Wednesday, April 24, 2019

What really bothers me about Russiagate and the Mueller report

The fact that Trump looked as if he didn't want to be President. That was a common theme from journalists and other outsiders who spent time with his campaign.

Toss in the wikileaked document from the Podesta e-mails where the Clinton campaign talks about a "Pied-Piper Candidate" and specifically mentions Donald Trump.

I find it interesting that the predicted popular vote in this forecast by Nate Silver is fairly close to how the actual popular vote turned out. Sure, that's purely conjecture.

On the other hand, Clinton was so sure she would win the election that she didn't have a concession speech written!

We know that the Democratic primary process was rigged between Wikileaks and the Class Action lawsuit against the DNC. Hell, it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton was supposed to have been the Democratic "nominee" since 2015 and that Sanders was an inconvenience to the process.

The problem is that you've got to wonder when a campaign is based upon "It's her turn" from a person with a serious sense of entitlement. Toss in that person is running a vanity campaign.

And the Candidate in question is one of the most unpopular candidates ever (see 2008 Michigan Primary results).

I mean who is the more likely candidate to try and rig the election:
1) the person who appears not to give a fuck?
2) The person who feels so entitled to the position that she shuts out any competition?

Of course Trump was exonerated he had no intent to win the election.

It's easy to divert attention away by screaming "the Russians meddled in the election".  On the other hand, it's a lot more questionable when the evidence points to someone thinking they can rig the election to win.

So, I think that's the real line of inquiry if people want to keep trying to figure out what went wrong: look at the person who had a desire and a motive to cheat.

See also:

Monday, April 22, 2019


Some people need to get the concept of "rights" and "due process".

One of which is the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which some people are happy to go by when it's their candidate, but won't let go of when it's Donald Trump.

Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Donald Trump.

I am also no fan of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton wasn't popular and any rigging was to try and find someone more unpopular than she was.

The shit will really go down once people start reading the Wikileaked Democratic Party e-mails because the Russians ain't got nothing on the Democratic Party and the Media for pushing Donald Trump.

Which was a strategy that backfired spectacularly!

Not to mention that the Democrats looks set for a replay.

There is a big difference between this and Watergate. The Republicans were the ones responsible for Watergate. 2016 was a joint effort, which was probably more from the Democrats and Media.  But don't expect to get any mea culpas from the likes of Rachel Maddow John Oliver, et al. 

Naw, they are going to keep beating a dead horse and working to get Trump reelected.

Any luck, there will be a move for impeachment which will blow up in the Dems' faces.

At this point, I am getting even sicker of the Democratic Party than I was after the Philadelphia DNC for their failure to live up to their name.

Like it or not, the Mueller Report said there was no collusion. It's time to drop the matter and move on.

Or maybe the Republicans should start looking into the Democratic Party's shenanigans.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

Maybe the Mueller report WASN'T a witch hunt: or be careful what you wish for!

While the Democratic Partisans are upset about obstruction and incorrectly accusing Trump of treason, they seem to be neglecting that one of the casualties of the Mueller Investigation is Gregory Craig, who was a former Clinton and Obama attorney. Craig was charged with violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

DoJ's focus on FARA came about as an off shoot of the Mueller investigation.

Paul Manafort was convicted under this act for his work done for Ukraine's former President. Craig and Manafort worked together to help the Ukrainians, but failed to bother to register under FARA. Their client was Viktor Pinchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian steel-pipe maker. The Clintons and Pinchuk are linked via the Clinton Foundation.

There have long been allegations about the Clinton Foundation being a way to launder funds, if not straight out buy favours from the Clintons. The FBI has been said to have investigated the foundation for alleged “pay-to-play” politics while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

While the Mueller Investigation might not have been totally bipartisan, I can't help but wonder if it also investigated the Clintons and the Clinton foundation after hearing about the Craig indictment.

Wouldn't it be funny if the redactions about on going criminal investigations related to the Clintons and their campaign? That would really be egg on the face of the Democrats for fucking up the 2016 Election.

Anyway, the Dems should be careful what they wish for, they might get it.

And it might not turn out the way they want it!

See also:

Noam Chomsky on Russiagate

Russian interference was minimal if it even existed. No one is talking about Israel's interference in US elections.

"There's no interference in elections that begins to compare to campaign funding."

Saturday, April 20, 2019

More election rigging

Now if you were an environmentalist group and going to endorse a candidate, which one of these would you choose?

The person with the 100% (or 92%): Bernie Sanders?

Or the person with the 82%: Hillary Clinton?

Bernie Sanders was the highest rated candidate on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard and the Climate Hawks Vote PAC in 2016.

Clinton had the weakest environmental record of the Democratic candidates using the LCV's standard.

Yet, the LCV chose Clinton.

What the fuck?

LCV's Action Fund took an unprecedented step of endorsing Hillary Clinton for president after only one debate between the Democratic candidates and months before the first vote in the Democratic primaries was cast. That was a big mistake. It was far too early in this primary for the nation’s most powerful environmental political organization to make an endorsement.

Yet they did. And they chose a candidate who was poor by their own standards!
Clinton promoted the internationalization of fracking and oversaw the State Department’s initial support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline during her tenure as Secretary of State. The one major climate accomplishment she touts, the Copenhagen Accord, is considered by climate activists to be a huge failure. Clinton is the only candidate with deep ties to the financiers and lobbyists of the fossil-fuel industry, on Wall Street and beyond.

Clinton supported the continued exploitation of our nation’s public carbon reserves, while Sanders had introduced legislation that would put an end to fossil-fuel leases on public lands. Sanders and Martin O’Malley actively supported the climate divestment movement, while Clinton ,  whose campaign and super PAC accept funding from fracking investors and fossil-fuel industry lobbyists did not taken a position.

This was Clinton's reaction when asked about her connection to the fossil fuel industry by a Greenpeace Volunteer.

Clinton never did the actions necessary to gain the support of the environmentalist movement (other than those establishment groups who are hopeful that change can come through the duopoly regime). On the other hand, climate change had short shrift if it received any attention at all during the campaign.

There are a lot of issues going on here from having a candidate chosen long before the primary process begins, failure to have a serious debate on the issue, and just plain off earning the vote.

The environment is just one of many issues where Clinton just wasn't trustworthy. And she didn't help the situation by antagonising environmental activists. She failed to give straight answers on the issue. I would toss in that she failed to address The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) issue in a meaningful manner.

But this is one of many issues where Clinton demonstrated she wasn't trustworthy.

I really have to question who rigged the election when a group such as LCV essentially declared that there’s no need for any further discussion of the environment or climate by the Democratic candidates before the primary process really began. And they decided that in favour of a candidate who was poor by their own standard.

See also:

It only gets worse from here

A little honest, self-examination would have been a lot more helpful than trying to blame all this on the Russians.
It will be even more amusing when the investigation gets investigated and shown to be a crock of shit.

Seriously people, it would have made a whole lot more sense to examine what REALLY happened than trying to blame the mess on the Russians.

Mud! Mud! Glorious Mud!

Here's the only collusion that was significant in 2016
One of the pundits said that the Democrats see the Mueller Report as evidence of collusion and obstruction, while the Republicans see it as a vindication of the president.

And the Independent and Third Party voters?

We see it as neglecting the internal bullshit of the duopoly parties.

We have a document in Wilileaks, which has been confirmed as authentic showing that Clinton wanted a "Pied Piper" candidate to run against.

Trump received a significant amount of free media coverage, which wouldn't have been possible a while back. I remember in 1980 when the Ronald Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" couldn't be shown on TV in the US because it would be free coverage. On the other hand, I've heard estimates of the free publicity received by Trump to be in the billions of dollars.

CBS CEO Leslie Moonves said that, “It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS.” 

Never mind that the same media shut out Bernie Sanders. Now, who was it who was trying to meddle in the election.

Of course the media are going to be pushing the Russian collusion thing since it distracts from the far more egregious acts that are happening in the US electoral process.

The Clinton campaign wasn't too bothered by foreign assistance, which turns out to be dodgy. The Steele Dossier is coming up for scrutiny since the release of the Mueller Report.  Ukrainians and Russians aren't the same nation (I should know), and there is evidence that the Ukrainians were assisting the Clinton Campaign.

It gets even more amusing since there are also allegations that the Russians tried to assist the Sanders campaign! That went well! I think there is far more evidence that the Democrats rigged the game against Sanders which makes that claim truly laughable.

Especially since it's been shown that Clinton was chosen to be the Democratic nominee in 2015: well before the voting started. Sanders was an inconvenience that showed the primary process for being the farce it is.

One of the reasons I voted for the Greens was that I saw both of the duopoly candidates as being slimey and neither party is willing to take responsibility. One major thing they could do to clear up this is to work on serious election reform.

My takeaway from these investigations is that the duopoly and the US mainstream media aren't going to address this issue in a meaningful way since doing so makes it clear that the hoodwinking of the American public has been going on openly for a long time.

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman was League of Women Voters President Nancy M. Neuman who said that in October of 1988, which demonstrates that this conspiracy has been ongoing for some time.

And it is internal to the duopoly parties.

But it's a heck of a lot easier to point to countries that use the Cyrillic Alphabet as being the perps since few people can understand what is really happening.

And it's happening at home.

The real takeaway from all this is that the US needs election reform badly.


Thursday, April 18, 2019

The Mueller Report is in: are you guilty of collusion?

Exhibit 1. Memo of Russian Operatives from Wikileaks

it seems that Russia's attempt to influence the 2016 election was to exacerbate the political divisions within the US and promote Trump as a presidential candidate.

It seems some people are conspicuously absent from the Mueller report. Why aren't the Russian operatives responsible for Exhibit 1 being mentioned?

I think that is prime evidence that the General Counsel's report was a witch hunt.

Let's face it, the entire thing is based upon leaked Democratic Party internal communications.

Next, it seems that the Russians wanted to use social media to turn people against Hillary Clinton.

Was that really necessary? Hillary Clinton was one of the most unpopular candidates to run: EVER!

The only candidate more unpopular was Donald Trump!

On the other hand, that seems to mean that you have to be some kind of Russian bot if you posted anything that was remotely critical of Hillary Clinton.  I mean who else would dare criticise the party's chosen candidate?

Those Bernie Bros were Russian stooges as was anyone else who dared not vote for Hillary.  And don't you dare to criticise her.

The reality is that there is more than enough documentation of Clinton acting like an asshole without anyone's assistance. She didn't need the Russians to make her look bad. She did a great job on her own.

So far, I have yet to see any remotely plausible reason for Clinton's loss other than the Electoral College, but some people want to go on like a bunch sore losers hoping that Trump will be impeached.

Aside: Do you think they would be happy with Pence?

Personally, I saw a lot more internal US actions that violated the concept of a free and fair election. The ironic thing was those actions came from the Democratic Party.

But who is investigating how independents who tried to reregister as Democrats were denied the opportunity to vote in closed Primaries?

And the Democratic Parties violation of its internal rules to favour Clinton over Sanders are an open secret. It's the elephant in the room about all this.

I mean the e-mails in question are internal Democratic Party Communications which have been confirmed to be authentic.

As a criminal defence attorney, I would be hammering on that one if my client were accused of this shit.

Monday, April 15, 2019

Navigating the disaster that is Brexit

Brexit and Donald Trump have one thing in common: They were intended to be alternatives which were so repugnant that no one would vote for either one.

I should be making a fortune off of this since my legal studies were geared toward the European Union. I was expecting to get hired to help someone navigate the European Union, and now navigating the disaster that is Brexit.

And Brexit is far more of a disaster than Donald Trump since no one expected to really have it happen. I could have told anyone who would have listened that it was going to be a disaster: especially since no one worked out what would happen when it happened.

Take the US Civil War: only make it non-violent with a lot of negotiation.

It was a bad idea to separate a nation which functions: no matter how poorly one may see it functioning. It's even worse when the party that wants to separate has less party than the what they are separating from.  The bad divorce analogy sounds really good.

Only most divorces try to be equitable: this one has no need to be equitable.

This one can have you pay for their education and support them. Then when the person who was supporting decides to leave has to pay twice the amount of support to leave.

Not only that the party separating finds that they can only sleep in the doghouse...

If they take the agreement.

And they are totally fucked if they don't take the agreement.

Unfortunately, there is the "prestige point" factor that says, "we can't go back since we have already gone to far to reconcile." Or so the person thinks.

Yes, Britain could, and should, have a second referendum since now they understand what exactly leaving the European Union means. They have been getting a preview and not liking it since the process began.

But the other thing that Brexit and Trump have in common is that the people have to live with the decision until they decide to elect them out.

Sunday, April 14, 2019

Obstruction of Justice..or exercising his rights?

There are a couple of things wrong with this meme.

Let's start with the most egregious.

No one has to testify or "cooperate" with an investigation according to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

Here is the Jury Instruction about that:

You may have noticed that the defendant did not testify at this trial. The defendant has an absolute right not to testify, since the entire burden of proof in this case is on the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant is guilty. It is not up to the defendant to prove that he (she) is innocent.

The fact that the defendant did not testify has nothing to do with the question of whether he (she) is guilty or not guilty. You are not to draw any adverse inference against the defendant because he (she) did not testify.

You are not to consider it in any way, or even discuss it in your

You must determine whether the Commonwealth has proved its case against the defendant based solely on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits.
Pointing out that a defendant refused to testify is a reversible error.

I'm not going to bother to cite to anything because doing a search on "Defendant not testifying" will turn up a shitload of material to back me up.

Come on, people, haven't you fucking heard of "taking the fifth"?????

And while we are on it. "Hiding tax returns".   Here's what the IRS says about that:
Confidentiality rules apply to all information the IRS has about your tax return, whether that information comes from you or from some other source. ... Unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony crime, with a maximum penalty of a $250,000 fine and five years in prison.
Yeah, there are ways to have this information disclosed, but the rules are weighed toward the privacy of the individual: whether that person is public or private.

26 U.S. Code §6103 protects taxpayers from forced disclosure and trumps the primary legislation for disclosure, the Freedom of Information Act.  FOIA enables the public to inspect rulings and many other IRS documents, files, and memoranda, but it does not encompass “matters [that are] specifically exempted from disclosure by statute,” IOW 26 U.S. Code §6103. Although some aspects of the statute's meaning remain to be elucidated.

Which would mean a court case that would delay any disclosure until well after Trump is president.

I've heard people say that Congress can request them, but here is Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation reg for doing that (Background Regarding The Confidentiality And Disclosure Of Federal Tax Returns ):

It's a little long.

Toss in that a personal income tax return, Form 1040, without schedules does not disclose that much information. It is an aggregate summary of information. Even with schedules, the returns would not provide very much information about  a candidate who earns income through corporations and/or partnerships, such as a businessman. The income and deduction information derived from those sources appear separately on other forms (for example, 1065 and 1041). Only the taxpayer's share of the net amount passes through or appear as a dividend. Disclosure of those forms would involve violating the privacy rights of the other people (e.g., shareholders and partners), which would require an additional waiver for disclosure.

So, wanting to see a tax return wouldn't tell you that much, unless you are a forensic accountant. And maybe not even then.

And just wanting to see how much someone earns isn't a compelling enough reason to demand their tax returns.

The thing about rights is that they protect even people you consider repugnant. It's when they do that they are the most effective.

I would add that going after someone just because adds to the sense of a witch hunt. which isn't really something the Democratic Party should be doing if they really want to elect someone besides Trump.

See also:

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Julian Assange Arrested

A couple of disclaimers here:
  • RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government
  • Julian Assange published Hillary Clinton's, John Podesta's, and the DNC's e-mails about the 2016 Election that no one has said were fraudulent.

Those things said, Julian Assange has been arrested for extradition to the US from his asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Here is an interview he had with RT about the 2016 US Election and Hillary Clinton.
I would think that Trump would pardon him ASAP if there was any collusion between his campaign and Assange.

Monday, April 8, 2019

Marbury v Madison or why the Heller and McDonald decisions are wrong

Scalia fucked it.

I'll say it again. Scalia fucked it as does anyone who buys into the bullshit which is comprised by the Heller and McDonald decisions.

In fact, those decisions should be laughed at and any academic who is shit for brains enough to give them the slightest credence should be barred from the practise of law since they ignore a fundamental basis of US Constitutional law.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

It's one of the first cases any constitutional law class covers, which is why anyone who gives Heller and McDonald a shred of legitimacy should be barred from the practise of law. Why? First off.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.
Judicial review for constitutionality is not a power granted by the US Constitution: it comes from this case.

More importantly it centred around a clause in the US Constitution (hint, hint, for those shit for brains who want to call themselves "Constitutional Scholars").

 Facts of the case

Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they were not valid until their commissions were delivered by Secretary of State James Madison.

The whole thing hinged on the interpretation of the US Constitution: in particular the clauses in it: 

"These are the clauses of the Constitution and laws of the United States which affect this part of the case." 

"Although that clause of the Constitution which requires the President to commission all the officers of the United States may never have been applied to officers appointed otherwise than by himself, yet it would be difficult to deny the legislative power to apply it to such cases. Of consequence, the constitutional distinction between the appointment to an office and the commission of an officer who has been appointed remains the same as if in practice the President had commissioned officers appointed by an authority other than his own.

"It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.

The most important passages:

"f it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction."

"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

So, Heller and McDonald got it wrong. McDonald doubly so since the historic record shows that the Second Amendment is tied to congress' power under Article I, Section 8, clause 16: to arm the militia. That relates to power granted to the Federal government, not the states.

The bottom line: Marbury v Madison found that no clause in the constitution is without effect. It also found that the courts had the power to review cases.

That poses two dilemmas if the court wishes to ignore this case.  This is especially true if one is an originalist who believes that "the judicial interpretation of the constitution which aims to follow closely the original intentions of those who drafted it." The people who drafted the Constitution were around when this case was decided. the Madison in question was James Madison: the person who drafted the Constitution.

John Marshall, who wrote this decision, was also involved in the creation of the US Constitution.

So, the founders believed that no clause in the constitution was to be without effect. 

To put it plainly: the people who wrote the constitution said that no clause was to be without effect.

That means what Scalia and similar ignorant shits for brains called "preferatory"  is indeed significant. This points to the ablative absolute construction being the more likely explanation.

That means that the "preferatory" clause of a "well-regulated militia being necessary for the Security of the Free State" is indeed the reason "for the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed." That also fits in to the Constitutional frame work mentioned in the preamble: in particular the common defence.

I would also add that neither Heller nor McDonald were cases of first impression. Heller and McDonald are egregious in their failure to properly address the case law prior to their ultra vires act of amending the contsitution. Any proper decision would have to take into account Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) as well as  US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) is short and only points out the connection to Article I, Section 8, clause 16. But all those cases point out that the right is related to the active militia and Article I, Section 8, clause 16.

So, Scalia was right: US v Miller wasn't helpful since it contradicted the result he wanted to achieve.[1] Which is the case for all the case law and the text of the US Constitution. That means the Heller and McDonald decisions are ultra vires in addition to failing to adhere to the rule of law.

I would be highly embarrassed to be associated with these decisions. Justice Roberts should figure out some serious damage control unless he wants his reputation marred by these harmful decisions.

That is because of the harm caused to the public by ripping the Second Amendment from the constitutional framework.

So, yes, I do hold you in contempt for your failure to follow the document you swore to uphold. You should be laughed off the bench for this serious error of judgement.

One that anyone who has seriously studied constitutional law should not make.

see also:

[1]  US v Miller said:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
Justice McReynolds used different terminology than calling it "preferatory" and "operative", but that is EXACTLY what he is talking about.

Bernie and the Demexit

I actively supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and am passively supporting him in 2020. Passively because I think Bernie's time was 2016 when he had the votes. Bernie was drafted to give people a choice from Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Election. Sanders was popular then, but I think the coalition that would have made him the candidate in 2016 isn't present in this election.

The Demexit was where Sanders supporters left the Democratic Party. I made the Demexit early on: after when AP called the California Primary for Clinton. The 2016 Philadelphia Democratic National Convention firmed up my resolve that my being a Democrat was pointless: even if that meant that was the only way I could vote in a primary.

But the Primaries are acts of attrition to make sure that the candidate with the largest bankroll can make it to the end. Clinton had the big money while Sanders had the popular support in 2016. The fact that the Dems chose the most unpopular candidate was a sickener to me.

But Clinton wouldn't have won the 2016 primary if she had any competition, which is why the DNC rigged the game for her. But Hillary Clinton literally couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery and didn't count on the Electoral College making her plan backfire.

You would think the Democrats would have learned their lesson in 2000, but Russiagate was an example of Democratic ignorance.

Hillary Clinton is a symptom, not the disease. It took Sanders' run to make me see how much the Democratic Party is obsolete.

Anyway, The Green Party was far more appealing to me in how it explicitly addressed election reform and the environment. Hillary Clinton was openly hostile to environmentalists (this too). While some candidates make lip service about the environment, you have establishment democrats doing a Hillary.

So, while the Duopoly Parties like to talk about "Big Tents", you can't have a party with no real agenda. Parties that can include George Wallace and George McGovern aren't going to work. Especially if they are going to run unpopular candidates.

See also:
Democratic Autopsy: the Party in Crisis
The AP's call for Hillary Clinton ruined California's election party--and here’s why that matters
Elizabeth Warren agrees Democratic race 'rigged' for Clinton
Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile agree the 2016 primary was Rigged
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
Was the Democratic primary rigged?
Dear Democratic party: it's time to stop rigging the primaries

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Trump Will Be President in 2020

This is like my desire to post that he was going to win in 2016 when I saw early on that the Electoral Votes were being tallied, instead of the popular vote.  That was because I knew the popular vote wouldn't matter.

I am saying this early on because I am hoping maybe a warning might reach the right eyes since I am already seeing the same trends that led Trump win in 2016 happening again.

First off, forgetting Whitewater and its outcomes. Bill Clinton was impeached, but was acquitted which might be the same result if Trump is impeached. Except it will make Trump stronger. Toss in the Democratic Party higher ups don't want it happening.

Of course, this presupposes that Trump will be the 2020 Republican nominee. Which is fairly certain unless someone comes in and does what Bernie Sanders did in 2016. That was to offer a choice to the Republican voters who don't want to run one of the most unpopular candidates ever.

But unpopularity doesn't matter which is something neither party has learned since they don't have to. They are the duopoly and the sheep will keep voting for the lesser evil.

So, as in 2016, the Democrats will end up with a candidate who is unpopular. Sanders will face some of the same shit he had in 2016 less the media blackout. But I am sure that the Democratic Party "members" won't want him running based on his "not being a democrat".[1]  Of course, they will support Liz Warren.

Liz Warren is another story. Her brand was tarnished in 2016 when she went with Clinton instead of Sanders. She was heckled at the 2016 DNC with shouts of "We trusted you." UMass Amherst released a poll of the 2020 Democratic primary in Massachusetts, and Warren garnered just 11 percent of the sample. That is not good in a state where her name recognition is already high and Democrats are as intimately familiar with her record as any 2020 voter is going to get.

The irony here is that Warren was a republican well into the 90s. Possibly into the 2000s! A lot of progressives don't trust her any more.

Liz is one of many Sanders clones running which will give him competition, but there is only one Bernie. Although, I just learned about Sanders signing the Democratic loyalty oath which would mean that he is now a Democratic party member and one of the complaints about him is gone.

But, I don't think some of the party members will forgive Sanders for 2016.

The main things that bother me about the Democratic Party: that they failed to be honest about what happened in 2016 and that they will run another unpopular candidate are the real bottom line here.

I agree with Camille Paglia who said:
If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge.

While I supported Sanders in 2016. I'm not sure I would do it now. I think Bernie's time was in 2016. The Democratic party brand is tarnished beyond repair (and the Republicans are way too far out).

[1] Sanders signed a loyalty oath to the Democratic Party, but I think some Clinton supporters will still hold a grudge.

See also:

Friday, April 5, 2019

My vote didn't count in the 2016 Presidential Election.

In fair disclosure, I am an independent who voted with the Democrats since I vote in a jurisdiction where there is a closed primary. I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary. Then I voted for Jill Stein.

My vote for Jill Stein in no way influenced the outcome of the election. Clinton still would have lost even if all the people who voted for Jill Stein where I am registered to vote. An aside here: people who voted for Jill Stein weren't very likely to vote for either duopoly candidate.

Still even if my state had voted for Hillary Clinton, that wouldn't have made too much of a difference where the voting really counted: the Electoral College. It might have shifted a few votes, but it wouldn't have given Clinton the 270 votes needed to win.

The popular vote is irrelevant to the outcome of the election as I have pointed out. It has nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with the constitution.

I find it liberating to know that I am able to vote my conscience knowing that the popular vote is meaningless.

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Russian Interference refuted.

It's really easy.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump's 62,984,825 (46.4% votes) Clinton's margin  of victory in the popular vote was larger than John Kennedy's and Richard Nixon's, I've seen a statistic that her popular vote margin was the third largest in US elections! (It was the third highest for someone who lost an election, it was also fairly significant among the people who won the election)

Multiple candidates in American history have been elected president with far smaller margins than Clinton's in the popular vote. According to figures from the Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections—and as alluded to by one Atlantic reader—they include:

James Garfield in 1880: 0.09 percentage points
John F. Kennedy in 1960: 0.17 percentage points
Grover Cleveland in 1884: 0.57 percentage points
Richard Nixon in 1968: 0.7 percentage points
James Polk in 1844: 1.45 percentage points
Since the final vote count did, indeed, put her well above 2 percentage points ahead of Trump, her margin went beyond those of winning presidential nominees Jimmy Carter in 1976 (2.07 percentage points) and George W. Bush in 2004 (2.47 percentage points). And all this is not to mention the presidents who’ve been elected without winning the popular vote at all. That’s a list that includes Bush in 2000, and Trump.


That is the number of popular votes that Hillary Clinton had over Donald Trump. It was a number that was 2.1% more of the popular vote than Donald Trump won.

That is a number which is larger than the population of 16 States and District of Columbia (Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana Delaware, South Dakota,    Alaska, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming). It is slightly less than the populations of 4 States: Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, and Utah). It is slightly more than the combined populations of Alaska, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming (2,578,472).

It's also a number which is larger than most of the 100 largest US Cities (Only NYC and LA have a larger population).

Now, given that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin: How did Donald Trump become President?

Russian Interference?
The Electoral College?

It was the Electoral College that made Trump President, not any foreign interference.

OK, let's do it right if we want to investigate why Trump is president.

First off, there needs to be an investigation of the US election process altogether from campaign funding to the actual mechanics of running them (e.g., gerrymandering).

Next, there needs to be an investigation of the Democratic Party and how they treated Bernie Sanders, which was the subject core to Russiagate. That was what all those hacked e-mails mentioned.

That leads into how did two of the most unpopular candidates ever get chosen to run for president?

A biggie is that there has to be an examination of the Electoral College, which was the real cause for Trump being President.

Finally, let's look into the misconduct of the press from the media blackout of a popular candidate to the pushing of a nonsensical foreign interference led to a Trump win (and why the fuck can't they shut up about it).

The bottom line is that Russiagate has been a big distraction from much more pressing problems.

See also:

Monday, April 1, 2019

Of Course MSNBC and the US Mass media can't let Russiagate Drop.

It was stories like this that probably helped increase voter apathy.
The thing is that Clinton's winning the popular vote by a large margin, yet losing in the Electoral College totally changes the narrative. How did the Russians cause that outcome?

Russian Interference had nothing to do with Clinton's loss.