's direction here) is going to lose. Politics is a lot more personal than the numbers-crunchers in the polling and media industries seem to realize.
When you look at it historically, this midterm was an enormous achievement for the Democratic Party. The "in" party usually loses a lot of congressional seats in the midterms. Dozens of them, in an average year. This year, Democrats could be on track not just to hold onto their 50-50 Senate majority, but to perhaps even increase their majority by one. Even if the Republicans do win the House, they're going to be vexed with the same problem Pelosi's been dealing with -- a very tight margin. Which is going to elevate each and every little nutso group within the House Republicans to a powerful position, as any group of perhaps 10 or more GOP House members will have leverage over McCarthy and the rest of the party. Not that it'll mean much, if the Senate stays Democratic, but I am not exactly looking for a Republican House to pass much of any legislation in the next two years, to put it mildly.
It was a good night for democracy, from the elections-deniers being denied power over election systems to the fact that the election went off surprisingly smoothly. This morning saw no crowds of angry people protesting anywhere (that I am aware of), and only a handful of losing Republican candidates refusing to concede. There may be some recounts and/or a few isolated court cases filed, but this almost never matters, the results will likely stand.
I haven't even heard of any major hissy fits being thrown from the MAGA crowd. Of course, it's still early and perhaps when the final results are known things will heat up, but for now things remain calm enough.
For the time being, the blue breakwater the Democrats built held up admirably well. The red wave either didn't crest it, or maybe just barely. The Democrats pulled off what can only be called a historically-impressive upset. Perhaps it will even be seen eventually as when the tide of Trumpism turned and started ebbing for good, but it's far too early to accurately say (Ron DeSantis, Trump's strongest challenger for the 2024 GOP nomination, had an excellent night last night, it bears mentioning). Democracy itself held, for the most part.
All in all, that's better than many Democrats (again: myself among them) expected, a mere 24 hours ago.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
You should start that Republicans In Disarray ball rolling.
I'm really weary of the term "election-deniers". They're election liars.
For Democrats, nominating a guy who is too progressive can backfire if the state is deep purple. Picking off Wisconsin's Ron Johnson should have been a fairly easy thing to do
Really? They nominated a person who had already won state-wide office in a deep purple state. The Grim Reaper dumped millions of dollars on the state to Willie Horton 2022 the Black Democrat.
According to Pence's new book, the orange imbecile told Pence, "People are gonna think you’re stupid." The jokes write themselves.
Pence really seems to be a humiliation enthusiast. It's enough to make me wonder what goes on with Mother behind closed doors.
[1] -
BWAH hah hah!
Oh, man, that was funny! Just what I needed, thanks...
:-)
-CW
(sorry been on yesterday's threat, posting photos and whatnot...)
JFC [2] -
Yeah, I kinda like that better myself. Nice!
-CW
JFC [3] -
Good point, about the state-wide election. Just had to say that, hadn't considered it fully...
-CW
Haha. Fat Donny is blaming Natasha for picking Dr Snakeoil. It's astonishing that his fanboys never get tired of a weak, fragile, woman-hating LOSER. It was especially gratifying to see him lose so bigly to Gretchen Whitmer.
I didn't fall for the panic generated by the GQP flood-the-zone polls. I have a T-shirt that says Listen To Michael Moore. In 2016, he correctly pointed out that the Dems were taking the midwestern Blue Wall for granted and that the orange one was going to win. This year, he said that there would be no red wave. He said there would be an anti-anti-abortion woman wave.
I'm really glad that Dems get to vote multiple times in PA. jk. Even the dead guy won with 86% of the vote!
We are . . . Penn State!
One thing I suspected all along seems to have come true -- abortion remained a top issue for many voters, even after the pollsters had all but written it off (as having "peaked too early").
I know, right!? And as you so rightly pointed out, there were a plethora of polls for several weeks before the midterms that were virtually all coming from Republican pollsters. It seemed to me as if the Republicans and Trumplicans were actively pounding the drums on right-wing propaganda media and flooding the zone with so much of that biased fake data with the specific intent to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Epic fail on their part.
So much for the hope that it was all a bad dream.. :^/
Well carp...
I am somewhat concerned for my buddy, MC... I hope he is OK what with expecting the Red Tsunami apocalypse and all... :^(
I disagree that President Trump was the biggest loser.. I mean, I get why ya'all say that.. Ya'all ALWAYS say that President Trump loses at everything! :D
No, the biggest loser are political polls and pundits..
This is a worse debacle than the 2016 Presidential Elections.. And THAT was a major frak-up...
Political polls and pundits lost ANY shred of credibility in 2022....
The only silver lining in all of this is watching the pollsters and pundits fall all over themselves trying to back-pedal and claim they called it right the whole time...
Well, that and Florida... Florida is a HUGE silver lining.. :D
that (as he put it) plenty of Georgians like Warnock and are generally fine with him representing them in the Senate, but they'll vote for Walker if it means a Republican Senate
Thank you CW, for giving me some hope.. :D
We're smack in the middle of the passion throes of Nicole...
It's pretty blustery outside.. We should see the more serious parts in the next 6-8 hours....
One of the reasons I love Florida.. :D
1/20
The big red wave became a pink trickle... or a red puddle... or just a rosé ripple.
A "red wave" is an actual phenomenon that happens when a local ecosystem is significantly polluted with effluent runoff causing an algae bloom.
*
If anyone needs an analogy. ;)
Which is what I've been saying all along -- this is the removal of a fundamental constitutional right, this is not some arcane argument about raising or lowering taxes.
You would have thought they'd learn something from the lopsided vote in beet-red Kansas, but as usual, the GOP extremists just shrug their shoulders, insist women aren't really concerned about it, and continue right on making their plans to eliminate more Americans' rights.
You think they'll slow their roll now? I wouldn't count on it.
Even if the Republicans do win the House, they're going to be vexed with the same problem Pelosi's been dealing with -- a very tight margin. Which is going to elevate each and every little nutso group within the House Republicans to a powerful position, as any group of perhaps 10 or more GOP House members will have leverage over McCarthy and the rest of the party.
Quick: You're Kevin McCarthy, do you root for Lauren Boebert to win not? Discuss. ;)
Michale,
Political polls and pundits lost ANY shred of credibility in 2022....
I'm glad that you have finally learned that lesson!
Which is what I've been saying all along -- this is the removal of a fundamental constitutional right, this is not some arcane argument about raising or lowering taxes.
Let's be clear here..
There neither is, nor ever was, ANY fundamental constitutional right to kill one's unborn baby... There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that even RESEMBLES enumerating such a heinous and immoral "right"..
Any more than there is a fundamental right to kill a no-longer wanted puppy.. People have gone to JAIL for that...
And there is NO doubt that, after 6-15 weeks, it IS a baby we are talking about... How do we know this??
Because SCIENCE says so... And, if Democrats ARE the Party of SCIENCE, as they claim, then they must come to grips with this scientific fact..
Even if the Republicans do win the House, they're going to be vexed with the same problem Pelosi's been dealing with -- a very tight margin. Which is going to elevate each and every little nutso group within the House Republicans to a powerful position, as any group of perhaps 10 or more GOP House members will have leverage over McCarthy and the rest of the party.
As Democrats have proven beyond ANY doubt, a Party doesn't NEED a "wide margin" to do numerous persecutorial investigations for the purposes of settling political scores..
2/20
Liz,
I'm glad that you have finally learned that lesson!
Oh, I learned that lesson after 2016... :D
The lesson has simply been re-enforced in 2022... :D
3/20
Hey, Michale!
It's pretty blustery outside.. We should see the more serious parts in the next 6-8 hours....
Good luck with everything and be sure to check in here when everything calms down...
Oh, I learned that lesson after 2016... :D
Really! It didn't seem that way. :)
John From Censornati
2|4
I'm really weary of the term "election-deniers". They're election liars.
Exactly!
According to Pence's new book, the orange imbecile told Pence, "People are gonna think you’re stupid." The jokes write themselves.
OMG, JFC, this is too funny; I just had to look it up.
Trump told Pence: “You’re too honest,” and “hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts” (according to Pence).
*
"What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?"
They!? Trump -- in premeditated fashion -- knew they were armed and sent them to the Capitol.
“It’s too terrible to end like this.”
Yes, you are terrible.
So, to recap: It's not merely a book; it's a trial exhibit.
Chris Weigant
6
(sorry been on yesterday's threat posting photos and whatnot...)
Yesterday's "threat"!?
BWAH hah hah! Too funny. Your Freudian slip is showing.
Everybody got me laughing this morning.
I will never forget that GQP scum mocked John Fetterman for having a stroke (not to mention the fact that they voted for that orange scum who mocked a disabled reporter) while supporting a snakeoil salesman who pretends to be a doctor on TV.
"The other side has spent over $100 million to knock me down. 5 months ago I had a stroke and it knocked me down, but I got back up." - John Fetterman
Trust me, getting back up after a massive stroke is very difficult. It requires real determination. PA is fortunate to be represented by JF rather than a fraud from Jersey.
I'm amused to see needy irrelevant GQP scum like Salamander Blingrich and Paul "Eddie Munster" Ryan run to the Fox cameras to blame Tuesday's failure on Short Fingers as if they had nothing to do with it. I'm looking forward to watching them humiliate themselves as the death threats roll in.
Orange/Greene 2024. Bring it!
Michale
18
Let's be clear here..
Okay, I can do "clear."
There neither is, nor ever was, ANY fundamental constitutional right to kill one's unborn baby... There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that even RESEMBLES enumerating such a heinous and immoral "right"..
It's always interesting to hear a Second Amendment right-wing gun proponent insist there is no right "to kill" contained in the constitution.
*
Why does one acquire a gun if not "to kill"? To hunt? Is there anything in the constitution that gives you the right to hunt? And anyone who's been in the armed forces of the United States is paid "to kill," and they're not killing a nonviable embryo or fetus, they're killing humans.
While you can certainly argue that you're killing for your country and/or in "self-defense," the fact of the matter is you're generally killing an innocent human also in service to his country in "self-defense."
Any more than there is a fundamental right to kill a no-longer wanted puppy.. People have gone to JAIL for that...
Any more than killing a chicken. People have gone to jail for that... oh, wait. Killing of chickens is okay; killing of puppies is bad... unless it's for science like Dr. Fraud the losing Republican who lives in New Jersey. Cracking a fertilized egg is killing a chicken... oh, wait.
And there is NO doubt that, after 6-15 weeks, it IS a baby we are talking about... How do we know this??
Because people maybe bastardize "science" in order to suit their religious and/or political beliefs?
And, if Democrats ARE the Party of SCIENCE, as they claim, then they must come to grips with this scientific fact..
Maybe people should "come to grips" with scientific facts rather than claiming their political and/or religious beliefs are "facts."
As Democrats have proven beyond ANY doubt, a Party doesn't NEED a "wide margin" to do numerous persecutorial investigations for the purposes of settling political scores..
Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...
It's always interesting to hear a Second Amendment right-wing gun proponent insist there is no right "to kill" contained in the constitution.
And if I had made such an argument that there is no right "to kill" in the US Constitution then you would have an argument..
But I haven't so you don't..
So, these paragraphs can be ignored as they are not relevant to anything I said..
Any more than killing a chicken. People have gone to jail for that... oh, wait. Killing of chickens is okay; killing of puppies is bad... unless it's for science like Dr. Fraud the losing Republican who lives in New Jersey. Cracking a fertilized egg is killing a chicken... oh, wait.
Completely non-sequitur argument bordering on gibberish.. Not relevant to ignored..
Because people maybe bastardize "science" in order to suit their religious and/or political beliefs?
Facts to support?? None?? Of course not.. Moving on..
Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...
Non of those investigations were persecutorial.. In most, GOOD Americans died... That alone is worthy of the investigation..
You are comparing apples and alligators..
4/20
I am simply gabber-flasted that no one has made any 420 jokes.. :D
Michale
27
And if I had made such an argument that there is no right "to kill" in the US Constitution then you would have an argument..
But I haven't so you don't..
You literally just made the argument that there is no right to kill in the United States Constitution, and the fact that you'd narrow that down to an "unborn" human or __________ <--- "fill in blank with whatever stage of human" doesn't change that fact.
So, these paragraphs can be ignored as they are not relevant to anything I said..
How convenient, but since you just literally made the argument that there's no right to kill a human in the United States constitution, albeit a nonviable and/or not fully-formed human, nevertheless still a human.
Completely non-sequitur argument bordering on gibberish.. Not relevant to ignored..
You think killing puppies is a "non-sequitur" argument to killing a puppy
Incorrect. Life is life, and it's a question of religious dogma and/or political beliefs as to which life is valuable and which is not. For instance and political dogma as to which life is valuable and which is not. For instance, people in Vietnam dogma
Because people maybe bastardize "science" in order to suit their religious and/or political beliefs?
Facts to support?? None?? Of course not.. Moving on..
Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...
Non of those investigations were persecutorial.. In most, GOOD Americans died... That alone is worthy of the investigation..
You are comparing apples and alligators..
4/20
I am simply gabber-flasted that no one has made any 420 jokes.. :D
You literally just made the argument that there is no right to kill in the United States Constitution,
Again, not factually accurate..
I made the argument that there is no right to kill one's unborn baby...
Here, let me quote it to you, since you obviously misread it..
There neither is, nor ever was, ANY fundamental constitutional right to kill one's unborn baby...
-Michale
You see?? There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to kill one's unborn baby in the US Constitution...
Would you like to take a stab at the REAL point I made??
Or simply continue to shoot down yer fable strawmen you keep propping up??
As to the rest, you simply repeated my own comment.
Apparently, you are taking what I say to heart, eh Kick?? :D
Glad we are coming together in response to CW's plea... :D
5/20
EDITED, POSTED PREMATURELY
Incorrect. Life is life, and it's a question of religious dogma and/or political beliefs as to which life is valuable and which is not. For instance, in South Korea, there is a dog that is kept as livestock, and millions of dogs are killed in Vietnam every year. In Sweden they make dog jerky, etc.
Facts to support?? None?? Of course not.. Moving on..
You supplied no scientific proof of what you claimed was "scientific fact" so you provide the proof.
Non of those investigations were persecutorial..
*laughs*
In most, GOOD Americans died... That alone is worthy of the investigation..
In the Capitol riots, 140+ police officers were maimed and permanently injured, and good Americans died.
You are comparing apples and alligators..
I am connecting the constitutional dots for you and explaining that one man's claim of murder is another man's paid profession. People who're trained to kill people for a living wage preaching "immorality" shouldn't throw stones.
Hunter Biden's killer laptop.
Discuss.
Michale
29
Again, not factually accurate..
You want to play "splitting hairs" versus connecting the dots.
Would you like to take a stab at the REAL point I made??
Why? When you're missing the point.
The point is that you keep confusing CW's point, and my point was that there is no right to "lots of things too numerous to list" in the United States Constitution and it's an issue of how it's interpreted that establishes a right.
The (former) SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade established that the Constitution contained that right based on interpretation. Thus, it became a Constitutional right via law, no matter yours or any SCOTUS' moral, ethical, or political beliefs or interpretation of it.
A constitutional right that was definitely established was taken away, and there's nothing you can post about morality that will ever change that fact.
Thomas Massie has already declared himself a caucus of one (ala Manchin) should the GQP gain control of the house.
Kick,
Funny how the GQP trolls likes to troll endlessly about words that aren't in the constitution while ignoring words that are there like "well regulated".
It's almost as if they just want to troll.
Kick,
The point is that you keep confusing CW's point, and my point was that there is no right to "lots of things too numerous to list" in the United States Constitution and it's an issue of how it's interpreted that establishes a right.
OK... So, we agree..
It's your "interpretation" and not really a Constitutional Right...
I am glad we agree... :D
JFC,
Funny how the GQP trolls likes to troll endlessly about words that aren't in the constitution while ignoring words that are there like "well regulated".
You are wrong on 2 points of fact..
Fact #1
The "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd is merely prefatory.. It gives ONE (amongst a multitude of) example(s) of WHY the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..
Fact #2
At the time of the writing of the 2nd, "well regulated" had NOTHING to do with rules or regulations, government or otherwise.. At the time of the writing of the 2nd, "well regulated" simply meant "well run", "well organized" or "efficient"..
So, act like an immature moron and call me all the childish names you want.
Still won't change the fact that you are factually NOT ACCURATE...
Which is pretty much par for the course for you.. :D
It's almost as if they just want to troll.
Says the guy who continues to troll... :D
6/20
[22] Kick,
Trump began to protest that “people were angry, but his voice trailed off,” Pence writes, adding that he told Trump that he needed to let it go. “Yeah,” Trump replied quietly.
As they talked, Pence writes, Trump said “with genuine sadness in his voice”: “What if we hadn’t had the rally? What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?” He added, “It’s too terrible to end like this.”
It's safe to say that Florida Man said none of that. He was right when he said that people would think that Pence is stupid because he is. Who would buy this book, much less believe it and who exactly does he think would vote for him for president?
Mikey is a lying, sanctimonious ABDL idiot. He should go home to Mother before the orange death cult kills him, but it'll be more fun if he doesn't.
JFC,
Mikey is a lying, sanctimonious ABDL idiot. He should go home to Mother before the orange death cult kills him, but it'll be more fun if he doesn't.
Chris has an excellent blog going here. Don't you think he deserves better than that?
Yes, these comments sections reflect back onto Chris and his work. Maybe if we all - or, at least, most of us - reflected on THAT for a moment then the comments sections around here would be a better place to be and start to live up to the quality of all of the headlining pieces above them...
John From Censornati
34
Funny how the GQP trolls likes to troll endlessly about words that aren't in the constitution while ignoring words that are there like "well regulated".
Exactly right. It's the interpretation of constitutional language that "constitutes" a right, and there is no magical number of trollvish opinions that it "never existed" that can change the fact that the fundamental right was determined to exist by the SCOTUS in Roe and removed by the SCOTUS in Dobbs.
It's almost as if they just want to troll.
Yes, sir. :)
With the run-off in GA for the Senate seat, I guess we won't be seeing Trump in handcuffs until after December 6. Shame, I was looking forward to the baby Trump balloon in an orange prison jumper being part of the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade this year.
Or maybe Garland doesn't wait until after the run-off to start handing out indictments. Better to do it now before Republicans get too comfortable and can do any more damage to our government.
Here's a what-if?: What if Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer decide not to recognize the new class of Congress until the court determines whether Republicans involved in the January 6 insurrection and those promoting the Big Lie are barred from serving in Congress? It could very well be that the Democrats will easily have the majority in both houses after elections are held in states that lose their Congress members under the 14th Amendment.
We have to assume that Garland will prosecute all involved in attempting to overthrow our government and those who attempted to block Trump from being investigated. Maybe it'll be sooner than later.
Michale
35
OK... So, we agree..
Yawn.
It's your "interpretation" and not really a Constitutional Right...
It was a SCOTUS interpretation in Roe that established the right, and your opinion that it never existed is patently false.
I am glad we agree... :D
Nonserious.
John From Censornati
36
Heh
Don't you think he deserves better than that?
Please be specific about your objection.
Elizabeth Miller
37
Chris has an excellent blog going here. Don't you think he deserves better than that?
Oh *pause* My *pause* God *full stop*
JFC is talking about Mike Pence, and he's entitled to his opinion.
Get over it.
ListenWhenYouHear
39
With the run-off in GA for the Senate seat, I guess we won't be seeing Trump in handcuffs until after December 6.
Heh
Shame, I was looking forward to the baby Trump balloon in an orange prison jumper being part of the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade this year.
Did you see the cover of the New York Post?
https://nypost.com/cover/november-10-2022/
Murdoch has had it (again) with Trump. How long before Trump whines and cries and threatens to take his ratings away until they make up? Lather, rinse, repeat.
Get 'em, Russ! :)
Kick,
It was a SCOTUS interpretation in Roe that established the right, and your opinion that it never existed is patently false.
Emphasis on WAS...
And there were many MANY liberals who opposed the "Constitutional Right" that THAT SCOTUS created out thin air...
That "right" should never have been created because it was never there to begin with..
The current SCOTUS merely put right what once went wrong...
This is the SAM BECKETT SCOTUS... :D
JL,
Speaking of Dr Beckett... Well!!???? :D
Liz,
Chris has an excellent blog going here. Don't you think he deserves better than that?
Maybe if we all - or, at least, most of us - reflected on THAT for a moment then the comments sections around here would be a better place to be and start to live up to the quality of all of the headlining pieces above them...
I am doing my part... :D
I guess JFC is simply doing what he accused me of doing..
Thinking the rules don't apply to him.. :^/
I have seen the light... Hopefully JFC comes around to a new way of thinking...
MC,
Dood!!! Where *ARE* you!!??? Yer getting me worried, buddy...
7/20
Michale
45
Emphasis on WAS...
*
Incorrect. Emphasis on "nor ever was."
You claiming on permanent loop that the fundamental constitutional right never existed is patently false.
And there were many MANY liberals who opposed the "Constitutional Right" that THAT SCOTUS created out thin air...
Their opinions do not change the fact that it existed and neither does yours.
That "right" should never have been created because it was never there to begin with..
Your opinion is superfluous to the fact it existed.
The current SCOTUS merely put right what once went wrong...
So you're saying they removed that right.
Good talk.
You claiming on permanent loop that the fundamental constitutional right never existed is patently false.
Not factually accurate..
I have stated that THAT SCOTUS mistakenly "created" a right that never existed...
Many liberal legal scholars have stated as much..
There was NO RIGHT in the US Constitution for a woman to kill her unborn baby...
It's all a moot point, though..
There is NO right in the US Constitution that allows a woman to kill her unborn baby..
The SCOTUS that CLAIMED there was such a right was wrong...
This is the position of MANY legal Left Wing Scholars and sane and rational Americans everywhere..
So, you continue to defend a right that doesn't exist, that never existed..
Period.. End Trans..
8/20
Period.. End Trans..
having a period would certainly make me want to stop being trans.
JFC,
Please be specific about your objection.
I guess I had you confused with someone else. My bad. You can hardly blame me - it's so hard to keep score around here. :)
Michale
47
Not factually accurate..
Totally factually accurate.
I have stated that THAT SCOTUS mistakenly "created" a right that never existed...
Incorrect. You don't even mention the SCOTUS.
*
You have stated that that right "never existed," and you are incorrect because that right was determined to exist by the SCOTUS.
You have further stated that there is "nothing" in the Constitution that resembles "such a heinous and immoral right," and you are also incorrect there too because the constitutional right to keep and bear arms wasn't included for the purpose of knitting a sweater... it was meant to allow Americans to possess weapons specifically invented for the "immoral" purpose of killing other living things, especially people.
Many liberal legal scholars have stated as much..
Their opinions are as immaterial as yours (or mine).
There was NO RIGHT in the US Constitution for a woman to kill her unborn baby...
SCOTUS determined that fundamental constitutional right to exist with their decision in Roe, and your (or anyone else's) opinion that it never existed does nothing to change the fact that SCOTUS determined it did.
It's all a moot point, though..
I agree your points are moot.
The SCOTUS that CLAIMED there was such a right was wrong...
Your opinion (or anyone else's) of a SCOTUS decision doesn't magically erase the existence of that decision, in the instant discussion, the one determined in Roe.
This is the position of MANY legal Left Wing Scholars and sane and rational Americans everywhere..
I am moved by this newfound repetitive love of yours for Lefties... whose opinions hold as much weight as yours.
So, you continue to defend a right that doesn't exist, that never existed..
Incorrect. When (any) SCOTUS hands down a decision regarding what "constitutes" a fundamental constitutional right under language contained therein, anyone's opinion that disagrees with it means bupkis, and any (other) SCOTUS that hands down a decision claiming otherwise does not somehow magically erase the fact that that right was determined to exist.
If a future SCOTUS were to determine Americans could not keep and bear arms unless they belonged to a "militia," it would not magically erase the fact that a SCOTUS determined otherwise.
JFC [10] -
Excellent point. I heard Moore giving this spiel a few weeks back, but had forgotten. You're right, he's 2-for-2 now, and that's impressive...
-CW
Kick [14] -
OK, that was funny, but isn't it usually called "red tide"... or maybe that's Alabama football? Dunno...
(heh)
-CW
Kick [16] -
ok, now that was funny!
-CW
Michale [18] -
"Original intent"... most places in the US, abortion was completely fine up until "quickening" (the first movements the mother can feel), up until like the mid/late 1800s. So SCOTUS should have respected the law in the founders' time (as they piously insist we all do for everything) and used that as a yardstick. They didn't.
"I ain't quick!"
-Cider House Rules
[semantic note: this is the same usage as has survived in the phrase "the quick and the dead." Quick used to equal "alive"...]
-CW
Kick [23] -
touché
:-)
-CW