Never trust a utopian, of any variety. For the amount of good they think they are going to produce, they’ll built a mountain of skulls.
Darkness at Noon stands as an unequaled fictional portrayal of the nightmare politics of our time. Its hero is an aging revolutionary, imprisoned and psychologically tortured by the Party to which he has dedicated his life. As the pressure to confess preposterous crimes increases, he relives a career that embodies the terrible ironies and human betrayals of a totalitarian movement masking itself as an instrument of deliverance. Almost unbearably vivid in its depiction of one man’s solitary agony, it asks questions about ends and means that have relevance not only for the past but for the perilous present. It is —- as the Times Literary Supplement has declared —- “A remarkable book, a grimly fascinating interpretation of the logic of the Russian Revolution, indeed of all revolutionary dictatorships, and at the same time a tense and subtly intellectualized drama.”
Darkness at Noon
[I finished listening to this book last Saturday. It was haunting.
If you think Gulag Archipelago, Nineteen Eighty Four, and Animal Farm have something important to say you will find Darkness at Noon at or near the top of that list in the same genre.
It’s a novel, first published in 1940, but it was based on interviews with numerous real people within the USSR during the 1920s and 1930s. The main character is a composite of several real people.
There were a couple of things which really jarred me. One was there was a time, early on during the purges, that political criminals were arrested and sent to prisons which were more like resorts of beautiful gardens and lawns where they could be counseled about their errors of their ways. These “prisons’ had better living conditions than the environments most of prisoners came from. This reminded me of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler thinking that if he just talked to the rioters they would see the error of their ways, and the similar beliefs of the people behind the “defund the police” movement. Apparently the socialist mind cannot, at least initially, comprehend that people could be opposed to implementing the socialist utopia. The alternative is for me to believe the people of today, instead of independently arriving at the same mindset, have a playbook/script they are following and haven’t read the complete book yet to see how it’s really done.
The other thing that really stuck with me was how they got confessions. The confessions came from interrogations which lasted several days or even a month. The prisoner was confronted with evidence that was mostly true but the interpretation was twisted in some way that perhaps didn’t matter all that much in the present context. After sleep deprivation and hours of grilling the prisoner would sign the confession of the slightly twisted interpretation. Then a new piece of evidence would be presented. Again it would be twisted in the same direction as the previous evidence the prisoner had already signed off on. Eventually they would sign off on that one too. The process would continue like this until a complete narrative leading to the conclusion that the prisoner was such of a mindset that it was obvious they could not have had any other motive than the assassination of “Number 1” when they briefly spoke to the cook at the café where “Number 1” was to get his food a week later.
And, of course, as I have pointed out before, the every tightening of the purity tests that made a loyal, decorated, party member on one day into a saboteur the next week.
Today in our country, the mindset of the political left is racing down the same path as Russia of just over 100 years ago. They may believe they are “progressives” leading the world to new utopia, but that belief and mindset is a regression to that of the turn of the 20th century on a different continent. And, again, the destination is not utopia. It is dystopian nightmare of terror.—Joe]
By allowing incremental transgressions to go unchecked for centuries, the government has grown exponentially. We have had generations of deliberate and incremental miseducation that has created a positive feedback loop. The people literally do have the power to fix it but lack the knowledge and will to do so. I honestly see no way out unless a massive movement of grass roots education on the principals of liberty, virtue and limited government were to rise, which would be nothing short of a miracle. If and when it all collapses, I have zero confidence in anything good rising from the ashes.
January 14, 2021
Comment to Ghosts of the Constitution, past, present, and future
[I’m an optimist.
I think there is a slight chance something good could rise from the ashes.—Joe]
Via email from Chet (who worked with me at Microsoft on the location services for Windows Phone 7):
It is Big Tech that knows more about you than your spouse and that if they so choose could make your life miserable. As I discussed many times when we were working on location, carrying a device is like having a private detective assigned to you. Fitbit is just another source.
In East Germany they at least had to assign real people. Now, everyone can be tracked and monitored in real time without lifting a finger.
We have invented the tech that will enslave us.
This was in response to an announcement that Fitbit is now officially a part of Google.
He has a point.
But there is another point to be made as well. Intelligence sources, which your phone is, can be manipulated to your own advantage.
If your cell phone location is proof you were at some location then doesn’t your phone not being at some location prove (or at least represent evidence) you weren’t there?
Social media giants Facebook and Twitter have collectively seen $51.2 billion in combined market value wiped out over the last two trading sessions since they banned President Donald Trump from their platforms following the U.S. Capitol breach.
It’s possible they had nothing but good intentions and really did believe they were going to prevent harm to life and property:
User reports of violent content jumped more than 10-fold from the morning, according to documents viewed by The Wall Street Journal. A tracker for user reports of false news surged to nearly 40,000 reports an hour, about four times recent daily peaks. On Instagram, the company’s popular photo-sharing platform, views skyrocketed for content from authors in “zero trust” countries, reflecting potential efforts at platform manipulation by entities overseas.
Facebook’s platforms were aflame, the documents show. One Instagram presentation, circulated internally and seen by the Journal, was subtitled “Why business as usual isn’t working.”
Company leaders feared a feedback loop, according to people familiar with the matter, in which the incendiary events in Washington riled up already on-edge social-media users—potentially leading to more strife in real life.
It’s also possible, and this is my hypothesis, they had preconceived notions of the morality of President Trump and anyone who supports him. When they saw an upsurge in chatter that supported him they read any ambiguous, and perhaps even neutral, language as threatening. That is, there was a confirmation bias.
My evidence in support of this comes from the same article quoted above:
By Monday, Facebook said it would prohibit all content containing the phrase “stop the steal”—a slogan popular among Trump supporters who back his efforts to overturn the election—and that it would keep the emergency measures that it had activated the day of the Capitol assault in place through Inauguration Day.
“Stop the steal”? Really? That is the sole basis for banning a Facebook post?
These people need to be taught a lesson. A $51 billion lesson is a good start. Facebook has a Market Cap of about $717 B. Twitter about $37 B. When they’ve lost another combined $200 B (a third of their total value) then I’d be willing to consider the possibility they had learned the lesson.
The next time they come up with an excuse to ban people for engaging in innocent protected speech I would be inclined to see them on street corners holding signs that say, “Will code for food.”
Down through history there has been a number of financial mass hysteria periods as well as political mass hysteria periods. And now we a living through another one.
It did not appear out of the blue. It’s been building over the last four years and even earlier. The warning signs have been around for some time with smaller manias including SJW, Orange Man Bad, Me Too, White Privilege, BLM, the 1619 project and, of course, Guns are Evil – all taking hold and gaining acceptance.
Now we’re canceled! And many on our side are rushing towards the non-existent exits. The questions I have are how deep and wide will this one be? Is there anything that can pop this mass mania that has even a moderate chance of success?
As it became clear that Biden was going to take office, I thought about my guns, taxes, and policies that I object to. I’m now concerned that it is going to be far worse.
Yesterday I posed this quote from someone:
The constitution is the conservative equivalent of a gun-free zone.
I followed up with this deliberately very open ended question:
Now, can we use that insight and turn it into what needs to be done next?
The comments indicated everyone took a much narrower view of things than I had. One even took bizarre break from reality saying that my post meant I, “decided to go full-on Brownshirt/Blackshirt/Silvershirt” regarding the election. What? I wasn’t even talking about the election. How did they get there? Did they think they were able to read my mind through the Internet? That was really weird.
Here is what actually happened.
When I read the quote it was like first few nanoseconds of the big bang. Out of nothing there exploded a whole universe. It was like how some people describe their first LSD experience. I’ve never used LSD so I wouldn’t know for certain but that is my best analogy for how it affected me.
There were three comments (here, here, and here) which accurately touched an extremely small fraction of that universe that I saw unfold. And it was all about the past and the present. I was hoping for something more about the future as I was pretty sure I had explored enough of the past and present and satisfied myself that there wasn’t a whole lot more to be learned from those domains. I could be wrong about that so I present that part of my expanding universe for comments, corrections, and additional observations.
But what I really want is for people to think about and suggest a solution to the problem that can be implemented in the near future.
The authors of the constitution could have set up a separate branch of government which had the job of enforcing the adherence to the original intent. If not this then at least explicitly given the Federal courts some independent enforcement capability and protection from court packing. This may not have been practical or even possible but an attempt in this direction might have made some difference.
This attempts to address the issue, as McChuck, in the comments said, “The Constitution failed because it had no “OR ELSE” clause.”
At numerous critical times there were fairly clear cut issues before the courts which probably, at least a simple majority of people decided the Constitution was inadequate for the present circumstances. And rather than go the long route and get an amendment to the constitution through the process the courts allowed a short cut. This short cut was then used for things not nearly so clear cut. The short cut became a super highway with no restrictions.
I haven’t done the research but a couple very early, reasonably well known examples of such “clear cut issues” were the Lewis and Clark expedition and the Louisiana Purchase. Where does the constitution allow that in it’s enumerated powers?
There are probably hundreds if not thousands of case where little short cuts were taken over the centuries and they enabled all kinds of criminal trespass on the constitution.
What if, instead of politicians and judges instead of giving these short cuts a blind eye, they had handled it differently? What if they had said, “I think this is a good idea. I think this is within to domain of proper government power. BUT, it is also outside of the powers granted to the government”? Let’s, as rapidly as is practical, push through a narrowly scoped constitutional amendment to address this “clear cut issue”. This would have at least attempted to prevent the short cut from becoming a superhighway.
But the politicians of the time didn’t see, didn’t care, or wanted the superhighway and neither of those things happened.
The U.S. government debt is almost $28 trillion with $159 trillion in unfunded liabilities and constantly going up. Had the original intent of the U.S. constitution been adhered to that could not have happened. The superhighway of criminal trespass on the constitution is is a superhighway to disaster.
The criminal trespass on our personal liberties are just as gargantuan as the economic disaster. The First, Second, and Fourth enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights may have the most lanes of the superhighway over them but all of them, with the possible exception of the Third Amendment, have been paved over with at least a bike path clearly marked where there was once a tall fence with no gate and a NO TRESPASSING sign on it.
People who believe the constitution should be respected according to original intent started talking with each other. The Internet made it far easier to connect with others of a similar mindset. They realize, “Not only is the government infringing upon our rights, the courts aren’t coming to our aid.”
The criminals see the Internet chatter and see erosion of their voting base as more people come up to speed on the situation. The criminals shadow ban people. They freeze their accounts for a day or a week. Then they start completely banning people.
This couple was completely banned by Facebook and they have little* to no idea what it was about. A few weeks later they were both banned within minutes of each other from Instagram. All they posted on Instagram were family pictures. No explain was given. No appeal was possible.
Other people have received some clues. And it’s over the tiniest of stuff:
They are making every post of mine with #DontCaliforniaMyTexas as hate speech and deleting it. I got one day in jail for it
In the last week it was the President of the United States who permanently banned from Twitter. Shortly after POTUS moved to Parler, Apple, Google, and Amazon in a matter of just a few days deplatformed their apps and then the entire site. Poof! Gone! The company is possibly permanently destroyed.
Yesterday morning AR15.com was booted from GoDaddy (see also here). They are now back up on AWS Amazon. I wonder how long that will last as AWS Amazon was the host for Parler.
“Maybe they are being hyper sensitive to people of any political persuasion”, you suggest. It doesn’t look like that to me and others:
Big Tech did not remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accounts when she called for “uprisings” against the Trump administration. Facebook and Twitter did not target Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she claimed that allegedly marginalized groups have “no choice but to riot.” These platforms did not act against Kamala Harris when she said the riots “should not” stop.
This week, Joe Biden condemned the Capitol rioters, saying, “What we witnessed yesterday was not dissent, it was not disorder, it was not protest. It was chaos. They weren’t protesters, don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists. It’s that basic, it’s that simple.”
Yet he refused to speak in those terms when Black Lives Matter and antifa militants were throwing Molotov cocktails at federal buildings, setting up “autonomous zones,” and burning down cities. Instead, he condemned Trump for holding up a Bible at a church — without mentioning the fact that that very church had been set on fire the night before.
What makes you think it will end with social media? What if the political left pulls your Internet connection for some flimsy excuse, or none at all? You think that would be going too far because Internet is essentially a requirement of life these days? Really? You think that would stop them? Do you think I am extrapolating way out into never-never land? “That can’t happen here?”
What if banks refused to do business with you. Wouldn’t that be worse than pulling your Internet connection? Guess what…The Obama administration was telling banks, “If you do business with risky customers, such as gun manufactures or dealers, you will suffer the consequences.” It was called Operation Choke Point.
What about other services such as FedEx, UPS, USPS, your water, waste disposal, and electricity? They didn’t “censor” you, you can still print a newsletter or hold a sign up on the street corner, right? And as long as it wasn’t a government entity refusing you service it’s entirely legit, right?
It used to be motels, restaurants, gasoline stations, etc. could, and did, refuse service to people based on their own criteria. There was a Federal law passed which prohibited such discrimination when it was based on the grounds of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” But it doesn’t protect you if you happen to be one of those nasty people who believe the constitution means what it says.
Do not be surprised if there aren’t soon “blacklists” that result in a surprising number of restrictions on what we normally consider public services. Don’t think so? Today Senator Chuck Schumer called for authorities to add the Capitol rioters to a national no-fly list.
The net result of this? Individual constitutionalists are, metaphorically, standing on some random street corner holding up homemade signs saying, “Repent! The End is Near!” Thousands of criminals occasionally glance at the “Gun-free zone” sign as they zoom by on the nearby superhighway at 100+ MPH and snicker.
This is where I was/am hoping to get some discussion. How can we regain a limited government and our personal liberties?
An armed rebellion? Maybe. But I’m not seeing that as a high probability path. I could see that bringing down the government. But I don’t see that as necessarily building a consensus for the resurrections of limited government rising from the ashes. And your going to start your own cancel culture with a scoped rifle? And how does that work out? You shoot every politician with a ‘D’ beside their name? Then what? Hold another election with the same people voting (and/or cheating) as last time?
And at what point to you start shooting? Are you justified in shooting if you get booted off Facebook or Twitter? And who would you shoot if you somehow managed to convince yourself it was justified? Who do you shoot if some anonymous bureaucrat told your bank to stop doing business with you?
What’s the path to victory here? I am a details oriented guy and as I dig into the details I’m not seeing a viable path.
There is the Lyle option, as I like to think of it. A (supposed) return to Protestant values. This is, perhaps, due to the Second Coming—this isn’t entirely clear to me. I largely dismiss this, not just because I don’t believe in the existence of god(s) but because if the constitution was originally divinely inspired then why did it go so terrible wrong and how can we expect to be better the second time around?
The best I have been able to come up with is that we are probably headed for a Minsky Moment and/or a currency crisis in the somewhat near future. This could be a worldwide event and it could involve the collapse of our currency and perhaps our government. Perhaps out of the ashes of the collapse a more constrained government will have more appeal and will rise.
I see this second option as more probable of success, but still improbable, because the government size proved to be its own downfall rather than being brought down by individualist rebels. Clear and positive proof of big government failure is probably required to convince a majority of people to try small government again.
What I don’t see is a high probability of success path that can be traversed by a few people on the street corners with their handmade signs.
* Barron recently told me, “I may have been tagged because I didn’t use the complete spelling of my last name.” Yet I know people who have been using completely, and pretty obviously, fake names for their Facebook accounts for years.
In the past, the rules were that ex-Presidents didn’t trash-talk current Presidents. Obama set a new precedent. If you think Trump is going to sit quiet while Biden/Harris turn the nation into Venezuela, I suggest that you seek therapy.
Comment on Facebook January 8, 2021
[See also yesterday’s QOTD.—Joe]
“Listen to us”, scream the population.
“Shut up and do what you’re told”, reply their leaders.
In the face of dissent the first instinct of illegitimate leadership is to crack down on the population. But crackdowns never make it better.
Instead they always make the country more volatile and more dangerous.
The people in charge rarely understand that. They don’t want to. They don’t care to learn or listen because all this conversation is a referendum on them and their leadership.
So they clamp down harder. “Obey I tell you! Obey!”
This is the Romanov program. It ends badly. Every. Single. Time. But that doesn’t mean they wont’ try it again. Of course they will. Because it’s their nature. It’s how we got here in the first place.
Millions of Americans sincerely believe the last election was fake. You can dismiss them as crazy. You can call them conspiracy theorists. You can kick them off Twitter.
But that won’t change their minds.
Rather than trying to change their minds, to convince them and reassure them the system is real, that democracy works, as you would do if you cared about the country or the people who live here, our new leaders will try to silence them. What happened today will be used by the people taking power to justify stripping you of the rights you were born with as an American. Your right to speak without being censored. Your right to assemble. To not be spied upon. To make a living. To defend your family, most critically. These are the most basic and ancient freedoms that we have.
When thousands of your countrymen storm the capital building you don’t have to like it. We don’t. You can be horrified by the violence, as we said and we’ll say it again, we are horrified. It’s wrong. But if you don’t bother to pause and learn a single thing from it. From your citizens storming your capital building? Then you’re a fool.
You lack wisdom and you lack self-awareness. You have no place running a country.
We got to this sad chaotic day for a reason. It is not your fault. It is their fault.
January 6, 2021
Tucker: Our only option is to fix what’s causing this.
[You could nitpick a few things but overall he did a good job of describing the current situation and matching what I think the near future will bring.—Joe]
Just saw a quote that is sad but true:
“The constitution is the conservative equivalent of a gun-free zone.”
Now, can we use that insight and turn it into what needs to be done next?
Amazon on Saturday kicked Parler off its Web hosting services. Parler, a social network favored by conservative politicians and extremists, was used to help plan and coordinate the January 6 attempted coup on Washington D.C. It has recently been overrun with messages encouraging “Patriots” to march on Washington D.C. with weapons on January 19.
Amazon’s suspension of Parler’s account means that unless it can find another host, once the ban takes effect on Sunday Parler will go offline.
Amazon declined to comment on the suspension.
Republican lawmakers including Sen. Ted Cruz and Congressman Devin Nunes as well as President Donald Trump’s family members and surrogates have all established Parler accounts, and have publicly encouraged their supporters to join them there. So too have many figures in conservative media.
Wow! This is really making it clear the political left has no respect for the rights of people of a different political persuasion.
I do a LOT of business with Amazon. Boycotting them would hurt me far more than it would hurt them. I’ll have to think about this…
Yesterday, I wrote about the sense that the fracture in our shared sense of reality seems to be accelerating. I asked whether platforms ought to take it as a moral responsibility to reverse that divide — and, if so, how. Today, I advocate for one smaller but still difficult and essential step in that direction.
It’s time for Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to remove Trump.
January 6, 2021
IT’S TIME TO DEPLATFORM TRUMP
[Note: I original scheduled this for next Tuesday as I had some other content I thought was of higher priority. Things are obviously happening much faster than I expected.
That is so totally ignorant of human, and particularly U.S., psychology that it is hilariously funny.
Deplatforming is a relatively easy obstacle to overcome by someone with Trump’s stature. Even if every platform in the country succumbed to the rage mob he could rent a server, in a different country if necessary, and start his own blog. Individuals will post his material on Facebook and other sites with minor obfuscation to defeat the attempts at automated blockage.
If they block his site at the border encrypted VPN’s will bring his material in. Make it a crime to distribute his material and it will be distributed in a way that makes it attributable to tyrannical politicians.
It will be a fun game! I almost look forward to it.
The attempt at blocking him will make him all the more widely read. And all the time he will be mocking those who tried to silence him.
And that gives Newton a pass, assuming they actually believed what they wrote, on the stupidity of believing an attempt at silencing someone admired by millions is going to bring unity and tranquility. Trump is popular because he expresses a view shared by those millions. It seems the political left believes he created mindless followers. It’s probably more correct to say the masses created Trump.
As Michael Malice said the other day, “They thought Trump was the river but he was the dam.”:
I am of the opinion that if your goal is freedom then having your political enemies rapidly becoming tyrants furthers your long term goal more than hurts it.—Joe]
Imagine some other country run by some despot, say, Venezuela, forbid their political rivals from public communication to their followers. What would you think? “Yeah, well, what do you expect from a commie dictatorship? It’s what they have to do to maintain control of their people.” Right?
That. Just. Happened. Here.
That it was private companies that did the silencing doesn’t make much difference. Those companies have a political alignment of something like 95+% opposed to Republicans, let alone, President Trump.
That they had “reasons” is irrelevant. All “commie dictatorships” have their “reasons”. Even Hitler and the entire Nazi party had their “reasons”.
Welcome to a new reality.
Trump will be an ex-president in 13 days. The fact is that getting rid of Trump is the easy part. Cleansing the movement he commands is going to be something else.
Now, do you think the cleansing will happen before or after the common sense gun safety buyback registration law is passed?
I really don’t know the answer to that question. But at this time it appears the political left is a little too eager.—Joe]
Why citizens wanting to know what the rules are even had to ask – and why that was being evaded – only becomes clear when you come to grips with the obvious: ATF knows it doesn’t have a consistent set of standards by which to apply its evaluations. And it’s not like everyone hasn’t been aware of the problem for a long time.
December 23, 2020
ATF Rules Capricious, Arbitrary, Political, and Stupid
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
If the election goes to Biden there’s a good chance that the Democrats will then control the two branches of Congress and the White House. And considering the kinds of things that they’re proposing, that could well be the point of no return for this country.
July 13, 2020
[H/T Kevin Baker.—Joe]
When people talk about rioting if the Supreme Court takes any action, they’re not talking about Republicans rioting. They’re talking about the Left. You know that, I know that, everyone knows that. So when people tell you they’re worried about “unrest” they’re telling you two things.
1. That they know the Left will riot.
2. That they know the Right will not.
So game it out.
If everyone knows that the Right will calmly accept the decision to give the win to Biden despite evidence (though not “proof”) of election irregularities, and they know that the Left will react with violence to anything but a Biden presidency, why should they choose anything but a Biden presidency?
I’m not advocating violence. I’m sure not going to start rioting. But haven’t we taught them that they can ignore us and suffer no consequences while the Left has taught them to fear? Haven’t we allowed them to take our kindness for weakness? Haven’t we basically told them that there’s zero consequences for making us mad?
A1: I can think of some reasons. Like, it’s their job to do the legally correct thing.
This isn’t a tough quiz. Lots of other people will figure it out too and take away “interesting” lessons from it.
We live in interesting times.—Joe]
Update: The basis for this is probably false.
Via daughter Jaime:
“I don’t give a #@&^ about ‘Bush v. Gore’… at that time we didn’t have RIOTS!”
A staffer “heard *SCREAMING* through the walls as Justice Roberts & other liberal Justices were insisting this case *NOT* be taken up…”
Wonder why Texas’ case was dropped? Here’s why: pic.twitter.com/rCpf5vwqSQ
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) December 17, 2020
The following is my transcript in case the original goes away:
It was written by someone is a current staffer for one of the Supreme Court Justices…
I’ll just describe the report to you the report which I just read and you can make of it what you will.
He said that the Justices they always do [sic] went into a closed room to discuss, you know, cases they are taking or to debate. There’s no phones, no computers, no nothing, no one else is in the room except for the nine Justices.
It’s typically very civil. They usually don’t hear any sound. They just debate what they are doing.
But when the Texas case was brought up, he said he heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up.
And the reason, the words that were heard through the wall when Justice Thomas and Alito were citing Bush versus Gore, from John Roberts were, “I don’t give a [blank] about that case. I don’t want to hear about it. At that time we didn’t have riots!”
So what he was saying, was that he was afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing. And I’m sorry, but That. Is. Moral. Cowardice.
And we, in the SREC, I’m a SRC member, we put those words in very specifically because the charge of the Supreme Court is to openly be our final arbitrator, our final line of defense, for right and wrong. And they did not do their duty.
So I think we should leave these words in because I want to send a strong message them.
See also 1:32:31 (Its Texas Congressman Matt Patrick Texas Cong. Dist. 32) for more context.
This is, literally, hearsay evidence. But if true, SCOTUS is sending a very clear message of how to get your way if the law and evidence isn’t on your side. The message will be heard loud and clear and the lesson learned will have dire long term consequences.
Update: This is probably false, at least in part. They have been meeting via video conferencing for months.
It’s possible something like this happened on a video call, but we have no evidence of that.
The arguments against the electoral college are simply veiled arguments against Federalism. And while I’m happy to entertain arguments against any coercive form of government, in the case of the U.S. our Federal system is a flawed but robust system which has given ground slowly to these political terrorists over the past couple hundred years.
It is in a terminal state of collapse today and the odds are long that it will survive these challenges in any practical sense.
December 9, 2020
Less Electoral College? No, More Electoral College
[I don’t see them as veiled. And not arguments either. More like threats or, on really bad days, telling us this is how they plan to execute us.
I just hope we have enough strength of character to exercise our veto power if it comes down to that.—Joe]