Politics-What's on your mind?

[theoddz]

Originally Posted by Orema

One of things I like seeing two weeks before the election are the “big guns” who come out front and center to campaign for the party’s elected person. This year for the dems it would normally be the Obamas, previous Presidents and their spouses (Clintons, Carters), previous VPs and their families, the opponents (Sanders), etc.

For the repubs it would be the same (Reagan children, Bush, McCain family, Bob Dole’s old ass, current senior Senators, etc).

But not this year. The dems have big guns but we look desperate, as we are, and the repubs have none. Just Trump, his family, and the Justice Dept.

I don’t think things will ever be the same. Future Presidents, dems and repubs, will use some of the dirty tricks used by Trump.

Guess I should get used to it.

I think (IMHO) that a real pivot point that began this trend of "gloves off" politics was when President Obama realized that he couldn't be decent and optimistic about dealing with the GOP anymore. They mistook his kind, humble, honest decorum and "when they go low, we go high" with perceived weakness. The GOP, most definitely, were the ones who brought this style of open, hostile confrontation to our political system. I believe that the rest of it has to do with greed, meanness and all of the rest of humankind's worst inclinations. I also think that there are so many negative aspects of human nature that have fed into the general frustration that there is no one simple answer to why things have evolved this way. There have been books written, saying that this is the "arse end" of capitalism, democracy, and well, this is just "what happens" with the impending collapse of democratic societies.

I have yet another theory to add. When I was just starting my adult life, in my early 20's, I asked my father why it seemed that so many people, society in general, were just becoming plain MEAN. Pop told me that there had been a scientific experiment conducted on mice to try to examine what happens in a community when resources become increasingly scarce, while the population steadily increases (think about the wealth inequality that exists now in the U.S.). A group of mice were placed in a container with a limited amount of food and water. Gradually, more mice were added while incremental amounts of food and water were withheld. The mice became increasingly hostile and aggressive. The conclusion?? High population and limited resources = Increasing aggression and hostile behaviors. So, with our current situation of wealth inequality, imagine that 99 of those 100 "mice" are able to see a container next to their crowded, under-resourced box, that is oversupplied with food and water, but with only 1 mouse in that box......and it is dramatically overfed!!! I have thought about how Pop explained that to me so many years ago. He was so right. Pop was a research scientist (phD Entomologist), and he was an excellent critical thinker. I can't help but know, for sure, that if he were still alive today, he would be absolutely floored at how bad things have gotten, just in the past 7 years since he has been gone.

RIP, Dad. You were so very, very right about so many, many things.

~Theo~

[homoe]

NBC was kind enough to broadcast to the world, yet again, that the President of the United States is completely insane. At one point during a town hall in Miami on Thursday night, Donald Trump explained that he shared a conspiracy theory with his 87 million Twitter followers alleging Joe Biden helped orchestrate the killing of Seal Team 6 members—to cover up that the Osama bin Laden assassination was, in this formulation, faked—on the following basis:

TRUMP: That was a retweet. That was an opinion of somebody. And that was a retweet. I put it out there, people can decide for themselves.

Sure! Just send it out there to millions of people. Who cares whether it has any relationship to reality? Who cares how many lives get ground up and discarded along the way? It might, in this deeply depressing view of the human race, get you a few votes.

Moderator Savannah Guthrie, doing what she could with a poisoned chalice of an assignment, had an apt response.

GUTHRIE: You're the president. You're not, like, someone's crazy uncle who can retweet whatever.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/nbc-...024800314.html

[Cin]

This is what a normal, sane, presidential candidate sounds like. We are so used to the shit show of Donald Trump we have forgotten what the priority of a president should be and what a little humility in our leader might sound like. "Asked by Stephanopoulos what Biden thinks it would say about the state of the country if he didn't win this election, Biden said, "Well, it could say that I'm a lousy candidate and I didn't do a good job."

But what he hoped a Biden loss wouldn't say was "that we are as racially, ethically, and religiously at odds with one other as it appears the president wants us to be."

The former vice president said Trump's strategy is to "divide and conquer," but he, on the other hand, thinks people need hope."
"I'm going to take care of those who voted against me as well as those who voted for me. For real. That's what presidents do. We've got to heal this nation," Biden said

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/key-...bEUZeTJ3h2bKM4

[Cin]

I can't understand what would prompt Feinstein to say these things. If this is how the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee feels, and it appears that it is, no wonder we didn't have a shot in hell of stalling this travesty.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ge-on-the-left

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) praise of her Republican colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), which she followed with a friendly hug, is stirring outrage on the left and prompting calls by prominent liberals for her to step down as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Democrats, liberal activists and left-leaning pundits, many of whom were dismayed that Democratic senators didn’t put a tougher fight against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett expressed outrage.

Demand Justice, an advocacy group that has staunchly opposed Trump’s effort to fill the judiciary with conservative nominees, was first out of the gate with a statement calling for Feinstein to resign.

“It's time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If she won't, her colleagues need to intervene,” Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, said in a statement circulated about an hour after Barrett’s confirmation hearing ended.

“If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward, they cannot be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican theft of a Supreme Court seat with kid gloves,” Fallon said, referring to the Sunrise Movement, a grassroots environmental organization.

Prominent voices respected on the left followed with their own stinging criticisms.

“Diane Feinstein praising Barrett, and then inexplicably praising Graham, is a clear sign that she should not remain as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,” tweeted Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor for the Atlantic magazine.

Laurence Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard, retweeted Ornstein’s statement, adding, “I’m afraid I agree, much as I like Sen. Feinstein personally and admired her work years ago.”

Feinstein appeared to undercut weeks of arguments by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democratic senators that Graham’s decision to schedule Barrett’s confirmation hearing a mere two weeks and two days after her nomination was announced on Sept. 26 was an outrageously unfair ramming through of the nominee.

Graham, who is up for reelection, is also one of Democrats’ top political targets in 2020. Donors from around the country poured $57 million into his opponent Jaime Harrison’s campaign in the third quarter of the year.

Senate Democrats have repeatedly slammed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Graham for speeding Barrett’s confirmation to the Senate floor for a final vote before Election Day after Republicans blocked a hearing and a vote for President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, who was nominated nearly eight months before the 2016 election.

Feinstein didn’t appear to hold any grudge against Graham after he locked in a committee vote on Barrett’s nomination for Oct. 22, preventing Democrats from holding it over for an extra week as the minority party is customarily allowed to do.

“Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you. This has been one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in and I want to thank you for your fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth. It leaves one with a lot of hopes, a lot of questions and even some ideas — perhaps some good bipartisan legislation we can put together to make this great country even better,” she said.

“Thank you so much for your leadership,” she added.

When Feinstein capped off her praise of Graham with a quick hug, it sparked outrage.

Jon Lovett, who co-founded Crooked Media with prominent former Obama White House veterans, tweeted: “That she can say this about this ongoing travesty is another sad statement about how poorly represented we are by Dianne Feinstein.”

Adam Parkhomenko, a strategist who served as national field director for Democratic National Committee, tweeted: “Excuse me while I go punch a hole in the wall.”

One Senate Democratic aide called the hug “crazy.”

“For her to make those kind of statements and to embrace [Graham] was just bizarre and absurd to me,” said the aide. “This isn’t a progressive versus moderate issue. The intention was to spend this hearing period laying bare why Barrett is a problematic choice."

“That messaging was really important to her junior senator, her colleague,” the aide added, referring to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who is on the Democratic presidential ticket, and used her time questioning Barrett to raise a full-throated alarm that she thinks the nominee poses to abortion rights.

Democracy for America, a liberal activist grassroots group that opposed Feinstein in her 2018 California Democratic primary, said Feinstein’s praise of Graham’s handling of the committee is unacceptable.

“It’s not the hugging, it’s the calling this one of the best set of hearings,” said Neil Sroka, the spokesperson for the group. “It’s an important reminder that she’s a senator for another era and Californians are incredibly poorly served by that kind of representation on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I can’t imagine very many Democratic voters in the state of California think the Republicans’ attempt to stick a far-right extremist on the court less than 20 days before the election is acceptable,” he added.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by theoddz

I have yet another theory to add. When I was just starting my adult life, in my early 20's, I asked my father why it seemed that so many people, society in general, were just becoming plain MEAN. Pop told me that there had been a scientific experiment conducted on mice to try to examine what happens in a community when resources become increasingly scarce, while the population steadily increases (think about the wealth inequality that exists now in the U.S.). A group of mice were placed in a container with a limited amount of food and water. Gradually, more mice were added while incremental amounts of food and water were withheld. The mice became increasingly hostile and aggressive. The conclusion?? High population and limited resources = Increasing aggression and hostile behaviors. So, with our current situation of wealth inequality, imagine that 99 of those 100 "mice" are able to see a container next to their crowded, under-resourced box, that is oversupplied with food and water, but with only 1 mouse in that box......and it is dramatically overfed!!!
~Theo~

It has always puzzled me how people, or mice apparently, turn on each other when they are all in the same boat instead of banding together to tackle the problem. I thought it was something the power elite did to keep us divided, teaching us to look below us on the socio economic scale for the reasons for our problem so we don't have the power of being united against those who keep all the resources and wealth, along with keeping alive the myth of the American dream that we can all be successful and achieve wealth if we just try and also by convincing us all that there is scarcity when the reality is that they have hoarded everything for themselves. But maybe it's just something in animal nature that the power elite have learned to manipulate. Instead of getting aggressive with each other why didn't 99 mice band together and try to reach that container with only one mouse and tons of food and water? Why don't humans?

[theoddz]

Originally Posted by Cin

It has always puzzled me how people, or mice apparently, turn on each other when they are all in the same boat instead of banding together to tackle the problem. I thought it was something the power elite did to keep us divided, teaching us to look below us on the socio economic scale for the reasons for our problem so we don't have the power of being united against those who keep all the resources and wealth, along with keeping alive the myth of the American dream that we can all be successful and achieve wealth if we just try and also by convincing us all that there is scarcity when the reality is that they have hoarded everything for themselves. But maybe it's just something in animal nature that the power elite have learned to manipulate. Instead of getting aggressive with each other why didn't 99 mice band together and try to reach that container with only one mouse and tons of food and water? Why don't humans?

You know, the truth is, I really don't know why. I think the answer may lie in the individual's self serving human survival instinct (human nature) that is focused inward instead of to the group. They say that the difference between humans and animal beings "lower" on the scale is our (humans') ability to think critically and reason out problems. I would almost venture to think that our inclination to lash out/place blame on others in our same situation is probably linked to Darwin's theory involving the survival of the fittest amongst us. It's already been established that, on the whole, all too many have lost the ability (or have never had it) to think critically. For critical thinking to exist, one must be able to see the circumstances, situations and truth/fact that surround them and be able to evaluate these factors to find root causes and begin the solving process. I don't know when the schools stopped teaching our children to think critically, but it's my opinion that a lot of it probably originates with this and was deliberately planned and executed. When people cannot use the power of intellect and reason and observation, they resort to decisions made based on ignorance, malfeasance and emotional manipulation of the truth. In short, they are "easily led". That's why Trump was able to get elected in the first place. In recent years, many people have largely ignored the political climate in this country. Too many are too reliant on others to tell them what to think that they've become totally unable to know how to think. Have you noticed how many young people these days no longer read a book, or newspapers?? Too many of our countrymen/women/people cannot even tell you the names of their congressional representatives and Senators. You'd better believe that they can name the characters on reality television and figures in pop culture. It is absolutely head spinning and just plain disgusting, really.

There is a quote from the famous philosopher, Plato, and it says “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

Now, if Trump, McConnell, Barr and the likes of enablers like Lindsay Graham can manage to keep us looking the other way with pop culture, video games, reality shows and other such bullsh1t, they can continue to sit in their own private little boxes and eat up all of the food and water while we, the 99% of "the others" will be entertained and distracted.....all the way to our impoverished graves.

I'm sorry I rambled on. I hope my general idea came across through all of this!!

Thanks for bearing with me.

~Theo~

[Pacificblu]

Although famine and economic inequality bring out the worst in most people, it is a thin veneer we all wear. If the world suddenly experienced something like an EMP by another country (China comes to mind), it would put an end to modern “everything” as we know it.

No electricity to pump fuel, no transport of food, sewage back up, total anarchy. People will do anything if their children are starving, and will kill because there aren’t any laws or police to stop them. People are already mean, they just have most of what they “want” and it keeps them in check.

The majority of people are only kept in check by the fear of the law.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by theoddz

You know, the truth is, I really don't know why. I think the answer may lie in the individual's self serving human survival instinct (human nature) that is focused inward instead of to the group. They say that the difference between humans and animal beings "lower" on the scale is our (humans') ability to think critically and reason out problems. I would almost venture to think that our inclination to lash out/place blame on others in our same situation is probably linked to Darwin's theory involving the survival of the fittest amongst us. It's already been established that, on the whole, all too many have lost the ability (or have never had it) to think critically. For critical thinking to exist, one must be able to see the circumstances, situations and truth/fact that surround them and be able to evaluate these factors to find root causes and begin the solving process. I don't know when the schools stopped teaching our children to think critically, but it's my opinion that a lot of it probably originates with this and was deliberately planned and executed. When people cannot use the power of intellect and reason and observation, they resort to decisions made based on ignorance, malfeasance and emotional manipulation of the truth. In short, they are "easily led". That's why Trump was able to get elected in the first place. In recent years, many people have largely ignored the political climate in this country. Too many are too reliant on others to tell them what to think that they've become totally unable to know how to think. Have you noticed how many young people these days no longer read a book, or newspapers?? Too many of our countrymen/women/people cannot even tell you the names of their congressional representatives and Senators. You'd better believe that they can name the characters on reality television and figures in pop culture. It is absolutely head spinning and just plain disgusting, really.

There is a quote from the famous philosopher, Plato, and it says “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

Now, if Trump, McConnell, Barr and the likes of enablers like Lindsay Graham can manage to keep us looking the other way with pop culture, video games, reality shows and other such bullsh1t, they can continue to sit in their own private little boxes and eat up all of the food and water while we, the 99% of "the others" will be entertained and distracted.....all the way to our impoverished graves.

I'm sorry I rambled on. I hope my general idea came across through all of this!!

Thanks for bearing with me.

~Theo~

Sad but so very very true. The deliberate dumbing down of America was a big success. I am certain it was not accidental that schools stopped teaching critical thinking. It is interesting to note how there are IQ limitations on police officers.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-cou...-a-cop/5420630
US Court Ruling: You Can Be “Too Smart” to Be a Cop
Police department disqualifies anyone whose IQ is “too high"

I do think the powers that be use our baser instincts, our worse inclinations to keep us separate. They feed our fears and demonize people and groups for us to focus our discontent toward. We can't attack the 1%, we can't tax corporations or the rich because we could be in their number someday, ridiculous as that sounds it's in our sociological make up to think we have unlimited opportunity so we need to protect the rich. It's really sad. They systemically keep us off balance and at odds with each other. It's in their best interest we never find our power.

[BullDog]

The rich find groups that others can blame and scapeboat based on race, sex, cultural issues, etc. People like to feel they are superior to others and to blame someone else for their problems (other than the obvious one which are the wealthy).

One thing that none of these theories explain is that we don't all do the same thing. For example, a shockingly high number of people support Trump, but not all of us do.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Pacificblu

Although famine and economic inequality bring out the worst in most people, it is a thin veneer we all wear. If the world suddenly experienced something like an EMP by another country (China comes to mind), it would put an end to modern “everything” as we know it.

No electricity to pump fuel, no transport of food, sewage back up, total anarchy. People will do anything if their children are starving, and will kill because there aren’t any laws or police to stop them. People are already mean, they just have most of what they “want” and it keeps them in check.

The majority of people are only kept in check by the fear of the law.

I don't know. People say the same sort of thing about atheists. Inherent in most religions is the belief that people need to be kept in check by fear. Fear of hell, of god, whatever. Without that belief atheists are immoral and capable of anything. We need a god to keep us doing the right thing. Nobody will do the right thing if there is no god to judge them or police or laws to force them. Maybe people will just do the right thing because they want to feel good about themselves. I do agree people will do anything if their children are starving, but I don't think they will kill because there aren't laws or police to stop them, they will kill because their children are starving and someone has food they won't share. Plenty of people don't have most of what they want. Many all around the world don't even have most of what they need. People do what they have to do to survive, to have their family survive. If they had the opportunity to have that without killing I'm pretty sure most people would chose to live somewhat harmoniously. Religion of course poses a different problem and people all over the world seem to think they need to kill those who believe differently so they aren't around to offend the delicate sensibilities of their particular god. I think in a lot of cases religion makes people mean. And it's the kind of mean where they might smile sadly and indulgently while they beat you to death. After all it's the sin not the sinner that's the problem.

[Pacificblu]

Originally Posted by Cin

I don't know. People say the same sort of thing about atheists. Inherent in most religions is the belief that people need to be kept in check by fear. Fear of hell, of god, whatever. Without that belief atheists are immoral and capable of anything. We need a god to keep us doing the right thing. Nobody will do the right thing if there is no god to judge them or police or laws to force them. Maybe people will just do the right thing because they want to feel good about themselves. I do agree people will do anything if their children are starving, but I don't think they will kill because there aren't laws or police to stop them, they will kill because their children are starving and someone has food they won't share. Plenty of people don't have most of what they want. Many all around the world don't even have most of what they need. People do what they have to do to survive, to have their family survive. If they had the opportunity to have that without killing I'm pretty sure most people would chose to live somewhat harmoniously. Religion of course poses a different problem and people all over the world seem to think they need to kill those who believe differently so they aren't around to offend the delicate sensibilities of their particular god. I think in a lot of cases religion makes people mean. And it's the kind of mean where they might smile sadly and indulgently while they beat you to death. After all it's the sin not the sinner that's the problem.

People throughout the centuries have killed millions in the name of religion, would kill us if given a chance.

There is also part of the population that will sit around and wait for the government to save them. Can you imagine for a city the size of LA trying to provide a gallon of water per person, it would be millions of gallons for 1 day? Without trucks.

Then the mean will come out of everyone when they cannot meet even their basic needs. We are a country that loves our comfort, and when it is not given, we will degrade into a lawless society. Not even religion wil save us.

[homoe]

PORTLAND, Maine — Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins and her Democratic opponent Sara Gideon sparred on health care and the nation’s coronavirus response during a Thursday debate that saw the two candidates heavily criticize each other’s records in office. Collins, a 24-year senator, and Gideon, the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, are in a heated, expensive race that could help determine control of the U.S. Senate.

The tight race with Gideon is an unfamiliar position for Collins, who has typically cruised to reelection in previous bids. Democrats and liberal groups mounted a campaign to unseat Collins after her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018.

Now let me get this right, Collins has been in office 24 years. I figure that's WAY more than just two terms!

[homoe]

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Pacificblu

People throughout the centuries have killed millions in the name of religion, would kill us if given a chance.

There is also part of the population that will sit around and wait for the government to save them. Can you imagine for a city the size of LA trying to provide a gallon of water per person, it would be millions of gallons for 1 day? Without trucks.

Then the mean will come out of everyone when they cannot meet even their basic needs. We are a country that loves our comfort, and when it is not given, we will degrade into a lawless society. Not even religion wil save us.

I think religion has likely destroyed more than it ever saved so I wouldn't but your eggs in that basket. You might have more luck with the government, although I wouldn't hold my breath there either. Maybe by the time we degrade into a lawless society there will be significantly less people because of various pandemics, wars and a myriad of climate catastrophes. But it is true that overpopulation makes it very difficult for the population to be reduced to anything sustainable. There are just too many people. It is likely that it's going to take a long time and people will suffer immeasurably before this mess is over. And here's the kicker, since the rich and the powerful have taken control of the wealth and resources, they can and will wall themselves off until this is over. Then those are the kinds of people who will be left to repopulate the earth. If there is an earth. Makes you almost wish there won't be one left.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Cin

Without that belief atheists are immoral and capable of anything. We need a god to keep us doing the right thing. Nobody will do the right thing if there is no god to judge them or police or laws to force them.

I don't think I was very clear in this post. I don't believe atheists are immoral I am an atheist and I don't believe I am immoral. I also don't agree that nobody will do the right thing if there is no god to judge them or police or laws to force them. Maybe I think too highly of people but I don't think most of us are inherently mean. Shit happens but given a choice I think most people want to live in peace. Unfortunately most people don't control jack shit, and are extremely easy to manipulate to boot.

[homoe]

Originally Posted by homoe

PORTLAND, Maine — Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins and her Democratic opponent Sara Gideon sparred on health care and the nation’s coronavirus response during a Thursday debate that saw the two candidates heavily criticize each other’s records in office. Collins, a 24-year senator, and Gideon, the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, are in a heated, expensive race that could help determine control of the U.S. Senate.

The tight race with Gideon is an unfamiliar position for Collins, who has typically cruised to reelection in previous bids. Democrats and liberal groups mounted a campaign to unseat Collins after her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018.

Now let me get this right, Collins has been in office 24 years. I figure that's WAY more than just two terms!

She's almost as good of a liar as Lindsey Graham!

[homoe]

Trump attacks GOP senator who accused him of pandering to dictators!

President Trump lashed out at Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., on Saturday, calling him “stupid and obnoxious” after he lambasted the president for his coronavirus response and accused him of being friendly with dictators and white supremacists.

Trump blasts Susan Collins over SCOTUS

President Donald Trump on Friday attacked Maine Sen. Susan Collins over her stated opposition to Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court, lashing out at one of the most vulnerable Senate Republicans less than three weeks before Election Day. There is a nasty rumor out there that @SenatorCollins of Maine will not be supporting our great United States Supreme Court Nominee,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Well, she didn’t support Healthcare or my opening up 5000 square miles of Ocean to Maine, so why should this be any different. Not worth the work!”

Boy this SOB can't get along with anyone......

[homoe]

WASHINGTON — For nearly four years, congressional Republicans have ducked and dodged an unending cascade of offensive statements and norm-shattering behavior from President Donald Trump, ignoring his caustic and scattershot Twitter feed and penchant for flouting party orthodoxy, and standing quietly by as he abandoned military allies, attacked American institutions, and stirred up racist and nativist fears.

But now, facing grim polling numbers and a flood of Democratic money and enthusiasm that has imperiled their majority in the Senate, Republicans on Capitol Hill are beginning to publicly distance themselves from the president. The shift, less than three weeks before the election, indicates that many Republicans have concluded that Trump is heading for a loss in November. And they are grasping to save themselves and rushing to reestablish their reputations for a coming struggle for their party’s identity.

Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska unleashed on Trump in a telephone town hall event with constituents on Wednesday, eviscerating the president’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and accusing him of “flirting” with dictators and white supremacists and alienating voters so broadly that he might cause a “Republican bloodbath” in the Senate. He was echoing a phrase from Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who warned of a “Republican bloodbath of Watergate proportions.” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the president’s most vocal allies, predicted the president could very well lose the White House.

Even the normally taciturn Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, has been more outspoken than usual in recent days about his differences with the president, rejecting his calls to “go big” on a stimulus bill.

IMHO too little and WAY too late!

[Chad]

All I really want to say here is that if you have mobility issues try curbside voting. You stay in your vehicle and they bring the voting machine to you. Just call the number on your voter registration. Beats standing in line and risking your health.

[C0LLETTE]

If Trump gets turfed, does he still get Secret Service protection for life, does his family (btw, what's included in family, ie, Eric etc?). What else does he lose besides protection from criminal charges while he's a sitting president and having to pay for his own legal defence?