Get More Smarter on Wednesday (November 23)

MoreSmarterLogo-PilgrimHatYou’re less than 24 hours away from being asleep on the couch. It’s time to Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols. If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example). If you are more of a visual learner, check out The Get More Smarter Show.

TOP OF MIND TODAY…

► What’s the difference between Donald Trump the candidate for President and Donald Trump the actual President of the United States? Perhaps quite a bit. As the New York Times reports:

President-elect Donald J. Trump retreated on Tuesday from some of his most extreme campaign promises, dropping his vow to jail Hillary Clinton, expressing doubt about the value of torturing terrorism suspects and pledging to have an open mind about climate change.

But in a wide-ranging, hourlong interview with reporters and editors at The New York Times — which was scheduled, canceled and then reinstated after a dispute over the ground rules — Mr. Trump was fiercely unapologetic about repeatedly flouting the traditional ethical and political conventions that have long shaped the American presidency.

Trump also made it clear that he has not forgiven Republicans who opposed his Presidential bid — here’s looking at you, Sen. Cory Gardner — while his sit-down interview with the Times also led to some significant concerns from other journalists.

 

► President-elect Donald Trump may have finally run out of white dudes to select as top administration officials. Trump announced on Wednesday that he will nominate South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Just kidding on the white dude thing; former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is apparently the frontrunner to become Secretary of State.

 

► The 2018 Big Line is now live! And there was much rejoicing.

 

Get even more smarter after the jump…

IN CASE YOU ARE STANDING NEAR A WATER COOLER…

► The Washington Post is keeping a running list of conflicts-of-interest for President-elect Donald Trump. The very fact that the Post considers this to be a “running list” is frightening enough.

 

► Former Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson had recently ruled himself out of a potential cabinet position in a Trump administration, but Trump is now ruling Carson back in to the mix (perhaps Trump was worried about bodily harm should he not include Carson in his cabinet). Trump says he is considering Carson for HUD Secretary, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, as Politico explains:

Carson served as director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University, but seems to have no experience that would be relevant to leading an agency focused on urban housing policy. Speaking to Cavuto, he pointed to his upbringing in Detroit, as well as his history of treating patients from urban areas.

“I know that I grew up in the inner city,” Carson said. “And have spent a lot of time there. And have dealt with a lot of patients from that area. And recognize that we cannot have a strong nation if we have weak inner cities. And we have to get beyond the promises and start really doing something.”

In short, Carson believes he is qualified to lead the federal department of Housing and Urban Development because he grew up in a city and treated patients who were also from cities. We don’t even have to attempt to make a joke here.

 

► Former Congressman and 2-time gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez says that he would really enjoy serving as Secretary of the Interior. This doesn’t seem like a good reason by itself to consider Beauprez for Interior Secretary, but Ben Carson really lowered the bar here.

 

► We may finally have a realistic mathematical formula to help guard against partisan gerrymandering. There’s really no way to make this story sound less wonky, but it really is a pretty big deal.

 

► Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar is speaking out on behalf of protestors of The Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota.

 

► Colorado is dealing with a “dire shortage” of resources for mental health services.

 

Once again, two Republicans in Boulder County are refusing to certify Boulder’s election results based on some perceived grievance that has nothing to do with the job they are asked to perform. From the Longmont Times-Call:

Boulder County Clerk and Reorder Hillary Hall criticized the Republican canvass board members for their refusal to agree to certify that more than 192,800 votes counted were equal to, or less than, the number of ballots cast — and that the number of ballots cast was equal to or less than the number of people eligible to vote.

“It is a complete disservice to our community and to the hundreds of election judges and staff members who have invested thousands of hours planning and conducting our election to use the certification process as a vehicle to promote a personal agenda, which is what today’s action was,” Hall stated in a Tuesday afternoon announcement that the results are now official…

…Hall said that under rules from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, if nothing is found in the post-election audit and ballot reconciliation procedures that impacts the outcomes of the election, the results must be certified. She said there were no documented discrepancies found in the audit or reconciliation procedure that had such an impact on the outcome of the contests and questions on Boulder County voters’ 2016 general election ballots.

Hall said that “election after election, this same cohort of individuals” — the Boulder County Republican Party’s board representatives in the 2012 and 2014 elections as well as this summer’s primary election — “use the canvass board to express their political dissatisfaction with the Colorado election process and mail ballot elections.”

The two Republican dissenters — Al Kolwicz and Cathy Jarrett — refused to certify the election results because they weren’t satisfied with answers about why 1,200 ballots were not counted because of reasons varying from missing signatures to the fact that they didn’t actually arrive before 7:00 pm on Election Day. Fortunately, Boulder County doesn’t need these two assholes to certify the final election results.

 

► The Poudre School District (northern Colorado) will join a lawsuit against TABOR.

 

► Former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. might be in line for a cabinet post in the Trump White House, potential as Transportation Secretary. 

 

NIMBYs!

OTHER LINKS YOU SHOULD CLICK

► Who was the first President to pardon a turkey during the week of Thanksgiving? (hint: It’s not Harry Truman)

 

► Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has extended her popular vote lead over Republican Donald Trump to more than 2 million votes.

ICYMI

► The Denver Broncos return from their BYE week with a home game against Kansas City on Sunday. The game has been moved to 6:30 pm to attract more primetime viewers.

 

Don’t forget to check out The Get More Smarter Show. You can also Get More Smarter by liking Colorado Pols on Facebook!

12 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Zappatero says:

    You're wasting everyone's time, CPOLS, with trivialities. 

    This piece by Columbia Journalism Review in which they interviewed various reporters about covering the Trump campaign is interesting. 

    This one struck me:
     

     

    25 August 2015: Univision anchor and journalist Jorge Ramos is ejected from a Trump press conference in Iowa. Other media organizations are later banned from covering Trump events

    Jorge Ramos, anchor, Univision and Fusion: In that press conference only two journalists defended me: Tom Llamas from ABC and Kasie Hunt from MSNBC. All the other journalists didn’t say anything. I think that the way we covered Trump at the beginning of his campaign was seriously flawed. The New York Times, the LA Times, Politico and the Washington Post [in September] called Donald Trump a liar. [But] it took 13 months for them to do that. At the beginning, it was seriously inappropriate.

    This was when I knew something was up. I thought, if they don't take him seriously and he's just a joke, why aren't they defending one of their own on principle? 

    They didn't. And they let him grow like a cancer. 

    Your business model might still work, but continuing BAU while ignoring the failures of Establishment Democrats – except for the Estimable Michael Bennet – yourselves included, and ignoring the abuses of the 1st Amendment and the incompetence of the press (also distracted by trivia) will allow Trump and Team to succeed in rolling back the clock and rolling over the Middle Class.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      "ignoring the failings of Establishment Democrats……"  Can we assume that said wording is your usual critique of Michael Bennet? 

      • Zappatero says:

        Michael Bennet won. He's a genius. His political operation is by definition (here, anyways) perfect and the fact that he raises so much money shows he has the support of the people and will always win. 

        Sadly, Trump voters around the nation were unaware that D’s like Bennet wanted to let them renegotiate their student loan rates!

        And, the fact that Republicans in El Paso County, a geography almost completely ignored by CO's Establishment D's, nominated another whack job is completely irrelevant to Bennet's historic win.

  2. Zappatero says:

    8 Reasons Electors do not have to vote for Trump

    8. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly two million votes.

    7. The electoral college system created by the Framers did not prohibit electors from voting their own conscience. 

    With Trump and his supporters hammering the point that the electoral college system is the relevant competition, they cannot escape that the system has two pieces — voting in the states and, later, the gathering of electors in their state capitals. In explaining a system that includes individual electors casting their own ballots, Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers warned of the risks of inaugurating a president with”[t]alents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.” Hamilton argued for the electoral college system in these terms: “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

    The electors have not just a right, but an obligation, not to vote for a candidate lacking such qualifications.

    6. The Trump University settlement shines a new spotlight on Trump’s unethical business practices.

    5. Trump has demonstrated a complete lack of trustworthiness by immediately abandoning campaign promises.

    4. Trump has appointed to top White House jobs people with disturbing records of bigotry.

    3. Trump has failed to disavow racism, bigotry, threats and violence by his supporters.

    2. Russian covert action influenced the election.

    1. Trump has made clear he will use the presidency to enrich himself, risking the corruption of our democracy. 

    Eight reasons are more than enough to do institute the check on the people as envisioned by our Framers and enshrined in the Cosntitution.

    • Andrew Carnegie says:

      Zap:

      Acceptance problems?

      1. The election is over.

      2. Trump won.

      3. The Indians scored more runs in the World Series, the Cubs won.

      4. The people chosen as electors are chosen because they will vote for the candidate they were chosen to vote for.

      5. If Trump is successful he will be reelected in 4 years.

      6. You can waste your time in 4 years trying for the then socialist du jour who will also lose.

      7. If you really think socialism is great, move to Venezuela.  I understand it is a real paradise.

  3. mamajama55 says:

    Trump won…because of election fraud ( at least 4 precincts in Wisconsin recorded more Trump voters than total voters), voter suppression in WI, MI, FL, TX, NC, PA and OH  (voters were mistakenly told they needed certain ID to vote, or were "mistakenly" purged from the rolls).

    Meanwhile, the narrative prevalent in the Democratic circular firing squad has been to blame "lazy millenials", "underperforming minorities", or "third party voters" for the losses. Democrats soundly rejected the input of millenial (and other) Bernie caucussers…we were barely welcome in the Big Tent. I tried for months to participate in my local Democratic party – all they wanted from me was money.   So perhaps not as much lazy as outcast. Nevertheless, 85% of Sanders voters voted for Hillary.

    Underperforming minorities? Not if their votes were deliberately suppressed by ever-stricter ID rules, cutting down on polling places and early voting in minority neighborhoods. The third party voters did have a small impact – but not much compared to the voter suppression and election fraud.

    So yes, the electors could very reasonably cast their votes in unexpected directions. "Reasonably" doesn't mean "likely", though….as I understand it, most of the rebellious electors are Bernie delegates trying to convince Republican stalwarts to switch votes. Electors changing votes has happened before, and of course I hope it will happen.

    This election year has been like none other. And it's not over yet.

  4. Andrew Carnegie says:

    MJ

    More folks with acceptance problems.

    Trump won because he got more votes than Hillary in the states he needed to win.

    I thought there was no such thing as voter fraud, or is that only when the Republicans claim voter fraud.

    The amount of Trump's victory in each of the relevant states far exceeds any possible voter fraud.

    I know the Dems want to live in a fantasy world where they never lose, but trust me sometimes that is what happens.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Michigan is so close that a recount is probably worthwhile there. Maybe also Wisconsin. But that still is Jill Stein's thing, not Clinton, altho the Clinton campaign staff has made some modest noise about recounts. 

      • MichaelBowman says:

        If WI and MI end back in Clinton's column that makes the number of Faithless Electors needed to flip the election a very small number.  I'm not expecting that to happen – but just for conversations sake, AC, you'd accept that outcome should the Electoral College do such a thing?  Because it is the way our Founding Fathers imagined it might have to work? 

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          In the absence of evidence of widespread fraud that would significantly effect the validity of the election, I would accept the results.

          There is an admitted lack of evidence of widespread fraud in any of these states.  What there is apparently is the inability for some to accept their loss.

          Donald Trump is your President.

          I hope he is very successful and that he helps make America successful.

          • MichaelBowman says:

            Trump tweeted this afternoon that but-not-for the millions of illegals who voted, he would have won the popular vote.  It takes someone very special to undermine the legitimacy of an election that he won. 

            To be technically correct, he is not my President. That would be Barack Obama. He may be my President if the Electoral College elects him on Dec.19 and he’s sworn in on Jan. 20. Until then, it will be just like every other Presidential election year.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.