There is a piece off Yahoo News (I usually discount them entirely for value)....but the topic is mid-term elections, and the suggestion by an 'expert' (Barbara Simons) that Putin has the opportunity to launch an assault on the election, and create a massive mess.
How? The basic idea is that so many states (five) have switched to an entirely paperless voting procedure....that you'd just hack in and flip the votes.
Course, in this article, they mentioned that the Russians have probed the registration listings in various states, and know who is, or is not registered.
I see several problems here.
First, the Russians might be brilliant enough to have an actual voter's listing, and have a couple of agents in the US who go and find people registered in two states or people who are illegally in the US and registered to vote. They could go and blackmail the people into voting for Trump-candidates. Blackmail, as we know....is a serious deal and these folks would open themselves up to Russian agents. (I know it's a joke, but play along).
Second, the Russians might have the right people to stand in and manipulate the voting numbers, and ensure a Trump win for various candidates. (I know it's a joke, but play along).
So, what we need to do...is fix the system.
First, a national ID card and a mandatory national database....so folks wouldn't accidentally register in two states and get Russian blackmail situations.
Second, establish a national minimum security situation.
Third, dump the registration rolls, and start fresh.
The sad thing here is that the Democrats will have to fall on the ground and agree to these procedures, or the evil Russians will take over the country, as Republicans. (I know it's silly, but play along).
Yes, all this fake stuff....to fix what they could have fixed a decade ago.
Wednesday, 11 July 2018
A Supreme Court Story
There are dozens of bits of history sprinkled over the 1929 to 1942 period of American history, which rarely get any mention today. So this is a short essay piece over this unique episode that occurred with FDR and his 'pack-the-court' strategy.
Shortly after his 2nd win, going into early 1937....FDR was a bit peeved over the challenges to his solutions via the court system. The Supreme Court was actually hindering and preventing various things from occurring. One could suggest that the court was heavily slanted by that point by GOP-appointed Justices of the 1920s, which would be true.
So what FDR decided to do....was to produce the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. He intended to pack the court himself. How?
Well....he'd just add more justices.
The draft bill would grant the President the power to appoint one additional Justice (for a max of six), for each member of the court over the age of 70.5 years old. As far as I know....no one has ever explained where the 70.5 number came from, and I suspect that he just looked over the court and figured this was the appropriate number.
So instead of nine Justices....you could have had a total of 15 (if this all played out).
The odd thing here....at least told by some historians....is that not only was the GOP against the bill, but various Democrats found the bill to destructive. My guess is that some sat there and asked if this was logical....why couldn't some GOP President come up in ten years and mandate another six extra Justices, and put 21 potentially on the court.
What happened? Well....one of the Justices reviewed the mess and privately on his own....just started leaning to support any measure that FDR had come up. This support, along with the effort by Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst to stall the draft law....basically ended the threat to the Supreme Court.
A lot of this was not exactly front-page news, and probably understood by the bulk of American society. In the decades after the event, historians got around to telling the story, and suggesting how close the Court to being heavily manipulated by FDR.
Shortly after his 2nd win, going into early 1937....FDR was a bit peeved over the challenges to his solutions via the court system. The Supreme Court was actually hindering and preventing various things from occurring. One could suggest that the court was heavily slanted by that point by GOP-appointed Justices of the 1920s, which would be true.
So what FDR decided to do....was to produce the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. He intended to pack the court himself. How?
Well....he'd just add more justices.
The draft bill would grant the President the power to appoint one additional Justice (for a max of six), for each member of the court over the age of 70.5 years old. As far as I know....no one has ever explained where the 70.5 number came from, and I suspect that he just looked over the court and figured this was the appropriate number.
So instead of nine Justices....you could have had a total of 15 (if this all played out).
The odd thing here....at least told by some historians....is that not only was the GOP against the bill, but various Democrats found the bill to destructive. My guess is that some sat there and asked if this was logical....why couldn't some GOP President come up in ten years and mandate another six extra Justices, and put 21 potentially on the court.
What happened? Well....one of the Justices reviewed the mess and privately on his own....just started leaning to support any measure that FDR had come up. This support, along with the effort by Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst to stall the draft law....basically ended the threat to the Supreme Court.
A lot of this was not exactly front-page news, and probably understood by the bulk of American society. In the decades after the event, historians got around to telling the story, and suggesting how close the Court to being heavily manipulated by FDR.
The 'Jesus' Factor on Supreme Court Justices
I sat and paused over the pick of Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court Justice seat, and the amount of air-time that the news geeks gave the topic.
Here's the thing....for 99-percent of us, in general, the pick really won't matter much. Most of the cases you see in a normal year before the court, have little to zero influence on our lives. If you watch CNN, you'd think that you were appointing some dictator over your neighborhood. But no, this pick or the past forty-odd picks....generally don't matter.
Historically speaking, about every decade, there's one single case with some historical impact. Since 1900 (120 years).....if you went reading, I'd say there are probably twelve to fifteen four-star cases, and the rest were cases which just didn't matter that much to the general public.
So what's going on? Well....the 'Jesus' factor. Everyone in the news media figures that you need one good 'Jesus' to fix law in America. And that's mostly fake reality.
Here's the thing....for 99-percent of us, in general, the pick really won't matter much. Most of the cases you see in a normal year before the court, have little to zero influence on our lives. If you watch CNN, you'd think that you were appointing some dictator over your neighborhood. But no, this pick or the past forty-odd picks....generally don't matter.
Historically speaking, about every decade, there's one single case with some historical impact. Since 1900 (120 years).....if you went reading, I'd say there are probably twelve to fifteen four-star cases, and the rest were cases which just didn't matter that much to the general public.
So what's going on? Well....the 'Jesus' factor. Everyone in the news media figures that you need one good 'Jesus' to fix law in America. And that's mostly fake reality.
Monday, 9 July 2018
Lost History
In the past week.....note that I don't watch it much anymore.....Jeopardy came up with this question:
Alex Trebek: In 2017, this ex-National Security Adviser pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
Suzanne: Who is Kelly?
Trebek: No.
Steve: Who is Gorka?
Trebek: No.
There it ended. The answer was Michael Flynn.
But this episodes demonstrates that no one has much attention to this whole Russiagate business, and that the amount of strategy and weight put by various elements.....has failed.
I suspect that you could go into a bar with 300 people sitting around and less than ten of the 300 would have answered this correctly. In fact, the further you get from the beltway.....the less likely that people remember this.
Alex Trebek: In 2017, this ex-National Security Adviser pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
Suzanne: Who is Kelly?
Trebek: No.
Steve: Who is Gorka?
Trebek: No.
There it ended. The answer was Michael Flynn.
But this episodes demonstrates that no one has much attention to this whole Russiagate business, and that the amount of strategy and weight put by various elements.....has failed.
I suspect that you could go into a bar with 300 people sitting around and less than ten of the 300 would have answered this correctly. In fact, the further you get from the beltway.....the less likely that people remember this.
How Hillary Should Run the 2020 Election
This is my list of things that ought to be lined up:
1. Bring Bill into Iowa in the summer of 2019, along with Chelsea. Unlike 2008 and 2016....don't lose the Iowa caucus.
2. Dump the Clinton Foundation as soon as possible. Don't let it become an issue.
3. Pressure the DNC not to allow any primary candidate into the system who are a full-up socialist.
4. Find a creative way to repair the health care system....that lessens the cost.
5. Find some likeable southern governor as the VP. It ought to be someone who can talk for hours, and people find agreeable.
6. Don't get into any public event where you might get frustrated and faint.
7. Take the positive spin of the economy and then talk about the bad tariffs.
8. Go spin a lot of time in Penn, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. You really need to win those four states badly.
9. Send Chelsea to college campuses, and hype the program there.
10. Use social media more so, than the newspapers or CNN.
1. Bring Bill into Iowa in the summer of 2019, along with Chelsea. Unlike 2008 and 2016....don't lose the Iowa caucus.
2. Dump the Clinton Foundation as soon as possible. Don't let it become an issue.
3. Pressure the DNC not to allow any primary candidate into the system who are a full-up socialist.
4. Find a creative way to repair the health care system....that lessens the cost.
5. Find some likeable southern governor as the VP. It ought to be someone who can talk for hours, and people find agreeable.
6. Don't get into any public event where you might get frustrated and faint.
7. Take the positive spin of the economy and then talk about the bad tariffs.
8. Go spin a lot of time in Penn, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. You really need to win those four states badly.
9. Send Chelsea to college campuses, and hype the program there.
10. Use social media more so, than the newspapers or CNN.
Sunday, 8 July 2018
Hillary: 2020?
There's a piece in the NY Post which suggests that Hillary Clinton is getting ready for a 2020 Presidential run. I know....it's pretty crazy, but there are some elements to consider.
First, she still runs a super-PAC, and it's still active trying to get funding.
Second, in her messages to the public.....she never says it's over.
Third, I think she gets info handed down on the timing of the Mueller episode, and that the real court action against President Trump is timed for the fall of 2019. In her mind, she could contemplate President Trump being in some weakened stage, and making the announcement in late fall of 2019....that he won't run.
Problems with this scenario:
1. She's four years older, and less healthy.
2. The low intensity campaign of 2008 and 2016? Likely to repeat in 2020.
3. There are at least three major players (two from California) that I see running in 2020's primary for the Democrats, and real competition is a no-go for Hillary. She would need the DNC to tell them to step down. In fact, she would need Bernie to swear that he won't run again.
So you add this scenario up. Lot of Democrats are taking the red-pill or walking away from the party. Lot of socialism talk by the far side of the party, which doesn't sell well. A Trumpless campaign?
I would go and predict the lowest turn-out in sixty years (maybe even a hundred) if this turned into a Hillary race, with Trump out. The fakeness of the GOP? Troubles would increase and it'd just create a massive disconnect with the general public.
But, this all leads back to a Democratic Party without a strategy or vision. And Hillary could easily lead the 'blind' party to an end-point.
First, she still runs a super-PAC, and it's still active trying to get funding.
Second, in her messages to the public.....she never says it's over.
Third, I think she gets info handed down on the timing of the Mueller episode, and that the real court action against President Trump is timed for the fall of 2019. In her mind, she could contemplate President Trump being in some weakened stage, and making the announcement in late fall of 2019....that he won't run.
Problems with this scenario:
1. She's four years older, and less healthy.
2. The low intensity campaign of 2008 and 2016? Likely to repeat in 2020.
3. There are at least three major players (two from California) that I see running in 2020's primary for the Democrats, and real competition is a no-go for Hillary. She would need the DNC to tell them to step down. In fact, she would need Bernie to swear that he won't run again.
So you add this scenario up. Lot of Democrats are taking the red-pill or walking away from the party. Lot of socialism talk by the far side of the party, which doesn't sell well. A Trumpless campaign?
I would go and predict the lowest turn-out in sixty years (maybe even a hundred) if this turned into a Hillary race, with Trump out. The fakeness of the GOP? Troubles would increase and it'd just create a massive disconnect with the general public.
But, this all leads back to a Democratic Party without a strategy or vision. And Hillary could easily lead the 'blind' party to an end-point.
The #Walkaway and Red-Pill Crowd Story
Five years ago, the Democratic Party had a scripted pattern, gifted journalists at their beckoned call, and fairly strong path to bring voters in to demonstrate power.
Today? I'm not so sure.
There are two phonenomums at work. There's the #walkaway group, and the red-pill group.
These are both former democrats who reached a level of frustration with the party theatrics and the strategy used at the national level.
So far, no one will state the numbers on the two groups. If I were to guess on this, I would suggest that between two and four percent of the Democratic voters in 2016....have taken the red-pill or converted to the #walkaway group. What that really means? Somewhere between one million and 2.5 million voters are not going to help the Democrats in this fall election.
Now, you can absolutely make the case that in twenty-odd states, it's not going to matter. It doesn't do much in states like Alabama or Tennessee. In a state like Michigan, if you converted 80,000 Democrats over? Yeah, it might matter. In a state like California? There might be four districts with a 20,000 shift, and that might be an issue for the Democratic candidates.
The problem I see is that you only see this beginning of the red-pill crowd, or the #walkaway group. What if the trend continues through 2018, and onto 2020? What if you actually had five-million Democrats who weren't going to participate with the party anymore?
The bigger threat? Well....I read a piece this week chatting over Latinos, blacks, and mid-20s youth were involved in the red-pill/#walkaway business. What if 25-percent of Latinos and blacks were dumping the Democratic Party?
All of this brings me back to the national leadership, and wondering if they really know much about the general public. All of this bitter anti-Trump agenda....what if it's dissolving the public trust in the Democratic Party?
Back in the 1990s, Time and Newsweek made some big coverage deal over a two-month period to suggest that the GOP was dying as a political party. They worked hard to convince you of this episode, although it was mostly just fake-hype. In this case? With the internet existing....the red-pill and #walkaway group avoids the journalists and take their case direct to the American people. In a way, they've become like Trump....using Twitter and Youtube to tell a story.
It might be worth watching.
Today? I'm not so sure.
There are two phonenomums at work. There's the #walkaway group, and the red-pill group.
These are both former democrats who reached a level of frustration with the party theatrics and the strategy used at the national level.
So far, no one will state the numbers on the two groups. If I were to guess on this, I would suggest that between two and four percent of the Democratic voters in 2016....have taken the red-pill or converted to the #walkaway group. What that really means? Somewhere between one million and 2.5 million voters are not going to help the Democrats in this fall election.
Now, you can absolutely make the case that in twenty-odd states, it's not going to matter. It doesn't do much in states like Alabama or Tennessee. In a state like Michigan, if you converted 80,000 Democrats over? Yeah, it might matter. In a state like California? There might be four districts with a 20,000 shift, and that might be an issue for the Democratic candidates.
The problem I see is that you only see this beginning of the red-pill crowd, or the #walkaway group. What if the trend continues through 2018, and onto 2020? What if you actually had five-million Democrats who weren't going to participate with the party anymore?
The bigger threat? Well....I read a piece this week chatting over Latinos, blacks, and mid-20s youth were involved in the red-pill/#walkaway business. What if 25-percent of Latinos and blacks were dumping the Democratic Party?
All of this brings me back to the national leadership, and wondering if they really know much about the general public. All of this bitter anti-Trump agenda....what if it's dissolving the public trust in the Democratic Party?
Back in the 1990s, Time and Newsweek made some big coverage deal over a two-month period to suggest that the GOP was dying as a political party. They worked hard to convince you of this episode, although it was mostly just fake-hype. In this case? With the internet existing....the red-pill and #walkaway group avoids the journalists and take their case direct to the American people. In a way, they've become like Trump....using Twitter and Youtube to tell a story.
It might be worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)