Trump is the Perfect Sore Loser

Emily Murphy loses on both ends. She cannot reclaim her reputation as a public servant after acting in such a partisan fashion. And the Trumpies won't have anything to do with her because she surrendered--even though someone crafted a tweet for Trump praising her.

Her true colors have flown.

 

In the National Review: Rush Limbaugh: Trump’s Legal Team ‘Promised Blockbuster Stuff and Then Nothing Happened’

C'mon, Rush. You're not surprised, are you? That's been the guy's modus operandi for the past 4 years! Except for The Wall. And infrastructure. And a balanced budget. And ending our commitments overseas. And denuclearizing North Korea. And "winning" a trade war with China. And universal health care (that's better and cheaper). And blowing up the TPP (and thus letting China take over). And "saving" the coal industry. And "saving" manufacturing jobs. And returning jobs from overseas. And draining the swamp.

I wonder if he's going to join OJ in the search for the real killer? Because he sure didn't deliver on his promises.

 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejects Trump campaign's effort to block counting certain absentee ballots: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/23/politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-trump-campaign-absentee-ballots/index.html

Oops!

The Trump team had won two small decisions (while losing almost 3 dozen others). The count reverts to one. I suspect that's not the direction they want this to go, but one could say that about the election as well.

One cannot imagine they'll do any better at the federal level. Remember, whatever evidence they had to support their motion they've already provided. Where is it, you ask? (Tsk, tsk, that's so naughty!)

 

From what I read and hear.
A lot of people including myself have been curious to know whether there is something beyond that which has been publicly reported.
Presidents attorneys gather a press conference that lasts an hour, and announce massive bombshells, then they better have some bombshells?
They promised blockbuster stuff, and then nothing happened.
Dershowits said in Pennsylvania they have two very strong legal arguments. One, that the courts changed what the legislature did about counting ballots after the end of Election Day.
That’s a possible winning issue in the Supreme Court.
Dershowitz is saying that the Supreme Court would more than likely overturn this. He also said the Trump team has a winning issue in the Supreme Court on equal protection, that some counties allowed flawed ballots to be cured while others didn’t.
I guess #1 possibility. #2 only if there is qualifying evidence and so far it appears that there isn't.
Here is Mr. Dershowits today about elections and some other issues.

 

Shear speculation.

This election was normal--more so than most. Statements like yours imply the possibility that it was not. Nope.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Instead, we get miniscule evidence of nothing material.

Right. Because nothing did.

Of course it's not. If it was, they would have led with that. Desperate times, desperate measures, no successes.

Keep swinging, though! In the meantime, Joe Biden will accomplish the transition, he's appointing the candidates for his candidates, and it feels like the nation is on the move again.

 

But Lerner, you can take some comfort that the recent comparative coziness between Israel and her Arab neighbors, including, now, and incredibly, Saudi Arabia may prove lasting and happened on Trump's watch. Strange. Had the man run on actual achievements, whether one agrees with those achievements or not, he might have won. Judging from the House races, Trump lost but Trumpism assuredly did NOT lose. But no, he chose to double down on White Grievance. His instincts might indeed have been sound. He DID turn out the second highest vote total for a Presidential campaign in U.S. history.

 

I'm not sure what role the Trump administration is actually playing in Israel's entreaties towards its Arab neighbors. My theory is that it is Israel, not the U.S., that is the driving force, and that the countries they've engaged all share a common threat: Iran.

Why would Arabs partner with a Jewish state to oppose another Arab one? Because Iranians are not Arabs. They share (sort of) a common religion, but they're ethnically not Arabs and Arabic is not their national language--it is Farsi. Also, they're Shi'i, not Sunni. But mostly it's about regional security.

 

I simply reported, and not swinging but providing the other side of the coin.
What Alan Dershowitz a legal scholar known for his scholarship of U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law, He taught at Harvard Law School from 1964 through 2013 etc etc.
So I posted what he was saying.

 

He grew up in Queens at the time and neighborhood were borders existed, were outside the borders was kayos.
From what I read about those times and mentality I think I deduct form it "White Grievance" as his neighborhood changed and borders became blurry.
The change was for worse, crime increased and so the quest for borders and safety.
I think campaign advisers should have focused like in commercials more on the positive ad achievements.
There are many achievements, in many areas of life.
One such achievement that is felt by the seniors and people who need prescriptions.
I remember during the last years of Obama administration there was a crisis, diabetics who had to pay 1000's for Insulin.
Trump administration handled this issue today the prices a very afordible like 35$ a month.

"Insulin was destroying lives and destroying families because the cost was so high, and now it’s at a level that nobody can even believe.

Is that correct, Seema?

ADMINISTRATOR VERMA: Thirty-five dollars a month.

THE PRESIDENT: Thirty-five dollars a month from many times that number."

"For example, Medicare Part B recipients are forced to spend five times more for a common breast cancer medication than patients in other countries. So, five times more.
And we have other examples that are substantially higher than that.

Medicare will now look at the price that other developed nations pay for their drugs. And instead of paying the highest price on that list — and we are substantially higher than any other country in the world — we will pay the lowest price. In other words, we take the lowest price, and we match whatever the lowest price is, leading to colossal savings for all Americans. And we’re talking about savings of 50, 60, 70 percent, 80 percent — different drugs, different prices."

"
Today, I am announcing that we are ending the Unapproved Drugs Initiative program to put a stop to this unfair practice. So prices are lifted by 1,000 percent to 5,000 percent. In one or two cases, even more than that. And we’re ending this. We are putting an end to it.

Together, these reforms will save American patients many, many billions of dollars every single year."

 

Of course no one can be sure who wasn't there. But we tend to assign praise and blame to the sitting President and I see no reason the rule shouldn't apply to Trump.

 

Not good enough. You're not a news reporter. You're posting on a discussion board, so whatever you post also reflects on you. You posted it; live with it.

 

The reason I quote is that expert's words have much more weight then non expert like me.
But nobody else is posting the republican side of the politics, or almost no one else in this discussion board recently.
So I post for discussion something that I agree with 100% or not reflects on me 100% , it can be issue that I may have mixed thoughts and feeling about it.
Over the month of criticism of my posts I leaned and realized issues.
In this process one looks back and reflects.
So obviously in case when a scholar or an expert provides an opinion, I report and in that instance I'm a "Reporter" because I don't have the level of expertise that Alan Dershowitz has.

 

Is Alan Dershowitz a legal scholar anymore? Really? He's been driven, almost to obsession in recent years, by a single issue; unquestioning U.S. support for Israel. It will take a more skillful biographer that I am to finally evaluate Dershowitz' meaningful contributions to American jurisprudence. He has advocated, for example, a legal framework to allow torture. He is famous mostly for his trial defenses of prominent criminal defendants. I cannot recall ever reading an article on a point of law from him. Such articles certainly exist but my own impression (fair or unfair) is that his legal opinions tend to be socially and politically driven.

If you want a genuine conservative criminal legal scholar whose opinions do matter, look at the late Justice Scalia. I loathed the man but I cannot escape his thinking on a variety of subjects that actually show up in my own professional life and will be important for decades to come.

 

And lest anyone think that influence is limited to appellate Judges, Lawrence Tribe, a long time Harvard professor, pretty much invented modern American constitutional thought. His opinions also matter but he is no Judge.

 

So if not a scholar can I say at least Alan Dershowits is an expert?
And yes, agree on late Justice Scalia.
I read opinions of late Justice, be it Second Amendment in judging Americans’ individual rights to bear arms or same sex marriage were he criticized and attacked the majority decision and also Kansas’ death penalty law.
And some older ones.

 

Well...hmm. An expert? Hm. He's a lawyer, sure enough, and on the faculty of Harvard Law. I'd qualify him as a legal expert I guess. Can't really avoid it. I don't know the scope of his expertise though. Criminal law for sure. Tax law? I don't know. Elections law? Again, I'd have to know more about his research and experience. A definite maybe.

 

With Pennsylvania and Michigan both formally certified, President Trump is done. I'm happy to say that even he seems to realize that though he won't stop feeding lies to his base. That's dangerous.

 

Meanwhile I will smile when I file my taxes this year. Rates need to go up, true, but I remain very pleased with the Trump tax code changes themselves.

 

I would prefer the corporate tax be at zero, except for retained earnings (earnings not distributed to stockholders.) Regardless of where those earnings are held.

But I would also like capital gains taxed as ordinary income.