A Third-Party Vote is a Vote for Trump

 By Mildred Robertson

America is faced with a major threat during the 2024 Presidential Election. Third-party candidates may throw the country into a quagmire as they muddy political waters.  If these candidates attract enough votes in the general election their candidacies could ensure that neither major party candidate can win in the Electoral College. That would throw the election into the House of Representatives, where the Republican legislators will most assuredly elect former President Donald J. Trump.

Anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. seems to be the largest threat because he has gained ballot access in Utah and is poised to qualify in six more states, including three battleground states.  It is highly unlikely that he or any third-party candidate could secure the presidency, but they could have a significant impact on the election outcome by diverting support from candidates Donald Trump (Rep.) and President Biden, (Dem.)

In early March Kennedy Jr.’s campaign announced that it collected enough signatures to put him on the ballot in Nevada. He recently qualified for the Utah ballot and the American Values super PAC supporting his candidacy also claims to have the signatures to secure his spot on the ballots in Arizona, Georgia, and South Carolina.  According to a November Siena College poll of voters in six battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), slightly more Democrats than Republicans (18% versus 16%) would back Kennedy Jr., indicating he could draw more votes from Biden than Trump.

The other two third-party candidates seeking the presidency are progressive Cornel West and Green Party’s Jill Stein. Stein is blamed for siphoning votes from Hillary Clinton in 2016 in Florida and was on the ballot in Wisconsin and Michigan which led to Hillary’s ultimate defeat in the Electoral College. (Note that Clinton actually won the popular vote by 2.9 million.)

It is presumed that without Kennedy Jr., West, and Stein on the ballot, Biden could beat Trump by four points. However, these third-party candidates change that math. The Quinnipiac poll and the December Reuters/Ipsos survey found Trump’s lead over Biden widens to five when Kennedy Jr. is on the ballot. A January Harvard CAPS-Harris poll found Trump would expand his lead over Biden from six to eight points with Kennedy Jr. on the ballot.

Clearly, these polls are changing daily as more voters tune in to the election and begin to make their decisions about who they will choose to lead this nation. Currently, Biden and Trump are in a statistical dead heat. One of the two will be elected president on Tuesday, November 5, 2024.

So as voters plan how they will vote and for whom, it is important to weigh the value of a third-party vote. If a candidate from neither major party appeals to you just know that making a third-party choice is still a choice for one of the two of them. It is unlikely…almost impossible for a third-party candidate to win. But it is almost certain that a third-party vote is a vote for Trump. Look back to 2016. The evidence is clear.

If you are just looking for an alternative with your third-party vote, you won’t get one. You will just get Trump.

Don’t waste your vote.

Mitch McConnell Legacy - Kissing the Ring

by Mildred Robertson

On Wednesday Mitch McConnell bowed the knee to Donald Trump by endorsing him as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee in the 2024 Presidential election. Though not surprising, his endorsement is disappointing as he chose to fire his final volley as the Senate Majority Leader by kissing the proverbial ring of this twice-impeached, criminally indicted former president. Trump has faced 91 charges across 4 criminal cases, two of which have found him liable for wrongdoing.

Back in February of 2023, McConnell stated that Trump was morally and practically responsible for the January 6th insurrection to stymie the peaceful transfer of power. Wednesday he nonetheless added his name to a growing list of established Republicans who have thrown their lot in with this criminally indicted would-be dictator who promises vengeance and retribution against his adversaries if he is re-elected.

Viewed Machiavellian in his leadership style, McConnell is known as a shrewd Senate Majority Leader who left his mark on key congressional legislation and reshaped the federal judiciary. The Kentucky Republican announced this week he will step down from Senate Leadership. Inexplicably in the same breath, McConnell endorsed Trump as the presumptive nominee though he was one of the few Republicans who chastised Trump following the insurrection.

Trump is at the center of at least four separate criminal cases into matters related to his business and political careers at both the state and federal levels. He has been found liable of sexual assault and defamation in the E. Jean Carroll trial, and owes a whopping $355 million, plus interest, in a New York case for lying for years about his wealth on financial statements used to secure loans and make deals. He still faces racketeering charges in the election interference case in Georgia.

None of this, however, seems able to stand in the way of McConnell's rabid support of a Republican Party that has clearly lost its way. It is amazing to me that he will sacrifice his Party to this nominee who holds no clear values, Republican, conservative, or otherwise. That McConnell chooses to place party above country, one wonders how the country will remember him. 

He was a Republican warrior against all things liberal and progressive. He held Congress hostage by refusing to bring key legislative issues to a vote.  His leadership denied Barack Obama the right to select a Supreme Court Justice and stole Joe Biden's opportunity to do so. His tactics have resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the legislative attack on affirmative action. 

Many of us would never look back fondly on McConnell's tenure. However, now with this move history will likely join us in our disappointment. History will remember him as a man who wielded his power like a sword, yet when it was time to really go to battle, he simply took the knee and kissed the ring.  

Supreme Court Will Hear Trump Immunity Case

By Mildred Robertson

What is the Supreme Court Thinking!  April 22, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case to determine whether or if a president or ex-president has an absolute immunity claim when carrying out official duties. 

It is my hope that it is about the rule of law. I hope it is about justice. I hope it is about preserving American Democracy.  It is my hope that the Court will hold that Donald Trump is not above the law. 

The Court will address several issues in the case. One key question is whether Donald Trump has absolute immunity in his attempt to overthrow the legally elected Chief Executive of the United States of America. Trump is accused of federal election interference when he fomented an insurrection among his followers based on false claims of election tampering in several key states during the 2020 election. Another key question is whether Trump's actions related to the insurrection were an official act as president. By taking up this case the Court may stymie any attempt to litigate this issue before the November 2024 election.  

This is not a case that should be used to determine the bounds of presidential power. It is Trump's assertion that events associated with January 6th were part of his official duties as president. Fomenting insurrection is clearly a criminal offense, even if carried out from the Oval Office. But clearly, Trump has a lack of respect for the rule of law. He believes that as a president or ex-president, he is entitled to absolute power on all levels. As he is confronted with numerous instances of civil and criminal prosecutions against him, he continues to call for retribution against those seeking justice.  Prosecutors, judges, and witnesses all have been targeted by Trump loyalists who buy into the concept that theirs is a holy and justifiable quest to punish any who attempt to hold Trump accountable for criminal acts.

By taking up this case, the Supreme Court has raised the possibility of denying the American people the opportunity to have clarity on this issue before the 2024 Presidential election. Many Americans say they will not vote for Trump if he is found guilty in a criminal case. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision to take up this case may well give DeFacto immunity to Trump by dragging out the issue until it is too late (as late as the end of June) for Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute this case before the election. 

This is not a difficult case. Trump's assertion that a president must have absolute immunity during and after his presidency is absurd on its face. He is literally asking for a get-out-of-jail-free card. He has said that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it. He believes he can send in Seal Team Six to assassinate an opponent and not be held responsible. He believes he can take liberties with the bodies of women without retribution. He believes that he should be above the law. 

Not only is it easy to determine that the presidential immunity argument Trump is attempting to use is not legally sound, but the Court could also have addressed this issue by taking it up when asked by Jack Smith early on. 

It makes one wonder what the Court's intent is. 

It is my hope that they are thinking about the rule of law. I hope they will consider what is just. I hope they will preserve American democracy.  I hope that the Court will find that Donald Trump is not above the law. 

No man or woman in America is. 

 

Donald Trump's Very, Very Bad Day

 By: Mildred Robertson

Today Indicted President Donald J. Trump and his corporation were ordered to pay $345 million in damages for fraudulent business practices and have been barred from conducting business in New York for the next three years. His two sons, Donald and Eric also are barred from serving in leadership in a New York business for two years. The damages stand at approximately $437 million and counting when you include interest and the $83.3 million judgment in Trump's civil defamation case. 

Judge Arthur Engoron who issued the summary judgment says, "The frauds here leap off the page and shock the conscience."  Engoron found that the corporation borrowed more at a lower rate by falsifying financial data submitted to financial institutions. In addition, he found that Trump and his representatives were "pathological" in their refusal to admit errors in their financial statements. The judge noted their complete lack of contrition and remorse which he said bordered on pathological. Although the Trump organization repaid all the loans, Engoron says that did not justify the falsification of records, noting that, although the financial institutions in question were made whole, future institutions could possibly not fare as well.  

To make the very bad day even worse, an evidentiary hearing on a motion to dismiss Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the Georgia election subversion case seems to be leaning in Willis' favor. The case was brought by Trump's co-defendants in a Georgia racketeering case involving the attempt to overturn the Georgia 2020 presidential election. They allege Willis had a conflict of interest by hiring a former lover to assist with the prosecution of the case and then profiting from his income. If successful, Willis and her entire team would be disqualified from trying Trump which could mean the end of the case. However, Trump's legal team has struggled to damage the Fulton County District Attorney's office. 

At the end of the day, things are not going well for the former president, as he grapples with 91 indictments, several successful prosecutions, and close to a half-billion dollars in judgments against him and his organization.  He's having a very, very bad day...and it is not yet midnight. 

Nikki Haley Lies About Racism in America

By Mildred Robertson

Nikki Haley says America has never been a racist country…right after she said racism is on the decline. Okay Nikki, which is it?  Is there or isn’t there racism in America?  Did America used to be racist but it’s not anymore?  Racist or not, which is it? Used to be racist, but got better?

She knows…she is the brown daughter of Indian immigrants. She knows. 

In fact, in that same interview, she said “I know I faced racism when I was growing up, but I can tell you that today is a lot better than it was then.”  So there was racism after there was no racism which she experienced firsthand as racism…right? That was a word salad if I ever heard one. Circular speaking at its best.

I don’t have to wonder whether America has ever been racist. I have experienced it for myself (as has she). My family moved from Mississippi to Missouri in the early '60s. When we traveled home in the summer, particularly around the 4th of July, you would see black people in nice cars with Northern plates pulled over by cops all up and down the road. It did not pay to be black and appear to be prosperous. Also, my mother always packed a basket of food so that we would not have to stop and eat on the road at a segregated restaurant.  That's in my lifetime.

When we moved to Missouri I attended predominately white schools. I was not overtly discriminated against in the public schools, but I was ignored. I do recall having developed a friendship in the 6^th grade with a white girl at school. We played together every recess and became fast friends. One day she invited me to come play at her house on Saturday…I only lived a couple of blocks from her. So, I showed up on Saturday and knocked on the door to ask her to come out and play. In a few minutes, she came to the door and said we couldn’t play today.  We never played at recess again. That’s in my lifetime.

I attended College at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism. I wanted to take a class in radio broadcast management. The instructor of the class told me that I should not register because there were no job opportunities for a black female in the industry. I signed up for the class anyway. He actually approached me on the first day of class and asked me why I was there. Embarrassed, I picked up my books, left the class, and never returned. That was in my lifetime.

These are just a few of my own experiences with racism in America…I could go on. There are many Black Americans who could tell many more, and much more ominous tales of America’s racial animus toward our race. The victims of hanging, folks whose land was stolen from them, victims of police brutality like Sandra Bland, Elijah McClain, and George Floyd; interracial couples who were persecuted like the Lovings, victims of racial hatred like the slain members of the Mother Emmanuel AME Church, asylum-seeking migrants jailed at the border or illegally bused across the country…the list is endless.

Nimarata Randhawa (oh, I mean Nikki Haley) knows that she has been discriminated against as a non-white immigrant, not just in the past, but today. She knows America’s legacy but chooses to deny it. My mother always instructed me that it is not nice to call a person a liar, but what must you do if that person is?

This woman wants to be president of the United States but cannot speak truthfully about who and what America is. Do you want a leader who will so easily bend the truth to attain the goal of acceptance, and the position of president? Do you want a politician who will say whatever needs to be said to be successful? Do you support a person who will pardon an insurrectionist former president and offer him amnesty simply to lure his constituency?  Do you want someone in the Whitehouse whose moral compass is so weak as to bend the truth to suit her purposes? If so, Nimarata (Nikki) is your girl. But I wouldn’t support her if I were you, because she doesn’t even want you to know her real name. You see in the end, you don’t know what choice she will make for you, because Nikki Haley lies.

Manchin Straddles Fence on Student Debt Crisis

By: Mildred Robertson

West Virginia Senator and presidential hopeful Joe Manchin, (Yes, “presidential hopeful”…I said it even though he won’t) is being lambasted by conservatives in his state for his promotion of legislation that would offer student loan debt relief.  The Smarter Debt Act is aimed at establishing an interactive online dashboard at the U.S. Department of Education to provide future and current students with the information they need to navigate the financing of their education. If enacted this legislation would direct the Department of Education to establish an interactive online dashboard that would help users to more easily access information about existing loan forgiveness and repayment programs. 

While the Biden administration has continuously tried to fight the problem of student loan debt, Senator Manchin has been no student debt relief advocate. Over the Summer Senator Manchin voted to repeal Biden’s student loan cancellation plan. He called Biden’s student loan forgiveness proposal excessive and said that there are other ways to help people burdened by student debt.

President Biden supports capping student loan repayment at 5% of the borrower's income. He also proposes forgiving up to $10,000 in federal student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 annually and would forgive $20,000 in loans for Pell Grant recipients under the same income threshold. Manchin opposed those proposals saying “I just thought that it was excessive. I just respectfully disagree on that.”

While Manchin positions himself for a possible run at the Whitehouse as a third-party candidate he must balance his conservative state voters' desires, with the need to appease the more liberal leanings of the rest of the country. But his West Virginia constituents aren’t having it.  One internet commenter said, “That is one of the reasons that Joe can't get reelected in WV. I paid for my education and my son's education and I worked 7 days a week to do it. Why should I have to pay for anyone else's education. (sic) Typical democrat. Tax and spend and put it on the working man.” 

Unfortunately, voters who think like this commenter miss the point that underprivileged people who graduate actually CONTRIBUTE to the economy. Yet their student loans are so burdensome that many graduates can't acquire a job that will allow them to afford to pay the loan AND afford homeownership, buy cars, or live the American dream that education purportedly will provide.  Also, many first-time graduates from underprivileged families take on the burden of reaching back to help their less fortunate relatives, particularly in Black communities.  Further, a well-educated citizenry contributes to the competitiveness of America. Those graduates too, are paying into the tax base....at a higher rate than they would have had they not had an education. 

So I am glad that Manchin has decided to accept the ire of his constituents to do something, however miniscule, to relieve the burden of student debt on those struggling to break into or stay in the middle class. Manchin appears to be positioning himself to pursue another elected office where voters might not be as offended by his still Republican-esque right-leaning political philosophy. Don’t be fooled by his lukewarm attempt to address the issue. He could be a spoiler in the Democratic election by running as a third-party candidate.

He was an unreliable advocate for the everyday American during his tenure as a Senator. He would be just as ineffective at advocating for middle-class Americans in any other capacity. A third-party candidate can only muddy the waters in the 2024 election. That election is way too important to let a candidate’s performative politics cause us to end up with Donald Trump back in the White House. Even the unlikely prospect of Manchin himself winning the seat would be a terrible outcome for our nation.

Santos Expulsion: What Does it Mean?

By: Mildred Robertson 

So, Republicans finally decided to draw a line in the sand. After two previously failed attempts, on Friday, December 3rd nearly half of the Republican House delegation voted to expel New York's 3rd Congressional District Representative, George Santos from Congress. After receiving the House Ethics Committee report finding substantial evidence of wrongdoing, the House voted 311 to 114 to expel him; well above the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution.

Santos refused to resign although he admitted that he "embellished" much of his resume. Texas Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro stated that Santos had lied about almost every aspect of his life and that he should either resign or be expelled from Congress. The House Ethics Committee report found the congressman violated federal law and engaged in a "complex web" of illegal activity concerning his finances. Democrats Robert Garcia and Dan Goldman filed the resolution that resulted in Santos's expulsion.  New York Republican Anthony D'Esposito offered his own motion to force a vote on the expulsion. 

Historically Santos becomes the 21st member of Congress to be expelled. Previously there were 15 expulsions from the Senate and five from the House. Most were related to the Support of the Confederacy. In 2002 Ohio Representative James Traficant was expelled after conviction on 10 felony counts that included taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering, and forcing his congressional staff to perform chores at his farm in Ohio and on his houseboat in Washington, D.C. He served a seven-year prison sentence for his infractions. It remains to be seen whether Santos will be convicted of criminal charges.

It is not as though House Republicans were unaware of Santos' challenges before his election. However, many of Santos' alleged misdeeds were hidden from the voters before he won the seat. 

So how was he able to survive two previous votes to expel him? It was all about maintaining power. In the final vote, only two Democrats voted against the resolution to expel Santos yet 112 Republicans voted to allow him to keep his seat. The GOP voting against his expulsion would like us to believe the vote was based upon their desire to let the people of his district decide in the next election. However, Santos was important to the Republican's razor-thin majority, and losing his seat may jeopardize any future legislation they plan to pass or block. Furthermore, his district is a swing district, and there is no guarantee that the electorate will send another Republican to replace him. 

I am not sure what was the final straw that made a plurality of Republicans decide to vote to remove this demonstrably flawed politician from Congress. Republican House leadership voted to save Santos to avoid winnowing their party's slim House majority. They were joined by the hard-right conservative caucus to hold on to Santos, while moderate and mainstream conservatives took the opportunity to distance themselves from the serial liar.  There is no reason Santos should have ever been seated, but at least now we know that there are some lines that many partisan Republicans will not cross, even if only for their own survival.