These f king demorats

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,803
Reaction score
4,301
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
The same folk that are decrying a national policy would be the loudest most outspoken about the president overstepping his ground in dictating states policy.

You know it. Be man or woman enough to step up and admit it.
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,803
Reaction score
4,301
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
Maxine Waters.

Had to think whether this deserves its own thread or simply be “Example A of these FVCKING Democrats”.

In the immortal words of Fred Sanford “you’re so ugly they use your face to make gorilla cookies!”

Doesn’t cite a single thing, other than her own disliking.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...e-25th-amendment-to-remove-trump-from-office/

Maxine Waters: Use 25th Amendment to Remove Trump from Office

Pam Key16 Aug 2020
2:42

Saturday on MSNBC, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) called on President Donald Trump to be removed from office by applying the 25th Amendment.

According to Section 4 of that amendment, the president can be removed if he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

When asked about Trump’s attacks on Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Waters said, “The president of the United States of America is unbelievably divisive. The president lies. He’s pitting people against each other, going back to the old birther argument that they attempted to use against Obama. This is a president that is the most deplorable human being that I have ever encountered in my life. And he’s undermining our democracy. We cannot take any more of this president. This president is not only attacking the person that was just appointed or selected by Biden to be his vice president, and he is not hesitant to do it. This man has no shame. The name-calling, he called her nasty, on and on and on. I don’t know how much more the American people can take.”

She continued:

As a matter of fact, when you couple that with what he’s doing, undermining our democracy, tearing up our post office, I believe that it is time for Section 4 of Amendment 25 to be put in place and his cabinet should send to Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, as identified in the Constitution, that this man should be removed from office. Section 25 should be put in place. He is dangerous. He is tearing up, again, this country, undermining our democracy. And I want to tell you something, I’m getting more complaints about what he’s doing to the post office than I have on any other issue in my district. He cannot have our post office. He cannot do this. we’ve got to stop him.”

I’m not even supportive of just having a hearing. I want to have an injunction against the president based on all the actions that he has taken that is so obvious that it is political, that he is trying to destroy the post office because he believes that mail-in voting, absentee voting will defeat him and he will do anything. It was referred to by one of my friends as the scorched earth approach. This president will do anything to try and stay in office. So I think we need to get right to the court with an injunction. I will be talking with the speaker about that today. He has demonstrated that he is undermining the democracy. It is in defiance of the Constitution and I want him to be stopped. I don’t think a hearing is enough. I think that we need to go directly to the courts and try to get an injunction against any more movements by him.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
1,267
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
Maxine Waters.

Had to think whether this deserves its own thread or simply be “Example A of these FVCKING Democrats”.

In the immortal words of Fred Sanford “you’re so ugly they use your face to make gorilla cookies!”

Doesn’t cite a single thing, other than her own disliking.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...e-25th-amendment-to-remove-trump-from-office/

Maxine Waters: Use 25th Amendment to Remove Trump from Office

Pam Key16 Aug 2020
2:42

Saturday on MSNBC, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) called on President Donald Trump to be removed from office by applying the 25th Amendment.

According to Section 4 of that amendment, the president can be removed if he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

When asked about Trump’s attacks on Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Waters said, “The president of the United States of America is unbelievably divisive. The president lies. He’s pitting people against each other, going back to the old birther argument that they attempted to use against Obama. This is a president that is the most deplorable human being that I have ever encountered in my life. And he’s undermining our democracy. We cannot take any more of this president. This president is not only attacking the person that was just appointed or selected by Biden to be his vice president, and he is not hesitant to do it. This man has no shame. The name-calling, he called her nasty, on and on and on. I don’t know how much more the American people can take.”

She continued:

As a matter of fact, when you couple that with what he’s doing, undermining our democracy, tearing up our post office, I believe that it is time for Section 4 of Amendment 25 to be put in place and his cabinet should send to Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, as identified in the Constitution, that this man should be removed from office. Section 25 should be put in place. He is dangerous. He is tearing up, again, this country, undermining our democracy. And I want to tell you something, I’m getting more complaints about what he’s doing to the post office than I have on any other issue in my district. He cannot have our post office. He cannot do this. we’ve got to stop him.”

I’m not even supportive of just having a hearing. I want to have an injunction against the president based on all the actions that he has taken that is so obvious that it is political, that he is trying to destroy the post office because he believes that mail-in voting, absentee voting will defeat him and he will do anything. It was referred to by one of my friends as the scorched earth approach. This president will do anything to try and stay in office. So I think we need to get right to the court with an injunction. I will be talking with the speaker about that today. He has demonstrated that he is undermining the democracy. It is in defiance of the Constitution and I want him to be stopped. I don’t think a hearing is enough. I think that we need to go directly to the courts and try to get an injunction against any more movements by him.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

This 25th Amendment thing is the, I hope and think the last ditch effort that the left is pushing. They really have nowhere else to go.

Everything else they have used to take him down was utter BS and failed miserably for them
 

AnOldTroll

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
4,582
Reaction score
1,068
Points
113
Location
America's Finest City
Maxine Waters.

Had to think whether this deserves its own thread or simply be “Example A of these FVCKING Democrats”.

In the immortal words of Fred Sanford “you’re so ugly they use your face to make gorilla cookies!”

Doesn’t cite a single thing, other than her own disliking.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...e-25th-amendment-to-remove-trump-from-office/

Maxine Waters: Use 25th Amendment to Remove Trump from Office

Pam Key16 Aug 2020
2:42

Saturday on MSNBC, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) called on President Donald Trump to be removed from office by applying the 25th Amendment.

According to Section 4 of that amendment, the president can be removed if he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

When asked about Trump’s attacks on Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Waters said, “The president of the United States of America is unbelievably divisive. The president lies. He’s pitting people against each other, going back to the old birther argument that they attempted to use against Obama. This is a president that is the most deplorable human being that I have ever encountered in my life. And he’s undermining our democracy. We cannot take any more of this president. This president is not only attacking the person that was just appointed or selected by Biden to be his vice president, and he is not hesitant to do it. This man has no shame. The name-calling, he called her nasty, on and on and on. I don’t know how much more the American people can take.”

She continued:

As a matter of fact, when you couple that with what he’s doing, undermining our democracy, tearing up our post office, I believe that it is time for Section 4 of Amendment 25 to be put in place and his cabinet should send to Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, as identified in the Constitution, that this man should be removed from office. Section 25 should be put in place. He is dangerous. He is tearing up, again, this country, undermining our democracy. And I want to tell you something, I’m getting more complaints about what he’s doing to the post office than I have on any other issue in my district. He cannot have our post office. He cannot do this. we’ve got to stop him.”

I’m not even supportive of just having a hearing. I want to have an injunction against the president based on all the actions that he has taken that is so obvious that it is political, that he is trying to destroy the post office because he believes that mail-in voting, absentee voting will defeat him and he will do anything. It was referred to by one of my friends as the scorched earth approach. This president will do anything to try and stay in office. So I think we need to get right to the court with an injunction. I will be talking with the speaker about that today. He has demonstrated that he is undermining the democracy. It is in defiance of the Constitution and I want him to be stopped. I don’t think a hearing is enough. I think that we need to go directly to the courts and try to get an injunction against any more movements by him.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

It boggles my mind how any american citizen cannot see what the hell is going on. Well, except for maybe Mr. NFL.

But it's not just the Dems. They can't be that fucked up.

https://youtu.be/sMLNbLohcMM
 

BostonTim

IIWII
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
33,712
Reaction score
5,102
Points
113
Age
73
[Waters]"This is a president that is the most deplorable human being that I have ever encountered in my life. "

Guarantee it'll be a cheap one. but please accept my offer to buy you a mirror.

Cheers
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,803
Reaction score
4,301
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
Brace yourselves for the next Dem attempt.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...er-plot-against-trump-hillary-clinton-player/

Yet Another Plot Against Trump Starring Key Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Player

Matthew Boyle16 Aug 2020
President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at his Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., Saturday, Aug. 15. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
AP Photo/Susan Walsh
13:07

Deep state actors are again making moves against President Donald Trump, this time coming after the president through a line of attack against U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom Woody Johnson.

Johnson’s former civil service deputy, Lewis Lukens, who served as the acting ambassador until Johnson was confirmed, has made a number of unsubstantiated allegations against Johnson — and Trump — that even the British government has denied. Nonetheless, expect Lukens — whose history at the State Department is riddled with a history of problems, including his role in helping create former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server setup — to be a new star to the Democrats as they move, sources familiar with the matter told Breitbart News, to bring Lukens in for a committee hearing on whatever grievances he has to air against the Trump administration. House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) has also called on Johnson to testify before his committee about media reports that Lukens has been at the center of in recent weeks.

The story really starts at the beginning of former President Barack Obama’s administration when Lukens was involved in the lead-up to Clinton’s confirmation as Secretary of State by helping set up her email server.

A May 2016 report from the Washington Examiner noted that Lukens was deposed by Judicial Watch — the first Clinton official to be deposed in the lawsuit over Clinton’s emails from the conservative group — on May 18, 2016.

“Lewis Lukens, former executive secretary at the State Department, was deposed by Judicial Watch on May 18 for his role in setting up office space and making other logistical arrangements ahead of Clinton’s transition to the agency in 2009,” Sarah Westwood wrote in the Examiner on May 26, 2016. “Lukens said he did not believe the State Department ever provided Clinton with a computer for her office, while the agency did assign former Secretary of State Colin Powell a computer. Clinton has often cited Powell’s occasional use of private email as evidence that her digital communications were similar to her predecessors’.”

Lukens had joined the foreign service in 1989 and served in a variety of roles in different places around the globe. His role from 2008 to 2011 as the Executive Secretariat at the State Department put him in direct proximity to Clinton, the woman who would later become the 2016 Democrat presidential nominee and who many on the left thought would be president.

After his time working directly in Clinton’s orbit for several years, Lukens was rewarded with the post of U.S. Ambassador to Senegal and Guinea-Bissau, small countries in West Africa. After serving as ambassador there for three years — from 2011 to 2014 — he was again rewarded with a plum post in London as Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Embassy to the United Kingdom from August 2016 to early 2019. It would have been an easy move for Clinton, had she won the election, to elevate her former close aide from the State Department to be the full-time U.S. Ambassador to the U.K., but Clinton lost — and the broader international global left also lost in the U.K. in 2016 when British voters backed leaving the European Union. Both Brexit in the U.K. and Trump’s election in the U.S. upended those plans, allowing Trump to nominate his political ally Johnson to the coveted ambassadorship to one of America’s strongest and oldest allies.

In the meantime, after Trump won and before Johnson was confirmed to the role of ambassador by the U.S. Senate, Lukens served as acting U.S. Ambassador in the U.K. and regularly butted heads with Trump. Lukens, for instance, tweeted support — as acting ambassador — for London Mayor Sadiq Khan when Trump was criticizing his handling of a terrorist attack. Trump had been criticizing Khan’s handling of the attack on Twitter when Lukens decided to undercut the administration for which he was supposed to be serving as an acting ambassador and instead sent out a formal statement of support for Khan, saying, “I commend the strong leadership” of Khan.

Once Johnson, a billionaire Trump ally, co-owner of the New York Jets, and heir to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune, was confirmed by the Senate to be the full-time U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. in August 2017, Lukens did not leave the government but instead stayed in the embassy in London.

During the time in which he stayed — which is normal for most career foreign service officials but for someone as politically connected to Clinton as Lukens was seemed slightly odd — Lukens appears to have been attempting to undercut Trump and Johnson from the get-go.

He waited, gathered information, and then made a move in the past few months to come after Trump and Johnson with everything he could. It started with a New York Times story in July in which Lukens claimed that Johnson was told to try to pressure British government officials to secure the British Open at Trump’s Scotland golf course, Turnberry.

Maggie Hagerman, Lara Jakes, and Mark Landler wrote in the Times story in mid-July:

The American ambassador to Britain, Robert Wood Johnson IV, told multiple colleagues in February 2018 that President Trump had asked him to see if the British government could help steer the world-famous and lucrative British Open golf tournament to the Trump Turnberry resort in Scotland, according to three people with knowledge of the episode.

The ambassador’s deputy, Lewis A. Lukens, advised him not to do it, warning that it would be an unethical use of the presidency for private gain, these people said. But Mr. Johnson apparently felt pressured to try. A few weeks later, he raised the idea of Turnberry playing host to the Open with the secretary of state for Scotland, David Mundell.

In a brief interview last week, Mr. Mundell said it was “inappropriate” for him to discuss his dealings with Mr. Johnson and referred to a British government statement that said Mr. Johnson “made no request of Mr. Mundell regarding the British Open or any other sporting event.” The statement did not address whether the ambassador had broached the issue of Turnberry, which Mr. Trump bought in 2014, but none of the next four Opens are scheduled to be played there.

Still, the episode left Mr. Lukens and other diplomats deeply unsettled. Mr. Lukens, who served as the acting ambassador before Mr. Johnson arrived in November 2017, emailed officials at the State Department to tell them what had happened, colleagues said. A few months later, Mr. Johnson forced out Mr. Lukens, a career diplomat who had earlier served as ambassador to Senegal, shortly before his term was to end.

Both Trump himself and the British government have denied this all together. “No, I never spoke to Woody Johnson about that, about Turnberry,” Trump said at a press conference the next day in response to the Times story. “Turnberry is a highly respected course, as you know, one of the best in the world, and I read a story about it today. I never spoke to Woody Johnson about doing that, no.”

The British government’s Scotland Office said in a statement, too, that Johnson never made such a request. “Johnson made no request of [the official] regarding the British Open or any other sporting event,” the formal British government statement said.

Meanwhile, a CNN report released right around the time of that original New York Times story claimed that Johnson was under investigation by the State Department Inspector General for the alleged Turnberry incident that all sides deny and for alleged racist and sexist comments that he denies having made.

A couple of weeks later in early August, Lukens made an appearance on Rachel Maddow’s program on MSNBC for an interview she aggressively hyped as an “interview I’ve been looking forward to for a very long time.”

“I did not know that we were going to be able to get it, and when I found out we got it — I, anyway, I feel honored to have this interview tonight and I hope that you will watch it,” Maddow said as she brought on Lukens.

During the interview, he made basically the same claims that were made in the establishment media reports — even saying that the media reports were correct. In the second part of the interview, Maddow alleged there has been “a cover-up effort trying to keep this scandal from coming to light,” and asked Lukens if he knew for a fact if the Inspector General for the State Department was investigating it. He replied that the Inspector General’s team was there in London last October for several weeks. He said that while he did not speak with investigators, “this issue was raised with them as well as several other allegations as CNN and others have reported on.” Lukens claimed it was odd that a report from the Inspector General had not been released publicly yet, almost a year later, but that he was unsure if the delay was related to the termination of State Department Inspector General Steve Linick.

A week after Lukens’ appearance on Maddow, the State Department Inspector General published the report. It turns out the report was not a formal investigation but a routine inspection of the embassy. As is standard practice, every few years the Inspector General does a scheduled inspection of every embassy. The report makes no mention of the now-denied-by-everybody alleged Turnberry request incident, and as for allegations that Johnson made sexist or racist comments, the report is fairly dismissive of that allegation in general.

What the report does make clear is Lukens’ ineffectiveness and that his replacement as Deputy Chief of Mission — Yael Lempert — is much more effective.

“When the Ambassador arrived at Embassy London in late summer 2017, he assumed responsibility from the previous DCM who had served as Chargé d’Affaires for approximately 7 months,” the Inspector General wrote. “OIG learned that the relationship between the Ambassador and the former DCM deteriorated during the year that they worked together, affecting mission morale and ending in the DCM’s reassignment. Based on interviews with embassy staff, OIG concluded that the Ambassador did not always model the Department’s leadership and management principles as contained in 3 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 1214 and, in particular, 3 FAM 1214b(4) and (6) regarding communication and self-awareness. For example, some embassy staff told OIG that when the Ambassador was frustrated with what he interpreted to be excessive staff caution or resistance to suggestions about which he felt strongly, he sometimes questioned their intentions or implied that he might have them replaced. This caused staff to grow wary of providing him with their best judgment. With the arrival of the current DCM, chosen by the Ambassador, staff generally reported to OIG that they saw better communication from the Front Office and an increased confidence from the Ambassador in the mission’s staff.”

It did say, regarding the allegations, that CNN reported the Department of State should conduct a “more thorough review” but that nothing rose to the level of warranting immediate or decisive action.

“OIG also found that some staff were impacted by the Ambassador’s demanding, hard driving work style and it had a negative effect on morale in some embassy sections,” the Inspector General wrote. “In addition, OIG learned, through employee questionnaires and interviews, that the ambassador sometimes made inappropriate or insensitive comments on topics generally considered Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)-sensitive, such as religion, sex, or color. According to 3 FAM 1526.1, offensive or derogatory comments, based on an individual’s race, color, sex, or religion, can create an offensive working environment and could potentially rise to a violation of EEO laws. Based on the information that OIG learned during the inspection, and pursuant to the requirements in 3 FAM 1526.2, a more thorough review by the Department is warranted.”

All of these allegations against Johnson and Trump collapsing is why the most interesting part of Maddow’s interview with Lukens was perhaps not what Lukens said but the fact that Maddow identified his current position as a senior partner at Signum Global Advisers now that he has left the government.

In late July, the Washington Free Beacon’s Andrew Stiles wrote a piece about Lukens that exposed the fact that Signum is deeply connected to high levels of the Democrat Party.

“Following his dismissal from the U.S. Embassy in London, Lukens became a senior partner at Signum Global Advisors,” Stiles wrote. “The consulting firm’s founder, investment banker Charles Myers, is a longtime Democratic donor who advised Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign in 2016 and is currently a bundler for the Biden Victory Fund. Myers recently expressed confidence that Biden’s efforts to court Bernie Sanders supporters would not stop a Biden administration from nominating Wall Street executives to senior cabinet positions. Last month, Lukens and Myers coauthored a note to Signum’s clients predicting that Democrats would regain control of the Senate in 2021.”
 

AkPatsFan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
6,655
Reaction score
740
Points
113
Location
Eagle River, Ak
These treasonous fucks need to be put down, with extreme prejudice. Can you imagine what this country would be like if Hilary had won? It would be 1 party elections and eventually we'd be ruled by a dictators.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,619
Reaction score
2,380
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Maxine Waters.

~snip~

Byron York had this to say about the Post Office hysteria.

A reality-based look at Trump and the post office

The news is filled with reports of President Trump's "assault" on the U.S. Postal Service. The president, Democrats and some in the media say, is deliberately slowing mail delivery and crippling the Postal Service so that it cannot handle an anticipated flood of voting by mail in the presidential election. Former President Barack Obama said Trump is trying to "actively kneecap" the Postal Service to suppress the vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called the House back into session this week and has set an "urgent hearing" for Aug. 24, demanding Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and the head of the Postal Service Board of Governors testify "to address the sabotage of the Postal Service."

Some of the accusations have grown so frantic that they resemble the frenzy of a couple of years ago over the allegation, from many of the same people, that Trump had conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election. Now, it's the Postal Service. But what actually is going on? Here is a brief look at some of the issues involved.

142.5 billion pieces of mail

The idea that the Postal Service will not be able to handle the volume of mail in the election, or not be able to handle it within normal Postal Service time guidelines, does not make much sense. According to its most recent annual report, last year, in fiscal year 2019, the Postal Service handled 142.5 billion pieces of mail. "On a typical day, our 633,000 employees physically process and deliver 471 million mailpieces to nearly 160 million delivery points," the report says. This year, that number is higher, given the Postal Service's delivery of census forms and stimulus checks. Those alone added about 450 million additional pieces of mail.

In 2016, about 136 million Americans voted in the presidential election. The number will probably be a bit higher this year. If officials sent ballots to every single American registered to vote, about 158 million people, and then 140 million people returned ballots, the roughly 298 million pieces of mail handled over the course of several weeks would be well within the Postal Service's ability to handle. Of course, officials will not send a ballot to every American registered to vote, and not every voter will vote by mail. Whatever the final number is, the ballots that are cast by mail will not cripple a system that delivers 471 million pieces of mail every day.

There are, of course, compelling examples of election dysfunction, most notably the mess New York made of some of its congressional primaries this summer. But rather than representing a Postal Service problem, that was because some states are unprepared for a dramatic increase of voting by mail. The states have to prepare the ballots, address them, and process and count them when the Postal Service delivers them. That is the focus of the entirely legitimate fears of a possible vote-counting disaster this year. But it's not the Postal Service.

$25 billion for what?

Some news reports have left the impression that the Postal Service will not be able to handle mail-in ballots without an immediate infusion of money from Congress. That is not the case.

The Postal Service is not funded by a regular appropriation. It is, instead, an "independent agency" and is expected to support itself, beyond a yearly appropriation of about $55 million to cover the costs of mail for the blind and overseas balloting in elections.

The Postal Service has lost money for a very long time. In fiscal year 2019, it had operating revenues of $71.1 billion and operating expenses of $79.9 billion, leaving it with a deficit of $8.8 billion. At the moment, Postal Service officials have told Congress, it has about $14 billion in cash on hand, putting it on the road to fiscal insolvency (without further aid) in late 2021.

In the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, the $2 trillion relief measure passed in March, Congress gave the Postal Service a $10 billion borrowing authority. After the bill became law, there were negotiations between the Postal Service and the Treasury Department on the terms of the borrowing; a deal was announced in July. The ability to borrow $10 billion, the postmaster general said, would "delay the approaching liquidity crisis."

That was all the aid for the Postal Service in the CARES Act. Completely separately, the bill also gave $400 million to something called the Election Assistance Commission for distribution to states to "prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, for the 2020 federal election cycle."
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,619
Reaction score
2,380
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Part two

The next mega-relief package, a $3 trillion bill known as the Health and Economic Recover Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, or HEROES Act, was passed by the House in May by a vote of 208 to 199. The winning total of 208 votes was comprised of 207 Democrats and one Republican. Fourteen Democrats and one independent voted against the measure. The bill has so far gone nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.

The House HEROES Act would give $25 billion to the Postal Service in what is essentially a bailout. The bill mentions nothing about helping the Postal Service handle the upcoming election or any other election. Indeed, the only stipulation at all placed on the $25 billion is that the Postal Service, "during the coronavirus emergency, shall prioritize the purchase of, and make available to all Postal Service employees and facilities, personal protective equipment, including gloves, masks, and sanitizers, and shall conduct additional cleaning and sanitizing of Postal Service facilities and delivery vehicles." If the House Democrats who wrote and passed the bill intended the money to be spent specifically for elections, they did not say so in the text of the legislation.

Separate from the Postal Service provisions, the bill would give $3.6 billion to the Election Assistance Commission for distribution to states "for contingency planning, preparation, and resilience of elections for federal office." There has been some confusion about that; some discussion of the current controversy has left the impression that Democrats want $3.6 billion for the Postal Service for the election. In fact, the $3.6 billion would be for the states' election use. In neither the CARES Act, which is now law, nor the HEROES Act, which has been passed by the House but not the Senate, is there any money given to the Postal Service specifically for the election. In any event, the Postal Service has the capacity to handle the election and does not need any additional money specifically to do the job.

The latest reform proposal

Whatever its other concerns at the moment, the Postal Service does have chronic financial problems. This year, Trump chose DeJoy, who made a fortune in shipping and logistics and whose former company was a contractor of the Postal Service for many years, as the new postmaster general. (DeJoy is also a major donor to Republicans and the Trump campaign.) DeJoy has attempted to deal with some of the Postal Service's systemic problems with a pilot program to make deliveries more efficient while reducing the Postal Service's crippling overtime costs, which added up to more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2018.

In the past, postal delivery worked this way: A worker would arrive in the morning and work on various things in the office — sorting mail, handling holds on mail, waiting for incoming mail to arrive to prepare for delivery. That often involved waiting around for hours and then starting an actual delivery route later in the day. Once started, a route has to be finished, and that involved workers going into overtime as they delivered through their route as evening approached.

DeJoy's plan, now being implemented in a pilot program in about 200 cities, is called Expedited to Street/Afternoon Sortation, or ESAS. Under it, a worker would arrive in the morning, collect all the mail that was ready to go out, and head out for delivery — "retrieve, load, and go." Then, after finishing the delivery route, the carrier would return to the office and do in the afternoon the office work that used to be done in the morning. That way, when the end of his or her shift arrived, that would be the end of the workday, with no overtime incurred. Mail that arrived to the office in the afternoon, while the carrier was doing office work, would be delivered in the next morning's route. It would be ready and waiting when the carrier arrived for "retrieve, load, and go."

The effect to customers would be that mail that was delivered to the office in the afternoon would be delivered the next morning, instead of that evening. The effect to the Postal Service would be to save an enormous amount of money in overtime.

In addition, there have been reports of the Postal Service removing collection boxes and sorting machines. While some Democrats and journalists have portrayed that as another effort toward voter suppression, the fact is the number of letters the Postal Service handles each year has declined for 20 years since the arrival of email. In those last two decades, the Postal Service has downsized its capabilities as the number of letters handled has decreased. Here is how the Washington Post described the situation, specifically concerning sorting machines: "Purchased when letters not packages made up a greater share of postal work, the bulky and aging machines can be expensive to maintain and take up floor space postal leaders say would be better devoted to boxes. Removing underused machines would make the overall system more efficient, postal leaders say. The Postal Service has cut back on mail-sorting equipment for years since mail volume began to decline in the 2000s."

Some Democrats have characterized the current reform efforts, much needed in an agency losing so much money, as part of the president's master plan to steal the election. But together, the Expedited to Street/Afternoon Sortation program and the cutback in sorting capacity would seem to be reasonable measures of the type the Postal Service needs to implement, and indeed has been implementing over the years. Yet this is what Democrats, and some of their allies in the press, have labeled as an "assault" on the Postal Service.

Nightmare scenarios

Many news accounts have included stories of Americans suffering from interruptions in Postal Service deliveries. For example, a story in the New York Times headlined "Postal Crisis Ripples Across Nation As Election Looms" included the story of Victoria Brownworth, a freelance journalist in Philadelphia. "For Ms. Brownworth, who was paralyzed four years ago, the mail is her lifeline," the New York Times said, "delivering prescriptions and checks and mail-in ballots to her Philadelphia home. But that lifeline has snapped. She said she had received mail just twice in the past three weeks, and she dreaded November's election, worried that her ballot would suffer the same fate as the oxygen tube that she ordered three weeks ago — and that had still not arrived."

Other news reports have included many other examples. They are largely, if not entirely, anecdotal. While each is serious for the person involved, at the moment, it is impossible to tell how much of a national problem they represent. People who keep track of the Postal Service suspect that many of the stories are rooted in workforce availability problems related to the coronavirus pandemic, plus the changes in operations (for example, closing a facility to clean it during an outbreak) that have become part of life during the pandemic. The Postal Service would not be the only large organization that has found it impossible to operate as usual during the crisis.

There is also the fact that the Postal Service does, on occasion, fail to deliver the mail. In its annual reports, it includes data on "performance outcomes." For example, for first-class mail, which is the type of mail that would be most employed for election purposes, the goal in fiscal year 2019 was to deliver 96% of letters in one to three business days. Its actual performance was 92%. So 8% of first-class letters were not delivered on time. Now, consider that the Postal Service handled 54.9 billion pieces of first-class mail in fiscal year 2019. That is more than 4 billion pieces of first-class mail that were not delivered on time. And that, in a fraught political situation, could be the basis for a lot of anecdotes in news articles.

Many of those anecdotes, by the way, appear to have made it to the media with the help of the Postal Service unions. There are two major unions representing Postal Service workers. On Friday, the largest postal union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, endorsed Democratic candidate Joe Biden for president. In June, another union, the American Postal Workers Union, endorsed Biden as well. In 2016, both unions endorsed Hillary Clinton. In 2008 and 2012, both unions endorsed Barack Obama. In 2004, they endorsed John Kerry. And so on.

One more note about delivery times. A few days ago, the Washington Post published a story headlined "Postal Service warns 46 states their voters could be disenfranchised by delayed mail-in ballots." The paper obtained letters from Postal Service leadership to various states informing them that some of their election deadlines are "incongruous with the Postal Service's delivery standards." The resulting "mismatch," the Postal Service said, "creates a risk that ballots requested near the deadline under state law will not be returned by mail in time to be counted under your laws as we understand them." In other words, several states are not giving the Postal Service long enough to deliver a ballot to a voter and then deliver the filled-in ballot to the state election board. For example, if a state's law allows a voter to request a ballot seven days before the general election but also requires that votes must be received by election day to be counted — that would be a recipe for a lot of votes not being counted. It was an entirely reasonable concern on the part of the Postal Service, and it is a problem more for the states than the Postal Service. Yet media discussion of the story suggested it was just another chapter in what one source in the Washington Post account called "the weaponization of the U.S. Postal Service for the president's electoral purposes."
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,619
Reaction score
2,380
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
part three

Trump confuses everything

Despite the heated rhetoric, many of the Postal Service's problems are relatively clear, if extremely difficult to solve. In the context of the upcoming election, Trump has repeatedly added confusion to the situation, most recently with extended discussions in a television interview on Thursday and a press conference on Friday.

In the press conference, Trump was asked, "If the Democrats were to give you some of what you want ... would you be willing to accept the $25 billion for the Postal Service, including the three and a half billion dollars to handle mail-in voting?" As has happened many times in this controversy, the question conflated the Democrats' proposal for $25 billion for the Postal Service and the request for $3.6 billion for the Election Assistance Commission. In any event, Trump answered, "Sure, if they give us what we want." He then began to elaborate on other policy priorities.

"So, if they were to give you that, you would sign off for the money for the Postal Service?"

"Yeah, but they're not giving it to me," Trump said. "They're giving it to the American people."

"But if they were to agree to that — "

"Yeah, I would," Trump said. "I would certainly do that. Sure, I would do that. Yeah."

The next day, Friday, Trump spoke to Fox News's Maria Bartiromo. "They [Democrats] want $3.5 billion for the mail-in votes, OK, universal mail-in ballots, $3.5 billion," Trump said. "They want $25 billion for the post office. Now, they need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. Now in the meantime, they aren't getting there. By the way, those are just two items. But if they don't get those two items, that means you can't have universal mail-in voting because they're not equipped to have it."

In fact, while the $3.5 billion proposal for the Election Assistance Commission (it is actually $3.6 billion) is specifically for the purpose of facilitating mail-in voting, the $25 billion for the Postal Service is basically a bailout. In April, the previous postmaster general, Megan Brennan, citing a "steep drop" in mail volume during the coronavirus crisis, had asked for far more — $75 billion. The Postal Service didn't get anywhere near that much money in the first relief bill, the CARES Act — just $10 billion in borrowing authority. So when the second relief mega-bill came up, Democrats threw in $25 billion for the Postal Service. It was not about mail-in voting. (On Sunday morning, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who as a congressman followed postal issues closely, said the administration offered House Democrats $10 billion for the Postal Service.)

Nevertheless, the president connected the two and suggested that the Postal Service needed the $25 billion, and the Election Assistance Commission needed $3.5 billion, to handle ballots in the election, and that he would not give it to them for that very reason.

"How would you like to have $3.5 billion, billion, for mail-in voting?" Trump asked. "So, if you don't have it — do you know how much money that is? Nobody has any idea ... Oh, $3.5 billion. They want $25 billion for the Post Office because the Post Office is going to have to go to town to get these ridiculous ballots in ... Now, if we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money. That means they can't have universal mail-in voting. They just can't have it."

The bottom line was that Trump made a mess of the issue. He didn't make a case against universal mail-in voting, which does not exist in the United States. He didn't make clear why Democrats wanted $25 billion for the post office. He suggested that not agreeing to the $25 billion was a way to stop universal mail-in voting, which it is not. He didn't address the serious problems at the Postal Service which need attention and do not have anything to do with voting. In all, he left the issue more confused than it had been beforehand — and that was saying something.

Democrats smell victory

On Friday, the Washington Post published a story headlined "Trump's assault on the U.S. Postal Service gives Democrats a new campaign message." Put aside the casual use of the word "assault." The fact is, Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and other top Democrats are jumping on the Postal Service controversy with both feet. "Democrats are already blanketing the airwaves, latching on to the opportunity to highlight support [for the Postal Service]," the paper reported. Obama has joined in, tweeting that seniors and veterans and small businesses "can't be collateral damage for an administration more concerned with suppressing the vote than suppressing a virus."

The Democratic commentariat cheered and signaled it is ready to press the issue until election day. "Trump donor & Postmaster General Louis DeJoy should be in the crosshairs of every relevant congressional committee, inspector general, prosecutor, investigative journalist, whistleblower, class action lawyer, editorial board, etc. etc. etc.," tweeted former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. No doubt that is precisely what will happen in the Democratic world and some major media outlets between now and Nov. 3. But shouldn't someone, sometime take a look at what is actually happening?
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
25,211
Reaction score
3,278
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
Wow, impressive!
Minority conservatives are some of the bravest people alive.
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,803
Reaction score
4,301
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
I guess this is the best thread to put this in.

Kimberly Klacik is a black woman running for Congress. The district includes Baltimore.

She's the Republican candidate.

Here's her campaign ad.

https://youtu.be/7S_Xl2eOeeY

Looks like Candace Owens has some competition.

She is EXCELLENT!

---------- Post added at 11:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 PM ----------


Awesome!!!
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,803
Reaction score
4,301
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
Trumps a fan.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...ummings-former-seat-will-bring-baltimore-back

Trump vows to work with Kimberly Klacik to 'bring Baltimore back'

Trump has been sharply critical of Democrats’ leadership in Baltimore in the past

Brie Stimson5 hours ago
GOP congressional candidate Kimberly Klacik blasts Democrats for leaving Black voters behindVideo
President Trump Tuesday praised the Republican woman running for the late Rep. Elijah Cummings’ former Baltimore seat as someone who will help “bring Baltimore back.”

“Kimberly will work with the Trump Administration and we will bring Baltimore back, and fast,” the president said of Kimberly Klacik, 38, who is running against Rep. Kweisi Mfume, 71. Mfume defeated her in April's special election. They will now face each other again in November.

“Don’t blow it Baltimore, the Democrats have destroyed your city!” Trump added.

Klacik gained attention this week after a campaign ad she posted walking the streets of what she calls the “real” Baltimore: “crumbling infrastructure,” “abandoned homes” and “crime” went viral with hundreds of thousands of views.

GOP HOUSE CANDIDATE BEHIND VIRAL BALTIMORE CAMPAIGN AD CALLS ON PARTY TO 'STOP WRITING OFF THE CITIES'

“Do you care about Black lives? The people that run Baltimore don’t,” Klacik says in the video titled “Black Lives Don’t Matter To Democrats” as she walks through empty streets.

Her video also got attention from other prominent Republicans, including Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, Trump senior adviser Brad Parscale and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, who wrote, “Wow. Just wow.” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called it "strong."

Trump has been sharply critical of Democrats’ leadership in Baltimore in the past, including Cummings, calling the city once a “rodent infested mess.”

"I really just want to get in office and show people that you [can] have a better quality of life," Klacik told Laura Ingraham Tuesday. "It is possible, especially if you vote Republican."

Klacik has excited Republicans over potentially flipping the seat, but political scientist Matthew Crenson called her bid for the deeply blue district “practically impossible," according to WJZ-TV.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Mfume held the 7th District seat for a decade until 1996 when he left to become president of the NAACP, according to the Baltimore Sun.
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,803
Reaction score
4,301
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...t-i-need-health-insurance-i-deserve-it-right/

Democrats Showcase Illegal Immigrant: ‘I Need Health Insurance. I Deserve it, Right?’

Neil Munro19 Aug 2020
3:58

The Democrats’ used their convention on August 19 to prod Americans to welcome ill migrants who enter the United States in search of American health care.

The video features an illegal immigrant who brought her disabled daughter into the United States for life-saving health care. Americans saved the child but cannot yet cure the spina bifida that keeps her apparently confined to a wheelchair.

Jessica Sanchez, the grown daughter, told the Democrats’ audience, “I don’t have the right ID, so I can’t get health insurance through the [Obamacare] exchange. I need health insurance. I deserve it, right?”

“Of course you do,” her mother, Sylvia, said in Spanish. “We all deserve hope, a good life, and health.”


“My mother had no choice,” said Lucy, Sylvia’s U.S.-born daughter. “There was no time to wait to save my sister. She came here looking for a miracle.”

“It breaks my heart to see how babies are separated from their families at the border,” the mother added. “That’s wrong. Those babies need to be with their families.”

“I want to go to law school,” said Jessica. “I want to help my community.”

This segment endorsing a welcome for all sick foreigners is a dramatic escalation from the Democrats’ unpopular promises to fund health care for at least 11 million resident illegal aliens, most of whom work long hours for low wages in the U.S. labor market that is flooded by illegal and legal immigrants.

The Democrats’ video extends their free-health care offer to many millions of people living outside the United States, including roughly 175 million people in Mexico and Central America.

The Democrats’ pitch to migrants is politically risky, partly because many legal-immigrant Latinos have a very ambivalent view of foreign Latinos. For example, in April, a Washington Post poll showed that Latinos were the strongest advocates for a near-total halt to legal immigration during the coronavirus epidemic and economic crash. Other polls show that white, black, and brown Americans will welcome legal migrants but also want limits to protect jobs and resources.

Any bar against foreigners getting life-saving health care is easy to write — but very painful to implement or to ensure public support. For example, foreigners can arrive as tourists, then bring their dying children to hospitals, while also offering to work low-wage jobs. Illegal immigrants get injured at construction sites, can spread epidemics, or be struck down by health problems that can be swiftly and cheaply cured by eager Americans.

But the opposite policy is also painful: Any legal approval for foreigners to use U.S. hospitals will create a global magnet for many millions of poor foreigners who are crippled or dying of cancer, heart diseases, and other ailments. For example, the 2018 caravans of Central American migrants included some who told reporters they were hoping to get treatment for cancer and heart ailments.

In practice, the U.S. quietly provides health care to at least ten million illegal migrants who are in the United States, while also erecting tough physical and legal barriers to the arrival of yet more illegal aliens. This generous healthcare policy is backed by hospital chains that gain millions of extra customers and billions in extra revenue.

President Donald Trump’s deputies also allow a modest number of foreigners to get health care after flying into the United States as tourists. The number of patients and the cost of the “Deferred Action” policy is unpublished.

In 2019, Trump’s deputies dropped a revamp of the program amid an emotional, media-magnified response by Joe Biden, hospitals, and pro-migration groups.

The Democrats used their convention to escalate the dispute.
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,803
Reaction score
4,301
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
OMFG!!!!!!!!!

Who is vetting for this clusterfvck?!?!?!

https://justthenews.com/politics-po...eo-was-deported-under-clinton-and-re-arrested

Illegal immigrant hailed by Democrats deported under Clinton, re-arrested under Obama

An illegal immigrant featured in a video on the third night of the Democratic National Convention was first deported in 1998 under former President Bill Clinton and was re-arrested and ordered deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2013 under former President Barack Obama, U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement officials said Thursday.

Alejandra Juarez successfully re-entered the U.S. illegally at an unknown time after her first deportation, according to ICE. She was arrested again in 2013. She ultimately left the U.S. on a commercial flight in 2018 under President Trump.

During the third night of the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday evening, Juarez’s story was part of an immigration segment where her 11-year-old daughter Estela read a letter she wrote to Trump criticizing him for deporting her mother, who first came to the U.S. illegally in 1998 and lied to a U.S. border agent about her immigration status. According to ICE, after Juarez was deported, she attempted to re-enter the U.S. again "by falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen but then withdrew her application."

A traffic stop that occurred in Florida in 2013 brought her back into ICE custody when Obama was president.

An ICE spokesperson confirmed that a "reinstatement of removal" was issued after Juarez was re-arrested in 2013 because she was previously deported. After that, a “temporary stay of removal” was granted in 2015 and 2016 that prevented the deportation from being carried out. ICE said that an additional “temporary stay of removal” was not approved in 2017 and Juarez left the country via a commercial flight in 2018.

The full details of her arrests under Democratic presidents were excluded from the moving video played at the DNC's convention.

The DNC said in a press release that Juarez “married a proud American Marine with whom she had two American children.”

According to an ICE statement about the Juarez case in 2018, ICE "respects the service and sacrifice of those in the military and the families who support them, and is very deliberate in its review of cases associated with veterans and active-duty service members. Any action taken by ICE that may result in the removal of an individual with military service must be authorized by the senior leadership in a field office, following an evaluation by local counsel.”

In the segment, Estela said her father won’t vote for Trump again. Juarez was not eligible to earn citizenship through her husband, a naturalized U.S. citizen, because someone who enters the U.S. illegally is generally not able to apply for legal status.

The Juarez story appeared during the same night Obama addressed the convention.

During the Juarez segment on Wednesday night, Estela claimed Trump put children in cages. Former First Lady Michelle Obama mentioned on Tuesday at the convention that children have been put in cages at the border under the Trump administration.

However, the Associated Press has reported that the kids in cages line of attack is misleading because immigration authorities “used facilities that were built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border.”

Data as of July 2019 showed that ICE under Obama had actually deported more illegal immigrants in his first term than Trump.

Here's the video that aired during Democratic convention night 3:
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
40,803
Reaction score
4,301
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
https://justthenews.com/government/...ress-so-illegal-immigrants-can-last-become-us

Schumer: Elect Biden, Democrats to Congress so illegal immigrants can 'at last' become U.S. citizens

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday evening at the Democratic National Convention that voters should elect fellow Democrat Joe Biden as president and a Democratic-led Congress to provide citizenship to the millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States.

"We will reform our immigration system so that immigrants yearning to breath fee will at last become American citizens," Schumer said in a video speech with the Statue of Liberty behind him. "Together, we can reignite the hope once felt by millions of men and women, huddled masses on creaking ships who glimpse this mighty woman with her torch knowing they could build a better life here in America."

He also vowed that Democrats in Congress and in the White House would "rebuild our infrastructure and make sure that every home from inner cities to rural America has broadband. We will save the Post Office and once and for all defeat COVID-19, this evil disease."

The New York Democrat said that "America will finally awaken to a brighter future and a new day" after a "long national nightmare."

Schumer argued that President Trump has "quit" on the American people.

"America, Donald Trump has quit on you," he said, adding that Biden will never quit on America.
 
Top