monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

As mentioned, that Maine election was a bit unusual. The Second Congressional District race was the first test of the state's new "ranked choice" voting system. Because of it, a Democrat unseated an incumbent Republican who would have been re-elected under the old system.

When Maine residents headed to the polls two weeks ago, they voted for their first choice - and then marked who their second preference would be if their first pick didn't end up in the top two and no one received a majority of the vote.

On election day, Republican Bruce Poliquin received 46.2% of the vote, while Democrat Jared Golden tallied 45.5%. After the second choices of those who opted for independent and third-party candidates were tabulated last Thursday, however, Mr Golden pulled ahead and won the seat.

"Instant runoff" systems like this have been cited by electoral reform advocates as a means to avoid third-party spoiler candidates and ensure that elected officials enter office with a majority of support.

The Republican is already challenging the legality of the process, but if it's upheld other states may give the system a look.

A US federal judge has blocked an order issued by President Trump to deny asylum to migrants crossing the southern US border illegally.

US District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco issued the temporary restraining order after hearing arguments by civil rights groups.

Mr Trump signed the order earlier this month in response to the migrant caravan moving towards the border.

He cited national interest concerns but was opposed by civil rights groups.

People refuse to refer to them as the Democratic Party because of the fact that they’ve proven to be hyperbolically undemocratic.

...they use newspeople to manipulate the voting process and override the political process.

Alan Michael Sugar, Baron Sugar (born 24 March 1947) is a British business magnate, media personality, politician and political adviser. According to the Sunday Times Rich List, Sugar became a billionaire in 2015. In 2016 his fortune was estimated at £1.15bn, ranking him as the 95th richest person in the UK.

Sugar was born in Hackney, East London, into a Jewish family. His father, Nathan, was a tailor in the garment industry of the East End. His maternal grandparents were born in Russia, and his paternal grandfather was born in Poland. Sugar's paternal grandmother, Sarah Sugar, was born in London to Polish parents.

When Sugar was young, his family lived in a council flat. Because of his profuse, curly hair, he was nicknamed "Mop head", a name that he still goes by in the present day. He attended Northwold Primary School and then Brooke House Secondary School in Upper Clapton, Hackney, and made extra money by working at a greengrocers. After leaving school at the age of sixteen, he worked briefly for the civil service as a statistician at the Ministry of Education. He began selling radio aerials for cars and other electrical goods out of a van which he had bought for £50 and insured for £8. To afford this, he withdrew all of his postal savings which totalled just £100

Cory Booker is among those that Sarsour was referring to, "folks who masquerade as progressives."

Simply because you and others find these issues contentious, doesn't make them wrong under the law.

All that can be done about Islamists trying to violate your right to live, is to kill them.

Democrats are bad news and they would like to take away people's gunz.

What's True:

In a tweet on 16 November, Swalwell responded to a gun rights enthusiast who said the Democrats' proposal to confiscate or buy semi-automatic rifles would result in "war" due to resistance from the gun owners, stating "it would be a short war" because "the government has nukes."
What's False:

Swalwell quickly insisted that his reference to the government's possession of nuclear weapons was intended as no more than a joke and emphasized that he was not warning gun owners about such a response to their (hypothetical) resistance to gun confiscation.

Defensive much?

In another post, you wrote something along the lines of "And we all know how much Republicans care about democracy"

Generalize and hyperbolize (if that's a word) much?

Sarsour was referring to, "folks who masquerade as progressives.

It’s a joke to call them the Democratic Party.

Quote:

Sarsour was referring to, "folks who masquerade as progressives.

Like she has not masqueraded as someone who supports women's rights. She supports Sharia. You have deflected to take the blame somewhere else than on the anti-Semitic Left and the Democrats who enable them.

Turkey accuses U.S. of turning blind eye to Saudi killing of Khashoggi

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey accused the United States on Wednesday of trying to turn a blind eye to the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, and dismissed comments from President Donald Trump on the issue as "comic".

Trump vowed on Tuesday to remain a "steadfast partner" of Saudi Arabia, despite saying that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman may have known about the plan to murder to Khashoggi, a U.S. resident and Washington Post columnist.

Of the possibility Prince Mohammed had a hand in the murder, Trump said: "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't". His comments contradicted the CIA, which believes Khashoggi's death was ordered directly by the crown prince, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler.

Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy chairman of President Tayyip Erdogan's AK Party, dismissed Trump's assessment. "Yesterday's statement is a comic statement," he told state broadcaster TRT Haber.

"It is not possible for an intelligence agency such as the CIA, which even knows the color of the fur on the cat walking around the Saudi consulate's garden ... to not know who gave this order," he said. "This is not credible either for U.S. public opinion or the world public opinion."

President Trump’s statement giving Saudi Arabia’s royal family a pass for the slaying of Jamal Khashoggi was remarkable. The logic he used was often nonsensical, the numbers he used were fictional, and he ignored legitimate arguments in favor of getting tough.

But equally problematic is this: He went back on his word.

Trump spent most of the weeks after Khashoggi’s disappearance making the case for a tempered response and even promoting narratives that didn’t implicate Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman or King Salman. Yet occasionally when he granted the premise that they might have been involved, he suggested the punishment would be severe.

“It’s a terrible, terrible precedent,” he said Oct. 11. “We can’t let it happen. And we’re being very tough.”

In an Oct. 14 interview with “60 Minutes,” he was asked about the prospect of Mohammed having ordered the killing. “It’s being looked at very, very strongly, and we would be very upset and angry if that were the case.”

Then on Oct. 18: “We’re waiting for some investigations. . . . and I think we’ll be making a statement — a very strong statement. It’ll have to be very severe.”

He went even stronger Oct. 23: “Whoever thought of that idea, I think, is in big trouble. And they should be in big trouble, okay?”

He added that day: “Certainly it would be a very bad thing in terms of relationship. It would take a while to rebuild.”

None of this appears to apply anymore. Trump is suggesting we’ll never really know what happened, even as the CIA is preparing to report that it has high confidence that Mohammed ordered Khashoggi’s murder.

But Trump didn’t stop there Tuesday; he also said it doesn’t really matter whether Mohammed ordered it — such is the importance, in his telling, of our reliance upon Saudi Arabia. “Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information,” he said in his statement, “but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event — maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!” Then he continued making the case for new punishment for Mohammed.

That’s Trump basically throwing up his hands and saying it doesn’t really matter whether Mohammed ordered it. And that doesn’t comport with what he said before. It doesn’t make sense after saying it would be a “very bad thing in terms of our relationship” and that whoever was responsible “should be in big trouble.” It doesn’t make sense from a president who has promised “very severe” punishment for the perpetrators. Trump hasn’t projected any of the anger he promised in that “60 Minutes” interview if he found out Mohammed was responsible. And the “terrible, terrible precedent” that would be set is now being shrugged off.

Trump seemed to be betting heavily on the idea that the intelligence would never directly implicate Mohammed. He offered numerous alternative narratives — some of them coming directly from the Saudis. But he always said there would be severe punishment if that were eventually found to be the case.

Now it has, and he’s taken it all back.