There is a way to change the Constitution. Unfortunately for Mango Mussolini and the MAGA Scotus, it involves 2/3rds votes in both the House and Senate and passage by 2/3 of the states and commonwealths. Another way is via a Constitutional convention--another tortuous process,
Back in the reality of change, Homan the Enforcer has promised to make Chicago 'ground zero' (how these swaggering creeps love images of violence) for deportations. That should worry anyone.
One way for the new administration to proceed would be to start with those states and communities where they have support. And not pick fights on the first day. Not sure that is something they’d consider.
The Supreme Court could simply declare that the 14'th amendment only applies to children of former slaves. They've already done it to other parts of the constitution that they deemed not in line with "tradition" or some other nonsense excuse. Then we'd need the impossible amendment process just to re-institute birthright citizenship for all.
"Intention" over literal reading of the words? I suppose anything is possible with these judicial hacks, but it seems as unlikely as unqualified loony Kennedy being HHS secretary ... oh, wait a moment ...
You are correct, Joanie (ConLaw 1!). 2/3 of House and Senate, 3/4 of state legislatures. There is no way on Dog's green earth that 3/4 of state legislatures will agree on ANYTHING.
I respectfully disagree. One of the goals suggested by Karl Rove in 2010, was that the GQP needed to focus on gaining control of state executive and legislative branches. If 37 states are totally under GQP control, then they can call for a convention of states with the intent of "revising" the Constitution.
As of January 2024, 28 states are controlled by the GQP.
He showed his stripes on so many occasions long before entering politics — just ask all the contractors he stiffed after they completed the work he ordered.
I wouldn't say it's about screwing the little guy. It's about ignoring them. Think about it. We swat house flies. If we get them, we pick them up and throw them in the trash. If they fly away and leave us alone, we ignore them. The MAGAs are a cultural phenomenon. They have never realized a thing from him other than promises to make things great for them. In return they exhibit a level of adoration usually reserved for music, movie, or athletic heroes. Trump glorifies in the adoration. Why should he actually work for it when it is gladly given to him free of charge? David has explained to us that it's due to liberal policies and ideas. Liberal changes exploded during the Vietnam era. That's sixty years ago. Why didn't we see a Trump sooner? I don't think we have ever seen a person that goes to the lengths he does to have people adore him. We have had politicians that tried to cement their power in immoral and unethical ways. Trump takes it to a different level. Remember in the novel "The Godfather" where Tom Hagen explains that Don Corleone never told anyone to do anything? He just made it known what he wanted and people tried to please him? Trump says things that many think in the privacy of their own homes and wish would happen. How many conservatives have secret desires about returning women and minorities to second class status? Wouldn't it scare the heck out of the rest of the world and make us so powerful if we nuked everyone we don't like? The environment? Who cares- the Lord put it there for us to enrich ourselves! That's what makes Trump different. He is fulfilling secret desires. The fact that he can't legally do something or that it isn't practical is irrelevant as long as people love him for it.
Good morning Laurence - I do not believe the Trump phenomena can be explained or understood solely with bifurcation along a conservative-liberal continuum, although Trump's policy positions do generally fall solidly on the conservative side. There is also a huge element of populism to his appeal, as opposed to establishment elitism.
Despite the pronouncements of others posting, there is indeed a strong perception that Trump is the champion of the ordinary person and will challenge entrenched establishment interests. I don't know how else you explain how he won middle class working voters by a huge margin (and interestingly, Harris won a majority of wealthy voters), and Trump also won the young 18-29 voters who are notoriously anti-establishment.
This is a phenomenon that also appears to be occurring across Europe with the rise of conservative populist leaders like Meloni in Italy. Perhaps a common denominator is resentment over the influx of millions of people who enter countries illegally and drain resources and benefits that would otherwise be available to citizens of those countries.
And I would be remiss if I did not also challenge a statement you made in your post this morning. I know a very large number of people who are conservative, and I honestly do not know a single person who has any interest or desire in relegating women or minorities to a lesser status. I'm not saying that those people do not exist, but I believe they are very fringe and small in number, and certainly not reflective of conservatives overall.
I reject the premise that "conservative" and "MAGA" have any consonance. Conservatives may prefer lower taxes while still wanting smooth highways.. That contradiction is very old.
MAGA folks belong to a cult that ignores evidence and facts in preference to lies, cruelty, misogyny, racism, and a fairy tale imagination of just what society will result from the Orange Menace's threats. They do not connect "immigrants" with the millions of people who make our country work. As in, for example, meat packing plants, dairy farms, construction workers, produce harvesters include many workers that the Orange Menace is targeting for mass deportation. Hope all those MAGA voters learn how to pick tomatoes 8 hours a day.
Hi K - Conservatives want limited government and efficient delivery of necessary services such as defense and infrastructure. I moved to an area where my property taxes are 25% of what they were in Evanston for a comparably valued residence, sales tax is 50% less, and gas taxes are less than half of what they are there. And public corruption is very rare here.
And guess what? The roads and infrastructure are in excellent condition and meticulously maintained, and local government services are efficiently delivered by friendly, knowledgeable people who are very happy to help you with very little if any delays or waiting. I really do not mind paying my taxes here as government is very efficient and user friendly. That's what conservatives, and I would think, everyone would want.
Beyond that, your post contains a great deal of generalization and branding of people, so there's not much room for reasoned discussion there. But I wish you a good day.
Hi Rick - Nope, we are not in Louisiana. Which coincidentally is an animoly red state among the bright blue states (Illinois, California, New York) that have experienced the largest population loss in recent years.
We live in one of the states that has gained population recently led by Florida, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Idaho, Georgia and Tennessee. (Florida is now ranked #1 nationally now in education)
We enjoy a high level of services that are efficiently delivered at a very reasonable level of taxation. People vote with their feet!
May remind you of several points I have made in this forum a number of times. There is a big difference between conservatives and MAGAs. There is an even bigger difference between conservatives and Trump. Conservatism is nothing new. It's been around since George Washington. There were conservatives long before Trump became a television reality star. I have contended all along that conservatives could have done what they wanted without Trump. Trump added a whole new dimension. He appealed to the lowest most base desires of the fringe of conservatives. Look at the size of the mob that attacked the Capitol. Did they represent millions of conservatives? I highly doubt it. Your posts lately have made it sound like any attacks on Trump are attacks on conservatives. That is far from the truth. Do you also remember that I have in the past said that conservatives are not wrong 100% of the time and liberals are not 100% right all of the time? I repeat- this is not about conservatives. This is about a subsection called MAGAs. The ones that believe in white superiority. The ones that believe in Christian nationalism. The ones that want to take away the rights of those that think, identify, and read differently. I also seem to remember you saying that you were an avowed conservative that wasn't a big Trump fan. Change your mind?
Laurence - Thank you for your further thoughts on this. But I cannot agree with your bifurcation of people into two mutually exclusive camps of conservative and MAGA.
I'm conservative, and although I would much have preferred Nikki Haley as the GOP candidate I voted for Trump, am delighted that he defeated Harris and won, and fully support the great majority of his policy positions. Does that make me MAGA?
Conversely, I have close family and friends who are very enthusiastic about Trump and proudly consider themselves MAGA, but I can give you absolute assurance that these are people with good hearts who are not racist or otherwise haters (one is black and one is gay).
So I do not believe you can very cleanly place conservatives in a camp of respectability while branding MAGA as racist haters.
Prior to the election I saw Trump as the most beatable GOP candidate, and believed that he narrowed the base by people who were simply too turned off to him personally to ever vote for him even if they agreed with most of his policies. I thought someone like Nikki Haley would greatly expand the universe of people who would consider voting GOP without losing Trump supporters.
But the election results seem to have at least partially proven me wrong, in that it is apparent that Trump has brought in voters that other candidates would not have. I'm not sure that I see the huge majority of working-class voters flocking to another GOP candidate as they did Trump, and I was amazed to see that Trump outperformed a number of mainstream Republican Senate candidates in a number of states. The inescapable conclusion is that there are indeed a lot of people who voted for Trump because he is Trump.
I still decry the drama, hyperbole and intemperate comments that regularly come from Trump. But I was heartened in his network interview this past weekend when he explicitly stated that he was not looking to extract revenge but wanted to focus on the future and move the country forward. But buckle your seat belt, because the next 4 years are not going to be dull! (And, you and I will continue trying to make sense of all of this from our differing perspectives.)
Hi Garry - When Democrats repeatedly insult and show disdain for people who do not support them - ex Biden referring to Trump supporters as trash, Hillary calling them deplorables, saying that young voters are uninformed, etc., it simply drives more people over to the other side. I hope they continue to do so!
You're kidding, right? I've given up talking to any folks on the right, and I am civil, because of the insults I've received, libtard being the least of them. After pointing out that guns are the number one cause of death for children, I was told to take a long walk off a short pier. We'll, at least he didn't threaten to shoot me, and I am a good swimmer.
Hi Lynne - I'm sorry to hear of the uncivil discourse and negativity you have received. Unfortunately, I receive the same from people on the left who feel the need to brand and condemn me for my views which differ from theirs. This is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum and we must all try to preserve civility and reason in our discourse. Otherwise, it simply becomes ongoing partisan warfare which does not benefit our country. And that is why I will not respond when people come at me in that manner.
I disagree with most of this. Some of what you said jives perfectly with what I said. I said he says he will fulfill their desires. It doesn't mean he has any intention of doing it. He has already backtracked on abortion. He said he would talk to Democrats about Dreamers. You're also making it base too heavily on one issue. I'm not saying immigration is not important. But poll after poll shows it is not at the top of the list. By the way, I also know lots of conservatives. Some of them are people I see and often work with. Conversations with them is how I came up with some of my views. One is a high school football official. He absolutely raged at me for an hour one time about female football refs. He doesn't particularly like minority officials, either. I agree with you that Trump portrays himself as the champion of ordinary people. But it's all words. What has he actually done for them? He brags a lot about things he hasn't done. I don't consider loosening business regulations or consumer protections for little people. Dumping environmental protections doesn't help little people. Railing at foreign enemies or threatening our allies does nothing for little people. I take back none of what I said. A lot of it is based on his first term and people I know personally. I would never base my adoration or admiration of any politicians based on empty promises or pronouncements. And in Trump's case, much of what he has promised is downright scary. Executive action to stop birthright citizenship? That's a Chinese communist type move. The Constitution covers how to change the Constitution and says nothing about executive action. The Constitution was designed in such as a way as to prevent one man rule. I have news for you- King George III is dead. I'm not looking forward to King Donald I. Oh, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the difference between what is happening in Europe and what is happening here.. We have the same fear in this country of Muslim immigration as in Europe. But it pales as an issue compared with immigration from south of the border. Latinos are not vying for most of the jobs that whites desire. Latinos are not attempting to employ their own society or systems of justice, such as Sharia law. Yes, there is a problem with some violent Latino gangs. But most is not taking place where you and I live and it is not nearly the problem Trump and his cronies make it. It is a political issue and you know it. Since when has the far right ever cared what happened in the inner cities before they could make it a political issue? Suppose they could actually get rid of gangs like M14? Does that solve the problems of inner cities or do they go back to being ignored? So don't try and make MAGAs sound noble. Their primary concerns are being in charge and telling people how to live. I apologize to the rest of the forum for the length of my angry screed. But these were things that needed to be said in response.
I agree the Trump did little for the "little guy," but he did cut taxes. In the larger scheme of things, the rich realized massive savings on taxes and normal people got an extra thousand or so. (And government coffers fell short by trillions.) Also, in the early stage of COVID Trump sent checks to every home in America with his name on them. Those are two genuine, concrete things "the little guy" experienced from Trump. And then there is selective or filtered memory. Remember how gas was less than $2 / gallon under Trump? It was. It just so happened to have resulted from a global economic collapse, but that part disappears from memory and Less Than $2 !! remains. Trump also spoke up for the little guy. He complained loudly and persistently about how they got the shaft. By imposing tariffs and tearing up treaties he appeared to be helping them. Again, these are a mixed bag in their consequences, but they were symbolic gestures that appealed to the little guy. And whining about immigrants also played music to the ears of people who believed immigrants were responsible for their unemployment or depressed wages. When Trump brayed about immigration, many of us heard a tune full of racist dog whistles, but some believed Trump told it like it is ("invasion," "vermin," "rapists"). Many believed that in addressing immigration, Trump was helping them. Trump certainly protected white privilege. Add that to the list. And then there is the bizarre belief among Evangelicals that they are a persecuted minority. Again, Trump performed for them. And, not that it was really for the little guy, but it was the deep desire of a minority faction, Trump delivered three Supreme Court justices. And more recently, Trump whined incessantly about inflation. I won't pretend to be a fan of inflation, but there is a suite of mitigating circumstances that Trump and his minions simply glide by (and all critics of Biden). Nevertheless, Trump was the mouthpiece for all those for whom inflation was a real hardship. That was a real service to the little guy. (Trump's promised policies will aggravate inflation, but that will pass unnoticed.) At the end of the day, however, what has Trump actually done to improve the lives of the little people? That is a great question. Democrats raise minimum wage. Democrats provide health care. Democrats provide consumer protections. Democrats improve infrastructure. Democrats provide a social safety net. Trump?
David - as usual, you offer a measured and thoughtful reply - often to an aggressive and unthoughtful post.
i'm curious as to your claim that '... Trump's policy positions do generally fall solidly on the conservative side.' how are you defining 'conservative'? certainly this isn't Rockefeller conservative, Reagan conservative or Friedman conservative. it's not even Bush I or Bush II conservative.
trump has redefined conservative to suit his own needs and flatter his own ego. is The Lincoln Project not conservative? is liz cheney not conservative? they're certainly not conservative in a turmpian sense.
trump's policies, such that he has any, are a mish mash of historical conservative [limit immigration], traditional liberal [protect income transfers] and authoritarian [list too long for this post].
i'd say you're correct in your analysis of the new-found trump voters - he won ~14M more votes in '24 than he did in '16 - and the global trends. but i'd say you're otherwise mistaking trumpism for conservatism.
PS - i recommend the book 'Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative', if you haven't read it already.
Hi Bob - Thanks for your thoughts. I readily agree that some of Trump's positions are distinctly not out of the conservative playbook such as the threatened tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada. However, my perception is that he is using the threat of tariffs as a means to get cooperation on border security from Mexico and Canada, and there are already signs This is having a positive effect. With regard to China, I believe the tarriffs relate to unfair trade practices and also a desire by Trump to return manufacturing back to our own country.
With regard to NATO, I believe Trump's primary objection is that the European nations have skimped on their own defense spending out of a reliance on the US to come to their rescue. That is a very legitimate concern for Trump to address, and Putin's aggression has been a wake-up call for Europe to bolster their military readiness.
But otherwise I believe Trump is solidly on the Reagan side of conservativeism with an emphasis on smaller government, lowering taxes, reducing regulation, stimulating domestic energy production, support for law enforcement, etc. And of course, he is a strong advocate against DEI, identity politics and the other forms of cultural leftism. So overall, Trump's policies fall strongly within traditional conservative positions.
When Trump first ran for president in 2016, many of us were very skeptical of his real positions from his past identification as a Democrat. However, his first term did indeed follow a conservative agenda, and every indication at this point is that his second term will follow suit. And even those cases where Trump's policies are not totally conservative, they are still much, much more conservative than the far left policies under Biden and what we would have seen under a Harris administration.
I wish you a very happy Christmas and holiday season!
Your comments on birthright citizenship reminded me that my great grandparents who were born and raised in Latvia were always considered Jewish, never Latvian. It’s why I often would say my nationality is Jewish, confusing people who think of it only as a religion. We weren’t considered Latvian then, we’re not Latvian now.
Regarding Biden not lying about pardoning Hunter, but changing his mind; this just will make the electorate less likely to take someone at their word because they might ‘change their mind’.
As it is, many people voted for Orangeman with the justification that he might not do what he said.
the 'it's not lying, it's changing his mind' mantra is is just political-speak. it's like bill clinton word-dancing his way around sexual peccadillos w- monica lewinsky and others. it's all moral relativism. and those who buy it shd acknowledge that they also buy 'the end justifies the means'.
Eric, you say that Trump dpesn't have to worry about running for re-election. My fear is that he'll find a way to stay in power and that there will be no more elections.
I'm hearing Trump's lawyers are planning to argue he can run in 2028 because he hasn't served consecutive terms. Sounds crazy but if it goes to the supreme court it could be uh-oh time. Nothing they do surprises me anymore.
i only wish, GSC. at the beginning of his 1st term i predicted he wldn't last 2 yrs [hey, i'm as smart as the pollsters!]. i figured he'd get tired of the job - he hadn't figured on winning anyway.
now i cd definitely see him trying to pull an end-around on the constitution twd the [technical] end of trump 2.0 - he and his sleazy MAGAts.
every time the Lyin' King does or says some crazy sh*t, i am reminded of a quote from a news program during turmp 1.0: Everything he does is shocking, but not surprising.
I think the Constitution is clear about a lot of things, e.g., weapons for militias, corporations have no claim to personhood, no establishment of religion, executives do not have immunity, and yet here we are. If he is not senile in four years, I believe Trump's minions absolutely will forward a laughably specious claim that he can run again, and it will be mocked all the way up the judicial chain, and then Alito and Thomas will perform alchemy. (Perhaps the duo will first get to practice their dark arts on birth-citizenship.) I don't doubt the clarity of the Constitution. But I no longer believe that is the question that matters.
I think that's overstated. If that were true, Trump would have been president for the past four years. He advanced lots of b.s. claims that he really won last time, and they were laughed out of court, including by Trump appointees, including by the Supreme Court. There really are limits.
The consecutive term idea doesn't work for Trump. Nobody who has been elected twice, either consecutively or Clevelandly, may be elected to another term, period.
But there is a possible way. Trump would run not for president but for vice-president, on a ticket with someone who has, let's say, agreed to immediately resign upon taking office, elevating Trump to president. My plain-language view is that this is not technically barred. The language of the 22nd Amendment indicates that nobody may be *elected* to a third term as president. It doesn't say that nobody may *serve* a third term as president. In this scenario, Trump will not have been elected to a third term as president. He will have been elected vice-president, and there's nothing that says he can't be.
There would be an argument that this is such an obvious end-run, especially if we suspect a deal or it's done openly, that we should read the 22nd Amendment a bit more expansively to implicitly bar such a deal.
In any case, I doubt Trump would be interested in doing this -- he'll be quite old at that point -- or that the voters or the putative dummy candidate would be interested in going along. After all, once the dummy is elected, that person really is president and can't be forced out except by impeachment and removal, and no agreement to resign would be legally enforceable.
If he does do it, I hope Obama runs as vice-president on the opposite ticket.
i'm no constitutional scholar, but your scenario sounds plausible - out of the characterization 'everything trump says says/does is shocking, but not surprising.'
don't write off the possibility of some lackey's willingness to stand for Pres, trump as VP candidate, with the unspoken or spoken agmt that he'd step down in favor of trump after inauguration. heck, trump might get donnie or eric to agree to the scheme.
Sort of Putin and Medvedev. It seems more likely that he would try the family dynasty approach and tee up one of his kids. I would like to say that would be an easy ticket to defeat, but my hopes for the Democrats are currently at a low ebb.
Yep, it would be akin to the Putin/Medvedev dance, where the constitution is something to be got around with a clever switcheroo and a shit-eating grin.
I remember Fred Campeau singing "The Cat Came Back" at the Barbarossa in 19umpity-ump. We were regulars because a friend of a close friend was taking guitar lessons from Fred. The lesson taker became the father of Justin Vernon of BonIver.
I loved the "As per my previous tablet" one. When you go to the Oriental Institute, you see lots of examples of ancient writing from the world's first civilizations in the Middle East that are similarly mundane, like receipts and so on. That's because recording trading transactions was probably the first purpose of writing and why it was developed.
I once looked up who was the earliest human being known by his name. It turned out to be not a king or a warrior, but an accountant from Mesopotamia named Kushim, around 3400-3000 BC, who signed his name on some orders of barley.
I just finished a book on the early Iron Age, and I'm sure I won't remember anything except that one of Nebechadnazzar's charioteers was named Shitti Marduk.
I am curious about what the “under the jurisdiction of the United States” clause was intended to convey. Just excluding foreign armies? Certainly if an immigrant was NOT under such jurisdiction, you’d think it would be hard to deport said immigrant.
Diplomats on US soil have diplomatic immunity and are therefore not under the jurisdiction of the United States. They can murder someone in front of people, on TV even, and not be charged in the US unless their country revokes their diplomatic immunity. They can be expelled from the US but that is the extent of the action the US can take against a diplomat.
Anybody who commits a crime in the US (other than someone with diplomatic immunity) is subject to arrest and trial (citizens, resident aliens, tourists, people with and without visas, people on a stop over at an airport, etc.) and thus under the jurusdiction of the US.
One thing that sticks in the craw of many observers is that birth tourism is legal. It needn't be. It could be restricted without abandoning birthright citizenship. I don't see birthright citizenship going anywhere, and I don't see the Supreme Court making a big change based on that "jurisdiction" language.
There's no way I can see to thread that needle without a WHOLE LOT of targeting of pregnant women on pretty shaky premises. And honestly, 20 thousand babies who MIGHT someday come back is not a scary number. And if The Orange Menace has his way for the next 4 years, the incentive for them to come back will surely diminish.
Three of the visual tweets were great, but the cleverness of “Delicious breakfast with herbs” is completely cancelled out by the atrocious, brain damage caliber grammar of the text. Maybe I’m a trifle petty, but that kind of thing just makes my skin crawl.
If Trump wants to significantly close down our borders, I can live with that, but deporting massive amounts of people raises significant concerns. 1. The complications of rounding all these people up, which involves determining exactly who is to be deported. 2. Where will they be sent? It seems likely many of them, including children and their mothers, will end up in refugee-like camps under deplorable conditions. 3. The significant financial cost of doing all this.
He has promised to use the military for his ethnic cleansing by invoking one emergency power or another. The ugliness of it all is beyond my imagination.
I will venture a guess that Trump’s actual deportation program will be very minimal, owing, if nothing else, to the immense economic impact that mass deportations would likely engender (even if this doesn’t occur to Trump himself, I would expect that he would have an advisor or two with enough sense to caution him about it).
It is also completely unnecessary for Trump to undertake a mass deportation, given the permanent state of transactional fantasy that exists between him and his followers. He could actually not deport a single person, but proclaim day in and day out that hundreds of thousands were being sent packing daily, and his supporters would simply believe him.
He still believes that foreign countries pay the tariffs. I don't think he will ever realize the impact his plan would have if it were to be implemented.
i think your expectation of 'very minimal' deportation is overly optimistic.
but i agree in principle, not much will happen. and if his agents [whoever they may be] round up a bunch of illegals/undocumenteds who have criminal records - especially for serious crimes - and deport them, he'll get a hero's reaction - then maybe take the credit and call it a day.
who knows? he lies about everything - so anything can happen.
Regarding defining "lies" as knowingly misstating facts. Please revisit CNN fact checkers regarding Mr. Trump's "lies" during the debate. Example "Everybody says we had the best economy ever" was rated as a lie. Do you reasonably doubt that Mr. Trump believed his term had the best economy ever? If you go back and look that scores of "lies" are gone.
Yes, it seems quite possible that he is ignorant of the facts, and is incorrect (and, thus not telling a lie, per se). That said, a high degree of ignorance is a bad trait for a president.
" But no link was ever established between an official act by Biden and payments to his son." Mr Biden is famously crowing on tape during an interview on how he withheld billions from Ukraine (before the war) until they fired his son's prosecutor in Ukraine. Right?
No. The US government withheld funding for Ukraine because they would not fire a corrupt official. When they did, the government restored funding and the official who replaced the corrupt individual looked into, inter alia, Burisma. No-one should get their talking points from Fox, not even optometrists.
Facts. Youtube. "Joe Biden brags about withholding funds until prosecutor is fired." It's a live taping from Forbes. Or..... you don't believe you're lying eyes. Good lord. It is on tape. Not out of context.
There is a way to change the Constitution. Unfortunately for Mango Mussolini and the MAGA Scotus, it involves 2/3rds votes in both the House and Senate and passage by 2/3 of the states and commonwealths. Another way is via a Constitutional convention--another tortuous process,
Back in the reality of change, Homan the Enforcer has promised to make Chicago 'ground zero' (how these swaggering creeps love images of violence) for deportations. That should worry anyone.
One way for the new administration to proceed would be to start with those states and communities where they have support. And not pick fights on the first day. Not sure that is something they’d consider.
The Supreme Court could simply declare that the 14'th amendment only applies to children of former slaves. They've already done it to other parts of the constitution that they deemed not in line with "tradition" or some other nonsense excuse. Then we'd need the impossible amendment process just to re-institute birthright citizenship for all.
"Intention" over literal reading of the words? I suppose anything is possible with these judicial hacks, but it seems as unlikely as unqualified loony Kennedy being HHS secretary ... oh, wait a moment ...
I think 3/4 of the states need to ratify a proposed amendment in order for the proposed amendment to become part of the constitution.
You are correct, Joanie (ConLaw 1!). 2/3 of House and Senate, 3/4 of state legislatures. There is no way on Dog's green earth that 3/4 of state legislatures will agree on ANYTHING.
I respectfully disagree. One of the goals suggested by Karl Rove in 2010, was that the GQP needed to focus on gaining control of state executive and legislative branches. If 37 states are totally under GQP control, then they can call for a convention of states with the intent of "revising" the Constitution.
As of January 2024, 28 states are controlled by the GQP.
Jay Gerak wrote: "If Donald Trump truly wanted to be "for the little guy"
The fat orange traitor has never been for the "little guy", he's for & always been in favor of, screwing the little guy!
He showed his stripes on so many occasions long before entering politics — just ask all the contractors he stiffed after they completed the work he ordered.
I heard a quote attributed to a football player that could apply to Orangeman. “I’m concerned with only two things; me, and my money”
I wouldn't say it's about screwing the little guy. It's about ignoring them. Think about it. We swat house flies. If we get them, we pick them up and throw them in the trash. If they fly away and leave us alone, we ignore them. The MAGAs are a cultural phenomenon. They have never realized a thing from him other than promises to make things great for them. In return they exhibit a level of adoration usually reserved for music, movie, or athletic heroes. Trump glorifies in the adoration. Why should he actually work for it when it is gladly given to him free of charge? David has explained to us that it's due to liberal policies and ideas. Liberal changes exploded during the Vietnam era. That's sixty years ago. Why didn't we see a Trump sooner? I don't think we have ever seen a person that goes to the lengths he does to have people adore him. We have had politicians that tried to cement their power in immoral and unethical ways. Trump takes it to a different level. Remember in the novel "The Godfather" where Tom Hagen explains that Don Corleone never told anyone to do anything? He just made it known what he wanted and people tried to please him? Trump says things that many think in the privacy of their own homes and wish would happen. How many conservatives have secret desires about returning women and minorities to second class status? Wouldn't it scare the heck out of the rest of the world and make us so powerful if we nuked everyone we don't like? The environment? Who cares- the Lord put it there for us to enrich ourselves! That's what makes Trump different. He is fulfilling secret desires. The fact that he can't legally do something or that it isn't practical is irrelevant as long as people love him for it.
See John Houk's comment above. He's always screwing the little guy!
Good morning Laurence - I do not believe the Trump phenomena can be explained or understood solely with bifurcation along a conservative-liberal continuum, although Trump's policy positions do generally fall solidly on the conservative side. There is also a huge element of populism to his appeal, as opposed to establishment elitism.
Despite the pronouncements of others posting, there is indeed a strong perception that Trump is the champion of the ordinary person and will challenge entrenched establishment interests. I don't know how else you explain how he won middle class working voters by a huge margin (and interestingly, Harris won a majority of wealthy voters), and Trump also won the young 18-29 voters who are notoriously anti-establishment.
This is a phenomenon that also appears to be occurring across Europe with the rise of conservative populist leaders like Meloni in Italy. Perhaps a common denominator is resentment over the influx of millions of people who enter countries illegally and drain resources and benefits that would otherwise be available to citizens of those countries.
And I would be remiss if I did not also challenge a statement you made in your post this morning. I know a very large number of people who are conservative, and I honestly do not know a single person who has any interest or desire in relegating women or minorities to a lesser status. I'm not saying that those people do not exist, but I believe they are very fringe and small in number, and certainly not reflective of conservatives overall.
I wish you greetings of the season!
I reject the premise that "conservative" and "MAGA" have any consonance. Conservatives may prefer lower taxes while still wanting smooth highways.. That contradiction is very old.
MAGA folks belong to a cult that ignores evidence and facts in preference to lies, cruelty, misogyny, racism, and a fairy tale imagination of just what society will result from the Orange Menace's threats. They do not connect "immigrants" with the millions of people who make our country work. As in, for example, meat packing plants, dairy farms, construction workers, produce harvesters include many workers that the Orange Menace is targeting for mass deportation. Hope all those MAGA voters learn how to pick tomatoes 8 hours a day.
Hi K - Conservatives want limited government and efficient delivery of necessary services such as defense and infrastructure. I moved to an area where my property taxes are 25% of what they were in Evanston for a comparably valued residence, sales tax is 50% less, and gas taxes are less than half of what they are there. And public corruption is very rare here.
And guess what? The roads and infrastructure are in excellent condition and meticulously maintained, and local government services are efficiently delivered by friendly, knowledgeable people who are very happy to help you with very little if any delays or waiting. I really do not mind paying my taxes here as government is very efficient and user friendly. That's what conservatives, and I would think, everyone would want.
Beyond that, your post contains a great deal of generalization and branding of people, so there's not much room for reasoned discussion there. But I wish you a good day.
Louisiana? Dead last or next to last in multiple categories, including education and public health services. Stay well, please.
Hi Rick - Nope, we are not in Louisiana. Which coincidentally is an animoly red state among the bright blue states (Illinois, California, New York) that have experienced the largest population loss in recent years.
We live in one of the states that has gained population recently led by Florida, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Idaho, Georgia and Tennessee. (Florida is now ranked #1 nationally now in education)
We enjoy a high level of services that are efficiently delivered at a very reasonable level of taxation. People vote with their feet!
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/12484.jpeg
May remind you of several points I have made in this forum a number of times. There is a big difference between conservatives and MAGAs. There is an even bigger difference between conservatives and Trump. Conservatism is nothing new. It's been around since George Washington. There were conservatives long before Trump became a television reality star. I have contended all along that conservatives could have done what they wanted without Trump. Trump added a whole new dimension. He appealed to the lowest most base desires of the fringe of conservatives. Look at the size of the mob that attacked the Capitol. Did they represent millions of conservatives? I highly doubt it. Your posts lately have made it sound like any attacks on Trump are attacks on conservatives. That is far from the truth. Do you also remember that I have in the past said that conservatives are not wrong 100% of the time and liberals are not 100% right all of the time? I repeat- this is not about conservatives. This is about a subsection called MAGAs. The ones that believe in white superiority. The ones that believe in Christian nationalism. The ones that want to take away the rights of those that think, identify, and read differently. I also seem to remember you saying that you were an avowed conservative that wasn't a big Trump fan. Change your mind?
Laurence - Thank you for your further thoughts on this. But I cannot agree with your bifurcation of people into two mutually exclusive camps of conservative and MAGA.
I'm conservative, and although I would much have preferred Nikki Haley as the GOP candidate I voted for Trump, am delighted that he defeated Harris and won, and fully support the great majority of his policy positions. Does that make me MAGA?
Conversely, I have close family and friends who are very enthusiastic about Trump and proudly consider themselves MAGA, but I can give you absolute assurance that these are people with good hearts who are not racist or otherwise haters (one is black and one is gay).
So I do not believe you can very cleanly place conservatives in a camp of respectability while branding MAGA as racist haters.
Prior to the election I saw Trump as the most beatable GOP candidate, and believed that he narrowed the base by people who were simply too turned off to him personally to ever vote for him even if they agreed with most of his policies. I thought someone like Nikki Haley would greatly expand the universe of people who would consider voting GOP without losing Trump supporters.
But the election results seem to have at least partially proven me wrong, in that it is apparent that Trump has brought in voters that other candidates would not have. I'm not sure that I see the huge majority of working-class voters flocking to another GOP candidate as they did Trump, and I was amazed to see that Trump outperformed a number of mainstream Republican Senate candidates in a number of states. The inescapable conclusion is that there are indeed a lot of people who voted for Trump because he is Trump.
I still decry the drama, hyperbole and intemperate comments that regularly come from Trump. But I was heartened in his network interview this past weekend when he explicitly stated that he was not looking to extract revenge but wanted to focus on the future and move the country forward. But buckle your seat belt, because the next 4 years are not going to be dull! (And, you and I will continue trying to make sense of all of this from our differing perspectives.)
Happy holiday season!
He won over so many middle class voters because they're uneducated morons. Remember, he loves the poorly educated!
Hi Garry - When Democrats repeatedly insult and show disdain for people who do not support them - ex Biden referring to Trump supporters as trash, Hillary calling them deplorables, saying that young voters are uninformed, etc., it simply drives more people over to the other side. I hope they continue to do so!
Hillary was totally correct when she called them "deplorables"
You're kidding, right? I've given up talking to any folks on the right, and I am civil, because of the insults I've received, libtard being the least of them. After pointing out that guns are the number one cause of death for children, I was told to take a long walk off a short pier. We'll, at least he didn't threaten to shoot me, and I am a good swimmer.
Hi Lynne - I'm sorry to hear of the uncivil discourse and negativity you have received. Unfortunately, I receive the same from people on the left who feel the need to brand and condemn me for my views which differ from theirs. This is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum and we must all try to preserve civility and reason in our discourse. Otherwise, it simply becomes ongoing partisan warfare which does not benefit our country. And that is why I will not respond when people come at me in that manner.
I disagree with most of this. Some of what you said jives perfectly with what I said. I said he says he will fulfill their desires. It doesn't mean he has any intention of doing it. He has already backtracked on abortion. He said he would talk to Democrats about Dreamers. You're also making it base too heavily on one issue. I'm not saying immigration is not important. But poll after poll shows it is not at the top of the list. By the way, I also know lots of conservatives. Some of them are people I see and often work with. Conversations with them is how I came up with some of my views. One is a high school football official. He absolutely raged at me for an hour one time about female football refs. He doesn't particularly like minority officials, either. I agree with you that Trump portrays himself as the champion of ordinary people. But it's all words. What has he actually done for them? He brags a lot about things he hasn't done. I don't consider loosening business regulations or consumer protections for little people. Dumping environmental protections doesn't help little people. Railing at foreign enemies or threatening our allies does nothing for little people. I take back none of what I said. A lot of it is based on his first term and people I know personally. I would never base my adoration or admiration of any politicians based on empty promises or pronouncements. And in Trump's case, much of what he has promised is downright scary. Executive action to stop birthright citizenship? That's a Chinese communist type move. The Constitution covers how to change the Constitution and says nothing about executive action. The Constitution was designed in such as a way as to prevent one man rule. I have news for you- King George III is dead. I'm not looking forward to King Donald I. Oh, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about the difference between what is happening in Europe and what is happening here.. We have the same fear in this country of Muslim immigration as in Europe. But it pales as an issue compared with immigration from south of the border. Latinos are not vying for most of the jobs that whites desire. Latinos are not attempting to employ their own society or systems of justice, such as Sharia law. Yes, there is a problem with some violent Latino gangs. But most is not taking place where you and I live and it is not nearly the problem Trump and his cronies make it. It is a political issue and you know it. Since when has the far right ever cared what happened in the inner cities before they could make it a political issue? Suppose they could actually get rid of gangs like M14? Does that solve the problems of inner cities or do they go back to being ignored? So don't try and make MAGAs sound noble. Their primary concerns are being in charge and telling people how to live. I apologize to the rest of the forum for the length of my angry screed. But these were things that needed to be said in response.
I agree the Trump did little for the "little guy," but he did cut taxes. In the larger scheme of things, the rich realized massive savings on taxes and normal people got an extra thousand or so. (And government coffers fell short by trillions.) Also, in the early stage of COVID Trump sent checks to every home in America with his name on them. Those are two genuine, concrete things "the little guy" experienced from Trump. And then there is selective or filtered memory. Remember how gas was less than $2 / gallon under Trump? It was. It just so happened to have resulted from a global economic collapse, but that part disappears from memory and Less Than $2 !! remains. Trump also spoke up for the little guy. He complained loudly and persistently about how they got the shaft. By imposing tariffs and tearing up treaties he appeared to be helping them. Again, these are a mixed bag in their consequences, but they were symbolic gestures that appealed to the little guy. And whining about immigrants also played music to the ears of people who believed immigrants were responsible for their unemployment or depressed wages. When Trump brayed about immigration, many of us heard a tune full of racist dog whistles, but some believed Trump told it like it is ("invasion," "vermin," "rapists"). Many believed that in addressing immigration, Trump was helping them. Trump certainly protected white privilege. Add that to the list. And then there is the bizarre belief among Evangelicals that they are a persecuted minority. Again, Trump performed for them. And, not that it was really for the little guy, but it was the deep desire of a minority faction, Trump delivered three Supreme Court justices. And more recently, Trump whined incessantly about inflation. I won't pretend to be a fan of inflation, but there is a suite of mitigating circumstances that Trump and his minions simply glide by (and all critics of Biden). Nevertheless, Trump was the mouthpiece for all those for whom inflation was a real hardship. That was a real service to the little guy. (Trump's promised policies will aggravate inflation, but that will pass unnoticed.) At the end of the day, however, what has Trump actually done to improve the lives of the little people? That is a great question. Democrats raise minimum wage. Democrats provide health care. Democrats provide consumer protections. Democrats improve infrastructure. Democrats provide a social safety net. Trump?
David - as usual, you offer a measured and thoughtful reply - often to an aggressive and unthoughtful post.
i'm curious as to your claim that '... Trump's policy positions do generally fall solidly on the conservative side.' how are you defining 'conservative'? certainly this isn't Rockefeller conservative, Reagan conservative or Friedman conservative. it's not even Bush I or Bush II conservative.
trump has redefined conservative to suit his own needs and flatter his own ego. is The Lincoln Project not conservative? is liz cheney not conservative? they're certainly not conservative in a turmpian sense.
trump's policies, such that he has any, are a mish mash of historical conservative [limit immigration], traditional liberal [protect income transfers] and authoritarian [list too long for this post].
i'd say you're correct in your analysis of the new-found trump voters - he won ~14M more votes in '24 than he did in '16 - and the global trends. but i'd say you're otherwise mistaking trumpism for conservatism.
PS - i recommend the book 'Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative', if you haven't read it already.
Hi Bob - Thanks for your thoughts. I readily agree that some of Trump's positions are distinctly not out of the conservative playbook such as the threatened tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada. However, my perception is that he is using the threat of tariffs as a means to get cooperation on border security from Mexico and Canada, and there are already signs This is having a positive effect. With regard to China, I believe the tarriffs relate to unfair trade practices and also a desire by Trump to return manufacturing back to our own country.
With regard to NATO, I believe Trump's primary objection is that the European nations have skimped on their own defense spending out of a reliance on the US to come to their rescue. That is a very legitimate concern for Trump to address, and Putin's aggression has been a wake-up call for Europe to bolster their military readiness.
But otherwise I believe Trump is solidly on the Reagan side of conservativeism with an emphasis on smaller government, lowering taxes, reducing regulation, stimulating domestic energy production, support for law enforcement, etc. And of course, he is a strong advocate against DEI, identity politics and the other forms of cultural leftism. So overall, Trump's policies fall strongly within traditional conservative positions.
When Trump first ran for president in 2016, many of us were very skeptical of his real positions from his past identification as a Democrat. However, his first term did indeed follow a conservative agenda, and every indication at this point is that his second term will follow suit. And even those cases where Trump's policies are not totally conservative, they are still much, much more conservative than the far left policies under Biden and what we would have seen under a Harris administration.
I wish you a very happy Christmas and holiday season!
Your comments on birthright citizenship reminded me that my great grandparents who were born and raised in Latvia were always considered Jewish, never Latvian. It’s why I often would say my nationality is Jewish, confusing people who think of it only as a religion. We weren’t considered Latvian then, we’re not Latvian now.
Regarding Biden not lying about pardoning Hunter, but changing his mind; this just will make the electorate less likely to take someone at their word because they might ‘change their mind’.
As it is, many people voted for Orangeman with the justification that he might not do what he said.
the 'it's not lying, it's changing his mind' mantra is is just political-speak. it's like bill clinton word-dancing his way around sexual peccadillos w- monica lewinsky and others. it's all moral relativism. and those who buy it shd acknowledge that they also buy 'the end justifies the means'.
Quote of the day from Ken Carl:
*It’s entertaining how people will adapt to or accept questionable behavior for those whose politics they favor*
🤙🤙🤙
That's the New York Times in a nutshell.
Best bunch of visual tweets I’ve seen in a while. I liked them all and could have voted for a few.
Ditto. I also observe that at 9am Tuesday, I am the 190th vote. A lotta PSers are getting up mighty early in the morning.
Kia, Nokia really tickled my little brain this morning.
Eric, you say that Trump dpesn't have to worry about running for re-election. My fear is that he'll find a way to stay in power and that there will be no more elections.
I'm hearing Trump's lawyers are planning to argue he can run in 2028 because he hasn't served consecutive terms. Sounds crazy but if it goes to the supreme court it could be uh-oh time. Nothing they do surprises me anymore.
He'll be so demented by then, he'll be a drooling mess in a nursing hime!
i only wish, GSC. at the beginning of his 1st term i predicted he wldn't last 2 yrs [hey, i'm as smart as the pollsters!]. i figured he'd get tired of the job - he hadn't figured on winning anyway.
now i cd definitely see him trying to pull an end-around on the constitution twd the [technical] end of trump 2.0 - he and his sleazy MAGAts.
every time the Lyin' King does or says some crazy sh*t, i am reminded of a quote from a news program during turmp 1.0: Everything he does is shocking, but not surprising.
Where do you hear this? The Constitution is pretty clear about twice.
I think the Constitution is clear about a lot of things, e.g., weapons for militias, corporations have no claim to personhood, no establishment of religion, executives do not have immunity, and yet here we are. If he is not senile in four years, I believe Trump's minions absolutely will forward a laughably specious claim that he can run again, and it will be mocked all the way up the judicial chain, and then Alito and Thomas will perform alchemy. (Perhaps the duo will first get to practice their dark arts on birth-citizenship.) I don't doubt the clarity of the Constitution. But I no longer believe that is the question that matters.
I think that's overstated. If that were true, Trump would have been president for the past four years. He advanced lots of b.s. claims that he really won last time, and they were laughed out of court, including by Trump appointees, including by the Supreme Court. There really are limits.
Yeah, except Alito and Thomas are probably planning their retirements so Trump can lock up their seats for another 40+ years.
The consecutive term idea doesn't work for Trump. Nobody who has been elected twice, either consecutively or Clevelandly, may be elected to another term, period.
But there is a possible way. Trump would run not for president but for vice-president, on a ticket with someone who has, let's say, agreed to immediately resign upon taking office, elevating Trump to president. My plain-language view is that this is not technically barred. The language of the 22nd Amendment indicates that nobody may be *elected* to a third term as president. It doesn't say that nobody may *serve* a third term as president. In this scenario, Trump will not have been elected to a third term as president. He will have been elected vice-president, and there's nothing that says he can't be.
There would be an argument that this is such an obvious end-run, especially if we suspect a deal or it's done openly, that we should read the 22nd Amendment a bit more expansively to implicitly bar such a deal.
In any case, I doubt Trump would be interested in doing this -- he'll be quite old at that point -- or that the voters or the putative dummy candidate would be interested in going along. After all, once the dummy is elected, that person really is president and can't be forced out except by impeachment and removal, and no agreement to resign would be legally enforceable.
If he does do it, I hope Obama runs as vice-president on the opposite ticket.
i'm no constitutional scholar, but your scenario sounds plausible - out of the characterization 'everything trump says says/does is shocking, but not surprising.'
don't write off the possibility of some lackey's willingness to stand for Pres, trump as VP candidate, with the unspoken or spoken agmt that he'd step down in favor of trump after inauguration. heck, trump might get donnie or eric to agree to the scheme.
Sort of Putin and Medvedev. It seems more likely that he would try the family dynasty approach and tee up one of his kids. I would like to say that would be an easy ticket to defeat, but my hopes for the Democrats are currently at a low ebb.
Yep, it would be akin to the Putin/Medvedev dance, where the constitution is something to be got around with a clever switcheroo and a shit-eating grin.
I remember Fred Campeau singing "The Cat Came Back" at the Barbarossa in 19umpity-ump. We were regulars because a friend of a close friend was taking guitar lessons from Fred. The lesson taker became the father of Justin Vernon of BonIver.
I loved the "As per my previous tablet" one. When you go to the Oriental Institute, you see lots of examples of ancient writing from the world's first civilizations in the Middle East that are similarly mundane, like receipts and so on. That's because recording trading transactions was probably the first purpose of writing and why it was developed.
I once looked up who was the earliest human being known by his name. It turned out to be not a king or a warrior, but an accountant from Mesopotamia named Kushim, around 3400-3000 BC, who signed his name on some orders of barley.
I just finished a book on the early Iron Age, and I'm sure I won't remember anything except that one of Nebechadnazzar's charioteers was named Shitti Marduk.
😅
I am curious about what the “under the jurisdiction of the United States” clause was intended to convey. Just excluding foreign armies? Certainly if an immigrant was NOT under such jurisdiction, you’d think it would be hard to deport said immigrant.
Diplomats on US soil have diplomatic immunity and are therefore not under the jurisdiction of the United States. They can murder someone in front of people, on TV even, and not be charged in the US unless their country revokes their diplomatic immunity. They can be expelled from the US but that is the extent of the action the US can take against a diplomat.
Anybody who commits a crime in the US (other than someone with diplomatic immunity) is subject to arrest and trial (citizens, resident aliens, tourists, people with and without visas, people on a stop over at an airport, etc.) and thus under the jurusdiction of the US.
One thing that sticks in the craw of many observers is that birth tourism is legal. It needn't be. It could be restricted without abandoning birthright citizenship. I don't see birthright citizenship going anywhere, and I don't see the Supreme Court making a big change based on that "jurisdiction" language.
There's no way I can see to thread that needle without a WHOLE LOT of targeting of pregnant women on pretty shaky premises. And honestly, 20 thousand babies who MIGHT someday come back is not a scary number. And if The Orange Menace has his way for the next 4 years, the incentive for them to come back will surely diminish.
Three of the visual tweets were great, but the cleverness of “Delicious breakfast with herbs” is completely cancelled out by the atrocious, brain damage caliber grammar of the text. Maybe I’m a trifle petty, but that kind of thing just makes my skin crawl.
If Trump wants to significantly close down our borders, I can live with that, but deporting massive amounts of people raises significant concerns. 1. The complications of rounding all these people up, which involves determining exactly who is to be deported. 2. Where will they be sent? It seems likely many of them, including children and their mothers, will end up in refugee-like camps under deplorable conditions. 3. The significant financial cost of doing all this.
3. Republicans in Congress gave Trump billions for his failed wall, so I'm sure they'll fund this as well.
2. Texas is offering Trump public lands for "detention facilities".
1. This is what scares me. Will he use the military to round up everyone he considers to be an illegal immigrant?
He has promised to use the military for his ethnic cleansing by invoking one emergency power or another. The ugliness of it all is beyond my imagination.
I will venture a guess that Trump’s actual deportation program will be very minimal, owing, if nothing else, to the immense economic impact that mass deportations would likely engender (even if this doesn’t occur to Trump himself, I would expect that he would have an advisor or two with enough sense to caution him about it).
It is also completely unnecessary for Trump to undertake a mass deportation, given the permanent state of transactional fantasy that exists between him and his followers. He could actually not deport a single person, but proclaim day in and day out that hundreds of thousands were being sent packing daily, and his supporters would simply believe him.
True. Trump is good at claiming things that never happened. However, will his advisors be afraid to question him?
I hope you're right.
He still believes that foreign countries pay the tariffs. I don't think he will ever realize the impact his plan would have if it were to be implemented.
i think your expectation of 'very minimal' deportation is overly optimistic.
but i agree in principle, not much will happen. and if his agents [whoever they may be] round up a bunch of illegals/undocumenteds who have criminal records - especially for serious crimes - and deport them, he'll get a hero's reaction - then maybe take the credit and call it a day.
who knows? he lies about everything - so anything can happen.
Regarding defining "lies" as knowingly misstating facts. Please revisit CNN fact checkers regarding Mr. Trump's "lies" during the debate. Example "Everybody says we had the best economy ever" was rated as a lie. Do you reasonably doubt that Mr. Trump believed his term had the best economy ever? If you go back and look that scores of "lies" are gone.
Yes, it seems quite possible that he is ignorant of the facts, and is incorrect (and, thus not telling a lie, per se). That said, a high degree of ignorance is a bad trait for a president.
" But no link was ever established between an official act by Biden and payments to his son." Mr Biden is famously crowing on tape during an interview on how he withheld billions from Ukraine (before the war) until they fired his son's prosecutor in Ukraine. Right?
No. The US government withheld funding for Ukraine because they would not fire a corrupt official. When they did, the government restored funding and the official who replaced the corrupt individual looked into, inter alia, Burisma. No-one should get their talking points from Fox, not even optometrists.
Thanks for the FACTS!!
Facts. Youtube. "Joe Biden brags about withholding funds until prosecutor is fired." It's a live taping from Forbes. Or..... you don't believe you're lying eyes. Good lord. It is on tape. Not out of context.