Free Republic

A prison in New York: isn’t that where Jeffrey Epstein you know did the s-thing, when both prison guards were away at the bathroom or something, and the security cameras were inoperative?

Does Donald Trump know too much???

What happens to Florida’s electoral votes if both Trump and his VP are from Florida?

First, Florida’s electoral votes aren’t canceled. Florida’s electors can’t vote for both President and VP from Florida. So, they (Florida’s electors) will have to vote for somebody else or abstain from one of the two slots.

Let’s say they (Florida’s electors) abstain from voting for the VP candidate. The VP might be elected anyway, if there is an electoral college landslide. But, if not, the election of VP goes to the Senate. Presumably, the Republicans have gained control of the Senate, and, so, it (the Senate) elects the VP.

If the party of the winning ticket controls a majority of the state delegations in the House of Representatives, but not a majority in the Senate, it’s possible the Florida electors vote for VP and abstain from President. In this scenario, the VP is elected by the electoral college, and the House of Representatives elects the President. This scenario seems to me to be tricky and I would be against it.

Things get tough if a party narrowly wins the electoral college but not the majority of state delegations in the House and also not the majority in the Senate.

BUT ... there’s another, much easier way. I’ll use Senator Rubio to describe this much easier way. After the election is over, Senator Rubio resigns from the Senate and declares he is a resident of Virginia (or wherever he lives in the D.C. area). This wouldn’t be difficult or awkward in any way. Not for a Senator who maintains homes in both his home state and the D.C. area.

Having said these things, regardless of the Constitutional prohibition on electors voting for both President and VP from their own state, it makes sense politically to have a running mate from another state.

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was national security advisor for 22 says during Trump’s first term, was pardoned by President Trump for the process crime of lying to the FBI. Those who would like to see presidential pardons and commutation of sentences for the victims of Democrats weaponizing law enforcement should focus on actually helping Trump get elected.

The obvious choices aren’t on the list, Youngkin of VA, Greg Abbott of TX and Mike Pompeo of KS. Of the seven on the list, Ben Carson would make the best VP. Carson is a national treasure.

Those that are on the list show that Trump in some sense is considering a diverse list.

I’ll comment on a few:

Carson - has a very good rapport with Trump, and maybe could be the difference-maker in his home state of Michigan. Carson served well in Trump’s first cabinet, and would make a good vice president or counselor to the president.

DeSantis - no charisma, came across as a policy wonk during the early primary period; but, being term-limited as Governor of FL, he is well suited for a cabinet position. attorney general?

Vance, Rubio, Scott, Stefanik, Donalds - each Senator is precious, and so are Congressman in leadership positions. We do not elect a dictator in the country, but the head of the executive branch of government within a system of checks and balances. We need to win the Senate and keep the House so Trump can easily get his nominees through the Senate and so we can get control of the budget. With large enough majorities in the Congress, we can fix immigration, S.S. and Medicare, income and health security, and everything else that has gone from bad to worse under Biden.

Burgum - like Youngkin, but ND is in the bag and Youngkin expands the playing field. Burgum, like the other governors being mentioned, would be a good candidate for a cabinet-level position. energy?

Vivek Ramaswamy - not ready for VP, even for the precocious, age is a consideration; but, would make a good candidate for a cabinet-level position. health and human services?

Senator Kennedy is national treasure.

thank you, yes.

plus, Republican registration is up big time in the Keystone State.

https://penncapital-star.com/voting/analysis-pennsylvania-gop-enjoys-clean-sweep-of-voter-registration-gains-ahead-of-primary-election/

“When you are going through hell, keep going” W. Churchill

I like it: include the Donald’s historical overperforming vis a vis the polls.

Here’s my question: In 2016, Trump overperformed the polls by 1.1 points, and in 2020, by 2.7 points. Big increase!

What is the point of the exercise? By definition, it is what if the polling bias this year is similar to what it was four years ago? The answer gives us an idea of how big Trump’s victory can be this year.

Let me pose a different hypothetical: what is there is no polling bias this year AND the Democrats stuff the ballot by 1 point? Does Trump still win? I think Trump still wins (crucially we win Pennsylvania, but fall short by less than 1 point in Michigan and Wisconsin). That, in this alternate scenario, we win but just barely should motivate us to continue to pursue election integrity across the country.

So, we have at least two jobs: one is immediate, this year’s election, and the other is long-term, and this other job is election integrity.

Hi Hardspunned. Maybe when the vodka wears off, you’ll be able to say something rational.

For two years, we heard that Russia is advancing, advancing, advancing. Now we are being told, Russia never actually wanted to conquer Ukraine. Even, didn’t invade Ukraine at all. Russia is just defending itself from NATO. All Russia wants is Ukraine to not join NATO.

For two years, we’ve been told that Russia is NOT being hurt by Ukraine. Russia’s economy is stronger than ever! But now we hear, Russia will do to the west what the west is doing to Russia. Really? Make the economy of the west stronger than ever? Obviously, Russia is being hurt bad by the combination of sanctions and strategic bombing by Ukraine.

As to the threat to arm the enemies of the west, Russia has been doing this since during the Cold War. And which way has the dial gone? Russia’s fomenting of revolutionaries in Latin America is down to three countries (Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela).

In the Middle East, Russia is down to Iran and its circle of terrorists (Shia Iraq, Shia Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen). We stand with Israel and the Sunni Arabs. The bad guys are already at war with us in the Middle East. They sent something like 300 missiles, drones, etc., at Israel, and only a handful got through our air defense systems. The Ukes, on the other hand, fly drones deep into Russia to attack Russian oil refineries.

In Africa, Russia is cozying up to certain dictators, mostly in the God-forsaken Sahel region of that continent. Russia provides those dictators with a palace guard to protect them from internal rivals. It is a totally pathetic situation. And, because of its increasingly desperate situation in Ukraine, Russia has been withdrawing forces from Africa for re-deployment to Ukraine.

Putin, you made a big mistake invading Ukraine. Arresting generals, threatening nuclear war, and threatening terrorism won’t work. Reducing your demands to only part of Ukraine and to the disarming of the remainder is unacceptable. When you accept that you have to withdraw your forces from Ukraine, we can talk.

What the Congressman said is undeniable. The question is why. Part of why is the breakdown of the American family for whites as well as minorities during and since the 1960s. But, what has been terrible for whites, has been devastating for blacks, with Hispanics something in between. As to why the Congressman would be questioned, it is because of left-wing ideology. They live in their own reality and, so, deny the obvious truth. Nothing they say can be accepted unless validated by credible evidence.

per Vital Statistics of the United States, Bureau of the Census, 1941, p. 10, Table R

1920 12.5 percent of nonwhite babies were born to single women
1930 14.1
1940 17.0

per Table 1.1, p. 2.Live Births, Birth Rates, and Fertility Rates, by race: United States, 1909-2000. illegimate births: Stephanie Ventura, Trends and Differentialsin births to unmarried women, Dept. of Health and Human Services, May 1980. pp. 48-50, Table 2;

1940 14.0 percent of nonwhite babies were born to single women
1950 14.9

per Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bachrach, Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99. National Vital Statistics Reports, 48(16) October 2000. pp. 28-31, Table 4
AND
updates from CDC

1950 18.0 percent of nonwhite babies were born to single women
1960 21.6
1970 34.9
1980 49.8
1990 66.5 percent of black babies were born to single women
2000 68.5
2010 72.1
2020 64 (while still catastrophically high, the prior trend has been reversed)

37 candidates were assassinated in the just conducted election in Mexico. The left means business. Their “democracy” has never meant government of, by and for the people. It has always meant rule by force.

Not sure we disagree about how probable would be an effort to drive a wedge between China and Russia. Possibly we’re talking about one person emphasizing the positive possibilities, and the other emphasizing the negative possibilities.

For all the progress democratic governments and market-oriented economics have made in the past hundred years, we’re not home free. In addition to the geopolitical threats facing us, we have the rise of a radical left within the democratic nations of the world. The declaration of victory by the neo-cons with Francis Fukuyama’s End of History was, at best, premature.

Hey Red, I’m going to (again) return to my original post. If you can remember, that post was about how much bigger we, in the west, are than you.

We’ve gambled and lost a few times. But, for us, these are mere set backs. Since we are a democracy and a mostly market-oriented country, we react to losses by electing new leaders and we continue to grow economically. Since 1950, we have grown from $3 trillion to $21 trillion in constant dollars.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPNAUSA666NRUG

What about you? A hundred years ago, Imperial Russia lost a war at your western border, with the German and the Austrian empires. After that, poof!, no more Imperial Russia.

Fifty years ago, the Soviet Union lost a war in Afghanistan. After that, poof!, no more Soviet Union.

To use a betting metaphor, you’re at the table with one small stack. If you get what you think is a good hand, you go all in. But, often, you actually don’t have a good hand. Your paratroopers are unable to take and hold the airports at Kyiv or Odessa, you suck at logistics, your intelligence is wrong about Russian-speaking Ukrainians receiving you as liberators, and your Chechen allies are even more stupid than your peasants.

In contrast, we have several tall stacks of chips. Even if you go all-in and win, we still have plenty of chips.

And you know this. Because you know that we are overwhelmingly superior, you keep talking about the Joker in your hand (nuclear weapons).

Bro, there’s a reason Russia, China and other undemocratic governments have border disputes with all or practically all of their neighbors (including each other): they’re based on the rule of conquest, not on the rule of law. They believe that political power comes from the barrel of a gun, to quote Mao Zedung, no from the consent of the government, to quote our Declaration of Independence. Thus undemocractic governments invoke nationalistic and mystic thinkers such as Dugin (as you point out).

We cannot presume any goodness on the part of totalitarian governments. But, we can - since we are enormously more powerful - contain them, and hope that, one day, something happens that they embrace democracy and the rule of law.

Contrary to elite opinion during the Cold War, our strategy was not co-existence or even convergence with communism. It was to wait for the inevitable collapse of communism. Harry Truman and George Marshall understood this at the beginning, and Ronald Reagan at the end.

In a prior post on this thread, I brought up Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and their approach to China (separating China from Russia). That would be in our interests today. China’s interests are different from Russia’s. China aspires to continued economic growth. China needs us, or else to whom do they sell their cheap manufactured crap or from whom do they steal intellectual property? Russia, on the other hand, is accommodating its people to lives of economic stagnation. So what if it has limited markets for its oil and natural gas? The Russian people, they believe, have an enormous capacity for suffering.

My thinking is rather conventional and in line with what the thinking of our very best geopolitical strategists since WWII (and contrary to elitist thinking through the Cold War and since). If you think there’s a better option, then good luck with it.

“double haters” ... you don’t have to be a hater to see the flaws in each of this year’s major party candidates. In this election, as in each of the prior two, the deciding votes will be cast by people who hold an unfavorable opinion of both.

Donald Trump may be a flawed candidate, but he’s our candidate.

Hi Red6, I’m old enough to know a communist.

I suppose the payment for this work wasn’t reported as “legal expense” because, you know, that would be 34 felonies.

Hi Bro!

You make quite a few valid points in your several recent posts.

The relative size of China to Russia; i.e., China is massively larger than Russia, plus is growing, plus has a diversified economy (while Russia’s economy is little more than extracting minerals).

Our job isn’t to defeat either of these countries, but to deter aggression by either of them (or by others), hoping that eventually something happens and each of them joins with the growing number of countries oriented to trade, open economies and at least partially market-oriented economics.

So, of the two (Russia and China), which seems more successful and optimistic and, therefore, interested in peace; and, which seems less successful, and therefore more pessimistic, and interested in having enemies if only for the purpose of domestic consumption?

I believe we can and should work with China, in part to keep China and Russia from having a tight alliance (like Nixon and Henry Kissinger’s policy), and because we have shared interests.

As for Russia, we should make it as clear as possible that - regardless of NATO and EU expansion - we would not threaten Russia within its internationally-recognized borders if it withdrew its armies to those borders.

Should Russia do that (withdraw its armies), we can address matters such as sanctions and division of the Arctic Ocean into economic zones of the Arctic nations.

maybe Trump is going after the RFK jr vote