Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 29, 2020 10:33:49 GMT -5
Maddow Blog | Is Texas' Dan Patrick prepared to part with his $1 million reward?After Donald Trump lost his re-election bid, Republicans settled on a predictable strategy: tell the public there was widespread "voter fraud." All they'd need is some proof. And while that may have seemed like a straightforward task, producing evidence of a systemic problem that does not exist is quite a bit tougher than it sounds. To that end, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) announced seven weeks ago that he'd be willing to pay up to $1 million as a reward to those who could produce proof of fraud. At the outset, this appeared to be unwise. As we discussed last month, the Texas Republican was effectively arguing that he and his party assumed there was widespread fraud, but they couldn't prove it, so he hoped financial rewards would produce evidence Republicans couldn't find on their own. Patrick was basically telling the public, "We can't back up our talking points, so I'll pay you to help." But now there's a related problem: Patrick's counterpart in Pennsylvania has uncovered real-world evidence of Trump voters committing fraud, and he wants the Texan to pay up. The Houston Chronicle reported: All John Fetterman wants for Christmas is the $3 million he says Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick owes him. The Democratic lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania has been trolling his Republican counterpart for weeks to collect on the $1 million Patrick offered in November for evidence of fraud in the Nov. 3 election. Three supporters of President Donald Trump have now been charged in separate voter fraud schemes in Pennsylvania. Fetterman says they should all count for bounty purposes. Complete article here: link
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 29, 2020 12:00:18 GMT -5
this is wonderful. but assholes like this NEVER pay.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,886
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 29, 2020 13:47:43 GMT -5
Maddow Blog | Is Texas' Dan Patrick prepared to part with his $1 million reward?After Donald Trump lost his re-election bid, Republicans settled on a predictable strategy: tell the public there was widespread "voter fraud." All they'd need is some proof. And while that may have seemed like a straightforward task, producing evidence of a systemic problem that does not exist is quite a bit tougher than it sounds. To that end, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) announced seven weeks ago that he'd be willing to pay up to $1 million as a reward to those who could produce proof of fraud. At the outset, this appeared to be unwise. As we discussed last month, the Texas Republican was effectively arguing that he and his party assumed there was widespread fraud, but they couldn't prove it, so he hoped financial rewards would produce evidence Republicans couldn't find on their own. Patrick was basically telling the public, "We can't back up our talking points, so I'll pay you to help." But now there's a related problem: Patrick's counterpart in Pennsylvania has uncovered real-world evidence of Trump voters committing fraud, and he wants the Texan to pay up. The Houston Chronicle reported: All John Fetterman wants for Christmas is the $3 million he says Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick owes him. The Democratic lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania has been trolling his Republican counterpart for weeks to collect on the $1 million Patrick offered in November for evidence of fraud in the Nov. 3 election. Three supporters of President Donald Trump have now been charged in separate voter fraud schemes in Pennsylvania. Fetterman says they should all count for bounty purposes. Complete article here: link Hope he gives it to some charity that Dan Patrick will hate. Society to provide therapy animals to gay whales or some such.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Dec 29, 2020 14:16:51 GMT -5
Just give I to planned parenthood. That will make him drop dead on the spot
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 29, 2020 23:23:56 GMT -5
Trump demonstrates why we should limit the powers of lame-duck presidentsConstitutionally, U.S. presidential power is all-or-nothing. Either one is president of the United States with the full scope of authority, or one is not, lacking any formal powers. This is the reality even after elections with lame-duck presidents and presidents-elect during transitions. This needs to change. As with so many other issues, Donald Trump's presidency has revealed flaws in our constitutional design, one created for a horse-and-buggy era, or when it was assumed that the leaders we selected would observe certain unwritten rules about the use of presidential authority. Presidential transitions are one of those areas that need fixing. The Constitution's Framers likely gave little, if any, thought to presidential transitions in 1787. They called for the Electoral College to pick the president, but there was no uniform date for when the electors would vote and no explanation about when a president would take office. George Washington took office on March 4, 1789, simply because that was the date the Constitution took effect. That date stuck until 1933, when the 20th Amendment set Jan. 20 as the date for a new presidential term to start. That amendment and the Uniform Time for Federal Elections Law, which dictates that the presidential election will occur on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, mean that between Election Day and inauguration day nearly two-and-a-half months will pass. This means that a person rejected by voters still enjoys the full perks of presidential power long after being voted out of office, while the newly chosen leader must wait to act. It is not that way in other countries. Across the world, either transition periods are dramatically more brief in time, or the existing leaders are limited to performing caretaker functions. Yet handoffs of presidential power in the United States are different. While the Presidential Transaction Act of 1963 provides funding and resources for new presidents, it does little else. Our Constitution leaves it to the incumbent and the president-elect to work out transitions. Historically, all but for 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, the transitions have been mostly uneventful. Yet President Trump's last acts as president appear to be more destructive than good for the country. Witness his actions to try to overturn the election results, and his persistent refusal to cooperate in the transition by denying President-elect Biden's team access to vital intelligence and other information that is important to national security. Also consider his decisions to veto a military budget bill, impede a pandemic relief bill, issue pardons to his supporters who broke the law, executive orders on the environment, and perhaps make foreign policy decisions that affect U.S. interests. At best, lame-duck presidents should not be able to make such major decisions. At worst, these appear to be efforts to sabotage an incoming administration before it gets started. Complete article here: link
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 8, 2021 10:53:40 GMT -5
Trump just announced he will not attend Biden's inauguration.
As if Trump would ever be welcomed.
|
|
flan327
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 8, 2020 10:25:08 GMT -5
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by flan327 on Jan 8, 2021 12:58:33 GMT -5
Trump just announced he will not attend Biden's inauguration. As if Trump would ever be welcomed. This has been announced on how many threads now?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 8, 2021 13:51:13 GMT -5
Trump just announced he will not attend Biden's inauguration. As if Trump would ever be welcomed. This has been announced on how many threads now? Hopefully all the ones where the news applies to the conversation.
|
|