Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston





Friday, September 25, 2020



“There will be no Trump coup in this country. 

The American experiment, which has endured since 1776—through civil war, world wars, and depressions—will not yield to a dime-store Mussolini who is faithless to his duty and is the worst president in American history. He will be repudiated and humiliated by history’s judgment. It is our job to make that happen. 

Donald Trump is threatening the peaceful transition of power because he is losing and he is weak. Let us finish him off. 

"When you hear Donald Trump threaten our democracy and stoke racial animus, do not be afraid. 

When you hear him say he will not accept the results of this election, do not tremble. 

When you hear him pit us against each other, do not waiver and do not flinch. He is a threat to our liberty and to our democratic institutions, and we will do what Americans have always done: we will defeat the threat. 

Remember: we are Americans. E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one. We are a good people and together we will end this disgrace." 


Dave Miller said...

From Senator Bernie Sanders speech yesterday...

This is not just an election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, this is an election between Donald Trump and democracy, and democracy must win. The United States is the oldest continuous democracy in the modern world. We held elections in the middle of a civil war in 1864. We held free and fair elections during World War I, during the Great Depression and during World War II.

After all of those elections held in extremely difficult circumstances, the loser acknowledged defeat and the winner was inaugurated and took office. That is what the United States of America is all about. That is what democracy is all about. But today in Donald Trump, we have a president who has little respect for our constitution or the rule of law. Today, that peaceful transition of power, the bedrock of American democracy is being threatened like never before.

...the American people no matter what their political view, must make it clear that American democracy will not be destroyed. Our country from its inception, and through the sacrifices of millions, has been a model to the world with regard to representative government. In 1863 in the midst of the terrible Civil War, Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg stated that this government “of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” That was true then. That is true today. Regardless of what Donald Trump wants the American people will preserve democracy in our country.

Dave Miller said...

President Trump keeps talking about how the election will be rigged, and his minions are saying it won't be free and fair.

Yet he is the President. Literally, this is part of his job description. Protecting America means protecting the vote and insuring the free, transparent and open elections so important to our democracy.

I've watched elections be stolen in Mexico. I've watched losers declare victory early on election night so as to discourage voting for opponents. I've seen polls overwhelmed by people trying to vote, only to see those places closed early and people denied a chance to vote, I've seen blatant vote buying and massive vote rigging, and I've seen people beaten to within inches of their lives to support free, open and fair elections.

Never as I watched those things happen, did I think those realities were possible here in the United States of America. I always thanked God that our system was different. Freer and fairer.

Now it's different, and I worry.

Now the prayer is for God to help us defeat Trump and insure that our elections continue to be the beacon of hope the world looks toward. Because under President Trump, that long time reality is at risk.

Rational Nation USA said...

One can hope. But, the fact trump has us discussing this really highlights the serious threat we are facing. And the enemy is within. It is... US.

skudrunner said...

It is interesting that the bern would say anything about democracy because his platform has always been about socialism not democracy.

If trump nominates barrett, which is the favorite, she seems like a good choice but not a slam dunk for the republicans. Her past has been about the law and not politics. Roberts and kavanaugh has been good justices because they do not go along party lines but about interpretation of the law. Remember it was roberts that pissed off republicans when he upheld obamacare. This is a solid contrast to to many other supremes who did not cross party lines. When was the last ruling sotomayor and kagan voted for a conservative view.

The court should be about the constitution not about politics and that seems to be what barrett is about. Time will tell but she has fifty years to make changes.

Dave Miller said...

Wrong again Skud...

The Bern has always been about "social democracy" not the evil Soviet/Communist style conservatives seem to think defines all socialism. Use Norway or Sweden as your models. It's important to have your facts straight.

Infidel753 said...

Socialism is an economic system, democracy is a political system. In theory they're independent -- you could have socialism with or without democracy, and you could have democracy with or without socialism. In practice, of course, almost all western democracies are socialist. The US is the odd one out having democracy with, not socialism, but what increasingly looks like a kind of industrial feudalism.

I know that wingnuts claim "socialism" means cases like Venezuela or the USSR, but when any politician (like Sanders) proposes that the US should adopt policies and institutions like those of Canada, France, Denmark, and basically the rest of the advanced world, the wingnuts accuse him of "socialism". So, socialism it is.

Schmidt is right. Trump is a dimwitted coward and bully who has often backed down when firmly opposed. He's so stupid he's even antagonized and alienated the military, without whose support no illegal seizure of power could succeed. He and his toadies fear our votes -- look how hard they're trying to discourage us from casting them. Stand up to him.

Dave Miller said...

Oh Skud...

You said, "Roberts and Kavanaugh has been good justices because they do not go along party lines but about interpretation of the law. This is a solid contrast to to many other supremes who did not cross party lines. When was the last ruling Sotomayor and Kagan voted for a conservative view."

You seem to be saying that the best justices are not held to ideology, instead looking to their interpretation of the law. Based on that, you see Roberts and Kavanaugh as "good" justices and Kagan and Sotomayor, I assume as "bad" judges.

Kagan is one judge who votes with the conservative side frequently. As Slate put it... "The justice crosses ideological lines in divided decisions more frequently than any of her liberal colleagues do. She’s also a pragmatist with a fierce commitment to precedent who will follow her principles even when they lead to an outcome she dislikes."

Of the current justices, Sotomayor and Thomas votes along their known political lines most frequently, although you will hard pressed to find a crossover vote by Thomas apart from his decision that Texas should not issues Confederate Flag license plates. You will find however, a few more times where Sotomayor has sided with conservatives.

Alito and Gorsuch rate about the same as Sotomayor.

I think this is the kind of stuff that drives us libs/progressives nuts. Folks like you just say stuff. No attribution, nothing at all. Just words based on your opinions, not based in verifiable facts or evidence. Why do that? Clearly what you wrote above about the justices was incorrect, not verifiable and of course, you did not fault Justice Thomas for his ideology as you did Sotomayor or Kagan.

SCOTUS Blog on Ideology

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

"the bern" is ALL about democracy. He is a DEMOCRATIC socialist. If Barrett is about the law and not politics, Dotard wouldn't be nominating her. He expects the Conservative justices to GIVE him the presidency if the election ends up being decided by SCOTUS... again (as they did with gwwb).

And people expect that Roe V Wade and the ACA will be overturned -- both of which have been heard by the court, so (if they go) it will be a reversal of prior decisions. I expect the rolling back of rights for individuals and the granting of more rights for corporations. That "corporations are people" isn't in the Constitution.

Rational Nation USA said...

You do realize skud that this nation is, and has been been for a long time, a mixed economy. Which is to say a economy built on both CAPATALISM and SOCIALISM. Even given this marriage of capatalism and socialim we're remained the wealthiest most powerful nation on the planet.

As a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC functioning admirably running on a MIXED ECONOMY of CAPATALISM and SOCIALISM please explain exactly what it is that all you functioning cons fear about our MIXED ECONOMY of CAPATALISM and SOCIALISM. Inquiring minds want to know.

Mike said...

President Trump Appoints The Most Qualified Nominee for The Supreme Court, and Chuck Schumer Nearly Has A Heart Attack!

Shaw Kenawe said...

If, rather than being Catholic, Amy Coney Barrett was a devout Muslim woman who belonged to an extremist Muslim organization that demanded a lifelong covenant, professed a belief that women should be subservient to their husbands, taught at a madrassa, and once said she viewed her participation in the legal profession as a way to bring about the Kingdom of Allah...

The conversation surrounding her appointment to the United States Supreme Court would be slightly different.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Indeed Shaw. But will never happen. Not in our lifetimes, anyway. Especially given that now only republican presidents are allowed to appoint Supreme Court judges. ACB = Catholic extremist.

skudrunner said...

Rev, I agree that it is important to have your facts straight. Taken from the very conservative publication Politico "Sanders, 73, has been preaching socialism for nearly half a century, and he cites Eugene Debs, the five-time presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America, as his hero."

Not sure why anyone would compare the US to canada, denmark because we are far more diverse in needs and people. Our career unemployed equals denmark population. Our overcrowded and dirty cities do not exist in denmark so our health needs are greater. How many obese people do you seen in denmark, canada and france. That is one of the leading causes of illness and health issues but we are fine with it.

Ms Shaw, so you compere being catholic with being muslim. Both religions are radical but it will depend on how she interprets the constitution. RvW has been the law and needs to be left alone. This seems to be a big sticking point with republicans just like guns with democrats and they need to give it up.

Dave Miller said...

RN... you said in response to Skud... "You do realize Skud that this nation is, and has been been for a long time, a mixed economy. Which is to say an economy built on both CAPITALISM and SOCIALISM."

Exactly RN...

Payments to farmers even when they don't grow crops? Socialistic. Around 30 billion in 2019. Paid to not work, guaranteed a certain price on the crops no matter what the "market" says.

Social Security? Minimum wage? Medicare? The FDIC?

Every one of those programs is, by definition, socialist.

And everyone of those programs has been supported at various levels by both Democrats and Republicans, including President Trump. If you think Trump is a free market capitalist, maybe you can explain his love of tariffs? Whatever happened to the "invisible hand of the free market"?

Maybe, just maybe, you could evidence a little consistency instead of regularly only slamming Dems for practices the GOP and the president support also.


Shaw Kenawe said...

Muslim, Catholic, or any religion that seeks to impose by law their beliefs is unAmerican. Coney-Barrett is a far right Catholic who belongs to a sect that believes wives should be subject to their husbands, not an equal partner. This sect is also opposed to birth control and equal rights for the LGBTQ community, among other extreme religious ideas.

Coney-Barrett believes “God’s” law is above that of the Constitution. Whose God? We’re a diverse country with many religions and gods, and many who believe in no gods. Why should anyone be subjected to one group’s god law? We are NOT a Christian nation. We are a nation where there are more Christians than other religions, true, but that doesn’t make us a Christian nation. That would be like claiming we’re a white nation because, for now, there are more white people here than other races. For now.

Keeping religion out of our laws keeps all religions safe and those who have no religion as well. Our Founding Fathers wanted it that way.

Coney-Barrett was an academic and was on the federal bench for only THREE years. She was appointed by trump to that position in 2017. She IS NOT, as someone claimed, the MOST qualified to be nominated. Not at all. She’s a radical religionist with a thin record of jurisprudence.

Shaw Kenawe said...

More on Coney-Barrett: In a recent dissent, Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the right to vote and serve on juries belonged "only to virtuous citizens." Her opinion also suggests that all civic rights are subject to virtue-based exceptions.

If Coney-Barrett were to succeed in making that into law, Donal J. trump would NEVER vote again, and his civil rights would be taken away. Trump is THE LEAST virtuous POTUS America has ever had the misfortune to have in the White House. EVER.

Also, who would decide on who’s virtuous and who is not? The last time a religious group played with that idea, it was called “The Inquisition.”

I’m guessing the definition of virtuous coincides with her religious beliefs, as she has stated that her goal is to erase the line between church & state and build a "Kingdom of God" across the US.

Countries that have erased the line between religion and state come to mind: Iran, Saudi Arabia. And that time in Europe when religion was law, also known as “The Dark Ages.”

skudrunner said...

Ms Shaw, you do realize that an ex president was only in congress for for less than two years before his handlers decided to run him for president. He had no private work experience and little congressional experience but he is loved by the world.

There are conflicts that everyone has. Joey and madam both support abortion but say they are catholic. Some people can look beyond their own prejudices so maybe she will be one of those. My wife is catholic and I wish you would inform her we are partners because that doesn't work in our household, she rules.

Rev and RN, There are some things that the government pays for and you could call it socialism. I will agree farm subsidies, welfare, medicaid are all socialistic. I do not consider SS and medicare to be socialism because we paid for SS and medicare and if you are on medicare you still pay for it. FDIC is paid for by the member banks. Curious how you consider minimum wage socialistic since you have to work to get it. If you consider lending a hand socialism then I guess I am a socialist.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw... who's virtuous? We should look to Florida to understand what the GOP believes in that regard.

In the 2018 elections, the state voted overwhelmingly, above the required 60%, to give felons who had served their time in prison and successfully completed their probation period.

That's when the GOP state legislators sprung into action. They decided that an ex felon, is still a felon unless he/she has paid their financial debts also, including court costs, restitution, etc. It was litigated in state court and the ex felons lost. The Florida Supreme Court decided that they indeed had to pay their financial debts before they could vote again.

We may not like the decision, but it is what it is, to quote our president.

So they were out of luck. Until Michael Bloomberg stepped in and paid those fines, restitution and court costs. To the tune or 20 million bucks so these folks could vote.

The state gladly took the money. And then filed suit against Bloomberg saying him paying the fines for those folks was essentially a, wait for it, "quid pro quo" so they would vote for the Dems.

Here we have a state, where people I've talked to believe in essentially majority rules. Yet because they do not like the results in this case, they continue to resist.

Only one party in this country since the mid 1960's has been trying to limit the ability of people to vote. Any guess which party that is Skud?

And now we have Barrett who is on the record supporting more of the same.

I wonder why?

Rational Nation USA said...

Your last paragraph is unnerving. It is that precisely because it is the direction we've been slowly headed in at least since Reagan. In the last 40 years only during the Clinton and Obama administration (16 out of 40 yrs) was this not part of the agenda. Now with trump, an entirely faithless individual by all accounts, the push to theocratize our court and laws is on steriods.

It's looking better and better. The advancing age that is. Won't have to put up with the BS as long.

Dave Miller said...

BTW... I guess we should now just call him Mr. $750.00... the amount he paid in income taxes in both 2016 and 2017.

I'm guessing everyone reading this paid more than our president. You know, the guy who chided President Obama for only paying 20.5%, or about $150,000 on his presidential salary of 750K.

Such a swell guy that Trump.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Skid, you’re woefully uninformed, again. Mr. Obama was an Illinois state legislator for 7 years and a US SENATOR FOR 2 years, so he had 9 years as a legislator. Far more experience than Barrett’s 3 years as a judge.

As far as the Biden’s religion and legal abortion is concerned, have you ever heard of this: “Render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s and unto God what is God’s. The Biden’s, unlike Barrett, believe that the Constitution is the law of the land, when serving in one of the three branches of government, not a particular god’s law. This is how the Founding Fathers set it out.

You don’t believe that SS and Medicare are a forms of socialism? You couldn’t be more wrong,

Shaw Kenawe said...

Skud not Skid. Auto correct.

Dave Miller said...

Skud... can you explain how years working for a non profit, teaching at a university and as an attorney at a law firm, all prior to entering politics, equal out to "no private work experience?

I've worked the majority of my life in the non profit world, are you saying I too have no private work experience?

Or do you mean only Obama's work at a non profit doesn't count as private work experience?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave, thanks for that input. I was in a rush this AM and left those facts out because of hurrying. Thank you.

Skud will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER let go of his resentment against Mr. Obama for being a smart, decent, honest, capable, and universally liked Democratic president. The leader of the Trumpublican Party is everything that is opposite to a smart, decent, honest, capable, and universally liked human being.

Skud gives his jealousy and resentment of Mr. Obama away every time he denigrates him with misinformation and lies.

Rational Nation USA said...

I like that Mr. $750 Dave. Maybe we can help it catch on! :)