Democrats outdo themselves every cycle.
Election 2024 Issues
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Democrats outdo themselves every cycle.
Wow, it's almost as if the Democrats are busy planning their version of January 6th, except this one will be intended to "save democracy."
From The Atlantic:
Public frustration with prices has become a central issue in President Joe Biden's bid for re-election. Polls show that despite the dramatic decline in inflation, many consumers are unhappy that prices remain so much higher than they were before inflation began accelerating in 2021.
Biden has echoed the criticism of many left-leaning economists that corporations jacked up their prices more than was needed to cover their own higher costs, allowing themselves to boost their profits. The White House has also attacked "shrinkflation," whereby a company, rather than raising the price of a product, instead shrinks the amount inside the package. In a video released on Super Bowl Sunday, Biden denounced shrinkflation as a "rip-off."
Consumer pushback against high prices suggests to many economists that inflation should further ease. That would make this bout of inflation markedly different from the debilitating price spikes of the 1970s and early 1980s, which took longer to defeat. When high inflation persists, consumers often develop an inflationary psychology: Ever-rising prices lead them to accelerate their purchases before costs rise further, a trend that can itself perpetuate inflation.
"That was the fear — that everybody would tolerate higher prices," said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY, a consulting firm, who notes that it hasn't happened. "I don't think we've moved into a high inflation regime."
www.wbaltv.com
Biden has echoed the criticism of many left-leaning economists that corporations jacked up their prices more than was needed to cover their own higher costs, allowing themselves to boost their profits. The White House has also attacked "shrinkflation," whereby a company, rather than raising the price of a product, instead shrinks the amount inside the package. In a video released on Super Bowl Sunday, Biden denounced shrinkflation as a "rip-off."
Consumer pushback against high prices suggests to many economists that inflation should further ease. That would make this bout of inflation markedly different from the debilitating price spikes of the 1970s and early 1980s, which took longer to defeat. When high inflation persists, consumers often develop an inflationary psychology: Ever-rising prices lead them to accelerate their purchases before costs rise further, a trend that can itself perpetuate inflation.
"That was the fear — that everybody would tolerate higher prices," said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY, a consulting firm, who notes that it hasn't happened. "I don't think we've moved into a high inflation regime."
Consumers are increasingly pushing back against price increases — and winning
Inflation has changed the way many Americans shop.
www.wbaltv.com
Delaware's early voting and permanent absentee laws are unconstitutional, a judge says
DOVER, Del. -- Laws allowing early voting and permanent absentee status violate Delaware's constitution and are invalid, a judge ruled in a lawsuit brought by a state elections inspector and a Republican lawmaker.
The laws are “inconsistent with our constitution and therefore cannot stand," Superior Court Judge Mark Conner declared in a ruling late Friday.
Elections inspector Michael Mennella and Senate Minority Leader Gerald Hocker showed by “clear and convincing evidence” that the laws were unconstitutional, the judge said.
Friday's ruling follows a 2022 state Supreme Court decision that laws allowing universal voting by mail and Election Day registration were unconstitutional. The justices said the vote-by-mail statute impermissibly expanded absentee voting eligibility, while same-day registration conflicted with registration periods spelled out in the constitution.
Public frustration with prices has become a central issue in President Joe Biden's bid for re-election. Polls show that despite the dramatic decline in inflation, many consumers are unhappy that prices remain so much higher than they were before inflation began accelerating in 2021.
Biden has echoed the criticism of many left-leaning economists that corporations jacked up their prices more than was needed to cover their own higher costs, allowing themselves to boost their profits. The White House has also attacked "shrinkflation," whereby a company, rather than raising the price of a product, instead shrinks the amount inside the package. In a video released on Super Bowl Sunday, Biden denounced shrinkflation as a "rip-off."
Consumer pushback against high prices suggests to many economists that inflation should further ease. That would make this bout of inflation markedly different from the debilitating price spikes of the 1970s and early 1980s, which took longer to defeat. When high inflation persists, consumers often develop an inflationary psychology: Ever-rising prices lead them to accelerate their purchases before costs rise further, a trend that can itself perpetuate inflation.
"That was the fear — that everybody would tolerate higher prices," said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY, a consulting firm, who notes that it hasn't happened. "I don't think we've moved into a high inflation regime."
Consumers are increasingly pushing back against price increases — and winning
Inflation has changed the way many Americans shop.
So the companies return to prior product size and raise prices then Biden calls them greedy.
Supreme Court Rules Trump to Stay on Ballot in Unanimous Ruling
Now all you whiny gloating progressives can SHUT THE **** UP ....
YOU LOST
Trump is eligible to run and hold office
The Colorado Secretary of State says she now trusts the people to make the decision she didn’t trust them to make four months ago
The Colorado Secretary of Cabal, er, State appeared on MSNBC this afternoon to bitch. Seems she didn’t like the smackdown delivered by three Democrat-appointed Justices and six Republican-appointed ones. When asked if she had confidence in the Supreme Court anymore, she dodged the question.
And so Democrats continue their tiresome mantra that Trump is a “threat to democracy” that they are heroically battling by keeping his name off the ballot so that the people can’t democratically elect him. When the Supreme Court – the highest legal authority in the land – disagrees with their uniparty rule in the service of democracy, they question the Court’s legitimacy.
After bitching about the Court’s decision and questioning their legitimacy, the Secretary just went into double-speak. She pretended to trust the American people to make the correct decision on election day to vote against Trump.
The friendly media interviewer did not ask her “Why didn’t you just trust the American people to make the correct decision all along?”
In December, Bellows determined that she believed Trump to be ineligible to appear on the state’s ballot based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Insurrection Clause. However, she said at the time that the decision would not be carried out until the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in.
“Specifically, I find that the declaration on his candidate consent form is false because he is not qualified to hold the office of the president under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote at the time. However, following the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, she formally withdrew her determination.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individual states lack authority to enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to federal offices,” she wrote, according to the Hill.
“Consistent with my oath and obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and pursuant to the Anderson decision, I hereby withdraw my determination that Mr. Trump’s primary petition is invalid,” Bellows continued.
“As a result of the modified ruling, votes cast for Mr. Trump in the March 5, 2024, presidential primary election will be counted,” she added.
www.breitbart.com
“Specifically, I find that the declaration on his candidate consent form is false because he is not qualified to hold the office of the president under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote at the time. However, following the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, she formally withdrew her determination.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individual states lack authority to enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to federal offices,” she wrote, according to the Hill.
“Consistent with my oath and obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and pursuant to the Anderson decision, I hereby withdraw my determination that Mr. Trump’s primary petition is invalid,” Bellows continued.
“As a result of the modified ruling, votes cast for Mr. Trump in the March 5, 2024, presidential primary election will be counted,” she added.
Maine Secretary of State Withdraws Determination That Trump Should Be Banned from Ballot
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) withdrew her previous determination that Donald Trump should be prohibited from the ballot.
The Supreme Court giveth, and the Supreme Court taketh away. First, the giveth. And it was a big one. Bloomberg ran its report under the headline, “Supreme Court Buries Democrats’ Fantasy of Keeping Trump Off the Ballot.” As you have probably already heard echoing across America’s digital fields and electronic byways, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday as many of us had predicted, in a sweeping 9-0 decision in favor of President Trump.
As a result, he stays on the ballot in Colorado. And, because of a courageous 6-3 twist in the decision by the conservative justices, Trump also stays on ballots in all the other blue states drafting in Colorado’s steaming, radioactive wake. But I’ll get to that later.
The decision wasn’t complicated. I’ll quickly summarize how we got here, for people who live in Portland. Four Republican voters and two Democrats sued Colorado’s Secretary of State last year arguing Trump was an oathbreaking insurrectionist and, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, could not hold “an office of the United States.”
After a kangaroo show trial, and an appeal, Colorado’s Supreme Court put down their crayons and ruled 4-3 — in napalm — that the Constitution prohibits oathbreaking insurrectionists like Trump from being President. The decision electrified the chronically-unhappy anti-Trump world. Eureka! they cried. It’s so simple! they shouted, in manifest joy and delirious delight.
We must save democracy by giving courts power to keep Republicans off the ballot in the first place.
Corporate media rallied, trotting out herds of constitutional “experts” sagely opining about the Framers’ wisdom in excluding oathbreaking insurrectionists and blah blah blah. But there was a problem.
The problem was, the particular dusty, archaic Constitutional provision was part of the Fourteenth Amendment — one of the two anti-slavery amendments added after the Civil War. It was designed solely to stop pro-slavery Democrats from marching back into Reconstruction-era state governments.
No way did the drafters — having just won the bloodiest war in American history or in its future the hard way — no way did they intend to hand a heckler’s veto over future American Presidents to disgruntled Southern States still bristling with unsurrendered Klansmen and brimming with defiant Johnny Rebs burning to snatch up muskets.
The Court agreed. It uncontroversially ruled that “States may disqualify persons” from state offices, but any power over federal offices must be explicitly granted by Congress. Hinting at the decision’s originalist underpinnings, the Court quoted an 1858 commentary on the Constitution:
In other words, Colorado does not get to veto a Presidential candidate just because it didn’t wear its Hillary mask and caught Trump Derangement Syndrome.
This result may have been obvious to me and other thoughtful Constitutional scholars. And it was obvious to the United States Supreme Court — including its far-left members. But it was not obvious to Colorado’s Supreme Court or to squadrons of blabbering morons trotted out by corporate media who are now all losing their ever-loving minds to save their tattered reputations.
One of those blabbering morons was David French, who — like a defiant Johnny Reb of old — refused to admit he was wrong and promptly published a defiant op-ed in the New York Times:
The Nation’s leftist legal correspondent, Elie Mystal, was so mad he even called for the Supreme Court to be abolished:
Mystal’s deranged screed was particularly amusing in its inherent contradiction: the whole case was about giving the courts more power, but now they suddenly want to take power away from courts? It would be confusing except I’ve learned not to expect them to make sense.
NewsBusters rounded up a series of crazy liberal reactions, who generally agreed that yesterday was a dark day for ‘democracy’ (1:28).
I could go on, there is certainly a Schadenfreude-y delight to it, but time presses and you can find more for yourself if you like.
Some people just can’t admit when they are wrong, what else can I tell you? Why anyone listens to them at all is the real mystery.
☕️ TRENCH WARFARE ☙ Tuesday, March 5, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Legal news roundup! Analyzing the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling for Trump — and the hidden 6-3 part; Arizona court upholds proof of citizenship; DC court helps J6ers; wild Fani Willis news; and more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
I mentioned the twist, the conservative justices’ brave 6-3 ruling. The three liberal justices — Sotomayor, Sagan, and Jackson — joined the 9-0 verdict but not its reasoning. So they wrote their own separate opinion.Specifically, the liberal Justices disagreed with the majority’s decision that no state can disqualify Trump. They would have avoided interpreting the Constitutional issue altogether, and would have ruled that only Colorado was barred from disqualifying Trump:
In other words, the majority’s ruling deleted all the other efforts to bar Trump from ballots in all the other states, not just Colorado. That may seem sensible to you, but it didn’t make sense to the liberal Justices.
☕️ TRENCH WARFARE ☙ Tuesday, March 5, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Legal news roundup! Analyzing the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling for Trump — and the hidden 6-3 part; Arizona court upholds proof of citizenship; DC court helps J6ers; wild Fani Willis news; and more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com