alternet--2020-12-07--'Money for war': US arms sales soar amid COVID pandemic as bipartisan militarism thrives

The United States sold more than $ 175 billion in military equipment to foreign governments in the fiscal year that ended September 30 , Pentagon and State Department officials announced Friday—a 2.8 % increase compared to 2019 , when weapons exports totaled just over $ 170 billion .
The latest figures on arms transfers were released one day before President Donald Trump said that `` military offense ... is the most important thing a president can do , '' during his meandering speech at the Republican Party 's Saturday night rally on behalf of Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff , respectively , in runoff elections next month that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate .
Although he spent most of the evening repeating unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the November election and baselessly asserting that Democrats will `` cheat '' again , Trump on Saturday still encouraged rallygoers to support the two GOP lawmakers at the polls on January 5 to avenge his loss in the `` rigged '' presidential contest .
`` At stake in this election is control of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country , '' the president said .
`` The voters of Georgia will determine which party runs every committee , writes every piece of legislation , controls every single taxpayer dollar . ''
Trump 's rationale for backing Loeffler and Perdue came in the form of a warning : `` If the radical Democrats ... get power , they will ... ram through the most extreme left-wing agenda ever conceived while at the same time , destroying our military through a lack of funding . ''
Whereas Trump portrayed congressional Democrats as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' journalist Sarah Lazare argued last week that `` the annual approval of the gargantuan U.S. military budget , '' which she called `` one of the most reliable rituals in Congress ... is so ordinary and overwhelmingly bipartisan , it 's barely considered newsworthy . ''
The U.S. `` has by far the biggest military budget on the planet , spending more than the next 10 countries combined , '' Lazare continued .
`` There is no indication that U.S. lawmakers plan to reverse this trend anytime soon : For six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased or stayed roughly the same , taking inflation into account .
As the National Priorities Project pointed out in June , the military budget in 2019 accounted for 53 % of the federal discretionary budget . ''
While millions of the country 's working-class households—battered by the Covid-19 pandemic and corresponding economic crisis—await a new relief package that ameliorates widespread hardship , `` Congress had no problem passing legislation to continue U.S. military violence , '' Lazare added .
She pointed out that the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a vote of 86–14 , while the House version was approved on July 21 by a margin of 295–125 .
This NDAA was subsequently approved last week by both chambers of Congress .
Lazare wrote that while it is `` entirely routine at this point , it 's useful to highlight on the eve of yet another massive Pentagon handout how the budget for war could instead go toward life-preserving social goods . ''
`` That we can find the money for war but not for coronavirus relief exposes the moral rot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rot that must be dug out and expunged if we are to get through this crisis , '' she added .

The United States sold more than $175 billion in military equipment to foreign governments in the fiscal year that ended September 30, Pentagon and State Department officials announced Friday—a 2.8% increase compared to 2019, when weapons exports totaled just over $170 billion.
The latest figures on arms transfers were released one day before President Donald Trump said that "military offense... is the most important thing a president can do," during his meandering speech at the Republican Party's Saturday night rally on behalf of Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue of Georgia who are facing Democratic candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, respectively, in runoff elections next month that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate.
Although he spent most of the evening repeating unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the November election and baselessly asserting that Democrats will "cheat" again, Trump on Saturday still encouraged rallygoers to support the two GOP lawmakers at the polls on January 5 to avenge his loss in the "rigged" presidential contest.
"At stake in this election is control of the U.S. Senate and that really means control of this country," the president said. "The voters of Georgia will determine which party runs every committee, writes every piece of legislation, controls every single taxpayer dollar."
Trump's rationale for backing Loeffler and Perdue came in the form of a warning: "If the radical Democrats... get power, they will... ram through the most extreme left-wing agenda ever conceived while at the same time, destroying our military through a lack of funding."
Whereas Trump portrayed congressional Democrats as eager to pursue "draconian military cuts," journalist Sarah Lazare argued last week that "the annual approval of the gargantuan U.S. military budget," which she called "one of the most reliable rituals in Congress... is so ordinary and overwhelmingly bipartisan, it's barely considered newsworthy."
The U.S. "has by far the biggest military budget on the planet, spending more than the next 10 countries combined," Lazare continued. "There is no indication that U.S. lawmakers plan to reverse this trend anytime soon: For six consecutive years the military budget has either increased or stayed roughly the same, taking inflation into account. As the National Priorities Project pointed out in June, the military budget in 2019 accounted for 53% of the federal discretionary budget."
While millions of the country's working-class households—battered by the Covid-19 pandemic and corresponding economic crisis—await a new relief package that ameliorates widespread hardship, "Congress had no problem passing legislation to continue U.S. military violence," Lazare added.
She pointed out that the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed on July 23 in a vote of 86–14, while the House version was approved on July 21 by a margin of 295–125. This NDAA was subsequently approved last week by both chambers of Congress.
Lazare wrote that while it is "entirely routine at this point, it's useful to highlight on the eve of yet another massive Pentagon handout how the budget for war could instead go toward life-preserving social goods."
"That we can find the money for war but not for coronavirus relief exposes the moral rot at the center of U.S. politics, a rot that must be dug out and expunged if we are to get through this crisis," she added.


alternet--2020-12-07--Even the election dubbed 'the fraud of the century' doesn't compare to Trump's 2020 attempted electi

Even the election dubbed 'the fraud of the century' doesn't compare to Trump's 2020 attempted election theft: historian

The Fraud of the Century is a book by historian Roy Morris Jr. , about the 1876 election that put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes into the White House over Democrat Samuel Tilden .
If Donald Trump had gotten his way , the 2020 election would be a shoo-in to claim that title for the 21st century .
Despite his bogus assertions , victory was not stolen from him by President-elect Joe Biden , Black voters in big cities , or anyone else who Twitter or OANN tells him to rail against .
Instead , it 's the impeached president who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American voters and steal a second term .
The parallels between Trump 's unsuccessful attempt to do so and events that occurred after Election Day in 1876 are quite striking .
Beyond the different circumstances and outcome , in both cases what mattered most was that our election system allowed for state officials to inject themselves into the process in ways that invited partisan corruption—something both parties engaged in with equal gusto in 1876 .
This time , however , it was only one side—the Trump team—issuing those corrupt invitations .
First , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Ulysses S. Grant decided not to run for a third term ( which he could have done , as the 22nd Amendment was n't adopted until 1951 ) .
At the Republican National Convention , frontrunner James G. Blaine led on each of the first six ballots but could not garner a majority .
Ohio Gov .
Hayes , who came in sixth on the first ballot and actually fell to seventh by the fourth ballot , emerged as a compromise candidate .
Hayes finally eked out a victory on the seventh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than necessary—out of almost 800 .
By 1876 , the ( white ) leadership of Hayes ' party had grown tired of Reconstruction .
The Radical Republican Party of the 1860s was fast fading into the past .
The significant , albeit incomplete , steps toward full freedom and equality that Black Americans had taken since the end of the Civil War , along with the political power they 'd won , were already being rolled back in much of the South , and were highly vulnerable in the rest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground to help enforce Black rights in the midst of a hostile and powerful white majority , those rights and that power would soon disappear completely in the former Confederate states .
The Democratic nominee was New York Gov .
Samuel Tilden .
Tilden played a leading role in bringing down Tammany Hall 's William `` Boss '' Tweed and his organization , as well as thwarting the fraud and theft perpetrated by the Erie Canal Ring .
He then parlayed his reputation as a reformer into the Democratic nomination .
Tilden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic issues , the Democratic Party of his day was dominated by business interests and led by so-called Bourbon Democrats such as Tilden and , later , President Grover Cleveland .
On racial issues , Tilden ran in 1876 on a party platform that demanded an end to both Reconstruction—condemned as `` the rapacity of carpet-bag tyrannies '' —and the federal enforcement of equal rights for Black Southerners .
Those rights largely still existed only in Louisiana , South Carolina , and Florida—three states where federal troops remained , and where white segregationist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in other words , was directly allied with Jim Crow segregationists .
In fact , Southern Democrats engaged in widespread voter intimidation and violence during the campaign ; the notorious Hamburg Massacre , carried out by white supremacist terrorists referred to as `` Red Shirts , '' had taken place in South Carolina just months earlier , on Independence Day .
Back to Election Day .
By late evening , it looked like Tilden would become the next president .
His lead in the popular vote was substantial—he ended up winning 51 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only candidate to win over 50 % of the popular vote and not become president .
Tilden had already locked down 184 electoral votes , one shy of a majority , and the chair of the Republican Party decided that the time had come to empty a bottle of whiskey , as his services no longer appeared to be required .
Before Tilden could declare victory , however , three states—Louisiana , South Carolina , and Florida ( a list that should sound familiar ) —were `` too close to call . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ without a bleary-eyed , jacketless Steve Kornacki popping into my brain .
Into party headquarters strode Daniel Sickles , a top Republican , who calculated that if Hayes could just sweep those remaining three states , his party would come out on top .
One might call him the Nate Silver of his day—or one might just call him a guy with a pencil who could do three-figure addition .
There are other things one can call Sickles , such as the first American to be acquitted of murder on the grounds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife 's paramour , who just happened to be the son of the guy who wrote our country 's national anthem .
Talk about historical connections .
In any case , once Sickles put out the message on behalf of his incapacitated-by-whiskey party leader : Hayes could still win .
And so the four-month post-election saga began .
Over those four months , election integrity was nowhere to be found on either side .
Republicans and Democrats alike tried to bribe and steal their way to victory , with dollars flowing like water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the water .
In that regard , the election of 1876 looks nothing like 2020 , where numerous independent election monitors have stated that widespread voter fraud simply did not occur .
Although both sides committed widespread chicanery in 1876—in South Carolina , for example , turnout came in at a robust 101 % of the number of eligible voters—it was racist voter suppression that proved most decisive , according to Columbia University historian and widely acknowledged expert on the Reconstruction era Eric Foner .
`` This election was flawed from top to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was violence throughout the South against African American voters to try to … make it impossible for them to vote .
If there had been a fair election in the South , there 's no question , Hayes would have won by a large margin . ''
There were actually four states where electoral votes remained up for grabs .
In addition to the aforementioned and disputed three , the appointment of a single elector from Oregon was challenged by Democrats because he was a federal employee , something forbidden by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' Democratic and Republican officials simply nominated their own slate of electors .
They did so not on the basis of any objective counting of votes , but instead out of their simple desire to win .
In Florida , the Democrats `` determined '' that Tilden had won by a razor thin 94-vote margin , but in reality , we 'll never know the actual vote count .
In the end , Congress had to decide which sets of electors were the rightful ones .
More than two months after the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress created an Electoral Commission—something never mentioned in the Constitution—and gave that body the power to decide which candidate would receive the disputed Electoral College votes .
The Democratic-controlled House appointed five members , as did the Republican-controlled Senate , and each party selected two Supreme Court justices .
Those four justices chose the final `` independent '' member from among their remaining colleagues ; and , after he was elected to the Senate , the justices chose his replacement—a Republican .
He voted with the other seven Republicans right down the line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the outstanding electoral votes to Hayes , giving him 185 to Tilden 's 184 , and making him president .
Congress signed off on this ridiculous decision just two days before Inauguration Day , capping off the most drawn-out election in our history .
At every step , partisanship ruled the vote-determination process .
The so-called Compromise of 1877 contained another , unwritten element .
As previously noted , the Democrats were on record as wanting the remaining federal troops in the South to be withdrawn .
It 's no coincidence that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a chance of winning were ones where federal troops were still deployed as occupying forces .
Democrats—the party of the Klan at the time—knew that if Hayes as president brought the removal of those troops , that was a bargain well worth taking … and they sold out Tilden .
But far more importantly , the compromise marked the last step in the federal government 's total abandonment of approximately four million African Americans living in the South .
Both parties shook hands , and together , they ushered in the Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What happened with the election of 1876—and which resembles most what Trump has been haplessly trying to do since Election Day—was the utter partisanization of the process of states certifying which candidate won .
The kind of professionalism and upholding of oaths we 've seen this year from election officials were nowhere to be found in the post-Election Day Hayes-Tilden clash .
The aforementioned Roy Morris wrote that Hayes—who came to be known as `` His Fraudulency '' or `` Rutherfraud B. Hayes '' —ended up in the Oval Office because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whose members acted in a manner `` every bit as partisan and petty as the shadiest ward heeler in New York City or the most unreconstructed Rebel in South Carolina . ''
We in 2020 are extremely fortunate that some Republican officials refused to put party first .
Although you 've likely heard of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger , there are other , lesser known Republicans like Aaron Van Langevelde , one of four members of the Michigan State Board of Canvassers , who also deserve great credit for rejecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better method of electing presidents would not contain the vulnerabilities that ours does .
It would not have chokepoints where partisanship and a willingness to steal victory can , at the very least , cause chaos and confusion and , with the involvement of enough corrupt individuals , actually swing the results .
As Michael Li from the Brennan Center for Justice notes , `` It 's easy to laugh at the Trump challenges , just because they 've been so out there .
But what 's scary , is you step back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people were willing to go along with it until fairly deep in the process . ''
Too many are still `` going along with it '' as of this writing .
Top Republicans such as Mitch McConnell , Marco Rubio , and others , have made another flawed comparison : Namely , that the crap the Orange Julius Caesar has been pulling since Nov. 3 is really no different from the recount and related legal challenges Al Gore pursued in 2000 .
There is , however , no comparison .
Barry Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP opponent George W. Bush , clearly summarized why : `` There ( are ) not a lot of similarities .
In 2000 , there was clearly a problem with the defective ballots .
Nobody was claiming fraud or improprieties .
It was all about how we made sure everybody 's vote counted . ''
More broadly , Gore did n't level any of the ridiculous voter fraud charges of the kind Trump 's team has made this time around—did you hear the one that Borat sequel star Rudy Giuliani spit out about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes in Detroit ?
What , did they slip a ballot inside each Coney dog ?
What Gore did was simply ask for the votes to be counted properly in a single state where there really were problems with the mechanics of counting—hanging chads , anyone ?
—and where the margin between him and Bush came down to less than a hundredth of a percent—537 votes out of six million cast , to be exact .
Plus , winning that state 's electoral votes would 've given Gore the presidency .
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never questioned the integrity of the votes , merely whether he or Bush got more of them .
The convoluted , undemocratic Electoral College system that allows popular vote losers like George W. Bush and the Orange Menace to become president is a travesty .
Within it , however , the one thing that 's supposed to operate without too much controversy is that voters decide which candidate receives the Electoral College votes awarded by each state .
Once the counting of votes is complete , certification should be relatively uncontroversial , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verdict rendered by voters ( though Trump will surely attempt to complicate things ) .
In the weeks since Election Day , however , we 've all seen The Man Who Lost The Popular Vote ( Again ) do his damnedest to corrupt that certification process and steal the presidency .
Although he has failed , if he ever opened a history book and learned what happened after the election of 1876 , that may well have given him hope that he might succeed .
This time , thankfully , it appears that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reifowitz is the author of The Tribalization of Politics : How Rush Limbaugh 's Race-Baiting Rhetoric on the Obama Presidency Paved the Way for Trump ( Foreword by Markos Moulitsas ) .

The Fraud of the Century is a book by historian Roy Morris Jr., about the 1876 election that put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes into the White House over Democrat Samuel Tilden. If Donald Trump had gotten his way, the 2020 election would be a shoo-in to claim that title for the 21st century. Despite his bogus assertions, victory was not stolen from him by President-elect Joe Biden, Black voters in big cities, or anyone else who Twitter or OANN tells him to rail against. Instead, it's the impeached president who is trying to subvert the will of American voters and steal a second term. The parallels between Trump's unsuccessful attempt to do so and events that occurred after Election Day in 1876 are quite striking.
Beyond the different circumstances and outcome, in both cases what mattered most was that our election system allowed for state officials to inject themselves into the process in ways that invited partisan corruption—something both parties engaged in with equal gusto in 1876. This time, however, it was only one side—the Trump team—issuing those corrupt invitations.
First, a little background: In 1876, President Ulysses S. Grant decided not to run for a third term (which he could have done, as the 22nd Amendment wasn't adopted until 1951). At the Republican National Convention, frontrunner James G. Blaine led on each of the first six ballots but could not garner a majority. Ohio Gov. Hayes, who came in sixth on the first ballot and actually fell to seventh by the fourth ballot, emerged as a compromise candidate. Hayes finally eked out a victory on the seventh ballot, winning a mere five delegates more than necessary—out of almost 800.
By 1876, the (white) leadership of Hayes' party had grown tired of Reconstruction. The Radical Republican Party of the 1860s was fast fading into the past. The significant, albeit incomplete, steps toward full freedom and equality that Black Americans had taken since the end of the Civil War, along with the political power they'd won, were already being rolled back in much of the South, and were highly vulnerable in the rest of the region. Without federal troops on the ground to help enforce Black rights in the midst of a hostile and powerful white majority, those rights and that power would soon disappear completely in the former Confederate states.
The Democratic nominee was New York Gov. Samuel Tilden. Tilden played a leading role in bringing down Tammany Hall's William "Boss" Tweed and his organization, as well as thwarting the fraud and theft perpetrated by the Erie Canal Ring. He then parlayed his reputation as a reformer into the Democratic nomination. Tilden, however, was no progressive. On economic issues, the Democratic Party of his day was dominated by business interests and led by so-called Bourbon Democrats such as Tilden and, later, President Grover Cleveland.
On racial issues, Tilden ran in 1876 on a party platform that demanded an end to both Reconstruction—condemned as "the rapacity of carpet-bag tyrannies"—and the federal enforcement of equal rights for Black Southerners. Those rights largely still existed only in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida—three states where federal troops remained, and where white segregationist Democrats did not yet dominate. Tilden, in other words, was directly allied with Jim Crow segregationists. In fact, Southern Democrats engaged in widespread voter intimidation and violence during the campaign; the notorious Hamburg Massacre, carried out by white supremacist terrorists referred to as "Red Shirts," had taken place in South Carolina just months earlier, on Independence Day.
Back to Election Day. By late evening, it looked like Tilden would become the next president. His lead in the popular vote was substantial—he ended up winning 51%-48%, and remains the only candidate to win over 50% of the popular vote and not become president. Tilden had already locked down 184 electoral votes, one shy of a majority, and the chair of the Republican Party decided that the time had come to empty a bottle of whiskey, as his services no longer appeared to be required.
Before Tilden could declare victory, however, three states—Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida (a list that should sound familiar)—were "too close to call." I can't even write those words without a bleary-eyed, jacketless Steve Kornacki popping into my brain.
Into party headquarters strode Daniel Sickles, a top Republican, who calculated that if Hayes could just sweep those remaining three states, his party would come out on top. One might call him the Nate Silver of his day—or one might just call him a guy with a pencil who could do three-figure addition. There are other things one can call Sickles, such as the first American to be acquitted of murder on the grounds of temporary insanity: He knocked off his wife's paramour, who just happened to be the son of the guy who wrote our country's national anthem. Talk about historical connections.
In any case, once Sickles put out the message on behalf of his incapacitated-by-whiskey party leader: Hayes could still win. And so the four-month post-election saga began.
Over those four months, election integrity was nowhere to be found on either side. Republicans and Democrats alike tried to bribe and steal their way to victory, with dollars flowing like water and ballot boxes apparently winding upin the water. In that regard, the election of 1876 looks nothing like 2020, where numerous independent election monitors have stated that widespread voter fraud simply did not occur.
Although both sides committed widespread chicanery in 1876—in South Carolina, for example, turnout came in at a robust 101% of the number of eligible voters—it was racist voter suppression that proved most decisive, according to Columbia University historian and widely acknowledged expert on the Reconstruction era Eric Foner. "This election was flawed from top to bottom," Foner says. "There was violence throughout the South against African American voters to try to … make it impossible for them to vote. If there had been a fair election in the South, there's no question, Hayes would have won by a large margin."
There were actually four states where electoral votes remained up for grabs. In addition to the aforementioned and disputed three, the appointment of a single elector from Oregon was challenged by Democrats because he was a federal employee, something forbidden by the Constitution. Each of the four states' Democratic and Republican officials simply nominated their own slate of electors. They did so not on the basis of any objective counting of votes, but instead out of their simple desire to win. In Florida, the Democrats "determined" that Tilden had won by a razor thin 94-vote margin, but in reality, we'll never know the actual vote count. In the end, Congress had to decide which sets of electors were the rightful ones.
More than two months after the election, a compromise was struck, and Congress created an Electoral Commission—something never mentioned in the Constitution—and gave that body the power to decide which candidate would receive the disputed Electoral College votes.
The Democratic-controlled House appointed five members, as did the Republican-controlled Senate, and each party selected two Supreme Court justices. Those four justices chose the final "independent" member from among their remaining colleagues; and, after he was elected to the Senate, the justices chose his replacement—a Republican. He voted with the other seven Republicans right down the line, and the Commission awarded all 20 of the outstanding electoral votes to Hayes, giving him 185 to Tilden's 184, and making him president. Congress signed off on this ridiculous decision just two days before Inauguration Day, capping off the most drawn-out election in our history. At every step, partisanship ruled the vote-determination process.
The so-called Compromise of 1877 contained another, unwritten element. As previously noted, the Democrats were on record as wanting the remaining federal troops in the South to be withdrawn. It's no coincidence that the only ex-Confederate states where Hayes even had a chance of winning were ones where federal troops were still deployed as occupying forces. Democrats—the party of the Klan at the time—knew that if Hayes as president brought the removal of those troops, that was a bargain well worth taking … and they sold out Tilden. But far more importantly, the compromise marked the last step in the federal government's total abandonment of approximately four million African Americans living in the South. Both parties shook hands, and together, they ushered in the Jim Crow era and all of its cruelty.
What happened with the election of 1876—and which resembles most what Trump has been haplessly trying to do since Election Day—was the utter partisanization of the process of states certifying which candidate won. The kind of professionalism and upholding of oaths we've seen this year from election officials were nowhere to be found in the post-Election Day Hayes-Tilden clash.
The aforementioned Roy Morris wrote that Hayes—who came to be known as "His Fraudulency" or "Rutherfraud B. Hayes"—ended up in the Oval Office because of a decision issued by an appointed body, whose members acted in a manner "every bit as partisan and petty as the shadiest ward heeler in New York City or the most unreconstructed Rebel in South Carolina."
We in 2020 are extremely fortunate that some Republican officials refused to put party first. Although you've likely heard of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, there are other, lesser known Republicans like Aaron Van Langevelde, one of four members of the Michigan State Board of Canvassers, who also deserve great credit for rejecting Trump's baldly partisan entreaties.
A better method of electing presidents would not contain the vulnerabilities that ours does. It would not have chokepoints where partisanship and a willingness to steal victory can, at the very least, cause chaos and confusion and, with the involvement of enough corrupt individuals, actually swing the results. As Michael Li from the Brennan Center for Justice notes, "It's easy to laugh at the Trump challenges, just because they've been so out there. But what's scary, is you step back from that a bit and see how many people were willing to go along with it until fairly deep in the process." Too many are still "going along with it" as of this writing.
Top Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, and others, have made another flawed comparison: Namely, that the crap the Orange Julius Caesar has been pulling since Nov. 3 is really no different from the recount and related legal challenges Al Gore pursued in 2000. There is, however, no comparison. Barry Richard, who in 2000 represented Gore's GOP opponent George W. Bush, clearly summarized why: "There (are) not a lot of similarities. In 2000, there was clearly a problem with the defective ballots. Nobody was claiming fraud or improprieties. It was all about how we made sure everybody's vote counted."
More broadly, Gore didn't level any of the ridiculous voter fraud charges of the kind Trump's team has made this time around—did you hear the one that Borat sequel star Rudy Giuliani spit out about the food trucks that supposedly smuggled in votes in Detroit? What, did they slip a ballot inside each Coney dog?
What Gore did was simply ask for the votes to be counted properly in a single state where there really were problems with the mechanics of counting—hanging chads, anyone?—and where the margin between him and Bush came down to less than a hundredth of a percent—537 votes out of six million cast, to be exact. Plus, winning that state's electoral votes would've given Gore the presidency. Yes, it took a while, but he never questioned the integrity of the votes, merely whether he or Bush got more of them.
The convoluted, undemocratic Electoral College system that allows popular vote losers like George W. Bush and the Orange Menace to become president is a travesty. Within it, however, the one thing that's supposed to operate without too much controversy is that voters decide which candidate receives the Electoral College votes awarded by each state. Once the counting of votes is complete, certification should be relatively uncontroversial, with state officials simply signing off on the verdict rendered by voters (though Trump will surely attempt to complicate things).
In the weeks since Election Day, however, we've all seen The Man Who Lost The Popular Vote (Again) do his damnedest to corrupt that certification process and steal the presidency. Although he has failed, if he ever opened a history book and learned what happened after the election of 1876, that may well have given him hope that he might succeed.
This time, thankfully, it appears that history will not repeat itself.
Ian Reifowitz is the author of The Tribalization of Politics: How Rush Limbaugh's Race-Baiting Rhetoric on the Obama Presidency Paved the Way for Trump (Foreword by Markos Moulitsas).


alternet--2020-12-07--Experts: It’s possible — and necessary — to stop Trump from running in 2024

`` We 're trying to do another four years , '' President Donald Trump said at a Saturday night rally in Georgia .
`` Otherwise , I 'll see you in four years . ''
Trump 's `` increasingly overt flirtations with running again in 2024 , '' as the Associated Press put it , must be met with `` a proportionate response , '' wrote political scientists Alexander Kirshner and Claudio López-Guerra .
The president 's transparent attempts to `` subvert '' the outcome of the 2020 election threaten the `` viability of democracy in the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offense should compel Congress to convict Trump , thus rendering him ineligible for a future presidency .
While political commentators are debating `` the wisdom of pursuing criminal prosecutions of Trump '' after Inauguration Day , the pair of scholars made the case in a Friday op-ed in The Guardian that `` criminal prosecutions are not the only , or even the best mechanism for responding to the Trumpian challenge to self-government . ''
`` In a society fully committed to democracy , '' Kirshner and López-Guerra wrote , `` Congress would use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and disqualify Donald Trump from pursuing public office in the future , as the Constitution allows . ''
`` This might seem undemocratic , '' they continued .
`` It is not .
Joseph Goebbels famously said : 'It will always be one of the best jokes of democracy that it gives its deadly enemies the means to destroy it . '
But Goebbels was wrong .
Well-designed democracies need not turn the other cheek when confronted by aspiring autocrats . ''
Kirshner and López-Guerra noted that Trump 's most egregiously anti-democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once it was clear that he had lost . ''
`` Though there has never been any evidence of substantial electoral fraud , '' they said , `` [ Trump ] explicitly pushed election officials to subvert the outcome in various states where the race was close . ''
As Common Dreams reported this weekend , Trump publicly criticized Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp on Saturday night after the Republican politician refused to comply with the president 's request—communicated by phone earlier that day—to call a special session of the state legislature where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump at the Electoral College , thereby ignoring the will of voters and reversing President-elect Joe Biden 's victory in the state .
Kirshner and López-Guerra are not alone in arguing that Trump 's authoritarian actions have ominous implications likely to outlast the president .
Trump 's `` efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the election and seeking to overturn the will of voters could have staying power , '' AP reported Saturday .
`` What this president is doing is poisoning democracy , '' former Michigan Gov .
Jennifer Granholm ( D @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` has to be defended , '' said Kirshner and López-Guerra .
`` Many democracies block those who attack self-government from holding office . ''
Kirshner and López-Guerra pointed out that in the U.S. , political eligibility is established by the Constitution , which limits presidential office-holding to natural-born citizens who are at least 35 years-old and have been a resident of the country for 14 years .
`` However , presidents who have been both impeached and convicted can be made ineligible by a majority vote of the Senate , '' they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president 's undemocratic reaction to his defeat , the current lame-duck Congress should use this power to cut off any path to another Trump run . ''
The political scientists acknowledged that the Senate `` has never used this tool… and it is unlikely to do so before January 20 , '' especially with so few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump .
Indeed , a Washington Post survey conducted last week demonstrated the extent of GOP complicity with the president 's coup attempt .
The newspaper found that just 27 out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledged Biden 's victory , and only 32 said they plan to recognize him as the legitimately elected president if the Electoral College does as expected and verifies Trump 's defeat on December 14 .
Two right-wing lawmakers who erroneously believe the election was fraudulent insisted Trump is the winner , according to the Post , while the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House and Senate remained silent when questioned by reporters .
Even as the president continues to bend the nation 's institutions , including the Department of Defense , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House purged several members of the Pentagon 's Defense Business Board and replaced them with Trump loyalists—only nine congressional Republicans expressed opposition to his ongoing efforts to claim victory , according to the Post .
Although most federal GOP lawmakers did not respond to the newspaper 's survey , nine of them indicated that they support Trump 's attempt to undermine the outcome of the 2020 election .
Kirshner and López-Guerra argued that developing penalties—beyond impeachment and conviction—for `` those who assault popular self-rule should be discussed as part of any congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` unmistakable , illegitimate effort to stay in power regardless of the election 's result , '' the scholars wrote .
`` That he failed does not mean he should be allowed to seek the presidency again . ''
While it may be `` tempting '' to think that `` we are freed from having to expend time and effort to repair the damage '' to the `` foundations [ of ] our democratic house '' if it remains standing after Trump 's storm , Kirshner and López-Guerra warned that it is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not bring the house down . ''
`` This is the moment to send a clear message that , pace Goebbels , democracy need not supply its enemies with the means to destroy it , '' they added .
`` Disqualifying those who have assaulted democracy is a first step toward addressing that challenge .
It is , however , no substitute for addressing the deeper factors that allow such individuals to become electorally competitive in the first place . ''

"We're trying to do another four years," President Donald Trump said at a Saturday night rally in Georgia. "Otherwise, I'll see you in four years."
Trump's "increasingly overt flirtations with running again in 2024," as the Associated Pressput it, must be met with "a proportionate response," wrote political scientists Alexander Kirshner and Claudio López-Guerra. The president's transparent attempts to "subvert" the outcome of the 2020 election threaten the "viability of democracy in the United States," they argued, and this impeachable offense should compel Congress to convict Trump, thus rendering him ineligible for a future presidency.
While political commentators are debating "the wisdom of pursuing criminal prosecutions of Trump" after Inauguration Day, the pair of scholars made the case in a Friday op-ed in The Guardian that "criminal prosecutions are not the only, or even the best mechanism for responding to the Trumpian challenge to self-government."
"In a society fully committed to democracy," Kirshner and López-Guerra wrote, "Congress would use this lame-duck period to impeach, convict, and disqualify Donald Trump from pursuing public office in the future, as the Constitution allows."
"This might seem undemocratic," they continued. "It is not. Joseph Goebbels famously said: 'It will always be one of the best jokes of democracy that it gives its deadly enemies the means to destroy it.' But Goebbels was wrong. Well-designed democracies need not turn the other cheek when confronted by aspiring autocrats."
Kirshner and López-Guerra noted that Trump's most egregiously anti-democratic moves "have followed Election Day, once it was clear that he had lost."
"Though there has never been any evidence of substantial electoral fraud," they said, "[Trump] explicitly pushed election officials to subvert the outcome in various states where the race was close."
As Common Dreams reported this weekend, Trump publicly criticized Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp on Saturday night after the Republican politician refused to comply with the president's request—communicated by phone earlier that day—to call a special session of the state legislature where lawmakers could appoint electors who would support Trump at the Electoral College, thereby ignoring the will of voters and reversing President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the state.
Kirshner and López-Guerra are not alone in arguing that Trump's authoritarian actions have ominous implications likely to outlast the president.
Trump's "efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the election and seeking to overturn the will of voters could have staying power," AP reported Saturday. "What this president is doing is poisoning democracy," former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) told the news outlet.
Democracy "has to be defended," said Kirshner and López-Guerra. "Many democracies block those who attack self-government from holding office."
They continued:
The logic of these policies is plain. Democracy requires that no one be unjustifiably barred from seeking office. One's race, religion or gender does not matter. It would be an insult to block someone because of the color of their skin. But holding office is a public trust. The decisions made by presidents, senators, and representatives impact the basic welfare and rights of many others, including their democratic rights. Accordingly, the liberty to seek election can be reasonably restricted. Age requirements are familiar enough examples.
Democracy-reinforcing eligibility rules follow a similar logic. They may deter participation in anti-democratic plots and keep those who are manifestly unfit from seeking power. The excluded have little warrant to complain. Potential candidates forfeit their right to run when their actions demonstrate they will use that position to assault the democratic rights of others, as Trump has done.
Kirshner and López-Guerra pointed out that in the U.S., political eligibility is established by the Constitution, which limits presidential office-holding to natural-born citizens who are at least 35 years-old and have been a resident of the country for 14 years.
"However, presidents who have been both impeached and convicted can be made ineligible by a majority vote of the Senate," they wrote. "In light of the president's undemocratic reaction to his defeat, the current lame-duck Congress should use this power to cut off any path to another Trump run."
The political scientists acknowledged that the Senate "has never used this tool… and it is unlikely to do so before January 20," especially with so few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump.
Indeed, a Washington Post survey conducted last week demonstrated the extent of GOP complicity with the president's coup attempt. The newspaper found that just 27 out of 249 congressional Republicans have so far acknowledged Biden's victory, and only 32 said they plan to recognize him as the legitimately elected president if the Electoral College does as expected and verifies Trump's defeat on December 14.
Two right-wing lawmakers who erroneously believe the election was fraudulent insisted Trump is the winner, according to the Post, while the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House and Senate remained silent when questioned by reporters.
Even as the president continues to bend the nation's institutions, including the Department of Defense, to his own will—Politicoreported Friday that the White House purged several members of the Pentagon's Defense Business Board and replaced them with Trump loyalists—only nine congressional Republicans expressed opposition to his ongoing efforts to claim victory, according to the Post.
Although most federal GOP lawmakers did not respond to the newspaper's survey, nine of them indicated that they support Trump's attempt to undermine the outcome of the 2020 election.
Kirshner and López-Guerra argued that developing penalties—beyond impeachment and conviction—for "those who assault popular self-rule should be discussed as part of any congressional democracy-reform package."
Trump made an "unmistakable, illegitimate effort to stay in power regardless of the election's result," the scholars wrote. "That he failed does not mean he should be allowed to seek the presidency again."
While it may be "tempting" to think that "we are freed from having to expend time and effort to repair the damage" to the "foundations [of] our democratic house" if it remains standing after Trump's storm, Kirshner and López-Guerra warned that it is a mistake to "think that future storms will not bring the house down."
"This is the moment to send a clear message that, pace Goebbels, democracy need not supply its enemies with the means to destroy it," they added. "Disqualifying those who have assaulted democracy is a first step toward addressing that challenge. It is, however, no substitute for addressing the deeper factors that allow such individuals to become electorally competitive in the first place."


alternet--2020-12-07--Rudy Giuliani admitted to the hospital after Trump tweets lawyer tested positive for COVID-19

According to Donald Trump , a man whose word can only be taken with a grain of salt the size of the moon , Rudolph Giuliani—his personal attorney and conspiracy peddler—has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus .
The Wall Street Journal reports that sources say Giuliani was admitted to a hospital on Sunday , which was where he tested positive .
Word on his condition still remains unclear .
Let 's be honest , the fact that Giuliani has n't tested positive for COVID-19 , with his intimate proximity to the Trump administration and dozens of other White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus , is the only shocking aspect of this piece of news .
Giuliani 's son Andrew , tested positive a couple of weeks ago .
This comes less than 24 hours after it was reported by Bloomberg White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs reported that Trump 's personal assistant Nick Luna had tested positive for the virus .
Will Rudy 's farting expose in Michigan mean that the entire room must get tested ?
Hopefully not .
However , it could have been an indicator that Giuliani was n't doing so well—physically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very low on the list of `` great '' mayors in the history of the country , let alone New York City .

According to Donald Trump, a man whose word can only be taken with a grain of salt the size of the moon, Rudolph Giuliani—his personal attorney and conspiracy peddler—has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus.
UPDATE: DEC. 6, 2O20 — 6:38 PM
The Wall Street Journal reports that sources say Giuliani was admitted to a hospital on Sunday, which was where he tested positive. Word on his condition still remains unclear.
Let's be honest, the fact that Giuliani hasn't tested positive for COVID-19, with his intimate proximity to the Trump administration and dozens of other White House staff that have already tested positive for the virus, is the only shocking aspect of this piece of news. Giuliani's son Andrew, tested positive a couple of weeks ago. This comes less than 24 hours after it was reported by Bloomberg White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs reported that Trump's personal assistant Nick Luna had tested positive for the virus.
Will Rudy's farting expose in Michigan mean that the entire room must get tested? Hopefully not. However, it could have been an indicator that Giuliani wasn't doing so well—physically.
Fact check: Rudolph Giuliani is very low on the list of "great" mayors in the history of the country, let alone New York City.


alternet--2020-12-07--McConnell moves one step closer to jamming through Trump's anti-First Amendment FCC pick

With the end of the Trump administration fast approaching , Republicans are working to gum up the works of government as rapidly as possible .
COVID-19 stimulus help for the tens of millions of Americans in need ?
No thank you !
This nefarious anti-Democracy work revolves mostly around find ways to hamper both the Democratic control of the House and the incoming Biden administration 's Executive branch .
To do this , Republicans have been working to create checks that must go through the Senate—controlled by Majority Leader and truly ethically bankrupt power monster Mitch McConnell .
An example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party is working at include Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin attempting to claw back hundreds of billions of dollars in CARES Act stimulus relief in order to force a Biden administration to go through McConnell in order to use that money to help Americans .
It 's real dirtbag stuff .
Another move is fast-tracking junior staffer Nathan Simington ( pronounced `` Simon-ton '' ) , to replace fired FCC Republican Mike O'Reilly .
Simington 's one claim to fame is being the person craven enough to help draft Trump 's Executive order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move would unconstitutionally turn the FTC and FCC into the arbiters of free speech on social media platforms .
Hypocritical even for a Republican .
If the Republican Party can hold off challenges in the Georgia Senate runoff Jan. 5 , they will potentially be able to block any FCC choice President Biden makes for chair after Verizon shill Ajit Pai steps down .
However , in order to create a 2-2 Democrat v. Republican gridlock before Biden takes office , the Republican Senate must approve Simington 's nomination .
On Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal of sabotaging another government agency , when the Senate Commerce Committee voted to move Simington 's nomination forward .
It 's important to note here that Simington being the choice is entirely the result of Trump 's emotionally volatile incompetence .
If he had n't felt so emotional that his BS lying got called out , the Republican Party would n't have to worry about jamming through some guy that was ambitious enough and morally vacant enough to write first year law student Executive orders .
To realize how unqualified and radically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overreach into First Amendment issues , even Republican Mike O'Reilly , a staunch conservative figure on the FCC and not a friend to the American consumer , warned that the First Amendment was what was at stake with Trump and Republican pressuring to rollback Section 230 .
The Republican Party , in any other less toxic iteration , would have just stalled out and not even considered Simington 's nomination during this lame duck session , but then conservative and big business think-tankery reminded McConnell and others that they could slow down regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incompetent nominee .
I mean , McConnell 's been rubber-stamping incompetent ultra right wing judges for the last four years .
Any chance at re-installing some consumer protections via net neutrality , with a FCC interesting in doing its job , disappear if McConnell can block any Biden nominee .

With the end of the Trump administration fast approaching, Republicans are working to gum up the works of government as rapidly as possible. COVID-19 stimulus help for the tens of millions of Americans in need? No thank you! This nefarious anti-Democracy work revolves mostly around find ways to hamper both the Democratic control of the House and the incoming Biden administration's Executive branch. To do this, Republicans have been working to create checks that must go through the Senate—controlled by Majority Leader and truly ethically bankrupt power monster Mitch McConnell. An example of the kind of machinations the Republican Party is working at include Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin attempting to claw back hundreds of billions of dollars in CARES Act stimulus relief in order to force a Biden administration to go through McConnell in order to use that money to help Americans. It's real dirtbag stuff.
Another move is fast-tracking junior staffer Nathan Simington (pronounced "Simon-ton"), to replace fired FCC Republican Mike O'Reilly. Simington's one claim to fame is being the person craven enough to help draft Trump's Executive order to try and rescind Section 230. This move would unconstitutionally turn the FTC and FCC into the arbiters of free speech on social media platforms. Hypocritical even for a Republican.
If the Republican Party can hold off challenges in the Georgia Senate runoff Jan. 5, they will potentially be able to block any FCC choice President Biden makes for chair after Verizon shill Ajit Pai steps down. However, in order to create a 2-2 Democrat v. Republican gridlock before Biden takes office, the Republican Senate must approve Simington's nomination. On Wednesday, they took one step closer to the goal of sabotaging another government agency, when the Senate Commerce Committee voted to move Simington's nomination forward.
It's important to note here that Simington being the choice is entirely the result of Trump's emotionally volatile incompetence. If he hadn't felt so emotional that his BS lying got called out, the Republican Party wouldn't have to worry about jamming through some guy that was ambitious enough and morally vacant enough to write first year law student Executive orders. To realize how unqualified and radically fascistic Simington's position is on government overreach into First Amendment issues, even Republican Mike O'Reilly, a staunch conservative figure on the FCC and not a friend to the American consumer, warned that the First Amendment was what was at stake with Trump and Republican pressuring to rollback Section 230.
The Republican Party, in any other less toxic iteration, would have just stalled out and not even considered Simington's nomination during this lame duck session, but then conservative and big business think-tankery reminded McConnell and others that they could slow down regulatory progress by speeding through even the most incompetent nominee. I mean, McConnell's been rubber-stamping incompetent ultra right wing judges for the last four years. Any chance at re-installing some consumer protections via net neutrality, with a FCC interesting in doing its job, disappear if McConnell can block any Biden nominee.


alternet--2020-12-07--Americans are divided and polarized — but large majorities want to curb corporate influence in gover

Americans are divided and polarized — but large majorities want to curb corporate influence in government

After the most turbulent election cycle in American history , Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by a comfortable margin in both the Electoral College and popular vote .
With political polarization at an all-time high , the question of how President-elect Biden plans to unite a deeply divided country is a highly pertinent one .
Fortunately for Biden , the Cabinet composition process provides him with an enormous opportunity to maintain the coalition that put him into the White House while expanding his base of support in the process .
But , this will not be achieved by giving alumni @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions of influence in his administration .
While Americans may be divided on many issues , curbing the political power of corporate actors is something that unifies voters across party lines .
Eschewing former corporate lobbyists and executives in favor of qualified civil servants committed to advancing the interests of working people for administrative posts is n't just the right thing for Biden to do .
It 's good politics , and we have the data to prove it .
Earlier this year , Data for Progress that surveyed voters across party lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see in the next administration .
Fifty-nine percent of voters surveyed believed that corporate lobbyists wield too much influence in government policy-making .
When asked about the influence of billionaires , big banks and Wall Street , respondents overwhelmingly agreed these groups hold too much influence in government affairs , by margins of 62 , 56 and 52 percent , respectively .
On the other hand , 60 percent of respondents indicated they believed working-class people hold too little influence in government , while just 8 percent said they believed otherwise .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing a .
Public trust in government continues to erode , with the revolving door between public office and the private sector serving as a major focal point in Americans ' declining confidence in their elected officials .
Polling by Data for Progress revealed that Americans across party lines are intimately concerned with the impact that the revolving door between high office and industry has on policy-making .
A wide 56 percent of voters across party lines agreed that putting alumni of the corporate world in the Biden administration would keep the revolving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to the detriment of working families .
By contrast , only 23 percent of voters indicated that corporate lobbyists and executives bring invaluable insight to government and should be chosen by the president-elect for roles in his administration .
Few would be surprised that 63 percent of Democrats surveyed agreed that Biden should eschew the appointment of alumni of the corporate world to positions in his administration .
Of more interest , however , is that 54 percent of Republicans surveyed agreed that Biden should avoid appointing former corporate lobbyists and executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It 's clear , then , that while Biden will have his work cut out for him if he wants to win the support of Republican voters , working to close the revolving door with his Cabinet picks is far more likely to accomplish this than choosing business magnates for key roles .
Data for Progress polling that proposals to close the revolving door similarly proved widely popular , with a massive 76 percent of voters across party lines indicating concern about the prospect of an administration official who received a bailout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overseeing that same industry in an official capacity .
Polling conducted by Data for Progress over the past several weeks found that voters across party lines see federal government experience and policy expertise , not backgrounds in the corporate world , as attributes they value in potential appointees .
Sixty-seven percent of respondents across party lines indicated that Biden should prioritize policy experts with academic backgrounds when choosing positions in his administration .
The prospect of appointing individuals with experience in the federal government advocating for the public good was even more popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and even 61 percent of Republicans — agreeing such people should be prioritized .
When asked the same about potential nominees with backgrounds as lobbyists for major corporations and industries , though , respondents were firmly opposed .
Sixty percent of respondents said they disagreed with the proposition that potential nominees with backgrounds as corporate lobbyists should be prioritized in the new administration .
While a large majority of respondents , 67 percent , agreed that backgrounds in nonprofits that advocate for the public good is a plus for potential nominees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backgrounds in Wall Street .
Democrats are not going to maintain the coalition they built in the 2020 election , let alone expand it , by appointing former corporate lobbyists and executives to key posts .
Americans are divided on many things , but on the issue of corporate influence in government public opinion is clear , whatever elites in Washington may say : Biden should look to qualified public servants and experts , not titans of the corporate world , for positions in his administration .

After the most turbulent election cycle in American history, Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by a comfortable margin in both the Electoral College and popular vote. With political polarization at an all-time high, the question of how President-elect Biden plans to unite a deeply divided country is a highly pertinent one. Fortunately for Biden, the Cabinet composition process provides him with an enormous opportunity to maintain the coalition that put him into the White House while expanding his base of support in the process.
But contrary to Beltway wisdom , this will not be achieved by giving alumni of Wall Street and the corporate world positions of influence in his administration. While Americans may be divided on many issues, curbing the political power of corporate actors is something that unifies voters across party lines. Eschewing former corporate lobbyists and executives in favor of qualified civil servants committed to advancing the interests of working people for administrative posts isn't just the right thing for Biden to do. It's good politics, and we have the data to prove it.
Earlier this year, Data for Progress released polling that surveyed voters across party lines to find out what Americans wanted to see in the next administration. Fifty-nine percent of voters surveyed believed that corporate lobbyists wield too much influence in government policy-making. When asked about the influence of billionaires, big banks and Wall Street, respondents overwhelmingly agreed these groups hold too much influence in government affairs, by margins of 62, 56 and 52 percent, respectively. On the other hand, 60 percent of respondents indicated they believed working-class people hold too little influence in government, while just 8 percent said they believed otherwise.
It's no secret that American institutions are facing a crisis of legitimacy . Public trust in government continues to erode, with the revolving door between public office and the private sector serving as a major focal point in Americans' declining confidence in their elected officials. Polling by Data for Progress conducted in October revealed that Americans across party lines are intimately concerned with the impact that the revolving door between high office and industry has on policy-making.
A wide 56 percent of voters across party lines agreed that putting alumni of the corporate world in the Biden administration would keep the revolving door between Washington and K Street open, to the detriment of working families. By contrast, only 23 percent of voters indicated that corporate lobbyists and executives bring invaluable insight to government and should be chosen by the president-elect for roles in his administration. Few would be surprised that 63 percent of Democrats surveyed agreed that Biden should eschew the appointment of alumni of the corporate world to positions in his administration. Of more interest, however, is that 54 percent of Republicans surveyed agreed that Biden should avoid appointing former corporate lobbyists and executives, with only 22 percent indicating otherwise.
It's clear, then, that while Biden will have his work cut out for him if he wants to win the support of Republican voters, working to close the revolving door with his Cabinet picks is far more likely to accomplish this than choosing business magnates for key roles. Data for Progress polling also found that proposals to close the revolving door similarly proved widely popular, with a massive 76 percent of voters across party lines indicating concern about the prospect of an administration official who received a bailout in the private sector being tasked with overseeing that same industry in an official capacity.
Polling conducted by Data for Progress over the past several weeks found that voters across party lines see federal government experience and policy expertise, not backgrounds in the corporate world, as attributes they value in potential appointees. Sixty-seven percent of respondents across party lines indicated that Biden should prioritize policy experts with academic backgrounds when choosing positions in his administration. The prospect of appointing individuals with experience in the federal government advocating for the public good was even more popular, with 71 percent of all respondents — and even 61 percent of Republicans — agreeing such people should be prioritized.
When asked the same about potential nominees with backgrounds as lobbyists for major corporations and industries, though, respondents were firmly opposed. Sixty percent of respondents said they disagreed with the proposition that potential nominees with backgrounds as corporate lobbyists should be prioritized in the new administration. While a large majority of respondents, 67 percent, agreed that backgrounds in nonprofits that advocate for the public good is a plus for potential nominees, only 31 percent said the same about backgrounds in Wall Street.
Democrats are not going to maintain the coalition they built in the 2020 election, let alone expand it, by appointing former corporate lobbyists and executives to key posts. Americans are divided on many things, but on the issue of corporate influence in government public opinion is clear, whatever elites in Washington may say: Biden should look to qualified public servants and experts, not titans of the corporate world, for positions in his administration.


alternet--2020-12-07--‘Robot’ Kelly Loeffler mocked for short-circuiting when asked if senators should be dealing stocks l

‘Robot’ Kelly Loeffler mocked for short-circuiting when asked if senators should be dealing stocks like her

Appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) drew a lot of criticism for her performance in the nationally televised debate between her and her Democratic opponent Rev .
Raphael Warnock .
Viewers noticed that questions from the debate moderators earned a response from Loeffler that had nothing to do with the question itself .
When she was asked about whether she 'd take the COVID-19 vaccine , Loeffler went off about `` radical leftist '' and Sen. Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) and did n't say a word about the virus that has killed over 9,500 people in the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats want to get rid of healthcare while also having socialized health care at the same time .
The two ideas are in conflict with each other .
Others questioned why Loeffler remained so monotone , robotic and lacked any expression when speaking .
Others even compared her ignorance on the issues to the infamous South Carolina Miss Teen USA contestant who rattled off the need for maps when dealing with education about `` the Iraq '' and `` Asian countries . ''
Finally , when asked about her stock deals and if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , Loeffler called it a conspiracy theory from Democrats that attacks the American Dream .
See the comments from Twitter viewers below :

Appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) drew a lot of criticism for her performance in the nationally televised debate between her and her Democratic opponent Rev. Raphael Warnock.
Viewers noticed that questions from the debate moderators earned a response from Loeffler that had nothing to do with the question itself. When she was asked about whether she'd take the COVID-19 vaccine, Loeffler went off about "radical leftist" and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and didn't say a word about the virus that has killed over 9,500 people in the state.
Loeffler also tried to claim that Democrats want to get rid of healthcare while also having socialized health care at the same time. The two ideas are in conflict with each other.
Others questioned why Loeffler remained so monotone, robotic and lacked any expression when speaking.
Others even compared her ignorance on the issues to the infamous South Carolina Miss Teen USA contestant who rattled off the need for maps when dealing with education about "the Iraq" and "Asian countries."
Finally, when asked about her stock deals and if senators should be trading stocks while in office, Loeffler called it a conspiracy theory from Democrats that attacks the American Dream.
See the comments from Twitter viewers below:


alternet--2020-12-07--‘Part of the election coup’: Fox News viewers blow up at Chris Wallace for calling Biden ‘president-

‘Part of the election coup’: Fox News viewers blow up at Chris Wallace for calling Biden ‘president-elect’

Fox News viewers expressed outrage at Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace on Sunday after he repeatedly insisted that Joe @ @ @ @ @ .
Wallace made the remarks during an interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex @ @ @ @ @ Biden as a former vice president .
On Twitter , some Fox News viewers said @ @ @ @ @ an `` election coup . ''
Others falsely argued that Wallace was wrong because there @ @ @ @ @ of the Electoral College , where electors will cast their votes for president .
In @ @ @ @ @ is a term that has traditionally been used by the media to refer to the @ @ @ @ @ of electoral votes in the November election .
The phrase does not appear in the @ @ @ @ @ of the responses to Wallace below .

Fox News viewers expressed outrage at Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace on Sunday after he repeatedly insisted that Joe Biden is the rightful president-elect.
Wallace made the remarks during an interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, who referred to Biden as a former vice president.
"He's president-elect," Wallace told Azar multiple times.
On Twitter, some Fox News viewers said that Wallace was part of an "election coup." Others falsely argued that Wallace was wrong because there has not yet been meeting of the Electoral College, where electors will cast their votes for president.
In fact, "president-elect" is a term that has traditionally been used by the media to refer to the candidate who won the majority of electoral votes in the November election. The phrase does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.
Read some of the responses to Wallace below.


alternet--2020-12-08--Scientists just got a step closer to a universal flu vaccine

A new report reveals that scientists may have taken the first crucial steps toward developing a vaccine that will treat not specific strains of influenza , but all of them .
The finding could change the way that the flu vaccine is doled out — meaning that , instead of being vaccinated for a specific strain of flu every year as humans currently are , one single shot could vaccinate us against any and all strains in perpetuity .
The new study , which was first published in the scientific journal Nature Medicine on Monday , describes a universal flu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we vaccinate ourselves against influenza .
The theoretical vaccine takes advantage of the properties of the influenza virus , which , as the article explains , resembles a lollipop , with a head and a stalk .
The `` candy '' part of the virus , the head , is covered in proteins known as hemagglutinins ( HAs ) .
Existing influenza viruses target specific HAs by injecting weakened or inactivated version of the influenza virus directly into the body , which can then recognize the antigens — that is , the molecule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organism ( or pathogen ) — and develop an appropriate immune system response .
The challenge in fighting the viruses this way , though , is that the influenza virus can quickly mutate and swap genes between strains , making it possible for people who have developed immunity to one strain of the virus ( whether naturally or through vaccines ) to be vulnerable to an evolved version .
This is why new vaccines are repeatedly developed and given out , so that our bodies can keep up with the latest influenza evolutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantial public health concern , '' the authors of the paper explain .
`` Seasonal influenza causes between 290,000 and 650,000 deaths every year globally , according to the World Health Organization .
In addition , influenza pandemics occur at irregular intervals and can claim millions of lives .
The most devastating example is the H1N1 pandemic of 1918 , which caused 40 million deaths according to conservative estimates .
Current seasonal influenza virus vaccines contain three or four strains of influenza virus that cover the viruses circulating in the human population .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was developed by virologist Florian Krammer of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and her colleagues , attempts to circumvent this problem by developing a vaccine that kills the virus by targeting it stalk rather than by aiming for the head .
The previous challenge to doing this is that the human body has grown accustomed to attack influenza strains through the head and can override efforts to produce antibodies intended to target the stalk .
Krammer and her colleagues have attempted to solve this problem by creating a strain of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but creates a completely new head .
Because the so-called chimeric HAs ( cHA ) do not trigger immune memory , the body does not create as many antibodies targeting the head and instead focuses more on the stalk , which it does recognize .
`` Boosting with a cHA that has the same stalk but a different head induces another primary response against the new head but a recall response against the stalk , since the immune system has already seen that stalk , '' the scientists explain in their paper .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel coronavirus vaccine , it has been a banner year for biomedical research , with all kinds of advance in the field of immunology and microbiology .
Last week , in a paper published by the scientific journal Nature Communications , scientists announced that they had used CRISPR – a genetic technology that can alter DNA — to successfully edit SIV ( simian immunodeficiency virus ) , a virus similar to HIV , out of the genomes of rhesus macaque monkeys ' cells , potentially laying the groundwork for similar biotechnology to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most promising vaccine candidates for the novel coronavirus , which are being distributed shortly , rely upon an entirely new vaccine technology , known as synthetic mRNA , that has never been mass-produced until now .
Indeed , last month , multiple biotechnology companies , including Moderna and Pfizer ( which worked with BioNTech ) , developed promising coronavirus vaccine candidates that made it past Phase III , or the part of a clinical trial where a smaller group of patients is expanded and made more diverse so that a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By contrast , the influenza study was only a Phase I experiment , one in which 51 people received a variety of vaccines and 15 people were given placebos .
The small size of the study is further underscored by the sheer number of influenza strains that exist , with three to four strains being known as group A and other influenza virus strains being known as group B .
According to Krammer , if their technology is successful , it will take years before there are enough cHAs from both groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

A new report reveals that scientists may have taken the first crucial steps toward developing a vaccine that will treat not specific strains of influenza, but all of them. The finding could change the way that the flu vaccine is doled out — meaning that, instead of being vaccinated for a specific strain of flu every year as humans currently are, one single shot could vaccinate us against any and all strains in perpetuity.
The new study, which was first published in the scientific journal Nature Medicine on Monday, describes a universal flu vaccine candidate that could change the way we vaccinate ourselves against influenza. The theoretical vaccine takes advantage of the properties of the influenza virus, which, as the article explains, resembles a lollipop, with a head and a stalk. The "candy" part of the virus, the head, is covered in proteins known as hemagglutinins (HAs).
Existing influenza viruses target specific HAs by injecting weakened or inactivated version of the influenza virus directly into the body, which can then recognize the antigens — that is, the molecule or molecular structure found on a disease-causing organism (or pathogen) — and develop an appropriate immune system response.
The challenge in fighting the viruses this way, though, is that the influenza virus can quickly mutate and swap genes between strains, making it possible for people who have developed immunity to one strain of the virus (whether naturally or through vaccines) to be vulnerable to an evolved version. This is why new vaccines are repeatedly developed and given out, so that our bodies can keep up with the latest influenza evolutions.
"Influenza virus infections are a substantial public health concern," the authors of the paper explain. "Seasonal influenza causes between 290,000 and 650,000 deaths every year globally, according to the World Health Organization. In addition, influenza pandemics occur at irregular intervals and can claim millions of lives. The most devastating example is the H1N1 pandemic of 1918, which caused 40 million deaths according to conservative estimates. Current seasonal influenza virus vaccines contain three or four strains of influenza virus that cover the viruses circulating in the human population."
The new vaccine candidate, which was developed by virologist Florian Krammer of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and her colleagues, attempts to circumvent this problem by developing a vaccine that kills the virus by targeting it stalk rather than by aiming for the head. The previous challenge to doing this is that the human body has grown accustomed to attack influenza strains through the head and can override efforts to produce antibodies intended to target the stalk. Krammer and her colleagues have attempted to solve this problem by creating a strain of the virus that uses the influenza stalk but creates a completely new head. Because the so-called chimeric HAs (cHA) do not trigger immune memory, the body does not create as many antibodies targeting the head and instead focuses more on the stalk, which it does recognize.
"Boosting with a cHA that has the same stalk but a different head induces another primary response against the new head but a recall response against the stalk, since the immune system has already seen that stalk," the scientists explain in their paper.
As researchers rush towards production of a novel coronavirus vaccine, it has been a banner year for biomedical research, with all kinds of advance in the field of immunology and microbiology. Last week, in a paper published by the scientific journal Nature Communications, scientists announced that they had used CRISPR – a genetic technology that can alter DNA — to successfully edit SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus), a virus similar to HIV, out of the genomes of rhesus macaque monkeys' cells, potentially laying the groundwork for similar biotechnology to help people defeat HIV. Meanwhile, some of the most promising vaccine candidates for the novel coronavirus, which are being distributed shortly, rely upon an entirely new vaccine technology, known as synthetic mRNA, that has never been mass-produced until now. Indeed, last month, multiple biotechnology companies, including Moderna and Pfizer (which worked with BioNTech), developed promising coronavirus vaccine candidates that made it past Phase III, or the part of a clinical trial where a smaller group of patients is expanded and made more diverse so that a vaccine can be tested for efficacy and safety.
By contrast, the influenza study was only a Phase I experiment, one in which 51 people received a variety of vaccines and 15 people were given placebos. The small size of the study is further underscored by the sheer number of influenza strains that exist, with three to four strains being known as group A and other influenza virus strains being known as group B. According to Krammer, if their technology is successful, it will take years before there are enough cHAs from both groups to turned into a universal influenza vaccine.


alternet--2020-12-08--The quiet member of Trump's 'elite strike force' legal team is also a monster

Jenna Ellis , the senior Trump campaign legal adviser who you can see smugly smirking behind just about any image of Rudy Giuliani , is also special counsel to the Thomas More society .
That 's a supposed national public interest law firm that focuses on `` religious liberty '' and regularly shows up in the Southern Poverty Law Centers ' `` Hatewatch '' for having pretty unChristian views toward , well , anybody but straight , white Christians .
Their interest in `` religious freedom , '' for example , extends to voter suppression .
The group , under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and yes , they actually had the gall to name the effort after the ship and revolt of Africans who had been kidnapped and sold illegally as slaves in Cuba in 1839 ) has filed a lawsuits challenging the election in five states : Arizona , Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
The Thomas More Society has confirmed Ellis ' involvement with the organization but maintains that they 're not coordinating at all with her and the campaign 's legal efforts to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands , if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election .
The Washington Post speculates it is `` a coordinated effort to flood the nation 's courts with repetitive litigation that allows the president to claim the election results remain contested . ''
Seems like a safe bet .
The project formed earlier this year , fighting in state courts across the country to—get this—prevent county election officials from taking federal grants to help them gear up for conducting safe elections during the pandemic .
Because safe , free , and fair elections are apparently an assault on religious liberty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Trump campaign at all in its efforts to suppress the vote .
The group said so : `` As a tax-exempt organization , the Thomas More Society does n't support or endorse candidates , but when our election laws and even our constitution are under attack , we take action , '' the organization said in an October statement , bolstering Trump 's attacks on mail-in voting .
Ellis , the background Trump lawyer , is on the `` Leadership and Advisory Board '' of the Thomas More Society , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's just a total coincidence , then , that the lawsuit the group is filing mirrors the Trump campaign 's strategy of asking courts in states with Republican-controlled legislatures to let those legislatures toss the official election results and appoint their own Trump electors to the Electoral College .
Really , though , she and the group keep saying , they 're not coordinating at all .
Thomas More Society President Thomas Brejcha told the Post that Ellis `` has no association or involvement with our Amistad efforts '' and that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump Campaign . ''
Maybe she 's not , but a retired defense intelligence official who sits on Trump 's campaign advisory board named Tony Shaffer seems to be .
He is both on the campaign team and showed up at a press conference the Amistad group had on Tuesday , calling himself its `` lead investigator '' in chasing down what they 're calling voter fraud .
But really , a spokesman for him says , the Trump campaign and Amistad Project are `` not related , '' not at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shaffer acted as a go-between .
The Amistad group claims to have shared their `` voter fraud '' evidence with the FBI , but apparently they did n't even convince Attorney General William Barr , who publicly stated last week that the department has found no evidence of widespread fraud .
They 're not going to find validation there .
And , honestly , they should be sanctioned out of court .
This is who they are : `` a former Kansas attorney general barred from practicing law due to professional misconduct , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies such as restricting the number of Americans who are not Christian or Jewish . ''
Only the best people .
Those sanctions might be coming .
Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn rebuked the group 's attempt to get the court to overturn the presidential election , calling it `` the most dramatic invocation of judicial power '' he had ever seen , writing : `` This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread . ''
In addition to sanctions , the group is courting losing its nonprofit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IRS official , told the Post the Thomas More Society is `` putting it 's tax-exempt status at risk '' for so clearly working with Trump in election litigation .
`` It certainly raises the question of whether they have engaged in a way that the IRS could find violated the law , '' he said .
Ellis is clearly the connection here , and apparently Tump 's new favorite after he saw her on TV and he got the campaign to hire her .
Senior administration officials told the Post that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` The president would call her when the other lawyers would tell him no , '' one said .
They also say she has been feeding him false evidence of voter fraud , and that the bizarre 46-minute speech he gave last week about the election was `` a Jenna production . ''
She 's also told him the coronavirus-infected public meetings she and Giuliani have been having with Republican legislators are real and could help him overturn the election .
`` She 's willing to say anything .
Even as Rudy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not able to be executed , she will think of a way to talk about it on television , '' one official said .
What she 's not willing to do ?
`` [ S ] he has not converted her allegations into legal briefs or appearances in court , where making false statements could have serious consequences . ''
She 's not a true enough believer to want to jeopardize her future in voter suppression .

Jenna Ellis, the senior Trump campaign legal adviser who you can see smugly smirking behind just about any image of Rudy Giuliani, is also special counsel to the Thomas More society. That's a supposed national public interest law firm that focuses on "religious liberty" and regularly shows up in the Southern Poverty Law Centers' "Hatewatch" for having pretty unChristian views toward, well, anybody but straight, white Christians.
Their interest in "religious freedom," for example, extends to voter suppression. The group, under a newly formed "Amistad Project" (and yes, they actually had the gall to name the effort after the ship and revolt of Africans who had been kidnapped and sold illegally as slaves in Cuba in 1839) has filed a lawsuits challenging the election in five states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Thomas More Society has confirmed Ellis' involvement with the organization but maintains that they're not coordinating at all with her and the campaign's legal efforts to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters by throwing out the election. TheWashington Postspeculates it is "a coordinated effort to flood the nation's courts with repetitive litigation that allows the president to claim the election results remain contested." Seems like a safe bet.
The project formed earlier this year, fighting in state courts across the country to—get this—prevent county election officials from taking federal grants to help them gear up for conducting safe elections during the pandemic. Because safe, free, and fair elections are apparently an assault on religious liberty. But no, they weren't coordinating with the Trump campaign at all in its efforts to suppress the vote. The group said so: "As a tax-exempt organization, the Thomas More Society doesn't support or endorse candidates, but when our election laws and even our constitution are under attack, we take action," the organization said in an October statement, bolstering Trump's attacks on mail-in voting.
Ellis, the background Trump lawyer, is on the "Leadership and Advisory Board" of the Thomas More Society, as well as special counsel to it. It's just a total coincidence, then, that the lawsuit the group is filing mirrors the Trump campaign's strategy of asking courts in states with Republican-controlled legislatures to let those legislatures toss the official election results and appoint their own Trump electors to the Electoral College. Really, though, she and the group keep saying, they're not coordinating at all. Thomas More Society President Thomas Brejcha told the Post that Ellis "has no association or involvement with our Amistad efforts" and that they're not "at all connected with the Trump Campaign."
Maybe she's not, but a retired defense intelligence official who sits on Trump's campaign advisory board named Tony Shaffer seems to be. He is both on the campaign team and showed up at a press conference the Amistad group had on Tuesday, calling himself its "lead investigator" in chasing down what they're calling voter fraud. But really, a spokesman for him says, the Trump campaign and Amistad Project are "not related," not at all. But he wouldn't answer whether Shaffer acted as a go-between.
The Amistad group claims to have shared their "voter fraud" evidence with the FBI, but apparently they didn't even convince Attorney General William Barr, who publicly stated last week that the department has found no evidence of widespread fraud. They're not going to find validation there. And, honestly, they should be sanctioned out of court. This is who they are: "a former Kansas attorney general barred from practicing law due to professional misconduct, and a Minnesota attorney who has advocated policies such as restricting the number of Americans who are not Christian or Jewish." Only the best people.
Those sanctions might be coming. Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn rebuked the group's attempt to get the court to overturn the presidential election, calling it "the most dramatic invocation of judicial power" he had ever seen, writing: "This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread." In addition to sanctions, the group is courting losing its nonprofit standing. Philip Hackney, a former IRS official, told the Post the Thomas More Society is "putting it's tax-exempt status at risk" for so clearly working with Trump in election litigation. "It certainly raises the question of whether they have engaged in a way that the IRS could find violated the law," he said.
Ellis is clearly the connection here, and apparently Tump's new favorite after he saw her on TV and he got the campaign to hire her. Senior administration officials told the Post that she eggs him on in his legal efforts. "The president would call her when the other lawyers would tell him no," one said. They also say she has been feeding him false evidence of voter fraud, and that the bizarre 46-minute speech he gave last week about the election was "a Jenna production." She's also told him the coronavirus-infected public meetings she and Giuliani have been having with Republican legislators are real and could help him overturn the election. "She's willing to say anything. Even as Rudy comes up with legal theories that are not able to be executed, she will think of a way to talk about it on television," one official said.
What she's not willing to do? "[S]he has not converted her allegations into legal briefs or appearances in court, where making false statements could have serious consequences." She's not a true enough believer to want to jeopardize her future in voter suppression.