Our recent election of
Donald Trump to the highest office of our country has made me
contemplate what that job entails. We, the American people, I
believe expect a great deal of the person who holds that office, not
least of which is to conduct himself or herself with integrity.
Governing the United States is not a game or a winner take all
competition to be indulged in.
The United States
Constitution has various checks and balances written into it. One of
those is the ability of Congress to remove a president if he or she
commits acts considered to be “high crimes and misdemeanors”
against our country. This is not to be taken lightly. I thought it
might be interesting to look briefly at what this means and so have
delved into it further. This is some of what I have found.
Contrary to what some may
believe Richard Nixon was not actually impeached. He was warned that
the proceedings were going to take place and in all likelihood he
would be convicted, so he chose to resign.
For those who don't
remember, or aren't aware of, why Nixon was set to be impeached, this
is an excerpt from the article on how it all started:
“A
break-in occurred on the night of June 17, 1972, as five burglars
entered the Democratic National Committee offices inside
the Watergate
office complex in Washington. Discovered by 24-year-old
night watchman Frank Wills, they were arrested at the scene by police
at 2:30 a.m.
In August of 1972, President Nixon told reporters, "no one in the White House staff, no one in this administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident."
The arrest of the Watergate burglars marked the beginning of a long chain of events in which President Nixon and his top aides became deeply involved in an extensive coverup of the break-in and other White House sanctioned illegal activities.”
But as the following
article points out the two Presidents that actually had impeachment
proceedings initiated, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were not
convicted, and went on to complete their terms.
The charges against Andrew
Johnson pertained to violation of the Tenure of Office Act and the
charges against Bill Clinton were obstruction of justice and perjury
pertaining to his testimony before the Grand Jury with regard to his
affair with Monica Lewinsky.
As we go forward with the
new administration it would be my hope, as well as many others I am
sure, that our country will continue to prosper. The new President
should play an integral role to achieve that.
In my newspaper today
there was an article regarding the realities of being
President that will face Mr. Trump when he takes office. It is an
interesting read.
78 comments:
I seriously hope it never comes to the impeachment of Donald Trump. I'm afraid that'd just make him a hero to a fairly large segment of the ‘angry old white people’ contingent that voted him in. Doesn't much matter what the provocation might be; they'd turn him into a cult hero in spite of it, and we'd have an underground cult movement damn near forever.
No, I don't hope for the impeachment of Donald Trump, because that would mean there was something to impeach him for. But it is a reminder that one man, or woman, does not have ultimate power.
I see that Trump is dumping the traditional announcer for the inaugural parade, Charlie Brotman, who has done that gig since Eisenhower. Sad.
Trump is supposed to be holding a press conference this Wednesday. For some reason the broadcast media seems confident that he'll actually show up for this one. Maybe they're right.
Supposedly, Trump has weighed in on the side of the Republican legislators who want an ObamaCare replacement ready to go along with the ObamaCare repeal. This will not please Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, nor any other of the Republican establishment leaders who've been pressing for the ‛repeal and…,…,whatever’ option. Perhaps Trump isn't aware of the fact that a replacement along the lines he's demanded isn't a viable option on account of arithmetic.
Well, something I can actually agree with Trump on. There should be no repeal unless there is some kind of replacement.
I always liked Meryl Streep.
"Well, something I can actually agree with Trump on."
But, how long before he claims to have never said any of that? (He is utterly unperturbed by the existence of video tapes of what he's said before.)
"House and Senate Republican leaders are forging ahead with plans
to repeal Obamacare then replace it later — dismissing mounting
pressure from their own party to delay the repeal vote until they have a
fully formed alternative."
Politico.com
Pressed for information about whether or not the FBI was currently investigating alleged contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign, FBI Director James Comey today told Congressional investigators, "We never confirm or deny a pending investigation." (MotherJones)
Say what?
Just finished shoveling for the third time in two days and am now sitting down to listen to the President speak.
Trump just opened his press conference by saying that the recent rumors alleging connections between his campaign and Moscow (as well as alleging that the Russians had compromising material on Trump sufficient to raise the possibility of blackmail), suggesting the reports were the product of ‘maybe the intelligence agencies’. Effectively, he's come out swinging against America's intel community; doubled down on his fight with them.
I am surprised; I wasn't expecting him to double down on that just days before he enters the Oval Office. I can only speculate that he intends to continue this fight after he takes office, and he's getting his slant on it first thing. He's making enemies with them on purpose, and very publicly.
It appears that Trump & Co. are attacking CNN for reporting on that story.
Trump's attack dog, otherwise known as Kellyanne Conway, was going after Anderson Cooper in an interview about that. It was apparently Buzz Feed that had published documents supposedly detailing information about Russia's efforts to compromise Trump. Trump and Conway have been accusing CNN of linking to Buzz Feed's story on the CNN website. I checked, CNN does not have a link to the Buzz Feed story or publication of the documents. The link embedded in the article is merely to another CNN article about what Buzz Feed did.
Of course Trump would, and should, be sensitive to the appearance of being compromised by Russia. But going after the Intel community for investigating this, or the press for reporting on the story, does not inspire confidence that the story is false.
An update on the Mosul camaign.
Lee: "Trump just opened his press conference by saying that the recent rumors alleging connections between his campaign and Moscow (as well as alleging that the Russians had compromising material on Trump sufficient to raise the possibility of blackmail)"
Yeah, that "information" from an unnamed British "intelligence source" about Trump hiring russian prostitutes to perform so called Golden Showers, A.K.A pissing, on a hotel bed in a room where Trump knew the Obamas would later sleep just because he hated the Obamas so much and wanted them to sleep in piss for the lulz.
You guys really buy that crap? Most likely it was a trolling effort started on 4chan which Trump-hating fools like McCain took to heart and which the world's premier fake news outlet CNN decided to run with.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-11/how-4chan-mcfooled-john-mccain-buzzfeed-and-cia-believing-trumps-golden-showers
"But going after the Intel community…or the press…does not
inspire confidence that the story is false."
He's not trying to convince the skeptical. He's a demagogue; all he has to do is give his loyal followers something to grab on to so they don't have to think up a far-fetched cover story on their own. They will then search out ‘news’ sources which will tell them they are wise to believe whatever cockamamie story he comes up with (i.e. FoxNews, Glenn Hannibaugh, Breitbart, et al.), and so the ‘inspiring confidence’ part will take care of itself, at least, among the audience he expects to move.
I'm far more interested in the question of why he's deliberately picking a fight with the intelligence community. That part was deliberate. And, it was a freely made choice, not a necessity. He's got a plan and denigrating the intelligence community coming right out of the box is somehow a part of that plan. (I don't know if he's got a good plan, or if it's been fully thought through, or if it's merely contingent somehow, but that move fits into a plan somehow.)
"You guys really buy that crap?"
I didn't buy into the ‘disinformation’ part of the early rumors. Those seemed suspicious from the beginning.
However, Buzzfeed going all Breitbart back at Trump interests me much less than Trump deciding to double down on offending his intel services right off the bat. I find that quite curious.
Lee: "Trump deciding to double down on offending his intel services right off the bat. I find that quite curious."
I find it curious that the intel services leak obvious fake intel based on unnamed sources to fake news outlets scandalizing the upcoming POTUS. I mean we know they lie. Yellowcake and mobile anthrax labs and whatnot. They have very low credibility. But that was against foreign foes like Saddam. It's starting to look like they've put Trump in the enemy category. A dubious proposition for an intelligence community towards a democratically elected Commander In Chief.
"I find it curious that the intel services leak obvious fake intel…"
I'm not at all sure the intel services leaked anything (neither is Trump). The information was provided to the CIA by an outside contractor and it could have easily been ‘leaked’ from that outside contractor (considering how long the info has been floating around various news organizations this seems most likely), or from a political operative inside the Obama administration, or from one of the Congressional committees which had the information, or from the FBI, which we know also had the information; John McCain hand-carried a copy to the FBI; we know that much ‘cause McCain has admitted as much. This wasn't a well kept secret.
It seems that there are all sorts of people coming and going at Trump Tower these days.
The leader of France's far-right National Front party, Marine Le Pen, was seen in Trump Tower in Manhattan on Thursday.
Le Pen, who in November called President-elect Donald Trump's victory a "sign of hope" for people who are against globalization, was not on a readout of meetings provided to the press earlier Thursday. Sean Spicer, the incoming White House press secretary, said neither Trump nor anyone else from the transition team will meet with her.
Why do I think Marcus would be please?
... the world's premier fake news outlet CNN decided to run with.
Been getting your talking points from...ummm...Trump, Marcus?
My guess is that people are hell bent on attacking CNN not for fake news but because they are usually reliable. Which makes me just as curious about Trump's motives as Lee is about his attacking the intelligence community. Someday he may realize that commander in chief is not synonymous with dictator in chief.
"Which makes me just as curious about Trump's motives…"
That one's easy.
1) Trump's Trumpkins hate the ‘MainStream Media’, having been fed an anti-media campaign by their favored media for about 20 years now, so whacking CNN gets Trump bonus points with his Trumpkins. And it helps to claim some bonus points just before dumping some more lies out there, in case (the rare case) the lies don't go over that well with his Trumpkins.
2) Trump likes to intimidate his opponents. CNN published something he didn't want out there. Trying to intimidate CNN in retaliation is de rigueur in TrumpLand.
Post Script:
And, just by the way, tonight's evening news will now be running stories ‘bout how Trump unleashed on CNN rather than running stories ‘bout how Trump has done a 180° and now is not going to actually step away from his involvement in his various business interests. (The broadcasters get all tunnel visioned when Trump takes a slap at one of them and they usually miss what he's hidin’.
"Why do I think Marcus would be please?"
Not a difficult guess. I've been pretty open bout my positive feelings for Marine Le Pen. That said I don't claim any expertise on french politics. Just I like a lot of what I've heard her say. The new guy on the traditional right Fillon also looks like an improvment though.
(The broadcasters get all tunnel visioned when Trump takes a slap at one of them and they usually miss what he's hidin’.
Ahhh but the old fashioned print media, like my newspaper, isn't so easily diverted. The main above the fold headline in bold print read "Trump won't divest from his businesses".
Btw, I am finding Rex Tillerson to be an interesting mix of contrasts, or a good actor. I'm not sure which.
"I'm not sure which."
I look at him and think I'm looking at someone who very much wants that job. I haven't convinced myself that he wants to do me a good turn from that position.
Trump's gone on another early morning Twitter rampage. (Politico.com) He's again accusing the intel people of trying to bring him down. (Won't be long before he turns that into a self-fulfilling prophesy.)
Apparently I was wrong about those college students enjoying Milo's talk.
A speech by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos' at UC Davis was over before it even started Friday after protests erupted, forcing sponsors to cancel the event.
Zeyad,
*deep mournful sigh*
Lynnette mentioned earlier that Monica Crowley, Trump appointee to a position as mouthpiece for the NSA, or some such gig, Crowley had been discovered to have plagiarized substantial parts of her last book. Well, it's getting worse (in addition, to her publisher for the last book having pulled it back from the distribution); it seems she's been outted for having plagiarized substantial portions of her PhD dissertation.
I suppose a flair for dishonesty is probably just what Trump needs in a mouthpiece (judging from the performances of Kellyanne Conway to date), so Crowley's job with the Trump administration should probably be secure.
What was that phrase Trump used? Oh yeah, "draining the swamp".
Seems our new Prez is already talking about lifting the sanctions that Obama placed on the Russians for hacking.
And so it goes in Trumpland...
"Seems our new Prez is already talking about lifting the sanctions
that Obama placed on the Russians for hacking."
Recent polling suggests that no less than 37% and maybe as much as half of the Trumpkins are already convinced that Russia is our friend on account of Trump says it's so. So, he'll likely get away with it.
However, it will not improve his position with the non-Trumpkin majority.
Big question for me is what Trump will do ‘bout that recent deployment to Poland. (CNN) I gotta figure Obama did that when he did that on account of Trump would never have done it. If it had been Hillary coming in to follow him he'd likely have left the decision for her.
The Ringling Bros. Circus (heir to P.T. Barnum's Circus) is closing after 146 years on the road.
Got Trump in the White House. Dancing bears and tweeting clowns don't havta travel these days.
Has to be a bad sign…
Turkey's President Erdoğan has praised Trump for ‘putting a [CNN] reporter in his place’. DailySabah
Got Trump in the White House. Dancing bears and tweeting clowns don't havta travel these days.
lol!
Nope, for entertainment all we have to do is listen for the tweets.
I read a little more in that Thomas Friedman book I bought(finally had a little down time) and I'm thinking that the NSA scooping up piles of data should not have been such a shocker. It seems everyone is doing it nowadays with the advent of Hadoop.
In reading the section on technological advances I am starting to understand a little better the gap between the speed of innovations and people's ability to adapt. We seem to be riding a snowball which is rolling downhill getting bigger and bigger as it rolls.
Donald Trump's idea that we can go back to courier pigeons is way outdated.
"I am starting to understand a little better the gap between the
speed of innovations and people's ability to adapt."
That merely enhances the apprehensions of the old order population. I think the technological innovations are secondary to the social changes in order of ranking as the cause of the apprehensions.
I've decided that I believe that Hillary and Bill Clinton ought to skip this week's inauguration of Donald Trump as President. I understand why the Clintons have decided to attend, but I've decided that I am not convinced. I think they should politely decline the invitation. (The Obama's are obliged of course.)
I guessed it wrong on Monica Crowley. She's ‘bowed out’ of the Trump administration. I was thinking that a proven track record of blatant dishonesty would be an asset to a Trump administration spokesman. (Perhaps it's only a concealed track record of blatant dishonesty they value for that--or, could be The Donald felt threatened by real competition on that score.)
To quote from that article I linked to in the post:
5. Press relations are symbiotic — or problematic
Trump understandably takes credit for the healthy profit margins at CNN and other media businesses that showered him with free coverage during 2016. Granting access to journalists covering the White House, he seems to have concluded, is a favor to them.
But the reverse is also true. Generations of presidents have granted wide access to the press because of hard-nosed realism about their own political interests. For more than a century, the White House has supplied the press with access to senior officials and coveted background information to create — as a senior White House official once told me — a “controlled flow of information.”
Prediction: If the Trump White House sticks with its initial inclination to restrict access, it will turn loose enterprising reporters to shine a light on personal embarrassments (did I hear someone say “conflict of interest”?) or failing administration policies. Trump would do himself a favor by engaging the press as much as he can — not by ignoring or mocking it.
It strikes me that ignoring or making an enemy of CNN is not a wise choice for Mr. Trump.
First on CNN
Rep. Tom Price last year purchased shares in a medical device manufacturer days before introducing legislation that would have directly benefited the company, raising new ethics concerns for President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Health and Human Services secretary.
Price bought between $1,001 to $15,000 worth of shares last March in Zimmer Biomet, according to House records reviewed by CNN.
Trump promises his Obamacare replacement plan will cover all, report says
Trump promises his Obamacare replacement plan will cover all, report says
Less than a week after the transaction, the Georgia Republican congressman introduced the HIP Act, legislation that would have delayed until 2018 a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulation that industry analysts warned would significantly hurt Zimmer Biomet financially once fully implemented.
Yup, those boys at CNN are busy, busy, busy.
I've decided that I believe that Hillary and Bill Clinton ought to skip this week's inauguration of Donald Trump as President.
Is there any particular reason other than the acrimony of the campaign or Trump's general unpleasantness?
I do not consider ‘acrimony’ of the campaign to be sufficient reason for her to skip the proceedings. General unpleasantness might be sufficient reason (Trump's personal general unpleasantness); he is that unpleasant, but I don't think I'd make the recommendation based just on that basis, but it's a close call; guy's a racist bigot. But, that wasn't enough to get past ‘close call’ for me and to make it to a recommendation.
Rather, we may have just elected Putin's man to the White House. And we've definitely elected a fascist. I don't know that the latter is sufficient reason; another close call there, but maybe. However, the risk that we've elected a ‘Manchurian Candidate’ to the office (a ‘Siberian’ candidate in this particular case) is sufficient reason. Trump's refusal to open up his finances to public scrutiny, and his decision to not divest himself of his business interests raise enough of a danger to the Republic that I would advise not attending his inauguration. It's a bad precedent to be setting even if Trump's clean, and I would recommend not participating.
[Chumpy]: "Rather, we may have just elected Putin's man to the White House. And we've definitely elected a fascist."
I see none of the hysteria has subsided round here.
You consider the hypothetical ‘may have’ to be hysteria? Or is it the description of Trump as a fascist that you consider hysteria? Or, you just makin’ meaningless noises again?
Or, maybe you just need to brush up on the meaning of the word hysteria. (You may consider that my contribution towards your anticipated acquaintance with today's reality.)
Recent polls by CNN/ORC and ABC/WashingtonPost show Trump coming into office with historically low polling numbers (44% and 40% favorable, respectively) for an incoming President. This roughly matches up with his vote totals (little lower), which means he has gotten something of a post-election bounce, as some of the people who voted for him have finally come around to telling pollsters they approve of him.
These are, however, historically low numbers for an incoming President. Apparently most Americans are not quite as impressed by Trump's twitter claims of making jobs as is our conservative Swedish friend.
Trump's been on Twitter again, challenging the numbers, abusing the pollsters, and such as that, but that's not likely to raise his numbers much.
And, just released Monmouth poll has it even worse for Trump. Down to 34% favorable. Not an auspicious beginning here.
On the bright side, I guess that gives his numbers a greater chance to improve than would otherwise be the case.
There's a Frontline special on tonight at 8:00 on PBS, "Divided States of America".
Obama has commuted Chelsea(Bradley) Manning's sentence. One of those policy decisions of Obama's that I disagree with. I would have transferred her/him to another prison as she/he requested instead.
"Divided States of America."
Part One of two. This is gonna go into some detail before it's over.
I've not kept up on Mr. Manning (Ms. Manning?) and his/her trials and tribulations. Obama's not been overindulgent with the pardons though, at least, not to date--he has a few more days.
Part two is tomorrow night. That part is more about the Republicans.
Lynnette: "It strikes me that ignoring or making an enemy of CNN is not a wise choice for Mr. Trump."
On the contrary. The hateful liberal leftist fake news outlet CNN would never ever have changed their aim from trying to embarrass Trump or even bring him down if ever they could. Might as well keep such an enemy in the freezer, rather than trying to make nice only to get knifed in the back for the effort.
I don't believe either of you take the history of either Trump or the movement he's hijacked into account. Trump didn't have a choice in the matter. Up until two years ago he described himself as basically sympatico with Democratic political objectives (but there's zero chance he was ever gonna get the Democratic nomination, so that changed). The Republican Party was already fully disfunctional already. He recognized that and went for what's called in the business world, ‘a hostile takeover’. This takeover was successful (so-far successful anyway; it remains to be seen how long that holds for him), but one of the things he had to do along the way was play to some of the themes that the Republican ‘establishment’ had settled on in cooperation with their independent publicity arms, FoxNews and RadioRightWing (and, later, adding the various internet media like Breitbart et al.). It was of extreme business importance to these independent publicity arms that their audience not compare them to saner news portals, so there was a coordinated campaign to ‘hate on’ all other media and make sure their audience didn't hear what they had to say.
Trump walked into this already fully formed alliance and needed to exploit the independent media arm in order to complete his takeover of their Republican Party Establishment cohort. He really didn't have a choice as to whether or not he was gonna declare war on the conventional news media. It was simply necessary that he do that to establish a rapport with the angry white folks who make up the majority of that base. They were already there; in order to lead them he had to get out front of them on that. It's not like he had a choice in the matter.
"There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."
Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin (early 1800s French Revolutionary)
Lynnette: "Obama has commuted Chelsea(Bradley) Manning's sentence. One of those policy decisions of Obama's that I disagree with. I would have transferred her/him to another prison as she/he requested instead."
Signal politics. Letting the transgender inmate out on May 17, the International day against homo- bi- and trans-sexualism is a "progressive" political statement that has NOTHING to do with right or wrong with regards to the criminal sentence in question. Typical Obama signal politics.
Like Lee I haven't really followed the case and I'm not sure if the crime was so severe as to warrant such a long sentence to begin with. But I do know one thing. If he was still male (which he in fact still is and always was and always will be, but you know what I mean) he wouldn't have been let out. He got a freebie because of becoming a tranny. Which of course makes this pardon a complete travesty.
Apparently the new theory for how Trump is gonna get Mexico to pay for his Great Wall, is to just pretend they're paying for it and call that good ‘nuff. WaPo This may or may not fly with the Republican Congress. They're eager to get Trump to agree to their tax proposals, so they may go along with just pretending Mexico's paying for the wall if he will approve their newest regressive tax ideas.
Of course, pretending that Mexico's paying for the Great Wall doesn't actually do any good unless somebody else steps up to pay for it. That might be a glitch in their plans to pretend. How do they keep the folks actually stuck with paying for the wall from ratting them out?
Some of the editorials I've been reading suggest that Bradley Manning's original 35 year sentence was somewhat out of line (read: "excessive") given the general run of sentences in comparable cases. I notice that Obama didn't pardon Manning, just cut the sentence back from the original term. I haven't looked into this close enough to have a solid opinion on the matter, yet. But, off the top of my head, I have trouble remembering any other whistle-blower types who got 35 years.
While we're on the subject of Manning. I'm reminded that Julian Assange said he'd surrender to American authorities if Bradley Manning were granted clemency. Today's reports are a bit conflicting about whether or not Assange intends to actually honor his promises in that regard (some reports say ‘yes’; Assange's lawyer appears to be saying ‘no’).
But, this could be Assange's best chance to escape American wrath. Trump could follow up Manning's commutation with a pardon for Assange.
Turkey wants to invite Trump to participate in the Russian/Turkish/Iranian peace talks on Syria, but is also demanding that we drop any efforts to include the Kurds in those peace talks. DailySabah Excluding the Kurds appears to be a condition of the invitation.
The second part of "Divided States of America" is on tonight at 8:00.
I'm guessing we're gonna be told the tale of how Obama's attempt to surmount the partisanship of Washington was taken as an existential threat by the Republican leadership.
And, on a more immediate matter… It's beginning to look like Team Trump is going to not be ready when the lights come back on Friday afternoon after Friday morning's swearing in ceremonies. Probably won't be ready by Monday either. The government's lookin’ to be on autopilot until Trump figures out what he's supposed to be doing. (And I'm truly afraid he's entirely clueless at this point.)
Assange has found some wiggle room in his statement that he would come to the States and face the music if Manning was granted clemency. Apparently commuting the sentence isn't good enough. It isn't the same as a full pardon, so doesn't count.
Yeah, I'm guessing a full pardon was exactly what Assange was looking for, a full pardon for Assange. But, I guess it's too soon for Trump to go there.
Odd how Hillary didn't play hardly any role in that two hours on the rise of Shorthands the Dancing Bear.
Time Op-Ed, quasi-official, doesn't think much of Trump's EPA pick.
And, Team Trump has said they will send somebody to those Russian/Turkish/Iranian Peace talks on regarding Syria. They don't know if they've got anybody to send, or maybe there's somebody in the State Department who'll appear on Team Trump's behalf, or maybe they'll just hire a local to go sit at the table, but they intend to send somebody so as they figure out where Astana is (that's in one of those ‘-Stan’ places, right?) and who they might know who can find the place, or find a map to the place. Al-Monitor
[Chunmpy]: "Yeah, I'm guessing a full pardon was exactly what Assange was looking for, a full pardon for Assange."
What a munificent justice system y'all are operatin' there in yore parallel universe -- it can pardon people before they've been convicted of anything, or even charged. Such prescient beneficence!
You conveniently forget the pardoning of Richard Nixon I suppose.
There are some people who're getting a little bit overwrought at the impending inauguration of Shorthands the Dancing Bear.
I'm thinkin’ kinda like this Jonathan Chait fella. I think the Republicans are find themselves totally unable to govern. (For instance, one of the very few things of any substance they'll likely be able to pull of intentionally--as opposed to stumbling into messes with absolutely no forethought whatsoever--one of the possible intentional things is the repeal of ObamaCare. They will then discover the consequences of taking medical coverage away from their own base of of angry old white folks--folks who never admitted to themselves that they were the recipients of all that government assistance which was supposedly going to folks who don't deserve it.)
Democrats oughta kick back and wait. The other shoe will drop.
Or, just as I recommended we allow the citizens of Mosul to fully enjoy their new Da‛esh political leadership, I think we should likewise allow the Trumpkins time to fully enjoy the wonders that will be theirs courtesy of Shorthands the Dancing Bear.
Sean Hannity is on RadioRightWing, still trying to convince his listeners that a pardon for Hillary Clinton is in the offing.
I've been listening to RadioRightWing the last couple of days and considering how agitated many of them have become as the inaugeration date approaches and it becomes apparent that many citizens don't feel much in the way of deference to Shorthands and his Billionaire Circus. They're gettin’ really bent ‘bout it.
It occurs to me that we really should do something about that electoral system, at least insofar as it's capable of producing a tie. If there'd had been a tie come up in the pledged count and if even one (1) elector had been convinced to switch his/her vote to Hillary (thus settling the matter in the electoral college instead of letting it go to the House of Representatives where the Republicans would have won) there very well might have been ol’ white folks' riots all across the country. And those people would have come armed and primed for bloodshed. If nothing else we really oughta fix it so there's 539 electors and a tie is impossible. The Old South and their coalition partners won't allow a re-jiggering of the system to make it more democratic (small d democratic), but they might agree to add an elector for American Samoa or Guam or some such place as that. (They'd never agree to give one to Puerto Rico on account of those people would vote Democrat--Large D Democrat.)
That'd make for 539 electoral votes and therefore no ties. Just a thought.
I'll be back later to catch up on the links. I just wanted to put up that new post.
Post a Comment