Sanders Coup Attempt Against Biden

AOC aspires to reach higher office. Me, I think she'll lose miserably if she tries. If New Yorkers want a dumb bartender as their senator, then they deserve that.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/aoc-don-t-know-m-144623403.html

 

@Borat will you finally believe me? It's TRUMP saying it, himself:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tries-to-turn-back-a-tidal-wave-of-early-voting-215000188.html

“Hopefully the few states remaining that want to take a lot of time after Nov. 3 to count ballots, that won’t be allowed by the various courts, because you know we’re in courts on that,” Trump told reporters ahead of a campaign rally in Arizona. “We just had a big victory in Wisconsin on that matter, so hopefully that won’t be happening."

 

Obstructing the counting of legally cast ballots is a violation of our individual RIGHT to vote and therefore unconstitutional.

Unfortunately what we have NOW is a regime and a SCrOTUS that are using the Constitution to wipe their asses on.

 

May be an outlier....maybe a yet another ABC/WashPost attempt at voter suppression.... most likely the later, they would not have published such an obvious outlier, they would have just redone the poll.
One thing this isn't though, it's not an accurate result, Biden will be lucky to get this sort of lead in NJ, not a mid-western Wisconsin LOL

Rules, state laws, the constitution..... the courts to solve legal disputes, the SCOTUS to rule on constitutionality or (lack of it) of laws and actions....
Do these things ring a bell? What's your problem again?

PS... the early voting is so far going extremely well...for the Republicans and Trump, hopefully there will be no need for legal actions.

 

Agreed on the outlier. Again, I said as much.

My problem is with the growing evidence that what Trump is trying to accomplish, is a stop in vote counting after midnight in Pennsylvania, which would deliver the victory to him, effectively stealing the election and invalidating hundreds of thousands of valid votes.

 

That you have to resort to distorting the essence of the dispute shows that you have no leg to stand on... its not about counting after midnight, they will keep counting just fine.

It's about mail-in ballots arriving passed midnight... and guess what, Pennsylvania law is clear and unambiguous, they do not count.
There is no ifs or buts in the law and Pennsylvania legislature has never changed it.

As the Democrat Party is trying to circumvent existing law (in the middle of the on-going voting, no less) it's perfectly legitimate for the opposing parties to take the dispute to court, including the supreme court and have it resolved there.

What's your problem again?

 

No, you're not paying attention. That's not what Kavanaugh said. Go back there.

 

FEDERAL law overrides State Law when it comes to ballots ARRIVING after election day that are POSTMARKED on election day or earlier.

This applies to OVERSEAS ballots cast by members of the military and their families.

YOUR wannabe Fascist-in-Chief is the one trying to CIRCUMVENT that law as well as other STATE laws by OBSTRUCTING the ability of the state to COUNT those votes.

 

So we agree, if it comes to that, it's incumbent on the Supreme Court to determine what overrides what, not on me, not on you and what is/isn't constitutional, not on the violent mob of leftist fascists, not on the CNN and MSNBC (and not on Fox), solely on the SCOTUS. Right?

 

I was glad to hear that Bernie isn't going to throw in the towel; & putting forth his own 100 days plan is very much in keeping w/ Sanders' style: more passionate about the ideas he espouses than he is interested in politic-ing or, "playing nice," for appearance sake. The result of this, I think will be similar to the effect he's had over the last four years; that is, it's not a realistic expectation that rank & file Dems will break w/ leadership, but quite possible that Sanders' pushing might, ultimately, move things a little more leftward.
Calling it a, "war," as you do, I think is an overstatement; though I do find it curious how so many PF members who lean strongly to the right also over-estimate, based on only a handful of Congresspeople, the strength of Socialism in the Democratic Party.
(Still, kudos to you, LoneStarGal, for following news reports so far left of your own viewpoint).

In fact, moving on to the question you pose about 2022: Democrats, at present, are not as easy for far-left, Primary challengers to pry away from their incumbent Dem., as Republican members of Congress have either found, or fear finding out, that their RP constituents can be seduced by Tea-Party challengers. So, depending how things are running under Biden when we approach those mid-terms, I'm thinking there won't be a SEA-change in the general Establishment to Far-left/Socialist proportions. That that prediction, though, doesn't take into account the possibility of some incumbent Democrats evolving a bit towards a more liberal perspective, if enough of their constituents voice support for policies of that type.

The counterweight to that will be firm hand of Nancy Pelosi who, in disagreement with your prognostication (in a different post), I believe will re-ascend to the Speaker position.

 

The only people that that failed Puerto Rico was there local government like always.

 

I think you may be surprised at the number of Progressive challengers who beat moderates for Congressional seats in less than a week.

Boomers are dying off and the younger generation coming of voting age have had an extremely Liberal public education, which has been heavy on "social training". The war between Democrats and Progressives is not just on ideology; it's a generational difference. The Progressives will win. It's just a matter of time, unless parents re-balance what is taught in public schools, and broaden the educational experience. Education is very narrow right now. Kids are coming out as clones for the singular collective voice, rather than as free-thinking individuals.

....and no way is Nancy ever getting the gavel again.

 

That is because, in your example, the, "Progressive," IS the official Democratic candidate, & the, "Moderate," is the REPUBLICAN. That is much different than a far left Democratic challenger beating an Incumbent Democratic Congress-person-- many of whom call themselves progressive, though they are creatures of the Democratic Establishment-- in a Democratic Primary.

The self-descriptors, "moderate," &, "progressive," used by Democrats, are far from precise, & often it comes down to what type of image they want to project to their voters. Many could go by either term, depending on the circumstances.

If you're talking about Socialism, then, "progressive Democrats," are the wrong yardstick to use. What I was saying was that, sparing unforseen developments, not many Establishment Democratic Incumbents are likely to lose primaries to radical leftist Democratic challengers (a couple, at most). That will predominently leave, in 2022, the seats held by Republicans, for Socialist Democrats to add to their numbers. But these districts will be much more in the reach of moderate Dems than those of the Socialist type (like those you named: Sanders & AOC). But if you are talking about pro-business, "progressives," like Obama, for example, clearly that will not lead to a different, more leftist Democratic Party than we currently have.

I agree that, given enough time, the younger generation (0 - 20 year olds) will come into the electorate to eventually outnumber those who are currently 60 - 80 years of age, who will begin dying off. But this will not happen as quickly as you suggest, in part because these new voters participate at a much lower rate than the oldest voters. In keeping w/ what I said in my previous post, I think you are exaggerating the urgency of this transition.

 

@LoneStarGal

While history does not guarantee future events, it's worth considering into your calculation of how fast, & to what degree, the Democratic Party will swing Left, that as those current students age-into the youngest of the Dems voting population, those who are presently the youngest will be ageing as well. And, historically, as those 21- 40 year-olds become the 41- 60 yo group, they would be expected, on the whole, to become more Conservative. So I think the CIRCUMSTANCES of any given time, will have at least as much effect on the direction a party swings as does the generational replacement.

P.S.-- Can you think of anything interesting we can wager on Pelosi remaining the leader? Because my, "yea," is as strong as your, "nay."

 

NOPE!

If your SCrOTUS makes an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling to END the counting of VOTES at midnight on 11/3 purely for the PARTISAN benefit of YOUR wannabe Fascist-in-Chief then that would be a GROSS violation of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!

But YOU are saying that the SCrOTUS has the authority to OVERRIDE those Individual Rights for Partisan Political MALFEASANCE.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/



Turnout for 2020 is expected to be even HIGHER than it was during the 2018 MIDTERM election.

 

That MYTH has been DEBUNKED.

https://www.livescience.com/2360-busting-myth-people-turn-liberal-age.html

The other FALSEHOOD about Public Education "brainwashing" the younger generations into being LIBERALS is a politically expedient attempt to DEFLECT the BLAME away from the fiscal MALFEASANCE of the GOP that effectively STOLE the American Dream from We the People and instead gave it all to the GREED obsessed Wall Street Casino Banksters.

66% of American workers can no longer afford to buy their own home thanks ENTIRELY to the policies of the GOP. What made matters even WORSE is that the ESTABLISHMENT Dems bought into the SCAM and also ended up BETRAYING We the People.

Today's Progressives have come to the realization that they have been LIED to and that is WHY they are turning out in RECORD NUMBERS to restore the government OF the People back to being FOR the People in elections now.

 

That would be Mark Twain.

 

Take it easy buddy, the Supreme Court will not make an unconstitutional ruling. They simply can't, it's impossible for their rulings to be unconstitutional.

 

Completely and utterly WRONG in ALL respects!

 

That's very interesting to hear that this long-time stereotype has been, "debunked." Don't take offense that I will need to look into your link before I completely accept it.

With regard to the other correction you made to my beliefs, that young voters don't participate at the same levels as older voters, that is something I find even more incredible! Don't get me wrong-- I'd be very happy to find that it's true. In fact I'd long had the optimism that this could happen. Those hopes have always been disappointed. When the younger generation did not show up in sufficient numbers for Bernie Sanders in these last Democratic Primaries, I finally gave up hope in them becoming interested.

Did they participate at levels equal to or exceeding other age groups in that contest? If so, it was a story that the mainstream media really underplayed. And then, did that mean Sanders did not reap the % of that demographic that earlier polls had suggested were in his camp? Or were the 2018 midterms the lone standout, so far, for young voter participation? If that's the case, while I'll keep my fingers crossed, I'd say it was premature to say that, what has been a truism about young voters, is now moot.

I KNOW we're getting high turnout this election (I've posted that speculation for weeks). That means from ALL age groups. So for younger voters to make their own voice stand out (as I cautiously presume, in this election, they will speak w/ one voice) they would need to participate at an even greater level.

 

The turnout of any voting demographic depends primarily on their motivation. Guns and abortion are primary motivators to certain demographics. The motivational drivers for young voters are the exorbitant costs of college, the subsequent massive debts incurred and the dearth of jobs that pay enough to enable them to pay off their debts and get on with their lives.

FTR Bernie never lost because of a lack of young voter turnout. He lost because his ideas are too radical to get enough support from other voting demographics.

But what Bernie achieved will have a far more significant impact on the future of our nation than becoming the candidate for a major party in any presidential election.

In January of 2017 when LOCAL Dem organizations were licking their wounds and trying to figure out what happened they suddenly found themselves INUNDATED with VOLUNTEERS! Who needs volunteers immediately AFTER an election when the NEXT one is almost 2 YEARS away?

Turns out those volunteers where Bernie Supporters who became the Progressives. They worked their asses off and shrank the GOP margins and then began winning races that the Establishment Dems never dreamed of winning. In the Off-Year 2017 elections the Progressives made SIGNIFICANT inroads against the GOP at the State and Local levels and then went ahead and set a RECORD for TURNOUT and seats flipped in 2018.

Not ALL Progressives are young but they ALL share the SAME motivation and that motivation is driving turnout on the Left that scares the CRAP out of the GOP.

Thanks Bernie!

 

Plessy v Ferguson

 

Actually, I think it is more about restoring the Globalist cash cow monopoly in Washington D.C..

The DNC is perfectly happy with the Senate staying with the GOP...

Why?

Because now they can tell the Socialists that it is all the fault of the Republican Senate when they don't get much traction in implementing their radical agenda.

 

Hey, still wondering about how much Trump will win by? LOL