Electing Biden would also be a massive loss for the United States
American Hopelessness Is Joe Biden Winning the Primary
The “big” story of the Democratic primary Friday morning is Joe Biden reversing his position on the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for most abortions and has been around in some form since 1976, three years after Roe v. Wade. The important thing to know about this change of heart is that NBC News ran a story Wednesday in which Biden’s campaign confirmed that he still supported the Hyde Amendment. Heavy scrutiny followed, and then—presto—he didn’t support it anymore.
This is the point in the story at which liberals of a more centrist persuasion, especially the ones who lurk on Facebook, say things like:
“Are we so rigid that we can’t accept a candidate who evolves? Isn’t changing your mind over time a good thing?”
“Criticizing Joe Biden now just makes it more likely that we’ll lose to Trump if he’s the nominee!”
“We get it, Paste, you hate Biden. Thanks for showing your privilege by helping Republicans…you won’t be the ones who have to live with the results of another Trump win.”
All of which, of course, is just a copycat script from 2016, when the Democrats ran another miserable, principle-free candidate who inspired no enthusiasm and crashed and burned against an historically terrible candidate in Trump, saddling us with our current dystopia.
Because here’s the thing: If you honestly believe that Biden “evolved” on the Hyde Amendment, as he’s trying to claim, you are a dupe. The time for evolution has come and gone—2016 would have been a decent time, when Democrats began their serious pushback against Hyde—and his reversal now is nakedly, obviously a response to political pressure. He changed because he cares very much about being president, not about women’s reproductive rights. This is a guy who in 1977 and 1981 voted against Hyde Amendment exceptions for abortions due to rape and incest. This is someone who has repeatedly said that he opposes abortion due to his Roman Catholic faith. This is someone who has voted against allowing federal workers to use their health insurance for abortion.
Why now? Because he saw, very late in the day, which way the progressive wind was blowing. If you needed more proof of his insincerity, note that he refused to apologize for his previous position, just like he refused to apologize for his key role in crafting the ‘94 crime bill, or to fully apologize for his treatment of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings (despite his attempt to gain her public support, knowing it would be a potential obstacle on the way to the presidency).
Let’s move past abortion rights for the moment. Let’s talk about his fetish for compromising with Republicans, and his apparently legitimate belief that Trump is an “aberration,” and that he can govern successfully by reaching across the aisle. This ignores literal decades of GOP obstruction, and proves he learned almost nothing from his eight years serving under Obama. Did he watch the Merrick Garland debacle? Did he pay attention when a million concessions were added to Obamacare, only to yield exactly zero Republican votes? The Republican party is antagonistic to its core, and compromise is met with intransigence every single blessed time.
But Biden is more conservative than any other major Democratic presidential candidate, so maybe what looks like historical ignorance is just the pursuit of his ideal politics.
Biden doesn’t care about young people, and he openly mocks them. He’s about as tough on lobbyists as Obama was on Wall St. If he embraces a single-payer healthcare system, which he probably won’t, it will only be because he’s staring down the same barrel of the same gun that “changed his mind” on the Hyde Amendment.But all of these issues, critical as they are, pale in comparison to the one issue that threatens our existence: Climate change. A month ago, we learned that he and his campaign are all about finding the “middle ground” on climate policy, which is a formulation that should have all Democrats reaching for their pitchforks. When he finally released a concrete plan, big chunks of it were plagiarized, which not only signals how unimportant climate change is to Biden and his team, but is also a repeat of the same mistakes that cost him a previous run at the presidency—this man has been plagiarizing for his entire career.
His campaign has been riddled by mistakes since the moment it began, but it hasn’t made a significant dent in his poll numbers yet, and I’m not sure it will.
This article left out his role in creating and getting passed the bankruptcy bill. His work on welfare reform. And his role in the very used to be unconstitutional law asset forfeiture. It left out how Biden was a co conspirator in the Obama administration and that he was right there with him while he protected the war criminals, the torturers and the bank CEOs as well as Obama's war crimes and everything else he did. Biden said that he is running so he could get the country back to normal after the Trump administration. But Obama is a reason why he was.
The missing fish here is that lots of democrats have been voting for the Hyde amendment since it became law. Why is no one asking Warren why she voted for it? Or Kamillary? Booker? Bernie? Oh wait he doesn't vote for it. Why haven't anyone asked Warren how she feels about reparations?
BTW...where are ByeDone's tax records? And why is the media saying that he is the front runner when he's hardly campaigning? He didn't even bother to show up to the two democratic shindigs. But he's the front runner? Yeah right.
(The asset forfeiture article is a good read.)
Comments
Let's bet.
Biden is a loser.
I'll take all odds against green beans, pickling cucumbers, snap peas and marijuana seeds.
Loser.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Not loser, necessarily. But hoser, for sure!
Much as I would love some of your various vegetable bounties, I won't put it past the Dims to nominate him, nor put it past the Amerikkkan electorate to elect him.
Loser? Maybe or maybe not. Regardless, though, Joe Biden remains what our Northern neighbors would call a hoser !!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Hoser rules.
Sounds like a good national campaign.
[video:https://youtu.be/0pPRaD6TKLc]
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I pay attention to Paste magazine
This is their world, after all. They're fighting for the future, and they have more of it to fight for.
At the same time, I've noticed a flurry of anti-centrist and Biden-warning articles coming from all directions.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/08/joe-biden-democratic-n...
What I know for sure, is that at this point Trump is set to win in 2020 and the backlash from the Russia Hoax is just getting started. I don't think it matters which way Barr decides to play it. The establishment is going to take the hit. There is an army of potential voters out there who will not vote for more of the same, and that includes Trump. Nor will they waste their votes on the established third party slush pile. Only a bold vision from an uncompromising candidate will bring this army forward, and many voters will join them. There are only a few candidates who can bring it. But they all pretended to fall for the Russia Hoax. Or, maybe they are just that dumb.
There are enough Millennial votes to carry the win, and the Left will provide back-up. Who knows with the so-called Progressives? In Congress, they'll vote for anything with a back-end pay-off that keeps them in DC. On the street, they may be genuine and will vote with the uncompromised. Tulsi Gabbard can carry this off. She is the first Millennial presidential candidate — if she can get past the media black-out.
Bottom line: The Democrats engineered another win for Trump. Now why is that?
I haven't found a reason
on how trump doesn't win again.
Just because "I'm better than Trump".
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Yep
The why is because the democrats are not really against the things he is doing. Oh sure they will give some speeches about how they don't like what he is doing, but so far enough democrats have voted with republicans on almost every bill that has come up. The only one that they didn't vote for was to rescind the ACA. Deregulation of the banks? Yup. More unconstitutional spying on us? Yup. The military budget? Yup. Confirming his horrible cabinet picks? Yup again except for DeVos. Warren voted for Ben Carson. Why? She said that she was afraid that Trump would pick someone worse. How about just keep voting no until he chose someone qualified? His horrible right wing judges? Yup. Schumer continues to make deals with McConnell to get them done. DiFi and of course Manchin and other blue dawgs are right there voting with them. I don't remember which democrat told McConnell that he should have let all of congress in on the tax bill because he could have gotten 70 or more votes on it.
This after McConnell refused to let Obama's judges get a vote and then there's Garland and the kabuki confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh.
Democrats are passing bills to keep Trump from pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and Syria and we saw what happened when he tried to pull them out of Syria. And made nice with Kim and Vlad.
So yeah if ByeDone or Warren doesn't get the nod then they will be just fine with Trump again. And since ByeDone's latest gaffes they are now pushing Warren as coming from behind. I think Harris was supposed to be the nominee, but she isn't going anywhere.
Watching them run around with the goalposts
...eliminating candidates will be very instructive.
But it's a sad and pathetic state of affairs. Very sad.
No way out
This is why it wouldn't matter even if we got Sanders/Gabbard by some miracle. If we got a Sanders/Gabbard presidency, you can be sure congress would start doing everything they can to make sure absolutely nothing happened to change the status quo. It would be like what the Rs did to Obama, but it would be both Ds and Rs pushing back and nothing would change.
Oh, I think it'd matter
I just think in longer timelines. I think if you gave Sanders & Gabbard the bully pulpit they would use it for all it's worth. I agree that little would change in the short-term. But in the longer-term, actual liberalism would've shown itself to be a winner and we'd have loud cheerleaders at the top.
Then it would be up to us to continue the left-populist wave.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
er...isn't
miz gabbard a russia-gater? just askin'.
NO
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020
now pluto had
specifically used the term 'russian hoax', so maybe i've transposed in error. but you might explain your resound NO to me, please.
She has walked the razor's edge
...which she must. She's been smeared for being a skeptic, on one hand.
And smeared for buying into RussiaGate.
https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/918167316654903297
I give her and the Left a pass on that grey area. Tulsi has never embraced the Russia Hoax to the extent that Sanders and Warren have — and still do. One thing I don't need is a purity pledge from members of the Left who try to climb on the political stage with the American duopoly, who in turn throw every lie and ugly smear they can at them.
The Russia Hoax is falling apart on its own. The Democrats have been deeply stained by it. Americans grow increasingly shocked and disgusted with the media monopolies. They have all lost the trust of the American people. The candidates are trying to evolve as fast as they can on this issue. It will come up in the debates. Answer wrong and watch out, but that will change week by week as the public begins to realize what happened in 2016.
i appreciate your
bringing the evidence, but my stars, the hundreds of subtweeters gave her an education. okay, it's a grey area for you, as likely is her voting to sanction russia for stealing crimea, sanctioning north korea for...whatever.
These are the filters I use.
It's a subjective analysis. I try to maintain the integrity and I can change things up fast and recalculate when I need to. But, there's a lot of instinct that goes in to staying on top of the shifting political shitshow. For me, instinct is informed by experience, pattern recognition, and ever-present cui bono — and it must adhere to the facts in evidence even though instinct does fly above them.
What amazes me several times a day is that we will still be having a version of this discussion a year from now because of the ungodly length of the election cycle. We are more than a year from the nominating convention, fourteen months from the election. Fifteen months from economic collapse. (Just kidding about the economic collapse.) And the Democrats intend to get rid of most of these candidates in the next three or four months, using the debate rules and media starvation — long before the primaries begin eight months from now.
That's a crazy waste of time for picking candidates from parties that don't even represent the majority of the American people. And the whole primary election kabuki, when a candidate doesn't even have to go through that process and can be nominated by the party at the convention, instead. No regulations, baby. That's the beauty of private Parties and American politics.
while i appreciate the
extras you've brought w/ your analysis, intuition, and so on, i really only came back to say when it finally sank in later, this made me almost laugh out loud. and once again today, did i need a more-than-chuckle.
srsly? oh: you mean to win the nomination! me, i'm gonna vote for one of those third-party slush piles.
as far as the joint press conferences known as 'debates', when did the D's
takesteal away the process from the league of women voters?i reckon the US should be either balkanized, or presidents would serve one year on rotating basis like switzerland. iirc, cabinet members are elected, then take turns as prez. and again, who the fook believes they're qualified to be prez of this #shitole nation, and why would anyone want to be? yanno?
Heh. The Swiss system sounds ideal for the US.
Then the election process wouldn't be so difficult and such a colossal waste of time and money.
The government is thoroughly corrupt and nobody ever goes to jail. The People don't have a voice, and their choices are pre-selected. So why not become President if you can, and scoop up your winnings?
.
That's not my view. I know the purpose of those votes. The establishment, I believe, welcomes those third parties. They are part of what convinces Americans that they have a democracy. That's what makes the Plutocracy work.
One of the fiercest critics of
Russiagate from early on, Prof Stephen Cohen, is a backer and contributor to Tulsi Gabbard. If she's good enough for the Prof on this issue, she's good enough for me.
She might be alone among candidates in calling for a substantial pullback in the hostility directed at Russia by the US, a thawing of the new cold war. And how many of the Ds running for prez have explicitly called out the undue influence of the MIC?
I see her overall as a young pol, still in her 30s, evolving in the right direction in a number of areas. I wish she had been perfect on this issue from the get go, but I must take my candidate with all her flaws.
Sign of the Times?
I found this interesting.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
No! I'll not hear it!
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Good point
But if the videos are removed then there's always the pictures....
They forgot "tell it to the kids in cages"...
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this sd.
I mean no disrespect in calling that article a load of hopelessness advocating bullshit. What I mean is the author pins all hope for America and hope in general on making I presume Bernie Sanders the democratic party nominee for president. Not only that, the author seems to presume that the electoral system and our duopoly political system is the only way to address our "crisis". The author states that we're in a "time of crisis" that has hit "some Americans" (good grief) and it's coming for "us too". Are you kidding me. Who is us? Who is this person?
"If the American left in 2020 fails to respond with a more inspired choice than Joe Biden, who will almost certainly do nothing on the issues that matter and could very well pave the way for a nightmare electoral reaction in 2022 and 2024, we will forfeit our right to hope."
The author states that "A future in which the next president will be decided in a race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is a hopeless future." What did we just go thru that some of us said was the end of the line in this country, verifiable proof that we don't live in even close to a democracy - Clinton vs Trump. This is obviously going to keep a lot of naïve people going until Bernie Sanders croaks. Of course then there will be some other "party" apparatchik for the masses to lay their hope in.
Imo, it's people like this that put all hope in either of these two political parties to address what the author himself terms a crisis period are doing as much damage if not more than those fighting against change.
All true
The thing is that we're going to have a president after the election and I guess it's pick your poison. We can have one that continues giving us Nokachok or Novachok with cherry syrup...like Obama was. But if I had my druthers it won't be Biden. He should have been a republican all along because he has gotten some very horrible bills passed.
ETA
Just read this and it sure sounds like lesser evil voting. This isn't what I meant to imply, but it's exactly what we are going to get. Again.
I just don't want it to be Joe Biden getting the nod this time especially because the country has rejected him twice or thrice before and it should once more. He is responsible for creating and getting passed too many horrible bills.
The folks who fell for the Russia Hoax
....which is most of the damaged goods who vote Democratic, including many Independents and even some Republicans — those folks will find Biden to be a better choice. They'd prefer a more sedate ride to the horrific Neocon apocalypse. Trump's carriage is too jerky and has bad shock absorbers.
Even with the best of rides, where do the American people think they are going? They enabled and funded the rise of the latest pseudo-Nazi regime. The US is all-in at a high-stakes table. What do you think is going to happen if the US loses its deadly bid for Empire? What happens when it stands in the ruin of its murder and mayhem policy, no longer the MonoPower? How do they settle up and pay for what they have done?
.
This is authored by Robert Scheer via TruthDig.com — but I'm going to link to a copy posted at Zero Hedge because the Comments are instructive about people regaining consciousness too late. Only now realizing who their enemy has been all along.
For those who are interested in that sort of thing.
I am because I was there when Americans were braying and screaming for revenge after 9/11. I witnessed who they were and how complacent they felt about their absurd attack on the clueless people of Afghanistan. It was in that great depravity that Americans lost their souls — and lost their 20 year war through abject failure. Everything else military is beneath contempt.
What do you think is going to happen......
"What do you think is going to happen if the US loses its deadly bid for Empire? What happens when it stands in the ruin of its murder and mayhem policy ?"
What it always does, turn on segments of American society, it's own citizens, and brand them traitors.
Ya, it's the lesser evil game all over again.
Which I know is quite tempting.
Yep.. lesser evil voting
I had just edited my comment to say that is exactly what it looks like. And is. But people do have a choice to make sure that the more effective evil is not in a place to rule us. That is if the DNC doesn't put its thumb on the scale again, which it is planning on doing. Hence he 22 candidates...
Understand, but the kicker is,
like many of us have talked about before, we can do this every two and four years forever and nothing will change. Check that, we the Serfs will keep losing ground until we are no more.
So the question is, when do we challenge the system?
The easy thing to do is say what democratic party politician one wants to win. The hard thing to do is challenge this political system and demand democracy. Very few want to do the hard thing.
well...
as upside-down pluto says, no one's gonna vote for the established third-party slush pile.
but i will. ; )
my big Q has long been: when the fook will that change? will some of the Vaunted 'academics and intellectuals ever figure it out? or will it really take a massive revolution of higher consciousness? both parties are the parties of war and wall street! vote for an actual socialist!
Ya, I"ll probably vote for Hawkins, just like I voted for
Stein. But like Howard Zinn said, we should focus on elections as much as it takes to mark a ballot, everything else should be on how to take down the establishment.
As for when, that's the eternal question. As to those "vaunted intellectuals and academics" figuring it out, a good percentage of them are vested in the system and either act as gatekeepers or are dependent on keeping the show rolling. Like the professional activist circuit there is now with all the conferences and whatnot always headlined by the same professional activists who do their thing while always, like the preachers in the churches, always asking for money to "help them get the word out". What they're really doing and vested in is perpetuating the system, walking the tightrope of anti-establishment rhetoric and working within the system to prevent any major movement of revolt.
nice answer.
remember when Lord Chomsky had advised 'Vote for Hillary if you're in a safe district?' (whatever that signified). but then as many social/commie radicals have noted, chomsky never admired any revolutions except for...failed revolutions.
meanwhile, the US has issued a formal request to the UK for assange's extradition to Amerikkka, and that's where my heart lies today...and too often. my diary on the news has gotten 3 individual commenters...or was it 2 (i'm not good at arithmetic). but i'm writing up the geoncidaire narnedra modi winning 5 more years, as well. few will read it, either, on accountta it's the twenty-month quadrennial election season, but both are part of the world hegemony puzzle.
and yeah, we'll send howie another tenner in case he gets the nod at the green convention in november. November? (lol) a side note: renee parsons writing at counterpunch (she used to be on the durango town council 40 miles east of here, said that jill stein had suggested to tulsi gabbard that she run as a green. ; )
gotta scoot; mr. wd's under the weather, and i need to get some things together in RL.
Congratulations Big Al. You've won!
There are more independents than Democrats or Republicans. The first presidential election in which less than 50% of eligible voters participate can't be far off. Please tell us when we start to receive the fruits of your victory.
I'm also puzzled by the fact that Republican secretaries of state throughout the county seem to be your closest allies. And it seems that the people following your advice tend to think more like those of us here than like the people who would put us in gulags. Does that concern you at all?
Say what?
Uh, my victory? Well, how about you tell me how your voting for democratic or republican party politicians is going to help me?
And what advice are you talking about?
I don't know enough about your personal situation.
The Democrats extended unemployment benefits when they controlled the presidency and both chambers of congress. It saved my sister from foreclosure. That helped her. The Republicans took it away.
Mitch McConnell was videoed saying the Republican tax cut would at least break even and he thought it would turn a profit. Recently he said the resulting deficits meant we had to take on social security and Medicare. Would a dozen Democrats slither over and vote with him? Probably. Bill Clinton got NAFTA, which Bush negotiated, passed with universal Republican support and a few Democrats. But that doesn't taint the majority who wouldn't go along with some sort of political original sin.
The Republicans are in a class of their own in the war against women's reproductive rights.
For the record, I didn't vote Democratic or Republican for president. They may not be as high as yours, but I have some standards.
Biden has said the same thing on social security
He is on tape talking about how we have to do something about it recently when he was talking to his fellows at some convention and Bill Clinton was working with the republicans to gut it, but fortunatelythe Lewisinsky saga started and he had to table it. Next Obama tried to make a deal on it but McConnell said that he wasn't interested in doing it. This was during the discussions on extending unemployment benefits. And IIRC they were meant to expire once the economic numbers moved up which they did. I remember this because I was on them at the time. This was a bipartisan decision.
Both parties are eventually going to work together on finally doing something about it. I hope that you aren't counting on the democrats standing in the way.
I'm not a Biden fan.
And I agree there will be Democratic sellouts. The question is how many.
I believe Warren, Gabbard and Sanders are in favor of increasing social security. I think Warren has a plan to pay for it.
There are 2 or 3 climate change denying Democrats in congress too and more trying to split the difference. When Biden tried to split the difference it wasn't his finest moment in the campaign. I'm not sure there are 3 Republicans who accept the science.
Once an asshole..
Ugh! Never ByeDone!
okay to gift byedone with chinese-moon doggie biscuits
Another good one.
Force these people to run on their record. Recalling their votes and the consequences of same is important because in elections Amnesia is the first symptom of political posturing.
Can't wait for the debate "lottery"
on Friday. It'll be so amusing to see how they stack it so that none of Bernie, Tulsi, or Gravel get anywhere near any of their bubblepack-wrapped anointed candidates. Mark my words- they will all be relegated to the children's table through whatever slight-of-hand is necessary. There is zero, and I repeat ZERO, chance of them diluting the official "Trump bad, we less bad, ook ook" message.
Bidenwarrenmalabooker will stand there and politely "ook ook" at one another, while the people who should really be heard will not be. And the press, bless their hearts, will revel in it; endlessly amplifying the message buried in the "those 'progressive' people can't be taken seriously: they didn't even make it to the main debate!" subtext.
Faugh.
You lost me at
"ook ook". And "faugh" didn't help clarify either.
Tribal politics writ large:
"Your tribe bad, my tribe good, ook ook (flings feces)". You know, just like zoo monkeys on display, when they finally get fed up.
And "faugh" is a word that I heard used to describe this sort of shit since I first became aware of the world as a child in the 60s. It is not in common use anymore, which is actually a major reason that I choose to use it now. It is accurate, but would be even more accurate if you could hear it in my great-grandfather's voice.
Hope that helps.
The queen of Russia Gate is going to be asking questions
at the debates.
Anyone want to bet that she will ask someone a question about what they will do to keep Russia from interfering with the election again? What a joke indeed!
Scenes we'd like to see:
I would love to see that. All answers will be the wrong answer.
Liz Warren??
Voted for the Hyde Am???? Do u have a cite for that? She is currently out there commenting forcefully on Biden's cynical reversal on same, stating how Hyde discriminates against poor women.
Wouldn't it be rather newsworthy if she were disparaging Biden's convenient new position while she herself supposedly did the same?
Similar skepticism re some of the others you mention in the support Hyde category.
Here you go:
In fairness, the Hyde language is buried deep within a massive appropriations bill, so there wasn't a stand alone vote.
Still, not a good look, especially this year....
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
They didn't vote for the Hyde Amendment.
They voted for an appropriations bill in an environment where the Hyde Amendment had not been repealed. It changed nothing about the Hyde Amendment and allowed the portions of government covered by the bill to function.
Pretty sure I mentioned that.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Thanks for the save
Great find. But the other elephant in the room is in all the years since the Hyde amendment has been in place not one democrat has said that it needs to be gone. And I have a foggy memory of it being discussed a few years ago and most dems crawling over each other to say that they support it.
But really the biggest point is that someone from Joe's team said that he does not support it anymore and then Joe said "Oh yes I do" only to come out the next day and say that he doesn't. Not only that, but that "he won't apologize for being for it before."
That's barely a
partial save. Normally, to state as fact that someone "voted for" something strongly implies a simple, clean vote on a stand-alone basis on that issue. Very misleading.
The truth is indeed a far more complicated story. Hyde buried deep w/n a massive appropriations bill, which Ds probably felt they needed to vote for to keep gov't running.
And now Nancy is refusing to strip it out of the bill
As for the save I meant that he provide the backup for my comment. That is a save imo.
Yes it's not going
to pass the senate, not a chance, and so what's the point. Even NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not supporting the effort to eliminate Hyde in the current political environment.
Fact: in politics you strike when you at least have a realistic chance of success.
Fact: the Hyde amendment is made a part of the annual appropriations bill, has been for years. It's also made a part of the annual health care funding bill. Failure to vote yes on the overall health bill means depriving many more people of needed assistance.
Fact: the democrats had the chance to do just that
during Obama's first two years and just like they bailed on passing any decent legislation they didn't address this issue.
In two years we got the hideously flawed ACA. Yippee. Warmed up Romney care.
And they wonder why they lose....
So just to 'keep the government running' the Dems have been repeatedly willing to sacrifice a core principle year after year. Gee what a surprise.
If it were the Republicans they would have brought up an repealing amendment every year and held the government hostage until they got their way or lost trying.
The gulf between each party's willingness to go to the mat on Federal funding for abortion is the only reason the Hyde Amendment is still around.
The Dems lost the fight on this issue way back when and then gave up on ever trying to win it back again.
Except Bernie of course, but he's not really a Democrat.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Math.
Won't let you get from here to there without a third party.
Biden kissing up to Wall Street and Lobbyists
He is not even trying to look like he won't be friendly to the banks and lobbyists. It's almost like he knows that the fix is in and he's going to get the nomination. Gee... I wonder if the PTB have decided to put the mask back on the oligarchy and pretend that things are great?
Biden has no hope of beating Trump.
It's a tough challenge to take out an incumbent, in any case. Rarely achieved. Joe's facing even greater obstacles. The Republicans already have Ukraine lined up with testimony about election meddling, bribery, nepotism, and illegal election funding. That's not going away. What's he running on besides "Not Trump?"
Not Socialist?
Moreover, I suspect Joe's cheese slips off his cracker when he gets confused. I imagine all the candidates plan to hang in as long as they can for that. There could be some radical reshuffling in the near term.
Biden's Ukraine thing is just CT
Didn't you know that? Yep. The kids declared that it's CT just like the DNC putting its thumb on the scale for Hillary. And Bernie told his supporters to not vote for her and he didn't try to get her elected and a bunch of other things. The kids just make up their reality as they go.
What is Biden running on? He is going to Make America Great Again and fix everything that Trump has done. Roll back the tax bill. Put regulations back on the banks. Stop deregulating the agencies that keep us safe from the corporations even though Obama let Boeing and others do their own regulating. And he will reverse everything else that Trump has done.
But the biggest thing he will do is get the republicans to work with him. I think that is what most people are afraid of if he gets the nod. He has worked with them all during his loooonnngggg career. This is why we are where we are. Bipartisanship baby!
He's starting to give me Reagan flash-backs.
He can keep his tax returns. I want to see a brain scan.
You know, of all the things to call CT, I would advise against the Ukraine portfolio. It's been vetted by US intelligence, for starters. That's why we won't issue travel Visas to the Ukrainian attorneys involved.
"Biden didn't throw down an ultimatum"
to Ukraine. Nope. He just said that he would withhold the $1 billion that we promised them if they didn't fire the prosecutor who was going after his son. This sure seems to sound like an ultimatum to me.
The other reason why the Ukraine attorneys won't be allowed here is because they might expose how Hillary got them to play along with Russia Gate. And those charges against Manafort? Obama knew all about that in 2014 , but he decided to hold on to them just in case he needed them down the road. The thing is that Manafort was trying to get Poreshenko to take the EU deal instead of the Russian one. But again I want to know when Podesta is going to be charged for doing the same things that Manafort did? Oh yeah he's in the Clinton side of things.
i remember that video,
bu when i'd tried to find it anew, i wasn't able to discover it.
i have a question, if i may.
is biden being #MeToo'ed, or is there reliable evidence that he's some sort of sexual predator? as in: that photo collage.
The photo is real
and he has a very bad habit of touching women and girls along with sniffing their hair and saying things to them that shouldn't be said. Just looking at the photos here give you a good idea of what he does. Even after being called out and promising not to do it he still is.
i hadn't doubted
that the array of photos is real, but this i hadn't known:
but then a café denizen was blown away i didn't even know who pervy roy moore was.
but biden did make it clear in the video that the US pulls the IMF's strings, didn't he?