HomeGroupsTalkZeitgeist
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
  • LibraryThing
  • Book discussions
  • Your LibraryThing
  • Join to start using.

2020, contd. (V)

This is a continuation of the topic 2020, contd. (IV).

Pro and Con

Join LibraryThing to post.

1margd
Sep 28, 12:00pm Top

Joanne Freeman @jbf1755 (Yale) | 7:42 AM · Sep 28, 2019:
Wow.
Yesterday the FEC chair tried to publish their weekly journal & was blocked. She says that’s unprecedented
It has a draft rule re: foreign election interference
So she tweeted the ENTIRE journal.
Just putting that here...

MEMORANDUM
TO: The Commission
FROM: Ellen L. Weintraub, Chair
SUBJECT: Draft Interpretive Rule Concerning Prohibited Activities Involving Foreign Nationals
DATE:September 26, 2019

I request that the attached document be made public and that it be placed on the agenda of the Commission’s next open meeting (Oct 17, 2019).

This is not my ideal statement of the law, but I believe this document fairly reflects the Commission’s interpretation of the foreign-national political-spending prohibition.

Draft Interpretive Rule Concerning Prohibited Activities Involving Foreign Nationals (8 p)...

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/mtgdoc_19-41-A.pdf

2margd
Sep 28, 12:00pm Top

Joanne Freeman @jbf1755 (Yale) | 7:42 AM · Sep 28, 2019:
Wow.
Yesterday the FEC chair tried to publish their weekly journal & was blocked. She says that’s unprecedented
It has a draft rule re: foreign election interference
So she tweeted the ENTIRE journal.
Just putting that here...

MEMORANDUM
TO: The Commission
FROM: Ellen L. Weintraub, Chair
SUBJECT: Draft Interpretive Rule Concerning Prohibited Activities Involving Foreign Nationals
DATE:September 26, 2019

I request that the attached document be made public and that it be placed on the agenda of the Commission’s next open meeting (Oct 17, 2019).

This is not my ideal statement of the law, but I believe this document fairly reflects the Commission’s interpretation of the foreign-national political-spending prohibition.

Draft Interpretive Rule Concerning Prohibited Activities Involving Foreign Nationals (8 p)...

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/mtgdoc_19-41-A.pdf

32wonderY
Oct 1, 2:45pm Top

Zuckerburg is afraid of Elizabeth Warren

from Fox News

Zuckerberg says if Warren becomes president, Facebook would sue U.S. gov't: 'You go to the mat and fight'

In March, Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, put forth a plan that would break up the largest tech companies in the country, chiefly Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple, saying the power they hold is too great.

"I want a government that makes sure everybody — even the biggest and most powerful companies in America — plays by the rules," Warren wrote in a blog post announcing her plan. "And I want to make sure that the next generation of great American tech companies can flourish. To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor."

42wonderY
Oct 1, 4:38pm Top

Remember this account?

https://twitter.com/trump_regrets

It's still going strong.

5lriley
Oct 1, 6:46pm Top

The Banks, the tech companies, Wall St. will line up against Warren. I'm not even sure they'd rather have Sanders. Their problem then is do they put their money on Trump because the Donald with impeachment hanging over his head is severely damaged goods. If people started boycotting Facebook or Apple or Chase Manhattan for lining up with the Donald those companies could take a big hit.

6margd
Oct 2, 11:12am Top

Bernie Sanders hospitalized with chest pain, campaign events canceled
maryalice parks, josh margolin, andkendall karson | Oct 2, 2019, 11:08 AM ET

"During a campaign event yesterday evening, Sen. Sanders experienced some chest discomfort. Following medical evaluation and testing he was found to have a blockage in one artery and two stents were successfully inserted," said Sanders’ senior adviser Jeff Weaver on Wednesday in a statement.

"Sen. Sanders is conversing and in good spirits. He will be resting up over the next few days," Weaver said. "We are canceling his events and appearances until further notice, and we will continue to provide appropriate updates."...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-78-canceled-events-notice-hospita...

7LolaWalser
Oct 2, 12:23pm Top

Terrible. Just terrible. What a bummer. I so hoped it would be Sanders.

8margd
Edited: Oct 2, 1:50pm Top

Folks I know are doing well years after such procedure, so I'll bet he's not going anywhere.
Oval Office perhaps not best place for him or country, though?
(Nor Biden nor Trump, who is way older than his chronological age, looks like.)

ETA____________________________________________

Can you imagine having to prepare and serve Bernie's hospital bill? 😅

Alternative NOAA @altNOAA | 12:41 PM · Oct 2, 2019

@BernieSanders is going to be pissed about that medical bill.
Wishing him a speedy recovery.
He makes this primary race a better one and we're going to need his senate vote soon in the upcoming trial of The People vs The Grifter.

9LolaWalser
Oct 2, 12:41pm Top

I'm not concerned that he'll drop dead soon but that this spells the end of his chances with the voters.

10lriley
Edited: Oct 2, 1:17pm Top

Robert Reich just posted a half hour interview with Sanders last night that I was watching on youtube. I had the idea it was from a day or two ago.

Sanders works hard and he gets worked up. In 2016 he was doing 2-3 events regular every day that would last an hour and a half--two hours each--hopping on a plane in the morning and doing it all over again in the afternoon and/or in the evening. The last month or so of Hillary's 2016 run he was out stumping for her every day too. It takes a lot of energy to do that for a 50 something year old let alone someone in his mid-70's. To be honest when he decided to run again I wondered if he'd be able to keep up that kind of pace again.

Hopefully he'll be okay but it makes me wonder whether he should go on.

11LolaWalser
Oct 2, 4:33pm Top

I saw that. It's just horrifying to watch all the chances for something better die. Biden is "not-Trump" and Warren... well she might as well start wearing a Hillary Clinton mask now because the assholes are out in force treating her like that anyway.

Meanwhile the orange turd is gibbering about stopping the Mexicans with snakes and alligators. Job openings for his base I presume.

12lriley
Oct 2, 5:08pm Top

#11--If there is a real health risk with Sanders--one of the worst things that could happen is his dropping dead in October and especially if we don't impeach and remove Donald before then but even if the republican nominee is someone else he (I don't think there's any chance it will be a she) is going to be awful. I think the heat is really on the republicans though one way or the other if only because of their craven and disgusting bowing down to this clown--their only avenue again is the electoral college. They won't win a plurality of votes.

Warren to me is quite different from Hillary though. She is much more populist and significantly further to the left--she's not married to Bill either and she has a pretty clean background. Economics professor turned politician kind of later in life. There aren't many skeletons in the closet. The native American thing is about the only avenue I can think of for republicans to get really personal about her life with. They're going to call her a socialist for sure but she's not really. She's somewhat to the right of Sanders on a number of things but not that significantly. She's smart as a whip and she reads and she prepares and will do the work she needs to do canvassing for votes around the country. Biden is a center-right guy--he'll get the big donor money including from Wall St. and the tech companies but he's nowhere near as prepared on policy or going to work nearly as hard as Warren will.

Snakes, alligators, shooting immigrants in their legs--reminds of a Southern Plantation slave owner before the civil war. Some of his voters would be fine with that analogy I'm sure--others too dumb to make the connection.

13LolaWalser
Oct 2, 5:21pm Top

If Warren is nominated I would hope people would support her but I fear it would be touch and go. Otoh, perhaps the Trumpoidal haemorrhoid did lose some of his fanatics to death and disaffection and perhaps that might offset some of the extracurricular crap a woman's candidacy would inevitably cause. He did lose some of the white bitches who voted for him the first time. Some racist geezers must've kicked the bucket. Mayhap those "coal mine" states won't be such a pushover for him the next time.

But all in all, unless Biden starts feeling chest pangs too, I fear it's Biden's game to lose now.

We'll be hearing yet about Biden having cheated Warren out of candidacy, mark my words.

14lriley
Edited: Oct 2, 6:10pm Top

#13--if Sanders is out I think a lot more of his voters go to Warren than to Biden. From what I understand he is closer to her than pretty much anyone else in the Senate with the possible exception of Jeff Merkley. The other thing is if Biden can't figure out momentum--he's been dropping in the polls for some time now while Warren has continually had the most traction upwards--he's not going to win. If Sanders is out she wins the first two states Iowa and New Hampshire. She also probably wins Nevada and California which have moved up in the schedule and are also very early. Having early momentum is usually a big deal. In 2016 many of the Southern states were among the earliest and those are states more likely to be won by the republicans--that was momentum coming from states that the Democrats were going to lose in the election. They are states that Biden is likeliest to win in the primaries. I prefer a candidate gaining early momentum off the states they're going to win or probably going to win and California being early--that's a huge delegate boost to whoever wins and it might be the most left state in the country. I don't see Biden winning there at all.

15Molly3028
Edited: Oct 6, 8:11am Top

Never-Trumpers are turning into Trumpers ~ 21st Century
America is turning into 20th Century Germany ~ the downside of
the Internet era is becoming very apparent.

16proximity1
Edited: Oct 6, 11:31am Top

>15 Molly3028:

Awwwwwwwww-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w, now.

Maybe you ought to emigrate before it's too late?: before all the concentration-camp construction is completed, hmm?

And take your like-minded friends with you when you go!

Mach schnell! Ein bisschen dalli!

LOL!

17lriley
Oct 6, 2:04pm Top

I ran into this line by Jose Eduardo Agualusa in his book of chameleons and it reminded me of Donald--'He was evil, and he didn't know it. He didn't know what evil was. That is to say, he was pure evil'.

18LolaWalser
Edited: Oct 8, 2:38pm Top

"We don't want to go back to "Before Trump", "Before Trump" led us to Trump."

Robert Reich: Why 2020 Won't Be Won By Centrists

19lriley
Oct 8, 3:12pm Top

#18--Reich is 100% correct on everything he says here. And the truth is that we are going to have to take wealth away from the rich. There is no other way and I don't really see the controversy. When you have 4 or 5 people who have amassed enough wealth equal to what half of our country's population has (or roughly 160 million people) that's immoral and people worry about these 5 individuals paying more taxes? For us as a nation to go forward they're going to have to give a lot of that back. Our society isn't meant to be about a few--it's meant to be about everybody. So too bad if Bill Gates, or the surviving Koch brother, Ken Langone, George Soros, Jamie Dimon or Jeff Bezos are going to have to pony up some of their wealth. I'm with AOC---we really don't need billionaires. We need medicare for all--we need a clean enviroment--we need to rebuild infrastructure and we need people working jobs that they can survive off of.

I also like Reich's cartoon/caricature abilities. It reminds me a lot of my dad's drawings and doodles.

20Molly3028
Edited: Oct 8, 6:58pm Top

Let's skip the Impeachment process ~

GOPers want the voters who gave the key to the WH to a life-long
con man and crime-family boss to decide the direction in which
the country should go next. YIKES.

21margd
Edited: Oct 9, 4:42am Top

Bipartisan Senate report* calls for sweeping effort to prevent Russian interference in 2020 election
Craig Timberg and Tony Romm | Oct. 8, 2019

...The Senate Intelligence Committee, a Republican-led panel that has been investigating foreign electoral interference for more than 2½ years, said in blunt language that Russians worked to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton while bolstering Republican Donald Trump — and made clear that fresh rounds of interference are likely ahead of the 2020 vote.

...Congress...act, including through the potential adoption of new regulations that would the disclosure of ad buyers more transparent

...House and the executive branch...adopt a more forceful, public role, warning Americans about the ways in which dangerous misinformation can spread while creating new teams within the U.S. government to monitor for threats and share intelligence with industry.

...Silicon Valley...more extensively share intelligence among companies, in recognition of the shortage of such sharing in 2016 and also the ways that disinformation from Russia and other countries spreads across numerous platforms — with posts linking back and forth in a tangle of connections.

....extensive Russian manipulation of Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Google and other major platforms with the goal of dividing Americans, suppressing African American turnout and helping elect Trump president.

...Iran has joined Russia as a leader in foreign online interference. The list of countries known to have conducted such operations also includes Saudi Arabia, Israel, China, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Venezuela, say researchers. A report by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project said last month that at least 70 nations have sought to manipulate voters and others online, though most meddle mainly in their own domestic politics.

...Fake accounts operating from Russia started by ingratiating themselves into online conversations using nonpolitical comments, then switched to overtly partisan content.

...paid advertisements on Facebook, Instagram and other platforms were much less important than the free viral context created by teams of Russian disinformation operatives working across multiple platforms....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/bipartisan-senate-report-ca...

__________________________________________________​

*REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE
ON RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION
VOLUME 2: RUSSIA'S USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS
85 p

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-r...

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/db388e88-fb27-...

22theoria
Oct 12, 12:35pm Top

It’s telling that Trump has to hold his Rolling Nuremberg Rallies in deep red states which he should have no problem holding.

23lriley
Edited: Oct 12, 2:53pm Top

The Republicans haven't won Minnesota in a presidential election since 1972--I don't think that the deeply divisive Trump is going to win it in 2020. They do seem to think they can turn that state but really I don't see them winning states they didn't win last time and I do think they are going to lose some. They got creamed in 2018 and nothing that's happened in the interim points to a better outcome for the Republicans in 2020. Over half the country is fine with Trump's impeachment--that's no endorsement by the public.

To me the bigger question is whether the Democrats can take back the Senate--something like 23 Republican Senate seats up for grabs in 2020 to 12 for the Democrats. Gardner and Collins are two that the Democrats should absolutely win---there will be several others that the Dems have a very good to decent shot at.

24margd
Oct 13, 7:41am Top

Candidates Grow Bolder on Labor, and Not Just Bernie Sanders
Noam Scheiber | Oct. 11, 2019

...At least half the candidates who will appear in next week’s presidential debate — including Mr. Sanders — have labor platforms that are more ambitious than his 2016 version.

Several candidates have pledged to ban noncompete agreements, which hold down wages for workers, and mandatory-arbitration clauses, which prohibit lawsuits against employers. They would effectively require many companies to treat independent contractors as employees, making the workers eligible for the minimum wage and unemployment insurance. They would enact a number of measures that would help workers unionize and strike, like allowing them to lead boycotts of an employer’s customers, which is currently illegal.

...Perhaps the most ambitious proposal is an idea known as sectoral bargaining, in which workers would bargain with employers on an industrywide basis rather than employer by employer. Sectoral bargaining, which is common in Europe, would make it possible to increase wages and benefits for millions of workers in relatively short order, even for those who aren’t union members. It would also give employers an incentive to create better-paying jobs because doing so would no longer bestow a major cost advantage on competitors...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/business/economy/democratic-candidates-labor-...

25Molly3028
Edited: Oct 13, 8:53am Top

Our Founding Fathers never saw this national disgrace coming.
GOPers are telling the world that they support the lawbreaking
and truth-denouncing occupant of the WH 100%. Our carefully
written founding documents can't protect us from the actions of
millions of Trump-worshipping cult followers.

26proximity1
Oct 14, 1:10pm Top


>25 Molly3028:

"Our Founding Fathers never saw this national disgrace coming."


Really?

Have you read anything from James Madison's writings?* His notes on the Constitutional convention?

Our Founding Fathers saw foreign-based occupying armies coming. They saw their homes siezed by military troops and forcibly used as troop-quarters; they saw arrests, imprisonment and trial without warrant; they saw censorship of speech and of writing; they saw public gatherings made illegal; they saw unauthorized travel banned or restricted; they saw trials held in secret, without notice of charges, without benefit of legal counsel; they saw power wielded completely arbitrarily with no recourse to appeal, no right to be heard in opposition; they saw the religious persecuted as well as persecution of others, the non-believers, by the religious. They saw majorities trample essential minority-rights--those which ought not be refused or denied--even if to a single individual by an all-but-unanimous majority: i.e. everyone-except-one in favor or opposed. They saw minorities stand in the way of majorities on matters which were not concerned with the defense of essential civil rights but, rather, simple daily policy matters.

Before you assume you know what our founding fathers foresaw or didn't foresee, try reading the writings they left to us, their notes, their diairies, the journals of their public legislatures, etc.

There's practically nothing which we're living through today which they had not both experienced themselves and worried over for their posterity and, so, made provision against these ills and risks as best could be done.

Here's something else they foresaw: looking ahead, they said, of us, those who'd come after them---

"the people of the future shall be vain, stupid, greedy, naive, selfish, corrupt. easily duped and given to lying to themselves about what is true or best---just as we know and see in our own time."

That people couldn't read was a condition that they knew well. Illiteracy was fairly widespread for a while--though it fell dramatically between 1790 and 1890. What would surprise them is the number of people who can read-- who know how to-- but just wouldn't and didn't bother to read anything which was not strictly necessary.

_______________________

* Selected writings of James Madison / edited, with introduction, by Ralph Ketcham.

The Writings of James Madison, comprising his public papers and his private correspondence, including numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed. Edited by G. Gaillard Hunt.

The Complete Madison. His basic writings. Edited and with an introduction by Saul K. Padover. (1953)

27margd
Oct 15, 1:06pm Top

We asked 2020 Democratic candidates 6 key questions on climate change
Here’s what they said.

...here are the questions we put to every candidate:

1. A president has only 100 days or so in which to pass a few key priorities. Where does climate change fall on your list of priorities when you step into office?

2. If Democrats win a narrow majority in the Senate, will you advocate reforming or scrapping the filibuster?

3. If Republicans control one or both houses of Congress and legislation stalls, what executive actions are you prepared to take to reduce carbon emissions?

4. Some communities are more vulnerable to climate change than others. Some communities depend on fossil fuel industries more than others. What will you do to ensure that vulnerable communities are protected during the transition to clean energy?

5. There is a nationwide push to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their contributions to climate change and for their campaigns to mislead the public, via lawsuits, shareholder resolutions, and divestment. Do you support these efforts? What do you see as the government’s role in holding polluters accountable?

6. The Pentagon has called climate change a “threat multiplier” in international conflict. At the same time, climate change stands to have the worst impacts on countries that contributed least to the problem. How should the US brace for global climate chaos? And what will you do to help other countries prepare for the impending disruption?

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/14/20880659/2020-democratic-debates-climate-change-s...

28LolaWalser
Oct 16, 7:12pm Top

Sanders gets the endorsement of the progressive Democrats, hope revives.

29lriley
Oct 16, 10:03pm Top

#28--it should help Bernie get some more traction but Omar, Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez are walking targets for the right and even for some centrist or right leaning democrats.

Speaking of which Biden last night very loudly attempting to get Warren to say nice things about him. She kept her cool and didn't give him what he wanted. Mayor Pete dissing her for not explaining about how her health care plan will work when really Mayor Pete has no plan of his own to talk about.

Bernie's more up front about health care than she is though. The disingenuity of the centrists who continue to hammer on how taxes will have to go up while ignoring that health care premiums and out of pocket costs will disappear and people will no longer have the worry about being bankrupted over a major health issue or that cost controls will be put on big Pharma.

Beto fretting over a class war against billionaires. WTF! Sanders/Warren are the best two.

30proximity1
Edited: Oct 17, 6:05am Top

>28 LolaWalser:

Sanders endorsed and campaigned for that moral-wreckage and perpetual walking bad-hair-day, Hillary Clinton.

Tulsi Gabbard is now the only Democrat in the running for whom I'd be willing to cast a ballot to elect. But, of course, she's not going to be given the nomination.

Go back to the Senate and stay there until retirement, Senator Sanders. You had your shot and, very frankly, you fucking blew it. 'Nough said.

31lriley
Edited: Oct 17, 7:52am Top

#30--this is dopey as it gets. 4 years ago at this time Prox here was extolling the virtues of Mr. Sanders.....like he extolls the virtues of Jeremy Corbyn and then he goes all in for shitbird Trump and all this seemingly because of his obsessive hatred for Hillary Clinton. Sanders actually has a political and for the people background and agenda--Trump's entire agenda is about his sorry ass self. He could give a rat's ass about people. No problem for Prox though he can as easily vote for Trump's wall and be against medicare for all and climate legislation as he can vote for medicare for all and climate legislation. It's all about 'the man' and nothing to do with his work or what he stands for. It also doesn't matter what garbage he posts or where he gets it from--culling the right wing seas for the most bullshit and vile right wing crap because seriously as far as I'm concerned Prox---you have a screw loose.

I might also note that Prox always steers clear of the indefensible shit that Trump does. For instance we've yet to hear word one from him about what's just happened in Syria because of his stupid phone call and dumb ass tweet that gave Mr. Erdogan carte blanche to start his genocidal war while also giving Putin a big foothold in the region. And funny--half of what Mr. Trump does seems to benefit Mr. Putin someway or somehow. As long as Prox can continue with his goofy obsessions though he doesn't care.

Policy means nothing to Proximity. It's all about personality. Elections to him are nothing but popularity contests. He's actually among the dumbed down but too silly to realize it.

32LolaWalser
Oct 17, 12:11pm Top

>31 lriley:

"Ignore" is a gift. Trumpo's ascension ferreted out the fascist bootlickers and fart smellers, gave the pigs a license to roll in the shit for all to see. We'll see how they'll enjoy being reminded of this for the rest of their lives.

Arwa Mahdawi:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez knows: Bernie Sanders is the most progressive choice

I’ll tell you what I find fascinating: the fact that the concept of “identity politics” has become so thoroughly distorted that people seem to think it means voting for the candidate that looks most like you, or shares your sexual preferences, their policies be damned. The idea that “women of colour” would align themselves with a candidate simply because of their sex or skin colour is incredibly condescending. You also can’t ask whether ideology is more important than race and gender, because the three are not separate, stand-alone entities. But as a “woman of colour” I can tell you right now that ideology is far more important than skin-deep representation.

Here’s the thing: if Sanders and Warren were completely interchangeable in their politics then it would make sense to get behind Warren because she is a woman. America is way overdue a female president. But while Warren and Sanders may be far more to the left than the rest of the Democrats, their politics are not identical. Warren has made it clear that she is a capitalist while Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist. That difference isn’t a small question of semantics – it’s reflective of a fundamentally different world view.


Long story short, if the US is to change in the direction of progress, of mitigating the consequences of the environmental and economic catastrophe, the change has to be as serious as possible as soon as possible. Sanders is more likely to effect this than Warren.

33proximity1
Edited: Oct 19, 6:14am Top







… “Wolin argued that the focus on economic and technological progress distracted from the regressive trends in society, and that this has led to us 'evolving from a more to a less democratic polity and from a less to a more authoritarian society. These tendencies define the meaning of the present as the moment in our national history when democracy is forced into opposition.'(40) The Trump phenomenon seems like just the sort of thing that signals a shift towards a more authoritarian society. His actions in office have been roundly and persuasively interpreted as broadly authoritarian,(41) but social science research indicates that his voters are not.(42) However, I do not think that the election of Donald Trump represents a turn away from democracy. Quite the contrary, insofar as it represented a rejection of faraway elites and their cultural preferences, it implies just the opposite—that people are so fed up with the status quo’s perceived rules of operation that they are willing to go to extreme lengths to make their unhappiness known. His election has forced a great deal of reflection as to what went wrong, why people are so unhappy, and what to do about it.” ...
...
_______________________

—Christopher Jackson, “Politics Beyond the Personal: Reading Wolin In the Age of Trump” Honors Thesis, Spring 2017, Honors Theses at the University of Iowa (https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=honors_theses)

Footnotes:
(40) Wolin 1981“Why Democracy?”
(41) Heer.
(42) Oliver and Rahn

Heer, Jeet. “Is Trump Authoritarian or Incompetent? Yes.” The New Republic. Hamilton Fish, 3 May 2017. Web. 5 May 2017. .

Oliver, Eric, and Wendy Rahn. “Trump’s Voters Aren’t Authoritarians, New Research Says. So What Are They?” The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 9 Mar. 2016. Web. 5 May 2017. .

Wolin, Sheldon. “Why Democracy?”Democracy 1.1 (1981): 3-5






President Trump, it is now clear, represents what is at least the start of, if not a fully-fledged example of, a clean-break with some--perhaps much and, who knows?, perhaps all or nearly all--of what's called "The Washington Consensus (TWC)."* Seriously challenging that consensus has been a long-time dream of many on the political 'Left.' To not only question and challenge TWC but, indeed, to break with parts of it, that much many in this Left did not even dare to dream. Trump now clearly divides political opinion both between and within the “Left-vs.-Right”. It's clear, too, by now that he was not put up for office by some shadowy behind-the-scenes establishment group(s) pursuing a hidden agenda. Nor was he simply role-playing as a political outsider, one nearly as uncomfortable with the establishment's Right-wing as with its so-called “Center” or “Left-wing”. He was and is in certain ways a genuine political outsider—if nothing else at least from the perspective of TWC and those who find their natural political “home” there. These certainly include Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, the Clintons and virtually the entire current Democratic Party's national executive structure as much as it includes the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party's national leadership and all the leading members of the House and Senate Republican caucuses. Naturally, nearly all of the nation's top corporate executives in key industries—banking and investment, energy companies, media, communications and entertainment companies, 'defense' industries, transportation, agriculture, research and higher education, what's called now by a term which has more than a little pejorative character to it, “the mainstream (news/journalism) media”—all these are subscribers to and defenders of TWC.

No member of the “mainstream media's” critics of Trump—whether defined as individual or as institution, none of the national journalist profession opposed to Trump—has, as far as I am aware, ever deviated from the practice of using only the language of mental and emotional illness, disease and defect, as the key to Trump's description and to placement, by definition, outside the respectable norms of any social or political setting. Not once that I am aware of has the professional press ever described or explained Trump as a man whose political behavior and strategy can be recognized as a part of a sane and coherent orientation to the worlds of business and politics made reasonable by a basic questioning and challenging of TWC. This informing thread which runs through much of Trump's speech and acts is not even denied—it is, rather, consistently and completely ignored.

To allow such an informing picture of Trump to appear would be to undermine the wall-to-wall projection of Trump as a deviant, inexplicable under any sane, reasonably sound manner of analysis and interpretation. That the journalist profession should be so thoroughly unified in this way is a testament to the amazing extent of its capture and control by the establishment's orthodox directorship.

______________________

* “Challenging the Washington Consensus” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Winter/Spring 2003, Volume IX, Issue 2. Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University Professor of Economics and Finance, interviewed by Lindsey Schoenfelder. May, 2002

34TrippB
Oct 18, 10:20pm Top

New respect for Tulsi Gabbard:

"Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly."

I wouldn't vote for Tulsi as a Dem, but, as a third party, I'd listen to what she has to say.

35lriley
Edited: Oct 18, 10:40pm Top

#34--Hillary has it in for Tulsi because of 2016. Sometimes people need to let things go. I think a lot of the anti-Hillary people should just get a grip. She's over as a political force. Going on about 4 years ago is stupid. We need to worry about the future--not the past. Hillary should get a grip too. Her accusation doesn't make a lot of sense. I like Tulsi but her chances of becoming a difference maker at a national level are not very high and I think Hillary's accusation is ridiculous--should not be made anyway with no real evidence. Russian seeing an opening here just seems dumb to me. There's a decent chance Tulsi will be primaried and also a possibility she'd lose to a more centrist democrat just on her house seat. Tulsi herself is sometimes an odd mix of left, left center and right center views. I think there's more good (left) than bad (center right) though.

36theoria
Oct 18, 10:44pm Top

One number to remember: 65 million.

That’s the number of Democratic votes for HRC in 2016. Gabbard’s Trumpesque tweet is political death warrant. As a Democrat.

She’d be a great mainstream Republican. I tend to think that’s where she’ll wind up.

37lriley
Oct 18, 10:47pm Top

Great interview between Katie Tur and Michael Moore tonight. Try to link it tomorrow.

38TrippB
Oct 18, 10:49pm Top

"Tulsi herself is sometimes an odd mix of left, left center and right center views."

That describes a lot of voters, including me.

"Sometimes people need to let things go."

Agreed. The embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, needs to let her public presence go and just fade away as a bad memory.

39lriley
Oct 19, 5:42am Top

#38--if anyone is corrupt it's Trump. You might not like the direction the democratic party is going in (and that's fair) but they are not breaking laws doing it. The democratic party is generally on the center/right. There are two smaller groups of mostly freshman and 2nd term democrats that have become the bete noires of the republican right---they are those who are in Justice Democrats and Our Revolution--they're the ones with the left agenda and they came into being pretty much off of the Sanders 2016 presidential run. They are the bulk of the left in the party. They include AOC, Tlaib, Omar, Pressley, Jayapal, Khanna and a handful of others and one of the handful is Gabbard who might be the least left of them all. Wanting a green new deal or medicare for all is not corrupt. They advocate for things like that.

But speaking of corruption--the NC9 house seat was voter fraud corruption by the republican Party. Duncan Hunter's misuse of campaign funds is corruption by a republican. Chris Collins FEC crime is corruption by a republican. There are no democrats currently with legal issues such as that....and then there is Trump who has been breaking laws left and right.

40margd
Oct 19, 6:48am Top

State Dept. Inquiry Into Clinton Emails Finds No Deliberate Mishandling of Classified Information
Catie Edmondson | Oct. 18, 2019

The nine-page unclassified report*, completed last month and shared with Congress (Senator Grassley, Chair, Finance Committee) this week, appears to bookend a controversy that dogged Ms. Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign against Donald J. Trump. Ms. Clinton blamed the F.B.I.’s handling of the inquiry for crippling her campaign after James B. Comey, then the bureau’s director, reopened his investigation into the server days before the general election after initially declining to bring charges.

“While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience,” the report said, “by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations.”
Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

The report concluded, “There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/state-dept-inquiry-clinton-emails...

* DS Report on Security Incidents Related to Potentially Classified Emails sent to Former Secretary of State Clinton's Private Email Server (9 p)
DS Office of Information Security, Program Applications Division DS/IS/APD US Department of State
September 13, 2019
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-17%20State...

__________________________________________________​

Talk about a witch hunt! Rachel Maddow compared Nixon's use of government (IRS, Justice, etc) to go after ~200 enemies, concluding with what little is known of IRS whistleblower re inappropriate pressure from Trump's WH, Trump's attempts to increase rates for Amazon (Bezos also owns Washington Post)...Trumpians certainly can't let go of HRC. (Get over it?) As Comey said, "Lordy, let there be tapes!"

State Dept. Investigating Email Practices of Hillary Clinton’s Former Staff
Edward Wong and Maggie Haberman | Sept. 29, 2019

The State Department is continuing an investigation of email use among employees who worked for Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, asking scores of current and former officials to submit to questioning by the bureau overseeing diplomatic security, former officials said on Sunday.

The investigation is examining whether the employees used secure channels and the proper classification designations for what appeared to be routine emails at the time, the former officials said. The emails were on subjects that were not considered classified at the time, but that have been or are being retroactively marked as classified.

The inquiry potentially pushes back into the spotlight a deeply political issue that President Trump used as a weapon in his 2016 presidential campaign, and has repeatedly returned to during his time in office, despite the F.B.I. closing a previous investigation without finding wrongdoing by Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Trump’s insistence on raising the issue reflects a pattern in which the president pushes his own narrative even if an investigation or an analysis by an agency in his own administration has concluded otherwise...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-stat...

41proximity1
Edited: Oct 19, 9:55am Top

>36 theoria:

"One number to remember: 65 million. That’s the number of Democratic votes for HRC in 2016."



So? You toss that number out, stripped of all context and interpretation, as though you suppose it is bound to impress us. In particular, your comment's logic somehow has it that we should find Clinton's 65.853 million votes quite impressive but, I suppose, never mind looking at Trump/Pence's 62.984 million votes as also quite impressive.

So it would seem that, for you, roughly, some 2 869 000 votes are apparently what separates, figuratively speaking, "impressive" from "never mind". Interesting. How you arrive at that distinction is another thing you don't bother to tell us.

You also conveniently skip over explaining to us the details of the how-and-why reasoning behind your assumption that this supposedly large figure, apparently in and of itself, places Gabbard in a hopeless situation.

You allege that Gabbard's "tweeted" comments are "Trumpesque" but you don't bother to support that assertion, either, by more than what is, I guess, your self-assessed astute political judgment.

Gabbard's comments strike me as clear-sighted and factually rather hard to dispute—you don't bother to dispute them, you merely try to smear her by claiming that her comments resemble Trump's twitter-style and by alleging, again without visible means of reasoned support, that Gabbard should feel more at home as a Republican than as a Democrat and that, you tell us, she'll eventually wind up in that party.

As I see it, her qualities and talents make her a worthy and admirable candidate for public elective office—which she holds as a Democrat—under any U.S. political party's banner; but she's very much like what I'd prefer to see the U.S. Democrats become (once more) as a national political party, replacing the likes of the Obamas, the Clintons, the Rahm Emanuelses, the Pelosis, the Charles Schumers, the Maxine Waterses and the Elijah Cummmi— oh!, wait.

I'm not impressed. Read on to see why that is.

You like numbers? Alright, let's look at some. I'll supply the context which your post leaves out.

Almost exactly the same voter-turnouts occurred in both the 1972 and the 2016 presidential elections:

1972 : 55.2 %
2016 : 55.7 %

Suppose, then, we "translate" 2016's results to 1972.

Consider adjusting the 1972 election figures to our much larger national population of 2016.

By that reckoning, what should Nixon and Agnew's results have produced had they been running in a world with a 2016-U.S. population?

Well, translated into today's population picture, they'd have garnered 82 662 551 votes; that is, they'd have won 16 809 037 more votes than the measly 65.85251 million votes that Clinton and Tim Kaine (remember him?) received for all their effort (and scheming and scamming).

Nixon, later impeached, convicted removed from office, and his running-mate, Spiro Agnew, * (Maryland's governor at the time he was elected vice-president with Nixon's successful 1968 presidential race) swept the nation in their re-election campaign, carrying 49 of 50 states--as opposed to Clinton and Kaine's 20 (+ the District of Columbia) states in 2016. Nixon/Agnew garnered 520 Electoral College votes as opposed to the measly 227 won by the Clinton/Kaine campaign.

So, had there been the population we have today back in 1972, the same electoral results should have seen more than 82.5 million people cast ballots in one or another form and manner for the presidential ticket which remains the United States' greatest legal and moral debâcle in living memory when judged by the extent of the reversal of fortune which occurred.


________________________________________

* who, in October of 1973, faced the threat of a felony indictment for tax evasion and, on the 9th of that month, resigned from the office of vice-president of the United States and, the following day, entered a bargain with the U.S. Attorney for the district of Maryland by which Agnew, in return for entering a plea of "no contest" to the charge, received a conviction and sentence of three years' unsupervised probation and a fine of ten thousand dollars. A year later, the Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred Agnew.





2016 Election :
VOTER TURNOUT : 55.7 %

65 853 514 (48.2 %) Clinton popular vote
Electoral college : 227 (of a possible 538)
states carried : 20 (+ District of Columbia)

62 984 828 (46.1 %) Trump popular vote
Electoral college : 304 (of a possible 538)
states carried : 30
_____________

= 128 838 342 (94.3 %) combined Clinton / Trump popular votes ( & as % of total votes cast)

136 182 127. (100 %) total popular votes cast

________________________________________

1972 Election :
VOTER TURNOUT : 55.2 %

47 168 710 (60.7 %) Richard Nixon & Spiro Agnew popular vote
(Electoral College: 520 votes (of a possible 538 EC votes))
states carried : 49

29 173 222 (37.5 %) George McGovern & Sargent Shriver popular vote
( 17 votes (of a possible 538 EC votes))
states carried : 1 (+ District of Columbia)
__________________

76 341 932 (98.2 %) combined Nixon / McGovern popular votes
(as % of total popular votes cast)

1.012 x 76 341 932 = 77 258 035 (100 %) popular votes cast
__________________________________________________​



Source : electoral data and the details of the two presidential elections, 1972 & 2016, as well as the details of the legal problems of Vice-president Spiro Agnew all drawn from Wikipedia's pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew#Criminal_investigation_and_resignation

42LolaWalser
Oct 19, 10:42am Top

>36 theoria:

"Unhinged" is the new black.

And, some day soon, orange.

43Molly3028
Edited: Oct 19, 1:56pm Top

I believe that Trump will be impeached AND re-elected. The
power of a cult personality is unstoppable in this Internet era.
Resentment-filled, low-info people are wired to believe their cult
leader cares about them and their lives.

I shutter to think what a Hitler-type could accomplish if the
Internet existed during his era.

44Molly3028
Edited: Oct 19, 2:11pm Top

>26 proximity1:

I believe you must be a Mark Levin cult follower. He and his ilk
have spent decades on their wealth-building radio spiels. Their
bank account balances are their one-and-only concern.

45proximity1
Edited: Oct 20, 8:24am Top


>44 Molly3028:

LOL! I?!, a follower of, a fan or listener in the audience of Mark Levin, former chief of staff for then Attorney General Edwin Meese!?

This is typical of the way you cannot see straight and come up with the most absurd stuff. Despite the abundant data available to you, you don't have the first clue about what I believe or who or what I do or don't admire.

Your capacity to wildly misinterpret people and things is nothing short of amazing.

46lriley
Edited: Oct 21, 8:23am Top

On Buttigieg---in February he was calling himself as someone on the left and for a medicare for all health care system and telling democrats not to take cues from Republican talking points. Between then and now he's figured out that there was no lane for him on the left and has transitioned over to a centrist position and attacks Warren and Sanders over medicare for all positions. Anyway I think he realized early on he wasn't going to beat Bernie or Elizabeth on the left tack no matter what he did and decided the better path was to siphon the voters away from Biden and Harris. Personally I don't trust him and I don't think he cares very much where his campaign cash comes from (or what his policy positions are for that matter) which is another reason the centrist lane is better for him--because if or when Biden falters--those Wall St. and banker donors who are terrified of Sanders and Warren will look to him. Just saying.

The positive I can say about him is he'll be better than Trump but if he were to win we are not going to take the steps forward that we are going to need to take and certainly not on health care.

He's also lived a charmed life so far--he attacks other and rarely is he attacked back.

48lriley
Oct 21, 3:39pm Top

#47--Democracy Now is one of if not the best new sources out there. I expected AOC to endorse Bernie--she is a democratic socialist herself who ran as a democrat. The world does need to turn over to younger people. It is their future that's most at stake. They are going to have to live with the consequences of the world we're going to leave them and right now it's a dog eat dog economic turdpile mix of neo-liberal nonsense and billionaire happy wealth disparity--a looming climate catastrophe and a lifetime's worth of college indebtedness. So we need more AOC's--more Ilhan Omar's and more Rashida Tlaib's.

49margd
Edited: Oct 21, 5:35pm Top

Man in MAGA hat sprays Trump protesters with bear repellent
Morning Express with Robin Meade | Oct 21/2019 (0:34)

A man wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat blasted anti-Trump protesters on Santa Monica Pier with bear repellent.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/21/maga-hat-man-bear-repellant-trump...

50margd
Oct 22, 3:55am Top

Facebook takedowns show new Russian activity targeted Biden, praised Trump
Tony Romm and Isaac Stanley-Becker | Oct. 21, 2019

Facebook on Monday said it removed a network of Russian-backed accounts that posed as locals weighing in on political issues in swing states, praising President Trump and attacking former vice president Joe Biden — illustrating that the familiar threat of Russian interference looms over the next U.S. presidential race.

Facebook said the network bears the hallmark of the same Kremlin-backed group that interfered in the 2016 election by sowing social discord, seeking to boost Trump and attacking Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The new disinformation campaign appears to follow the same playbook.

This time, a coordinated group of Russian accounts that appears to show some links to the Internet Research Agency largely took to Facebook’s photo-sharing app, Instagram, to post content this year about U.S. politics and memes targeting Democratic presidential contenders...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/21/facebook-fine-tunes-disinfo...

51proximity1
Edited: Oct 22, 5:35am Top

>47 LolaWalser:

Bernie's back? The election is a year away. He could keel over from a fatal heart-attack before November 2020 comes around. I'd guess those odds are better than those of Trump's conviction and removal by a senate impeachment trial.

52lriley
Edited: Oct 22, 7:18am Top

#51--when it comes to health the morbidly obese Trump stuffs himself everyday with Big Macs and pizza and overcooked steaks swimming in gravy and everyday he knocks off a dozen diet cokes like clockwork. Then there is the ice cream and cookies and if he bothers to eat a salad it's swimming in dressing. There is some chance that one of these days he's going to bite off more than he can chew and it's going to get caught in his windpipe and if someone isn't around to give him the Heimlich maneuver he'll be toast. There's also a pretty good chance his arteries will clog or he'll develop a nice case of cancer. We are what we eat and Donald is a moron in everything he does and bad food choices can come with real consequences. You would think that someone who owns restaurants might have an idea about good food or a healthy diet but I've always heard his restaurants are shit. When the owner is an idiot though that's to be expected. The silver lining for him is if his eating habits kill him before he can be prosecuted it might spare us from throwing him in prison which is really what I'm hoping for. Prisons are notorious for bad tasting food but he will eat healthier. If he ever gets there he might live longer. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

53lriley
Edited: Oct 22, 11:43am Top

Mark Zuckerberg helping Pete Buttigieg with his campaign:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/zuckerberg-pete-buttigieg-facebook.html

Not what I would call a good thing.

54Molly3028
Edited: Oct 22, 11:58am Top

People in the country and the world have to suffer because low
information voters who barely graduated from high school dig a
charismatic con man.

55proximity1
Edited: Oct 22, 2:13pm Top

>54 Molly3028:

"People in the country and the world have to suffer because low
information voters who barely graduated from high school dig a
charismatic con man."

___________________________

I'm so pleased you make that comment.

Between now and the end of November 2020, be sure to drum upon that theme. Don't forget to make unsparing use of Hilliary's phrase, "basket of deplorables" because that did so much for your camp in 2016.

You see, for me, you qualify in spades* as what I am quite confident you mean by the phrase "low information"—and I mean that not only as in "voter," but I do mean that, too, since it's your central point here—but also, more generally, just plain "low information" person, period.

We could open a whole discussion entirely devoted to this matter. I think such a thread should prove useful and interesting.

I (and certainly not I alone, of course) suffer every single day in the most practical sense possible because of the fact that so many people share so many of your firmly-held convictions (as I observe you express them here in this site's discussions), some gained directly from your advanced studies and others gained in other ways earlier or later than those studies.

We all suffer because people live in bubbles and, in our time, that tendency has reached heights perhaps never known before in human history. But I don't think you have any idea or have ever even bothered to stop to think about how much so many of us suffer because the privileged have so often come through and come from such thoroughly "siloed" existences—existences in which they've clearly had no direct experience at all of the key aspects of large parts of society's "alien" classes (by that I mean alien to their own personal and family life-experiences.)

Class inequalities—amazingly grotesque at this time—can and do produce people who are your comment's (mere) high-school graduates, or even high-school drop-outs, who have a knowledge of a whole range of things about which you apparently just have no idea. Some of those you dismiss as "low-information" people are somehow blessed with a degree of personal humility when it comes to what they seem to think they know that you seem to have missed out on knowing.

Trump can and does make vast numbers of the very people your comment has insulted feel more worthy, more listened-to, and more relatively important even if that is only in a variety of what you'd describe as superficial ways.

That these people would embrace Trump as a champion of their interests and at the same time regard people like you as thoroughly repulsive is eminently reasonable.

For me, in your exquisite "Woke-ness", you're far beyond "low-information": you're virtually "brain-dead" and it is more than a little ironic that so much of that concerns matters which are, above all else, moral in character.
___________________________________

* "in spades": "in large amounts or to a very great degree: 'My dog has personality in spades.' "

56LolaWalser
Oct 22, 10:36pm Top

This is so great. Did I ever expect to hear actual elected American politicians talk publicly about putting the needs of the working people ahead of those of the billionaires? No, no I didn't.

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Talk Politics and 2020 with The Intercept’s Ryan Grim

57RickHarsch
Oct 23, 9:50am Top

The Intercept and Democracy Now are both great news sources.

58lriley
Oct 23, 12:53pm Top

#57--I agree.

59Molly3028
Edited: Oct 23, 2:05pm Top

Judge Judy just publicly endorsed someone for president . . . .

https://www.aol.com/article/entertainment/2019/10/23/judge-judy-endorsed-someone...

I agree with Judge Judy ~ Bloomberg should enter the presidential race ~ he has gravitas!

60lriley
Oct 23, 2:56pm Top

#59--he's also a center/right multi-billionaire and by multi---he's around $50 billion. The best thing I can say for him is he seems at least somewhat serious about climate change. Apart from that he doesn't appeal to me at all.

I'm on the left and that's where the Democratic Party IMO should be---though it's really not. It's amazing though to me why so many who call themselves liberal or progressive are always trying to hedge their bets. It shouldn't be just about a person's popularity--it should be the things they stand for, what they want to do, the fight that's in them to accomplish what they're after. Yeah--sometimes there may need to be some compromise but never to cave in. The middle path is not going to be good enough on Climate--it shouldn't be good enough on health care.....and we need to make billionaires like Bloomberg pay loads more in taxes. We don't need more billionaires--we need less---we need to share the wealth among our population a lot more and not sanctify the wealthy.

61margd
Oct 23, 4:49pm Top

#60 Gun control, too, I think?

62lriley
Oct 23, 7:12pm Top

#61--yeah there's that too.

63margd
Oct 24, 9:12am Top

Amy Klobuchar @amyklobuchar | 2:30 PM · Oct 23, 2019:
News of the weird: On Senate floor Sen. Blackburn objected to passage of my election security bills saying they have to go through Rules committee.
Here’s the weird (sad) part: A committee mark-up was scheduled on the bipartisan bill & the White House made calls to stop it.

64Molly3028
Edited: Oct 24, 1:25pm Top

The Oath of Office Trump took on his very first day as president
was the first of his 13k+ lies. The GOP is dead ~ Cult 45 has
taken its place.

65margd
Edited: Oct 27, 11:42am Top

Could Trump Serve a Second Term if Ousted? It’s Up to the Senate
Carl Hulse | Oct. 26, 2019

Everyone knows the Senate can remove a president, but a second, lesser-known vote could disqualify someone from future office altogether.

...The Constitution famously grants senators the sole power to convict and remove a president — something that has never been done. What is seldom discussed is a more obscure clause* of the Constitution that allows the Senate discretion to take a second, even more punitive step, to disqualify the person it convicts from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Imposing that penalty would effectively bar the president from reclaiming his old job. In an added twist, tacking on the extra punishment requires only a majority vote in the Senate, not the two-thirds — or 67 senators — required to convict.

...applied unevenly in the cases of federal judges removed from office...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/trump-senate-presidency.html

ETA_______________________________________________​

* Article I, section 3, Clauses 6 and 7. Trial and Judgment On Impeachment

Clause 6. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause 7

Clause 7. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-3/clause-6%E2%8...

66proximity1
Edited: Oct 27, 9:34am Top




>65 margd:

LOL!

look, we--because we inherited the Constitution and the duty to interpret its present-day meanings and purposes, (unless, of course, you'd really like to go back to counting each Black person (for census purposes) as "three-fifths" of a person)--have to work out what these things mean.

The constitution also empowers a president to grant pardons. There is only one restriction on this authority: the president may not pardon himself. But he not only may pardon a former president, this has, as you ought to know, already been done. Nixon's vice-president, Gerald Ford, upon succeeding Nixon to the presidency, then pardoned Nixon even for the potential criminal liabilities facing him.

Since Democrats have made it abundantly clear that the impeachment and removal they seek against President Trump is a political matter, I can see no reason why newly-inaugurated President Pence should hesitate to pardon Trump. Though that would not annul Trump's removal from office, it would, it seems to me, reverse the effect of a Senate vote to bar Trump's “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States” --that is, even if we suppose that this as-yet-undefined phrase means (or ought to be interpreted ) to include an an elective office.

Ultimately, it is for voters to determine who is and who is not fit to hold elective office. Indeed, it is the ugly and bloodly-minded refusal of many anti-democratic so-called "liberals" to refuse to credit and respect this principle which has brought us to this sorry pass. And it is pure partisan pique which motivates their ambition to see Trump, elected according to law and the rules of the Electoral College ssystem, removed and barred from running again--barred by U.S. senators because they so intensely dislike him and they fear, probably for good cause, that voters might well determine to re-elect him unless they try and forestall that possibility.

The presumption that either the Constitution's spirit or its letter were ever intended to work such mischief upon the electors of the president is insulting especially when we return to the details of how, originally, the Constitution had provided for the election of the president of the United States. U.S. Senators themselves were originally elected by state legislatures' members' majority votes.

And the president?

These were the terms by which the president was chosen:

(Wikipedia pages) (emphasis in the following as in the original article unless otherwise noted)


(Article II, Section 1's ) Clause 2: Method of choosing electors


'State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.'


“Under the U.S. Constitution the president and vice president are chosen by electors, under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states. The Constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create electors through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s. Most states have a "winner-take-all" system in which the candidate with the most votes in the state gets all the electoral votes.(5) Maine and Nebraska allow individual congressional districts to elect one elector.

“In an indirect popular vote, it is the names of the candidates who are on the ballot to be elected. Most states do not put the names of the electors on the ballot.(5) It is generally understood by the voters and the electors themselves that they are the representative "stand-ins" for the candidates and are expected to cast their electoral college ballots for the president and vice president who appeared on the ballot. The actual electors being voted for are usually selected by the candidate's party. There are a few cases where some electors have refused to vote for the designated candidate. (See "Faithless Elector".) Many states have mandated in law that electors shall cast their electoral college ballot for the designated presidential candidate.(5) The constitutionality of such mandates is uncertain.(6) (citation needed)

“Each state chooses as many electors as it has representatives and senators representing it in Congress. Under the 23rd Amendment, the District of Columbia may choose no more electors than the state with the lowest number of electoral votes (in effect, three electors), although since that amendment's ratification the District's population has never reached the threshold that would otherwise entitle it to choose four or more electors. While senators, representatives and federal officers are barred from becoming electors, in practice the two major federal parties frequently select senior officials at the state level (up to and including governors) to serve as electors.

(Article II, Section 1's) Clause 3: Electors


'The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.'

____________________
(Note: This procedure was changed by the 12th Amendment in 1804.) (Wikipedia)






67Molly3028
Edited: Oct 27, 1:42pm Top

Pence has turned into a Trump clone. He has been drinking a keg
of the Trump Kool-Aid every one of the 1000+ days of his VP gig.
Resentment-filled people decided these two scramble-brained
guys were the answer to their prayers. The people around the
world are wondering, watching and waiting for the other shoe to
drop in 2020.

In Trumpland our founding documents are meaningless antiquities.

68proximity1
Oct 28, 6:54am Top


>67 Molly3028:

"In Trumpland our founding documents are meaningless antiquities."

______________________________________

There we have a candid disavowal of the Constitution--from an example of a bunch of people who deplore Trump for what they see as his lack of faddish "political-correctness" or his "crude" language.

But "Trumpland" is your own mental delusion; so your assertion that "our founding documents are meaningless antiquities" means, in effect that you're really merely asserting what amounts to:

"Because of my delusional view of Trump and his presidency, I declare myself free of any obligation to respect the Constitution and the traditional principles which underpin it and our other founding documents."

Such people have no just claim on the respect of others who, unlike them, haven't dispensed with the Constitution.

69Molly3028
Edited: Oct 31, 8:44am Top

Laura Ingraham unintentionally admitted something on her FOXite
show last night ~ no Trump = no party. She, and her ilk, are Cult
45 members.

RIP GOP

70margd
Edited: Nov 2, 2:07pm Top

Every time I think we've reached the bottom...

Kurt Eichenwald @kurteichenwald | 11/1/2019

1. For those who don’t understand the fragility of American democracy in the hands of an unscrupulous autocrat - a scenario never imagined possible by the Founders under our Constituion - the cancellation of elections is quite simple and arguably legal. Which is why...

2...I fear for 2020. It all comes down to presidential emergency powers. They are poorly defined in the Constitution and under law. They are enormous and Trump clearly has been told that - remember how trump keeps saying he can do *anything* under the Constitution. Back when....

3...there was Japanese internment, Justice Robert Jackson wrote of this power in his dissent that it “lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.” We have already seen Trump do this without...

4...consequence to override congress to pay for his wall. Nothing can stop him because he said “emergency” and there is nothing to stop him.

So, it’s October 25, 2020. Polls show that trump is going to lose in a landslide. He announces a national emergency - we have evidence...

5...”that millions of illegal aliens are conspiring to vote and undermine our democracy. Therefore, I am declaring a national emergency, suspending elections until this corruption is weeded out.” And that’s it. People can sue, but his powers are broad enough and his corrupt...

6...judiciary would have to knock it down. And even if it did, there is nothing in the Constitution that says he has to abide by the ruling. Just the courts own interpretations. He can argue that Marbury v Madison does not apply in emergencies, and who can stop him? Ok, now...

7....suppose the people take up arms or Does anything but acquiesce. Trump can declare this an insurrection and suspend habeas corpus, meaning they can lock up anyone they want. Lincoln did this and while it stretches the Constitution - the section on habeas corpus appears under..

8...article one, but never says who has the power to suspend and Trump can simply say, as Lincoln did, I have that power. He also has the authority to shut down the internet or all communications. While technically the electors are supposed to cast ballots, they can’t without...

9...an election victor. And without an electoral vote, The president cannot be removed.

This is all legal. And does ANYONE believe, given he know this, that Trump won’t CONSIDER doing it? A man who publicly stated in 2016 that he might not accept the outcome of the election...

10...who, with the approval of the GOP, declared his opponents as traitors, demanded the imprisonments of political adversaries, declared the press to be the enemy of the people, has spoken longingly of never leaving office, who is besties with every autocrat and hates every...

11...democracy. Yes, as Justice Jackson said, the president - in this case Trump - has a loaded gun and we have to simply trust that he won’t use it or that the Republicans will join Democrats to stop him. And I do not believe for one second that...

12...they will say whatever rationale for the “emergency” that Trump cooks up is bogus. Just like they talked about evil hordes who didn’t exist coming into the United States, they have been saying those same hordes are voting. And they’ll say it when Trump suspends elections...

13...so FOR GODS SAKE stop the nonsense of raging over whether there is a public option or Medicare for all as a primary voting issue, or whether someone is a “corporate Democrat” or a “socialist”. None of that matters this time. We are IN this position because idiots...

14...did not recognize what was at stake in 2016, played silly games about “both sides are equally bad.” This is the same game that was played in the German federal elections in 1932, where people voting for the “can’t win” candidate gave enormous power to Hitler...

15...just three years later, Hitler declared a national emergency, dissolved the legislature and called for new elections. And soon after that, the “protest candidate and his supporters were locked up.

Can’t happen here? I never thought it could. Then again, I never thought...

16...that any political party would ever support an imperial executive and usurpation of power by a president declaring he is above the law.

The GOP has shown that, if they can make an argument, no matter how irrational or false, they will justify anything....

17...the bottom line: bad stuff could be coming. It is not outside the realm of possibility. It would not even be illegal or unconstitutional. And it will end the great American experiment in democracy. But rich people will do very very well.

71lriley
Nov 2, 3:52pm Top

#70---that's also where you have 30 million people descend on DC. Won't be hard to organize either.

72LolaWalser
Nov 2, 4:37pm Top

>71 lriley:

Uh... maybe? But what about the cca 400 million civillian-owned guns.

There is just no way any part of this scenario works out well.

73RickHarsch
Nov 3, 8:12am Top

>70 margd:

interesting and persuasive, but i wish it hadn't descended into a vote for Hillary or Biden or whoever you hate most besides Trump argument.
And there is nothing new about Republicans working for an imperial presidency. They have seen the effect of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which is to get what you want in the short term and have a name for manipulative warmongering in the long run. So Nixon/Kissinger, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Obama all have done whatever they have desired without much restraint.

I find this extremely insulting:

"so FOR GODS SAKE stop the nonsense of raging over whether there is a public option or Medicare for all as a primary voting issue, or whether someone is a “corporate Democrat” or a “socialist”. None of that matters this time. We are IN this position because idiots...

14...did not recognize what was at stake in 2016, played silly games about “both sides are equally bad.” This is the same game that was played in the German federal elections in 1932, where people voting for the “can’t win” candidate gave enormous power to Hitler..."

In effect, the suggestion is that to save the democracy one has no democratic choice. If you choose to vote on the basis of proper health care you have betrayed history. What nonsense.

74lriley
Nov 3, 9:31am Top

#73--Those center democrats often fight harder against their own left than they do republicans. Ocasio-Cortez for instance has set out a blueprint for the future that runs counter to the likes of what Biden or Buttigieg would give us. They want to take us back to the Obama years which were basically failed but gives a lot of people a feel good sensibility. The future is not really for old fuckers like me. What we're looking at are the problems that young people are going to be faced with--climate catastrophes of our making and saddled with debt throughout their lives. There is real point to medicare for all and relieving college debt and the minimum wage battles and taking real steps towards fixing the climate because it will give those 30's an under something of a fighting chance to battle those issues later on instead of getting overwhelmed and drowned by them like the more complacent of democratic politicians are willing to let happen.

It's amazing---a health insurance provider is simply an unnecessary middleman---and our health care is controlled by parasitical entities. And yet here's this crap 'Oh I like my health insurance company!' Really? We have no cost controls---the cost of insulin can go up at a whim for instance. A major medical issue can lead a family into financial ruin---other people cannot afford to be sick or get hurt and avoid doctors when they do letting their problems persist and we have people like Biden and Buttigieg who don't really give a fuck and whose hands will be out for campaign cash from health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists. Yeah--there's a problem with Trump--there's also a problem with McConnell and there's a problem with the American electorate who are easily gulled into false choices. The idea of medicare for all is to cover everyone--to not bankrupt anyone. Yeah there will have to be a way to pay for it but you won't be paying anything to Blue Cross Blue Shield anymore which is fucking expensive too. You won't have them making medical decisions for you either of what they'll pay for and what they won't. You'll have the govt. leveraging hospitals and pharmaceuticals to keep their costs down instead of trying to screw you over.

75margd
Edited: Nov 3, 10:46am Top

The most important challenge is to get our hands around climate change. All else should be subservient to that, I think. So-o fighting over how to get to M4A is very frustrating to watch. Especially while you-know-who steals the silver and the copper piping while the house burns. Eichenwald (#70) reminds us that we may not have seen the end of this grifter's evil.

Too bad US didn't move to universal healthcare when Canada did (Saskatchewan in 1947, Canada in 1966 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine_in_Canada ). Coming out of WW2, Canada had a surprisingly formidable military machine that it dismantled thereby freeing up $ for healthcare. There was less private health insurance to lobby against a government program. Moreover, conservative parties (conservative-populist Social Credit party in Alberta, Progressive Conservatives) were on board--it was the era of Nixon and the Clean Water Act....

It will be harder for US to now transition to M4A: we're heavily invested in industrial military complex, crawling with well-heeled vested interests and their lobbyists, and burdened with partisan positions that beggar the mind, e.g., repeal and replace ACA, challenging existing conditions protections... We should transition to M4A, but it won't be a wave-the-wand moment, that's for sure. Political capital should first be spent on climate change, IMHO...

76RickHarsch
Nov 3, 2:42pm Top

>75 margd: Generally seeing no hope at all on any horizon throughout my life post 1980, I had a faint hope by 2000 that maybe Europe would be the continent on which sanity would prevail and to which power would gravitate through sane trade (or some bullshit like that)...I found that Europe is corrupt, confused, and the EU whenver it is well-meaning, feckless; and otherwise, just a body controlled for trade advantages operating on the same model as the US.

Now I see another faint hope. I think the only thing that will save this globe is environmental panic. Anything that can be done toward educating young people about the combination of history's perpetual abuses of power, the insidious institutions of anthropocentrism and patriarchy and the destruction of the environment is the best positive approach I can imagine anyone could take.

77lriley
Nov 3, 5:46pm Top

#76--I think on climate younger people have actually been educating older people for quite a while. They are leading also on other things like gay rights and wealth disparity. We could teach them a few things for sure about being more self centered and corrupt though we don't have to really do much more than point to Trump to get that point across.

78lriley
Nov 5, 10:56pm Top

Virginia democrats won both the state house and senate tonight. Two things--that republicans have lost the entire state. Democrats will be doing the drawing the districts for the next 10 years if any drawing needs doing. The second thing is that with democrats in the house, senate and governor one should expect that they'll ratify the ERA amendment which would make Virginia the 38th state to do so which puts ERA past the threshold for making it into federal law. It will have to be ratified in the US Senate but it puts all the onus for it on Mitch McConnell's head to bring it to the floor. With what looks like Matt Bevins losing the Kentucky governorship tonight and McConnell being at least as unpopular in Kentucky as Bevins (if not more so) I don't think McConnell would be smart to risk blocking ratification. He's probably gone through a whole bottle of alka seltzer tonight.

79Molly3028
Nov 6, 7:34am Top

Happy to see that people in Kentucky and Virginia are slowly but
surely joining us in the 21st Century.

80margd
Nov 6, 7:41am Top

NBC Politics @NBCPolitics | 6:46 PM · Nov 5, 2019:

NEW: Joint statement from DOJ, DOD, DHS, DNI, FBI, NSA, and CISA on 2020 election security:
"Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign malicious actors all will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions."

Image https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1191864423637508100/photo/1

812wonderY
Nov 6, 9:11am Top

Daughter in Kentucky got her husband up out of bed last night to happy dance with her. The Democrats in KY have been waging a door to door campaign. She says Bashear knocked on her door this year.

82lriley
Nov 6, 12:00pm Top

Juli Briskman lost her job with a government contractor in 2017 after she flipped off Trump's car as it took him to the golf course. Last night she defeated a republican incumbent for a county supervisor job. Some karma there.

83margd
Nov 7, 11:03am Top

Will Sen Graham support his former colleague or his new BFF?

Jeff Sessions Will Run to Reclaim Alabama Senate Seat
Jeremy W. Peters and Maggie Haberman | Nov. 6, 2019

...Mr. Trump...last weekend...repeatedly denounced Mr. Sessions, saying he was a “jerk” and making it clear Mr. Sessions would not have his support, according to a person briefed on the discussions.

Publicly, however, Mr. Trump has remained silent, although some of his allies have begun expressing their disapproval. Minutes after the news of Mr. Sessions’s decision broke on Wednesday evening, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida declared on Twitter, “Jeff Sessions returning to the Senate is a terrible idea.”...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/us/politics/jeff-sessions-senate.html

842wonderY
Nov 7, 12:42pm Top

There are a couple of local boys in West Virginia who think a failed state run prepares them for president.
There must be something in the water.

Former coal exec Don Blankenship files for third-party presidential bid

After finishing third in the 2018 West Virginia Senate primary, Blankenship sought to run against Sen. Joe Manchin on the Constitution Party ticket. However, his bid was blocked by the West Virginia secretary of State over the state’s “sore loser” law barring major-party primary candidates who lose from switching to a minor party.
...
Blankenship also spent a year in federal prison for willfully conspiring to violate mine safety standards while he was at the helm of Massey Energy, which owned a West Virginia mine where 29 workers were killed in a 2010 explosion.
------------------------------
Ah, I see that Richard Ojeda, a WV state senator, launched his presidential campaign Nov. 2018, abandoning it in January 2019. He had unsuccessfully run for a US Congressional seat in 2018.

Richard Ojeda ends short-lived 2020 campaign

85LolaWalser
Nov 7, 5:53pm Top

>81 2wonderY:

The Democrats in KY have been waging a door to door campaign.

Now that takes guts. Congrats to KY and VA, with special ovation for Danica Roehm, the first transgender woman elected and RE-elected in the US.

86margd
Edited: Nov 8, 4:50pm Top

Michael Bloomberg's "broken windows" policing wouldn't endear him to African Americans. Not sure what working class voters would see in a billionaire, although some did vote for Trump. I like Bloomberg's emphasis on climate and guns--what about healthcare?--but he's 77, so would turn 80 in his first term with all the health risks that entails... He'd probably have lots of support from Wall Street donors, apparently frightened by Elizabeth Warren? Thing is, unless he wins, he might be spoiler, handing D win to Warren/Sanders.

What Michael Bloomberg means for the 2020 Democratic field
Chris Cillizza | November 8, 2019

...the former New York City mayor's reported preparations to make a late entrance into the 2020 Democratic primary race

...Iowa and New Hampshire...in polling...Biden has fallen behind Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and is in danger of dropping behind Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, too.

...Biden's...inability to stay financially competitive with Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg.

...Buttigieg...has positioned himself in that same pragmatic lane as the former Vice President...signs -- particularly in Iowa -- that Buttigieg is starting to move upward...doubts about whether or not the establishment wing of the Democratic Party wants to latch itself to a 37-year-old whose biggest job to date has been as mayor of his hometown. Those doubts are centered on the idea that Buttigieg simply cannot beat Warren for the nomination, leaving the party with its most liberal nominee in decades and risking the very real possibility of a 2nd term for President Donald Trump.

...Bloomberg! An establishment darling with a long record of centrist policy-making -- and he just happens to be a billionaire many times over!

...(not to say) Biden and Bloomberg are interchangeable...In fact, at least on paper, Biden is stronger -- largely because he has a demonstrated constituency among working class and minority voters. It's hard to see how Bloomberg would, at least initially, have any obvious appeal to either of those groups. (Honestly, it's not at all clear to me what Bloomberg's "natural" constituency is beyond people who watch "Morning Joe" and ride Amtrak's Acela between New York and DC.)

Bloomberg's candidacy is born of the perceived weakness of Biden's run -- and the fear of what a rising Warren would mean for Democratic chances next November. That, Bloomberg believes, has created a realistic opportunity for him to wind up as the nominee -- or at least to have a very real chance at winning.
Of course, opportunities may be less than they initially appear -- or disappear before you can seize on them. The question for Bloomberg is whether he's got enough time to turn that window of opportunity into something much larger.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/politics/michael-bloomberg-2020-election-joe-bide...

87lriley
Edited: Nov 8, 7:22pm Top

#86--Bloomberg without a doubt hates Trump but what bothers Bloomberg about the democrats is the fear that a Sanders or a Warren will rewrite tax law and come after his billions. That's the real reason why he's considering getting in this race.

88Molly3028
Edited: Yesterday, 2:29pm Top

Graham and Haley ~

What is in the drinking water in South Carolina????????
America is broken and it will not be fixed anytime soon with
officials like these pandering to a cult leader. Trump knew
exactly what he was doing when he brought Haley into his
administration. Apparently, she is a cult-follower type.

89margd
Edited: Yesterday, 5:05pm Top

I think Haley is more Trumpian now than ever--maybe protective strategy? Could Haley be "anonymous"?
No evidence but she's seemed low for a while. Now pretty visible.
She could stay 'anonymous' or not depending on how time with Trump plays should she some day run for Prez or VP?

ETA. Never mind! Apparently she WAS writing a book, not Anonymous's Warning, but one in which she throws her lot in with aTrumpian Republican future(?).

Nikki Haley’s Audacious Bet
David Frum | 11/10/2019

The former South Carolina governor’s new book is a gamble that the future of the Republican Party looks a lot like Trump...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/nikki-haleys-book-audacious-be...

90Molly3028
Yesterday, 4:56pm Top

>89 margd:

I believe that Haley is starting to collect Trump's cult followers as a base for her future run.

91margd
Yesterday, 5:06pm Top

Sounds like you're correct...

92lriley
Yesterday, 7:09pm Top

#88 and #89--Haley and Graham are party loyalists and I'm afraid no one in the republican party is going to shake free unless and until the polls start to really tank for them and Trump on impeachment. That might move at least some of them (probably not Graham but maybe Haley but maybe not--she's not really holding an elected position--she's got nothing to lose). It's almost as if 60% of the public are going to have to be for removal and trending higher--and to a point where it starts eating into Trump's own voter base.

Until then they are going to do everything they can to obstruct. They are going to monotonously spin talking points over minutiae arguments.

Group: Pro and Con

433 members

134,393 messages

About

This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.

Touchstones

No touchstones

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 139,478,842 books! | Top bar: Always visible