2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[CU88]

Conservative Hero George Will calling it like he sees it on IMPOTUS o d

Trump will end his presidency as he began it: Whining

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

[cradleandshoot]

From the Post, including a list of Americans who stand for America when it really matters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... way-ahead/

"Normally it’s a predictable, low-profile ritual: Every four years, presidential campaigns trot out lengthy lists of endorsements from former national security officials, generals and admirals. As a rule, no one cares much — because there is normally a widespread presumption that both major-party nominees are qualified to be commander in chief.

This year, it’s different. Democratic nominee Joe Biden is winning far more endorsements from national security professionals and retired flag officers — and by a large margin. Any perception that Republicans have an advantage on national security issues should be erased by looking at who’s backing the two candidates.

On Oct. 1, President Trump released a list of 66 Republican “former national security and senior officials” who have endorsed him. Most of them are not actually senior, and few have any actual national security experience. Mainly it’s a list of Republican apparatchiks, including former Rep. Bob Livingston (who had to quit Congress after a sex scandal); former governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi; Trump’s personal lawyer and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani; Washington lobbyist and former Trump aide Matt Schlapp; former Heritage Foundation president Edwin J. Feulner; journalist Deroy Murdock (identified as a former member of the Education Department’s advisory board on international educational programs); and John Deming, a former deputy press secretary to John McCain. (They couldn’t even find a former McCain press secretary to back Trump?)

There are, to be sure, a few generals and genuine national security professionals among the Trump endorsers. But what is most notable about this list is who’s not on it. The missing names include former defense secretary Jim Mattis, former national security advisers H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, former director of national intelligence Daniel Coats and former acting director Joseph Maguire. To be sure, none of these individuals has endorsed Biden — but nor do any of them have anything complimentary to say about the president they served.

Bolton has said Trump is not “fit for office” and doesn’t have “the competence to carry out the job.” Kelly reportedly told friends that Trump “is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life,” and “the depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me.” McMaster said Trump is “aiding and abetting [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s efforts” and selling out U.S. security in Afghanistan. Mattis said Trump “is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people. . . . Instead, he tries to divide us.” Coats told Bob Woodward that Putin may have “something” on Trump and that Trump “doesn’t know the difference between the truth and a lie.” Tillerson called Trump a “moron” and said the president asked him to “violate the law.”

This is the most scathing verdict on a president ever delivered by his own appointees. It helps to explain why so many national security veterans are backing Biden. The former vice president has the endorsement of 780 retired military officers and national security appointees — nearly 12 times as many as Trump — including storied foreign policy hands, such as former undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns and former deputy secretary of state William J. Burns, who have worked for both Democrats and Republicans.

Even more impressively, the ranks of Biden endorsers include 129 Republicans — prominent ones. See, for example, former director of national intelligence and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte; former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden; former CIA and FBI director William Webster; and former undersecretaries of defense Dov Zakheim, Michael Vickers and Eric Edelman. It should tell you something that the Republican all-star team is batting for Biden.

So are the military all-stars. Biden has the support of more than 200 retired admirals and generals, including at least 22 four-stars. (Trump does not have the support of a single four-star flag officer.) Some of those officers are backing Biden after having served under Trump — most prominently Gen. Paul Selva, who served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until August 2019. Officers are usually reluctant to get involved in partisan politics, but the stakes are so high this time that many are speaking out.

The latest flag officer to support Biden is retired Adm. William H. McRaven, the former Special Operations commander who oversaw the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. “Truth be told,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, “I am a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, small-government, strong-defense and a national-anthem-standing conservative.” But he also believes: “We need a president who understands the importance of American leadership, at home and abroad. We need a leader of integrity whose decency and sense of respect reflects the values we expect from our president. We need a president for all Americans, not just half of America.”

That’s a good summary of where things stand. Trump’s incompetence has exacerbated the covid-19 crisis, turning it into one of the largest mass-casualty events in U.S. history. Imagine what he would do if he were to win a second term and confront an equally grave foreign policy crisis. The national security veterans know it’s a risk we can’t run."

But sure, what's Hunter's story.

That list has to be taken with a grain of salt. If you notice every person on that list has been thoroughly raked over the coals at one time or another by our FLP friends on this forum. It is funny that when it is convenient to have them agreeing with you, they become loved and respected in the democrat community for their wise opinions. It is true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. One general was even branded a coward on this forum just a few short days ago. I wonder if Biden is comfortable with a known coward supporting him?

The other way to see it is that people who were criticized for working for the Trump Admin by many on the left or Dems etc have since reported out their disgust with Trump, the danger he represents to the country.

To me, their prior conservative affiliations and work makes them all the more credible when they tell us their first hand views.

I think you are referring to Kelly as the one labelled a 'coward' because he has told his friends what he thinks but has not spoken up directly to all Americans. If he truly feels what he's reported to feel, then he owes a great duty to speak...and he was in a political appointment, not military role in this Admin. I don't know that 'coward' would be the right word, but certainly it's fair to criticize him squarely for not speaking up directly, taking whatever heat for doing so. Others have.

And it's fair to criticize Bolton for not going before Congress to tell what he knew, forcefully, during the impeachment process rather than waiting to tell it in a book.

There has always been a very longstanding unspoken rule that senior military officers, especially a 4 star general do not openly criticize a sitting POTUS . They seldom if ever would speak badly of a former POTUS. I suppose if every former military officers expressed their opinions in public of all former POTUS you would be more stunned than you ever expect. I believe that is where the unspoken rule originated from. Many of these former senior officers were well aware they were capable of doing more harm than good. To have one branded as a coward for maintaining a long standing protocol is not the right thing to do. If you are fine with more senior military men/women airing their dirty laundry about the CiC they served under, you would probably understand why they traditionally do not do so.

[6ftstick]

What could possibly go wrong!

The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling Sept. 17 to extend the deadline for ballots to be counted as valid through Nov. 6. The court said ballots that “lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible” will be “presumed to have been mailed by Election Day”

[MDlaxfan76]

From the Post, including a list of Americans who stand for America when it really matters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... way-ahead/

"Normally it’s a predictable, low-profile ritual: Every four years, presidential campaigns trot out lengthy lists of endorsements from former national security officials, generals and admirals. As a rule, no one cares much — because there is normally a widespread presumption that both major-party nominees are qualified to be commander in chief.

This year, it’s different. Democratic nominee Joe Biden is winning far more endorsements from national security professionals and retired flag officers — and by a large margin. Any perception that Republicans have an advantage on national security issues should be erased by looking at who’s backing the two candidates.

On Oct. 1, President Trump released a list of 66 Republican “former national security and senior officials” who have endorsed him. Most of them are not actually senior, and few have any actual national security experience. Mainly it’s a list of Republican apparatchiks, including former Rep. Bob Livingston (who had to quit Congress after a sex scandal); former governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi; Trump’s personal lawyer and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani; Washington lobbyist and former Trump aide Matt Schlapp; former Heritage Foundation president Edwin J. Feulner; journalist Deroy Murdock (identified as a former member of the Education Department’s advisory board on international educational programs); and John Deming, a former deputy press secretary to John McCain. (They couldn’t even find a former McCain press secretary to back Trump?)

There are, to be sure, a few generals and genuine national security professionals among the Trump endorsers. But what is most notable about this list is who’s not on it. The missing names include former defense secretary Jim Mattis, former national security advisers H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, former director of national intelligence Daniel Coats and former acting director Joseph Maguire. To be sure, none of these individuals has endorsed Biden — but nor do any of them have anything complimentary to say about the president they served.

Bolton has said Trump is not “fit for office” and doesn’t have “the competence to carry out the job.” Kelly reportedly told friends that Trump “is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life,” and “the depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me.” McMaster said Trump is “aiding and abetting [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s efforts” and selling out U.S. security in Afghanistan. Mattis said Trump “is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people. . . . Instead, he tries to divide us.” Coats told Bob Woodward that Putin may have “something” on Trump and that Trump “doesn’t know the difference between the truth and a lie.” Tillerson called Trump a “moron” and said the president asked him to “violate the law.”

This is the most scathing verdict on a president ever delivered by his own appointees. It helps to explain why so many national security veterans are backing Biden. The former vice president has the endorsement of 780 retired military officers and national security appointees — nearly 12 times as many as Trump — including storied foreign policy hands, such as former undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns and former deputy secretary of state William J. Burns, who have worked for both Democrats and Republicans.

Even more impressively, the ranks of Biden endorsers include 129 Republicans — prominent ones. See, for example, former director of national intelligence and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte; former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden; former CIA and FBI director William Webster; and former undersecretaries of defense Dov Zakheim, Michael Vickers and Eric Edelman. It should tell you something that the Republican all-star team is batting for Biden.

So are the military all-stars. Biden has the support of more than 200 retired admirals and generals, including at least 22 four-stars. (Trump does not have the support of a single four-star flag officer.) Some of those officers are backing Biden after having served under Trump — most prominently Gen. Paul Selva, who served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until August 2019. Officers are usually reluctant to get involved in partisan politics, but the stakes are so high this time that many are speaking out.

The latest flag officer to support Biden is retired Adm. William H. McRaven, the former Special Operations commander who oversaw the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. “Truth be told,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, “I am a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, small-government, strong-defense and a national-anthem-standing conservative.” But he also believes: “We need a president who understands the importance of American leadership, at home and abroad. We need a leader of integrity whose decency and sense of respect reflects the values we expect from our president. We need a president for all Americans, not just half of America.”

That’s a good summary of where things stand. Trump’s incompetence has exacerbated the covid-19 crisis, turning it into one of the largest mass-casualty events in U.S. history. Imagine what he would do if he were to win a second term and confront an equally grave foreign policy crisis. The national security veterans know it’s a risk we can’t run."

But sure, what's Hunter's story.

That list has to be taken with a grain of salt. If you notice every person on that list has been thoroughly raked over the coals at one time or another by our FLP friends on this forum. It is funny that when it is convenient to have them agreeing with you, they become loved and respected in the democrat community for their wise opinions. It is true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. One general was even branded a coward on this forum just a few short days ago. I wonder if Biden is comfortable with a known coward supporting him?

The other way to see it is that people who were criticized for working for the Trump Admin by many on the left or Dems etc have since reported out their disgust with Trump, the danger he represents to the country.

To me, their prior conservative affiliations and work makes them all the more credible when they tell us their first hand views.

I think you are referring to Kelly as the one labelled a 'coward' because he has told his friends what he thinks but has not spoken up directly to all Americans. If he truly feels what he's reported to feel, then he owes a great duty to speak...and he was in a political appointment, not military role in this Admin. I don't know that 'coward' would be the right word, but certainly it's fair to criticize him squarely for not speaking up directly, taking whatever heat for doing so. Others have.

And it's fair to criticize Bolton for not going before Congress to tell what he knew, forcefully, during the impeachment process rather than waiting to tell it in a book.

There has always been a very longstanding unspoken rule that senior military officers, especially a 4 star general do not openly criticize a sitting POTUS . They seldom if ever would speak badly of a former POTUS. I suppose if every former military officers expressed their opinions in public of all former POTUS you would be more stunned than you ever expect. I believe that is where the unspoken rule originated from. Many of these former senior officers were well aware they were capable of doing more harm than good. To have one branded as a coward for maintaining a long standing protocol is not the right thing to do. If you are fine with more senior military men/women airing their dirty laundry about the CiC they served under, you would probably understand why they traditionally do not do so.

I understand the 'protocol'.
But he is a retired general, who served in a political, civilian position providing him with first-hand knowledge. And his opinion, if his expressions of such to his friends are accurate, is immensely damning.

Many, many other senior officers have broken this 'protocol' in extremis due to the actions of this specific President. It goes far beyond policy, it is first and foremost their assessment of Trump's lack of character and competence which drives them to this choice.

Kelly should as well, he should not hide behind 'protocol' and leak his opinions through friends. Come out and say it directly.

Again, my word choice might not be 'coward' but I will say that he owes the country more than protocol.

[MDlaxfan76]

What could possibly go wrong!

The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling Sept. 17 to extend the deadline for ballots to be counted as valid through Nov. 6. The court said ballots that “lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible” will be “presumed to have been mailed by Election Day”

where you been 6ft?

Tell it to the Postmaster...deliver the darn mail.

[6ftstick]

What could possibly go wrong!

The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling Sept. 17 to extend the deadline for ballots to be counted as valid through Nov. 6. The court said ballots that “lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible” will be “presumed to have been mailed by Election Day”

where you been 6ft?

Tell it to the Postmaster...deliver the darn mail.

you missed the point completely

NO LEGIBLE POSTMARK will be counted

[MDlaxfan76]

What could possibly go wrong!

The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling Sept. 17 to extend the deadline for ballots to be counted as valid through Nov. 6. The court said ballots that “lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible” will be “presumed to have been mailed by Election Day”

where you been 6ft?

Tell it to the Postmaster...deliver the darn mail.

you missed the point completely

NO LEGIBLE POSTMARK will be counted

again, where you been?
yes, all sorts of mail doesn't have a postmark, much less a legible one.
The decision was to allow votes that are valid registered voters to be counted. They can be early votes, votes by mail (and received by Nov 6) or cast on Nov 3.

The issue you are challenging is not whether the voter is eligible to vote, but just whether the mail is reliable enough to get all attempted mailed votes to arrive to be counted. The PA court split the baby, with a very short window to have them in by through the erratic mail.

Theoretically, a vote mailed on Election Day could get there within a couple of days...but have you been experiencing that with your mail???

[cradleandshoot]

From the Post, including a list of Americans who stand for America when it really matters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... way-ahead/

"Normally it’s a predictable, low-profile ritual: Every four years, presidential campaigns trot out lengthy lists of endorsements from former national security officials, generals and admirals. As a rule, no one cares much — because there is normally a widespread presumption that both major-party nominees are qualified to be commander in chief.

This year, it’s different. Democratic nominee Joe Biden is winning far more endorsements from national security professionals and retired flag officers — and by a large margin. Any perception that Republicans have an advantage on national security issues should be erased by looking at who’s backing the two candidates.

On Oct. 1, President Trump released a list of 66 Republican “former national security and senior officials” who have endorsed him. Most of them are not actually senior, and few have any actual national security experience. Mainly it’s a list of Republican apparatchiks, including former Rep. Bob Livingston (who had to quit Congress after a sex scandal); former governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi; Trump’s personal lawyer and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani; Washington lobbyist and former Trump aide Matt Schlapp; former Heritage Foundation president Edwin J. Feulner; journalist Deroy Murdock (identified as a former member of the Education Department’s advisory board on international educational programs); and John Deming, a former deputy press secretary to John McCain. (They couldn’t even find a former McCain press secretary to back Trump?)

There are, to be sure, a few generals and genuine national security professionals among the Trump endorsers. But what is most notable about this list is who’s not on it. The missing names include former defense secretary Jim Mattis, former national security advisers H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, former director of national intelligence Daniel Coats and former acting director Joseph Maguire. To be sure, none of these individuals has endorsed Biden — but nor do any of them have anything complimentary to say about the president they served.

Bolton has said Trump is not “fit for office” and doesn’t have “the competence to carry out the job.” Kelly reportedly told friends that Trump “is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life,” and “the depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me.” McMaster said Trump is “aiding and abetting [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s efforts” and selling out U.S. security in Afghanistan. Mattis said Trump “is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people. . . . Instead, he tries to divide us.” Coats told Bob Woodward that Putin may have “something” on Trump and that Trump “doesn’t know the difference between the truth and a lie.” Tillerson called Trump a “moron” and said the president asked him to “violate the law.”

This is the most scathing verdict on a president ever delivered by his own appointees. It helps to explain why so many national security veterans are backing Biden. The former vice president has the endorsement of 780 retired military officers and national security appointees — nearly 12 times as many as Trump — including storied foreign policy hands, such as former undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns and former deputy secretary of state William J. Burns, who have worked for both Democrats and Republicans.

Even more impressively, the ranks of Biden endorsers include 129 Republicans — prominent ones. See, for example, former director of national intelligence and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte; former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden; former CIA and FBI director William Webster; and former undersecretaries of defense Dov Zakheim, Michael Vickers and Eric Edelman. It should tell you something that the Republican all-star team is batting for Biden.

So are the military all-stars. Biden has the support of more than 200 retired admirals and generals, including at least 22 four-stars. (Trump does not have the support of a single four-star flag officer.) Some of those officers are backing Biden after having served under Trump — most prominently Gen. Paul Selva, who served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until August 2019. Officers are usually reluctant to get involved in partisan politics, but the stakes are so high this time that many are speaking out.

The latest flag officer to support Biden is retired Adm. William H. McRaven, the former Special Operations commander who oversaw the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. “Truth be told,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, “I am a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, small-government, strong-defense and a national-anthem-standing conservative.” But he also believes: “We need a president who understands the importance of American leadership, at home and abroad. We need a leader of integrity whose decency and sense of respect reflects the values we expect from our president. We need a president for all Americans, not just half of America.”

That’s a good summary of where things stand. Trump’s incompetence has exacerbated the covid-19 crisis, turning it into one of the largest mass-casualty events in U.S. history. Imagine what he would do if he were to win a second term and confront an equally grave foreign policy crisis. The national security veterans know it’s a risk we can’t run."

But sure, what's Hunter's story.

That list has to be taken with a grain of salt. If you notice every person on that list has been thoroughly raked over the coals at one time or another by our FLP friends on this forum. It is funny that when it is convenient to have them agreeing with you, they become loved and respected in the democrat community for their wise opinions. It is true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. One general was even branded a coward on this forum just a few short days ago. I wonder if Biden is comfortable with a known coward supporting him?

The other way to see it is that people who were criticized for working for the Trump Admin by many on the left or Dems etc have since reported out their disgust with Trump, the danger he represents to the country.

To me, their prior conservative affiliations and work makes them all the more credible when they tell us their first hand views.

I think you are referring to Kelly as the one labelled a 'coward' because he has told his friends what he thinks but has not spoken up directly to all Americans. If he truly feels what he's reported to feel, then he owes a great duty to speak...and he was in a political appointment, not military role in this Admin. I don't know that 'coward' would be the right word, but certainly it's fair to criticize him squarely for not speaking up directly, taking whatever heat for doing so. Others have.

And it's fair to criticize Bolton for not going before Congress to tell what he knew, forcefully, during the impeachment process rather than waiting to tell it in a book.

There has always been a very longstanding unspoken rule that senior military officers, especially a 4 star general do not openly criticize a sitting POTUS . They seldom if ever would speak badly of a former POTUS. I suppose if every former military officers expressed their opinions in public of all former POTUS you would be more stunned than you ever expect. I believe that is where the unspoken rule originated from. Many of these former senior officers were well aware they were capable of doing more harm than good. To have one branded as a coward for maintaining a long standing protocol is not the right thing to do. If you are fine with more senior military men/women airing their dirty laundry about the CiC they served under, you would probably understand why they traditionally do not do so.

I understand the 'protocol'.
But he is a retired general, who served in a political, civilian position providing him with first-hand knowledge. And his opinion, if his expressions of such to his friends are accurate, is immensely damning.

Many, many other senior officers have broken this 'protocol' in extremis due to the actions of this specific President. It goes far beyond policy, it is first and foremost their assessment of Trump's lack of character and competence which drives them to this choice.

Kelly should as well, he should not hide behind 'protocol' and leak his opinions through friends. Come out and say it directly.

Again, my word choice might not be 'coward' but I will say that he owes the country more than protocol.

The dynamics do not change from being a senior military officer to having moved on and worked for a sitting POTUS as a civilian. The respect for the office and not the man in the office is no different because you are a civilian. I will bring up to you people that serve in another branch of our government that work intimately with every POTUS while they are in office. Would you feel comfortable if every secret service agent that served on a POTUS detail started sharing their dirt? I understand why Gen. Kelly has enormous contempt for trump. i also understand why, with the exception of what he may have shared with his close friends, he keeps his opinion to himself. If you want to tell me that the interactions between every close senior advisor that may be disgruntled with his CiC should be shared with the world, maybe you need to think that through a little bit more. trump may be the exception to the rule, but some dirty laundry is better not to be made public. Unless your okay with all dirty laundry being put forth to the American people.

[njbill]

What could possibly go wrong!

The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling Sept. 17 to extend the deadline for ballots to be counted as valid through Nov. 6. The court said ballots that “lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible” will be “presumed to have been mailed by Election Day”

where you been 6ft?

Tell it to the Postmaster...deliver the darn mail.

you missed the point completely

NO LEGIBLE POSTMARK will be counted

I will admit that I thought this part of the decision was odd. The court did also say, however, that a ballot without a postmark will not be counted if there is proof it was mailed after election day. Now, how would you get such proof? Don’t know.

Also, the court ruled that naked ballots will not be counted.

To my thinking, I would think naked ballots should be counted before ballots without a postmark that are received after election day.

Remains to be seen the breakdown between mailed ballots, ballots put in drop boxes, and in person voting on election day. I still think the number of ballots received after election day is going to be pretty small, and not enough to tip the election. We shall see.

No doubt in my mind the Rs are going to take another run at this once Barrett is sworn in.

[kramerica.inc]

No worries on the mail in ballots. It wont change anything.

Biden's poll lead is even bigger than Obama's landslide win over McCain:

https://fortune.com/2020/10/09/trump-bi ... a-georgia/

[njbill]

Would you feel comfortable if every secret service agent that served on a POTUS detail started sharing their dirt?

If it is about Trump, absolutely.

[seacoaster]

And the beat goes on: the GOP trying to make sure voting is harder and that votes don't get counted, because, you know, votes....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

"A divided federal appeals court has upheld North Carolina’s deadline extension for mail-in votes to be counted in the upcoming election, calling the measure a “common sense change” at a time when the U.S. Post Office is inundated with ballots.

In a 12-3 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected Republican efforts to block the six-day extension. The ruling allows ballots to be received up to nine days after the election as long as they are mailed on or before Nov. 3.

“North Carolina voters deserve clarity on whether they must rely on an overburdened Post Office to deliver their ballots within three days after Election Day,” Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote for the majority in the opinion published late Tuesday. “The need for clarity has become even more urgent in the last week, as in-person early voting started in North Carolina on October 15.”

The fast-moving case is one of a series of legal battles between Democrats and Republicans over the timing and mechanics of voting in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic and ahead of a hotly contested presidential election.

The dissenting judges warned that the new deadline would “cause yet further intolerable chaos” and implored the Supreme Court to take up the North Carolina case “immediately. Not tomorrow. Not the next day. Now.”

The Supreme Court on Monday night allowed Pennsylvania election officials to count mail-ballots received up to three days after the election and refused a Republican request to stop the procedure.

Millions of Americans are casting ballots by mail for the first time this year because of concerns about the risks of in-person voting associated with covid-19. In North Carolina, the state board of elections voted unanimously in September to extend the deadline to receive mail-in ballots to Nov. 12 in response to concerns from the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans.

North Carolina is a critical battleground state, with polls showing President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden running in a dead heat. The president won North Carolina in 2016, and along with Florida, it is seen as crucial to his reelection efforts.

Republican legislative leaders tried to block the extension in state and federal court. A District Court judge rejected their request for an injunction because of concerns about changing voting rules so close to an election. The lawmakers then asked the appeals court to intervene.

In its ruling, the majority said the courts must defer to state election officials to regulate their own voting procedures.

“Recent actions of the Supreme Court make clear that it is up to a state to decide what election procedures are in effect on Election Day, and not federal courts,” Judge Diana Motz wrote in a separate concurring opinion.

She called the arguments from House Speaker Timothy K. Moore and Senate President Philip E. Berger “deeply troubling” because they challenge measures that “remove burdens on other citizens exercising their right to vote.”

The court said the new rules make it easier for people to vote by mail and ensure their ballots are received if there are delays “precipitated by an avalanche of mail-in ballots.”

“This change, of course, may have its own important consequences for the health of our citizenry—in terms of unnecessary infections avoided—and our democracy—in terms of lawful ballots cast and counted,” wrote Wynn, who was joined by 12 other judges including all three on the bench nominated by Trump.

Even as it upheld the new deadline and said Republican leaders do not have legal grounds to challenge it, the court acknowledged the issues raised in the case about the scope of the election board’s authority are far from settled.

The three dissenting judges said state election officials were “changing the rules in the middle of an election” and undermining the authority of North Carolina’s elected state lawmakers.

“It takes no special genius to know what this insidious formula is producing,” wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was joined by Judges G. Steven Agee and Paul V. Niemeyer. “Our country is now plagued by a proliferation of pre-election litigation that creates confusion and turmoil and that threatens to undermine public confidence in the federal courts, state agencies, and the elections themselves.”

[cradleandshoot]

Would you feel comfortable if every secret service agent that served on a POTUS detail started sharing their dirt?

If it is about Trump, absolutely.

I understand your sentiments more than you know. The secret service simply can't allow that to happen. It is interesting for all of us to wonder some of the things the secret service agents know about various POTUS but will never tell. I have read some things about a former first lady who famously treated her secret service detail like garbage.
https://www.historyonthenet.com/hillary ... ersonality

[jhu72]

And the beat goes on: the GOP trying to make sure voting is harder and that votes don't get counted, because, you know, votes....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

"A divided federal appeals court has upheld North Carolina’s deadline extension for mail-in votes to be counted in the upcoming election, calling the measure a “common sense change” at a time when the U.S. Post Office is inundated with ballots.

In a 12-3 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected Republican efforts to block the six-day extension. The ruling allows ballots to be received up to nine days after the election as long as they are mailed on or before Nov. 3.

“North Carolina voters deserve clarity on whether they must rely on an overburdened Post Office to deliver their ballots within three days after Election Day,” Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote for the majority in the opinion published late Tuesday. “The need for clarity has become even more urgent in the last week, as in-person early voting started in North Carolina on October 15.”

The fast-moving case is one of a series of legal battles between Democrats and Republicans over the timing and mechanics of voting in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic and ahead of a hotly contested presidential election.

The dissenting judges warned that the new deadline would “cause yet further intolerable chaos” and implored the Supreme Court to take up the North Carolina case “immediately. Not tomorrow. Not the next day. Now.”

The Supreme Court on Monday night allowed Pennsylvania election officials to count mail-ballots received up to three days after the election and refused a Republican request to stop the procedure.

Millions of Americans are casting ballots by mail for the first time this year because of concerns about the risks of in-person voting associated with covid-19. In North Carolina, the state board of elections voted unanimously in September to extend the deadline to receive mail-in ballots to Nov. 12 in response to concerns from the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans.

North Carolina is a critical battleground state, with polls showing President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden running in a dead heat. The president won North Carolina in 2016, and along with Florida, it is seen as crucial to his reelection efforts.

Republican legislative leaders tried to block the extension in state and federal court. A District Court judge rejected their request for an injunction because of concerns about changing voting rules so close to an election. The lawmakers then asked the appeals court to intervene.

In its ruling, the majority said the courts must defer to state election officials to regulate their own voting procedures.

“Recent actions of the Supreme Court make clear that it is up to a state to decide what election procedures are in effect on Election Day, and not federal courts,” Judge Diana Motz wrote in a separate concurring opinion.

She called the arguments from House Speaker Timothy K. Moore and Senate President Philip E. Berger “deeply troubling” because they challenge measures that “remove burdens on other citizens exercising their right to vote.”

The court said the new rules make it easier for people to vote by mail and ensure their ballots are received if there are delays “precipitated by an avalanche of mail-in ballots.”

“This change, of course, may have its own important consequences for the health of our citizenry—in terms of unnecessary infections avoided—and our democracy—in terms of lawful ballots cast and counted,” wrote Wynn, who was joined by 12 other judges including all three on the bench nominated by Trump.

Even as it upheld the new deadline and said Republican leaders do not have legal grounds to challenge it, the court acknowledged the issues raised in the case about the scope of the election board’s authority are far from settled.

The three dissenting judges said state election officials were “changing the rules in the middle of an election” and undermining the authority of North Carolina’s elected state lawmakers.

“It takes no special genius to know what this insidious formula is producing,” wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was joined by Judges G. Steven Agee and Paul V. Niemeyer. “Our country is now plagued by a proliferation of pre-election litigation that creates confusion and turmoil and that threatens to undermine public confidence in the federal courts, state agencies, and the elections themselves.”

Just what Orange Duce wants (and the republiCON master in Moscow).

[cradleandshoot]

And the beat goes on: the GOP trying to make sure voting is harder and that votes don't get counted, because, you know, votes....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

"A divided federal appeals court has upheld North Carolina’s deadline extension for mail-in votes to be counted in the upcoming election, calling the measure a “common sense change” at a time when the U.S. Post Office is inundated with ballots.

In a 12-3 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected Republican efforts to block the six-day extension. The ruling allows ballots to be received up to nine days after the election as long as they are mailed on or before Nov. 3.

“North Carolina voters deserve clarity on whether they must rely on an overburdened Post Office to deliver their ballots within three days after Election Day,” Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote for the majority in the opinion published late Tuesday. “The need for clarity has become even more urgent in the last week, as in-person early voting started in North Carolina on October 15.”

The fast-moving case is one of a series of legal battles between Democrats and Republicans over the timing and mechanics of voting in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic and ahead of a hotly contested presidential election.

The dissenting judges warned that the new deadline would “cause yet further intolerable chaos” and implored the Supreme Court to take up the North Carolina case “immediately. Not tomorrow. Not the next day. Now.”

The Supreme Court on Monday night allowed Pennsylvania election officials to count mail-ballots received up to three days after the election and refused a Republican request to stop the procedure.

Millions of Americans are casting ballots by mail for the first time this year because of concerns about the risks of in-person voting associated with covid-19. In North Carolina, the state board of elections voted unanimously in September to extend the deadline to receive mail-in ballots to Nov. 12 in response to concerns from the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans.

North Carolina is a critical battleground state, with polls showing President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden running in a dead heat. The president won North Carolina in 2016, and along with Florida, it is seen as crucial to his reelection efforts.

Republican legislative leaders tried to block the extension in state and federal court. A District Court judge rejected their request for an injunction because of concerns about changing voting rules so close to an election. The lawmakers then asked the appeals court to intervene.

In its ruling, the majority said the courts must defer to state election officials to regulate their own voting procedures.

“Recent actions of the Supreme Court make clear that it is up to a state to decide what election procedures are in effect on Election Day, and not federal courts,” Judge Diana Motz wrote in a separate concurring opinion.

She called the arguments from House Speaker Timothy K. Moore and Senate President Philip E. Berger “deeply troubling” because they challenge measures that “remove burdens on other citizens exercising their right to vote.”

The court said the new rules make it easier for people to vote by mail and ensure their ballots are received if there are delays “precipitated by an avalanche of mail-in ballots.”

“This change, of course, may have its own important consequences for the health of our citizenry—in terms of unnecessary infections avoided—and our democracy—in terms of lawful ballots cast and counted,” wrote Wynn, who was joined by 12 other judges including all three on the bench nominated by Trump.

Even as it upheld the new deadline and said Republican leaders do not have legal grounds to challenge it, the court acknowledged the issues raised in the case about the scope of the election board’s authority are far from settled.

The three dissenting judges said state election officials were “changing the rules in the middle of an election” and undermining the authority of North Carolina’s elected state lawmakers.

“It takes no special genius to know what this insidious formula is producing,” wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was joined by Judges G. Steven Agee and Paul V. Niemeyer. “Our country is now plagued by a proliferation of pre-election litigation that creates confusion and turmoil and that threatens to undermine public confidence in the federal courts, state agencies, and the elections themselves.”

Just what Orange Duce wants (and the republiCON master in Moscow).

It takes two to tango here doc. It seems both parties are more than happy with sowing seeds of confusion and chaos if they think doing so gives them and advantage. Trump is toast, the only thing the republicans have left is to keep the senate. That is where the game is being played now.

[wgdsr]

What could possibly go wrong!

The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling Sept. 17 to extend the deadline for ballots to be counted as valid through Nov. 6. The court said ballots that “lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible” will be “presumed to have been mailed by Election Day”

where you been 6ft?

Tell it to the Postmaster...deliver the darn mail.

you missed the point completely

NO LEGIBLE POSTMARK will be counted

I will admit that I thought this part of the decision was odd. The court did also say, however, that a ballot without a postmark will not be counted if there is proof it was mailed after election day. Now, how would you get such proof? Don’t know.

Also, the court ruled that naked ballots will not be counted.

To my thinking, I would think naked ballots should be counted before ballots without a postmark that are received after election day.

Remains to be seen the breakdown between mailed ballots, ballots put in drop boxes, and in person voting on election day. I still think the number of ballots received after election day is going to be pretty small, and not enough to tip the election. We shall see.

No doubt in my mind the Rs are going to take another run at this once Barrett is sworn in.

just dumb. promoting even the possibility of issues with this is just dumb.

from what i read, scotus not likely picking it up again before. not that they won't try. picking it up after? that'd be a real hoot.

[wgdsr]

And the beat goes on: the GOP trying to make sure voting is harder and that votes don't get counted, because, you know, votes....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

"A divided federal appeals court has upheld North Carolina’s deadline extension for mail-in votes to be counted in the upcoming election, calling the measure a “common sense change” at a time when the U.S. Post Office is inundated with ballots.

In a 12-3 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected Republican efforts to block the six-day extension. The ruling allows ballots to be received up to nine days after the election as long as they are mailed on or before Nov. 3.

“North Carolina voters deserve clarity on whether they must rely on an overburdened Post Office to deliver their ballots within three days after Election Day,” Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote for the majority in the opinion published late Tuesday. “The need for clarity has become even more urgent in the last week, as in-person early voting started in North Carolina on October 15.”

The fast-moving case is one of a series of legal battles between Democrats and Republicans over the timing and mechanics of voting in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic and ahead of a hotly contested presidential election.

The dissenting judges warned that the new deadline would “cause yet further intolerable chaos” and implored the Supreme Court to take up the North Carolina case “immediately. Not tomorrow. Not the next day. Now.”

The Supreme Court on Monday night allowed Pennsylvania election officials to count mail-ballots received up to three days after the election and refused a Republican request to stop the procedure.

Millions of Americans are casting ballots by mail for the first time this year because of concerns about the risks of in-person voting associated with covid-19. In North Carolina, the state board of elections voted unanimously in September to extend the deadline to receive mail-in ballots to Nov. 12 in response to concerns from the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans.

North Carolina is a critical battleground state, with polls showing President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden running in a dead heat. The president won North Carolina in 2016, and along with Florida, it is seen as crucial to his reelection efforts.

Republican legislative leaders tried to block the extension in state and federal court. A District Court judge rejected their request for an injunction because of concerns about changing voting rules so close to an election. The lawmakers then asked the appeals court to intervene.

In its ruling, the majority said the courts must defer to state election officials to regulate their own voting procedures.

“Recent actions of the Supreme Court make clear that it is up to a state to decide what election procedures are in effect on Election Day, and not federal courts,” Judge Diana Motz wrote in a separate concurring opinion.

She called the arguments from House Speaker Timothy K. Moore and Senate President Philip E. Berger “deeply troubling” because they challenge measures that “remove burdens on other citizens exercising their right to vote.”

The court said the new rules make it easier for people to vote by mail and ensure their ballots are received if there are delays “precipitated by an avalanche of mail-in ballots.”

“This change, of course, may have its own important consequences for the health of our citizenry—in terms of unnecessary infections avoided—and our democracy—in terms of lawful ballots cast and counted,” wrote Wynn, who was joined by 12 other judges including all three on the bench nominated by Trump.

Even as it upheld the new deadline and said Republican leaders do not have legal grounds to challenge it, the court acknowledged the issues raised in the case about the scope of the election board’s authority are far from settled.

The three dissenting judges said state election officials were “changing the rules in the middle of an election” and undermining the authority of North Carolina’s elected state lawmakers.

“It takes no special genius to know what this insidious formula is producing,” wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was joined by Judges G. Steven Agee and Paul V. Niemeyer. “Our country is now plagued by a proliferation of pre-election litigation that creates confusion and turmoil and that threatens to undermine public confidence in the federal courts, state agencies, and the elections themselves.”

Just what Orange Duce wants (and the republiCON master in Moscow).

It takes two to tango here doc. It seems both parties are more than happy with sowing seeds of confusion and chaos if they think doing so gives them and advantage. Trump is toast, the only thing the republicans have left is to keep the senate. That is where the game is being played now.

early-ballot turn in and request by party i would've thought would be much more in the d's favor... not a count of votes, to be sure. and nothing scientific about my own guess. still.

[CU88]

Wonder why IMPOTUS is going to lose the suburban mom vote?

Let's talk about 545 kids and the message this sends to suburban moms....



As a parent, I am disgusted. As an American, I'm ashamed.

[cradleandshoot]

And the beat goes on: the GOP trying to make sure voting is harder and that votes don't get counted, because, you know, votes....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/le ... story.html

"A divided federal appeals court has upheld North Carolina’s deadline extension for mail-in votes to be counted in the upcoming election, calling the measure a “common sense change” at a time when the U.S. Post Office is inundated with ballots.

In a 12-3 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected Republican efforts to block the six-day extension. The ruling allows ballots to be received up to nine days after the election as long as they are mailed on or before Nov. 3.

“North Carolina voters deserve clarity on whether they must rely on an overburdened Post Office to deliver their ballots within three days after Election Day,” Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote for the majority in the opinion published late Tuesday. “The need for clarity has become even more urgent in the last week, as in-person early voting started in North Carolina on October 15.”

The fast-moving case is one of a series of legal battles between Democrats and Republicans over the timing and mechanics of voting in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic and ahead of a hotly contested presidential election.

The dissenting judges warned that the new deadline would “cause yet further intolerable chaos” and implored the Supreme Court to take up the North Carolina case “immediately. Not tomorrow. Not the next day. Now.”

The Supreme Court on Monday night allowed Pennsylvania election officials to count mail-ballots received up to three days after the election and refused a Republican request to stop the procedure.

Millions of Americans are casting ballots by mail for the first time this year because of concerns about the risks of in-person voting associated with covid-19. In North Carolina, the state board of elections voted unanimously in September to extend the deadline to receive mail-in ballots to Nov. 12 in response to concerns from the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans.

North Carolina is a critical battleground state, with polls showing President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden running in a dead heat. The president won North Carolina in 2016, and along with Florida, it is seen as crucial to his reelection efforts.

Republican legislative leaders tried to block the extension in state and federal court. A District Court judge rejected their request for an injunction because of concerns about changing voting rules so close to an election. The lawmakers then asked the appeals court to intervene.

In its ruling, the majority said the courts must defer to state election officials to regulate their own voting procedures.

“Recent actions of the Supreme Court make clear that it is up to a state to decide what election procedures are in effect on Election Day, and not federal courts,” Judge Diana Motz wrote in a separate concurring opinion.

She called the arguments from House Speaker Timothy K. Moore and Senate President Philip E. Berger “deeply troubling” because they challenge measures that “remove burdens on other citizens exercising their right to vote.”

The court said the new rules make it easier for people to vote by mail and ensure their ballots are received if there are delays “precipitated by an avalanche of mail-in ballots.”

“This change, of course, may have its own important consequences for the health of our citizenry—in terms of unnecessary infections avoided—and our democracy—in terms of lawful ballots cast and counted,” wrote Wynn, who was joined by 12 other judges including all three on the bench nominated by Trump.

Even as it upheld the new deadline and said Republican leaders do not have legal grounds to challenge it, the court acknowledged the issues raised in the case about the scope of the election board’s authority are far from settled.

The three dissenting judges said state election officials were “changing the rules in the middle of an election” and undermining the authority of North Carolina’s elected state lawmakers.

“It takes no special genius to know what this insidious formula is producing,” wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was joined by Judges G. Steven Agee and Paul V. Niemeyer. “Our country is now plagued by a proliferation of pre-election litigation that creates confusion and turmoil and that threatens to undermine public confidence in the federal courts, state agencies, and the elections themselves.”

Just what Orange Duce wants (and the republiCON master in Moscow).

It takes two to tango here doc. It seems both parties are more than happy with sowing seeds of confusion and chaos if they think doing so gives them and advantage. Trump is toast, the only thing the republicans have left is to keep the senate. That is where the game is being played now.

early-ballot turn in and request by party i would've thought would be much more in the d's favor... not a count of votes, to be sure. and nothing scientific about my own guess. still.

IMO the election may be a little closer than people think. Ultimately trumps inability to keep his mouth shut and not come across as a complete a-hole did him in a long time ago. This is a side note that is strictly my own opinion. The democrats missed a golden opportunity having trump in the White House. The could have played him like a fiddle and rolled his ass to give them just about anything they wanted legislatively. The downside of doing so would have allowed trump to take a victory lap. Even the chance of getting legislation favorable to the FLP types was not worth the risk of giving trump a W. What a strange world.

[RedFromMI]

(omitted)

IMO the election may be a little closer than people think. Ultimately trumps inability to keep his mouth shut and not come across as a complete a-hole did him in a long time ago. This is a side note that is strictly my own opinion. The democrats missed a golden opportunity having trump in the White House. The could have played him like a fiddle and rolled his ass to give them just about anything they wanted legislatively. The downside of doing so would have allowed trump to take a victory lap. Even the chance of getting legislation favorable to the FLP types was not worth the risk of giving trump a W. What a strange world.

You are dreaming if you think the Ds could have passed anything they wanted to. Mitch damn well made sure of it - he was the one in control of the Senate the entire time, and made sure nothing was considered he did not feel forced to accept (dealing with the shutdown of the government, first round of COVID relief).

There was never an issue with D votes - maybe one or two bills that passed the House with some arm twisting on the D side. Everything else had no problem getting enough D support.