One of those signatories of the letter to expel Rep Kinzinger and Cheney from the republican party is L Brent Bozelle III. His son Leo Brent Bozelle IV was one that stormed the capital. He has been charged with disorderly conduct, knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, and obstructing an official proceeding. To me, this is a conflict of interest as the father could also have motivation of interference of the Jan 6 commission which these two serve on. They are not Democrats but Americans holding to their oath of office to the Constitution and not the party.
I have been a republican all my life BUT I NEVER voted for Trump and I won't vote for a republican EVER again in my life. You can't trust them as they have shown.
Mea culpa - i haven't voted for a republican since the tea partiers took over.
I’m not a DSA member here, but the historical MLK would probably have been a fan of BBB, just saying. He understood fundamentally America had (and still has) an issue with the distribution of wealth.
Also, pretty sure MLK would have been for voting right reform. The Electoral Count Act can pass hopefully, but Dems were trying to make it so people can vote in the first place. Mitch McConnell is a snake, and I don’t blame them for not trusting him. Maybe I’m in a bad mood today because I’ve been stuck at home with Covid unable to look for work, but I’m sure McConnell would love nothing more than to see Dems fail and then pull the rug out on the ECA after. I love how everyone thinks post-Trump we can’t remember the backstabbing GOP completely breaking their promises. If I had the money, I’d donate again to primary Sinema.
I vote to NOT normalize political deviancy. Godspeed to Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Denver Riggleman, their Jan 6 commission brethren, and the DOJ / Merrick Garland.
Concerning the signatories of the open letter from among the "conservative mainstream", there is nothing "honorable" about any of them. It's like East Germany calling themselves the German "Democratic" Republic. Saying it doesn't make it so.
I was just going to write in to ask on what basis some of them are even claiming that honorific. It’s one thing for a former US AG or a Member of Congress but what has Ken Cuccinelli done that he could claim that title? He was a political appointee to a non-Cabinet role. Fully agree that none of them deserve the actual adjective of being honorable, as they sign this deplorable letter.
Re: #2 Quick Hits...finally, the state AG here in MI has initiated at least some movement against the 16 Republican asshats who created phony electoral ballots and went to great effort to have them submitted and counted. Having possessed the "evidence" for more than a year and admitting this evidence was ample enough to support state charges that if proven could result in about 2 decades' worth of incarceration, she has instead referred the matter to the U.S. attorney in the western part of the state, saying the Feds were better able to deal with this matter.
That may or may not be true. But a freakin' year plus to even do this? And now how long will it take to get any more movement? Better late than not at all, I suppose. And I could almost understand that amount of time if the state was actually going to bring charges itself. But to spend all that time, admit you've got the goods on the sons of bitches and then punt it to the Feds? Come on.
And Dana better act before the fall. Although Matt DePerno is clearly a poor candidate for AG in "normal" elections, he's a MAGA hero and will probably bring greater than usual attention to the AG contest, especially from MAGA counties like mine. If the D voters stay home out of frustration, Dana's toast and DePerno will quickly flip the investigation to its inverse.
You're not kiddin'. "Normal" elections ended in 2016. Not comin' back anytime soon, if ever. The lines between democracy and fascism of some form or another have been clearly drawn, and the only ones currently available to hold the line on the side of democracy are the D's. Given their apparent priorities and the increasingly short timeline for effective action on this front which those priorities have created, along with what I see as a clear propensity for bringing dull knives to gunfights and playing by norms that no longer exist, makes me pessimistic about outcomes in this area to say the least. Too much can go wrong, too much to lose to have waited this long to pull the trigger on effectively fighting back against the people and forces arrayed against our freedoms. These guys have got my vote by default, and I guess that's a good thing. But they sure as hell ain't "earnin' it".
Sorry about the rant. Always been a nonpartisan and never a single-issue voter...until 2016. This kind of stuff obviously gets my motor runnin'.
All right, in the interest of fairness - and hopefully accuracy - since writing this earlier I've come to learn that apparently getting the Feds involved also gives those guys more needed ammo to go after the conspiracists further up the chain that helped organize a coordinated effort at this in the 6 other states where this BS was promulgated. Also, according to the AG, this action doesn't preclude state charges still being filed. So, in light of that I guess I'll change that "Come on" to "Come on guys! Git'er done!!"
Trump being boring to you is a concern. Keep thinking of him as a joke with no where to go, it paid of big last time you undervalued his following. The large crowds don't seem bored do they.
I won't keep posting this every day, but I'm still wondering, and since we have the Quick Hit on the MLK piece today, it's relevant:
The John Lewis Bill is essentially a restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and is necessary now because a 5-4 conservative SCOTUS essentially threw out the VRA.
So, if the John Lewis bill passes, why will it not also get thrown out by a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS? Are we going to have a bill that's only valid for as long as it takes for the SCOTUS to throw it out, and is the plan to blow up the filibuster to secure that temporary bill?
If anyone can help me understand why the John Lewis Act can pass and not get thrown out, I'd like to hear it. Am I missing something?
It was passed under LBJ and armed at The Jim Crow states and a few other places with systemic voter suppression. As I recall, Kennedy and Roberts said a universal VRA would be legal
So it was passed under LBJ because of the practices of some Southern states, but the law itself applied to all the states, right? If it did, this sounds a lot like the John Lewis Act to me.
Yeah I was mostly familiar with the "Racism doesn't exist anymore so we don't need this law" argument; that was the rationale I had read the conservatives used, and RBG's dissent that just because it isn't raining right now doesn't mean we should get rid of the umbrella.
But as far as the original VRA, under that law, could a state not originally targeted by the law have decided to start practicing some of the suppression tactics banned by the law in the old Jim Crow states, and not be prohibited from using such tactics by the VRA?
I don't think so. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the VRA prohibited racial discrimination in voting everywhere. What was special about targeted states was that the were required to obtain pre-clearance for *any* changes to voting procedures from the federal government before implementing them. They couldn't just enact changes and wait to defend the inevitable lawsuit.
In other words, they had to ask permission; they couldn't opt to ask forgiveness instead.
Right. According to a Justice Department document on the 2013 "Shelby County vs. Heller" decision, "Section 5 was enacted to freeze changes in election practices or procedures in covered jurisdictions until the new procedures have been determined, either after administrative review by the Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to have neither discriminatory purpose or effect." So it sounds like if any monitored jurisdiction had tried to tempt fate and sneak something in without pre-approval, any lawsuit filed in opposition would have elicited an immediate stay against its enforcement until the suit was resolved. So there would have been no point. Other jurisdictions might have been able to get away with putting something into effect and enforcing it until a final judgement was issued.
Fingers crossed! A federal law that applied to states selectively seems nuts to me, but if that's what the VRA was, then I could see why it should have been tossed out.
But only states in the Jim Crow south were preventing Blacks from voting by means of a poll tax, literacy tests and a white primary. Also fraud and intimidation. If the other states had done the same, it would have applied to them. But they didn't.
Watching the devolution of a large portion of this country fall into gold metal level sycophantic gyrations to appease one of the sleaziest men to ever hold elected office (and that is saying something) is truly something.
If history is a teacher, far too may are just not capable of learning. It is damn near impossible to fix stupid….
I know Hillary Clinton got a lot of flak for her deplorable comment, but honestly she was right about trump's most ardent supporters: they really ARE deplorable. Laughing at cancer patients? Despicable.
The reason why that backfired was because these people *pride* themselves in being horrible. In fact, acting as a decent human being is a sure way to get ejected from MAGA.
I was talking with a friend about DeSantis recently and I mentioned that if I absolutely had to choose between DeSantis and Trump for president, I would choose Trump. Why? Because while both have authoritarian instincts, DeSantis is a stuck-up, humorless, crab ass. Trump not only has a sense of humor, he seems to enjoy his life. Also, Trump is lazy and inattentive, and for that reason, is less likely to succeed in destroying the republic. Anyway, if our republic is going to be destroyed, I'd like to at least get some laughs out of it.
Trump supporters are trash.
Andrew Dice Clay is still doing stand up.
One of those signatories of the letter to expel Rep Kinzinger and Cheney from the republican party is L Brent Bozelle III. His son Leo Brent Bozelle IV was one that stormed the capital. He has been charged with disorderly conduct, knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, and obstructing an official proceeding. To me, this is a conflict of interest as the father could also have motivation of interference of the Jan 6 commission which these two serve on. They are not Democrats but Americans holding to their oath of office to the Constitution and not the party.
I have been a republican all my life BUT I NEVER voted for Trump and I won't vote for a republican EVER again in my life. You can't trust them as they have shown.
Mea culpa - i haven't voted for a republican since the tea partiers took over.
Should we focus on MLK’s actions because his words were super in favor of socialism?
https://mlkglobal.org/2017/11/23/martin-luther-king-on-capitalism-in-his-own-words/
I’m not a DSA member here, but the historical MLK would probably have been a fan of BBB, just saying. He understood fundamentally America had (and still has) an issue with the distribution of wealth.
Also, pretty sure MLK would have been for voting right reform. The Electoral Count Act can pass hopefully, but Dems were trying to make it so people can vote in the first place. Mitch McConnell is a snake, and I don’t blame them for not trusting him. Maybe I’m in a bad mood today because I’ve been stuck at home with Covid unable to look for work, but I’m sure McConnell would love nothing more than to see Dems fail and then pull the rug out on the ECA after. I love how everyone thinks post-Trump we can’t remember the backstabbing GOP completely breaking their promises. If I had the money, I’d donate again to primary Sinema.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/588673-democrats-skeptical-of-mcconnells-election-law-offer
i spit in the general direction of all those asshats signing the expulsion letter, and hope it lands on DeMint.
I vote to NOT normalize political deviancy. Godspeed to Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Denver Riggleman, their Jan 6 commission brethren, and the DOJ / Merrick Garland.
Concerning the signatories of the open letter from among the "conservative mainstream", there is nothing "honorable" about any of them. It's like East Germany calling themselves the German "Democratic" Republic. Saying it doesn't make it so.
I was just going to write in to ask on what basis some of them are even claiming that honorific. It’s one thing for a former US AG or a Member of Congress but what has Ken Cuccinelli done that he could claim that title? He was a political appointee to a non-Cabinet role. Fully agree that none of them deserve the actual adjective of being honorable, as they sign this deplorable letter.
I'll take some extra butter on my popcorn Charlie.
Re: #2 Quick Hits...finally, the state AG here in MI has initiated at least some movement against the 16 Republican asshats who created phony electoral ballots and went to great effort to have them submitted and counted. Having possessed the "evidence" for more than a year and admitting this evidence was ample enough to support state charges that if proven could result in about 2 decades' worth of incarceration, she has instead referred the matter to the U.S. attorney in the western part of the state, saying the Feds were better able to deal with this matter.
That may or may not be true. But a freakin' year plus to even do this? And now how long will it take to get any more movement? Better late than not at all, I suppose. And I could almost understand that amount of time if the state was actually going to bring charges itself. But to spend all that time, admit you've got the goods on the sons of bitches and then punt it to the Feds? Come on.
And Dana better act before the fall. Although Matt DePerno is clearly a poor candidate for AG in "normal" elections, he's a MAGA hero and will probably bring greater than usual attention to the AG contest, especially from MAGA counties like mine. If the D voters stay home out of frustration, Dana's toast and DePerno will quickly flip the investigation to its inverse.
You're not kiddin'. "Normal" elections ended in 2016. Not comin' back anytime soon, if ever. The lines between democracy and fascism of some form or another have been clearly drawn, and the only ones currently available to hold the line on the side of democracy are the D's. Given their apparent priorities and the increasingly short timeline for effective action on this front which those priorities have created, along with what I see as a clear propensity for bringing dull knives to gunfights and playing by norms that no longer exist, makes me pessimistic about outcomes in this area to say the least. Too much can go wrong, too much to lose to have waited this long to pull the trigger on effectively fighting back against the people and forces arrayed against our freedoms. These guys have got my vote by default, and I guess that's a good thing. But they sure as hell ain't "earnin' it".
Sorry about the rant. Always been a nonpartisan and never a single-issue voter...until 2016. This kind of stuff obviously gets my motor runnin'.
All right, in the interest of fairness - and hopefully accuracy - since writing this earlier I've come to learn that apparently getting the Feds involved also gives those guys more needed ammo to go after the conspiracists further up the chain that helped organize a coordinated effort at this in the 6 other states where this BS was promulgated. Also, according to the AG, this action doesn't preclude state charges still being filed. So, in light of that I guess I'll change that "Come on" to "Come on guys! Git'er done!!"
There has always been a lot of stupidity in this world. What distinguishes our time is that stupidity has become so aggressive.
Trump being boring to you is a concern. Keep thinking of him as a joke with no where to go, it paid of big last time you undervalued his following. The large crowds don't seem bored do they.
If Matt Schlapp is honorable, then that word must not mean what I think it means
One could truthfully say that referring to Matt Schlapp as honorble is "inconceivable".
If ever there was reason to quote one of the many great lines from "The Princess Bride", the last 5-7 years have provided AMPLE opportunity! 😉
Do you ever wonder if that oleaginous jock sniffer is capable of looking his old boss GWB in the eye?
I won't keep posting this every day, but I'm still wondering, and since we have the Quick Hit on the MLK piece today, it's relevant:
The John Lewis Bill is essentially a restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and is necessary now because a 5-4 conservative SCOTUS essentially threw out the VRA.
So, if the John Lewis bill passes, why will it not also get thrown out by a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS? Are we going to have a bill that's only valid for as long as it takes for the SCOTUS to throw it out, and is the plan to blow up the filibuster to secure that temporary bill?
If anyone can help me understand why the John Lewis Act can pass and not get thrown out, I'd like to hear it. Am I missing something?
The SCOTUS threw out The VRA because it only applied to specific states
So it was a Federal Law that targeted only specific states by name, and if it didn't do that it wouldn't have been thrown out?
It was passed under LBJ and armed at The Jim Crow states and a few other places with systemic voter suppression. As I recall, Kennedy and Roberts said a universal VRA would be legal
They did. Roberts said Congress could undo the SCOTUS opinion by revising the VRA but that it was Congress' job, not SCOTUS.
So it was passed under LBJ because of the practices of some Southern states, but the law itself applied to all the states, right? If it did, this sounds a lot like the John Lewis Act to me.
Yeah I was mostly familiar with the "Racism doesn't exist anymore so we don't need this law" argument; that was the rationale I had read the conservatives used, and RBG's dissent that just because it isn't raining right now doesn't mean we should get rid of the umbrella.
But as far as the original VRA, under that law, could a state not originally targeted by the law have decided to start practicing some of the suppression tactics banned by the law in the old Jim Crow states, and not be prohibited from using such tactics by the VRA?
I don't think so. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the VRA prohibited racial discrimination in voting everywhere. What was special about targeted states was that the were required to obtain pre-clearance for *any* changes to voting procedures from the federal government before implementing them. They couldn't just enact changes and wait to defend the inevitable lawsuit.
In other words, they had to ask permission; they couldn't opt to ask forgiveness instead.
OK, so certain states needed the pre-clearance, and others did not? I remember talk of pre-clearance.
Right. According to a Justice Department document on the 2013 "Shelby County vs. Heller" decision, "Section 5 was enacted to freeze changes in election practices or procedures in covered jurisdictions until the new procedures have been determined, either after administrative review by the Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to have neither discriminatory purpose or effect." So it sounds like if any monitored jurisdiction had tried to tempt fate and sneak something in without pre-approval, any lawsuit filed in opposition would have elicited an immediate stay against its enforcement until the suit was resolved. So there would have been no point. Other jurisdictions might have been able to get away with putting something into effect and enforcing it until a final judgement was issued.
Don't mean to correct you but, it's Shelby County v Holder. Heller is the individual right to a gun decision. Maybe you mistyped?
Thanks a lot, that makes perfect sense. I appreciate it.
Fingers crossed! A federal law that applied to states selectively seems nuts to me, but if that's what the VRA was, then I could see why it should have been tossed out.
But only states in the Jim Crow south were preventing Blacks from voting by means of a poll tax, literacy tests and a white primary. Also fraud and intimidation. If the other states had done the same, it would have applied to them. But they didn't.
Watching the devolution of a large portion of this country fall into gold metal level sycophantic gyrations to appease one of the sleaziest men to ever hold elected office (and that is saying something) is truly something.
If history is a teacher, far too may are just not capable of learning. It is damn near impossible to fix stupid….
I know Hillary Clinton got a lot of flak for her deplorable comment, but honestly she was right about trump's most ardent supporters: they really ARE deplorable. Laughing at cancer patients? Despicable.
The reason why that backfired was because these people *pride* themselves in being horrible. In fact, acting as a decent human being is a sure way to get ejected from MAGA.
The deplorables thing with Clinton is what happens when you tell people the truth about themselves. They usually do not appreciate it much.
Because, the evidence is in, and these people ARE deplorable... worse than deplorable, actually.
It’s basically saying I’m okay openly murdering cancer patients. Ethan Schmidt is sick AF. He is essentially what the GOP is. Chaos.
She should have doubled down on that and explained why supporting Trump was deplorable
Quite a missed opportunity, born, I believe, of what turned out to be a very mistakenly held overconfidence.
Those proud to be ignorant are worse than the merely ignorant. And those proud to be deplorable are worse than the merely deplorable.
I was talking with a friend about DeSantis recently and I mentioned that if I absolutely had to choose between DeSantis and Trump for president, I would choose Trump. Why? Because while both have authoritarian instincts, DeSantis is a stuck-up, humorless, crab ass. Trump not only has a sense of humor, he seems to enjoy his life. Also, Trump is lazy and inattentive, and for that reason, is less likely to succeed in destroying the republic. Anyway, if our republic is going to be destroyed, I'd like to at least get some laughs out of it.
Really? that is sick.
DeSantis is a bigger danger because he's capable and will let everyone take a deep breath and let him act without the daily focus of his policies.