Here is a list of Politics Blogs. A Blog is a journal you may enter about your life, thoughts, interesting experiences, or lessons you've learned. Post an opinion, impart words of wisdom, or talk about something interesting in your day. Update your blog on a regular basis, or just whenever you have something to say. Creating a blog is a good way to share something of yourself with others. Reading blogs is a good way to learn more about others. Click here to post a blog.
Bernie Sanders wins New Hampshire. (~ 25.7%)
This is the first time a non-president won the New Hampshire primary back to back. (Sanders won 4 years ago also.)
Mayor Pete was close though (~ 24.4 %).
Klobuchar (< 20%) leapfrogs over Warren (~9.4%) & Biden (~8.4 %)
Both Yang (2.8 %) & Bennet (0.3 %) drop out of race.
Bloomberg waits for the next one.
In the meantime we can expect to see several Bernie smear blogs on here.
Mayor Pete was close though (~ 24.4 %).
Klobuchar (< 20%) leapfrogs over Warren (~9.4%) & Biden (~8.4 %)
Both Yang (2.8 %) & Bennet (0.3 %) drop out of race.
Bloomberg waits for the next one.
In the meantime we can expect to see several Bernie smear blogs on here.
It's Amy baby!!
I've long felt Amy Klobuchar is the sleeper candidate(i put a few € on her last week) for the Dems. She's a moderate, (fairly) sensible policy proposals compared to other candidates, and is more positive when it comes to messaging.
Could she win the nomination?
Could she win the nomination?
Haters have spent all their ammo and now the tide has turned
- Trump was acquitted of the manufactured and ridiculous charges of House Democrats and their lackeys at State Department
- Trump won again on the Emoluments case
- Jussie Smollett - the hoaxster who nearly incited riots - has been indicted by a grand jury on six counts of disorderly conduct
- 4 Federal prosecutors have now withdrawn from the Roger Stone Case after they were slapped down by Bill Barr for their ridiculous sentence recommendation for Stone
Next we should have indictments for those guilty of conspiring to take down Trump with the Russia coup (and possibly for the Ukraine coup too) as well as a serious investigation into dealings in Ukraine of the previous administration.
- Trump won again on the Emoluments case
- Jussie Smollett - the hoaxster who nearly incited riots - has been indicted by a grand jury on six counts of disorderly conduct
- 4 Federal prosecutors have now withdrawn from the Roger Stone Case after they were slapped down by Bill Barr for their ridiculous sentence recommendation for Stone
Next we should have indictments for those guilty of conspiring to take down Trump with the Russia coup (and possibly for the Ukraine coup too) as well as a serious investigation into dealings in Ukraine of the previous administration.
Appeals court hands Trump win, rules Dem lawmakers cannot sue over business payments
Another Trump win. And nope, we don't get tired of winning, and will continue to do so! 
A federal appeals court on Friday unanimously ruled that more than 200 Democratic congressional lawmakers do not have standing to sue President Trump over allegations he violated the Emoluments Clause over foreign payments to his businesses.
“Because we conclude that the Members lack standing, we reverse the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss their complaint,” the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in its ruling.
“The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit,” the court continued. “But we will not – indeed we cannot – participate in this debate.”
The court added that “the Constitution permits the Judiciary to speak only in the context of an Article III case or controversy and this lawsuit presents neither.”
Holding up a copy of the ruling as he departed Washington for a North Carolina event, Trump blasted the suit as a "phony" case.
“It was a total win,” he declared.
The ruling comes after the court ruled in August that Trump could challenge the lawsuit, saying the litigation raises the "unsettled" question of whether politicians have standing to sue a sitting president for running international businesses.
The Emoluments Clause is contained in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution and states that “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state.”
More than 200 congressional Democrats brought the lawsuit against the president in June 2017, alleging that Trump violated the clause. Democrats argued that they had standing to sue because the clause says only Congress may approve foreign gifts and payments.
“The framers gave Congress a unique role, a unique right, and responsibility,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who helped organize the suit, said at the time. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was also involved.
Upon taking office, the president turned over control of his companies to his sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., but did not divest from them, meaning he still technically can benefit financially from the Trump Organization’s profits, including from foreign governments.
Since becoming president, the Trump Organization had secured dozens of valuable patents, including in China, and collected fees from lobbyists working for Saudi Arabia and other countries using his properties.
A federal appeals court, earlier this year, dismissed a similar Emoluments Clause lawsuit filed against Trump by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia.
"I got sued on a thing called emoluments. Emoluments. You ever hear of the word? Nobody ever heard of it before," Trump said at an event in Pennsylvania last year.
Fox News’ Gregg Re and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
A federal appeals court on Friday unanimously ruled that more than 200 Democratic congressional lawmakers do not have standing to sue President Trump over allegations he violated the Emoluments Clause over foreign payments to his businesses.
“Because we conclude that the Members lack standing, we reverse the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss their complaint,” the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in its ruling.
“The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit,” the court continued. “But we will not – indeed we cannot – participate in this debate.”
The court added that “the Constitution permits the Judiciary to speak only in the context of an Article III case or controversy and this lawsuit presents neither.”
Holding up a copy of the ruling as he departed Washington for a North Carolina event, Trump blasted the suit as a "phony" case.
“It was a total win,” he declared.
The ruling comes after the court ruled in August that Trump could challenge the lawsuit, saying the litigation raises the "unsettled" question of whether politicians have standing to sue a sitting president for running international businesses.
The Emoluments Clause is contained in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution and states that “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state.”
More than 200 congressional Democrats brought the lawsuit against the president in June 2017, alleging that Trump violated the clause. Democrats argued that they had standing to sue because the clause says only Congress may approve foreign gifts and payments.
“The framers gave Congress a unique role, a unique right, and responsibility,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who helped organize the suit, said at the time. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was also involved.
Upon taking office, the president turned over control of his companies to his sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., but did not divest from them, meaning he still technically can benefit financially from the Trump Organization’s profits, including from foreign governments.
Since becoming president, the Trump Organization had secured dozens of valuable patents, including in China, and collected fees from lobbyists working for Saudi Arabia and other countries using his properties.
A federal appeals court, earlier this year, dismissed a similar Emoluments Clause lawsuit filed against Trump by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia.
"I got sued on a thing called emoluments. Emoluments. You ever hear of the word? Nobody ever heard of it before," Trump said at an event in Pennsylvania last year.
Fox News’ Gregg Re and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Deathwish 2020
Who in their right mind would ever ask Hillary to be their Vice President?
Well the subject was proposed by one of the anchors from one of the left wing networks. The question being....Would you accept? And the answer was somewhere in the neighborhood of....'Well, you never know?"
How long do you think that newly elected President would last? And who would tempt the fates to see if all those dead anti-hrc confederates are in fact dead for a fact? During the interview you could almost see the gleam in her eye...
Well the subject was proposed by one of the anchors from one of the left wing networks. The question being....Would you accept? And the answer was somewhere in the neighborhood of....'Well, you never know?"
How long do you think that newly elected President would last? And who would tempt the fates to see if all those dead anti-hrc confederates are in fact dead for a fact? During the interview you could almost see the gleam in her eye...
Max Boot & why the GOP does not deserve to survive the impeachment debacle.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Today in the Washington Post;
(continued in my first comment below)
In response to:
Max A. Boot is an American author, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian.
He worked as a writer and editor for Christian Science Monitor and then for The Wall Street Journal in the 1990s.
He is now the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
He has written for numerous publications such as The Weekly Standard, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, and he has also authored books of military history.
In 2018, Boot published The Road Not Taken, a biography of Edward Lansdale, and The Corrosion of Conservatism:
Why I Left the Right, which details Boot's "ideological journey from a 'movement' conservative to a man without a party" in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election.
Max A. Boot is an American author, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian.
He worked as a writer and editor for Christian Science Monitor and then for The Wall Street Journal in the 1990s.
He is now the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
He has written for numerous publications such as The Weekly Standard, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, and he has also authored books of military history.
In 2018, Boot published The Road Not Taken, a biography of Edward Lansdale, and The Corrosion of Conservatism:
Why I Left the Right, which details Boot's "ideological journey from a 'movement' conservative to a man without a party" in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election.
Today in the Washington Post;
In response to:
The GOP doesn’t deserve to survive this debacle
By Max Boot Columnist
Feb. 1, 2020 at 12:58 p.m. EST
I was recently asked if I would ever rejoin the Republican Party after having registered as an independent the day after President Trump’s election in 2016. The answer is an emphatic no. Trump will leave office some day (I hope!), but he will leave behind a quasi-authoritarian party that is as corrupt as he is. The failure to call witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial revealed the GOP’s moral failure.
Last Sunday, the New York Times reported that, in his forthcoming book, former national security adviser John Bolton writes that Trump told him in August he wanted to freeze military aid to Ukraine “until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.” For one brief moment it appeared that this blockbuster revelation would shatter the Republican wall of complicity. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) even said on Tuesday that he didn’t have the votes to stop witnesses from testifying. By Friday, he had the votes; the motion to call witnesses failed, 51-49, with only two Republicans (Mitt Romney and Susan Collins) voting “aye.”
The most significant of the “nay” votes was Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), a 79-year-old political warhorse who is retiring this year. He admitted what the most purblind Trump partisans will not: that “it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent.” The reason he did not need to hear any witnesses, Alexander explained, was because “there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven.” So far, so good. But then he pivoted to argue that for some reason Trump’s misconduct doesn’t meet the “high bar for an impeachable offense.” He concluded that the verdict on Trump should be left to “the presidential election” — you know, the election Trump just tried to fix.
Alexander’s statement raises more questions than it answers: If Trump’s attempt to blackmail Ukraine into helping him politically does not rise to the level of impeachable conduct, what does? Does Alexander subscribe to Alan Dershowitz’s doctrine of presidential infallibility? And, even if he doesn’t want to keep Trump off the ballot, why doesn’t he advocate Trump’s censure or political defeat? But instead of advocating any punishment for Trump’s “inappropriate” conduct, Alexander wants him rewarded by being reelected.
Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) at least made clear that he rejects the argument — raised by the president’s lawyers but rejected by almost all scholars — "that ‘Abuse of Power’ can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.” He, too, seems to assume that Trump is guilty, although he doesn’t quite say so. But Rubio argued “against removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces.”
The GOP doesn’t deserve to survive this debacle
By Max Boot Columnist
Feb. 1, 2020 at 12:58 p.m. EST
I was recently asked if I would ever rejoin the Republican Party after having registered as an independent the day after President Trump’s election in 2016. The answer is an emphatic no. Trump will leave office some day (I hope!), but he will leave behind a quasi-authoritarian party that is as corrupt as he is. The failure to call witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial revealed the GOP’s moral failure.
Last Sunday, the New York Times reported that, in his forthcoming book, former national security adviser John Bolton writes that Trump told him in August he wanted to freeze military aid to Ukraine “until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.” For one brief moment it appeared that this blockbuster revelation would shatter the Republican wall of complicity. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) even said on Tuesday that he didn’t have the votes to stop witnesses from testifying. By Friday, he had the votes; the motion to call witnesses failed, 51-49, with only two Republicans (Mitt Romney and Susan Collins) voting “aye.”
The most significant of the “nay” votes was Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), a 79-year-old political warhorse who is retiring this year. He admitted what the most purblind Trump partisans will not: that “it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent.” The reason he did not need to hear any witnesses, Alexander explained, was because “there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven.” So far, so good. But then he pivoted to argue that for some reason Trump’s misconduct doesn’t meet the “high bar for an impeachable offense.” He concluded that the verdict on Trump should be left to “the presidential election” — you know, the election Trump just tried to fix.
Alexander’s statement raises more questions than it answers: If Trump’s attempt to blackmail Ukraine into helping him politically does not rise to the level of impeachable conduct, what does? Does Alexander subscribe to Alan Dershowitz’s doctrine of presidential infallibility? And, even if he doesn’t want to keep Trump off the ballot, why doesn’t he advocate Trump’s censure or political defeat? But instead of advocating any punishment for Trump’s “inappropriate” conduct, Alexander wants him rewarded by being reelected.
Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) at least made clear that he rejects the argument — raised by the president’s lawyers but rejected by almost all scholars — "that ‘Abuse of Power’ can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.” He, too, seems to assume that Trump is guilty, although he doesn’t quite say so. But Rubio argued “against removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces.”
(continued in my first comment below)
online today!
OK, struggling here not to chase all the ladies away from CS....
...by too much politics. But they leave me no choice. You know how I rant about how the snowflake alt liberals like to throw around the R word, and words ending in -phobia. Why, oh why, are they forcing my hand at CNN (Clinton news network)? Our Dazzling and Brilliant President Trump assembles a top notch commission on an American public health response to the Wuhan Corona virus proto pandemic. CNN's main comments? Not on the appropriateness of the presidential response. Or the quality of the staff. No, no no, my fellow lemmings on the bus. The main concern was, that the commission was all white, or at least not minority affirmative action enough for the editors and news wonks at CNN. Pathetic, but sort of glad they have sunk so low. Four more years. Then eight of Pence. Can't make this stuff up folks.
Trump defense takes a hit
The secret is out, Bolton's book backs up the fact Trump held back Ukraine aid for dirt on Biden.
No way Bolton will be called to testify now. That's for sure.
No way Bolton will be called to testify now. That's for sure.
Winner Take All
Winner Take All economic think of Adam Smith and Donald Trump is not the only way to carry out global trade. In 1994 John Forbes Nash Jr and others were awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for their work in mathematical game theory.
Nash's doctoral thesis - titled “Non-Cooperative Games" suggested business negotiations need not be solely a winner take all competition as Smith suggested, but a cooperative dynamic equilibrium.
Ever notice how gas stations, pharmacies and grocery stores cluster together. This is about Nash, not Smith. It is about a cooperative effort to share the market instead fighting each other to the death. Too bad Trump can't set aside his Winner Take All think. The world would be a better place if he did.
Nash's doctoral thesis - titled “Non-Cooperative Games" suggested business negotiations need not be solely a winner take all competition as Smith suggested, but a cooperative dynamic equilibrium.
Ever notice how gas stations, pharmacies and grocery stores cluster together. This is about Nash, not Smith. It is about a cooperative effort to share the market instead fighting each other to the death. Too bad Trump can't set aside his Winner Take All think. The world would be a better place if he did.
A Blog is a journal you may enter about your life, your thoughts, interesting experiences, or lessons you have learned. It's your own page on Connecting Singles that you can update on a regular basis, or just whenever you have something to say. You can write about an opinion, impart words of wisdom, or talk about something interesting in your day. Creating a blog is a good way to share something of yourself with Connecting Singles members. Reading blogs is a good way to learn more about members you have met here. Please be sure to read the blog rules before posting.
Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »