Mike Pence states the obvious, Trump is wrong

Excerpt from

Mike Pence’s Constitution
The former Vice President stands up to Trump, despite the potential political cost.
By The Editorial Board

The United States desperately needs a Republican Party that is a sane alternative to the ruling Democrats who have lurched to the coercive left. On that score, Americans should welcome Mike Pence’s stand Friday for constitutional principle on elections no matter its political cost.

The former Vice President defended himself against Donald Trump’s charge that Mr. Pence could have overruled state electoral vote tallies on Jan. 6, 2021 at the Capitol. Mr. Pence was presiding over the vote counting as President of the Senate, but he refused Mr. Trump’s pressure to disqualify electors from some closely contested states. It was Mr. Pence’s finest hour.

***
But Mr. Trump won’t let it die, and last week he claimed again that Mr. Pence could have overturned the election, all but admitting that he hoped to use the gambit to stay in power. Speaking Friday to the Federalist Society in Florida, Mr. Pence rebutted Mr. Trump.

“I heard this week that President Trump said I had the right to overturn the election. President Trump is wrong,” Mr. Pence said. “The Presidency belongs to the American people, and the American people alone. And frankly there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American President.”

Mr. Pence explained that his decision was rooted in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. He rightly pointed out that the Founders were skeptical of concentrated power, which is why they created the Electoral College and gave states the authority to choose electors. The only power they gave Congress regarding the electoral tally is counting and certifying the votes. The Vice President’s role is ceremonial in presiding over that counting.

Mr. Trump claims that Congress’s current talks to rewrite the Electoral Count Act of 1887 show Mr. Pence had the power to overturn electoral votes. But Congress isn’t debating this law because it agrees with Mr. Trump’s mistaken interpretation of what we and many others believe is an unconstitutional statute. The Members want to make sure that no one can pull Mr. Trump’s stunt again and misread the Electoral Count Act to use Congress and the Vice President to overturn an election despite losing in November.

This threat is bipartisan, by the way. After the 2004 election Barbara Boxer, then a California Senator, joined a House colleague in objecting to electors from Ohio, the decisive state that year. This forced votes in both chambers, which failed. The next time they lose a close election, Democrats aren’t likely to be as ham-handed as Mr. Trump and his allies were after 2020.

“Under the Constitution, I had no right to change the outcome of our election, and Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024,” Mr. Pence said Friday, underscoring the risks when Republicans put the will to power above the Constitution.

Mr. Pence stands out as a rare Republican these days willing to stand up to Mr. Trump’s disgraceful behavior after the election. Too many in the GOP seem to have lost their constitutional moorings in thrall to one man.

The conventional wisdom now is that Mr. Trump controls the Republican Party and can have the 2024 nomination if he wants it. But someone should remind voters that Mr. Trump ended as a three-time election loser. He mobilized Democrats against him in historic numbers to cost the GOP the House in 2018, then the White House in 2020, and finally the two Georgia Senate seats in 2021.

Mr. Trump had significant policy successes, but Mr. Pence has received too little credit for his policy and personnel advice. His conservative network and instincts helped to avoid more than one Trumpian self-implosion. He was loyal to Mr. Trump, and the President repaid him by pressuring him publicly and privately to commit an unconstitutional act. Loyalty has always been a one-way street for Mr. Trump.

We wrote often during his Presidency that Democrats couldn’t defeat Donald Trump, but Mr. Trump could defeat himself. He did, and his post-election behavior compounded the harm to his party.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-pe...re-11644171148

So, you want to debate which is worse, waiting 2 or 3 days, which I only have your word on,( I thought you had once told me that you were going to start backing up the things you say, guess not ) no proof provided or not reporting a story at all like the John Hopkins report which the Times, the Post, CNN, MSDNC, ABC, NBC, CBS never reported on at all?


The John Hopkins report seems "news worthy" does it not? You can report the findings and disagree with them and have a debate. But what all those other media outlets didn't do that Fox did, was acknowledge the report not try to cover it up.

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Hedonist, While I'll never tire of your posts, I'm sick and tired of listening to Fox News reports on the purported "Johns Hopkins Study." I listened to Steve Hilton work himself into a self righteous fury last night talking about that. He was completely full of shit. You probably missed this, which was a reply in part to one of your posts.

The link to Johns Hopkins is pretty damn tenuous.

Good point Yssup. This didn't come from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Or the medical school there. Or its School of Public health. It would be great if some of our posters here would take info from those sources seriously, including their estimate of 901,391 COVID deaths in the USA to date.

But no, instead they choose to focus on a paper written by Jonas Herby at the Center for Political Studies in Denmark (lead author), Lars Jonung, a professor of economics at Lund University, and Steve H. Hanke, a Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/fi...-Mortality.pdf

Hanke is the only one of the three I've heard of. He'd be a great resource if you were running a country with hyperinflation and a currency that's fast becoming worthless. That's his area of expertise, not public health.

I'd question whether this study will ever make it into a peer-reviewed paper in a recognized medical, scientific or public health journal.

They initially looked at 18,590 studies, and then weeded those down to 34 for inclusion in their metastudy. There may have been some cherry picking in the way they did their weeding. They did appear to leave out some prominent studies, the results of which were contradictory to their conclusions.

Take a look at this critique of the paper:

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...ences-website/

Ferguson, Flaxman (who wrote a paper estimating 3 million deaths from COVID were avoided by lockdowns, which was excluded from the metastudy) and Bhatt lambaste the metastudy. They appear to me to have valid criticisms. The economist, Paton, on the other hand has somewhat favorable things to say about the metastudy.

In any event saying lockdowns won't work is ridiculous. Look at New Zealand and China. Did they work in the USA and Europe? Were they worth the economic and social cost? Well, that's difficult to say. I'd say "no." I personally don't like lockdowns, but this is not as simple as Fox News would lead you to believe.

Speaking of which, Hedonist, getting your info about COVID from Fox News makes about as much sense as getting info about voting rights from MSNBC. Originally Posted by Tiny

Hmmm... The Wall Street Journal?? ... Blimey! They're the favourite
reading material of RINO Republicans - right up there with National Review.

The same news-people who brought the G.O.P. such winners as
John McCain and Mitt Romney for President.
Didn't they also like Joe Biden?

Somehow, I feel that Trump will be just fine WITHOUT
their endorsement.

### Salty

..I'm sick and tired of listening to Fox News reports on the purported "Johns Hopkins Study." Originally Posted by Tiny

I can imagine that you would be. People who believe they are smarter and more informed than others, but aren't really, get "sick and tired" of hearing opposing views.

The Nazis shot them or burned them up in an oven. The 21st Century Nazis trying to control this country are attempting to isolate them with unemployment and fabricated criminal charges based on lies.

It's noteworthy that you believe you know more than John Hopkins, which explains your reference to "Mike Pence's Constitution"..... he doesn't have one and never did. "We the People" have one and will as long as this country exists. Learn it and abide by it.

I can imagine that you would be. People who believe they are smarter and more informed than others, but aren't really, get "sick and tired" of hearing opposing views.

The Nazis shot them or burned them up in an oven. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I know the Nazis and the Commies killed well educated Jews and scientists and the like. I’m not worried though. I’m not all that smart. I did take the time to determine the ties between Johns Hopkins and the study and did read criticisms of the study. Steve Hilton and others on Fox did not. Why should they. They’re in the business of selling commercials and whether they’re misleading people is irrelevant. Same for the night time talking heads on MSNBC and CNN.

Interesting post though. Are you comparing Trump and Trump supporters to Nazis? And saying they’re going to start shooting and gassing peiple? If so I strongly disagree. The majority of my friends are Trump fans and they’re good people.

Hmmm... The Wall Street Journal?? ... Blimey! They're the favourite
reading material of RINO Republicans - right up there with National Review.

The same news-people who brought the G.O.P. such winners as
John McCain and Mitt Romney for President.
Didn't they also like Joe Biden?

Somehow, I feel that Trump will be just fine WITHOUT
their endorsement.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Trump has gotten the WSJ’s endorsement. Twice, in both elections. Anyone who calls out Donald Trump on his post election bull shit is not a RINO. As LexusLover has pointed out, Trump was a “lifelong” (LexusLover’s word) Democrat.

Hedonist, While I'll never tire of your posts, I'm sick and tired of listening to Fox News reports on the purported "Johns Hopkins Study." I listened to Steve Hilton work himself into a self righteous fury last night talking about that. He was completely full of shit.

On what point? The numbers or the general feeling that lock downs hurt more than they helped which now appears to be the general consensus from where I sit. You probably missed this, which was a reply in part to one of your posts. You must have missed my link to the view you are sighting.

The link to Johns Hopkins is pretty damn tenuous. Originally Posted by Tiny

As I have been trying to explain, I guess unsuccessfully at this point, the study by economists at JH, ( nothing "tenuous" about that )who John Hopkins feels good enough about to hire, wrote a study that should be "acknowledged" and criticized if that is how the people that hate the study feel.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10471265/Johns-Hopkins-professor-blasts-college-media-downplaying-study-COVID-lockdowns.html

'Johns Hopkins itself did not even put out a press release about this study, and if you look at the media coverage, it's one of the biggest stories in the world today, and yet certain media outlets have not even covered it,' Makary told the

Fox News

host.


Makary is a professor of surgery at the private university in Baltimore. He was not involved in the study.
Economists at the college carried out a meta-analysis and found that restrictions imposed in the spring of 2020 - including stay-at-home orders, compulsory masks and social distancing - only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2 percent.
They warned that lockdowns caused 'enormous economic and social costs' and concluded that they were 'ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument' going forward.

Again, I'm not saying believe it, that this is the unvarnished truth but it should have been acknowledged and debated in all news media markets. Now it just looks like a Dr. Fauci cover-up to "protect science" as he puts it.

If you notice in my post, I made sure to post an "alternative view", acknowledging the discussion being had, just not in the Liberal leaning media.

Remember when we use to say in this country that the answer to speech we don't like is more speech and debate? That has now officially disappeared in this country and that is a shame. Now it's "you must believe what the party in power tells you. "and I'm sick and tired of that opposing view over on Fox". Sick and tired of hearing opposing views? That sounds like a you problem. You sound a bit like White House gate keeper Jen Psaki who says " to many people are watching Fox news" and hearing alternative views to the "official" narrative.

An interesting discussion is happening on the point of government trying to control free speech which our Constitution forbids. So what does the Biden White House do, it tells us on national tv no less, that the media and tech giants that now control much of the media, should censor/ cancel, any dissenting opinion. Gee, I wonder if the White House openly pressuring companies to do and say what they want, has any effect on the decisions they make?

And what the fuck business is it of the White House and Jen Psaki to comment on Joe Rogan saying he needs to be silenced? Couldn't that fairly be called "government interference in free speech"?

If one has a better idea, even a different if not better idea, that should be heard and debated. If one has the better idea, why be afraid to debate instead of trying to stifle free speech?

"They are private companies and can do what ever they want". True. But they are openly being asked by the Presidents press sec. to cancel speech, a "work around" of the Constitution as Chief of Staff Ron Klain would put it which I find so laughable that the SC sighted the Chief of Staffs remark. "we don't much care for "work a rounds" of the Constitution John Roberts was thinking out loud.

And what the fuck business is it of the White House and Jen Psaki to comment on Joe Rogan saying he needs to be silenced? Couldn't that fairly be called "government interference in free speech"? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

You know, when I bother skimming the silly shit you take the time to type up, I wonder if you were even here for the drumpf admin. Don't you remember his commentary on all sorts of shit that would have been none of his fucking business? Threatening anyone that wrote or said something he didn't like?

I agree that the white house should stay out of it, so sponsors and others can vote with their dollars about Rogan. But your level of self-awareness in what you type is like watching a spooning session with rightards—possessing no memory of anything except how yummy the shit was that drumpf fed every day for four years.

Why should news media “debate” anything. If you mean report the facts then we can agree. If you believe the purpose of news media is to “debate” then how would you ever get facts. I’ll take your favorite debater, Tucker, he’s admitted that he lies when cornered on facts (I guess he could have meant something other than what he said but I am dubious on that). Which is the Fox folks do you think give the full set of facts on a subject, even one that differs from their beliefs or agenda. Moreover, Tucker’s court defense by his own lawyers (who also represent Fox) admitted that they shouldn’t be bound to facts and that people watching Tucker should know he isn’t being honest. The judge agreed, she wrote in essence that only a fool thinks Tucker is providing facts and what he says should be taken with a grain of salt. But that’s what you call news. As an old friend of mine said “you’re better than that” or something to that effect.

Why should news media “debate” anything. If you mean report the facts then we can agree. If you believe the purpose of news media is to “debate” then how would you ever get facts. By having the better argument through debate, duh! Think there was any debate when Einstein first proposed his theories I’ll take your favorite debater, Tucker, he’s admitted that he lies when cornered on facts (I guess he could have meant something other than what he said but I am dubious on that). Which is the Fox folks do you think give the full set of facts on a subject, even one that differs from their beliefs or agenda. Moreover, Tucker’s court defense by his own lawyers (who also represent Fox) admitted that they shouldn’t be bound to facts and that people watching Tucker should know he isn’t being honest. The judge agreed, she wrote in essence that only a fool thinks Tucker is providing facts and what he says should be taken with a grain of salt. A defense tactic which you of all people should understand But that’s what you call news. No, that's what I call opinion, you just don't seem to be intelligent enough to understand the difference.As an old friend of mine said “you’re better than that” or something to that effect. Originally Posted by NoirMan

You mean your other handle? Do you get confused which person you are? And I believe, apparently you do not, that one way of trying to arrive at what is a fact and what isn't is through debate. How exactly do you think a fact becomes a fact if not through a bunch of people coming to the same conclusion through discussion but then we find out that the so called "fact" was wrong and with Covid, a book will be written someday about all the facts that were wrong. Hell, you may get two mentions in that book with two different names attributed to you. Not sure how far we can trust anybody willing to lie about who they are.



See the headline I just posted? CNN doc says "the science has changed". Weren't we presented everyday in the beginning, that "these were the facts" and now the facts/ science has changed?


Democrats are once again looking like fools and Governors like DeSantis looks like a sage.

As I have been trying to explain, I guess unsuccessfully at this point, the study by economists at JH, ( nothing "tenuous" about that )who John Hopkins feels good enough about to hire, wrote a study that should be "acknowledged" and criticized if that is how the people that hate the study feel. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

The lead author of the paper, who's normally given the most credit for the work, is with a Danish think tank like the American Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation.

The only author at Johns Hopkins, Steve Hanke, founded and is co-director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics.

I've known about Hanke since the 1980's, and believe he's a world class economist. I read some of his articles in the popular press. He's the guy who popularized the currency board, and was the "go to" guy for a number of countries that experienced hyperinflation.

He's also 79 years old and would know very little about epidemiology and the like compared to people who've worked on that all their careers. The Institute for Applied Economics was going to publish whatever he told them to, since he's Co-Director and Founder.

I don't think I have an argument with your text in red print, as applied to the USA and Europe: "lockdowns caused 'enormous economic and social costs' and concluded that they were 'ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument' going forward." I do have a problem with with the 0.2% estimate of change in COVID mortality. The number is almost certainly higher, and Herby, Jonung and Hanke have no idea what the real number is. See the comments in the Science Media Centre link for what the real experts have to say about the "Johns Hopkins" study.

On its face, the conclusions are just plain stupid. They also say that border controls have no effect on mortality. Well, border controls, combined with the other "non pharmaceutical interventions" the authors studied resulted in very few COVID cases in New Zealand, China, Western Australia, etc. Do I want to live in a country where my freedoms are restricted like China though? Or be stuck on islands like New Zealand for the duration of the epidemic? Well, no. But it's still grating when Steve Hilton and others work themselves into a sanctimonious frenzy on the basis of bull shit.

And this has nothing to do with free speech. Rogan and others should be free to say whatever they damn well please.

Also who cares anyway. Almost everybody's gotten COVID or gotten vaccinated or both. We've got immunity. There aren't going to be any more lockdowns. I don't care, except that I think they may try to jail people like Fauci who were just doing their best without being omniscient. That would be a travesty.

You mean your other handle? Do you get confused which person you are? And I believe, apparently you do not, that one way of trying to arrive at what is a fact and what isn't is through debate. How exactly do you think a fact becomes a fact if not through a bunch of people coming to the same conclusion through discussion but then we find out that the so called "fact" was wrong and with Covid, a book will be written someday about all the facts that were wrong. Hell, you may get two mentions in that book with two different names attributed to you. Not sure how far we can trust anybody willing to lie about who they are.



See the headline I just posted? CNN doc says "the science has changed". Weren't we presented everyday in the beginning, that "these were the facts" and now the facts/ science has changed?


Democrats are once again looking like fools and Governors like DeSantis looks like a sage. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

This pretty much tells me all I need to know. You have no concept of what facts are. Just opinions posing as facts.

See the headline I just posted? CNN doc says "the science has changed". Weren't we presented everyday in the beginning, that "these were the facts" and now the facts/ science has changed?


Democrats are once again looking like fools and Governors like DeSantis looks like a sage. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

As the doctors and others got more data, their prognoses and recommendations changed. That's normal. It's not some huge conspiracy to help a political party's prospects at the polls.

... Hee Hee! ... Almost spilled-over me beer from laughing.

... "The science changed."

But the science DeSantis used didn't CHANGE... DeSantis was surely
CORRECT on things from the beginning.

He made Dr. Fauci look like Stupid Steven...

#### Salty

As the doctors and others got more data, their prognoses and recommendations changed. That's normal. It's not some huge conspiracy to help a political party's prospects at the polls. Originally Posted by Tiny

I just love the ....."and others" and "That's normal."!

It's not a "huge conspiracy," because the miniscule pretend scientists regurgitating the bullshit were finally told they were fixing to have to get a real job real soon and they don't have the credentials and background to get one, because ...

... there "credentials and background" are telling people what to do with the WRONG FACTS!

So...were THEY lying then or are THEY lying now?