*2020 US Presidential Elections* - Candidates, Statistics, Campaign Timelines, Debates

[gmase]

Behave yourselves. It's Monday morning, we don't need this shit.

Sorry Steve. Can you fix the hydra?

 

[Waterline]

Reading this thread and this came in my email. I subscribe to "The Flip Side". It takes a shot at showing both sides.
Today's topic was the USPS.

https://mailchi.mp/theflipside/your...e-bright-side-palmerston-retires?e=8c1b421e5b

 

[Johan]

Trump stokes 'birther' conspiracy theory about Kamala Harris

President Donald Trump says he has "heard" Democratic candidate Kamala Harris "doesn't qualify" to serve as US vice-president, amplifying a fringe legal theory critics decry as racist.

She was born in the US to a Jamaican father and Indian mother in Oakland, California, on 20 October 1964.
As such, she is eligible to serve as president or vice-president.

For years, Mr Trump promoted a false "birther" theory that ex-President Barack Obama was not born in the US.

Ms Harris, a California senator, was named on Tuesday as the first woman of colour to serve as running mate on a main-party US presidential ticket.
She is deputy to Democratic White House candidate Joe Biden, who will challenge Mr Trump, a Republican, in November's general election.

"The VP has the same eligibility requirements as the president," Juliet Sorensen, a law professor at Northwestern University, told the Associated Press (AP) news agency.
"Kamala Harris, she has to be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident in the United States for at least 14 years. She is. That's really the end of the inquiry."
Anyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, says the Cornell Legal Information Institute.

The Biden campaign sent a scathing statement in response to the president stoking the false conspiracy theory.
"Donald Trump was the national leader of the grotesque, racist birther movement with respect to President Obama and has sought to fuel racism and tear our nation apart on every single day of his presidency," a Biden campaign spokesman said in an email.
"So it's unsurprising, but no less abhorrent, that as Trump makes a fool of himself straining to distract the American people from the horrific toll of his failed coronavirus response that his campaign and their allies would resort to wretched, demonstrably false lies in their pathetic desperation."

What did Trump say?

After a conservative law professor questioned Ms Harris' eligibility based on her parents' immigration status at the time of her birth, Mr Trump was asked about the argument at a press conference on Thursday.
The president said: "I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements and by the way the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.
"I have no idea if that's right. I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice-president.
"But that's a very serious, you're saying that, they're saying that she doesn't qualify because she wasn't born in this country."
The reporter replied there was no question that Ms Harris was born in the US, simply that her parents might not have been permanent US residents at the time.

Earlier on Thursday, a Trump campaign adviser, Jenna Ellis, reposted a tweet from the head of conservative group Judicial Watch, Tim Fitton.
In that tweet, Mr Fitton questioned whether Ms Harris was "ineligible to be vice-president under the US constitution's 'citizenship clause'".
He also shared the opinion piece published in Newsweek magazine by John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University in California, that Mr Trump was asked about.

What is the law professor's argument?

Prof Eastman cites Article II of the US Constitution's wording that "no person except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of president".
He also points out that the 14th Amendment to the constitution says "all persons born… in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens"
Prof Eastman's argument, which he claims is also being made by other "commentators", hinges on the idea that Ms Harris may not have been subject to US jurisdiction if her parents were, for example, on student visas at the time of their daughter's birth in California.
"Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized US citizen at the time of Harris' birth in 1964. That, according to these commentators, makes her not a 'natural born citizen' - and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president."

In 2010, Prof Eastman ran to be the Republican candidate for California attorney general. He lost to Steve Cooley, who went on to be defeated by Ms Harris, the Democratic candidate, in the general election.

Following furious backlash to the Newsweek op-ed, its editor-in-chief Nancy Cooper stood by the decision to publish, arguing on Thursday that Prof Eastman's article had "nothing to do with racist birtherism" and was instead "focusing on a long-standing, somewhat arcane legal debate".

What do other constitutional experts say?

Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told CBS News, the BBC's US partner, that Prof Eastman's argument about Ms Harris' eligibility was "truly silly".
He wrote in an email: "Under section 1 of the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen.
"The Supreme Court has held this since the 1890s. Kamala Harris was born in the United States."

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University and frequent critic of President Trump, called Prof Eastman's argument "garbage" and "racist birtherism redux".

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, told AP: "Let's just be honest about what it is: It's just a racist trope we trot out when we have a candidate of colour whose parents were not citizens."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53774289

Republicans are so predictive. Each time they run for the White House against black candidate, they float the birther argument. And each time, Trump bolsters it.
How long before he asks for Kamala Harris' birth certificate then claim it is fake and she's not eligible ?

 

[Waterline]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53774289

Republicans are so predictive. Each time they run for the White House against black candidate, they float the birther argument. And each time, Trump bolsters it.
How long before he asks for Kamala Harris' birth certificate then claim it is fake and she's not eligible ?

Biden forgot she was black, but that is really just a funny stammer.
I'm not sure if this is racist or just meanness.

 

[gmase]

Will you get an absentee ballot already marked for Trump?
https://www.wral.com/voters-in-nort...n-the-mail-with-trumps-face-on-them/19238555/

 

[xfire]

Behave yourselves. It's Monday morning, we don't need this shit.

Thanks, yeah. Between a name caller and name caller's cheerleader, I got a little aggravated.

 

[abrogate]

Yeah, Steve...being like this is no way to enjoy the board.

 

[xfire]

 

[xfire]

 

[georges]

More interesting stuff about the elections:
Biden’s 10-point lead in CNN’s June poll wasn’t reflected in other polls
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/new...265680b20e543dc2a6473c7b9fa19141&source=TPICI

 

[mikexmoran]

More interesting stuff about the elections:
Biden’s 10-point lead in CNN’s June poll wasn’t reflected in other polls
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/new...265680b20e543dc2a6473c7b9fa19141&source=TPICI

Nationwide polls are a problem for a few reasons. I don’t blame for sway.
Statewide polls would make more sense, but they prove to be less accurate.
If you want to tell if someone is lying, just listen, if they have the answer to this, they are lying. ;:

Polls are needed. In some cases they may suppress voting, more so than the converse.

I think we have seen the mathematical models be closer to the truth than the polls on the last 2-3 elections.

 

[abrogate]

If you are arguing that the PAEA should be repealed or replaced, then make that point. You seem to keep making the point that eh USPS is losing money because of it.

You’re original comment that was, lets face it, a lie. 75 years isn’t in the PAEA and it wasn’t true. If you found it in a meme or a political post, it doesn’t really matter. There are issues, but that lie makes politics a problem in trying to fix a real issue.

Keeping it simple – the USPS own fact sheet explains that scrapping the pre-funding requirement “will not reduce our underlying liability for retiree health benefits, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position”

https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the-facts.pdf

The team working on a potential solutions – The Task Force on the USPS – notes that the USPS did not pay the $43B that was to-plan. The mistake that O’Rouke makes is that he is looking at the first 10 years of the PAEA, not the financial reporting as I mentioned in the previous post.

2019 10K states they aren’t funding it…and so does the 2009…you can feel free to check all of them in between.

https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2019.pdf

https://about.usps.com/what/financials/10k-reports/fy2009.pdf#:~:text=-2009 Report on Form 10-K United States Postal,States” with the mandate that we offer a

I’m not saying they should, I’m saying they didn’t and since they didn’t it isn’t hampering their P&L. It is NOT the reason they are losing money because they haven’t paid it. If they did, yes, they would be out that much more. It is a liability.

The USPS states right in their fact sheet that they are going to have to default on the obligation.

This is the problem I have with people in an echo chamber. If you only want to hear what you believe, it becomes a breeding ground for Dunning-Kruger. Nobody escapes it.

Where I don’t fault you – This is not easy stuff and the amount of political noise is huge. You have to actually read the law and understand the finances. To do that, education to understand principles aside, you need to read them. Had you done so as I pointed at in my last post, you may have understood better. It is clear Shannon Roddel posted an article on other people’s opinions. While I may not disagree with the need to change the law, if the article represents O’Rourke’s understanding, then hopefully I can help clear things up with the email I sent him.

The article you posted make the mistake that some people call “Banking in your head, not in the bank”. It reports on the plan, not the performance to the plan.

Where I do blame you – I already told you this. You’re blinded by what you want to see, not what is. You will continue on, no matter what I just gave you for free here.

While I will not go back and forth with you on this any more, the information I’ve given you is more than enough to do your own math. It isn’t a waste for me, since I’m not going to use it for an undergrad exercise. It is current.

Seriously, I'm not meaning to be a dick, but some things don't make sense to me.

You keep saying that they are defaulting on the pension payments and there is a link that shows the USPS stating they are paying them.
I've seen the posts about 75 years. I haven't read the law, why are you denying it?
Why is Trump taking down the mailboxes? I see that all over Facebook and Twitter?

 

[gmase]

I wonder when @adeptblue and @tynar comeback.

 

[mikexmoran]

Seriously, I'm not meaning to be a dick, but some things don't make sense to me.

You keep saying that they are defaulting on the pension payments and there is a link that shows the USPS stating they are paying them.
I've seen the posts about 75 years. I haven't read the law, why are you denying it?
Why is Trump taking down the mailboxes? I see that all over Facebook and Twitter?

This is what is so frustrating with was passes for the news and what goes on the Internet. Misinformation moves quickly, then people cite the misinformation as a source. People report on other people’s analysis, which makes that article a tertiary source and I see people cite it as primary evidence.

I can answer two of your questions, then the third give you my best understanding.

You keep saying that they are defaulting on the pension payments and there is a link that shows the USPS stating they are paying them.

The USPS has been defaulting on the mandated “additional” pension payments that were frontloaded for the first 10 years to jumpstart the pension funding by the law. How do I know this? The USPS says it (on their website, in their 10K reporting, their P&L doesn’t show them, and they continue to liability is accrue to accounting practices, The President’s commission addressing a USPS recommendation identifies it, and the CBO reports on it and projects that they will continue to default on the funding for the next 10 years

The USPS shows two things that may be confusing.

They show that they are paying for their pensions. They have to. This is how they have always paid their pensions. I pointed out on an earlier post their payments since 2007 are < $1B more than if they were using “pay-as-you-go”. This is business as usual for them and if they weren’t funding the pensions there would be postal workers up in arms.

They show the accumulative effect of the liability they are accruing. This is basically a debt that they owe and they need to have it as a liability because only Congress can forgive them of it. This is not a loss since it is not a payment. If you were to default on your mortgage payment, then report that as a loss, the IRS would come after you. Since it is not a payment, it is not a loss, and it is NOT the reason the USPS has been losing money for the past 11 years.

I've seen the posts about 75 years. I haven't read the law, why are you denying it?

You don’t have to believe me, fact check this on the Internet. I haven’t seen one fact checker that agrees with this. The real way is to read the law – it isn’t in there. The only date in there is 2056, which is a 50 year mark. This makes sense since they wanted a preload for 10 years, then a lower payment for the next 40. However, the 75 year myth comes from a misunderstanding of how pension funding works. That is an actuary number used for all current and past employees. Think about it – Do people live for 75 years AFTER they retire?

Why is Trump taking down the mailboxes? I see that all over Facebook and Twitter?

I think this is heavy politics and the big loser is Trump on this one. If he was more careful with his words, he might actually win, but he isn’t. This is only my opinion from what I’m reading.

The USPS has been removing mailboxes for years. Under Obama thousands of mailboxes were removed. I think the USPS should have been more careful about when they removed them. However, in May they warned that they would cut costs, including these actions.

The USPS Post Master General wants the stimulus funding and I think in part is vying for it by positioning their finances (they are in trouble) and using the election to shake things up. In fairness to them, they have been communicating this for a while now and this isn’t all the actions of the current PostMaster, this was communicated before him. The current PM seems to be a hot mess and may have some investments in competing businesses, which makes one wonder who vet him.

The President is being consistent in his stance in not throwing good money after into the USPS. He is also a typical oaf by using it as a bargaining chip on the stimulus with the Democrats. I think we should protect the election, but he is the orange gorilla and he will pounce around on the issue.

The Democrats have been against the 2006 law (I agree with them 100%, it is an unfair burden, but not as was posted by one of the people on here). They are also spinning everything to make it seem like the President is removing mailboxes to steal the election. This is outright lying and is harming the election probably more than anything. Because I’m from NY, I saw the NY Board of Elections say that 7 days is not enough time for them. I would think that is where we want to focus and work realistically with the USPS.

I know this is wordy, but you asked and I read your questions after my first cup of coffee. I’ve noticed since I’ve taken the advice of one of the profiles, there is quite a bit less negativity and outright disinformation hitting my computer screen. It is amazing at the rate that is rolls out. I have already started my work day and I will not take too many breaks. I wonder what he does for a living. J

 

[abrogate]

This is what is so frustrating with was passes for the news and what goes on the Internet. Misinformation moves quickly, then people cite the misinformation as a source. People report on other people’s analysis, which makes that article a tertiary source and I see people cite it as primary evidence.

I can answer two of your questions, then the third give you my best understanding.

You keep saying that they are defaulting on the pension payments and there is a link that shows the USPS stating they are paying them.

The USPS has been defaulting on the mandated “additional” pension payments that were frontloaded for the first 10 years to jumpstart the pension funding by the law. How do I know this? The USPS says it (on their website, in their 10K reporting, their P&L doesn’t show them, and they continue to liability is accrue to accounting practices, The President’s commission addressing a USPS recommendation identifies it, and the CBO reports on it and projects that they will continue to default on the funding for the next 10 years

The USPS shows two things that may be confusing.

They show that they are paying for their pensions. They have to. This is how they have always paid their pensions. I pointed out on an earlier post their payments since 2007 are < $1B more than if they were using “pay-as-you-go”. This is business as usual for them and if they weren’t funding the pensions there would be postal workers up in arms.

They show the accumulative effect of the liability they are accruing. This is basically a debt that they owe and they need to have it as a liability because only Congress can forgive them of it. This is not a loss since it is not a payment. If you were to default on your mortgage payment, then report that as a loss, the IRS would come after you. Since it is not a payment, it is not a loss, and it is NOT the reason the USPS has been losing money for the past 11 years.

I've seen the posts about 75 years. I haven't read the law, why are you denying it?

You don’t have to believe me, fact check this on the Internet. I haven’t seen one fact checker that agrees with this. The real way is to read the law – it isn’t in there. The only date in there is 2056, which is a 50 year mark. This makes sense since they wanted a preload for 10 years, then a lower payment for the next 40. However, the 75 year myth comes from a misunderstanding of how pension funding works. That is an actuary number used for all current and past employees. Think about it – Do people live for 75 years AFTER they retire?

Why is Trump taking down the mailboxes? I see that all over Facebook and Twitter?

I think this is heavy politics and the big loser is Trump on this one. If he was more careful with his words, he might actually win, but he isn’t. This is only my opinion from what I’m reading.

The USPS has been removing mailboxes for years. Under Obama thousands of mailboxes were removed. I think the USPS should have been more careful about when they removed them. However, in May they warned that they would cut costs, including these actions.

The USPS Post Master General wants the stimulus funding and I think in part is vying for it by positioning their finances (they are in trouble) and using the election to shake things up. In fairness to them, they have been communicating this for a while now and this isn’t all the actions of the current PostMaster, this was communicated before him. The current PM seems to be a hot mess and may have some investments in competing businesses, which makes one wonder who vet him.

The President is being consistent in his stance in not throwing good money after into the USPS. He is also a typical oaf by using it as a bargaining chip on the stimulus with the Democrats. I think we should protect the election, but he is the orange gorilla and he will pounce around on the issue.

The Democrats have been against the 2006 law (I agree with them 100%, it is an unfair burden, but not as was posted by one of the people on here). They are also spinning everything to make it seem like the President is removing mailboxes to steal the election. This is outright lying and is harming the election probably more than anything. Because I’m from NY, I saw the NY Board of Elections say that 7 days is not enough time for them. I would think that is where we want to focus and work realistically with the USPS.

I know this is wordy, but you asked and I read your questions after my first cup of coffee. I’ve noticed since I’ve taken the advice of one of the profiles, there is quite a bit less negativity and outright disinformation hitting my computer screen. It is amazing at the rate that is rolls out. I have already started my work day and I will not take too many breaks. I wonder what he does for a living. J

Thanks for taking the time to explain. Makes sense.

 

[georges]

Dems Are Trying To Get Excited About Getting Rid Of Trump, But Have You Seen The Latest Polls?
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/dem...265680b20e543dc2a6473c7b9fa19141&source=TPICI

Newt Gingrich Believes Biden-Harris Will Implode And That Right Now Is Their Peak
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/new...265680b20e543dc2a6473c7b9fa19141&source=TPICI

Tara Reade Wants Media To Question Kamala Harris About Biden’s Accusers
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/tar...265680b20e543dc2a6473c7b9fa19141&source=TPICI

 

[abrogate]

Tara Reade Wants Media To Question Kamala Harris About Biden’s Accusers
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/tar...265680b20e543dc2a6473c7b9fa19141&source=TPICI

This is the great hypocrisy and where she fails the #MeToo movement. She sold out.

 

[xfire]

I love Marco Rubio, you can always rely on the senior senator from Florida for some unintended comedy.

So right, Senator Rubio, the two most popular Republican presidents of the last fifty years, Golden Globe winner Ronald Reagan and Emmy nominated Donald Trump could not agree more!

 

[gmase]

Trump is now floating the idea of taking a mulligan ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-to-re-do-of-november-election-idUSKCN25E297

... and tacking on a third term:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...r_years_because_my_campaign_was_spied_on.html

 

[Waterline]

Dems Are Trying To Get Excited About Getting Rid Of Trump, But Have You Seen The Latest Polls?
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/dem...265680b20e543dc2a6473c7b9fa19141&source=TPICI

This isn't going to be a slam dunk. I think the Democrats will have to make some adjustments. The hope to get the moderates rides solely on the fact that they are not Trump. I think a mediocre ticket could have produced a landslide. Unless you light candles at the altar of Rachel Maddow every day, you have to see that Joe has lost it and what he had was nothing to begin with. Harris is fire, but she is on the extreme.

I think the only people who feel like this is going to be a slam dunk are watching only Fox or MSNBC.