|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 19, 2019 10:54:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 19, 2019 11:02:47 GMT -6
And, another one asking for a recession: amp.dailycaller.com/2019/08/19/msnbc-host-stephanie-ruhle-recessionMSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle said on air Monday that a recession under President Trump would be “okay,” saying “it’s about time” America has one. “A recession is okay. A recession is a normal part of economic activity. We see them, upturns and downturn. A recession doesn’t mean it’s a crisis. But if you’re a sitting president, you don’t necessarily want a recession on your watch. You want people feeling good,” Ruhle said during “MSNBC Live with Hallie Jackson.“ (RELATED: MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle Defends Ali Velshi, Accidentally Calls Them A ‘Couple’
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 19, 2019 11:09:14 GMT -6
Abrams’ 2018 campaign has been consistently accusing both Kemp and the State of Georgia of suppressing the minority vote since even prior to Election Day. In October 2018, the campaign released a statement claiming that Kemp is “maliciously wielding the power of his office to suppress the vote for political gain and silences the voices of thousands of eligible voters – the majority of them people of color.”
There has been no evidence to corroborate the claim.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 19, 2019 11:13:37 GMT -6
“Voter fraud is a myth”. So says the woman who believes she is the governor of Georgia. www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/19/stacey-abrams-voter-fraud-is-a-myth-it-does-not-exist-but-voter-suppression-is-real/Monday on “CBS This Morning,” failed 2018 Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams dismissed the possibility that voter fraud exists and argued voter suppression was the real issue. According to Abrams, although voter identification laws seem “perfectly normal,” she argued that they were used to suppress the vote.
“First of all, voter fraud is a myth,” she said. “It does not exist. People are not putting on fake mustaches trying to vote twice. But voter suppression is real. We know voter ID laws seem perfectly normal. If you lived in Alabama when they passed their voter ID law, they shut down two-thirds of the organizations, the DMVs in black communities so that the very people that needed IDs could not get them. If you live in Indiana and they move your polling place to Hamilton County outside of the bounds of the city, if you didn’t have a car, you couldn’t get to vote. We have to recognize, that again, these laws seem very basic. But the application and the implication is that your vote doesn’t matter.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 19, 2019 14:23:42 GMT -6
Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday apologized for past “mistakes” — like those thousands of times over the last 40 years that she claimed to be Native American.
“Before I go any further in this I want to say this — like anyone who’s been honest with themselves I know I’ve made mistakes. I’m sorry for any harm I’ve caused,” Warren said in a speech to the Native American Issues Forum in Sioux City, Iowa.
“I have learned a lot and I am grateful for the many conversations that we’ve had together. It is a great honor to be able to partner with Indian country and that’s what I’ve tried to do as a senator, and that is what I promise to do as President of the United States of America.”
Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat running for president in 2020, listed herself as Native for years in the Association of American Law School Directory, and according to the Boston Globe, she “had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she taught from 1987 to 1995, and at Harvard University Law School, where she was a tenured faculty member starting in 1995.”
Warren even submitted recipes to a Native American cookbook called “Pow Wow Chow,” which was released in 1984 by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee, Oklahoma. She signed her entries “Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 19, 2019 14:25:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 19, 2019 16:36:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 20, 2019 10:42:50 GMT -6
Basic summation of how/why Brexit happened, Trump being elected, the Brexit party rising to power, Italy becoming anti-EU with each passing day, etc.
Piers Morgan: Populism is rising because liberals have become unbearable, Okay? And I speak as a liberal… Liberals have become utterly, pathetically illiberal and it’s a massive problem. What’s the point of calling yourself a liberal if you don’t allow anyone else to have a different view? You know, this snowflake culture we operate in, this victimhood culture that everyone, has to think in a certain way, behave a certain way. Everyone has to have a bleeding heart… You say a joke 10 years ago that offended somebody you can never host the Oscars… So what’s happening around the world? Populism is rising because people are fed up with the PC culture. They’re fed up with the snowflake culture. They’re fed up with everyone being offended by everything… They just want to tell people, not just how to lead their life but if you don’t lead it the way I tell you to, It’s a kind of version of fascism.
Honestly, he nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 20, 2019 10:50:06 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/08/20/tom-perez-dnc-mexico-fundraisers/Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez will hold three fundraisers for American ex-patriots in Mexico, as Democrats struggle to keep pace with Republicans in fundraising. Perez will host three events in Mexico City on Sept. 28, Bloomberg reported. One event is a happy hour that will cost $25 to attend. Perez will also host a dinner where tickets are going for between $1,000 and $15,000. DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa’s confirmed to Bloomberg that the events would be taking place. The DNC will require attendees to provide information showing that they are American citizens or permanent residents, in order to comply with federal campaign finance laws. About 1.5 American citizens live in Mexico, Bloomberg reported, citing State Department data. (RELATED: DNC Raised $8.5 Million In June, Less Than Half Of What GOP Took In) The DNC under Perez’s watch has lagged far behind Republicans in terms of fundraising. The DNC took in $8.5 million in contributions in June, while the Republican National Committee reported $20.7 million. Hillary Clinton will hold a DNC fundraiser at her home in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 16, Politico reported Tuesday. The cost to attend that event ranges from $15,000 to $50,000. The DNC did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 20, 2019 11:59:56 GMT -6
www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2019/08/19/nets-keep-rooting-recession-tout-dems-seizing-momentNets Keep Rooting for Recession, Tout Dems ‘Seizing the Moment’ By Kyle Drennen | August 19, 2019 12:41 PM EDT On Monday, all three network morning shows kept rooting for recession as a way to harm President Trump’s 2020 reelection chances. Hosts and correspondents dismissed the White House “attempting to downplay growing concerns that the U.S. economy could be headed for a recession” while touting Democrats “seizing the moment.” “Pushing back. President Trump downplays fears the economy is on the slide,” co-host Savannah Guthrie announced at the top of NBC’s Today show. Minutes later, fellow co-host Craig Melvin introduced a report by proclaiming: “President Trump is attempting to downplay growing concerns that the U.S. economy could be headed for a recession.” Chief White House correspondent Hallie Jackson repeated the mantra: “Yeah, a lot of eyes watching to see how Wall Street does this week, but even in the face of some economic warning signs, the President and his top aides are now brushing off fears of a recession down the road.” She continued: “The President projecting positivity after a week on Wall Street that was anything but....He’s downplaying a key indicator that often signals an economic downturn, with the stock market on shaky ground, in part because of the trade war with China.” Later in the segment, Jackson made it clear where she was getting her talking points from: “The President’s hoping a healthy economy will help him win come Election Day, but some Democrats, hoping to replace him, argue it’s Americans getting hurt by his policies.” A soundbite ran of South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg complaining: “He is completely out of touch with the impact it’s going to have on the prices we pay for our goods as a result of a trade war in which both sides will lose.”
Leading off ABC’s Good Morning America, fill-in co-host Cecilia Vega declared: “Also this morning, recession and re-election. President Trump insisting he has no concerns about the economy after that 800-point plunge. As his 2020 opponents fire back, saying the President is terrible for business.”
Teeing up the report minutes later, fellow co-host George Stephanopoulos announced: “We’re going to go to the White House, where President Trump and his economic team are trying to tamp down talk of a possible recession after a volatile week on Wall Street and an escalating trade war with China.”Correspondent Terry Moran eagerly portrayed the President being on “defense” over the supposed economic warning signs: “And as you know, presidents get the credit when the economy is good, they get the blame when the economy’s bad. And right now, with some signs of economic weakness and the markets growing anxious, President Trump is playing defense.” The reporter hyped: “For Trump, the political stakes couldn’t be higher. His campaign’s main argument is how well he’s managed the economy.” He then turned to 2020 Democrats who “now sense the President may be vulnerable on his signature issue.” Clips followed of Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg pretending the economy was in recession already. “We have got to replace him in office if we’re going to get this economy back on track,” O’Rourke claimed. Buttigieg asserted: “Pretty much nothing the Trump administration says turns out to be true. So if they’re saying the economy’s in great shape, I would be very, very worried.” As an afterthought, Moran acknowledged: “Now, it’s important to note there’s still plenty of good news on the economy. It’s still growing, it’s producing jobs, consumers are spending.” Though he still warned: “But politically for President Trump, this is the whole ball game. And so, any clouds on the horizon are worrisome for him and his campaign.” CBS This Morning was more measured in its coverage, with correspondent Chip Reid pointing out: “The U.S. economy has been a bright spot for Donald Trump’s presidency. He’s overseen a flourishing job market, with a nearly 50-year-low unemployment rate and a generally strong stock market.” However, he then worried: “But last week, the Dow plunged 800 points in one day, the biggest single-day drop of the year, as investors forecast concerns with the global economy. The White House is now working to project calm.” If the economy is “flourishing,” why would the White House need to “project calm”? On Thursday, CNBC Mad Money host Jim Cramer appeared on the Today show and lectured his colleagues in the media to “dial back the hysteria” in their economic coverage. On CBS This Morning that same day, co-founder and co-executive chairman of The Carlye Group, David Rubenstein, similarly urged journalists not to panic, prompting co-host Gayle King to demand: “When should we start panicking?”
Despite the mountain of evidence that the media, echoing Democrats, have been rooting for a recession over the past few days, on Sunday, the New York Times rejected the President’s criticism of the pessimistic press coverage as a conspiracy theory.Even as the network coverage briefly noted how strong the economy actually is, the melodramatic tone of the reporting would make viewers think an economic collapse is imminent. ......... So, let that sink in for a moment. Democrats & their sycophants in the media/elsewhere are actively cheering for a recession to happen so they can get back into power.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 20, 2019 12:13:21 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/08/20/farmers-arent-going-abandon-trump-trade-war/Why Farmers Aren’t Going To Abandon Trump Over The Trade War The popular narrative goes that because President Trump launched a trade war against China, China has retaliated by tariffing agriculture products from red states that voted for Trump. False. Willis L. Krumholz By Willis L. Krumholz AUGUST 20, 2019 You’ve all seen the headlines: “China is hitting the U.S. where it hurts: Soybeans,” and “China takes aim at America’s soybean farmers,” and “Soybean farmers are still paying for Trump’s trade war” (all from CNN). The popular narrative goes that because President Trump launched a trade war against China, China has retaliated by tariffing America’s chief export to China—agricultural products—which happen to mostly come from red states that voted for Trump. China is “crushing prices” with its retaliatory tariffs, says HBO’s Vice News. In other words, the media narrative goes, China is punishing Trump voters for being dumb enough to vote for a trade warrior. Before the midterms, the media took its narrative one step further. Just about every mainstream media publication ran a story that said farmers may abandon Republicans because of Trump’s trade war. Quartz, for example, wrote: “New tariffs on pork exports have forced some U.S. hog producers to liquidate parts of their farming operations. One farmer who spoke to Reuters said Trump’s trade war with China cost him $200,000 this year, and that he regretted voting for Trump in 2016. He isn’t alone” In other words, “When will the dumb Trump-supporting farmers realize that they have been conned?” You can rest assured that this narrative will once again surface before 2020’s election. Except that none of it is true. American farmers are certainly hurting, but little of this is due to the trade war. The media is trying to take advantage of American farmers’ pain for political purposes. China Has Long Restricted U.S. Ag TradeFirst of all, China long ago restricted imports of U.S. pork. According to Bloomberg, since 2011, America’s share of China’s pork imports fell from about 50 percent to less than 13 percent by 2016. China blamed this on “unsafe” U.S. pork, because most American pork producers supplement pigs’ diets with ractopamine, a safe additive fed to hogs several weeks before slaughter to help them bulk up with more lean meat. Really, there are plenty of safety concerns with Chinese pork, and American pigs are raised and slaughtered in much more clean, controlled, and humane environments than are their Chinese cousins. In other words, China was long ago playing protectionism and attempting to boost its own hog production—so even here, Trump had a point all along. Next, there’s a big reason that China is buying less soybeans, and it has nothing to do with the trade war. China’s pig population is being rocked by a terrible pig disease called African Swine Fever (ASF). What is ASF? ASF was first detected in Africa more than a century ago, but it has been spreading like wildfire in China since at least last year. There is no cure for ASF, and it kills well more than 90 percent of the pigs it infects in less than a week, via massive hemorrhaging. This is a gross, messy disease—think of Ebola, but for pigs. Experts say it could take years to control the disease in China. It spreads easily between pigs, and historically Chinese pork producers have used cheap feed that contains pork meat, which spreads the disease even further. The combination of these bad pork production practices, bad incentives provided to farmers, a cover-up culture, and corruption and mismanagement at the local and national government levels have impeded China’s ability to control the disease. Already, China, home to about half of the world’s pigs, has lost about a third of its hog population—the size of the entire pig population in the European Union. The problem could even be worse, but it is impossible to trust Beijing to honestly report how bad it really is. China’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs says the disease is “under control,” but there is much evidence to the contrary. The Pig and Soybean Stories Are ConnectedBecause pork is such a staple in China, food inflation is going through the roof, which is a real problem for Chinese consumers and the communist government. It’s also a problem for the world’s soybean producers, because a staple of pigs’ diets is soybean meal. Quite obviously, if oodles of Chinese pigs are slowly exploding, China is going to need less soybeans. If anything, China’s demand for soybeans has been temporarily supported by Chinese farmers switching away from cheap pig feed—which as mentioned earlier is contaminated with pig meat—to feed based solely on soybean meal. But as the ASF problem in China worsens, the need for more soybeans is running out. Last month, it was reported that China’s imports of soybeans from Brazil (the alternative supplier of soybeans in lieu of America) have plummeted because of ASF. By the way, China promised at the G-20 summit several weeks ago to buy more U.S. soybeans in exchange for Trump going easier on Chinese telecoms giant Huawei. But China hasn’t bought significantly more soybeans since that time, precisely because it doesn’t need them. On the other hand, China is upping its purchases of supposedly unsafe U.S. pork—again, because so many of its own pigs are dying. In fact, U.S. pork exports to China hit a record high earlier this year, even though China is levying a 62 percent tariff on pork from America. The Fed Is to Blame for the Weak Business CycleBut the media narrative gets even more dishonest. Sure, even though China is buying less soybeans overall, it is still buying more of its soybeans from countries outside of America, especially Brazil. And once trade tensions worsened, soybean prices did fall by about $2 per bushel, although they have recovered about half of those losses since. Especially in certain parts of the country, farmers really are hurting. But that’s not the end of the story. The drop in soybean prices because of the trade war is nothing compared to the drop in soybean prices that occurred in 2014. In mid-2014, they were at almost $15 per bushel before dropping precipitously, by more than $5 per bushel in a matter of four months. By October 2014, they were at the “nine handle,” or priced just above $9 per bushel. That’s just about the same level they sit at today, in spite of the trade war. In fact, soybean prices today are about where they were in 2016. If one looks at a chart of corn prices, a similar drop is seen, also in 2014. It also just so happens that if one looks at a chart of the farm default cycle, it also began to increase steadily since 2014. What gives? The corn and soybean price changes are almost entirely explained by U.S. monetary policy. For the first half of this last decade, the U.S. Federal Reserve (“the Fed”) kept interest rates ultra-low, and embarked on three separate rounds of quantitative easing, or QE, a fancy term for money printing at the Fed to buy U.S. government bonds and mortgage-backed securities. People thought QE would cause massive inflation, but it is more accurately described as artificial credit creation. But under QE the dollar did get less valuable, because the world had more dollars, and global growth was artificially boosted. Because commodities are priced in dollars, a weaker dollar means less buying power for a given commodity, which means higher commodity prices measured in dollars. After the Fed embarked on three rounds of QE, it ended its third round—dubbed QE3—in October 2014. In the opposite effect of embarking on QE, ending QE meant the dollar became scarcer, and thus had greater purchasing power as investors anticipated earning a higher yield on dollar assets and thus wanted to hold more dollars. The increased value of the dollar and the anticipation of higher real rates in America meant that one dollar had more purchasing power, globally, so the price of commodities measured in dollars went down. It wasn’t just agricultural goods that were hit. Commodities from oil to copper plunged. But the problem wasn’t that the Fed ended QE, it was that the Fed began QE in the first place. During QE, not only were commodity prices pushed up, but borrowing costs were dirt cheap. It made sense during the time for farmers to borrow heavily to binge on land and equipment, in order to meet the “demand” for soybeans or other goods that was being signaled to them by higher prices. The problem is that this increased demand, signaled by a higher price, was an illusion created by QE’s temporary effect on the dollar and global credit creation. And because QE made borrowing cheaper—make something less expensive and you’ll get more of it—too many farmers took on too much debt, dangerously overextending themselves. Of course, without the Fed’s intervention, the business cycle would still exist, and there would still be farm defaults. But this is a good example of how, contrary to popular opinion, the Fed’s attempts to fix the problems that it created during the previous business cycle only exacerbate the next business cycle—which makes booms and busts more pronounced, painful, and less redistributive than would exist in a free-market capitalist system. Whether or not you agree with any of this, the charts don’t lie: the huge price drop in soybeans and the bottom in the farm default cycle have everything to do with 2014, and little to do with Trump. The Corporate Media Gets It Wrong Every DayTo recap, AFS is the primary reason China is buying less U.S. soybeans. Why isn’t the media reporting on this, and the risk that this disease comes to America? What is your congressperson or the White House doing to make sure contaminated Chinese meat—through accident or even sabotage—doesn’t harm the U.S. pork industry? Next, the big drop in soybean prices was in 2014, not 2018. Farmers truly are hurting, and that is almost entirely due to the consequences of the Fed’s QE programs. First, the Fed made it too easy to borrow and tricked farmers into thinking that long-term demand for their goods was much higher than it really was. Later, when QE ended, farmers were left overextended. The amazing thing is that a chart of commodity prices doesn’t lie. But the corporate media insists on only telling a tenth of the story, if that. They don’t give a hoot about farmers, they are just looking for any way possible to hurt the president. If you haven’t learned this already, that tells you something about the corrupt state of the East Coast corporate media. You can’t believe anything they say. Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas, and works in the financial services industry. The views expressed are those of the author only. You can follow Willis on Twitter @willkrumholz.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 20, 2019 12:25:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 20, 2019 12:32:04 GMT -6
thehill.com/homenews/campaign/458008-soft-levels-of-support-mark-this-years-democratic-primaryPollsters say one of the most striking characteristics of this cycle’s Democratic presidential primary is the relatively soft support for top-tier candidates, even after an intense focus on the race by the national media. This almost certainly reflects the party’s desperation to find a candidate who can defeat President Trump after its faithful were shocked by Democrat Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, said pollsters and other experts interviewed by The Hill. “The fear of putting up the wrong person is palpable,” said Jeremy Rosner, a veteran Democratic pollster. “It comes up in every focus group and every conversation I have with Democrats. It’s top of mind and intense and it’s behind a lot of the fluidity in this race.” Voters — or at least a large number of them — have yet to fall in love with a single candidate. They are instead shuffling through the candidates, comparing their possible strengths and weaknesses against Trump and refusing to be pinned down to a single person. “You’re not seeing the groundswell behind any one candidate,” said Democratic pollster Chris Kofinis. “There’s a segment that thinks a centrist or a moderate is best to beat Trump. Others think you need someone from the left to rally the base. A third segment has no idea” Electability has been the key buzz word in the race, and different candidates have been able to make a case to voters that they are the best positioned to beat Trump. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign is centered on the idea that he is the best person to face Trump. He argues he is the candidate who can take back the Trump states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. Yet the gaffe-prone Biden has stumbled on the debate stage and in campaign appearances, undercutting his electability argument. Critics say Trump would seize upon his stumbles and that Democrats need to nominate someone who will excite the progressive base. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are both chasing Biden. The two progressives excite the liberal base, but face doubts about whether they are too far to the left to defeat Trump. Trump’s attack on Warren’s statements about her Native American heritage have also led to nervousness for some Democratic voters, who see the issue as a potential serious vulnerability for her. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) made a strong statement for her candidacy after taking on Biden at the first round of debates. Her charisma and the fact that she is a relatively new face to the national stage are both seen as positives and reasons her campaign could still achieve liftoff. At the same time, she was shaky in her second debate and her support in polls has slipped. There also are voters who question whether the party should nominate a woman because of Clinton’s loss. And there are Democrats who are offended that that is even coming up and who see it as a Catch-22. All of this has contributed to the creation of a fluid race — even if it is one that Biden has consistently led since his entry. A Suffolk University–Boston Globe survey of New Hampshire released last week found Biden with a 5-point lead over Sanders, but 78 percent of voters said that they either hadn’t made up their minds yet or that their vote could change. A Pew Research survey released over the weekend found that 63 percent of those who expressed a preference for one candidate also said that they are excited by several others in the running. “A lot of Biden’s voters are pretty open to voting for someone else as the race unfolds and they get to know the other candidates better,” said Tom Jensen, the director of Public Policy Polling. “That doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll end up deciding they like someone else better, but they’re at least open to the possibility and I think that does make Biden’s front runner status a little tenuous — as anyone’s position this far out from the voting is a little tenuous.” Sanders is the candidate who perhaps stands out the most in terms of the strength of his supporters. His firmest backers are “Bernie or Bust,” and there are real questions about whether some of them will back any other Democratic nominee in November 2020. But Sanders has not shown that he can grow his support and reach the mainstream Democrats who have tuned out of his campaign. It is not wholly peculiar for voter preferences to be soft at this early stage of the race. Even though the 2020 race kicked into high gear earlier than ever before, many voters, even in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, don’t begin tuning in until after Labor Day or further into the fall. There are still 10 Democratic debates to go. That leaves plenty of time for any of the top-candidates — or possibly an underdog campaign — to capture the hearts and minds of voters and become the consensus candidate. Many are pointing to the next Democratic presidential debate in Houston on Sept. 12 as a potential hardening point, as the stage is expected to shrink from 20 candidates to about 10. Some pollsters say that Democratic voters are truly vexed on the central question of who is best equipped to take on Trump, which may lead to an unpredictable race. Polls showing that several of the Democrats would beat Trump in head-to-heat matchups also complicate the race. A Fox News survey released last week found Biden, Sanders, Warren and Harris each leading Trump by between 6 and 12 points nationally. Biden’s lead is the biggest, but he’s also the best known of the bunch. Harris and Warren have both improved their standing against Trump in recent weeks, while Sanders has routinely posted solid leads over the president. But those numbers are all but meaningless to many Democrats after the shocking 2016 election, when experts and poll watchers gave Trump almost no chance of beating Clinton. Instead, Democrats trying to determine who can beat Trump are wrestling with more esoteric questions and in many cases are relying on gut instincts, which can change depending on a debate exchange or how a person believes a candidate’s age or gender might factor into voter attitudes in Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. “Voters right now are moving from one candidate to another in a heartbeat and many admitted to us that they’re taking their cues from the national media because they haven’t seen enough of the candidates yet,” said Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray. “Any analysis of the polls right now overstates how strong support for any of these candidates has. The fact that Biden is ahead does not mean by any stretch that he is in a strong front-runner position, not in this environment.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 20, 2019 13:43:05 GMT -6
Hillary responded:
The author of the report, Dr. Robert Epstein, responded to Clinton on Twitter with some facts that she may find inconvenient for her narrative.
Epstein didn’t stop there, he also wrote that though he’s a fan and hates correcting her, “to my knowledge no credible authority has ever ‘debunked’ either my 2016 and 2018 election monitoring projects or my controlled studies on internet influence.”
And, then comes the headshot. Epstein even tweeted out a photo of him and Clinton, and wrote about his disappointment in her “blatant lies.”
It eats her up inside that the 2016 election was massively rigged in her favor and she STILL lost.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 5:38:41 GMT -6
Biden says both RFK & MLK were assassinated in the 1970's to late 1970's.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 5:44:40 GMT -6
McCain operative/sycophant warns GOP. Ditch President Trump and his policies, support globalism and more immigration to the country to win in the future. www.foxnews.com/opinion/frank-donatelli-gop-ditch-trump-policies?fbclid=IwAR0fJ2YoV8rQRpbWQZ1P8XZ-KVvwJszwTiEJwCuv5GFZ0sJQRjICnzGBAyYExcerpt: Trade policy is the first example. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), designed to marginalize China, has been shelved. Speaking of China, we are on the verge of a full-blown trade war with no end in sight and no clear end game. Presidential adviser Peter Navarro is an unabashed admirer of tariffs and believes they have contributed to our strong economy. Most economists and virtually all CEOs would disagree. They believe tariffs are a tax by another name and merely increase prices paid by American consumers. The administration has already lost one of its favorite talking points as growth fell in the second quarter from 3.1 percent to an Obama-level 2.1 percent. Yet most Republicans now believe free trade harms American prosperity. Trade skepticism can be managed, but a far greater threat has emerged. Right-wing commentators have moved further into the realm of “economic nationalism,” arguing for all types of government intervention to protect manufacturing jobs in favored industries, preserve small town and rural economies, and maintain lifestyles of decades past. The focus is on protection and maintenance of a certain status quo, not growth, and certainly not investments in the disruptive and dynamic technologies that will define and transform the 21st century. This strain of conservatism focuses almost exclusively on tradition at the expense of the freedom and optimism that had been the hallmark of the Reagan GOP. Immigration historically has been welcomed by most Americans. There are solid reasons for this. Business has relied on immigrants to keep the American economy strong. Think agriculture, construction, hospitality or landscaping as industries that rely heavily on new workers.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 7:09:19 GMT -6
Democrat Harry Reid is not a fan of Open borders, Medicare for all, etc. dailycaller.com/2019/08/20/harry-reid-border-crossings-medicare-for-all/Former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told VICE News that decriminalizing border crossings and “Medicare for All” are bad ideas. Reid said “of course” the two issues many 2020 Democrats are promoting would cause problems in the general election. “There are so many more important things to do,” Reid said in an exclusive phone interview with VICE. “Decriminalizing border crossings is not something that should be at the top of the list. It should be way, way down at the bottom of the list. People want a fair immigration system. They don’t want an open-door invitation for everybody to come at once.” Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California and Bernie Sanders of Vermont have spoken about decriminalizing border crossings. Many of the presidential candidates have also voiced support for Medicare for All. (RELATED: Trump Goes After Harry Reid After He Says He Wishes George W. Bush Was President ‘Every Day’)
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 7:18:25 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/50861/ouch-jill-biden-doesnt-exactly-give-ringing-amanda-prestigiacomoOuch: Jill Biden Doesn’t Exactly Give A Ringing Endorsement Of Her Husband "You have to swallow a little bit" to vote for Joe. ........... Hold your nose and vote for Joe! That's basically the message from Dr. Jill Biden, wife of presidential hopeful and former Vice President Joe Biden, who recently told Democrats that they might have to "swallow a little bit" in order to vote for her lackluster husband, since, like it or not, he's the most electable candidate in the field. "Your candidate might be better on, I don't know, healthcare, than Joe is," Mrs. Biden said, "but you've got to look at who's going to win this election, and maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, 'Okay, I personally like so-and-so better,' but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump." Rough stuff. It's a decent argument, but one you might expect to hear from a competing Democratic candidate who was bested in the primary, not a candidate's wife, before the primary has really gotten underway, to boot. "Yes, I know that not all of you are committed to my husband, and I respect that," Mrs. Biden continued, "but I want you to think about your candidate, his or her electability, and who's going to win this race." "If you're looking at that, you've got to look at the polls," the former Second Lady said, noting that people should ignore the "polls don't mean anything" chants because of their consistency: "If they're consistent, and they're consistently saying the same thing, I think you can't dismiss that." "If your goal is to beat Donald Trump, we have to get someone who can beat Donald Trump," she added, emphasizing that Democrats need to gain on Independent and disaffected Republican voters. In not so unflattering language as his wife's, a TV ad for the former VP emphasizes that he is the best hope to beat President Trump come 2020. "We all know in our bones that this election is different. The stakes are higher. The threat is more serious. We have to beat Donald Trump. We have to beat Donald Trump, and all the polls agree — Joe Biden is the strongest Democrat to do the job," the narrator in the ad says, as reported by Real Clear Politics. Despite gaffe after gaffe, Biden has been the consistent frontrunner in the Democrat field. In a CNN/SSRS poll released on Tuesday, Biden's support surged from 22% to 29% from June to August. The closest Democrat candidate to Biden is Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), with 15%; Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) lands in third with 14%.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 8:34:22 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/20/donald-trump-many-in-establishment-media-would-love-to-see-a-recession/President Donald Trump criticized many figures in the establishment media on Tuesday for rushing to report a looming recession, despite an overall good economy throughout his presidency. “I think the word ‘recession’ is inappropriate because it’s just a word that certain people, I’m going to be kind, certain people in the media are trying to build up because they’d love to see a recession,” Trump said. “We’re very far from a recession.” The president commented to reporters at the White House that it was up to the Federal Reserve to keep growth going, pointing to their psychological impact on the economy. “If the Fed would do its job, I think we would have a tremendous spur of growth,” he said. He repeated his criticism of the Federal Reserve for engaging in quantitative tightening during his presidency, calling it a “very bad to do.” “You have to be proactive,” he said, calling for another rate cut, pointing to the European Union and other countries cutting their interest rates. “They have to do a rate cut,” he said, insisting that at a minimum the Federal Reserve should do nothing. Trump said he was looking for any kind of tax cut, as part of his overall economic strategy, confirming that he had been thinking about indexing capital gains or pushing forward on a payroll tax. “I would love to do something on capital gains, we’re talking about that, that’s a big deal, it goes through congress, [cutting] payroll tax is something that we think about and a lot of people would like to see that, and that very much affects the workers in our country and we have a lot of workers,” Trump said. Trump said that many of his advisers supported the idea of indexing capital gains, as it was something he could do without Congress. Payroll taxes, I’ve been thinking about payroll taxes for a long time, whether or not we do it now or not — it’s not being done because of recession,” he said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 11:14:02 GMT -6
More on Google & Hillary:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 12:50:59 GMT -6
So, another globalist loving, never-Trumper “leaves “the establishment”. www.kuer.org/post/romney-says-hes-no-longer-part-republican-establishment#stream/0Seven years after running for president as the GOP standard bearer, U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney on Monday described himself as a “renegade Republican” and said that he is “not part of the Republican establishment these days.” In a wide-ranging speech at the Sutherland Institute, a conservative think tank in Salt Lake City, Utah’s junior senator argued against “socialist” proposals being discussed on the Democratic presidential debate stage such as “Medicare for All” and free college tuition. He also lamented that “neither party is interested in talking about the debt and the deficit.” “I guess I should consider myself a renegade Republican because I still believe that deficits and debt matter a lot,” Romney said. The freshman senator and onetime presidential nominee went on to criticize several aspects of President Donald Trump’s trade and foreign relations policies. “I don’t like tariffs being placed on our friends and allies, I think the likes of Putin and Kim Jong-un deserve censure instead of flattery, and I think demonstrating personal character is one of the most important responsibilities of the leader of the land,” he said, echoing an op-ed he authored in the Washington Post days before taking office in January.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 15:49:12 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/50891/rnc-massively-outraises-dnc-july-molly-princeThe Republican National Committee (RNC) raked in more than $20 million during the month of July, nearly tripling what the Democratic National Committee (DNC) raised, according the Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. The RNC raised $20.8 million last month, bringing the party’s total fundraising haul to $177.9 million for the election cycle. Comparatively, the DNC raised $7.7 million over the same period, totaling $51.6 to date. “Last month’s fundraising haul again smashed records, and we continue to directly invest this money into growing our top-notch data-driven infrastructure, recruiting and training thousands of new volunteers, and registering voters across the country,” said RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. “Our fundraising success is further evidence that the American people like the pro-growth agenda and economic record that the Trump Administration and Republicans will continue to deliver, and this puts us in a strong position to secure more Republican victories in 2020.” For the second month in a row, the RNC’s fundraising haul surpassed its previous record for the most raised during a non-election year. The previous record for an off-year fundraising was achieved in July 2017, when the RNC raised $10.6 million, nearly half of the amount raised last month. “We also had our largest online fundraising ever,” Steve Guest, the RNC’s Rapid Response Director told The Daily Wire. He further noted that online fundraising was 1,100% more than in July 2016 and 1,900% more than July 2015. Guest also pointed to DNC Chairman Tom Perez’s scheduled fundraising trips to Mexico as sign of the party’s “struggle to fundraise.” “The DNC’s financial situation is in such a mess, they’re now relying on Hillary Clinton and Mexico to hold their fundraisers,” Guest continued. Accordingly, Perez will be traveling to Mexico City in September where he will be hosting a series of large donor events for the American expatriate community, according to a Bloomberg News report published Tuesday. Attendees will be required to present proof of United States citizenship or permanent residency, and will range from a DNC-sponsored happy hour with tickets starting at $25 to a dinner hitting as much as $15,000 per ticket. The same day that a DNC spokesperson confirmed Perez’s plans to travel across the border, news surfaced that former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would be hosting a dinner to fundraising for the party, with tickets costing as much as $50,000 per person. “With our fundraising advantage, we’re able to continue to invest in our permanent data-driven ground game,” Guest said. “So far, we have staff in 16 key target states across the country, including regional political directors, regional data directors, and state directors.” “We’re also able to recruit and train thousands of volunteers through regular ‘National Weeks of Training’ as well as target vulnerable Democrats in key districts with massive ad buys,” he continued. “These are necessary investments in election winning tools that the broke DNC could only dream of making.” A spokeswoman for the DNC did not return The Daily Wire’s request for comment.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 18:05:49 GMT -6
Well, this put a nice moon-sized dent into the Democrat led NPV movement: freebeacon.com/politics/federal-court-state-cannot-bind-presidential-electors/Federal Court: State Cannot Bind Presidential Electors Ruling could impact liberal efforts at Electoral College workaround ......... A panel of federal judges with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals handed down a 2-1 ruling saying the state of Colorado was wrong in 2016 to force a presidential elector to cast his vote for Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College. State law in Colorado mandates that presidential electors cast their Electoral College vote for the candidate receiving the most votes statewide, which in that instance was Hillary Clinton. In 2016, however, elector Micheal Baca tried to cast his vote for Ohio's then-governor, Republican John Kasich, as part of a short-lived movement to circumvent Trump's election in a kind of compromise. Supporters of the idea hoped enough electors would defect to Kasich to deny Trump the presidency — arguing Trump was too unstable or dangerous — but would still have given Republicans control of the executive branch rather than handing that power to Democrats. When Baca cast his vote for Kasich, then-secreatary of state Wayne Williams (R.) removed and replaced Baca with an elector who voted for Clinton. "Secretary Williams impermissibly interfered with Mr. Baca's exercise of his right to vote as a presidential elector," part of the court ruling read. "Specifically, Secretary Williams acted unconstitutionally by removing Mr. Baca and nullifying his vote for failing to comply with the vote binding provision." "Article II and the Twelfth Amendment provide presidential electors the right to cast a vote for President and Vice President with discretion," the majority ruling added. The decision effectively gives legal permission in any state to so-called "faithless electors," those who vote for someone other than the leading vote getter in the state or otherwise does not vote in coordination with the statewide election results. Heightening the importance of the ruling is the fact that just this spring Colorado passed a law entering the state into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV, which attempts to create a workaround to how the Electoral College has operated for two centuries, but would not require a Constitutional amendment.
In nearly all circumstances historical or present, electors cast their Electoral College vote for the candidate who receives the most votes in that state in a winner-take-all allocation.
The National Popular Vote, however, is an agreement of the states that have adopted the compact to cast their Electoral College votes for the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide, even if citizens of that state voted for a different candidate.
The NPV does not have any legal effect until enough states have joined that their electoral votes surpass 270, the amount needed to elect the president. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have joined the compact for a total of 196 Electoral College votes.
Colorado secretary of state Jena Griswold told the Colorado Sun the ruling could hamstring the NPV, noting that the mandates of how the electors should vote under the NPV could be ignored.In the months since the Colorado General Assembly passed NPV legislation that Governor Jared Polis (D.) then signed into law, a citizens' group submitted more than 227,000 signatures in an effort to force a referendum vote on the NPV in November of next year. Those signatures are still undergoing a certification process with the secretary of state's office. If roughly 125,000 signatures pass muster, the question will be placed on the ballot, creating the first real citizen-led test of the NPV. Until now, state legislative bodies have passed all NPV legislation without any challenge from citizens in their respective states.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 18:14:32 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/08/21/john-delaney-democrats-cheering-recession/Democratic presidential candidate John Delaney chided fellow Democrats Wednesday, some of whom he said seem to be “cheering on a recession because they want to stick it to” President Donald Trump. Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats, as well as some cable news hosts, have predicted that the U.S. economy is headed for a recession. “I hope it’s not,” Delaney, a former Maryland congressman, told reporters when asked if a recession is likely. “You know, it feels like some Democrats are cheering on a recession because they want to stick it to Trump.” “I don’t want a recession because I don’t want these workers in here to face a recession,” Delaney added. “But I worry that Trump’s policies are bringing one on.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 18:40:10 GMT -6
www.cnsnews.com/blog/susan-jones/cnn-ponders-trump-2020-what-magic-he-doles-outCNN Ponders Trump 2020: 'What Is the Magic That He Doles Out?' ......... People cheer as President Donald Trump speaks at an Aug. 15 rally in Manchester, New Hampshire. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) Rolling Stone magazine recently published an article titled "Trump 2020: Be Very Afraid," which carries the following subtitle: "America is the first country to ever elect a Mad King, and the way things are going, we may be dumb enough to do it twice." The author, Matt Taibbi, sat down with CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday morning. Among other things, Taibbi said the enthusiasm at Trump's campaign events this year is even greater than it was in 2016, and reporters who cover Trump are not explaining that. "What is the magic that he doles out?" CNN's Alisyn Camerota, not a Trump fan, asked Taibbi: "Well, it's a lot of things," Taibbi replied. Trump is appealing on a lot of levels that we don't write about. I mean, race is obviously part of it, but class is another thing that's a huge thing. I mean, Trump doesn't get credit in a lot of ways for being a very canny politician. He runs against -- he runs against people very well. Last time he ran against the Republican establishment, first with Jeb Bush, and that was kind of an easy contest. Then he took on Hillary Clinton and Wall Street and the military ... but now the media is a big part of it. He appeals to a certain kind of people in middle America. And to them, he's their champion. And you know, the people on the coast, in New York and in Washington and L.A., they're the enemy, and they're cheering for him. Taibbi has covered Trump since the beginning of his first campaign, and he admitted he made the same mistake other reporters did -- "we all looked at the polls," which showed Trump with high unfavorability ratings. But as it turned out, Trump did well with voters who disapproved of both candidates, Taibbi said. "And so the first thing is recognizing the extent of his popularity in small-town rural America. You know, if you go outside cities in this country, you will not find Democratic signs during an election. It's wall-to-wall Trump in most places. You know, not paying attention to that I think is a big problem," Taibbi said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 21, 2019 18:43:27 GMT -6
The arrogance of the left is something to behold. They simply refuse to understand this President & why he was elected: www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-trump-2020-be-very-afraid-872299/Trump 2020: Be Very Afraid America is the first country to ever elect a Mad King, and the way things are going, we may be dumb enough to do it twice ........... Early evening, August, Cincinnati. The Queen City’s many bridges are sealed off, its sky is dirty with helicopters, and seemingly every cop for 100 miles is patrolling Pete Rose Way along the Ohio River. A crowd of 20,000 or more stands in punishing heat, waiting to enter U.S. Bank Arena. The evil rumor buzzing down the line of MAGA hats is that not everyone will get in to see Donald Trump. “Can we just get in for a minute?” complains a boy of about 10 to his mother. There are a lot of kids here. TOP ARTICLES 2/5 Cult of Personality: Ties to Donald Trump doesn’t visit Middle America. He descends upon it. His rallies are awesome spectacles. Gawkers come down from the hills. If NASA traveled the country holding showings of the first captured alien life-form, the turnout would be similar. The pope driving monster trucks might get this much attention. RELATED matt taibbi podcast, useful idiots Welcome to 'Useful Idiots,' a New Rolling Stone Podcast Is the Trump Rally™ Losing Its Power? Welcome to ‘Useful Idiots,’ a New Rolling Stone Podcast Almost everyone in line is wearing 45 merch. Trump is the most T-shirtable president in history, and it’s not even close. Trumpinator tees are big (“2020: I’LL BE BACK”), but you’ll also see Trump as Rambo (complete with headband, ammo belt, and phallic rocket-launcher), Trump as the Punisher (a Trump pompadour atop the famous skull), even Trump as Superman (pulling his suit open to reveal a giant T). Slogans include “Trump 2020: Grab ’em by the Pussy Again!” and the ubiquitous “Trump 2020: Fuck Your Feelings.” One merch hawker — an African American man with a visor, wraparound sunglasses, and spiked, dyed-white hair — is snaking through the crowd, pushing a T-shirt: “Donald Fuckin’ Trump.” On the back, the shirt reads “Bitch I’m the President!” “Five bucks for hats, 10 for tees!” he yells. “ ‘Bitch, I’m the president!’ ‘Make America great again!’ ” “Four more years!” someone in the crowd yells back, to cheers. Two and a half years into his presidency, Trump has already staked a claim to a role in history usually reserved for hereditary monarchs at the end of a line of inbreeding. Historians will list him somewhere between Vlad the Impaler and France’s Charles VI, who thought his buttocks were made of glass. Much of America loves its Mad King, whose works are regularly on display. Russians under Ivan the Terrible used to watch dogs being hurled over the Kremlin walls when the tsar’s mood was bad. Americans have grown used to late-night insults tweeted at nuclear powers from the White House bedroom. Royal lunacy is traditionally a secret, but in Twitter-age America it’s a shared national experience. We are all somersaulting down and out the sanity chute. The astonishing thing about Trump is that he wasn’t foisted on us by a council of Bourbons, or by succession law. We elected the man, and are poised to do it again. History will judge us harshly for this, and will look with particular venom at Trump’s political opponents in both parties, who over the years were unable to win popularity contests against a man most people would not leave alone with a decent wristwatch, let alone their children. Trump’s original destiny was the destruction of the Republicans as a viable entity in modern American politics. Then he ran a general election like he was trying to lose, and won. Now his legacy is the spectacular end of America’s fragile racial consensus. Ten years ago, an African American won the White House in a landslide; today, the president is somewhere between a Klansman and Jimmy the Greek. The media legend is that Trump succeeds because he’s a racist, but this undersells it. Trump is 50 years behind the worst elements of the Republican Party, which spent decades carefully stuffing race under bromides like “states’ rights” and “free stuff.” The GOP now is in an all-out bucket brigade to rescue the dog whistle. The rescue is failing. We’ve gone from Trump being skeptical of Obama’s citizenship to musing about “very fine” neo-Nazis to a Twitter version of “Go back to Africa.” In Cincinnati, even his most hardcore supporters talk about wanting him to shut up. “I wish,” says one fan, “he would edit himself a little bit.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2019 6:21:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 22, 2019 7:33:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2019 9:44:58 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/50915/meuser-federal-court-deals-serious-blow-national-mark-meuserMEUSER: Federal Court Deals Serious Blow To The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact .......... On Tuesday, the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution when he removed an Electoral College delegate who had chosen to vote for John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton. The secretary of state nullified the vote of the delegate and installed a new delegate who voted in accordance with the popular vote of the state of Colorado. Michael Baca, a loyal Democratic voter, was elected as a delegate to the Electoral College in November 2016. By voting for Kasich instead of Hillary, Baca was attempting to be a part of a movement by Electoral College delegates across the country to pull away votes from both Trump and Hillary so as to send the election to the U.S. House of Representatives. The Constitution provides that if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote (270 Electoral College votes), then the top three candidates in the Electoral College are to be presented to the House of Representatives and the House is to select the next president. Baca’s plan was dependent upon other Republican Electoral College delegates also voting for Kasich. Trump received 304 Electoral College votes and, for the plan to succeed, 35 Republican delegates would have also had to cast their votes for Kasich. While Kasich would not have received any votes in the general election, his third-place finish in the Electoral College would have made him eligible for the Republican-controlled House to elect him as president of the United States. Needless to say, this was just the first attempt by Democrats to try to remove Trump from the White House. And this week, the 10th Circuit dealt a serious blow to the Democrats' latest scheme to try to circumvent the Electoral College. In another diagnosed case of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," many Democratic leaders have encouraged state legislatures to enter into an agreement wherein the states in the compact award all their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. This agreement is to take effect as soon as enough states have joined so that there are at least 270 Electoral College votes guaranteed by the compact.
Many Democrats hate the Electoral College because they feel it deprived them of the White House in 2000 and in 2016. Democrats hate the fact that they can’t win the race for the White House according to the Constitution, and they have thus decided that it is in their political self-interest to change the rules so that they can try to win the presidency more often.At this time, there are 15 states plus the District of Columbia that have entered into the agreement. To date, the compact has 196 out of the 270 Electoral College votes it needs before going into effect. The problem with this harebrained scheme being promoted by the Democrats is that it attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and the process to properly amend the Constitution. In order to amend the Constitution, three-quarters of the states must ratify a proposed constitutional amendment that has already passed by either a two-thirds vote by Congress or via a constitutional convention called for by the states. Democrats know that they cannot get three-quarters of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. As such, rather than give up on their desire to abolish the Electoral College, they instead have decided to change the rules on how the Constitution can be amended.
The good news is that the 10th Circuit, with its ruling on Tuesday, has telegraphed the beginning of the end of the Democrats' latest scheme to end the Electoral College. If a state cannot require that its delegates vote in accordance with its own state’s popular vote, it will therefore also never be able to require that its delegates to vote in accordance with the nation's popular vote.
While the 10th Circuit decision does not directly deal with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the reasoning of this decision will be used when lawyers argue the eventual unconstitutionality of the compact. Tuesday’s court ruling is a brick in the wall that will hinder the Democrats' unconstitutional attempts to amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 22, 2019 9:55:55 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/economy/2019/08/22/weekly-jobless-claims-fall-more-than-expected/The number of Americans filing initial claims for unemployment benefits tumbled sharply last week, indicating that the labor market was unshaken by stock market volatility, the inverted yield curve, and concerns the economy is at risk of falling into a recession. Jobless claims fell 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 209,000 for the week ended August 17. Economists had expected a smaller drop to 216,000. The prior week was revised up by 1,000 to 221,000. Weekly claims can be volatile so economists tend to look at the four-week moving average as a better gauge of the health of the labor market. This edged up by 500 to 214,500.
|
|