[Wulfschilde]

Gooooo team... you know, you know, the thing

[Sivad]

"What's unfolding before our eyes is a very specific type of coup called the 'Color Revolution.' "

the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United States government employs in so-called “Color Revolutions” and the coordinated efforts of government bureaucrats, NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.
https://www.revolver.news/2020/09/meet- ... ent-trump/

[Beren]

^ This is like I'm watching Russia Today. How could I have that worrisome Tucker Carlson gaze?

[Doug64]

Sorry but you are wrong there.

Paraphrasing Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution...

If it's tied up in the courts, Congress will declare what Officer shall act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until a President shall be elected.

3 U.S. Code § 7. Meeting and vote of electors: The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

3 U.S. Code § 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress: Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

It’s really very simple, when you cut through the verbiage—the House and Senate are to meet and count the votes of the Electoral College. If for whatever reason no candidate gets a majority of the votes, then as called for by the Constitution the House itself votes by state, choosing among the top vote-getters.

And in the news:

Watchdog identifies 50,000 double-voters, 350,000 dead persons still on rolls

A watchdog group reviewed voter records from more than 40 states and found nearly 350,000 dead voters still on the rolls, and more than 50,000 people who cast more than one ballot in the 2018 election.

Many of those “apparent double-votes” were mail ballots, the Public Interest Legal Foundation said in its report Wednesday.

PILF said it used voter history files and matched them up against other information such as Social Security’s death index.

The organization said it found nearly 8,000 people who were credited with voting in 2018 on a date after they were listed as deceased. North Carolina had the highest rate of the states reviewed, the study said.

As for double-voting, PILF said about 38,000 people voted twice from the same address in the 2018 general election. Another 5,500 people voted twice from different addresses in the same state. And more than 8,000 others were credited with voting in two different states.

One Pennsylvania voter appeared in the voter registration file seven times, all with the same address, PILF says. A Detroit voter who died in the last century was still active on the city’s rolls.

“When voters have confidence in the system, they are more likely to participate. Fixing errors, duplications and obsolete registrations will increase confidence in the voting system and we hope clear the last barrier to participation: doubt in the integrity of the process,” wrote J. Christian Adams, president of the foundation.

He said the Pennsylvania county with the voter registered seven times has agreed to try to fix things.

Detroit, meanwhile, began to track down records to try to clean its voter rolls, PILF said.

Mr. Adams was part of President Trump’s ill-fated voter integrity commission, which met resistance from states and was canceled amid myriad court challenges.

Mr. Adams said PILF’s goal in the new report was to try to do some of the work the commission was supposed to do in reviewing state records.

Some states resisted turning over records, and they are battling PILF in the courts.

But records from 42 states were gathered.

It’s possible that elections officials bungled voter history files, PILF said — but said that would still suggest a different major problem for voting systems as the country heads toward the 2020 election.

PILF said the numbers are actually better than in 2012, when the Pew Charitable Trusts found millions of dead people on the rolls and millions more double-registered.

[ingliz]

It’s really very simple

Yes it is.

You are talking out of your arse.

Simply put...

“[T]he Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified."

— U.S. CONST. amend. XX.

If no new president or vice president has yet been elected under the Twelfth Amendment by the time noon on January 20 arrives, then...

"the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.”

— 3 U.S.C. § 19 (a)(1)

[Doug64]

Yes it is.

You are talking out of your arse.

Nope, the law mandates when the Electoral College will meet to cast their votes, and when Congress shall meet to count them. The only way that those events don’t happen is if the courts step in to stop it, and I don’t see the Supreme Court allowing that to happen—not with four Originalists and a Minimalist to provide the needed majority. At most, I expect that the SC will rule that states have up to January 5th to select their electors and have those electors cast their votes, and that if they have failed to do so before January 6th then they will simply have no electoral votes to present to Congress. In that case, Congress would just have to count the ones they have.

Edit: Though I suppose the SC could rule that they have up to January 19th to complete the process, since the Constitution mandates that the president’s term ends on January 20th.

[Doug64]

And more bad news for Democrats in Pennsylvania:

Westmoreland sheriff: ‘I have not left the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party has left me’

Declaring that he feels disenfranchised by the Democratic Party, Westmoreland County Sheriff James Albert announced he changed his affiliation to Republican.

“It was a really difficult decision and I’ve thought long and hard about it, but I feel I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party platform more than the Democrats today,” Albert said.

Albert, 70, said he officially changed his party affiliation Monday.

“I’ve been a lifelong Democrat, but a conservative Democrat at that,” he said. “I’m pro-life, a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, a lifetime member of the NRA (National Rifle Association) and, today, I feel my ideals are closer to the Republican Party than Democrats.”

Albert was elected county sheriff in 2019.

He is a graduate of Westmoreland County Community College and California State College of Pennsylvania. He worked more than 40 years in law enforcement as a Greensburg police officer, a county detective and a deputy sheriff before serving 26 years as a district judge in Greensburg. He retired as judge in 2016 and announced in 2018 he would run against former Sheriff Jonathan Held.

Since May, Albert said he has watched news accounts of violent riots, “arson, mob rule and attacks against law enforcement.”

“I was saddened and enraged by the murder of David Dorn, a 77-year-old African American retired police captain, who was shot by a pawn shop looter during a protest in St. Louis,” Albert said. “These outrageous, lawless acts have been met with silence, acquiescence and, in some instances, outright support from the local, state and national leadership of the Democratic Party.”

He added that he believes the Republican Party stands for “unwavering support for our law enforcement and first responders.”

“As a lifelong public servant and member of law enforcement, I have not left the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party has left me,” Albert said.

Commissioner Gina Cerilli, a Democrat, admitted she is surprised with the political move. Albert and Cerilli regularly campaigned together in 2019.

“First, if he says one of the reasons he is changing parties is because of violent acts that occurred elsewhere around the country, his reasoning has no bearing on Westmoreland County. And if he is really concerned about the African American community, is that (GOP) truly the party he wants to join?” she asked. “On a national level, the Republican Party is not the party that stands up for the African American community.”

Cerilli said she also is surprised that Albert “would turn his back” on the union support “he sought and enjoyed over the years when he ran for office.”

The Pennsylvania State Democratic Party had no comment on Albert’s move, said spokesman Brendan Welch.

Bill Bretz, new chairman of the Westmoreland County Republican Party, said Albert is a welcome addition.

“That’s tremendous news. I’ve known the sheriff for awhile and I’m sure he’s been a traditional Democrat. But as the national party has drifted further to the left, particularly on the lack of support of law enforcement, he decided now was the best time to make the move to join Republicans and we’re seeing a lot of that,” Bretz said.

“I expect some people will be upset, but I’ve always helped people in both parties my entire career. It was a personal decision, not a political decision,” Albert said.

Albert of New Alexandria said he has not decided whether he will run for re-election in 2023.

[ingliz]

with four Originalists and a Minimalist

The decision by both the Constitution’s Framers and the 1886 Congress to minimize this Court’s role in resolving close federal Presidential elections is as wise as it is clear. However awkward or difficult it may be for Congress to resolve difficult electoral disputes, Congress, being a political body, expresses the people’s will far more accurately than does an unelected Court.

— Justice Breyer, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 144–58 (2000)

[Oxymoron]

The decision by both the Constitution’s Framers and the 1886 Congress to minimize this Court’s role in resolving close federal Presidential elections is as wise as it is clear. However awkward or difficult it may be for Congress to resolve difficult electoral disputes, Congress, being a political body, expresses the people’s will far more accurately than does an unelected Court.

— Justice Breyer, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 144–58 (2000)

A Congress controlled by one party is only representing half of the country... we live in a representative Republic not rule my Slim Majority.

[Doug64]

The decision by both the Constitution’s Framers and the 1886 Congress to minimize this Court’s role in resolving close federal Presidential elections is as wise as it is clear. However awkward or difficult it may be for Congress to resolve difficult electoral disputes, Congress, being a political body, expresses the people’s will far more accurately than does an unelected Court.

— Justice Breyer, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 144–58 (2000)

Exactly why I expect that the Supreme Court will insist that the laws be followed—after all, through those laws, Congress has already spoken.

[colliric]

The original......

[ingliz]

the Supreme Court will insist that the laws be followed

If Congress is deadlocked and the Court has no power to control the Twelfth Amendment proceeding as we both contend, it has only the power to declare the consequence of its being incomplete, the judicial role will be limited to acknowledging that there is no president-elect under the Twelfth Amendment and Pelosi will be president.

If it's tied up in the courts

To clarify...

State legislatures and state courts.

[Doug64]

If Congress is deadlocked and the Court has no power to control the Twelfth Amendment proceeding as we both contend, it has only the power to declare the consequence of its being incomplete, the judicial role will be limited to acknowledging that there is no president-elect under the Twelfth Amendment and Pelosi will be president.

Imagine the consequences if the Supreme Court rules that the Electoral College meet on the day appointed by Congress, and whatever the votes on that day might be are to be forwarded to Congress to be counted on the day appointed by Congress, and the House under Pelosi then refuses to accept the count—a modern-day “the Supreme Court has ruled, now let them enforce it.” The natural question then is, if Congress is free to ignore Supreme Court rulings, why can’t the states?

To clarify...

State legislatures and state courts.

It wouldn’t remain in state courts, anymore than it did in Florida in 2000.

[Drlee]

It is shocking that we have a republican discussing what should happen if his candidate should lose and try to mount a coup.

This is the state of the Republican Party. At least they have abandoned their shameful voter suppression in favor of the more honest open insurrection.

[Politics_Observer]

@Drlee

It's like I told you before Drlee, it's about money and power with these republicans. That's all they care about. They give two shits about anybody but themselves. All they care about is protecting their money and power and that's IT.

[Patrickov]

@Drlee

It's like I told you before Drlee, it's about money and power with these republicans. That's all they care about. They give two shits about anybody but themselves. All they care about is protecting their money and power and that's IT.

Which makes killing them rather justified.

The biggest fear of those having money and power to abuse, is not to lose the said money and power (they have means to get them), but to lose the life which is necessary to enjoy the said money and power.

In some sense, the problem of some anti-Trumpers and the anti-Republicans is that they are too kind, to the extent that they are actually being cruel.

[Doug64]

Speaking of people with money and power to abuse that are afraid of losing it:

Facebook pulls ad saying Biden-backed transgender bill would 'destroy girls' sports'

A conservative political action committee on Wednesday blasted Facebook for removing an ad criticizing Democrats, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, for supporting legislation requiring schools to allow biologically male transgender athletes to compete against girls.

Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project PAC, slammed the decision to pull the ad as “just the latest example in a frightening trend of Big Tech censorship,” saying that Facebook did not challenge the ad’s claims but rather its “missing context.”

“[G]iven the way this has been handled, we are highly concerned that Facebook is simply using the ‘missing context’ label as an arbitrary means to remove speech it disagrees with,” said Mr. Schilling. “After all, just about any political ad could be found to be ‘missing context.’ It is simply impossible to provide all possible context on every issue in any media, never mind in a 30-second spot.”

The ad, titled “Not Fair,” shows teenage girls being passed up by a boy as they run in a track meet, saying, “All female athletes want is a fair shot at competition, at a scholarship, at a title, at victory.”

“But what if that shot was taken away by a competitor who claims to be a girl but was born a boy?” says the narrator.

Mr. Biden and Sen. Gary Peters, Michigan Democrat, support “legislation that would destroy girls’ sports. They call it equality. Really? That’s not fair,” the ad says.

Mr. Peters, who is seeking reelection, is a co-sponsor of the Equality Act, which would prohibit K-12 and college athletic programs from discriminating against transgender students by removing restrictions on allowing biological males to compete as females.

Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone said that the ad was evaluated “by an independent, third-party fact-checking partner of Facebook‘s,” referring to PolitiFact, which concluded that the ad’s claim that the bill would “destroy girls’ sports” could not be proven nor disproven.

“Their specific criticism is that allowing transgender girls and women to compete on the basis of their gender identity would create an uneven playing field for student [athletes] and ultimately end girls’ and women’s sports,” said PolitiFact in its Tuesday analysis. “That’s a prediction we can’t fact-check.”

Peters press secretary C.J. Warnke called the ad “a blatant attempt to mislead voters and distort the truth about the Equality Act.”

Mr. Stone pointed to Facebook’s policy on “missing context,” which is one basis for removing an ad.

“When content is assessed by a fact-checker to be missing context (or false, partly false or altered) … it cannot be run as an ad,” Mr. Stone said in an email.

Mr. Schilling emphasized that the ad has not been found to be inaccurate.

“It would be understandable, though still very troubling, if Facebook removed an ad for being ‘fact-checked’ as false,” said Mr. Schilling. “However, our ad has not been found false by any fact-checker, nor could it be.”

[Drlee]

Hooray for Facebook.

I do not believe that male athletes should compete against female athletes. Where was this organization when dozens of high school football teams allowed female athletes to compete?

How about this for a change. How about the republicans stop the voter suppression, open racism and hit piece ads and start talking about the issues? How about the tell us about the president's wonderful health care plan.

Nope. They rely on fake news.

[Doug64]

While pretty much everything else has been overshadowed for the moment by Justice Ginsburg’s death, though I don’t expect that to last. The truth is this could turn out to be a disaster for the Democrats, especially if there are riots over this on top of the rest. The Biden campaign desperately needs to keep the focus on the Wuhan pandemic, because otherwise there are going to be a lot of voters focusing on the violence and economy instead, and a massive amount of attention on something that’s going to be over one way or another before the end of the year isn’t going to help that.

Meanwhile, the elections go on with news you aren’t like to hear or read in the MSM(D) except possibly in passing, about Leftist hopes for a Biden presidency and a couple of the lies that Biden told during his CNN town hall meeting:

Ocasio-Cortez says Biden can be pushed 'in a more progressive direction' once he's elected

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in a new interview she’s confident that Democratic socialists like herself can push Joe Biden “in a more progressive direction” once he’s elected to the White House.

Speaking to Just the News in an interview Tuesday, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said she shares Sen. Bernie Sanders’ view that Mr. Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, should focus his message on more progressive issues like climate change and Medicare for all ahead of the election.

“Of course I do,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said. “We’re different people, and clearly I, in the primary, one of the reasons why I was supportive of Senator Sanders was because of how progressive his stances are, but, you know, the primaries are over, and right now what is most important is to make sure that we ensure a Democratic victory in November and that we continue to push Vice President Biden on issues from marijuana to climate change to foreign policy.”

“I think, overall, we can likely push Vice President Biden in a more progressive direction across policy issues,” she continued. “I think foreign policy is an enormous area where we can improve; immigration is another one.

“There are some areas where we just fundamentally disagree, but that’s okay,” she added. “I think it’s important to acknowledge that we can have, in some cases, very large disagreements — it doesn’t mean that we’re trying to undermine the party or undermine each other. It means that we’re trying to do what’s best for people in the country.”

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez cited marijuana legalization as an issue with which she disagrees with the former vice president.

“One perfect example is that I believe in the legalization of marijuana, not just decriminalization, but full legalization, regulation, etc.,” she said. “But, you know, we will hash those out. Our main priority is to make sure that the vice president is successful and victorious in November so that we can have those kinds of conversations in the first place from a more effective stance with him in the White House.”

CNN quiet as Biden claims nobody would have died from virus if Trump had 'done his job'

Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden declared at Thursday’s CNN town hall that nobody would have died from the novel coronavirus if President Trump had “done his job,” a whopper that CNN anchor Anderson Cooper let slide.

“And if the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive,” Mr. Biden said at the town hall. “All the people — I’m not making this up, just look at the data. Look at the data.”

He was immediately challenged on social media by right-of-center commentators and fact-checks by news outlets, notably The Washington Post, which concluded, “Actually, Biden is making this up.”

“There is no data to support this, even if the president had moved rapidly in January to deal with the coronavirus and been able to persuade the Chinese leadership to be more forthcoming about the situation,” said the Post fact-check.

During the event, however, Mr. Cooper did not question Mr. Biden’s claim, a sharp contrast from Wednesday’s appearance by Mr. Trump with ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, who repeatedly took issue with the president’s statements.

Mr. Cooper has made no secret of his anti-Trump views, while Mr. Stephanopoulos is a former Clinton White House communications director. Mr. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

CNN followed up with an online fact-check debunking five remarks made by Mr. Biden, such as his declaration that he would be the first president without an Ivy League degree, but did not dispute the “all the people would still be alive” statement.

A CNN fact-check of the ABC event said that Mr. Trump made 22 “false or misleading statements,” such as his claim that he placed a “ban” on travel from China, which CNN pointed out made exemptions for U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

“[Mr. Trump] responded to a series of tough questions from Pennsylvania voters, and some more from moderator George Stephanopoulos, much like he responds to easy questions from his favorite conservative television hosts — with a barrage of dishonesty,” said CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale.

The CNN town hall held at PNC field in Moosic, Pennsylvania, was panned on the right for serving up softballs to Mr. Biden, with the conservative Media Research Center’s NewsBusters calling it a “cakewalk” versus the ABC “ambush” of Mr. Trump.

The novel coronavirus has killed more than 198,000 Americans and nearly 947,000 people worldwide since emerging from China late last year, according to the Johns Hopkins University tracker.

Joe Biden repeats debunked claim about being first in his family to attend college

Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden was on a roll during Thursday’s CNN town hall as he played up his working-class roots, until he repeated the long-debunked claim about being the first person in his family to attend college.

“Like, guys like me, were the first in my family to go to college,” said Mr. Biden after being asked about White privilege, adding, “We are as good as anybody else. And guys like Trump, who inherited everything and squandered what they inherited are the people that I’ve always had a problem with, not the people who are busting their neck.’

The Trump campaign was quick to flag the line, which Mr. Biden himself admitted was untrue in 1987 after his presidential campaign unraveled in a plagiarism scandal that saw him lift the remark from a speech by British Labour Party Leader Neil Kinnock.

“Joe Biden resurrected an old lie tonight, claiming he was ‘the first in my family to go to college,’” tweeted the Trump War Room. “In fact, Biden was forced to admit in 1987 after he plagiarized a British politician that that was not true.”

The incident drew attention to Mr. Biden’s history of plagiarism, both on the campaign trail and at Syracuse law school, as well as his penchant for embellishing the details of his personal life for dramatic effect.

He falsely claimed in 1987 exchange on the campaign trail in New Hampshire that he graduated in the top half of his law-school class—he graduated 76th out of 85—and that he attended on a full academic scholarship, although it turned out to be a half-scholarship based on financial need.

“Biden came clean about his plagiarism, his dishonesty about his academic record, and the fact that he was not the first person in his family to attend college back in [1987],” said the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway in a Friday op-ed. “He even addressed the scandal, which forced him out of the presidential race, in a subsequent book. It is unclear why he has resurrected one of the false claims that got him in so much trouble 33 years ago.”

She also noted that several reporters praised Mr. Biden’s “first in my family” comment at the town hall, with Politico’s Tim Alberta tweeting Thursday that it “might be the single-most effective line deployed against Trump since he rode down the escalator.”

Mr. Biden’s 1988 Democratic presidential primary bid foundered after he said in a speech, “why is it that Joe Biden is the first person in his family ever to go to a university?” Reporters pointed out that Mr. Kinnock said earlier that year, “Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to a university?”

Mr. Biden later admitted that the claim was untrue in a 1987 interview with the New York Times.

“For example, borrowing Mr. Kinnock’s sentiments, Mr. Biden had said he was ‘the first in his family ever to go to university.’ In fact, Mr. Biden said today, ‘there are Finnegans, my mother’s family, that went to college,’” the newspaper reported.

Mr. Biden released law-school records showing that he lifted five pages from a published law-review article for a paper without adequate citation, according to 1987 news reports. He described the mistake as inadvertent.

[Drlee]

Mr. Biden released law-school records showing that he lifted five pages from a published law-review article for a paper without adequate citation, according to 1987 news reports. He described the mistake as inadvertent.

This is what you have?

Yea. I mean in the face of this we can ignore:

"Grab 'em by the pussy".

Paying off hookers.

Attending Golden Shower clubs.

Calling his followers stupid.

Allowing 200K needless deaths through his inaction.

Sucking up to Putin.

Sucking up to Kim

Sucking up to that Turkish twit.

Lying about every imaginable thing.

Calling his opponents wife ugly.

Pardoning a political ally who was convicted of multiple felonies.

Singlehandedly setting the country on a disastrous course WRT the environment.

Had to pay millions to the people he bilked out of their hard won savings in the Trump University scandal.

Yea. Biden must be the devil.


Fucking idiots. Spare no effort in alibiing immoral/illegal/ treasonous behavior.

Meanwhile in Florida, a Trump supporter who is even more idiotic than the rest of them, owner of a sports bar.....Refuses to allow mask wearing in his bar. And what does Moscow Mitch want? He wants a bill that protects business owners from law suits for their dangerous behavior even in the face of evidence that a 3 year old could understand. But then this is Florida where there is, and is this a surprise, a republican governor who could not lead a rope.