Thursday, October 03, 2024

Racist Trump's purge is the new Willie Horton

At the end of C.I.'s snapshot -- which I'll repost in full at the end -- she notes Will Bunch's column about Trump's desired "purge."  I want to note that here to give him credit for writing about it because very few White people have.  C.I. and I have covered it -- see my "" -- and C.I. not just written of it but also posted a huge number of video reports about it and you should have noticed that the people addressing this very serious topic in videos were overwhelmingly Black.  As both C.I. and I have noted, that's the community that would be hardest targeted in Trump's purge.  So thank you to Will Bunch -- who is White -- for writing about it.




Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently claimed that "one real tough, nasty" and "violent" day of police brutality would bring an immediate end to crime in the nation, raising alarms for experts on authoritarianism about the danger to democracy should Trump's remarks ever translate into policy.

[. . .]

Geoff Eley, a University of Michigan professor of contemporary history who studies nationalism and the far-right, told Salon that Americans should take Trump's comments seriously even if it's often hard to know his true intent. 

"We need to take his comments very, very seriously, partly because this time he's bull-in-a-china-shop determined to get his way, partly because (by contrast with 2016) he's surrounded by a core of smart and ruthlessly committed helpers and ideologues, whose ideas are most definitely coherent, thought-through and focused," Eley said in an email.

Trump's "political accomplishment," Eley said, has been in imparting to large swaths of the country that "democracy, proceduralism, civility, speaking across differences, and the rule of law have outlived their purposes — they're fictions, illusions, tricks, and they no longer matter."

Despite Trump's insistence both at the rally and throughout his campaign that crime "has gone through the roof," data indicates that the opposite is true.

Recently released FBI stats show a 2.4% decrease in property crime between 2022 and 2023. Preliminary data comparing periods of 2024 ranging from the first quarter to the first half to the same periods of 2023 also indicated a drop in violent crime following the COVID-19 isolation-era uptick, suggesting this year will see a continued decline in the nation's crime rate. 



I am sick of the failing White politician trying to scapegoat to win an election.  Donald Trump's entire campaign is a Willie Horton ad.  For those new to the Willie Horton aspect of a campaign, from WIKIPEDIA:


During the 1988 presidential election, US Vice President and Republican nominee George H. W. Bush brought Horton up frequently during his campaign against Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis who was the governor of Massachusetts. He was commonly referred to as "Willie" Horton, despite never having gone by the nickname. The renaming of the African-American Horton has been speculated to be the product of racist stereotyping.[2] A prominent PAC ad for Bush about Horton has been widely characterized as a textbook example of dog-whistle politics.[3][4][5][6][7]



In other words, when you can't win on your own, demonize Black people.  

And thank you to Tatyana but, again, she's Black.  It would be nice to see more people like Will Bunch -- more non-Blacks -- grabbing this very serious story.  Instead, it comes off like yet again Black people are on their own.  We're expected to speak on behalf of all groups but when we're targeted White left goes silent too many times.  But thank you to Tatyana and to every Black person who has rightly raised their voices to call Trump's deranged proposal out.

Black people are already the most targeted with police violence.  Trump is threatening us and he's threatening us because it feeds his racist base.  It plays to their hatred and racism and resentment.  He's painting a target on our backs.


If you're not getting how empty and desperate Trump and his MAGA are, ATLANTA BLACK STAR NEWS reports:


A white Republican running for Congress in Nevada was caught on tape Monday telling supporters, “I’m from North Las Vegas. I’m not worried about Black people.”
John Lee is seeking to represent Nevada’s 4th Congressional District, where 15 percent of the population is Black. His opponent, incumbent Democrat Steven Horsford, was recently named chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, a promotion that drew ridicule from Lee, formerly mayor of North Las Vegas.

“They made him chair of the Black Caucus. Whoop-de-doo,” Lee said on an audiotape obtained by HuffPost.

Lee went on to denigrate the CBC, following a pattern of insults over the last year. In August, he said they were comparable to a “blond-haired caucus,” and he had previously called the group “stupid.”

[. . .]


Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Lauryn Fanguen condemned Lee’s remarks in a statement.

“John Lee’s shocking comments about Black Nevadans and CBC Chair Steven Horsford are not only deeply offensive but betray an utter disdain for a large swath of the district he claims to want to represent,” Fanguen said.



"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, October 3, 2024.  New details emerge about Donald Trump's attempted January 5th coup.



Starting with the news regarding Donald Trump's attempted coup.   Madeline Halpert (BBC NEWS) reports on Special Counsel  Jack Smith's new filing,  "The new 165-page document presents the clearest view yet of how Mr Smith's team would pursue their case, having tweaked the wording of their charges after the Supreme Court's intervention.  It gives details of Trump's alleged scheme, including his actions when his supporters rioted at the US Capitol building on 6 January 2021. It also outlines the efforts of Mike Pence, the vice-president at the time, to talk him down."  It outlines a lot more than just that and, in being released raises a central question that will get to in a bit.  But let's all remember that in Tuesday's vice presidential debate, Miss Sassy JD Vance refused to admit that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.



Tim Walz: There's one, there's one, though, that this one is troubling to me. And I say that because I think we need to tell the story. Donald Trump refused to acknowledge this. And the fact is, is that I don't think we can be the frog in the pot and let the boiling water go up. He was very clear. I mean, he lost this election, and he said he didn't. One hundred and forty police officers were beaten at the Capitol that day, some with the American flag. Several later died. And it wasn't just in there. In Minnesota, a group gathered on the state capitol grounds in St. Paul and said we're marching to the Governor's residence and there may be casualties. The only person there was my son and his dog, who was rushed out crying by state police. That issue. And Mike Pence standing there as they were chanting, hang Mike Pence. Mike Pence made the right decision. So, Senator, it was adjudicated over and over and over. I worked with kids long enough to know, and I said, as a football coach, sometimes you really want to win, but the democracy is bigger than winning an election. You shake hands and then you try and do everything you can to help the other side win. That's, that's what was at stake here. Now, the thing I'm most concerned about is the idea that imprisoning your political opponents already laying the groundwork for people not accepting this. And a President's words matter. A President's words matter. People hear that. So I think this issue of settling our differences at the ballot box, shaking hands when we lose, being honest about it, but to deny what happened on January 6, the first time in American history that a President or anyone tried to overturn a fair election and the peaceful transfer of power. And here we are four years later in the same boat. I will tell you this, that when this is over, we need to shake hands, this election, and the winner needs to be the winner. This has got to stop. It's tearing our country apart. 


[. . .]


Tim Walz: January 6th was not Facebook ads. And I think a revisionist history on this. Look, I don't understand how we got to this point, but the issue was that happened. Donald Trump can even do it. And all of us say there's no place for this. It has massive repercussions. This idea that there's censorship to stop people from doing, threatening to kill someone, threatening to do something, that's not censorship. Censorship is book banning. We've seen that. We've seen that brought up. I just think for everyone tonight, and I'm going to thank Senator Vance. I think this is the conversation they want to hear, and I think there's a lot of agreement. But this is one that we are miles apart on. This was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. And it manifested itself because of Donald Trump's inability to say, he is still saying he didn't lose the election. I would just ask that. Did he lose the 2020 election?


JD Vance: Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?



Tim Walz: That is a damning. That is a damning non answer.


And it's even more of a damning non-answer as a result of the release of Straw's filing.  Here's last night's NEWSHOUR (PBS).




  • Amna Nawaz:

    We're learning previously undisclosed details tonight about former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

    A newly unsealed 165-page court filing from the Department of Justice argues the former president should still face trial even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled presidents have immunity for official acts.

    NPR's Carrie Johnson and former U.S. attorney Mary McCord are following the latest developments. They join me now.

    Welcome to you both.

    So, Carrie, what do we know about why this filing was unsealed now by Judge Tanya Chutkan, and what stood out to you as you made your way through it?

  • Carrie Johnson, NPR:

    Yes, the Justice Department made this filing in response to what the Supreme Court did this past summer.

    The Supreme Court ruled that Trump and future presidents do enjoy substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts. But the special counsel, Jack Smith, and his team maintain that Trump was acting as a political candidate and not the president of the United States when he allegedly attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    And this court filing today was filed under seal a short while ago. There's been some back-and-forth about how much the public should be able to see. And just this afternoon, Judge Tanya Chutkan mostly sided with prosecutors and released this filing with some redactions.

    There are some new details in here based on grand jury testimony and notes that people like former Vice President Mike Pence took about his interactions with former President Donald Trump. There's some really interesting mentions of notes that Pence took about this all being up to Pence in the later part of 2020 and early 2021 as people prepared to count the electoral votes on January 6.

    And there's some new detail from prosecutors, who maintain that Trump himself was in the dining room near the Oval Office tweeting on January 6 as Mike Pence was in danger from rioters in the Capitol. And Trump allegedly said to an aide who asked him about all this: "So what?"

    So there's a lot of new color and vivid detail about Trump's alleged actions and his state of mind and his knowledge in those waning weeks of 2020 and early 2021.

  • Amna Nawaz:

    Mary, we knew this was an argument that Jack Smith was going to lay out, saying, even though Trump was holding the official office of president, his scheme, as he writes in the filing — quote — "was a fundamentally private one."

    Just broadly speaking, how does he make that case here and how compelling a case is that?

  • Mary McCord, Former Justice Department Official:

    He goes through all of the different facets of the scheme the pressure on state legislatures, the pressure on his own vice president, the efforts to orchestrate the fraudulent electors scheme, and his comments not only at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6, but in the lead-up to that, including public speeches and tweets.

    And he — and Jack Smith emphasizes at every step how many private actors, private attorneys, and advisers, including some of his co-conspirators, were involved in so many of these efforts. He also makes the point about there not being executive branch officials involved in these various efforts.

    And he also adds, I think, some really interesting details, to go to Carrie's point about showing his capacity as a candidate. He adds details about, when he's pressuring state legislatures, for example, and state government officials, he is, for one, only pressuring Republicans. He never calls, for example, the Michigan Democratic governor or secretary of state to complain about election fraud.

    He only pressures Republicans. And in those states that are led by Democrats, he instead pressures state legislatures. He constantly refers only to his own race when he talks about fraud in the election and never to the election more generally. So, in other words, claims of election integrity, you would expect to be calling into question a number of different facets of the election, but, instead, he focused only on himself.

    So, Jack Smith really does paint quite a vivid picture throughout not only the first part of this motion, which includes this extensive factual recitation, but particularly in his legal analysis and his application of the law, the law that the Supreme Court laid down in Trump v. United States, to the facts of this case.

  • Amna Nawaz:

    Carrie, I want to underscore here that moment you briefly mentioned about Mr. Trump's reaction to learning that his vice president had been taken to a secure location. Here is what is actually written out in the filing related to that.

    Jack Smith writes that: "Upon receiving a phone call, learning that Pence had been taken to a secure location, a redacted person rushed to the dining room to inform the defendants in hopes the defendant would take action to ensure Pence's safety. Instead, after he delivered the news, the defendant," in this case, former President Trump, "looked at him and said only: 'So what?'"

    What else do we learn from this, Carrie, about the many efforts Vice President Pence made to offer then-President Trump an off-ramp from these false claims of election fraud?

  • Carrie Johnson:

    Yes, we learned a lot about conversations that Pence had with Trump, as well as Pence's aides, who met with some of Trump's alleged co-conspirators, people we believe to be former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, law professor John Eastman, and others who were advancing these bogus claims.

    And after they tried all kinds of other efforts in the courts and with the states, they basically failed at all of those things, and it came down for them to Mike Pence. And so they placed enormous pressure on Pence, tried to signal that he had the power to overturn the will of millions of voters.

    And Pence wasn't buying it. Nor was one of his legal aides who's testified before the house January 6 Committee. And we get a lot of detail about that. Pence basically says to Trump, why don't you try again? Take this — sit this one out. You can try again in 2024. And Trump and his top aides were just not having it.

    In fact, Trump called Pence on January 5 and the morning of January 6 asked him to be tough. And Pence was under enormous pressure, as we saw in that period, but, still, he held firm and refused to go along with this alleged scheme.

  • Amna Nawaz:

    Mary, there are some newly disclosed details in here, some newly confirmed details. Much of it was also known from the results of the January 6 hearings. But the big question is, now what?

    What kind of impact will this filing have on the case moving forward?

  • Mary McCord:

    Right.

    So now it will be Mr. Trump's legal counsel's turn to file a response to this and make arguments in opposition to Jack Smith's arguments.

    So he has argued that, for each facet of the scheme, Mr. Trump's conduct — well, first of all, for his pressure on his vice president, where the Supreme Court said that could — that's official, they have made a showing and an argument that they can rebut the presumption of immunity by showing through the evidence that prosecution for this illegal pressure on Mike Pence would not create any danger of intrusion the functions of the presidency.

    For every other category, he argues that acts are private and not official. And even if the court were to find they were official, again, he can rebut the presumption of immunity by showing prosecution would have no danger of intrusion the functions of the presidency.

    And this is something that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her concurring opinion, she pointed out some areas that she thought were private and said if she had — she thought the majority should have said so in its opinion, and some areas where she thought the presumption was rebutted.

  • Amna Nawaz:

    That is former U.S. attorney Mary McCord and NPR's Carrie Johnson joining us tonight.

    Thank you to you both.


Here's ABC NEWS zooming on Donald Trump insisting immediately after the 2020 election that the actual results -- HE LOST! -- do not matter.
 


And here's Chris Hayes discussing it on MSNBC  with Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow and Chris focuses on the Tweet  Donald used to put a target on then-Vice President Mike Pence's back.


The released court filing (here) contains a lot of newly released facts and it also provides a timeline of the attempt by Donald Trump to attack our democracy.  There's so much in there that anyone should be able to find new details and facts.  

In the discussion above in the MSNBC clip, Rachel noted:


One of the things that I never connected before is something that's provided on page 63 of this document.  We knew from Pence's memoir, that when he was really making clear, as of New Year's Day, as of January 1st, that he was not going to go along with this, that all of the lobbying of him was not working,  we know from his memoir that Trump threatened him and said that, "Hundreds of thousands of people are going to hate your guts."  We knew he had done that.  What I did not know before reading this today is that he's threatening him that hundreds of thousands of people are going to effectively come after him for what he's doing here and then immediately after he says that to Pence, immediately afterwards, he Tweets a reminder to all of his supporters to make sure you're going to be in Washington, DC on January 6th.  I mean when he makes that threat to Pence, he's already announced "will be wild, come for January 6th," he tells him hundreds of thousands of people will come for you and then he hits a reminder in Twitter telling people that they need to show up so that they can make good on the threat.  It is just wielding the promise of an angry mob as a deliberate threat and as as one that he is planning to make good on.  And I have never seen it laid out that way before even though I knew the individual pieces and it just sent a chill down my spine.

And as you hear about the filing, as you read about it, read it and/or watch videos about it, you'll probably have a similar reaction.  Erik De La Garza (RAW STORY) notes:

“I don’t usually gasp at things,” said MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin during an appearance with host Nicole Wallace on Wednesday on her show “Deadline: White House," but added, “We are learning facts that weren’t previously known to us.”

“I’ll read first what made Lisa Rubin gasp. Why make everybody wait?” Wallace said before going on to read from page 142 of the massive document, including a portion where Trump reportedly responded with, “So what?” when delivered the news that Mike Pence was taken to a secure location because of fears over his safety.

“The cavalierness with which Donald Trump received that news certainly is news to me,” Rubin said, adding that the new court filing contains more information than what has previously been released by the Jan. 6 committee investigation. “There is a whole lot of new content here Nicole and that is just one part of it.”

MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman took it a step further when he called Trump’s actions after the 2020 election and in the lead-up to Jan. 6 the most serious crime “in American history.”

“What you have here is chapter and verse over and over again about an effort, a conspiracy – a criminal conspiracy – to thwart the will of the American electorate,” Weissman, a former FBI general counsel, told Wallace. “There is no more serious crime in American history than that.”




 

At one point, Smith details how a Trump campaign employee was informed that a final batch of ballots at a Detroit vote-counting center would favor Joe Biden. “Find a reason it isn’t,” the staffer said. “Give me options to file litigation.”

When a colleague warned doing so could spark unrest, the staffer replied, “Make them riot.”

Smith’s motion also indicates that the special counsel intends to prove Trump and his allies baselessly invented claims that noncitizens were voting in U.S. elections, and ignored indications that their theory that dead Americans were casting their votes was flat-out wrong.

The motion further reveals that the MAGA politicos failed to deliver on their own election fraud theories. They promised to “package up” evidence of the election-stealing crime and then never delivered it to its intended recipients, namely former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey and Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, where two prongs of the scheme have resulted in sprawling election conspiracy cases.




Here are two more videos that should be streamed on this important topic.







The lightly redacted filing argues that Trump’s scheme to use bogus election fraud claims to stop Biden from taking office “was fundamentally a private one” and did not involve “official conduct.” If the courts accept that argument, the indictment could survive the expansive presidential “immunity” standard invented by the Supreme Court in its controversial July 1 decision.

But regardless of the fate of Smith’s legal case, the motion matters politically. It bolsters the argument that Trump’s disregard for the Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law leave him unfit to return to office. And it functions as a reminder for distractible voters about the seriousness of the charges against the first election loser in American history to incite violence in bid to retain power.

Trump’s lawyers fought unsuccessfully in court to block release of the motion based on the claim that it could affect the election, an argument Chutkan, who has repeatedly said she does consider Trump’s status as a presidential candidate to be relevant to her proceedings, rejected. Smith also filed an appendix that includes FBI interviews, grand jury testimony, and other evidence, which remains sealed, though parts of that could also be made public before election day.



             

More evidence could come out in coming days. A hefty appendix accompanying Wednesday’s filing remains under seal, and the judge has asked both sides to weigh in on how much of it should be made public. Among the documents in the appendix are grand jury transcripts and notes from FBI interviews conducted during the yearslong investigation.

    

Donald staged a coup.  He should be in prison.  But he's not our only issue.  U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon needs to be removed from the bench immediately.  Her constant delays in this case and her eventual dismissal of it were questioned by other justices and legal scholars.  Now knowing some of what we do -- things Cannon already knew -- we see that she worked to deprive the American people -- ahead of an election -- of the details and facts that they needed.  They needed to know how the coup was staged, they needed to Donald Trump's involvement.  The right of a citizenry to be informed, to be informed voters, didn't matter to Aileen.  She saw her position on the bench as running interference for the man that got her that post.  She betrayed the law, she betrayed our judicial system.  

These shocking things that we're learning -- and more may be coming -- were shielded by her.  She refused to allow the American people to know what went down as our democracy was attacked.

Her rulings have been questionable from the beginning; however, it is no longer speculation about what she was doing.  Her intent some can argue.  But her decisions and her actions prevented the American people from knowledge they should have had, from facts they should have known.  She did not pursue justice, instead she worked to cover up a crime.  She should be removed from the bench.  

Winding down with Will Bunch.  Over the weekend, Donald Trump advocated for a lawless purge period attacking people in the United States.  Many outlets have ignored it.  Will Bunch covers it below:

This is not a test. This is your emergency broadcast system announcing the commencement of the Annual Purge, sanctioned by the U.S. Government. Commencing at the siren, any and all crime, including murder, will be legal for 12 continuous hours.

That’s how “The Purge,” an annual —and thankfully fictional, at least for now — event held in a dystopian 2040 America is announced in a sequel of the long-running film series called, fittingly, The Purge: Election Year. The run of action horror films first launched in the early 2010s has become something of a B-movie sensation. Its pretense about a troubled America that tries controlled mayhem to stave off non-stop anarchy surely alarms some viewers — and thrills others. One thing I’m pretty sure about is that the producers didn’t mean for The Purge movies to serve as a policy white paper.

And yet here was Donald Trump, ex-president and GOP nominee for the last three elections, telling a smallish rally crowd in Erie, Pa. on Sunday afternoon that if returned to the White House, he will write his own sequel to The Purge — treating a violent Hollywood murder flick like it was the lost 31st chapter of Project 2025. The plot twist is that in Trump’s remake, everyday folks aren’t committing the crimes, but instead getting a whupping from an all-powerful police state.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

“See, we have to let the police do their job.” Trump said, even if “they have to be extraordinarily rough.” That was the start of a long, hard-to-follow ramble in which the Republican candidate claimed to have seen TV images of shoplifters walking out of stores with refrigerators or air conditioners on their backs — for which he blamed the permissive left. Trump’s solution would be “one really violent day” by the cops. Or even just “one rough hour. And I mean real rough. The word will be out. And it will end immediately...”

Well, as you can imagine, Trump’s call for a National Day of Violence — many commentators on X/Twitter compared it to an American Kristallnacht — caused an immediate frenzy. CBS News interrupted Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, and the Kansas City Chiefs for a special report: “Trump’s Day of Violence.” New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn ran down the newsroom’s iconic red stairs and screamed at his top lieutenants to rip up tomorrow’s front page. And...

And, who am I kidding with this tired bit? Of course those things never happened. Most news organizations did mention the Trump rant — it was hard to ignore — but treated it as the umpteenth instance of Trump being Trump, and not as a dangerous escalation of national rhetoric. The future 2024 Word of the Year — sanewashing — came back this weekend in a big way among the handful of media critics exasperated at the lack of urgency.

“Trump constantly saying extreme, racist, violent stuff can’t always be new,” the New Republic’s Michael Tomasky wrote in an essay. “But it is always reality. Is the press justified in ignoring reality just because it isn’t new? Are we not allowed to consider his escalations as dangerous, novel developments in and of themselves? And should we not note the coincidence that his remarks seem more escalatory as the pressures of the campaign mount?”

America — and especially the media — should take Trump’s rants seriously and literally.

Tomasky and others noted that Trump’s hateful weekend comments about immigrants were just as troubling as his endorsement of violence. At a Saturday rally in the ironically named Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin (ironic because Trump hates chiens, or dogs), Trump unleashed a flurry of the kind of dehumanizing language that typically precedes ethnic cleansing. “I will liberate Wisconsin from this mass migrant invasion of murderers, rapists, hoodlums, drug dealers, thugs, and vicious gang members,” the GOP nominee claimed. He called migrants “animals,” and, most bizarrely, claimed that they “will walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat.”

Sanewashing? “Trump pounds immigration message after Harris’ border visit,” was the headline in Axios, while Bloomberg tweeted that “Donald Trump sharpened his criticism on border security in a swing-state visit, playing up a vulnerability for Kamala Harris.” Really? Trump’s words sounds more like they were sharpened in the flames of a cross at a KKK rally than any kind of serious policy. Is it a vulnerability for Harris that her speeches about the border don’t sound like they were drafted by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels? What different election are these journalists watching than the one that’s actually happening?



The following sites updated:

Posted by at

Wednesday, October 02, 2024

Fixing the Crooked Court

Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS  "All About Miss Sassy," "Donald Trump Shown Up And Betrayed," "No Aftercare From Donald. and "Miss Sassy Can't Stop Lying"   went up last night covering the debate.


allaboutmisssassy



betrayal


lying sassy


sassydon



How do you solve a problem like our Crooked Court?  Jeff Cunha (WORLD MARKET) reports:



In a world where money seems to wield an unparalleled influence, the adage "money can't buy happiness" holds steadfast. However, what if we extend this notion further? What if we consider the implications of wealth not just on individual well-being but on the very fabric of democracy? Recent events, particularly the debate surrounding the appointment and influence of justices in the highest court of the land, illuminate a stark reality: while money may not directly purchase happiness, it can certainly procure power, privilege, and even justice.

The Supreme Court, as an institution, stands as a cornerstone of democracy, entrusted with upholding the principles of justice, equality, and fairness. Yet, its composition and decisions are not immune to the influence of wealth and power. The process of appointing justices, often fraught with political maneuvering and lobbying, underscores the extent to which money can shape the highest echelons of power.
Historically, the nomination and confirmation of justices have been marred by partisan agendas and the influence of wealthy interest groups. Campaign contributions, corporate sponsorships, and powerful lobbying efforts all play a significant role in shaping the judicial landscape. In essence, the path to the Supreme Court is often paved with dollars, rather than principles.

But the ramifications of wealth extend beyond the mere appointment of justices. Once seated on the bench, justices may find themselves susceptible to the sway of those who helped secure their position. Whether through campaign donations, lucrative job offers post-retirement, or other forms of financial incentives, the specter of wealth looms large over the judiciary, potentially compromising the impartiality and integrity of the court.


The ability of affluent individuals and corporations to fund legal battles and advocacy campaigns further tilts the scales of justice in their favor. From high-profile cases involving corporate malfeasance to contentious issues such as campaign finance reform and civil rights, the influence of money often dictates the outcome. In essence, the courtroom becomes yet another battleground where wealth and privilege reign supreme.



We have a very crooked system and it has to be fixed.  At The Brennan Center for Justice, Michael Milov-Cordoba writes:

Imposing term limits on the U.S. Supreme Court would be transformational, but far from radical. More than two-thirds of Americans believe the justices should serve for a fixed number of years rather than hold their positions for life. Indeed, the federal high court is a stark outlier when compared to state supreme courts.

Like U.S. Supreme Court justices, state justices sit on apex courts and provide the final word on matters of statutory and constitutional law. They also oversee state judicial systems that decide 95 percent of all cases, representing the overwhelming majority of litigation in the United States.

While the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices enjoy lifetime appointments, 339 out of the 344 state supreme court justices serve a limited term subject to reselection, face a mandatory retirement age, or both. That represents 99 percent of state justices across 49 states, with only the five justices on the Rhode Island Supreme Court serving a life term. Since 1970, state justices have served an average of 13 years, half as long as the average of 26 years on the bench for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Lifetime appointments need to end immediately.  Jimmy Carter just turned 100. Can you imagine if someone on the Supreme Court lived that long and refused to step down?  Lieftime appointments need to end.


Also at The Brennan Center for Justice, former state supreme court judge  Barbara J. Pariente writes:


With confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court near an all-time low, proposals to introduce 18-year term limits for the justices have attracted new attention. Some have questioned whether such a change would impact judicial independence.

After 26 serving years on the state bench, including as chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court, I can emphatically say that my answer is “no.”

Following an 18-year career as a civil trial lawyer, I was appointed to a Florida appellate court in 1993. Five years later, I was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court, where I served until the age of 70, which was then the court’s mandatory retirement age.

From my perspective, although lifetime appointments might have been a way to ensure judicial independence at the time the Constitution was adopted, it seems clear that lifetime appointments today could have the opposite effect — little or no real accountability for judges serving for far longer than the founders expected. After all, in 1776, the average life expectancy for an American was 35. Now that number is closer to 77, and even higher for federal judges.

Contrast the lifetime tenure for federal judges with my experience as a Florida Supreme Court justice. After being appointed through a nonpartisan merit selection process as set forth in the Florida Constitution, appellate judges and justices appear on the ballot for a “yes” or “no” vote every six years. (While Florida’s Judicial Nominating Commission functioned in a nonpartisan manner when I was appointed, in 2001 the legislature passed legislation giving the governor the authority to appoint all members on the state’s judicial nominating commission, politicizing the appointment process.)

All Florida judges, including appellate judges and supreme court justices, are required to adhere to a strict code of conduct and are subject to discipline, including removal if recommended by the Judicial Qualifications Commission and approved by the Florida Supreme Court if the judge violates the code of conduct. Each year, every judge and justice must file financial documents showing all sources of income, assets, liabilities, and any gifts received over $100. They must take an oath of office promising to decide cases without fear or favor to either party — and to reach decisions based only on the law and facts, not public sentiment.

These guardrails in Florida’s judicial system — an enforceable code of judicial conduct, financial disclosure requirements, and mandatory retirement — contribute much more to ensuring judicial independence than a lifetime appointment without true accountability would.


This needs to be among the first issues that Kamala Harris works on when she becomes president.  Joe's done a task force on this, good for him, and now we need action.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Wednesday, October 2, 2024.  How many lies did JD Vance tell last night?  And why is the press always confused when it comes to women?  Questions to consider after last night's debate.


Last night, CBS' Norah O'Donnell and Margaret Brennan asked questions of vice presidential debate between Democrat Tim Walz and MAGA boi JD Vance.   It was a mediocre debate.  Vance lied non-stop and got away with it repeatedly due to the format. 







The most illuminating moment of the debate was this:

MB: Thank you, Governor. And just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status. Norah.

JDV: Well, Margaret, Margaret, I think it's important because… 

MB: Thank you, senator. We have so much to get to. 

NO: We're going to turn out of the economy. Thank you.


JDV: Margaret. The rules were that you guys were going to fact check, and since you're fact checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on.

All Miss Sassy JD Vance can offer is lies.  And wasn't it something to watch him whine when his lies about people -- lies that are targeting people -- got called out.




lying sassy


That's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Miss Sassy Can't Stop Lying" -- one of four comics he did last night, the other three being "All About Miss Sassy," "Donald Trump Shown Up And Betrayed" and "No Aftercare From Donald."


Let's note some reactions to the debate.  At MOTHER JONES, Jackie Flynn Mogensen offers:

In a debate-night surprise, climate science got near-top billing during the vice presidential face-off between Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. JD Vance in New York on Tuesday, as the sprawling impacts of Hurricane Helene, which killed at least 160 people, were still being felt across the Southeast.

Just after an opening that addressed the escalating crisis in the Middle East, CBS moderator Norah O’Donnell noted that climate change is only making storms like Helene worse and asked Vance if he agreed with Donald Trump’s assertion that climate change is a “hoax.” Vance, in a pattern that repeated across the night, couldn’t bring himself to contradict the former president.

Instead, he pointed a finger at his opponents. If Democrats “really believe that climate change is serious,” he argued, “what they would be doing is more manufacturing and more energy production in the United States of America.” That’s because, he said, America is the “cleanest economy in the entire world” in terms of “carbon emissions” per “unit of economic output.” He also pushed for investing in nuclear and natural gas.

It’s unclear what Vance meant by “unit of economic output.” But by most metrics, the US is not a clean economy. The US has among the highest carbon emissions per capita, one of the highest total annual emissions, a mediocre record on carbon emissions per dollar of GDP, and was most recently ranked 34th in the world in its Environmental Performance Index, a measure of a country’s environmental stewardship, including climate change mitigation. 

Walz countered that the Biden-Harris administration has made “massive investments” in green technology—the “biggest in global history“—with the Inflation Reduction Act. The law, Walz said, has created 200,000 jobs across the country. (As CNN noted in its fact-check of the debate, some of those jobs may be promised, but not yet created; it’s difficult to come up with an exact figure of jobs sparked by the IRA.)



Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz used the climate portion of Tuesday night's vice presidential debate with Republican Sen. JD Vance to lambast GOP nominee Donald Trump's pledge to give the oil and gas industry free rein in exchange for a billion dollars in campaign donations—an offer that's the subject of an ongoing Senate investigation.

" Donald Trump called it a hoax and then joked that these things would make more beachfront property to be able to invest in," Walz, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris' running mate, said of the climate emergency. "To call it a hoax and to take the oil company executives to Mar-a-Lago, say, 'Give me money for my campaign and I'll let you do whatever you want'—we can be smarter about that."

Walz's remarks came in response to a question from CBS moderator Norah O'Donnell, who asked what the youth-led Sunrise Movement called perhaps "the best climate questions ever in a presidential or vice presidential debate."

Connecting the climate crisis to Hurricane Helene, which left a trail of destruction across six states and killed more than 160 people, O'Donnell noted that "scientists say climate change makes these hurricanes larger, stronger, and more deadly because of the historic rainfall."

"Senator Vance, according to CBS News polling, seven in ten Americans and more than 60% of Republicans under the age of 45 favor the U.S. taking steps to try and reduce climate change," O'Donnell said. "Senator, what responsibility would the Trump administration have to try and reduce the impact of climate change?"

In response, Vance called Hurricane Helene an "unspeakable human tragedy" but went on to suggest he doubts "this idea that carbon emissions drives [sic] all the climate change."


Another moment in the debate that stood out was this:

NO: Governor.

TW: January 6th was not Facebook ads. And I think a revisionist history on this. Look, I don't understand how we got to this point, but the issue was that happened. Donald Trump can even do it. And all of us say there's no place for this. It has massive repercussions. This idea that there's censorship to stop people from doing, threatening to kill someone, threatening to do something, that's not censorship. Censorship is book banning. We've seen that. We've seen that brought up. I just think for everyone tonight, and I'm going to thank Senator Vance. I think this is the conversation they want to hear, and I think there's a lot of agreement. But this is one that we are miles apart on. This was a threat to our democracy in a way that we had not seen. And it manifested itself because of Donald Trump's inability to say, he is still saying he didn't lose the election. I would just ask that. Did he lose the 2020 election?

JDV: Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?

TW: That is a damning. That is a damning non answer.




Miss Sassy lied time and again.  For someone who spent last weekend on stage with a crazy who thinks Kamala Harris practices witch craft, it was interesting to note how much JD came off as a familiar on stage.  The greasy face, that pasted on smile, the spit flying out of his mouth.  And all the lies.



NO: Thank you. Now to the issue of reproductive rights. Governor Walz, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made Minnesota one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion. Former President Trump said in the last debate that. You believe abortion, quote, in the 9th month is absolutely fine. Yes or no? Is that what you support? I'll give you two minutes.

TW: That's not what the bill says. But look, this issue is what's on everyone's mind. Donald Trump put this all into motion. He brags about how great it was that he put the judges in and overturned Roe versus Wade, 52 years of personal autonomy. And then he tells us, oh, we send it to the states. It's a beautiful thing. Amanda Zaworski would disagree with you on it's a beautiful thing. A young bride in Texas waiting for their child at 18 weeks. She has a complication, a tear in the membrane. She needs to go in. The medical care at that point needs to be decided by the doctor. And that would have been an abortion. But in Texas, that would have put them in legal jeopardy. She went home, got sepsis, nearly dies, and now she may have difficulty having children. Or in Kentucky, Hadley Duvall, a twelve year old child raped and impregnated by her stepfather. Those are horrific. Now, when got asked about that, Senator Vance said, two wrongs don't make a right. There is no right in this. So in Minnesota, what we did was restore Roe v. Wade. We made sure that we put women in charge of their health care. But look, this is not what, if you don't know Amanda or a Hadley, you soon will. Their Project 2025 is going to have a registry of pregnancies. It's going to make it more difficult, if not impossible to get contraception and limit access, if not eliminate access to infertility treatments. For so many of you out there listening, me included, infertility treatments are why I have a child. That's nobody else's business. But those things are being proposed, and the catchall on this is, is, well, the states will decide what's right for Texas might not be right for Washington. That's not how this works. This is basic human right. We have seen maternal mortality skyrocket in Texas, outpacing many other countries in the world. This is about health care. In Minnesota, we are ranked first in health care for a reason. We trust women. We trust doctors.

NO: Senator, do you want to respond to the governor's claim? Will you create a federal pregnancy monitoring agency?

JDV: No, Norah, certainly we won't. And I want to talk about this issue because I know a lot of Americans care about it, and I know a lot of Americans don't agree with everything that I've ever said on this topic. And, you know, I grew up in a working class family in a neighborhood where I knew a lot of young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn't have any other options. And, you know, one of them is actually very dear to me. And I know she's watching tonight, and I love you. And she told me something a couple years ago that she felt like if she hadn't had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship. And I think that what I take from that, as a Republican who proudly wants to protect innocent life in this country, who proudly wants to protect the vulnerable is that my party, we've got to do so much better of a job at earning the American People's trust back on this issue where they frankly just don't trust us. And I think that's one of the things that Donald Trump and I are endeavoring to do. I want us, as a Republican Party, to be pro-family in the fullest sense of the word. I want us to support fertility treatments. I want us to make it easier for moms to afford to have babies. I want it to make it easier for young families to afford a home so they can afford a place to raise that family. And I think there's so much that we can do on the public policy front just to give women more options. Now, of course, Donald Trump has been very clear that on the abortion policy specifically, that we have a big country and it's diverse. And California has a different viewpoint on this than Georgia. Georgia has a different viewpoint from Arizona. And the proper way to handle this, as messy as democracy sometimes is, is to let voters make these decisions, let the individual states make their abortion policy. And I think that's what makes the most sense in a very big, a very diverse, and let's be honest, sometimes a very, very messy and divided country.

NO: Governor, would you like to respond and also answer the question about restrictions?

TW: Yeah. Well, the question got asked, and Donald Trump made the accusation that wasn't true about Minnesota. Well, let me tell you about this idea that there's diverse states. There's a young woman named Amber Thurmond. She happened to be in Georgia, a restrictive state. Because of that, she had to travel a long distance to North Carolina to try and get her care. Amber Thurman died in that journey back and forth. The fact of the matter is, how can we as a nation say that your life and your rights as basic as the right to control your own body is determined on geography? There's a very real chance, had Amber Thurman lived in Minnesota, she would be alive today. That's why the restoration of Roe v. Wade. When you listen to Vice President Harris talk about this subject, and you hear me talk about it, you hear us talking exactly the same. Donald Trump is trying to figure out how to get the political right of this. I agree with a lot of what Senator Vance said about what's happening. His running mate, though, does not. And that's the problem.

NO: Governor, your time is up. Senator, let me ask you about that. He mentioned it was, I think, referring to a national ban. In the past, you have supported a Federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks. In fact, you said if someone can't support legislation like that, quote, you are making the United States the most barbaric pro-abortion regime anywhere in the entire world. My question is, why have you changed your position?

JDV: Well, Norah, first of all, I never supported a national ban. I did during, when I was running for Senate in 2022, talk about setting some minimum national standard. For example, we have a partial birth abortion ban in this, in place in this country at the federal level. I don't think anybody's trying to get rid of that, or at least I hope not, though I know that Democrats have taken a very radical pro-abortion stance. But, Norah, you know, one of the things that changed is in the state of Ohio, we had a referendum in 2023, and the people of Ohio voted overwhelmingly, by the way, against my position. And I think that what I learned from that, Norah, is that we've got to do a better job at winning back people's trust. So many young women would love to have families. So many young women also see an unplanned pregnancy as something that's going to destroy their livelihood, destroy their education, destroy their relationships. And we have got to earn people's trust back. And that's why Donald Trump and I are committed to pursuing pro-family policies. Making childcare more accessible, making fertility treatments more accessible, because we've got to do a better job at that. And that's what real leadership is.

NO: Governor, your response? 

TW: I'm going to respond on the pro-abortion piece of that. No, we're not. We're pro-women. We're pro-freedom to make your own choice. We know what the implications are to not be that women having miscarriages, women not getting the care, physicians feeling like they may be prosecuted for providing that care. And as far as making sure that we're educating our children and giving them options. Minnesota's a state with one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates. We understand that, too. We know that the options need to be available, and we make that true. We also make it, we're a top three state for the best place to raise children. But these two things to try and say that we're pro-children but we don't like this or, or you guys are pro-abortion, that's not the case at all. We are pro-freedoms for women to make their choices. And we're going, and Kamala Harris is making the case to make options for children more affordable. A $6,000 child tax credit. But we're not going to base out on the backs of making someone like Amber Thurmond drive 600 miles to try and get health care.

NO: Senator. 

JDV: May I respond to that? First of all, Governor, I agree with you. Amber Thurmond should still be alive. And there are a lot of people who should still be alive, and I certainly wish that she was. And maybe, you're free to disagree with me on this and explain this to me, but as I read the Minnesota law that you signed into law, the statute that you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion, where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late term abortion. That is, I think, whether it's not pro-choice or pro-abortion, that is fundamentally barbaric. And that's why I use that word, Norah, is because some of what we've seen, do you want to force catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their will? Because Kamala Harris has supported suing catholic nuns to violate their freedom of conscience? We can be a big and diverse country where we respect people's freedom of conscience. And make the country more pro-baby and pro-family. But please.

NO: Yes, Governor, please respond. 

TW: Look, this is one where there's always something there. This is a very simple proposition. These are women's decisions to make about their healthcare decisions and the physicians who know best when they need to do this, trying to distort the way a law is written, to try and make a point. That's not it at all.

JDV: What was I wrong about? Governor, please tell me. What was I wrong about?

TW: That is not the way the law is written. Look, I've given.

JDV: But how.

TW: I've given this advice on a lot of things that getting involved, getting, that's been misread. And it was fact checked at the last debate. But the point on this is, is there's a continuation of these guys to try and tell women or to get involved. I use this line on this. Just mind your own business on this. Things worked best when Roe v. Wade was in place. When we do a restoration of Roe, that works best. That doesn't preclude us from increasing funding for children. It doesn't increase us from making sure that once that child's born, like in Minnesota, they get meals, they get early childhood education, they get healthcare. So the hiding behind we're going to do all these other things when you're not proposing them in your budget? Kamala Harris is proposing them. She's proposing all those things to make life easier for families.


             Sen. JD Vance said at Tuesday’s debate that he never supported a national abortion ban. “I never supported a national ban. I did, during when I was running for Senate in 2022, talk about setting some minimum national standard. For example, we have a partial-birth abortion ban … in place in this country at the federal level. I don’t think anybody is trying to get rid of that, or at least, I hope not, though I know the Democrats have taken a very radical pro-abortion stance,” Vance said.

Facts First: This is false. Vance previously said he “certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally” in 2022 while running for his Senate seat in Ohio. He did say that he supported a “minimum national standard” to ban abortion in 2023. During the current campaign, however, Vance has deferred to former President Donald Trump’s stated view that each state should set its own abortion policy.

In 2022, while running for his Senate seat in Ohio, Vance said, “I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally” and that he was “sympathetic” to the view that a national ban was necessary to stop women from traveling across states to obtain an abortion. He also said on his website during that Senate campaign that he was “100 percent pro-life” and that he favored “eliminating abortion”; these words remained on his website until Trump selected him as his running mate in July. And Vance said in an interview during the 2022 campaign that he wanted abortion to be “primarily a state issue,” but also said, “I think it’s fine to sort of set some minimum national standard.”

In November 2023, Vance told CNN’s Manu Raju and Ted Barrett in the Capitol: “It seems to suggest there needs to be some more interest in this building among Republicans in setting some sort of minimum national standard, whether that it’s 15 weeks or 20 weeks or the different ranges that are thrown out there.” He said, “We keep giving in to the idea that the federal Congress has no role in this matter. Because if it doesn’t … then the pro-life movement is basically not gonna exist, I think, for the next couple of years.”

Vance, emphasizing his support for certain exceptions to abortion bans, said on CNN in December 2023, “We have to accept that people do not want blanket abortion bans. They just don’t. And I say that as a person who wants to protect as many unborn babies as possible. We have to provide exceptions for life of the mother, for rape, and so forth.”

During his vice presidential campaign this year, Vance has aligned himself with Trump’s professed desire for a state-by-state approach to abortion policy rather than federal legislation. Vance said on Fox News in July, “Alabama’s going to make a different decision from California. That is a reasonable thing. And that’s how I think we build some bridges and have some respect for one another.”

From CNN’s Daniel Dale, Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck


And they're one of the few fact checking Miss Sassy's lies on abortion.  Overturning ROE V WADE was not popular.  Tim made some good points but he didn't go far enough.  Reproductive rights are health issue.  This nonsense of a doctor can do this in that state but not in another state -- No.  We need universal healthcare and that actually means universal.  That means you can get a flu shot in every state.  

JD tailored his argument to creepy women.

Sad and deluded idiotic women.  I have no idea what percentage of women in the US that would be.

But people -- including POD SAVE AMERICA -- appear to miss what he was doing -- asking why he was talking about how he would earn your trust.

Men, he was speaking to women -- or trying to.

'I'm not perfect, but I'll earn your trust' -- it's nonsense.  And most women know that.  But this is going to be a close election so he went for the stupid.  It was smarmy and it was insulting.

And all of his lies were.  He lied non-stop trying to dress up the fact that he wants abortion to be illegal in all the states.  He rewrites history and rewrites reality.  He was the worst character in a Margaret Atwood novel. 

I'm still outraged over this. 

Let's note POD SAVE AMERICA's analysis.





------------------
THIS SECTION ADDED 23 minutes after this posted.

Immediate reaction in the e-mails per Shirley: You don't seem enthused by the debate.

I'm not.

I did not care for the format.  I did not like that JD lied repeatedly.  I did not like his patronizing attitude or his remarks -- judgmental about the women who died that Tim raised.  I do not like that the media seems to have completely missed that reality.

I did not like Tim on stage.  POD SAVE AMERICA thinks he is more likable based on the instapolls.

So what?

Likeability for a VP isn't that necessary.  More to the point, it was like Sean Hannity and Alan Colms (is that the jerk's name).  I didn't want to see someone make nice with JD Vance.  I wanted to see someone fight for our country.  And, as noted during the Bully Boy Bush administration, when they needed to sell the Iraq War and pressed Colin Powell into lying, take a little shine off your poll numbers.  Tim is already liked.  He should have fought.  

Donald and JD's positions are extreme and they are dangerous to the country.  I needed to see that fought against instead it was we agree, wee agree, we agree.  

I found it very off putting and very disappointing.  I think Tim won but I don't think it was a good debate or that 'winning' in it means a whole lot.

Abortion is healthcare and I'm getting tired of Dems who walk into GOP traps on that issue and don't push back and push back hard.  JD's sorry about the deaths -- b.s. he thinks the women got what they had coming.  That's his position and his smarmy words and his tone of voice made that clear.

So, no, wasn't impressed at all.
 
end of part added after this posted 
---------------------------------------------




Let's talk about Ted Cruz.  Mike covers Colin Allred who is running for the US Senate out of Texas and his rival is incumbent Cruz.  The media's been noticing that Ted is trying to move to the center of late in his advertising and statements and they've said it's due to the polls.  

No.

The decision was made pre-polling.  The polls are only reflecting what the senator's office has been hearing for four weeks now.  Ted's getting some of the worst constituent feedback of his career.  It coincides with his last minute trans youth attack commercial.  On that



A recent mailer from the Texas GOP is being criticized for inaccurately representing the story of a trans man, who is a former high school wrestler.

The mailer attacks Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) – who is currently challenging Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) Senate seat – by sharing a blurred image of Mack Beggs when he was an out trans boy forced to compete in girls’ sports. The text reads, “Colin Allred failed to protect women’s sports, supporting boys competing with girls.”

The Texas University Interscholastic League, which regulates public schools’ sports leagues, prevented him from participating on boys’ sports teams due to the gender marker on his birth certificate. During his time on girls’ wrestling teams, Beggs was in the middle of medically transitioning, taking testosterone.

He was then targeted by opponents of trans rights for competing at all, including when he won state championships in 2017 and 2018.

Rep. Allred has voted in favor of trans inclusion in sports, opposing bills that would have restricted trans women from participating on women’s sports teams.

The recent depiction Beggs in the mailer has him worried for his and his family’s safety. “How they’re using my photo, it’s just very misleading. It’s not OK,” he said, according to the Houston Chronicle. He’s currently seeking legal guidance from the American Civil Liberties Union.

That mailing and the accompanying TV spot commercial -- which appears to feature footage of  Imane Khelif  -- was the last straw for some of his previous admirers on the Republican side.  The feedback his office received was blistering.  Some felt the topic was beneath a US senator, some felt that you don't go after kids -- and he is going after trans kids and some just wondered with all the problems in the country why Cruz is making this the topic.

The response was blistering and it was huge.  The one that hurt Cruz the most was from a long term supporter who told him, quote, "You are too far from Texas and too close to Trump."  That one was said to his face and that's when Cruz and his campaign grasped that they needed to back pedal and try something different.

Also, remember Mike reminds about Texas voting:

Oh!  I need to note this.  I had to brush up on some basics since I'm not from the state.  You can register up to October 7th.  You have to register in person by October 7th or, if you're sending in a registration form, it has to be postmarked October 7th.  Early voting in Texas starts October 21st and runs through November 1st.  November 5th is election day.  During early voting, you can vote at any polling station in the county you are registered to vote.  


The following sites updated:

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)