GREAT EXPLANATION
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
Adam, you’re confusing my posts. The one in which I mentioned the historic battles was not addressed to you, nor did it mention you. I sent you the post about Smith Brothers Cough Drops.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F8e%2Faf%2F66%2F8eaf66a99ee2854c20f9b71874804d38–vintage-ads-food-vintage-signs.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
@ Reader:
@ Michael S: Michael, it is true that the side that starts out with the greater strength usually wins a war. But there have been a number of exceptions in recent years. exceptions. The most notable one was Vietnam. The Vietnamese Communists succeeded in defeating the world’s greatest superpower, despite their inferiority in arms, equipment and manpower. Previously, the Vietnamese Communists had defeated France, which also had superiority over them in soldiers and manpower. The Algerian rebels also managed to defeat the French, despite France’s superiority in armaments, money, manpower and military training. In Afghanistan, the rebels were eventually able to defeat the Soviets, despite their overwhelming miliatary superiority. Now, these same rebels (more or less) seem to have defeated the United States in Afghanistan as well. Not very lovable people, the Taliban, but talented warriors.
However, cases in which the side with less “establishment” support has prevailed in an election in a democratic (“small d’) country are much rarer than where the weaker side has won in a war. Sill, there have been a few exceptions in recent years. Netanyahu has somehow managed to remain Prime Minister of Israel despite the determined efforts by the Israeli press and the enormously powerful and fiercely partisan courts, prosecutors and Bar Association to force him out of office. Another example is Boris Johnson, who somehow managed to become Prime Minister and push through “Brexit” despite the overwhelming opposition of Britain’s political, civil service and business establishments, even within his own party, to both “Brexit” and Johnson personally. Of course Trump’s totally unexpected 2016 win is another example, despite the fierce, united opposition of the country’s media, political and business establishments is another example of an underdog candidate winning an election.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
“And if he does, Congress has the last word.”
Not just because “”he does”. Only if he does it successfully, i.e., only if the election remains undecided, and this is what Trump is trying to accomplish – to keep it uncertified and uncompleted so it wil need to be “arbitrated”.
If he can prevent the election results from being certified and can manage to keep it undecided, then it will go to Congress with a better (for him) set of electors and a practically sure victory.
And this strategy or tactic or whatever you choose to call was premeditated to be employed in the case of Trump’s loss.
Elections are not sports matches to be decided on the strength of “holding your ground”.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
“If both houses of Congress agree…” That is unlikely, this time around. 1876, I think, is when the Smith Brothers vied with each other:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F8e%2Faf%2F66%2F8eaf66a99ee2854c20f9b71874804d38–vintage-ads-food-vintage-signs.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/President_Rutherford_Hayes_1870_-_1880_Restored.jpg/800px-President_Rutherford_Hayes_1870_-_1880_Restored.jpg
Of course, the longest beard won :-)>
@ Edgar G.:
“You and I have called one another a hundred times more names than his cloudy mind can even visualise.”
Indeed! I have no idea, why God puts up with either of us. He also tolerates Reader, for some reason. I am awed by it all.
This election makes me think of several battles: The Battle of the Bulge, Gettysburg, Waterloo… In every case, the losing side was able to marshall a seeming juggernaut of power, even though time and patience were on the side of the eventual victors. The latter stood their ground, and ultimately prevailed.
I’m impressed at your deep interest in US History. I myself only have a patchwork knowledge of it, as well as of World History. Times and places change, but human nature doesn’t. Rome didn’t fall because of troop strength or topography; it fell because the Romans had insidiously become overcome with corruption. In the case of Julius Caesar, I read that if he hadn’t marched on Rome with his troops, he would have been ruined in the courts for his personal misconduct (echoes of Joe & Hunter Biden et al).
We’ll see how it goes; but since we’re all corrupt before our Maker, I’m not “optimistic”.
THis is a very complex law that determines who elects the President. The President is chosen by an Electoral College of 538 men and women, not by the general public. The act specifies that the electors from each state must be chosen both in accordance with laws of that state as well as in accordance with this law, which is a Federal law. The governors of each state, and in some states other officials as well, must certify the results in multiple copies of signed documents. However, supporters of the candidate or canditates who lost the election, according to the official governors’ reports, are allowed to challenge the results in accordance with the laws of each state governing appeals procedures. These procedures vary from state to state. Even if these appeals fail, Congresspersons are still allowed to challenge the result in a joint session of Congress, presided over by the Vice President. If both houses of Congress agree to accept a formal challenge of a governor’s return, then the “rival” electoral slate replaces the governor’s report when the electoral votes are finally counted by tellers appointed from among the Congressional clerks.
The law is extremely complicated and contains seeming contradictions and ambiguities. But it is best to follow the law, and not get swept away by our emotions, as everyone seems to be doing in this discussion.
A definitive opinion by the Supreme Court is desperatey needed to clarify the ambiguities and seeming contradictions in the law.
However, one thing is clear in the law–President Trump and his supporters have a right to challenge the official state election returns in Congress. And if he does, Congress has the last word.
Michael S. I see that you and I have both been called “Trump Idolators….by someone who accuses us of being “name-callers”……
“Idolators”……… ..””. You……….maybe…..but ME…………NEVER….!!
This is a time when I’m very glad I have a sense of humour.. The above quip was taken from a Jackie Mason monologue.
You and I have called one another a hundred times more names than his cloudy mind can even visualise.
This pathetic exchange between MS and EG serves as a perfect example of those who resort to name calling and insults when they have no valid argument to offer to defend their point of view, and who “don’t trust the media” unless the media in question is something like “InfoWars” which is an ABC affiliate, BTW.
@ Michael S:
Perhaps he’s very young and doesn’t recall the bitter disputes in Congress over passing bills, and the filibusters which prevented needed reforms from passing. The chicanery, the bribing of one side of the other, so as to get “pork barrels” and “earmarks” for their own glorification with their constituents. The many hundreds of millions, even billions, of public money squandered to build large bridges of small seasonal steams, or lengthy 4 lane roads to nowhere. etc.
Although, his chaotic thoughts makes on think he may be, say, well over 100, and has lost touch with reality….Who knows… He gets his information from The Guardian. which he is not aware is a Yellow Rag, Tabloid publication in England. In the old days, many years gone by, it was quite respectable, but the only good thing left to it today is it’s name.
Just one example, the $42 mill spent by the Muller “Investigation:, plus the many millions by the “impeachment” travesty, with all it’s appendages, the salaries of the senators and Congressmen, their aides, secretaries and etc, right down to their free automobiles, and free gasoline, offices, pens, pencils, notebooks . And much more I can’t think of right now.
I always think of how the Kennedy family w/ mayor Daley, stole the election from Nixon. I think that was my first REAL eye-opener as to the crookedness of American politics, although I’d read all about Tammany Hall and the long line of crooked Democrat politicians, intertwined with the Mafia, from Boss Tweed onwards.
But that was more or less Social History-as I thought then….
@ Michael S:
Yes that describes his behaviour exactly. Yet he states without qualms, that there Dems are NOT opponents, even though right under his nose, emerging more and more each passing day, is the evidence of their subterranean attempt at an illegal coup, to take over the Presidency and all authority in the country He doesn’t seem to understand how the 2 party system works.
His pathetic, illusory belief that “both sides of the aisle” always worked together for the common good.. is so sad, that I could cry. The term “both side of the aisle”, demonstrates, without ANY explanation needed, that they are opponents. and that unless there is advantage for both, they will only rarely co-operate, of course always, with at least ONE eye fixed on the reception of their constituents, because, above ALL…hey want to be re-elected. The “common good” is not near the top of their list of “wants”….
This particular period is so highly charged, because of the malicious, toxic, greedy behaviour of the Democrats’ leaders. The hearings for Justice Kavanaugh alone, would have convinced a stone statue….but not our bowld boyo…. So it’s useless even to respond to him. You’ll get a rambling accusatory concoction of half-baked conspiracy tidbits, struggling with hysteria. As we have seen.
@ Edgar G.:
Here is an excerpt from an article about TDS in Psychology Today:
“The name itself explicitly suggests a “syndrome,” which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “a characteristic combination of opinions, emotions, or behavior.” Several commentators have run with this, putting forth suggestions about opinions, emotions and behaviors characterizing TDS.
“Shared amongst these is a notion that the everyday activities of President Trump trigger some people into distorted opinions, extreme emotions and hysterical behaviors. Well-known writer Bernard Goldberg gives supposed behavioral examples of TDS among Trump’s political opponents, including fainting, vomiting, students retreating to “safe spaces” and others demanding “therapy dogs.” Political commentator Justin Raimondo focuses on opinions, language and cognition, writing in the LA Times that “sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting of hyperbole [leading to] a constant state of hysteria… the afflicted lose touch with reality.””
— https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201901/is-trump-derangement-syndrome-real-mental-condition
You probably recognize some of these symptoms in our colleague Reader, and with many in the media. I have been distressed, lately, to see these things creeping up even among friends and family. Decades-long friendships have been ended because of it, churches have split and marriages have been attacked. Not only is this a real disorder; it is a dangerous disorder.
@ Michael S:
I thought TDS is a disease which solely affects Trump idolators.
I don’t idolize politicians, I dislike them all equally.
It should be very easy to prove who won by doing a recount but they are not interested in counting votes.
The aim is to discredit the election by any and all means and to disrupt the certification – then a different law comes into play which gives an opportunity for Trump to declare victory.
This was completely premeditated.
Trump said in one of his rallies that he intends to rule 16 years.
Here is the latest:
@ stevenl:
The 2 parties are NOT supposed to be in opposition.
You are confusing the American system with a European-style parliament.
The 2 parties used to work together on legislation and be able to compromise for the sake of the common good.
@ Michael S:
I AM surprised. I presume TDS means “Trump Derangement Syndrome” . And all these months leading up to the election, when it was a very hot topic here, I never realised it. I thought he was just wrong-headed. Even with all his previous contradictions of everything which was normal, on occasion, he’d come up with a really interesting piece of info, or a very thoughtful postulation.
The ongoing, emerging fraud details of this election seem to have thrown him
off the deep en”d completely, and the more we try to “straighten him out”, the more he digs in with an even more ridiculous response. He pulls conspiracies out of thin air-or bootleg sites.
But we all have our faults, not least myself. He doesn’t talk to me any more T.G. He used a casual in-passing comment I made, mentioning euthanasia, which HE’D introduced into the discourse, to decide that I wanted to kill him…. So he definitely cut me out. I was very pleased. It was a good example of how silly he becomes, and how he grasps at an obscure item to make a HUGE case of of it, Always, constructing a grievance for himself.
In the articles TED posted today, I found the one featuring Giuliani the most informative and encouraging. I actually forwarded it to my children and acquaintances. Sidney Powell, also VG. She looks very much like my niece, the one married to the British Columbia Supreme Court Justice.
@ Edgar G.:
I agree with you completely, Edgar. Barring a miracle, Reader will continue in his insanity. He has TDS.
@ Ted Belman:
He WON’T SEE…He’s incapable of seeing. This has been obvious for some time. Reasonable and intelligent people “see”.
Any one with one functioning brain cell had to know that the opposition will do ANYTHING & EVERYTHING to STEAL these elections from Trump. Just because of the consequences to the left. Decades of corruption may come to an END?
@ Reader:
Wait & See!
@ Ted Belman:
Of course!
With biased electors he certainly will.
I don’t believe one word of their BS.
@ Reader:
TRUMP DID WIN. YOU WILL SEE.
In other words, if Trump had won, everything would be fair and square and no review of the election results would be considered necessary; however, since Biden won (the media doesn’t call the election (which they do in every election, not just this one) until they are sure about the winner), this must mean there was widespread fraud and our whole voting system is in crisis.
This is a PUTSCH.
It really doesn’t matter how many wild conspiracy theories they come up with or how many of their numerous lawsuits are thrown out of court – the aim is to SABOTAGE the confirmation of the results by stalling to make the confirmations late so that Trump would be SELECTED by new slates of electors which would favor him, thus repudiating the will of the people and installing Trump Der Fuehrer.
Most likely, the process will eventually proceed to a one-party rule since both parties’ reputations (especially the Democratic one) are being ruined by the made-up election crisis.