VegasVet
VegasVet's JournalBiden Campaign Officials Give Legal Briefing on Election Victory
From the video description:
(Nov. 10) Biden for President Post-Election Legal Briefing Senior Advisor Bob Bauer and General Counsel Dana Remus update on President-elect Biden's victory and our continued efforts to ensure that the American people's voice is heard and votes counted.
U.S. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris says that each vote for President-elect Joe Biden was in support of the Affordable Care Act he helped craft during the Obama administration.
During remarks Tuesday in Wilmington, Delaware, Harris said that Biden "won the election decisively," and that "every vote for Joe Biden was a statement that health care in America should be a right, not a privilege."
Harris also noted that, if the Affordable Care Act is dismantled, "communities of color would be hit particularly hard ... because they are at a greater risk for preexisting conditions," as well as complications from the coronavirus.
Harris spoke ahead of remarks from Biden and following oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court. Earlier Tuesday, justices heard oral arguments from opponents of the health care program, arguing the 10-year-old statute was rendered unconstitutional in its entirety when Congress dialed down to zero a penalty on those remaining uninsured.
President-elect Joe Biden says that the Republican-backed challenge to the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court is "cruel and needlessly divisive." But he's promising that, regardless of the outcome of that lawsuit, he will enact reforms to expand coverage when he's in office next January.
I encourage you fine people to go here and also upvote the video. The Rethugs have shown up and downvoted it, because, of course, they don't like the facts that are presented. They also downvoted in the hundreds. Thanks. I hope this helps some folks feel better, but you still need to get ready to fight like hell.
People Need to Chill Out About the Email News - It's a Non-Issue
From Kurt Eichenwald's Twitter feed:
1. Case not reopened.
2. Comey had to correct testimony.
3. Involves 3 emails whose classification must be determined.
4. None w/held by HRC.
Source: https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792079725329907713
And more:
Details of FBI: They found 3 emails that "might" be relevant to the case. None of them were withheld by Clinton.
Source: https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792075393515724800
And more:
DetailsThe big thing that the Comey letter shows: Media will report things without reading the document or trying to find out what it means.
Source: https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/792068715227394048
In short, the sky isn't falling. Now get out there, knock on doors, get people to the polls, vote, donate, and make calls. This remains a non-story. The New York Times along with Newsweek and a few others like Raw Story are slowly coming out with the real story. Turns out this had nothing to do with Hillary and resulted from emails between notorious pervert Anthony Weiner and his soon to be ex-wife. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html
What they've gone and done is created a bunch of left wing echo chambers...
You find them here, on Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post... Really anywhere that people would gather to discuss things. A trend I noticed taking hold last year is that the Berners would defend the Senator. It happened in case after case. I think in the beginning it was well meaning. After all, Sanders was seen as a underdog and — at first — he was largely ignored by the media. And you know, Americans love an underdog!
Then gradually, ever so slowly, the premise of their support was no longer valid as the media reported consistently on Sanders. The problem was that the Berners didn't give up the belief that they were ignored, underestimated, and didn't stand a chance. They got caught up in the same mentality that so occupies the Christian Right's true believers. They were convinced they were being persecuted and then in a zealous over reaction their defense of Sanders became bullying in his name. This was evidenced by their penchant to immediately storm in and squash all civil discussion with purity diatribes decrying the lack of intelligence of the opposition, impugning their integrity as being bought and paid for, and dehumanizing rants centered on sex, race, and political leaning.
Eventually no one felt it was safe to speak out in contrary to the Bernie memes and his supporters. So, as described to me by many of Hillary's supporters and other observers across the Web, they grew quiet and less likely to speak up. DU's own Hillary Clinton Group is a fine example of this.
No one wanted to venture out. We hid behind hashtags on Twitter, protected Facebook groups, and private discussion boards if fortunate enough. Occasionally, on Facebook and Twitter especially, the Berners would show up and immediately start back in with the insults, insinuations, and accusations.
Let's be clear, Hillary supporters weren't angels across the board. Some of them could be downright belittling in their reverse ageism and trumpeting mockery of "Bernie babies want free stuff!" That wasn't productive and did nothing to quell the growing divisions. However, the Hillary zealots paled in comparison to the Sanders True Believers. You can still see that in action today by going outside of this group or onto any of the aforementioned social media sites. It's known that approximately 80% of DU was at one time solidly in the Sanders camp.
Would you tattoo a politician's image on your body?
Apparently, some people are doing that, and I have to say that I really don't get it. I love my wife a great deal, and I've had lovers that I have loved deeply as well. However, never once have I ever wanted to tattoo their name -- much less their visage -- anywhere on my body. So, please can someone explain to me why someone would get a tattoo of a politician?
Twitter post for reference:
https://twitter.com/PaladinCornelia/status/716995259482243073
PS: I love Hillary, but I'm not doing this either:
Why Donald Trump Might Be the Most Dangerous Presidential Candidate in History
Gautam Mukunda
Assistant Professor, Harvard Business School, Author, Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter
Unless Donald Trump announces in the next few weeks that he is secretly a Muslim, gay, undocumented Mexican immigrant (and let's be honest, less likely things have happened in this election cycle), he's almost certainly going to be the Republican nominee for the presidency.
If he won, how much impact would President Trump likely have? Pretty much everyone watching this election is probably asking themselves that question right now, and it's exactly the sort of question my research answers. I studied every Presidential election in American history to better understand which leaders have outsized impact -- for good or ill.
In the course of my research, I concluded that presidents ultimately fall into one of two categories: "Filtered" -- the ones who gain power normally, by rising through the ranks of the political system, and "Unfiltered" -- those who gain power with little national political experience or over the opposition of political elites. "Unfiltered" presidents tend to have huge effects and end up remembered as either the best (e.g., Lincoln, FDR) or worse (e.g., Harding, Pierce). Trump, without a single day of experience as an elected official and actively opposed by the Republican establishment, would be the most unfiltered president in American history.
More at the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gautam-mukunda/why-donald-trump-might-be_b_9368144.html
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHome country: USA
Member since: Sat Nov 20, 2004, 04:23 AM
Number of posts: 7,480
