You could use an article from my ass crack and it would be more accurate than Trumps twitter page. Doesn’t matter who they fact check him with. Probably a troll job to use CNN and the Washington Post. But truth is, you can look anywhere....voting by mail results in a 2% increase. And no where does it show that it benefits a certain party.
Heather has other speeches explaining more about how it is just another conspiracy theory that the Orange man is pushing.
Richardson, Heather Cox. "How did this monster get created? The decades of GOP lies that brought us Donald Trump, Republican front-runner". Salon.com. Retrieved 17 November 2018.
Not biased at all, just facts
There is a lot encompassed in these tweets. Trump is running behind presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden in virtually every poll, and Michigan is crucial to his reelection prospects. But his problem is not mail-in ballots. Currently, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, as well as various counties in California, all have vote by mail. A mail-in system creates about a 2% increase in voting, but does not appear to benefit one party over another. Neither does it create measurable voter fraud, which remains vanishingly rare in our system. Nonetheless, Trump has concluded that the Republicans should “fight very hard” against mail-in voting, despite the coronavirus, because it “doesn’t work out well for Republicans.”
Klobuchar is referring to the fact that Trump, himself, along with Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, and other senior members of the administration, all vote by mail. Nonetheless, Republicans are pushing the idea that mail-in voting is an attempt of Democrats to commit fraud. Texas is in the midst of a nasty legal fight over whether voters can mail-in ballots because of the coronavirus. Opponents are happy for older people-- who skew Republican--to vote by mail, but say that fear of Covid-19 is not a physical condition that would justify a mail-in ballot; it is simply an "emotional" fear and thus no excuse for wanting to avoid public polling places. The question is now before the Texas courts.
So Trump is worried about his reelection prospects and eager to attack mail-in voting that pretty clearly does not give Democrats any particular leg up, raising the possibility that he is setting himself up to accuse Michigan and Nevada of rigging the system if he loses in November. He has accused Democrats of cheating since 2016, and his language on that front has ramped up dramatically lately as his polls have fallen.
Klobuchar is referring to the fact that Trump, himself, along with Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, and other senior members of the administration, all vote by mail. Nonetheless, Republicans are pushing the idea that mail-in voting is an attempt of Democrats to commit fraud. Texas is in the midst of a nasty legal fight over whether voters can mail-in ballots because of the coronavirus. Opponents are happy for older people-- who skew Republican--to vote by mail, but say that fear of Covid-19 is not a physical condition that would justify a mail-in ballot; it is simply an "emotional" fear and thus no excuse for wanting to avoid public polling places. The question is now before the Texas courts.
So Trump is worried about his reelection prospects and eager to attack mail-in voting that pretty clearly does not give Democrats any particular leg up, raising the possibility that he is setting himself up to accuse Michigan and Nevada of rigging the system if he loses in November. He has accused Democrats of cheating since 2016, and his language on that front has ramped up dramatically lately as his polls have fallen.
I don’t know why you keep quoting that. It was from 2015. Not 2018. Republican front runner-2018? You make yourself look like an idiot just quoting soemthing you’re so obviously clueless about. Good job moron. And it was before her speeches. Meaning...I’m sure she was working for a company and my assumption is...she didn’t come up with that title. But she wrote that article and as I read it the last time you posted it....lmfao straight facts. Even back then.
Sense you like to read and educate yourself..
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/...gets-way-her-cnbc-style-conservative-critique
People don’t have to like what I am saying. I’m thrilled when people don’t like what I’m saying. But don’t come at me with, “you’re an idiot, you’re a libtard, you’re a feminist,” any of these ad hominem attacks because that doesn’t say anything. Come at me with, “these documents prove you’re wrong.” And convince me those documents matter more than the documents I have or the speeches I have or the laws I have or the court decisions I have. Because I’m a historian. We keep the records. I want to see the records. I don’t want to hear...”well...Sean Hannity says...” I don’t care what Sean Hannity says. I want to care what document Sean Hannity is building from.”
Its really not my fault you can’t comprehend English.
You posted some lady criticizing a historian. Lmfao. You’re too stupid to understand that. You posted one article from 2015 that was all fact but had a sketchy title. You haven’t shown me anything. You’re throwing darts, continually. Pitiful.
She doesn’t report opinion. If you read you would see that.
How about start quoting lines in her speeches and tell me how it’s opinionated. Play the Enflameo game and lose that way too. Your call.
If she was opinionated I wouldn’t be posting because I wouldn’t give a shit. That’s just fact. Her speeches are very good and they are always the best news that you’re going to get regarding American news. Period.
No one you know does that. Keep searching whacko.
Today Trump’s reaction to Twitter fact-checking him was so extreme that #TrumpMeltdown trended on Twitter. This morning, to his audience of more than 80 million, he tweeted: “Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices [sic]. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen….” Then he went on to reiterate that mail-in ballots would “be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of Ballots.”
This evening, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Trump would be signing an executive order pertaining to social media companies, although just what that might look like is unclear. Brian Fung, CNN’s technology reporter, says that the White House did not consult the Federal Communications Commission about the forthcoming executive order, suggesting that the order has not gone through the normal review process.
This means that any executive order he issues—if he issues one—is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. Rather than actually affecting the law, he is likely simply trying to pressure Twitter into leaving his own disinformation unchallenged. It is also likely he is eager to change the subject to anything other than our growing numbers of Americans dead of Covid-19. (None of his tweets today acknowledged our dead.)
Finally, he is seeing what can he get away with. Will he be able to bully Twitter’s moderators into leaving his own disinformation unchecked?
The question of what Trump can get away with, how far he can move the goalposts for his own campaign, was in the news tonight over another issue, as well. In the past two months, Trump has cleaned house of five inspectors general. By law, though, he cannot fire them cleanly; he has to give Congress thirty days notice so it can prevent the president from firing an inspector general because of an investigation.
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who has a reputation as a protector of inspectors general, led a number of other senators to question Trump’s removal of Intelligence Community IG Michael Atkinson. Atkinson was the one who alerted Congress when the acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire withheld from it the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, asking Zelensky to announce an investigation into Joe Biden’s son Hunter. The senators demanded that Trump provide evidence of “clear, substantial reasons for removal.” When Trump then axed State Department IG Steve Linick, who was investigating Secretary of State Pompeo, Grassley followed up with another letter, again demanding an explanation, and noting that the president’s replacements for the fired men must not be partisan hacks.
Yesterday, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone responded with a letter that simply said Trump had the right to fire IGs. It noted other instances when presidents had done so: Reagan when he fired thirteen IGs and President Obama when he fired one. But the comparisons are false. Reagan’s action came before the 2008 law that made IGs nonpolitical, and Obama did, indeed, provide to Congress a convincing justification for why the Americorps IG could no longer do his job.
Trump is, once again, solidifying his power in the Executive Branch, refusing to acknowledge that Congress has any role in his oversight, despite the fact that congressional oversight has been an accepted part of our constitutional system since America’s first president, George Washington, agreed to hand over executive documents to Congress in his first term.
But, so far, Republicans in the Senate have refused to check Trump in any way. Grassley has said the White House’s answer is “insufficient,” and that it had failed to meet the legal requirement for telling Congress why it was dismissing an inspector general. But while Grassley opened a full investigation into President Obama’s dismissal of acting Americorps inspector general Gerald Walpin in 2009, in this case, Grassley appears to be backing off. Rather than launching an investigation, or blocking Trump’s nominees until Trump actually responds to his letters, the 86-year-old senator so far is simply saying he is developing new legislation that will prevent political appointees from serving as inspectors general. Pretty weak sauce.
But there has been one surprise in Congress lately. New Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Marco Rubio (R-FL) appears to be following the lead of former chair Richard Burr (R-NC), trying to retain the committee’s independence from Trump.
The president wants Republicans to bolster his reelection campaign by investigating Hunter Biden and attacking those who revealed Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election, and most of the Senate Republicans have gone along. The head of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Ron Johnson (R-WI), is conducting an investigation into Hunter Biden’s role on the board of the Ukraine energy company, Burisma, providing the investigation Trump tried to pressure Zelensky into announcing. And at Trump’s urging, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, an investigation that will likely lead to subpoenas for former Obama officials to testify over the summer.
But Rubio is not on board with Trump’s vague “Obamagate” claims, and has warned his colleagues not to amplify current Russian disinformation. “I’m not going to accuse any member who believes that they are exercising oversight to be colluding with a foreign power,” Rubio said. “I will say to you that I think it’s pretty clear that the Russians are constantly pursuing narratives that they believe will drive conflict in our politics and divide us against each other.”
This is of interest because Rubio is young, just 49, and clearly interested in a presidential run after Trump. He is making a gamble that defying the president, rather than bowing to him, will give him a brighter political future.
HCR- 5/27
This evening, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Trump would be signing an executive order pertaining to social media companies, although just what that might look like is unclear. Brian Fung, CNN’s technology reporter, says that the White House did not consult the Federal Communications Commission about the forthcoming executive order, suggesting that the order has not gone through the normal review process.
This means that any executive order he issues—if he issues one—is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. Rather than actually affecting the law, he is likely simply trying to pressure Twitter into leaving his own disinformation unchallenged. It is also likely he is eager to change the subject to anything other than our growing numbers of Americans dead of Covid-19. (None of his tweets today acknowledged our dead.)
Finally, he is seeing what can he get away with. Will he be able to bully Twitter’s moderators into leaving his own disinformation unchecked?
The question of what Trump can get away with, how far he can move the goalposts for his own campaign, was in the news tonight over another issue, as well. In the past two months, Trump has cleaned house of five inspectors general. By law, though, he cannot fire them cleanly; he has to give Congress thirty days notice so it can prevent the president from firing an inspector general because of an investigation.
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who has a reputation as a protector of inspectors general, led a number of other senators to question Trump’s removal of Intelligence Community IG Michael Atkinson. Atkinson was the one who alerted Congress when the acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire withheld from it the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, asking Zelensky to announce an investigation into Joe Biden’s son Hunter. The senators demanded that Trump provide evidence of “clear, substantial reasons for removal.” When Trump then axed State Department IG Steve Linick, who was investigating Secretary of State Pompeo, Grassley followed up with another letter, again demanding an explanation, and noting that the president’s replacements for the fired men must not be partisan hacks.
Yesterday, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone responded with a letter that simply said Trump had the right to fire IGs. It noted other instances when presidents had done so: Reagan when he fired thirteen IGs and President Obama when he fired one. But the comparisons are false. Reagan’s action came before the 2008 law that made IGs nonpolitical, and Obama did, indeed, provide to Congress a convincing justification for why the Americorps IG could no longer do his job.
Trump is, once again, solidifying his power in the Executive Branch, refusing to acknowledge that Congress has any role in his oversight, despite the fact that congressional oversight has been an accepted part of our constitutional system since America’s first president, George Washington, agreed to hand over executive documents to Congress in his first term.
But, so far, Republicans in the Senate have refused to check Trump in any way. Grassley has said the White House’s answer is “insufficient,” and that it had failed to meet the legal requirement for telling Congress why it was dismissing an inspector general. But while Grassley opened a full investigation into President Obama’s dismissal of acting Americorps inspector general Gerald Walpin in 2009, in this case, Grassley appears to be backing off. Rather than launching an investigation, or blocking Trump’s nominees until Trump actually responds to his letters, the 86-year-old senator so far is simply saying he is developing new legislation that will prevent political appointees from serving as inspectors general. Pretty weak sauce.
But there has been one surprise in Congress lately. New Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Marco Rubio (R-FL) appears to be following the lead of former chair Richard Burr (R-NC), trying to retain the committee’s independence from Trump.
The president wants Republicans to bolster his reelection campaign by investigating Hunter Biden and attacking those who revealed Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election, and most of the Senate Republicans have gone along. The head of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Ron Johnson (R-WI), is conducting an investigation into Hunter Biden’s role on the board of the Ukraine energy company, Burisma, providing the investigation Trump tried to pressure Zelensky into announcing. And at Trump’s urging, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, an investigation that will likely lead to subpoenas for former Obama officials to testify over the summer.
But Rubio is not on board with Trump’s vague “Obamagate” claims, and has warned his colleagues not to amplify current Russian disinformation. “I’m not going to accuse any member who believes that they are exercising oversight to be colluding with a foreign power,” Rubio said. “I will say to you that I think it’s pretty clear that the Russians are constantly pursuing narratives that they believe will drive conflict in our politics and divide us against each other.”
This is of interest because Rubio is young, just 49, and clearly interested in a presidential run after Trump. He is making a gamble that defying the president, rather than bowing to him, will give him a brighter political future.
HCR- 5/27
It is too early to know what is actually happening inside the protests and riots happening in cities across the country, especially Minneapolis, after the murder of George Floyd by police officer Derek Chauvin there on Monday. That is, we know there are protests and looting and violence, but who is doing what remains unclear, and will stay unclear for a while. There are plenty of videos and tweets, but they can only give us windows into events, not a full picture.
That being said, there do seem to be some patterns emerging.
The protests began as Black Americans and allies protested Floyd’s murder, coming, as it did, after a number of similar murders—such as Breonna Taylor’s, shot in her own home during a botched police raid—that illuminated police brutality against Black Americans. Quickly, though, the protests appeared to turn into something else, as more people—possibly (and I would guess probably) from outside the cities—rushed in to create chaos.
It is not clear who these people are. This morning, Trump tweeted that the protesters at the White House were “professionally organized,” and midday, Attorney General Barr gave a hasty press conference in which he claimed that “outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.” He said, “in many places, it appears the violence is planned, organized and driven by anarchic and left extremist groups, far-left extremist groups, using antifa-like tactics, many of whom travel from outside the state to promote the violence.”
There is currently no evidence that what Barr said is true.
He went on to say “It is a federal crime to cross state lines or to use interstate facilities to incite or participate in violent rioting, and we will enforce those laws.” After Barr spoke, Trump tweeted: “80% of the RIOTERS in Minneapolis last night were from OUT OF STATE. They are harming businesses (especially African American small businesses), homes, and the community of good, hardworking Minneapolis residents who want peace, equality, and to provide for their families.” He added: “It’s ANTIFA and the Radical Left. Don’t lay the blame on others!”
About the same time Barr was speaking, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter told reporters that “Every single person we arrested last night, I’m told, was from out of state,” and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz estimated that 80% of those destroying property were from out of state. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey added: “We are now confronting white supremacists, members of organized crime, out-of-state instigators, and possibly even foreign actors to destroy and destabilize our city and our region.” The Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington said they had begun tracing those they arrested to see if they were part of larger networks.
A preliminary study today by local network KARE found that, in fact, 86% of those arrested were from Minnesota. Of the others, at least one was associated with a white supremacist group.
While we cannot know yet what’s going on now, it is of note that the president has encouraged violence lately in his tweets, retweeting a video in which a supporter says “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat,” and a famous line from segregationist politician George Wallace “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
In some places, police are deescalating protests and things are calming. In others, they seem to be deliberately escalating riots and violence.
In the places the police are escalating the riots, they seem to be targeting journalists and photographers, as well as people of color—there are harrowing videos of young men dragged from cars or from the street and mobbed by officers. Multiple stories tonight tell of journalists arrested or shot with rubber bullets, even after identifying themselves as press. One has lost an eye.
This recalls the president’s constant attacks on the press. He has tweeted the phrases “Fake News” and “Enemy of the People” 796 times, and suggested in a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that he, Trump, should “Get rid of them. Fake news is a great term, isn’t it? You don’t have this problem in Russia [where Putin has journalists killed], but we do.”
If we cannot yet fully know the dynamics of the protests, there are a few things we do know.
First, the protests have wiped from public discussion all the major stories that were distressing Trump: the deadly toll of the coronavirus and his administration’s abysmal response to the pandemic, the skyrocketing unemployment as the economy falters, and Friday’s revelations about his 2016 campaign team’s collaboration with Russian spies.
Second, the president has gone missing in the midst of this crisis. While presidents traditionally speak to the nation to try to reassure Americans in such times, neither he nor Republican leaders are trying to calm the nation.
Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden late tonight stepped into the breach, issuing a statement. “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not. The act of protesting should never be allowed to overshadow the reason we protest. It should not drive people away from the just cause that protest is meant to advance.”
HCR- 5/30
That being said, there do seem to be some patterns emerging.
The protests began as Black Americans and allies protested Floyd’s murder, coming, as it did, after a number of similar murders—such as Breonna Taylor’s, shot in her own home during a botched police raid—that illuminated police brutality against Black Americans. Quickly, though, the protests appeared to turn into something else, as more people—possibly (and I would guess probably) from outside the cities—rushed in to create chaos.
It is not clear who these people are. This morning, Trump tweeted that the protesters at the White House were “professionally organized,” and midday, Attorney General Barr gave a hasty press conference in which he claimed that “outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.” He said, “in many places, it appears the violence is planned, organized and driven by anarchic and left extremist groups, far-left extremist groups, using antifa-like tactics, many of whom travel from outside the state to promote the violence.”
There is currently no evidence that what Barr said is true.
He went on to say “It is a federal crime to cross state lines or to use interstate facilities to incite or participate in violent rioting, and we will enforce those laws.” After Barr spoke, Trump tweeted: “80% of the RIOTERS in Minneapolis last night were from OUT OF STATE. They are harming businesses (especially African American small businesses), homes, and the community of good, hardworking Minneapolis residents who want peace, equality, and to provide for their families.” He added: “It’s ANTIFA and the Radical Left. Don’t lay the blame on others!”
About the same time Barr was speaking, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter told reporters that “Every single person we arrested last night, I’m told, was from out of state,” and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz estimated that 80% of those destroying property were from out of state. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey added: “We are now confronting white supremacists, members of organized crime, out-of-state instigators, and possibly even foreign actors to destroy and destabilize our city and our region.” The Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington said they had begun tracing those they arrested to see if they were part of larger networks.
A preliminary study today by local network KARE found that, in fact, 86% of those arrested were from Minnesota. Of the others, at least one was associated with a white supremacist group.
While we cannot know yet what’s going on now, it is of note that the president has encouraged violence lately in his tweets, retweeting a video in which a supporter says “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat,” and a famous line from segregationist politician George Wallace “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
In some places, police are deescalating protests and things are calming. In others, they seem to be deliberately escalating riots and violence.
In the places the police are escalating the riots, they seem to be targeting journalists and photographers, as well as people of color—there are harrowing videos of young men dragged from cars or from the street and mobbed by officers. Multiple stories tonight tell of journalists arrested or shot with rubber bullets, even after identifying themselves as press. One has lost an eye.
This recalls the president’s constant attacks on the press. He has tweeted the phrases “Fake News” and “Enemy of the People” 796 times, and suggested in a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that he, Trump, should “Get rid of them. Fake news is a great term, isn’t it? You don’t have this problem in Russia [where Putin has journalists killed], but we do.”
If we cannot yet fully know the dynamics of the protests, there are a few things we do know.
First, the protests have wiped from public discussion all the major stories that were distressing Trump: the deadly toll of the coronavirus and his administration’s abysmal response to the pandemic, the skyrocketing unemployment as the economy falters, and Friday’s revelations about his 2016 campaign team’s collaboration with Russian spies.
Second, the president has gone missing in the midst of this crisis. While presidents traditionally speak to the nation to try to reassure Americans in such times, neither he nor Republican leaders are trying to calm the nation.
Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden late tonight stepped into the breach, issuing a statement. “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not. The act of protesting should never be allowed to overshadow the reason we protest. It should not drive people away from the just cause that protest is meant to advance.”
HCR- 5/30
