- Former President Donald Trump was found "liable" of "sexual abuse" of E. Jean Carroll. But for those who firmly believe that this sinks Trump's political aspirations clearly have been comatose for eight years, only to wake up on Tuesday.
Grabbing women didn’t stop his election. Adultery did not stop him. Porn stars did not stop him. This will not stop Donald Trump. Neither will Alvin Bragg’s silly prosecution that even Democrats roll their eyes at.
If anything, this helps him advance in the GOP. A party with a persecution complex will stand behind the persecuted-in-chief. Liz Cheney running ads in New Hampshire might as well be an in-kind contribution to Trump to secure the Republican nomination.
Look, I'm never voting for Trump for anything ever again. But even I concede that this isn't close to a death knell to his '24 campaign, which further underscores indiscretions that would have been disqualifying 20 years ago (heck, maybe even ten years ago) are forgotten in a matter of days.
So even after all this, is Trump still on track to be the 2024 GOP presidential nominee? Probably....but it's definitely not a fait accompli.
- In a rare moment of bipartisanship among Minnesota elected officials in 2023, a state icon was honored.
The late pop superstar Prince is being honored in Minnesota as the state renames a seven-mile stretch of highway after him, one that runs past his Paisley Park home and recording studio.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz used purple ink on Tuesday to sign the bill dedicating the roadway formerly known as Minnesota Highway 5. Now, the path through in the Minneapolis suburbs of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie will be called the Prince Rogers Nelson Memorial Highway.
Purple road signs will soon go up along the highway declaring the new name, paid for by Prince’s friends and fans.
Despite the fact my friend Sen. Julia Coleman (R-Chanhassen) introduced this legislation, there was no mention of her in the linked ABC News piece. But at least a photo of her was featured!
The House Oversight Committee is out with a new report detailing how the Central Intelligence Agency may have directly helped President Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election. How? By helping to recruit signatures for the now infamous letter, which was signed by 51 former intelligence officials, calling Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop "Russian disinformation." That laptop contained endless information about Biden's overseas business dealings, which he conducted with his father as a business partner.
"The Committees have evidence that an employee affiliated with the CIA may have assisted in obtaining signatories for the statement. One signer of the statement, former CIA analyst David Cariens, disclosed to the Committees that a CIA employee affiliated with the agency’s Prepublication Classification Review Board (“PCRB”) informed him of the existence of the statement and asked if he would sign it. The Committees have requested additional material from the CIA, which has ignored the request to date," a new report states. "Notably, the Biden Administration has declined to cooperate with this oversight to date. On March 21, 2023, the Committees wrote to the CIA, requesting documents in the CIA’s possession relating to the statement and interactions between the CIA and the signatories of the statement. The Committees requested that the CIA furnish these documents by April 4, 2023. The CIA has so far failed to comply to this oversight."
After the letter was released, the New York Post was banned from Twitter for covering the laptop (the suspension lasted for over a month) and the story was censored from distribution by big tech.
Election interference and collusion. Traits the Dems and media tried to convince us happened in 2016 literally occurred in 2020.
----------------------------------------------
7 comments:
If, as it appears at present, the 2024 election is between Trump and Biden, can you, for any possible reason, vote for Biden, by NOT voting for Trump?
I will either vote third party or leave the presidential vote blank if it's another Trump-Biden matchup.
So, you are willing to let someone else, essentially, cast your vote? Including the possibility that that "other voter" doesn't even exist? I would call that a principled stand, except it sounds more like "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Can you not distinguish between the records of these two?
Can you not distinguish between the records of these two?
Yup. I've done it ad nauseum here and on the radio show.
In the end, my vote for President literally has no impact. A Republican POTUS candidate will never win the state of Minnesota, so my stance, while principled, isn't exactly a game changer.
Please, I am trying to understand your thinking on this, because you are not alone. Maybe /I/ am. I try to vote for the better candidate every time, even if they're "the lesser of two evils." I'm not looking for a moral exemplar, but a policy wonk that agrees with me and, better yet, has a clear idea of what the proper policies are. That forces me to admit that I made a mistake once, and voted for a Democrat, by not following those guidelines. Since then I have discovered that any Republican is better than any Democrat, that I can prove it, and therefore vote accordingly. I don't often win, but at least I cast a "correct" or "principled" vote.
And your defeatism just tells me what a low opinion you have of your fellow voters, and almost half of us do not deserve that. We should be out making our case to all who will listen, and some that won't, in the most active way possible. Not firing away at the current front-runner.
I try to vote for the better candidate every time, even if they're "the lesser of two evils."
I have yet to determine who is "less evil:" The guy falling asleep at the wheel or the drunk driver. My answer would be "neither," so that is the choice I am making.
And your defeatism just tells me what a low opinion you have of your fellow voters...
I see myself as having an astute understanding of history as well as the trends of the MN electorate.
At the end of the day, "Trumpers" have no moral authority on this. This is especially in light of the Georgia contingent sucking their thumbs and staying home in the Jan. 2021 Senate runoffs because the state would not reverse Trump's 2020 loss (and yes, he DID lose Georgia fair and square). That cost the GOP the Senate majority, thus giving the Dems complete control of Washington and plunging the country into even more of a fiscal crisis. Now, if people still want to support that crazed loser after he and his lapdogs sowed such distrust in the GA electoral system, be my guest. But I will not be complicit in someone like that rising back into power.
I understand a little better, but your analogy and your analysis are both flawed, IMHO. This is not a choice between a DWI and inattentive driver. This is a choice between an aggressive driver who, in his haste to somewhere important, annoys or even frightens the other drivers, versus the homicidal maniac trying his best to drive his truck through a crowd. I don't know about GA, but I do know there was voter fraud in MN, because the law allows it and our hyperpartisan Secretary of State encourages it. There seems to be ample evidence from other states as well that the 2020 election was not "quite right" and surveys say a sizable majority agrees, so Trump is not so much wrong as he is "wronged." That said, I, too, wish he would shut up about that, quit attacking his fellow Republicans, and simply draw the obvious contrast between Trump policy results and Biden policy results.
Here is the part I do understand, though, because I have seen it FAR too often among principled voters (aka conservatives/Republicans, Dems have no such scruples), which is this absolute refusal to vote for the "lesser of two evils" because that choice is still evil. But evil wins either way. By NOT voting for the lesser, the MORE evil wins, which is what we have today, in spades. To not vote does not automatically create a third option, and certainly not a successful one. The great genius of the two-party system is to force exactly this sort of binary choice, keeping us from constant coalition-forming governments or from lurching side to side in our governance, since both sides have to appeal to the middle to win. The only question is where the middle lies. In this case, I choose less crime, better foreign policy, less outrageous spending, conservative judges, secure borders, and a leader who can speak without cue cards that he muffs. Find somebody not-Trump that can do those things AND get elected, and I'm with you.
Post a Comment