Who will be next to speak out about Trump?

[Wayward Son]

TheDrake said:

Democrats had the chance to put forward a progressive candidate with integrity, they blew it. Maybe four more years of Trump will be what they need to get it together.

But can the country survive another four more years of Trump?

Consider how much damage he has done already.  The Justice Department under Barr is becoming a completely-controlled arm of the Presidency.  The FBI may well follow.  Who gets put into the Supreme Court when RBG retires/dies?  Already around 1/4 of judges are Trump appointees.  What happens when they are half or three-quarters?

And how many more environmental regulations are you willing to see undone?  How many voting rights removed?  How many immigrant families should be torn apart while the Democrats learn their lesson? How much additional CO2 will be released into the atmosphere?

And how about our international reputation?  How long with our allies wait while we dismiss them and cuddle up to despots?

Look over the list of what Donald Trump and his toadies have done over the last 3 1/2 years and ask yourself how much more they will do when Donald isn't even worried about re-election?  When he knows for certain that at least 34 Senators will ignore any crimes that he commits?  Imagine how bad it could be.

Is that really worth teaching the Democrats a lesson?

Look forward to the 2024 election to get a progressive candidate for President.  But right now, let's make sure there will be a 2024 election.

[TheDrake]

People said a second Bush term would be the ruin of the country. People said a second Obama term would be the ruin of the country. People always say that crap, people always settle for the lesser of terrible choices. I'm done with that. A party can put up a person who is competent, has integrity, and has vision, or they can watch me not vote for their candidate. Period.

[Kasandra]

People said a second Bush term would be the ruin of the country. People said a second Obama term would be the ruin of the country. People always say that crap, people always settle for the lesser of terrible choices. I'm done with that. A party can put up a person who is competent, has integrity, and has vision, or they can watch me not vote for their candidate. Period.

Odd to me that here you are going for the more pure solution.  I wonder how many people who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 still insist they are proud of themselves.

[TheDrake]

You assume Nader voters aren't proud of themselves? Why do you assume they regret not voting for an uninspiring man of modest accomplishments (Gore) versus a dynamic champion of justice (Nader)? Maybe instead you should be asking all the Gore voters if they regret not voting for Nader?

[Kasandra]

You assume Nader voters aren't proud of themselves? Why do you assume they regret not voting for an uninspiring man of modest accomplishments (Gore) versus a dynamic champion of justice (Nader)? Maybe instead you should be asking all the Gore voters if they regret not voting for Nader?

I'm sure many do, but the saying "perfect is the enemy of the good" comes to mind.  I've become more pragmatic in my voting habits, even if to some that might seem like choosing the lesser of evils.  Sometimes the evil, in this case Trump, is so great that the imperative to keep him from winning the election is itself a matter of principle - the greater good.  Ask yourself how many excess deaths have occurred due to his governance and inaction, and how many more excess deaths will there be if he continues in office for another 4 years?  How many more impeachable acts that harm the interests of the country will he commit and remain in office?  How much more dysfunction and harm will he do to Congressional right to oversee the Executive and to countless socially necessary programs and agencies?  How many lives will be harmed by his lack of any sort of moral compass that will deny people access to medical care?  Then ask whether those things would be as bad under the lesser Biden evil and whether it's worth making the practical rather than the purely principled choice.  Or vote for your great aunt Millie, because she's a truly wonderful person.

[TheDrake]

Condescend all you want, but what matters isn't bad outcomes over the next 4 years. What matters is what happens over the next 400.

[Wayward Son]

People said a second Bush term would be the ruin of the country. People said a second Obama term would be the ruin of the country. People always say that crap, people always settle for the lesser of terrible choices. I'm done with that. A party can put up a person who is competent, has integrity, and has vision, or they can watch me not vote for their candidate. Period.

Who cares what "people say?"  What do you say?

Do you say that another four years of Trump won't be that bad?  How many more immigrant families need to be torn apart before you think it is bad?  How many Trump toadies need to have their convictions dropped?  How many foreign countries need to be pressured into supporting a Presidential candidate?  How many peaceful protesters need to be tear gassed and pepper sprayed?  How many laws and norms have to spat upon?  How many times does the President need to tell everyone that YOU "hate our history, ... hate our values, and ... hate everything we prize as Americans?"

Do you truly believe that it won't be any worse in a second term?  That, without even worrying about re-election, he and his minions won't push things ever farther?  That greenhouse gases emissions won't increase?  That the military won't be used to quell protests?  (Trump already is cowering behind two walls around the White House.  How long will he stand for that?)  That young, far-right judges won't be seated in the Supreme Court, to stay there for another twenty, thirty, forty years?  You truly believe that things can't be worse than they are now, because others have been wrong in the past?

You really want to take that chance?

Biden was not elected because of some small cadre of Democratic conspirators.  He got the most votes in most states.  He is as far left as the Democratic party is willing to go right now.  Sure there could be someone better.  We may get him in the future.  But right now it's either Biden or Trump.  They will strongly influence the direction this country goes in for the next four years.  Do you really think it will be exactly the same direction?  Do you really think there is no discernable difference between those directions?  Do you really think these two men are interchangeable?  Do you really think there is no difference between those who are friendly to you and those who openly despise you and your values??

If you do, I don't think you really care about liberal values.  I don't think you really care about this country, as Trump says.  If you really believe that things will be just as bad if Biden or Trump is elected, then I really don't think you've thought it through or really care about the result.  If you're not willing to fight for what you believe, even so small a fight as to vote for someone who will move the country even in a miniscule way toward your ideal if only to help prevent the election of someone who will move it a large amount in the opposite direction, then you really don't have much belief.  You really don't think it matters that much.

Just remember--those who don't vote, don't count.  If the Democrats have your support in this next election and they win, they will listen to you if only to get your help in the next election.  If you don't vote, well, why should they listen to you, if listening to you may make them lose other votes and perhaps cost them the election?

Or would do you rather try to make Trump listen to you?

[TheDrake]

I always vote. I voted Johnson in 16. I voted against bad judges. I voted for Obama, because he had integrity. I will never vote for Biden. No matter what. He's a horrible person, and I am not okay with him.

[Kasandra]

I always vote. I voted Johnson in 16. I voted against bad judges. I voted for Obama, because he had integrity. I will never vote for Biden. No matter what. He's a horrible person, and I am not okay with him.

Why?

[DonaldD]

Condescend all you want, but what matters isn't bad outcomes over the next 4 years. What matters is what happens over the next 400.

I think you strongly overestimate the effect of losing a single, or even a generarion-worth of elections.  All electoral lessons probably have a shelf life of less than a generation.  So choosing measurably bad results now in hopes of future long term electoral good is a losing strategy.

[TheDrake]

Why not vote for Biden? Nepotism. Opposing busing. Groping women. No vision for healthcare. Massive support for police violence. Somehow managing to be less coherent than Trump. I wouldn't vote him in to a board position for my HOA, let alone running the country.

[Kasandra]

Why not vote for Biden? Nepotism. Opposing busing. Groping women. No vision for healthcare. Massive support for police violence. Somehow managing to be less coherent than Trump. I wouldn't vote him in to a board position for my HOA, let alone running the country.

Aunt Millie it is.  For the rest of us, half a loaf.  FWIW, In a semi-recent interview Ralph Nader was asked if he had any regrets about 2000.  He didn't regret the votes he got, because like people said about Hillary, Gore should have run a better campaign.  OTOH, he does regret not running as a Democrat, as he wasn't running to win anyway, and hoped running as an independent might push Gore and the Democratic Party to more progressive positions.  Do you think he made the right choice?

[Wayward Son]

Why not vote for Biden? Nepotism. Opposing busing. Groping women. No vision for healthcare. Massive support for police violence. Somehow managing to be less coherent than Trump. I wouldn't vote him in to a board position for my HOA, let alone running the country.

Which of these is Biden actually worse than Trump?

More importantly, which of these issues would Trump actually be better at??  (Other than coherence, which I would argue is very debatable. )

If Biden doesn't win, it's going to be Trump.  You know it.  It's not a "who is best for the job" proposition.  It's a "which of these two is best for the job" proposition.

Which would be better to combat global warming?  Which would respect voting rights better?  Which would nominate Supreme Court justices that you'd like better?

You hate him?  Fine.  See who his Vice Presidential candidate is.  You might like her better, and she has a good shot of being President in 2024.

I'd like a better candidate than Biden, too.  But we can't always get what we want.  So we minimize the damage if nothing else.

You'll be in a better position to get a more liberal candidate in 2024 if Biden wins.  You will have a better chance of getting the programs you want enacted, if only partially, if Biden wins.  You stand no chance with Trump.

Seriously, if you wouldn't vote for him for a board position in your HOA, why the hell wouldn't you do everything you could to prevent Trump from taking that position??

[Kasandra]

A new poll from Nate Silver and NYTimes/Siena.  They also published their methodology for people to validate or quibble over.

Joseph R. Biden Jr. has taken a commanding lead over President Trump in the 2020 race, building a wide advantage among women and nonwhite voters and making deep inroads with some traditionally Republican-leaning groups that have shifted away from Mr. Trump following his ineffective response to the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new national poll of registered voters by The New York Times and Siena College.

Mr. Biden is currently ahead of Mr. Trump by 14 percentage points, garnering 50 percent of the vote compared with 36 percent for Mr. Trump. That is among the most dismal showings of Mr. Trump’s presidency, and a sign that he is the clear underdog right now in his fight for a second term.

Mr. Trump has been an unpopular president for virtually his entire time in office. He has made few efforts since his election in 2016 to broaden his support beyond the right-wing base that vaulted him into office with only 46 percent of the popular vote and a modest victory in the Electoral College.

But among a striking cross-section of voters, the distaste for Mr. Trump has deepened as his administration failed to stop a deadly disease that crippled the economy and then as he responded to a wave of racial-justice protests with angry bluster and militaristic threats. The dominant picture that emerges from the poll is of a country ready to reject a president whom a strong majority of voters regard as failing the greatest tests confronting his administration.

Mr. Biden leads Mr. Trump by enormous margins with black and Hispanic voters, and women and young people appear on track to choose Mr. Biden by an even wider margin than they favored Hillary Clinton over Mr. Trump in 2016. But the former vice president has also drawn even with Mr. Trump among male voters, whites and people in middle age and older — groups that have typically been the backbones of Republican electoral success, including Mr. Trump’s in 2016.

[TheDeamon]

I know anecdotally in my own family distaste for Trump is at an all time high, and some family members who voted for him in the past are considering not doing so again. But mostly it's over his blustery response over the rioting and protesting than anything else.

There are a few other factors in play at present, and the Democrats need to tread carefully, they don't have this in the bag by a longshot. Trump's strategy at this point is to be the law and order/security candidate and will allow the Democrats to terrorize themselves through things like the CHOP in the interim. He's betting on things like the CHOP are going to sour voters on the Democrats before November rolls around.

Another things in play right now is the whole "cancel culture" mindset being in full swing, and people may not trust "Joe Pollster" calling them on the phone, they may be suspicious of being Dox'd or otherwise targeted if they give "the wrong answers" to left-wing activists. So there may a significant number of people actively lying to the pollsters this time around.

Yes, there were claims of this in 2016 as well, but those polls still mostly fell within the margin of error so it's hard to know. But with how things have progressed since then, they have more reason to lie now than they did then. Especially among young, single women, and minority groups.

[Kasandra]

Another things in play right now is the whole "cancel culture" mindset being in full swing, and people may not trust "Joe Pollster" calling them on the phone, they may be suspicious of being Dox'd or otherwise targeted if they give "the wrong answers" to left-wing activists. So there may a significant number of people actively lying to the pollsters this time around.

Some people do lie to pollsters, but not very many.  As Silver pointed out, most people who answer calls from pollsters and take the surveys feel a legitimate impulse to add to the public discussion.

[TheDeamon]

Another things in play right now is the whole "cancel culture" mindset being in full swing, and people may not trust "Joe Pollster" calling them on the phone, they may be suspicious of being Dox'd or otherwise targeted if they give "the wrong answers" to left-wing activists. So there may a significant number of people actively lying to the pollsters this time around.

Some people do lie to pollsters, but not very many.  As Silver pointed out, most people who answer calls from pollsters and take the surveys feel a legitimate impulse to add to the public discussion.

Historically, I'd agree. This year, I'm not sure that can be relied on. We'll see on election night, or at some point between now and then.

[Kasandra]

Historically, I'd agree. This year, I'm not sure that can be relied on. We'll see on election night, or at some point between now and then.

Trump has created an atmosphere that brings out the worst in people and eggs them on to be worse yet if they don't suffer any consequences.  So, people will lie to pollsters without feeling any shame or regret.  It's like a virus, nobody can see the lie so it's like it didn't happen.  How freeing is that?!  People who think like that won't mind if Trump encourages states to rig the election and wins because of it, because nobody will take any responsibility for it and Trump will blame Democrats for corruption.

[Kasandra]

Crap, what's wrong with these people?!?  They spend time in the same room with Trump, and they just don't get it.

In hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign heads of state, President Donald Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and so abusive to leaders of America's principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior US officials -- including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff -- that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.

[TheDeamon]

The problem with that claim is if it is true, I'd be expecting the 25th Amendment to be getting invoked regularly. And for former officials to be loudly and frequently talking about using it to get him out ASAP.

As far as I can recall, it's only been the Democrats who have actively calling for that. Certain former officials from Trump's own Administration(rather than inherited from Obama) do seem to be pushing for impeachment, but not for the cabinet to use the 25th Amendment. That tends to suggest certain claims should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

[TheDrake]

You can be considered a threat to National Security without being unable to serve. Lots of Republicans thought Obama was a threat to National Security, think Iran deal.

[Kasandra]

The problem with that claim is if it is true, I'd be expecting the 25th Amendment to be getting invoked regularly. And for former officials to be loudly and frequently talking about using it to get him out ASAP.

As far as I can recall, it's only been the Democrats who have actively calling for that. Certain former officials from Trump's own Administration(rather than inherited from Obama) do seem to be pushing for impeachment, but not for the cabinet to use the 25th Amendment. That tends to suggest certain claims should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Can you name a Democrat in Congress who called for the 25th Amendment to be used?

[TheDeamon]

The problem with that claim is if it is true, I'd be expecting the 25th Amendment to be getting invoked regularly. And for former officials to be loudly and frequently talking about using it to get him out ASAP.

As far as I can recall, it's only been the Democrats who have actively calling for that. Certain former officials from Trump's own Administration(rather than inherited from Obama) do seem to be pushing for impeachment, but not for the cabinet to use the 25th Amendment. That tends to suggest certain claims should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Can you name a Democrat in Congress who called for the 25th Amendment to be used?

I wasn't aware that being in Congress was a requirement for membership in the Democratic Party. CNN seemed to have no shortage of mostly Democratic talking heads wanting Trump's Cabinet to use the 25th Amendment during the first year of Trump's Presidency.

[Kasandra]

Who cares what talking heads say, or would you be willing to label everyone who comes on FOX and conservative talk radio programs Republicans?  We could have a lot of fun talking about the bat*censored* crazy things they want to do to Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.

[TheDeamon]

Who cares what talking heads say, or would you be willing to label everyone who comes on FOX and conservative talk radio programs Republicans?  We could have a lot of fun talking about the bat*censored* crazy things they want to do to Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.

If the talking head on Fox identifies as Republican, then they're correctly identified as such. Even if others might like to claim otherwise.

Likewise, it is only reasonable to call self-identified Democrats on CNN, and there are several,  what they identify as.

If you want to talk about the party members in government, just be clear to specify which part of the government you're referencing.

But as for Whacky, the Democrats have plenty of that between certain members of the California delegation, AOC and come of her fellow Freshmen in the House.

[Kasandra]

If the talking head on Fox identifies as Republican, then they're correctly identified as such. Even if others might like to claim otherwise.

Likewise, it is only reasonable to call self-identified Democrats on CNN, and there are several,  what they identify as.

OK, now you've done it.  Name a Democrat on CNN who called for the 25th Amendment on that network. <starting my stop watch....now.>

[TheDeamon]

If the talking head on Fox identifies as Republican, then they're correctly identified as such. Even if others might like to claim otherwise.

Likewise, it is only reasonable to call self-identified Democrats on CNN, and there are several,  what they identify as.

OK, now you've done it.  Name a Democrat on CNN who called for the 25th Amendment on that network. <starting my stop watch....now.>

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/politics/elizabeth-warren-25th-amendment/index.html

Elizabeth Warren: Time to use 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office

Even better, I found you a United States Senator, who is a Democrat, speaking on CNN about how the 25th Amendment should be invoked if certain claims are true.

[Kasandra]

Even better, I found you a United States Senator, who is a Democrat, speaking on CNN about how the 25th Amendment should be invoked if certain claims are true.

You are aware she is referencing WH officials who apparently were talking about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.  She didn't come up with this because of her own objection to something he did.  So your big reveal is that senior officials in the WH were thinking about it, and that's why she raised it on air.  Maybe you should find out who they were and you should go after them.

"If senior administration officials think the President of the United States is not able to do his job, then they should invoke the 25th Amendment," Warren told CNN. "The Constitution provides for a procedure whenever the Vice President and senior officials think the President can't do his job. It does not provide that senior officials go around the President -- take documents off his desk, write anonymous op-eds ... Everyone of these officials have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It's time for them to do their job."

The hard-charging comments by the potential 2020 presidential candidate come in the wake of the stunning New York Times piece where an anonymous official raises deep concerns about the President

and contends there were some initial conversations to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office

. The White House has aggressively pushed back on the piece, calling the author a traitor and a coward.

[Wayward Son]

Meanwhile, here's a nice YouTube video compellation of Fox News personalities speaking out against the President.

[Kasandra]

Un*censored*ingcredible

[DonaldD]

At some point, everybody needs to answer this question: how can you not be working to keep this man as far away from power as possible?

Trump's resistance led intel agencies to brief him less and less on Russia

The President has created an environment that dissuades, if not prohibits, the mentioning of any intelligence that isn't favorable to Russia

[TheDeamon]

You'd have to convince them that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

And in the case of what the left-wingers are pushing, many will take the disease instead. Quite literally in some cases.

[DonaldD]

You've really got to work hard to convince yourself that Biden has done or displayed any propensity to do anything nearly equivalent to bribing foreign leaders to interfere in US elections, to have his actions described as obstruction of justice by a special prosecutor, and to direct subordinates to avoid any discussion, in his presence, of security threats emanating from the country's main antagonist over the past 80 years.  Or for that matter, his complete mishandling of the pandemic response, his support for white supremacists, his dog whistles to racists, and his antagonism (at best) towards minorities; his directionless foreign policy, his lack of support for human rights, internationally and domestically, wed with his pandering to dictators, and the resulting loss of respect and influence worldwide.  That's not even getting into the list of criminals that have been removed from his administration, the rampant nepotism, nor the long line of previously respected former members of his cabinet and administration who have come out to decry him as being incompetent, even unhinged.

[TheDeamon]

The closest thing to overt interference in the US elections, which should be considered interference, is some of the accusations from Bolton, and even the ones I'm aware of from him are laughable.

"If you want me to be re-elected president, please make sure the economy of the US doing well while I'm up for election(2020)."

So asking other nations to help make sure the United States is doing well economically is now a bribe? The more laughable side of that is how unlikely it is that any government would go so far as to adversely harm their own economy in order to do so.

[DonaldD]

You really have to squint to make it look the way you characterize, but then there's the 10 other things that, had they been done by Obama or Clinton, you would have found disqualifying.

[Kasandra]

I can understand (barely) that someone can prefer Trump on the basis of his policies and stances on specific issues, but it boggles the mind that anyone would prefer him over any other possible candidate to sit in the Oval Office.  Except for a few twisted souls who think he never lies, is lovable and honest, almost everyone who has known him and spoken publicly about him has or can attest to his almost subhuman lack of character.  200 officials who served in the George Bush Administration just announced that they have formed the second PAC for the express purpose of helping Joe Biden, whose policies they mostly disagree with, beat Trump in the election.

[TheDeamon]

You really have to squint to make it look the way you characterize, but then there's the 10 other things that, had they been done by Obama or Clinton, you would have found disqualifying.

As Donald Rumsfield once said, "You go to war with with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had."

I wish the Republican option was anybody but Trump, in normal circumstances it would be reason to vote him out.

But the Democratic Party is insane, and "boring Joe Biden" would have been re-assuring, except for the whole matter of it being questionable on if he'll be mentally competent for performing the job come January, never mind 4 years from now. Which means it would likely be his staff running things until such time that they decide to end the charade and let the VP take over. And I'm not going to play Russian Roulette as to who is likely to end up in his cabinet. I also don't trust what could possibly happen with a Democrat Controlled Executive Branch and a possibly Democrat Controlled House and Senate (although ostensibly those races should be able to run separably from the Presidential race, and quite likely will in this cycle as I think it's unlikely that either candidate is likely to have a substantial "coat tail effect" in this upcoming election, but we could be surprised.

[DonaldD]

Trump has already proven himself to be mentally as well as morally incompetent, so it's weird to hang your hat on the risk of Biden's loss of competence.

The rest makes sense: support the team's guy, even if he's already proved himself to be willing to sell out the country for personal gain.

[Kasandra]

The discussion is no longer about what is wrong with Trump.  We all know his very public record.  The question is becoming more and more what is wrong with those who support him.  It's not good enough to say he's a despicable person, but Democrats are worse, so I'll vote for him over pretty much any Democrat in the upcoming election.  If Trump is "the lesser of two evils" show the evils of picking Joe Biden that outweigh Trump's horrendous failings.

[DonaldD]

But the Democratic Party is insane

And speaking of insane, QAnon sympathizers win congressional primaries.  Oh wait, those were Republican primaries - my bad.

[TheDeamon]

The rest makes sense: support the team's guy, even if he's already proved himself to be willing to sell out the country for personal gain.

This is part of your problem regarding "sell out the country" and loss of international standing:

You're going to have a hard sell on getting Republicans to believe that a presumed return to Obama-era policies under Biden would be a verifiable improvement over what Trump is doing now. This also ignores the matter of it being odd to call Trump the "sell out" when it is the Clinton Foundation that has been documented to have received hundreds of millions of dollars from Russia and China over the years, but the Democrats were fine with that.

And Trump being "an international threat" is a non-factor for most Americans, when their bigger concern is the domestic threat the Democrats seem to want to turn the Federal Government into. They'll take international corruption over more domestic nanny state.

[DonaldD]

It's funny how, when Dems have been at the wheel, the economy has recovered quite well.

[DonaldD]

Which is all quite beside the point - it seems like you are just fine with Trump turning a blind eye to Russian bounties on US military personnel, his culpability in facilitating the spread of COVID-19 and the resulting deaths and economic fallout, his fanning the fires of ethnic divisions, etc, etc, etc.

[Kasandra]

And Trump being "an international threat" is a non-factor for most Americans, when their bigger concern is the domestic threat the Democrats seem to want to turn the Federal Government into. They'll take international corruption over more domestic nanny state.

Countries all across Europe did the "nanny state" thing with C19 and their infection, hospitalization and death rates have fallen sharply in every one of them.  You should exclude Sweden, since they only partially nannied themselves and their C19 statistics are worse than those other countries.

I truly don't understand why people feel so strongly about their so-called individual freedoms that they think not getting vaccinated and dying as a result is somehow a badge of honor.  That applies to people who not only won't wear masks but yell at and even attack others who do.  In this case, you may die, but your honor will be even greater if you kill other people in the process.  That's not resisting the "nanny state", it's sheer anti-social insanity.

Republicans should rebrand themselves as the Darwin Party, but not because they buy into the socialist-democrat evolution hoax.  If God wanted us to live past tomorrow he would have given us brains, but instead he gave us chimps as grandparents.

[Kasandra]

Former European Council President Donald Tusk wants Joe Biden to be the next U.S. president.

Tusk took to Twitter on Thursday and said

"I’ve always believed in the Republican ideals and greatness of America:as an anti-Communist from “Solidarność”, Polish Prime Minister and as EU President. Reagan was my hero. And I got to know
@realDonaldTrump really well. These are the reasons why I pray for @JoeBiden’s success."
...
During a speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September last year, Tusk said, without mentioning Trump by name: "To protect the truth, it is not enough to accuse others of promoting fake news. Frankly speaking, it would be enough to simply stop lying."

[Wayward Son]

“Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president.” Mitt Romney

“While I understand the frustration with the badly flawed Russia-collusion investigation, in my view, commuting Roger Stone’s sentence is a mistake,” Toomey said. “He was duly convicted of lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction a congressional investigation conducted by a Republican-led committee.”

Toomey also noted that Attorney General William Barr earlier this week called the prosecution of Stone “righteous” and said his prison sentence of three years and four months was “fair.”

[Wayward Son]

Former Republican Representative, Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen: Trump is "taking us down the road to tyranny."

[Wayward Son]

How about Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, who wrote an op-ed subtitled: "I'm a GOP governor. Why didn't Trump help my state with coronavirus testing?"  (Hint: Trump is only interested in things he can claim credit for.)

[DonaldD]

Fox News' (?!?) Neil Cavuto Just Broke Into Trump's Speech to Correct Trump's Lies About Obama's Economy

Trump credited himself with a low pre-pandemic unemployment rate and claimed the economic and banking regulations instituted by President Barack Obama had catastrophic effects.

That's when Neil Cavuto of Fox News cut into the President's speech to give the network's viewers something they may not be used to: a fact check.

[Wayward Son]

Senator Ben Sasse, Republican, Nebraska:
"I want more briefings but, more importantly, I want the whole White House to start acting like a team on a mission to tackle a real problem. Navarro’s Larry, Moe and Curly junior-high slap fight this week is yet another way to undermine public confidence that these guys grasp that tens of thousands of Americans have died and tens of millions are out of work."