This week's crop of visual jokes has persuaded me to reverse my opinion, shared here more than once, that words should be a minor element, if present at all in this category. But these were mainly at least good, some were tremendous, and words were key. I finally get it: Visual jokes need to contain visual elements (photos, design, art, etc.) that help make the joke work. That's enough, at least for me. Visual elements don't need to do most or all of the heavy lifting.
Interesting there is such debate of the meaning of the word "mandate", as it pertains to elections. I had thought that mandate was measured based the margin of victory in the popular vote. While it is undeniable that the electorate has expressed its preference for Trump over the alternatives available on election day and therefore Trump is mandated to be the President, it is useful to make a distinction between an ordinary win and a win with a mandate. For those who see a Trump mandate, I ask what is the definition of a win with a mandate? Is it different than a win without a mandate? Is there an objective definition that does not depend on how some people feel?
Trump crowed about a mandate when he lost the overall vote by 3 million plus. The other day he told the Joe and Mika grovel party that he had run a flawless campaign and that no candidate had ever worked harder (remember the nearly 40 minutes of wordless wobbling at one of his rallies?). Birds fly, fish swim, Trump lies, his posse applauds.
I think the meaning of "mandate" is only relevant in the mind of the elected official. "Elections have consequences" was another popular phrase for both parties along with variations of 'new sheriff'. When the elected politician believes the vote demonstrated definitive public support for a platform, or philosophy, or specific program, then they feel free to try implementation. Their assessment may be correct or incorrect. A politician or party believing that they have a mandate has frequently led to overreach and electoral defeat. The more they believe that they are 'in charge' the less likely they are to be circumspect or compromising.
Activists, lobbyists, pundits, and media utilize the word to the extent that they see it useful for their immediate interests, which include influencing the politicians and the public.
We are stuck with filtering the noise and seeking objective information on the actual content and impact of planned and actual government action. It might be useful for more voters to send messages to their elected officials to express their positions, especially when they want to say "I voted for you, but also for Y and not for X'.
Good points. So at this point it is "rah, rah" bs. Which is normal. A white house thinking long term strategy for itself and its party would be wise to think critically about whether or not it really has a mandate for big changes.
The last President that really had a mandate, IMO, was Reagan. Big changes were made which increased his popularity and got Republicans in for a third term.
Obama's ACA bill was big, but not nearly as big as changes in the 80's, and his political capital was spent after that.
Andrew Bloody Sullivan. I am sick of his know-it-all right wing musings. The tosh you reprinted is so typical of him. "Look at me! I'm a right-wing gay Never Trumper. I got my same-sex weddings, so the hell with trans people. How courageous I am!"
But what did he say that was wrong, exactly? I find his evidence that trans issues played a role in the election compelling. Eric's polls are further evidence. Where does he suggest, "the hell with trans people"?
Eric is of course right that Harris did not "run on" trans issues or other cultural issues other than abortion, but who is saying that she did? Indeed, she avoided the topic. But that meant that she had no response to being relentlessly demagogued on it. For some time now, Democrats have allowed themselves to appear well out of step with median voters on cultural issues, costing them support even among key groups in their coalition.
I saw a report from CNN yesterday about the actual margin of victory continuing to shrink for Trump as the mail-in and provisional ballots continue to be tallied, even though the election was called two weeks ago. It reminds me that rules in many places prevent election officials from even counting mail-in ballots until the polls have closed, which doesn’t make much sense to me. (I can understand waiting to count provisional ballots since there tend to be far fewer of them and they have less chance of making any difference in the result.) Ironically, because of the time it takes for those ballots to actually arrive, mail-in ballots are some of the earliest votes cast, yet end up not being counted until the very end.
The delay in counting mail-in ballots allowed Trump in 2020 to argue he went to bed leading only to have the election stolen in the middle of the night. It was highly suspicious if you didn’t know what was actually happening.
Mail-in ballots in IL cannot be counted until after election day because mail-in voters have the option to vote in person on election day. Many bring their mail ballots to be "spoiled" and then vote in person, but often people do not - some never received their mail ballot, most just "forgot" or "lost it." Those people are allowed to vote in person and then if/when the counters log in their mail ballots, the system tells the counters that the person voted in person and their mail ballot is discarded. If we started counting mail ballots prior to election day, we could have people voting twice if they then showed up on election day as well. To start counting before election day, we would have to turn away anyone at the polls who requested a mail ballot but is not returning it (in reality, no one is turned away, they would vote provisional and the provisional ballot wouldn't be counted until it is confirmed that their mail ballot never arrived to be counted).
Your last sentence shows there is a procedure that could allow for counting mail-in ballots as they come in. The count could even be kept separate and then scrubbed for duplicated votes before being added to the totals, but would get the somewhat arduous task of counting those ballots out of the way earlier in the process.
Once the votes are counted, there is no erasing or deleting them. When the mail ballot is deemed valid based on the name and signature on the envelope (yes, the signature is compared to the signature on file) and the postmark, the ballot is removed from the envelope to be scanned and has no connection to the voter anymore (secret ballot and all). You wouldn't know which votes to delete. To have everyone who requested a mail ballot vote provisional is a major PITA. It's a lot more work at the polling station, a lot more work for the county after the election, and would slow counting rather than speed it up. Provisional ballots don't go through the scanner on election day. Regular ballots, whether marked on paper or printed from voting machines, are fed through the scanner by the voter and are tabulated by the scanner all day (not accessible until the polls are closed, however). Provisional ballots go in an envelope with the voters name and reason they are voting provisionally. The envelope is sealed and is not opened unless and until the reason for provisional status is cleared. In this scenario, the provisional ballot would not be counted unless and until it is determined that either the mail ballot was not received (so not until all mail ballots are processed) or the mail ballot was received and when the worker logged it in found that the voter voted in person provisionally. Then the worker has to locate the provisional ballot, spoil the mail ballot without ever opening the envelope, and then open the provisional envelope and scan that ballot. That provisional ballot is probably not going to be counted for at least one week and probably two weeks after the election. Not faster.
That all sounds logical, and I understand now why this is how it's done. But it also seems to provide a benefit to mail-in voters not given to anyone else -- the chance to show up and change their vote after it's received. Even if I am the first in line on the first day of early voting, once I submit my ballot I can't come back later and change it. Why not have an automated message sent to the voter that their mail-in ballot was received on X and they have until Y to challenge the validity of that ballot before it gets counted? That would at least allow a head-start on counting them...
I see in today’s Trib that the conservative Judicial Watch is reviving a lawsuit to stop Illinois from counting mail-in ballots for two weeks after the election, which only adds fuel to the argument that we need to figure this out now and not wait until they succeed at disenfranchising mail-in voters.
Am I the only one completely confused by the Pew research graph? 85 percent of Democrats FAVOR requiring trans athletes to compete on team that matches their sex? While only 37 percent of Republicans do? Isn't that what the graph as written says. It would seem like the entire graph was meant to say that these percentages oppose except for the first one involving protection of rights.
The blue and red colors of the data points indicate the Dem and Rep responses, respectively. The positions of the colors sometimes shift between questions, which is a bit unusual for charts of this type. 37% of Dems think trans athletes should stick with their birth sex, while 85% of Reps think they should, for 58% overall.
I have been a reader of the Tribune for a long time, long before my first personal communication with Eric. I contacted the Tribune a number of times to get Kass off of page two and moved back to the editorial pages. His columns were unbelievably one-sided and usually downright mean. With all respect to David, the man exhibited little character and I would have not have mourned his removal. Those defending him are ignoring facts for their own political biases. Alden Capitol made cuts. That happens in most corporate takeovers. Those that left are fortunate they got buyouts. They could have simply be let go. It wasn’t a charitable act by Alden. It avoided lawsuits and a potential public backlash. It takes a lot of gall for Kass to carp about being pushed out. He could have stayed and waited for Alden to dump him. So why anyone would come here to bash Eric for Kass is inane. Frankly I am tired of hearing the name Kass. He’s gone and not missed by me. Eric could give us an early holiday gift by banning the use of his name.
My problem with Trump being elected has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative policies. Trump being elected is going to lead to the end of our democratic system. Trump wants to be the absolute dictator and it looks like he will achieve that.
I agree. In the Trib today. “Trump’s administration would declare a national emergency and will use military assets to address illegal immigration through a mass deportation program.” I’m sure there are plenty of folks out there ready to report all of the illegals they know of. And the military just waiting to storm in and round them up.
I think there is a lot more made of the supposed right-wing tilt to the military than is actually there. Many, especially in the lower ranks, are impressionable young men and women more than they are full-on ideologues. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I would hope there are enough level-headed leaders willing to challenge the legality of using the military in such a way.
Getting away with using the military on US soil to round up immigrants will make it easier to justify using them to round up dissidents as well. The members of his party need to unequivocally state this is not an option.
I add my name to the agreed. There is no national emergency. And while troops are running around chasing and guarding illegals, what happens if there is need for them elsewhere? Gee, that couldn’t possibly happen in such a peaceful world! Not in Eastern Europe. Not in the Middle East. Not in the Pacific. It reminds me of the early days of World War II when troops badly needed elsewhere were rounding up and guarding legitimate citizens that had committed no crimes other than being of Japanese heritage- something we didn’t do to Germans or Italians.
Amy, Trump could go after the low hanging fruit. Just park ICE by California fields and pick off a quick 2 or 3 thousand folks.
Of course the crops do not get picked. The farmers get angry and grocery prices are likely to increase.
I think he finds a few “criminals”, and deports them. He then declares the border way safer and secure. Trump America breathes a sigh of relief and that may end it..
Mass deportations could have a big blowback to Trump, so I think he will take baby steps before going big time. But that will not stop him from promising all kinds of big projects…think he will finish the wall?
There is something here baffling me. Why are we making such a fuss over the word mandate? It’s like arguing over whether or not the Bears had a moral victory on Sunday over the Packers. No, they lost. There are no moral victories in the standings. Trump win. We know it. Mandate sounds like he won 100 per cent of the vote. He didn’t. Nearly have the country didn’t vote for him. But it doesn’t matter. He won. Does the Constitution give him extra powers because he had a mandate? Did Biden or any other president get extra powers because they had a mandate? Let’s move on.
The argument I suppose is that winning by a wide margin means that a greater proportion of the populace support the President/party's policies — so that there should be less resistance? In the past that might mean left-center and right-center legislators getting on board the mandate-winning team's agenda (after all, it was VERY popular!). When things are close, (non-mandate) these center folks might be more cautious to ensure they get reelected in their district.
This certainly wasn't a mandate. And with today's politics, it doesnt matter as MAGA will claim a mandate and will move full-steam ahead on their agenda as if 100% of people supported it.
Good points. For example, polls show consistently that a majority is in favor of abortion rights. MAGAs don’t care because they have God on their side. Conservatives are constantly telling us what Founding Fathers meant. They usually get it wrong. This is is 2024, not 1790. The one thing all the Founding Fathers have is that they are all dead and we can no longer ask them. The most objectionable thing to me is that whatever the margin of victory, MAGAs act as if anyone not with them no longer has a voice and their opinions don’t count. Is that what they mean by unity?
I agree. It's a mandate, it's not a mandate. Who the fuck cares. I hate the fat orange piece of crap with the heat of a thousand suns, but he won. Now, just like the dummies who voted for Mayor Brandon, those who voted for Orangie got the leader they wanted. And they, like all of us will suffer with the difference being his voters asked for it. Good for them, who care not one bit about anyone but themselves.
Wow, tell us what you really think 🤔. What does it tell us about American voters and their intelligence? Trump was going to improve things for everyone the first time. I'm still waiting for the great new medical plan. He threw away consumer protections. There isn't hardly a major bank that hasn't been caught screwing the public. Okay, the Republicans didn't want Harris. There are no conservative Republicans with some moral character? Actually Chicago voters aren't any smarter. They didn't know what they were getting, a community organizer with strong union ties with almost no real business or financially experience. He also isn't much of a politician. Are voters that taken in by spotty promises without doing any research or are political promises flights of whimsical fantasy about what voters hope to get. Of course, many Trump voters got exactly what they wanted. The needs of needy people? Who cares, it's their own fault because of their life choices. The environment? Who cares, the Lord put it there for us to exploit and get rich. Gun control? Most MAGAs don't live where most of the shootings are, so who cares? Besides, we need to shoot back with military grade weapons. And if I go deer hunting, I need a good assault weapon. Foreign affairs? No problem, just nuke anyone that doesn't do things our way. And anyone that doesn't believe they were born either a man or woman and refuses to act that way, let them perish. It's not what I believe, so just let them go away. Don't kid yourself. It's not just about Trump lies. He's got plenty of support. As I have said on many occasions, I live in Trump land. I personally know people that fully support him. Unless I live in an isolated part of America, he's got plenty of support. I see a dark future.
If I take Joannie Wimmer’s comments as sincere and not a troll, those sentiments will do more for GOP, MAGA than anything FOX, talk radio and Trumposhere could ever hope to accomplish.
The Trumpers throw the word mandate around because they feel it justifies any and everything they plan for this country going forward. You, the voters, want this!!
"Some of those taxes are avoidable — bring your own shopping bags; ditch the streaming services"
Yes, how dare low-income people try to enjoy their time off with a movie or show of their choosing. OTA TV oughta be enough for them.
Sarcasm aside, it was such a lame money grab to institute an Entertainment Tax on Streaming Services. Streaming services are nortorious for starting out inexpensive and then the price goes up after the introductory period is over (see Cable, Satellite TV business models).
SO even if the tax doesn't raise -- spoiler alert, it most certainly will, the cost increases astronomically over time.
1. "...Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change." I think that was part of the issue. Harris listened and heard people say that the day to day economy was hitting them hard. Her response was "I understand" but the economy is doing well and I will make changes - which didn't resonate with many people. (Maybe she should have spent an hour in a McDonald's dishing out fries) David if that is how you characterize your own party - imagine what their opponents believe. 2. If you are clutching your pearl necklace - you really are out of touch. 3. Eric question: Trumps victory rejecting Democrats or rejecting the status quo? No politician has been so extreme in negative attributes as Trump. He sticks out like a sore thumb. Nothing for the past few decades have helped many - so let's go way out of bounds and see if that will work.
All of the comments in the PS seemed focused on mandates, but I think other issues were ignored and should be discussed.
1. Polls and polling were a disaster. Depending on the writer’s bias, a poll could be found to support their prediction. Since there are no universal guidelines nor full disclosure of how they are conducted, you got a lot of garbage disguised as “ facts”. Polls need to be revisited as something you can rely on.
2. No mention of Trump’s age, mental condition or medical status. This seems to me to be an elephant in the room and yet no discussion. I think his “ weave” displays his diminishing mental capacity. Will he finish his 4 year term?
3. I think a deep dive into women who voted for greater access in abortion referendums yet voted for Trump. They seem to be saying that women need to have greater freedom in reproductive health, but voted for the guy who denied it. Makes no sense to me, but there must be an explanation.
4. A further analysis of people who voted for Trump, in reviewing his policies they seemed to separate policies he will do from policies he says he will do.
For example, Trump has said he will use the military to clear out certain groups, yet some Trumpers say no I do not think he will do that. How do they decide what he will do from what he says he will do?
5. Last point, do we need a major review of our election system? The Republicans had already declared the election as stolen, invalid, with a potential need to fight against the results.
Then they won and all that went away. Are they the party of liars, scammers and hate mongers?
And does this strategy work with America’s voters?
For nine years now we've been told not to take Trump literally, but seriously. Of course that standard has never been applied to any other candidate from any political persuasion, ever.
It's also very convenient for the members of his party to be able to polsplain away his verbal gaffes by telling us what he meant instead of relying on the actual words that came out of his... I'll be nice and say mouth.
Trump vowed he would veto any federal abortion ban. Did the women who voted for him and for greater access to abortions believe him? Or do they foolishly believe state laws protecting abortion rights would supercede that ban when he signs it into law?
I think we need to define our terms. "Elite" is used as an insult by the right. Do they mean well- educated or powerful, rich people? It seems "woke" could mean open minded, but I'm pretty sure that's not what's meant. I am well-educated and open minded, but don't think of myself as elite or woke.
I like your point. I have railed against stereotypes before. What exactly is a liberal elite? If I remember correctly, there are plenty of conservatives with money. Each member of each political side has their own opinions. It’s like all the crap Soros catches. I challenge anyone here to claim that if they were rich, they would just sit on their money, enjoy life, and ignore politics. Baloney! Politics is how most rich people get rich, whether or not they are actually involved.
Apparently, you are "woke" if you treat others - especially those of historically downtrodden groups, gays, transgenders, etc. - civilly (as you would like to be treated yourself), and as equals.
This week's crop of visual jokes has persuaded me to reverse my opinion, shared here more than once, that words should be a minor element, if present at all in this category. But these were mainly at least good, some were tremendous, and words were key. I finally get it: Visual jokes need to contain visual elements (photos, design, art, etc.) that help make the joke work. That's enough, at least for me. Visual elements don't need to do most or all of the heavy lifting.
Interesting there is such debate of the meaning of the word "mandate", as it pertains to elections. I had thought that mandate was measured based the margin of victory in the popular vote. While it is undeniable that the electorate has expressed its preference for Trump over the alternatives available on election day and therefore Trump is mandated to be the President, it is useful to make a distinction between an ordinary win and a win with a mandate. For those who see a Trump mandate, I ask what is the definition of a win with a mandate? Is it different than a win without a mandate? Is there an objective definition that does not depend on how some people feel?
Trump crowed about a mandate when he lost the overall vote by 3 million plus. The other day he told the Joe and Mika grovel party that he had run a flawless campaign and that no candidate had ever worked harder (remember the nearly 40 minutes of wordless wobbling at one of his rallies?). Birds fly, fish swim, Trump lies, his posse applauds.
I think the meaning of "mandate" is only relevant in the mind of the elected official. "Elections have consequences" was another popular phrase for both parties along with variations of 'new sheriff'. When the elected politician believes the vote demonstrated definitive public support for a platform, or philosophy, or specific program, then they feel free to try implementation. Their assessment may be correct or incorrect. A politician or party believing that they have a mandate has frequently led to overreach and electoral defeat. The more they believe that they are 'in charge' the less likely they are to be circumspect or compromising.
Activists, lobbyists, pundits, and media utilize the word to the extent that they see it useful for their immediate interests, which include influencing the politicians and the public.
We are stuck with filtering the noise and seeking objective information on the actual content and impact of planned and actual government action. It might be useful for more voters to send messages to their elected officials to express their positions, especially when they want to say "I voted for you, but also for Y and not for X'.
Good points. So at this point it is "rah, rah" bs. Which is normal. A white house thinking long term strategy for itself and its party would be wise to think critically about whether or not it really has a mandate for big changes.
The last President that really had a mandate, IMO, was Reagan. Big changes were made which increased his popularity and got Republicans in for a third term.
Obama's ACA bill was big, but not nearly as big as changes in the 80's, and his political capital was spent after that.
Andrew Bloody Sullivan. I am sick of his know-it-all right wing musings. The tosh you reprinted is so typical of him. "Look at me! I'm a right-wing gay Never Trumper. I got my same-sex weddings, so the hell with trans people. How courageous I am!"
Woahhh. Be nice. Or are you being facetious? Either way. Watch it.
If his words cause you such distress, remember that you always retain the option of not reading them.
How true.
Yes, gentlemen I hear you.
But what did he say that was wrong, exactly? I find his evidence that trans issues played a role in the election compelling. Eric's polls are further evidence. Where does he suggest, "the hell with trans people"?
Eric is of course right that Harris did not "run on" trans issues or other cultural issues other than abortion, but who is saying that she did? Indeed, she avoided the topic. But that meant that she had no response to being relentlessly demagogued on it. For some time now, Democrats have allowed themselves to appear well out of step with median voters on cultural issues, costing them support even among key groups in their coalition.
Yeah, I don't quite get the ad hominem against Sullivan, who is heterdox, to be sure, but often right on point.
It’s amazing how, in my lifetime, we’ve gone from “never again” to “well, he acts a lot like Hitler, but maybe he won’t be as bad.”
I saw a report from CNN yesterday about the actual margin of victory continuing to shrink for Trump as the mail-in and provisional ballots continue to be tallied, even though the election was called two weeks ago. It reminds me that rules in many places prevent election officials from even counting mail-in ballots until the polls have closed, which doesn’t make much sense to me. (I can understand waiting to count provisional ballots since there tend to be far fewer of them and they have less chance of making any difference in the result.) Ironically, because of the time it takes for those ballots to actually arrive, mail-in ballots are some of the earliest votes cast, yet end up not being counted until the very end.
The delay in counting mail-in ballots allowed Trump in 2020 to argue he went to bed leading only to have the election stolen in the middle of the night. It was highly suspicious if you didn’t know what was actually happening.
Mail-in ballots in IL cannot be counted until after election day because mail-in voters have the option to vote in person on election day. Many bring their mail ballots to be "spoiled" and then vote in person, but often people do not - some never received their mail ballot, most just "forgot" or "lost it." Those people are allowed to vote in person and then if/when the counters log in their mail ballots, the system tells the counters that the person voted in person and their mail ballot is discarded. If we started counting mail ballots prior to election day, we could have people voting twice if they then showed up on election day as well. To start counting before election day, we would have to turn away anyone at the polls who requested a mail ballot but is not returning it (in reality, no one is turned away, they would vote provisional and the provisional ballot wouldn't be counted until it is confirmed that their mail ballot never arrived to be counted).
Your last sentence shows there is a procedure that could allow for counting mail-in ballots as they come in. The count could even be kept separate and then scrubbed for duplicated votes before being added to the totals, but would get the somewhat arduous task of counting those ballots out of the way earlier in the process.
Once the votes are counted, there is no erasing or deleting them. When the mail ballot is deemed valid based on the name and signature on the envelope (yes, the signature is compared to the signature on file) and the postmark, the ballot is removed from the envelope to be scanned and has no connection to the voter anymore (secret ballot and all). You wouldn't know which votes to delete. To have everyone who requested a mail ballot vote provisional is a major PITA. It's a lot more work at the polling station, a lot more work for the county after the election, and would slow counting rather than speed it up. Provisional ballots don't go through the scanner on election day. Regular ballots, whether marked on paper or printed from voting machines, are fed through the scanner by the voter and are tabulated by the scanner all day (not accessible until the polls are closed, however). Provisional ballots go in an envelope with the voters name and reason they are voting provisionally. The envelope is sealed and is not opened unless and until the reason for provisional status is cleared. In this scenario, the provisional ballot would not be counted unless and until it is determined that either the mail ballot was not received (so not until all mail ballots are processed) or the mail ballot was received and when the worker logged it in found that the voter voted in person provisionally. Then the worker has to locate the provisional ballot, spoil the mail ballot without ever opening the envelope, and then open the provisional envelope and scan that ballot. That provisional ballot is probably not going to be counted for at least one week and probably two weeks after the election. Not faster.
That all sounds logical, and I understand now why this is how it's done. But it also seems to provide a benefit to mail-in voters not given to anyone else -- the chance to show up and change their vote after it's received. Even if I am the first in line on the first day of early voting, once I submit my ballot I can't come back later and change it. Why not have an automated message sent to the voter that their mail-in ballot was received on X and they have until Y to challenge the validity of that ballot before it gets counted? That would at least allow a head-start on counting them...
I see in today’s Trib that the conservative Judicial Watch is reviving a lawsuit to stop Illinois from counting mail-in ballots for two weeks after the election, which only adds fuel to the argument that we need to figure this out now and not wait until they succeed at disenfranchising mail-in voters.
Am I the only one completely confused by the Pew research graph? 85 percent of Democrats FAVOR requiring trans athletes to compete on team that matches their sex? While only 37 percent of Republicans do? Isn't that what the graph as written says. It would seem like the entire graph was meant to say that these percentages oppose except for the first one involving protection of rights.
The blue and red colors of the data points indicate the Dem and Rep responses, respectively. The positions of the colors sometimes shift between questions, which is a bit unusual for charts of this type. 37% of Dems think trans athletes should stick with their birth sex, while 85% of Reps think they should, for 58% overall.
I now see the problem is that the position of the key makes it look like columns. But it’s not. I couldn’t see the colors on my darkened screen.
The NYT has a long article on Substack itself.
https://dnyuz.com/2024/11/18/substacks-great-big-messy-political-experiment/
I have been a reader of the Tribune for a long time, long before my first personal communication with Eric. I contacted the Tribune a number of times to get Kass off of page two and moved back to the editorial pages. His columns were unbelievably one-sided and usually downright mean. With all respect to David, the man exhibited little character and I would have not have mourned his removal. Those defending him are ignoring facts for their own political biases. Alden Capitol made cuts. That happens in most corporate takeovers. Those that left are fortunate they got buyouts. They could have simply be let go. It wasn’t a charitable act by Alden. It avoided lawsuits and a potential public backlash. It takes a lot of gall for Kass to carp about being pushed out. He could have stayed and waited for Alden to dump him. So why anyone would come here to bash Eric for Kass is inane. Frankly I am tired of hearing the name Kass. He’s gone and not missed by me. Eric could give us an early holiday gift by banning the use of his name.
I agree. Kass is truly and has been for awhile a “Get off my lawn!” cranky, old man that no one wants to invite to Thanksgiving dinner.
One of the many reasons I call him Jack...
My problem with Trump being elected has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative policies. Trump being elected is going to lead to the end of our democratic system. Trump wants to be the absolute dictator and it looks like he will achieve that.
I agree. In the Trib today. “Trump’s administration would declare a national emergency and will use military assets to address illegal immigration through a mass deportation program.” I’m sure there are plenty of folks out there ready to report all of the illegals they know of. And the military just waiting to storm in and round them up.
I think there is a lot more made of the supposed right-wing tilt to the military than is actually there. Many, especially in the lower ranks, are impressionable young men and women more than they are full-on ideologues. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I would hope there are enough level-headed leaders willing to challenge the legality of using the military in such a way.
I think Trump also wants to use the military to go after citizens who oppose him.
Getting away with using the military on US soil to round up immigrants will make it easier to justify using them to round up dissidents as well. The members of his party need to unequivocally state this is not an option.
I add my name to the agreed. There is no national emergency. And while troops are running around chasing and guarding illegals, what happens if there is need for them elsewhere? Gee, that couldn’t possibly happen in such a peaceful world! Not in Eastern Europe. Not in the Middle East. Not in the Pacific. It reminds me of the early days of World War II when troops badly needed elsewhere were rounding up and guarding legitimate citizens that had committed no crimes other than being of Japanese heritage- something we didn’t do to Germans or Italians.
Actually we did round up a bunch of Germans & Italians!
Amy, Trump could go after the low hanging fruit. Just park ICE by California fields and pick off a quick 2 or 3 thousand folks.
Of course the crops do not get picked. The farmers get angry and grocery prices are likely to increase.
I think he finds a few “criminals”, and deports them. He then declares the border way safer and secure. Trump America breathes a sigh of relief and that may end it..
Mass deportations could have a big blowback to Trump, so I think he will take baby steps before going big time. But that will not stop him from promising all kinds of big projects…think he will finish the wall?
The Trib did say he spent more on the wall in his last presidency than congress would allow so I am sure he is ready to do so once again to
prove that he can finish it.
There is something here baffling me. Why are we making such a fuss over the word mandate? It’s like arguing over whether or not the Bears had a moral victory on Sunday over the Packers. No, they lost. There are no moral victories in the standings. Trump win. We know it. Mandate sounds like he won 100 per cent of the vote. He didn’t. Nearly have the country didn’t vote for him. But it doesn’t matter. He won. Does the Constitution give him extra powers because he had a mandate? Did Biden or any other president get extra powers because they had a mandate? Let’s move on.
Less than 30% of the voting age population voted for the fat orange traitor.
The argument I suppose is that winning by a wide margin means that a greater proportion of the populace support the President/party's policies — so that there should be less resistance? In the past that might mean left-center and right-center legislators getting on board the mandate-winning team's agenda (after all, it was VERY popular!). When things are close, (non-mandate) these center folks might be more cautious to ensure they get reelected in their district.
This certainly wasn't a mandate. And with today's politics, it doesnt matter as MAGA will claim a mandate and will move full-steam ahead on their agenda as if 100% of people supported it.
Good points. For example, polls show consistently that a majority is in favor of abortion rights. MAGAs don’t care because they have God on their side. Conservatives are constantly telling us what Founding Fathers meant. They usually get it wrong. This is is 2024, not 1790. The one thing all the Founding Fathers have is that they are all dead and we can no longer ask them. The most objectionable thing to me is that whatever the margin of victory, MAGAs act as if anyone not with them no longer has a voice and their opinions don’t count. Is that what they mean by unity?
I agree. It's a mandate, it's not a mandate. Who the fuck cares. I hate the fat orange piece of crap with the heat of a thousand suns, but he won. Now, just like the dummies who voted for Mayor Brandon, those who voted for Orangie got the leader they wanted. And they, like all of us will suffer with the difference being his voters asked for it. Good for them, who care not one bit about anyone but themselves.
Wow, tell us what you really think 🤔. What does it tell us about American voters and their intelligence? Trump was going to improve things for everyone the first time. I'm still waiting for the great new medical plan. He threw away consumer protections. There isn't hardly a major bank that hasn't been caught screwing the public. Okay, the Republicans didn't want Harris. There are no conservative Republicans with some moral character? Actually Chicago voters aren't any smarter. They didn't know what they were getting, a community organizer with strong union ties with almost no real business or financially experience. He also isn't much of a politician. Are voters that taken in by spotty promises without doing any research or are political promises flights of whimsical fantasy about what voters hope to get. Of course, many Trump voters got exactly what they wanted. The needs of needy people? Who cares, it's their own fault because of their life choices. The environment? Who cares, the Lord put it there for us to exploit and get rich. Gun control? Most MAGAs don't live where most of the shootings are, so who cares? Besides, we need to shoot back with military grade weapons. And if I go deer hunting, I need a good assault weapon. Foreign affairs? No problem, just nuke anyone that doesn't do things our way. And anyone that doesn't believe they were born either a man or woman and refuses to act that way, let them perish. It's not what I believe, so just let them go away. Don't kid yourself. It's not just about Trump lies. He's got plenty of support. As I have said on many occasions, I live in Trump land. I personally know people that fully support him. Unless I live in an isolated part of America, he's got plenty of support. I see a dark future.
If I take Joannie Wimmer’s comments as sincere and not a troll, those sentiments will do more for GOP, MAGA than anything FOX, talk radio and Trumposhere could ever hope to accomplish.
The Trumpers throw the word mandate around because they feel it justifies any and everything they plan for this country going forward. You, the voters, want this!!
"Some of those taxes are avoidable — bring your own shopping bags; ditch the streaming services"
Yes, how dare low-income people try to enjoy their time off with a movie or show of their choosing. OTA TV oughta be enough for them.
Sarcasm aside, it was such a lame money grab to institute an Entertainment Tax on Streaming Services. Streaming services are nortorious for starting out inexpensive and then the price goes up after the introductory period is over (see Cable, Satellite TV business models).
SO even if the tax doesn't raise -- spoiler alert, it most certainly will, the cost increases astronomically over time.
Just have a relative or friend in the burbs sign up for it & then you pay them every month for it.
That might have some unintended consequences as well.
1. "...Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change." I think that was part of the issue. Harris listened and heard people say that the day to day economy was hitting them hard. Her response was "I understand" but the economy is doing well and I will make changes - which didn't resonate with many people. (Maybe she should have spent an hour in a McDonald's dishing out fries) David if that is how you characterize your own party - imagine what their opponents believe. 2. If you are clutching your pearl necklace - you really are out of touch. 3. Eric question: Trumps victory rejecting Democrats or rejecting the status quo? No politician has been so extreme in negative attributes as Trump. He sticks out like a sore thumb. Nothing for the past few decades have helped many - so let's go way out of bounds and see if that will work.
All of the comments in the PS seemed focused on mandates, but I think other issues were ignored and should be discussed.
1. Polls and polling were a disaster. Depending on the writer’s bias, a poll could be found to support their prediction. Since there are no universal guidelines nor full disclosure of how they are conducted, you got a lot of garbage disguised as “ facts”. Polls need to be revisited as something you can rely on.
2. No mention of Trump’s age, mental condition or medical status. This seems to me to be an elephant in the room and yet no discussion. I think his “ weave” displays his diminishing mental capacity. Will he finish his 4 year term?
3. I think a deep dive into women who voted for greater access in abortion referendums yet voted for Trump. They seem to be saying that women need to have greater freedom in reproductive health, but voted for the guy who denied it. Makes no sense to me, but there must be an explanation.
4. A further analysis of people who voted for Trump, in reviewing his policies they seemed to separate policies he will do from policies he says he will do.
For example, Trump has said he will use the military to clear out certain groups, yet some Trumpers say no I do not think he will do that. How do they decide what he will do from what he says he will do?
5. Last point, do we need a major review of our election system? The Republicans had already declared the election as stolen, invalid, with a potential need to fight against the results.
Then they won and all that went away. Are they the party of liars, scammers and hate mongers?
And does this strategy work with America’s voters?
For nine years now we've been told not to take Trump literally, but seriously. Of course that standard has never been applied to any other candidate from any political persuasion, ever.
It's also very convenient for the members of his party to be able to polsplain away his verbal gaffes by telling us what he meant instead of relying on the actual words that came out of his... I'll be nice and say mouth.
Trump vowed he would veto any federal abortion ban. Did the women who voted for him and for greater access to abortions believe him? Or do they foolishly believe state laws protecting abortion rights would supercede that ban when he signs it into law?
I think we need to define our terms. "Elite" is used as an insult by the right. Do they mean well- educated or powerful, rich people? It seems "woke" could mean open minded, but I'm pretty sure that's not what's meant. I am well-educated and open minded, but don't think of myself as elite or woke.
I like your point. I have railed against stereotypes before. What exactly is a liberal elite? If I remember correctly, there are plenty of conservatives with money. Each member of each political side has their own opinions. It’s like all the crap Soros catches. I challenge anyone here to claim that if they were rich, they would just sit on their money, enjoy life, and ignore politics. Baloney! Politics is how most rich people get rich, whether or not they are actually involved.
Apparently, you are "woke" if you treat others - especially those of historically downtrodden groups, gays, transgenders, etc. - civilly (as you would like to be treated yourself), and as equals.
I guess I am “woke” then. I believe everyone should be treated how I am treated. Isn’t that what Jesus preached?
My New Testament says so.