Jan. 31 was a sad day for America and her people.

It was the day that Republicans in Congress shredded the Constitution, violated their pledge of office, and totally ignored the Declaration of Independence and the idea that we're a nation “of the people, for the people, and by the people.”

When 75 percent of the people said they wanted witnesses at the impeachment trial, the Republican-controlled Senate totally ignored the will of the people. It's very sad. What they are telling the people is they no longer work for America and its citizens — but for themselves.

On Jan. 31, they gave President Trump the green light to do whatever he wants to do, and they will condone it and protect him.

Republican Senators who supported this vote should also be impeached for violating the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, their Oath of Office and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

I hope every American remembers this in the November elections and goes to the polls and votes. America’s future depends on you and your vote.

L. Davied Bond



Recommended for you

(94) comments

Gary Miller

Dave you have one big problem. You can't provide any proof Trump or the Republicans violated the constitution, their oath of office or anything else. You just parrot the angry lies of some Democrats frustrated because Trump keeps beating them.

Gary Miller

Dave there has never been 75 % "of the people" wanting more witnesses or evidence. 75% of Democrats perhaps because there are only 25% of Democrats wanting the truth. 100% of Democrats is less than 30% of the people.

Gary Miller


The party that wants to run your health care had a little trouble running the Iowa Democrat caucuses. So late reporting results candidates were leaving Iowa the next day without knowing where they finished. HO Hum.

Bailey Jones

Almost as bad as the Republicans in Iowa in 2012 (Bad counting led to the announcement that Romney had won, which had to be corrected two weeks later when Santorum was announced as the winner. Also, results from 8 precincts were lost and never recovered.)

Gary Miller

New Iowa up date> The AP causing trouble in Iowa vote counting was provided by a company owned by Hillary Clinton. Oops.

Bailey Jones

Again with the lies. The company that created the app used by Iowa (Shadow) is NOT owned by Hillary Clinton. The CEO of Shadow is Gerard Niemira, who worked on digital "product" for the HRC campaign for 14 months.

I know facts don't matter to you - but those are the facts.

Carlos Ponce

Niemira said in the same post that he had created the app with “a few of my colleagues from the Hillary for America campaign where we built tools for [the campaign’s] field team”.

Gary Miller

Iowa caucuses? Record turnout, 5 times more than expected, took 1,500 Republican precincts 47 minutes to report results. Trump won over two candidates.

Gary Miller

Election fraud? Iowa update. Five Iowa counties have more registered Democrats than total residents in those counties? More Registered Democrats than residents? Are there no registered Republicans in those 5 counties?

Bailey Jones

Another lie. What's with you guys today?

Carlos Ponce

"Judicial Watch announced that at least eight Iowa counties have voter registration rolls larger than their voting age population. According to Judicial Watch’s analysis of data released by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) this year, these eight counties are on the list of 378 counties nationwide that have more voter registrations than citizens living there who are old enough to vote, i.e., counties where registration rates exceed 100%. These 378 counties combined had about 2.5 million registrations over the 100%-registered mark. In Iowa, there are least 18,658 'extra names' on the voting rolls in the eight counties at issue."


The chart below details the eight Iowa counties’ registration rate percentages:

Reg Rate Total Population

Dallas County 114.8 80,864

Johnson County 107.9 144,425

Lyon County 102.5 11,745

Madison County 102.5 15,720

Poweshiek County 102.1 18,428

Dickinson County 100.9 17,000

Scott County 100.8 171,493

Warren County 100.5 48,630

Bailey Jones

Exactly - Judicial Watch. They have zero credibility - which is no doubt why Trump retweets them so often. In this case, Judicial Watch looked at total registrations, which includes inactive voters (think about the 16,000 "suspended" registrations in Galveston County, for instance), and compares it to "estimated" population (there's been no actual count since 2010).

The Iowa secretary of state released new active voter registration numbers this week. I have thoughtfully annotated your data. The number in parenthesis is the number of active registrations. Through the magic of math you can satisfy yourself that the registration rate in these counties is actually about 65-75% of the estimated total voter age population (assuming the "estimates" are correct).. (https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/VRStatsArchive/2020/CoFeb20.pdf)

Dallas County 114.8 80,864 (59,667)

Johnson County 107.9 144,425 (96,958)

Lyon County 102.5 11,745 (8,117)

Madison County 102.5 15,720 (10,858)

Poweshiek County 102.1 18,428 (12,872)

Dickinson County 100.9 17,000 (12,959)

Scott County 100.8 171,493 (115,393)

Warren County 100.5 48,630 (33,644)

Carlos Ponce

"They have zero credibility." Your opinion which is not shared by many. But IT'S ALL YOURS, BAILEY!

They have gone after the Clinton, GW Bush and Obama administrations.

Bailey Jones

"They have zero credibility." Perhaps I should say, they have zero credibility with me - because I have investigated several of their stories and found them to be false.

There is also the opinion of mediabiasfactcheck which says "Overall, we rate Judicial Watch questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record." But I recognize that you believe mediabiasfactcheck to be anti-Trump. Politifact has rated their statements consistently false. But I recognize that you believe Politifact to be anti-Trump. Factcheck.org has rated their statements consistently false. But I recognize that you believe Factcheck.org to be anti-Trump. Charitynavigator.org gives them only 2 stars. But I recognize that you believe Charitynavigator.org to be anti-Trump.

In a press release, Iowa's Republican Secretary of State, Paul Pate, says - "It’s unfortunate this organization continues to put out inaccurate data regarding voter registration, and it’s especially disconcerting they chose the day of the Iowa Caucus to do this. My office has told this organization, and others who have made similar claims, that their data regarding Iowa is deeply flawed and their false claims erode voter confidence in elections. They should stop this misinformation campaign immediately and quit trying to disenfranchise Iowa voters." But I recognize that you believe Iowa's Republican Secretary of State to be anti-Trump.

But Trump likes them, so there's that.

Carlos Ponce

"I have investigated several of their stories and found them to be false."

Name one, Bailey.[whistling]

Bailey Jones

"Name one, Bailey."

Well, Carlos - there's this one. Then there was the famous "ISIS camps in Mexico" fake story. The ridiculous "hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants voted in the 2018 mid-term elections" fake story. The various Seth Rich murder fake conspiracies. I forget most of what I checked up on because it happened in the 2016 election - I have a Trumpster sister who likes to send me conspiracies. There was pizzagate, the various Hillary health scare stories, lots of Soros conspiracies - but I honestly forget if those were Judicial Watch or Breitbart. Isn't Judicial Watch behind the smears against Ambassador Yovanovitch?

But your use of Judicial Watch as a news source is entirely consistent with the views you present here, so I don't expect any of this will move you in the least.

Carlos Ponce

"ISIS camps in Mexico" Your Leftist sources say "no". My relatives in Mexico say "si". And there are jihadist camps in the United States.

"FBI uncovers homegrown terror training camp in Alabama"


As for non-citizen voting, it's happened even Galveston County. And I remember Telemundo airing a segment where they urged voting in the 2016 presidential elections - citizenship not necessary, just register.

Seth Rich - unknown who killed him. Bailey probably saw him next to Elvis in a Galveston bar.... [wink] But in lieu of any definitive investigation anything is possible. It's one of those cold cases.

Judicial watch had nothing to do with Pizzagate. Now you're getting silly. Larry Klayman founder of Judicial Watch appeared on a podcast with Jason Goodman who published material on Pizzagate. And Bailey attributes Pizzagate to Judicial Watch????? STUPID!

Bailey Jones

I'm never afraid to admit when I'm wrong, Carlos. I did mention that I couldn't remember whether pizzagate was JW or Breitbart. Apparently it was Breitbart, and InfoWars. At least we can both agree that both of those sites publish fake news. That's why we never listen to them. Right, Carlos?

Still waiting for any evidence of ISIS in Mexico. Your relatives don't count - that would be second hand hearsay, and I know how you feel about hearsay. I suggest you contact DHS and pass your info along to them. Home grown domestic terrorists - of which we have many - also don't count.

You are correct that Seth Rich is a cold case - therefore any claim to the contrary is fake news. Thanks for acknowledging that. Even Fox News retracted their nonsense about it, although your buddy, Hannity, didn't. I guess that makes him fake news, as well.

Carlos Ponce

"Your relatives don't count..." In your mind truth doesn't count.

Carlos Ponce

L. Davied Bond, who do you think you're fooling?

Mark Stevens

I can't help but recalling Will Rogers comment...he said something like, "I don't belong to any organized political party....I'm a Democrat."

Best to all of you folks, MWS

Carlos Ponce

"75 percent of the people said they wanted witnesses at the impeachment trial..." Many of them wanted to hear from Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Eric Ciaramella, Alexandra Chalupa, etc.

So.... why didn't Schiff and Nadler call them during the House hearings????

Blaming the Senate for not including extra witnesses is like blaming the Easter Bunny for not delivering presents on Christmas Day. It's a no-brainer - but then again, we are talking about Democrats.[innocent]

The HOUSE calls the witnesses during its impeachment hearings. The SENATE sits as a jury if Articles of Impeachment are presented. As someone wisely pointed out, jurors do not call witnesses.

Cindy Milina

Allow me to explain how the Impeachment process works. Congress is responsible for bringing the charge, calling witnesses, and assembling the evidence, which it then presents to the Senate The Senate's function is to review the evidence and then vote on whether or not to remove the President from office. The Senate has no responsibility to call witnesses or to further the job that Congress was responsible for. They are simply the body that votes on the evidence provided by Congress, and Congress once again, has no real evidence and flimsy charges. That's not the Senate's fault nor their responsibility to correct.

Dan Freeman

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..." Article I Section 2. This means a trial where the Senate may either dismiss the charges or obtain additional evidence. The House acts as a Grand Jury and the Senate conducts the trial. The Senated did not dismiss the charges, so they were obligated to conduct a trial, which should have considered all available evidence including evidence not presented to the House. Therefore the vote to acquit or convict cannot be considered a fair vote.

Carlos Ponce

So, the House denying participation by Trump's attorneys was "fair"?

So, Schiff Nadler and Pelosi denying the list of witnesses requested by House committee chairman was fair?

Dan Freeman

Thank you. In a Grand Jury the prosecution controls all witnesses and the defense attorneys are not allowed in the room. Schiff's, Nadler's, and Pelosi's invitations for participation, which was declined, was quite generous. It follows the House impeachment was fair and the Senate was completely unfair. In a jury trial this biased, the Judge could declare jury nullification, as was done frequently in the South.

Since Judge Roberts is only a "presiding officer," hewill not have the power of nullification. To coin a phrase, the Senate is acting as a kangaroo court.

Carlos Ponce

Dan's idea of "generous" is flawed.

Joel Martin

I think this was written by Adam Schiff. [wink]

Charles Douglas

The author spoke of shredding the Constitution, he ought to know plenty about that since he probably belongs to the party with the shredder! The LEFT has attacked the First Amendment, which guarantees Free Speech, and the Second Amendment which guarantees our rights to bear arms! They want to do away with the Electoral College, and they have violated the spirit of the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments dealing with Due Process in the recent HOAX and SHAM of an Impeachment. They did not even take a vote from the floor of the House Of Representatives before they started the process of investigating, issuing subpoenas. They did not allow the President's team access, to call or to cross-examine witnesses until it was to late to do any good. They stood on the floor of the House and read a fake made up lie on national TV, and did it with a straight and big eyes! So when you start talking about SHREDDING the Construction, ..maybe you should do some research, or stop taking CNN serious!

Gary Miller

Charles> Voters educated by CNN have no education.

Jim Forsythe

I find it interesting the changes that have happened to the laws about guns. The changes, have not changed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms but has changed what is legal. If you read the changes below, which of them do you agree with and which do you disagree with? To me, most if not all make sense. I may have missed some of the changes.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, regulating the manufacture, sale, and possession of fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 is enacted for the purpose of “keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.”

The Armed Career Criminal Act increases penalties for possession of firearms by persons not qualified to own them under the Gun Control Act of 1986.

The Firearms Owners Protection Act (Public Law 99-308) relaxes some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales and establishes mandatory penalties for use of firearms during the commission of a crime.

The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (Public Law 99-408) bans possession of "cop killer" bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.

President Ronald Reagan signs the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, making it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors.

2008 case, the court ruled 5-4 that Americans have the right to possess a handgun in their homes for self-defense. The court held, however, that the Second Amendment right “is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Dec. 9, 2013 --The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, requiring that all guns must contain enough metal to be detectable by security screening machines was extended through 2035.

June 12, 2016 --President Obama calls on Congress to enact or renew a law prohibiting the sale and possession of assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines after a man identified as Omar Mateen kills 49 people in an Orlando, Fla., using an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. In a call to 9-1-1 he made during the attack, Mateen told police he had pledged his allegiance to the radical Islamic terrorist group ISIS.

A lone gunman unleashed a rapid-fire barrage of bullets from the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel , killing at least 59 people and injuring more than 500 others attending a country music festival below.

Carlos Ponce

Anti-second Amendment types seem to think that everyone with a firearm is going to use that firearm to kill someone in cold blood. If you look at the total number of firearms in this country you will find an extremely low percentage are used for nefarious reasons. Even if you single out what are called "assault weapons", the percentage of those used for nefarious reasons is exceedingly tiny.

What identifies the AR-15 by some as an "assault rifle" are purely cosmetic.

Omar Mateen did not use an AR-15. He used the Sig Sauer MCX, a far more expensive rifle with a similar layout. It's like calling a Mercedes-Benz a Chevrolet, Jim.[rolleyes]

Jim Forsythe

The Sig Sauer MCX was the gun used to kill the people in the club. Just because I was wrong about the brand, the fact remains, they are still dead.

How many deaths are acceptable, before you will say , that's enough? How many killings in schools, malls, clubs, concerts will it take before actions are taken. If you think that carrying a gun is a right for every citizen, try carrying one into a Trump rally!

Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in U.S. in 2018 · More people died from firearm injuries in the United States last year than in any other year since at least 1968.

Carlos Ponce

"Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in US in 2018" -

Try 10,865 murders due to guns.


My source is the FBI. Your source is the New York Times. The FBI deaths in 2018 were ruled homicides. NYT included suicides which account for 60% of all gun deaths. If not for the presence of a gun would they all be alive? Unfortunately not. NYT includes suicides, defensive shootings, accidental shootings, etc. The number 40,000 is misleading.

Jim Forsythe

"Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in US in 2018" - is true.

If you think 10,865 murders due to guns is OK , why?

Are you happy that 22,938 people committed suicide by firearm?

Many commit suicide on a spur of the moment decision. If a gun had not been in the area, they may not have taken their life's.

Until we change what we are doing , these numbers will continue to increase.

How many killings in schools, malls, clubs, concerts will it take before actions are taken. If you think that carrying a gun is a right for every citizen, try carrying one into a Trump rally!

Charles Douglas

Well Jim, yes Trump will remained Impeached by the SWAMP, BUT after this afternoon's vote he will remained Acquitted. So much for history huh?

Carlos Ponce

I've already explained it, Jim. The number 40,000 is misleading. And those who were murdered by guns, the 10,000 would they be alive if there weren't any guns? Instead of death by gunfire there would be death by other means. And did you look at the number killed by knives? Remove the guns and this would increase. There are crazy people out there. I wonder if the death by knife includes death by machete - the MS 13 preferred method of killing.

Jim Forsythe

We are talking about gun deaths. The number of 40,000 is not misleading unless one can not read. Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in US in 2018 means 40,000 died from guns.It says nothing about suicide or any other ways they died, just that 40,000 died by guns

If you think that carrying a gun is a right for every citizen, try carrying one into a Trump rally!

Jim Forsythe


Trump May Be Acquitted by the Senate. That's Not the Same as Being Exonerated. If re-elected in 2020, would he still be considered an impeached president in his 2nd term. Trump will be an impeached president for the remainder of the existence of the United States and for the rest of his days. Is Bill Clinton considered the president that was impeached and not removed so impeached did not count. No, Clinton is known all these years later as a president that was impeached and no one adds Acquitted . Now we have two living presidents that have been impeached.

Carlos Ponce

"Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in US in 2018 means 40,000 died from guns.It says nothing about suicide or any other ways they died, just that 40,000 died by guns." 60% of them were suicide.

Carlos Ponce

New York Times - "There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before. Nearly two-thirds were suicides. Suicides have historically made up most deaths by firearm in the United States, research shows.

In 2017, about 60 percent of gun deaths were suicides, while about 37 percent were homicides, according to an analysis of the C.D.C. data by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a public health think tank."


Jim Forsythe

PEN America is suing President Trump for banning certain journalists from covering the White House and threatening to revoke credentials; now he has gone a step further by revoking the press pass of @CNN's @Acosta, in a clear attack on the First Amendment

Trumps Impeachment followed the rules spelled out in the Constitution giving the House and the Senate the duty to set up how a impeachment will proceed. No Impeachment will be 100% like any other. Rules changed in 2015 allowing delegating subpoena power to individual chairmen.

Republicans changed the playbook in 2015 when they rewrote rules delegating subpoena power to individual chairmen without full approval from the House of Representatives. Democrats reaffirmed that process earlier this year, adopting impeachment rules that includ[e] granting their chairmen the right to issue subpoenas unilaterally.

As far as why Trump was impeached everyone has a option about was what Trump did, wrong. Some, 100% Trump impeachment was right. Some agreed that it was wrong but Trump should not be impeached. Some, Trump should be left alone to do what he wants.

These are just two of many that are in the court of, the call was wrong but not impeachable.

Republican Reps. Mac Thornberry (Texas) and Michael Turner (Ohio) calling the phone call at the center of the impeachment inquiry “inappropriate” and “alarming,” respectively.

Carlos Ponce

Stay tuned for the vote this afternoon, Jim. Trump will be found NOT GUILTY.[beam]

Jim Forsythe

Stilled Impeached.

Charles Douglas

What was that thing Justice Roberts tried to tell the Senators a little while ago! I could not hear him because SCHUMER was sniffing, snuffing, and shedding tears. Justice Roberts said something like "NOT G....something.." What was it ...anybody know? Was there a helicopter on the North Lawn waiting to FLY Trump, Mr. MELANIE, & BARRON OFF? Do the "TRUMPITES" still have our CAP'EM? Well if I can't get an answer, I will trudge off to Wal-Mart's where I know I can smell out the truth of the matter!!!!! [beam]

Carlos Ponce

In case someone missed it, here it is.DONALD TRUMP IS NOT GUILTY!


Emile Pope

First president to have a member of his own party vote to convict him. First president to have a member of his own party vote to convict him...

Emile Pope

Bipartisan support for conviction. Bipartisan support for conviction...

Carlos Ponce

Just one vote on one charge and that came from Mittens Romney. Not really bi-partisan because the world knows he's a RINO. President Trump NOT GUILTY!

Emile Pope

Romney is a Republican.

Carlos Ponce

Romney is a Republican in name only - a RINO. He is hoping his constituents will not remember when his 6 years are up but they are already lining up to replace him. They are no happy with his vote.

Emile Pope

He is officially a Republican. He ran as one. The fact that you don't like his actions doesn't remove him from the party. For the first time in history a president had a MEMBER OF HIS OWN PARTY vote to remove him from office. Congrats Donald, you made history. And it will follow you forever...

Charles Douglas

Jim, if it makes you feel better to be able to say Trump is an IMPEACHED President in his second term, ..have at it. My prediction is it won't matter a bit! I further predict he will do his best work yet after we TAKE back the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES! YALL are not going to stop this man JIM! What is going to take for yall to open your eyes and see the obvious? I have NEVER seen anything like this in my life! What are you suppose to say about a group of people who would rather take a perpetual butt WHUPPING than to accept that they got a single defeat? You know what offends me most about DEMOCRATS? They can't go two weeks discussing any issue without trying to PROSTITUTE off African-Americans or Minorities! Everybody is a racist at the drop of a hat! Minorities are an afterthought which the Democrats use to bargain with and banter over. Who got the Second Chance Bill through? Who got major corporations to champion Reinvestment Zones in poor minority neighborhoods? Who got a major bill through Congress investing in the fundings for Major Predominant Black Universities? Who got Black, Hispanic, Asian unemployment down to the lowest numbers in the history of this nation? Who got Blue Collar wealth up higher than it has in many years? Where is that Magic Wand that Mr.Obama spoke of when he insulted Trump by saying, "Trump will need a Magic Wand to bring back the many factories, and jobs this country has lost?" " How else is he going to get them back?" I will answer that question, ..he got them back by putting AMERICA FRIST...and standing up to those who were cheating and munching off the American Taxpayers! He changed the one-sided trade deals made by stupid representatives of prior administrations, and by loving his country,...THAT'S HOW!!!!!!

Jim Forsythe

I'm a Democratic and when have I tried to PROSTITUTE off African-Americans or Minorities! Remember what you accuse me of, and then apologized for.

You really think I'm a racist at the drop of a hat? Just as in any group you have differentness about things, and trying to lump all together leads to all people bring accused of what a few has done.

Charles Douglas

Jim, I did not say YOU were a racist at the drop of a hat! I said Democrats, meaning your party which represents you thinks or will label others as RACISTS at the drop of a hat. As for you Jim, I did not mean you personally are doing what I accused your party of doing, nor would I accuse you personally of championing the ABORTION of unborn children, but your party is doing those things! I use to be a Democrat myself, my family use to be also, but how could I remain in an organization, who on purpose keep certain groups of people down to remain in power. The carrot they use is poverty and lack! Keep the poor,...POOR! Keep them on Welfare, Food Stamps and we can get that vote every four years! NOW if you took what I said personally, then you deserve my apology, but as far as your party, I have no apology for It! The little girl at the State Of The Union who got voucher money to attend a better school which will change her life, and will enable her to be better equipped to compete with others in life was not even acknowledged by the Democrats! They just sat there looking like they were drunk on pickle juice! Later, their rebuttal speaker mentioned raises for teachers! This is an example of what I was speaking of. Give the teacher a raise, give the student a BAD EDUCATION! Now .as I said, before, clear the tracks Jim, the Diesel is coming through. It is time for change! Sanctuary Cities, Ghetto Blight, folks jobless and living on the streets, need change. Change is coming to ..as soon as we can get the race baitors out!

Jim Forsythe

Which Democrat's are you talking about? The ones in DC, or the one in the homes across America? I'm sure you know that the Democrats are composed of many different types, and not just one point of view. Are you talking about the Conservity Democrats, Moderate Democrat's, Liberals Democrat's or the ones in-between? When you reply stating my name, you are talking to me.

As far as Janiyah Davis, what about all the millions of " Janiyah Davises" If the schools are so bad, what are we doing to fix them. The one that is in charge of the schools in America has done what to help with the children in the USA? Leadership does not mean helping only a few and not the rest.

U.S. Poverty Rate in 1986 was 1.2% and now it is 2.0%, which it has been since 2010.

With the recovery from the recession in 2010 we have not reduced the number of people in poverty. Until this problem is addressed we have failed to take care of are own. The DC types just put Band-Aids on the problem and say we fixed it.

If you want, I can lay out how I would help with this problem. The number of homeless living on the streets include over 50% women and children.

Jim Forsythe

At this time it will be hard for the Republican's to take The House. The numbers are shaping up as, 220 seats solid in the Democrats column, 192 solid in the Republican column and 21 are tossups. For the Republican's to take control it would require the Republican's to win all the tossup seats and take away 5 from the Democrat's.

Carlos Ponce

Jim posts, "At this time it will be hard for the Republican's to take The House." Remember that when you read the election results in November.

Jim Forsythe

There are at least 23 toss-up races this year, 18 in districts held by Democrats and five by Republicans. Carlos do you expect Republican's to win all 23 seats? Retirement seats include three Republican seats, which are in Democratic territory — the seats now held by Reps. Will Hurd of Texas, and George Holding and Mark Walker, both of North Carolina. Carlos , do you expect Republican's to win all 3 of these seats?

Carlos, which District races are the ones you think will give the Republican's The House?

Below are the races I see as the ones to watch.

Minnesota 7th District, Iowa 3ed District , New York 11th District, New York 22nd District, Oklahoma 5th District, South Carolina 1st District, Utah 4th District, Georgia 7th District, Illinois 13th District.

Carlos Ponce

"Carlos, which District races are the ones you think will give the Republican's The House?" All House seats are in contention, even those in Democrat strongholds. The way Democrats have been running the House I wouldn't be surprised if the majority turn Republican.

Jim Forsythe

You really think that the 46 seats House of Representatives in California that are Democratic are all going to go Republican ?

You know that many of the seats will stay the same, D or R. My question to you, do you have a clue which Districts will change?

All are in play, is just a cop out.

Carlos Ponce

"You really think that the 46 seats House of Representatives in California that are Democratic are all going to go Republican ?" In 2018 many House seats were RED .... until they "discovered" ballots, all for the Democrat candidate. Hmmmm......

"They felt the hit on Nov. 6 — and in the days after, as late-arriving Democratic votes were tabulated and one Republican candidate after another saw leads shrink and then evaporate. This week, a seventh GOP-held congressional seat flipped to the Democrats, leaving Republicans controlling a mere seven of California’s 53 House districts." Nov. 30, 2018


Jim Forsythe

They did not discovered ballots, but used the election laws to their benefit. In Orange County alone, where every House seat went Democratic, “the number of Election Day vote-by-mail drop-offs was unprecedented — over 250,000and they were counted last.

This was because the Democrat's started working to use the new laws as soon as they were passed and the Republicans did not understand what they needed to do.

"Badly outnumbered in the Legislature, California Republicans have no hope of undoing the new rules. Instead, they’re going to have to adapt. “The Democrats are creating a new, highly efficient tool to turn out voters,” said Neugebauer, the GOP consultant. “If Republicans can’t find a way to match it, we’re going to lose more elections all over the country.”"

Carlos Ponce

And they just "happened" to be enough to overtake the initial republican candidates. Uh - huh....

Jim Forsythe

Nothing was done illegal, but the law had changed to now allow a voter who is unable to return the ballot may designate any person to return the ballot to the elections .

Here’s how the legislation spells out the practice:

(a) All vote by mail ballots cast under this division shall be voted on or before the day of the election. After marking the ballot, the vote by mail voter shall do any of the following: (1) return the ballot by mail or in person to the elections official from whom it came, (2) return the ballot in person to a member of a precinct board at a polling place within the jurisdiction, or (3) return the ballot to the elections official from whom it came at a vote by mail ballot drop-off location, if provided pursuant to Section 3025. However, a vote by mail voter who is unable to return the ballot may designate any person to return the ballot to the elections official from whom it came or to the precinct board at a polling place within the jurisdiction. The ballot must, however, be received by either the elections official from whom it came or the precinct board before the close of the polls on election day.

Republicans knew of the new law, but did not react in a manor that allow them to take full advantage of the law.

While Paul Ryan’s indicate Republicans outside California were caught off guard by the practice, those inside the state said they were not surprised and some even commended Democrats.

“To say we were caught flat-footed by this is just not true,” California GOP spokesman Matt Fleming told Fox News. “We were well aware of this, we even did it ourselves, we pay attention to election laws.”

Dale Neugebauer, a veteran Republican consultant, told the Chronicle that Democrats used the practice in a “thorough and disciplined” ground game.

“Absolutely, ballot harvesting played a very significant role,” Neugebauer told the Chronicle, adding that “I have a little bit of professional admiration for how well the Democrats executed their plan.”

Carlos Ponce

"Nothing was done illegal, but the law had changed to now allow a voter who is unable to return the ballot may designate any person to return the ballot to the elections ." An open invitation for fraud.

Jim Forsythe

Every state has a right to change the laws as the see fit. If people do not like it they can contest it in court. Just as you do not like what California has done, other do not like Texas's laws. Since it is OK what they did, it will remain the law until it is changed. You complaining about it, will not change it.

You keep saying fraud about California voting and still facts supporting it.

If you want to complain about voting , complain about mail in ballot in Texas as a open invitation for fraud.

Carlos Ponce

"Every state has a right to change the laws as the see fit." So, if Texas decided to go back to the ORIGINAL way of selecting Electors, forgoing the vote, would that be okay since "Every state has a right to change the laws as the see fit"?

Jim Forsythe

I'm guessing you are taking about prison reform. To enhance the Second Chance Act the First Step Act was passed. It was passed in a bipartisan fashion as most voted for it.

President Trump signed into law bipartisan legislation today to reform the federal prison system. The First Step Act, which passed the U.S. Senate 87-12 and the House 358-36, will usher in significant changes to federal sentencing laws as well as improvements to programs that aim to reduce recidivism and provide support to people who are involved in the criminal justice system.

The First Step Act also reauthorizes the Second Chance Act, building on and strengthening the landmark legislation originally passed 10 years ago. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2018—sponsored by U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT)—provides $100 million per year to establish and enhance state and local programs that promote successful reentry for people returning to the community after incarceration.

Jim Forsythe

The Opportunity Zones have not been in effect long enough to give it a report card. But under first blush it looks like it is not what some envision it as being. The Opportunity Zones only offer tax incentives. If investors meet the requirements, they elect to defer paying taxes on their investments in the designated areas. Therefore, they are not reported to the public, because they are private tax information.

Under the new tax plan, private investments to certain ostensibly low-income areas would come with tax advantages.

It has become a giveaway to the wealthy, rather than a real effort to revitalize poor areas. In August, the New York Times reported several extreme cases of luxury development planned in so-called Opportunity Zones, such as a hotel with a rooftop pool in New Orleans owned partially by Anthony Scaramucci; a 46-story glass apartment building with a yoga lawn in Houston; and a luxury office tower in Miami’s Design District.

Opportunity Zones were first formally introduced through bipartisan legislation sponsored by Republican Senator Tim Scott, Democratic Senator Cory Booker, Republican Congressman Pat Tiberi, and Democratic Congressman Ron Kind. The program also had the backing of the Economic Innovation Group, a bi-partisan think tank, and Sean Parker, an early investor in Facebook.Notably, the original bill included key provisions that the eventual tax law lacked, such as the reporting requirements. It also mandated regular impact studies on how well these investments were spurring job creation and poverty reduction in the targeted areas.

But now, as the Opportunity Zone program comes under increasing scrutiny, there’s a growing political consensus around the need for tighter reporting requirements. Booker and Scott, along with senators Maggie Hassan and Todd Young, introduced a bill that would override the tax law to enforce the requirements that were taken out

Bailey Jones

I'm happy to see that the congress passed the bipartisan funding for HBCUs bill, again this year. As for the opportunity zones - I'm skeptical. I remember, growing up in Dallas, when "urban development" meant the bulldozing of black and Latinx neighborhoods to build the ever so trendy Cedar Springs area and the Market Center on I-35. But what do I know - I'm not a real estate developer.

Charles Douglas

Just heard that CHINA just dropped Billions in tariffs off American goods after the Senate Acquitted the President! Sufficient to say CHINA is looking to deal with "Trump Diesel!" Great Britian who just officially left the European Union, is also looking for a Trade Deal with Trump Diesel! Remember, the last President took a trip to Great Britian to inform them that if they left the European Union, America would put them at the bottom of America's Trade Priority List. Now that Hilliary is on the sidelines, that threat will not hold up.

Charles Douglas

Question: What do these have in common; Mata Hari...Judas Iscariot...BENIDICT Arnold....Mitt Romney!?

Bailey Jones

I can't help but notice that the single senator who voted his religious convictions is the one that conservative evangelicals are attacking. But I see your point - both Judas and Mitt betrayed your lord and savior.

Carlos Ponce

"I can't help but notice that the single senator who voted his religious convictions... " We didn't hear that from him but from the SAME Liberal; pundits that derided him in 2012. According to Mittens, he talked it over with his family, not his constituency which is composed mostly of Mormons - and they're not happy.

Bailey Jones

Well. Carlos - you may not have heard it from him, or perhaps you heard it but just didn't understand it. Here's what I heard -

"What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I’ve received numerous calls and texts. Many demanded, in their words, that I “stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind: You see, I support a great deal of what the president has done. I voted with him 80 percent of the time.

But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton, not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he might say could raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment."

Diogenes is in the house.

Carlos Ponce

God told him how to vote, he did not listen. Members of his sect are very upset with him.

Bailey Jones

"God told him how to vote" - Hubris, beware of Nemesis.

Carlos Ponce

Mittens did not listen.

Jim Forsythe

What is interesting is the GOP is talking about expelling Romney from the GOP, just because he voted as he said he would do, when he took the oath that his vote

would not be political, in the impeachment process. To try and make him out as a spy or a traitor is not being truthful.

Carlos Ponce

GOP can withhold GOP funding for his campaigns. Senate leadership can also deny committee membership.

Carlos Ponce

Tell me, Jim. Was Obama right?


Charles Douglas

Well Mr. Jones, no I don't think you see my point Ah..TALL! First of all I do not speak for conservative evangelicals. I speak for me. I don't think much of a man who is on your team who in the heat of battle, run to the other side and help the enemy! This is what Romney did. He saw a chance to stick it to The President and he did so. He allowed his ANGER, and HATRED for the President to override his loyalty to the GOP! He in the past called Trump a Fraud, Fake, and a Charlatan, but that did not stop him from sneaking into the White House begging The President for the position of Secretary Of State...did It? His convictions? If I called someone what he called the President I don't think I'd have the wherewithal to slither up to him and ask him for such an important position! My convictions would not allow that. Make no mistake, I do not hate Mitt Romney, I just don't think much of him. My guess now is he will have a problem with Republican support, even in Utah. He is the same as a former Senator from Arizona named FLAKE..who use to stab Trump in the back! Two of a pair, Democrats disguised as Republicans, in other words...Two RINOS.

Bailey Jones

I know you are only speaking for yourself, Charles. But yours is not the only opinion I've seen today that equates voting one's conscience with treason. As for his motives - Mitt can speak for himself.

I didn't vote for Romney, but I thought he was an honorable man. I didn't vote for McCain, but I thought he was an honorable man. I didn't vote for either Bush, but I thought they were honorable men. I didn't vote for Dole, or Reagan, or Ford, but I thought they were honorable men.

I didn't vote for Trump and I don't think he is an honorable man.

Jim Forsythe

Charles, if you were a Senator and had taken a oath to listen to the proceedings, would you already have made up your mind that no matter what, Trumps gets off?

As a Senator, knowing what you know about Nixon (if he would have not resigned), would you have voted no matter what, to let him off?

I'm sure you are against The Lincoln Project whos MISSION is to Defeat President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box. One of the statements they have made.

"We do not undertake this task lightly nor from ideological preference. Our many policy differences with national Democrats remain. However, the priority for all patriotic Americans must be a shared fidelity to the Constitution and a commitment to defeat those candidates who have abandoned their constitutional oaths, regardless of party. Electing Democrats who support the Constitution over Republicans who do not is a worthy effort." Most members are Republicans!

Should these Republicans be attacked for expressing what they believe? If so, they are only using their freedom of speech guarantee.

Emile Pope

Better than trump?

Jarvis Buckley

Carlos , really did you think Jim would express

concern that the democrats would lose the

majority in the house?

Jim Forsythe

Jarvis, more likely is that the Senate will become under Democratic control, then the Republicans controlling The House.

22 GOP U.S. Senators are up for reelection. This gives a tremendous advantage to Democrats who only have to defend 12 Senate seats. Of the 12 Senate Democrats up for reelection, Doug Jones of Alabama is the most vulnerable. He will be running against Roy Moore, Jeff Sessions or others. The other 11 Democrats , are in states that typically lean Democratic.

On the Republican side the most vulnerable Senators are Susan Collins(ME), Cory Gardner(CO) and Martha McSally(AZ) plus there are two open seats in Kansas and Tennessee where the incumbent Republicans have chosen not to run in 2020.

Maybe the closes race is the McSally vs. Kelly as they are is tied at 42 percent. Kelly a former astronaut and husband of former Arizona Congresswoman and mass-shooting survivor Gabby Giffords .

Arizona may become one of the most important states in the race for the President,.

As in any election year, things will happen that no-one saw coming.

Mike Zeller

Jim [thumbup] 2018 Blue Wave, To be Continued .....

Carlos Ponce

Did you pee in the pool again, Mike?

Charles Douglas

Jim said> "I'm sure you are against The Lincoln Project whos MISSION is to Defeat President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box. One of the statements they have made."....Jim, your assumption is absolutely correct. Here is why, if the Lincoln Project was legitimate, they would be using their time, and resources to go after those who are threating the Electoral College, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Instead, from what you described they are no more than a Political Hack group of angry TRUMP HATERS, who are out to cause his demise, and probably by any means necessary! Romney deserves no respect from the Republican Party, and from what I'm hearing, he won't be getting any at anytime soon. He is now what he made himself to be, a political outcast! What Republican do you think is going to trust this guy now? The Democrats don't respect him and neither do the Republicans! Back in the Nixion happenings.. there existed bipartisanship, and a measure of cooperation between Americans. During this Impeachment, this,..backroom hit job the Democrats perpetuated against a duly elected President, there were I think two House Democrats who voted with the Republicans. They knew there were no Republican support for how their SHAM HOAX Investigation was handled and they went forward with it anyway. This was over was the top. However, "TRUMP DIESEL" is still in office and he will more than likely...be re-elected this coming November!

Jim Forsythe

You keep saying threating the Electoral College and amendments. Our strength is in are ability to change. The reason the constitution was written like it was, so if things changes, so could it. The Lincoln Project is not threating anything but Trumps reelection. To opposes a candidate is not illegal.

One way to change the Electoral College voting is a Constitutional amendment which is hard to pass. The other way is change how your state hands out the Electoral College votes. This is the pact between states. This is the one that may happen as they have to 181 votes of the 270 needed.

A number of states have signed onto a pact that guarantees their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote, no matter the outcome in their individual states. The compact would only go into effect once the number of states involved surpasses the 270 Electoral College vote threshold that is required to win the presidency.

Today the pact has the support of states — and Washington D.C. — that total 181 electoral votes, largely those that have gone for Democrats in recent years.

Carlos Ponce

"A number of states have signed onto a pact that guarantees their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote," When Trump wins the popular vote they'll change their minds.

Charles Douglas

JIM, you and the Democrats might want the Electoral College changed but The Republicans and I ...don't!!! So..that is where we are strength or not. Now as for the Lincoln Project, I did not say what their rights were, you were the one who said they pledged to preserved the constitution. I am the one who stated that if that were true, they would be happy to go after DEMOCRATS and the LEFT, for abusing the FIRST, Second, Fourth, and FOURTEENTH Amendments, but they are not! So they are no more that a group of Never TRUMPERS who are out to get the President! They will be crying and cussing at the sky like Democrats, and the LEFT were doing on TV back in 2016 come November 2020! TRUMP DIESEL will be coming through, and of that you can be sure!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.