@Shahryar

I've mentioned this before, but I still think we'd be better off with some folks picking the president and congress by throwing darts at a phone book.

In fact, I'm positive we'd be better off. Probably a lot better. The whole world would thank us.

I occasionally try to rank these people, just for fun. They have nothing to do with how a society should run.

I'm convinced that Biden is better than Trump. It's possible but unlikely that Mayor Pete is better than Trump. I'm not sure. Pelosi, Hillary are both worse. Liz Warren is about the same as Biden.

They're all somewhere between 0 and 1 on a 0 to 100 scale. Bernie might rate a 2. I'm docking him for his unsatisfactory foreign policy and for his going along.

Really, our "leaders" should all be re-educated if possible.

@Shahryar In the short run Biden would be a lot better than the baboon’s ass. Biden has dementia but his advisors would deliver some neoliberal consensus policies that would not kill as many people as Trump’s, frankly, insane policies on COVID-19 etc. In the long run, Biden will bring back security state fascists like Brennan, Clapper, etc. who would direct a more orderly, stealth descent into fascism than Trump’s crude, obvious moves toward fascism that may backfire. Biden would also result in slightly more consistently imperialist parties than the mercurial Trump.

I occasionally try to rank these people, just for fun. They have nothing to do with how a society should run.

I'm convinced that Biden is better than Trump. It's possible but unlikely that Mayor Pete is better than Trump. I'm not sure. Pelosi, Hillary are both worse. Liz Warren is about the same as Biden.

They're all somewhere between 0 and 1 on a 0 to 100 scale. Bernie might rate a 2. I'm docking him for his unsatisfactory foreign policy and for his going along.

Really, our "leaders" should all be re-educated if possible.

@eyo

The most corrupt, the most creepy, the most decrepit shit sandwich pulled out of the back of the Democratic fridge I have ever seen, after it became a moldy science project. Word slurring, denture clacking, idiot puppet. Just kill me now.

Well done!

I can't believe I have to suspend my disbelief again. I skipped over a bunch of days reading yoga student testimonials, totally uninspired by the positive affirmations. meh Now for some rant relief. Better to take a soft landing rather than crash like a Prime Air pilot, says my low functioning thyroid brain. hypothalamus ouchy

Way back when Biden starred on Parks and Recreation I wanted to puke, because he set my spidey senses off so bigly, even over the TV cable. I think at this point in time he should already be in Madame Tussauds Wax Museum, behind prison bars of course, and he can't even keep his dentures in when he talks now, wtf? The most corrupt, the most creepy, the most decrepit shit sandwich pulled out of the back of the Democratic fridge I have ever seen, after it became a moldy science project. Word slurring, denture clacking, idiot puppet. Just kill me now.

peace and love
where is it
raped and pillaged
same as it ever was
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. 2020
swallow and BOHICA

Billy Jones - Yes, we have no bananas 1923
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDd8shcLvHI width:420]

this too shall pass
like a kidney stone eh

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg

is aimed at manipulating the DP Base. That's one thing that the DP Leadership has mastered!

Having said that, I 'think' their undertaking may be more serious than just a GOTV effort.

We listen to The 11th Hour (Brian Williams) on MSDNC from time to time. One of his regular guests, James Carville, has all but flatly declared that unless Biden is proclaimed the winner--the election results will automatically be declared illegitimate.

At first I was gobsmacked. Then, it dawned on me--the Dems having already attempted a soft coup (the Russia Hoax) in 2016, probably don't dare try that tactic again.

Which leaves them with pretty much only one option--contesting the election in Court.

Carville has boasted (during at least two of his most recent appearances with Williams) of the armies of lawyers that the Dems already have in place/will deploy to 'fight,' if they don't agree with the election outcome. He makes sure to declare that it is not possible for DT to legitimately win, in spite of the polls being next to useless in 2016.

I do believe that he (DT) could easily lose if the election were held, today. But, if Biden is forced to come out of hiding, and his dementia becomes more apparent, that could be a game changer. (and, maybe not)

Of course, sorta doubt that will happen. Not even certain that I believe Biden will actually debate DT. If he does, word is that he won't be on a stage/platform with him--it will likely be virtually.

Interesting times, indeed.

[Edited: "won't" not "won's"]

Mollie

"The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation."
~~Matt Taibbi, The American Press Is Destroying Itself, June 12, 2020

"I know, I know. All passion; no street smarts."
~~Captain West, 1992 Rob Reiner/Aaron Sorkin Movie, A Few Good Men

“If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went.”
~~Will Rogers, Actor & Social Commentator (1856-1950)

I don't know why people keep giving Trump air on his not accepting the election results if he loses, but they are. It does not matter if he plants himself in the white house and refuses to leave because he will be stripped of his office the minute the clock strikes "We have a new president" Neither the White House or the Oval Office determines who the president is. That said:

“Whether he knows it yet or not, he will be leaving,” Speaker Pelosi says after President Trump suggests the possibility of not accepting the election results. pic.twitter.com/Xu1PiyfaV3

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) July 20, 2020

Donald Trump declared Sunday that he'll "have to see" what happens on Nov. 3 as to whether he'll accept the results of the election. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slapped back Monday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe. The bottom line: He's leaving when he loses.

"The fact is, whether he knows it yet or not, he will be leaving," Pelosi said. "Just because he might not want to move out of the White House doesn't mean we won't have an inauguration ceremony to inaugurate a duly elected president of the United States." She continued: "I'm second in line to presidency, and just last week I had my regular continuation of government briefing." She continued: "I say to the [briefers], this is never going to happen, God willing it never will. But there is a process. It has nothing to do with the certain occupant of the White House doesn't feel like moving and has to be fumigated out of there.

Of course Nance is getting lots of kudos for saying that. Just like she did when she did this.

And then she continued to pass Trump's agendas. Oh but what a bad ass she is.

But did Trump actually say that he will not leave if he loses?

“I have to see. Look ... I have to see,” Trump told moderator Chris Wallace during a wide-ranging interview on ”Fox News Sunday." “No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.” The Biden campaign responded: "The American people will decide this election. And the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.”

He might challenge the election results if he lose which I seem to recall another candidate doing in 2000. In fact it went to the Supreme Court for a decision. People challenge the results all the time. But read what Trump said here and let's put this turd to bed. IF he loses he is leaving. Period. Or people can focus on this empty distraction while millions are thrown into the streets because congress has failed its duty to uphold what they are supposed to do.

Howard, Biden wasn't the one who said that. It was Trump. However folks are freaking out about it still. I wish people would fact check the things they read:

OMG: Joe Biden, just now, on trumps refusal to say he’ll leave if voted out “ The federal government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House”.

— Howard ✡ (@HowardA_Esq) July 19, 2020

Gahh! More fear mongering:

Trump Threat to Unleash Secret Police in Other US Cities Slammed as Scheme to 'Steal the November Election'

Amid mounting criticism over the deployment of unidentified federal agents to Portland, Oregon—where they have been driving around in unmarked vehicles and snatching people off the streets—civil liberties advocates are increasingly concerned that President Donald Trump will similarly send "secret police" to other Democrat-led cites across the country as part of a 2020 campaign strategy to sow chaos and further his law-and-order message.

"Part of Trump's reelection strategy is to scare the white suburbs, which polls show have soured on him, with 'urban' (read: minority) violence," University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole wrote Monday for his website Informed Comment.

"It now appears clear that part of that strategy is to send federal agents dressed like Iraq War troops to Democratic-run cities, on the pretext of protecting federal property, and then for them to attack and provoke Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police protesters, causing violence to escalate and using it... to scare the suburbs," Cole continued. "The exercise also has the advantage for Trump of entrenching a new form of secret police and of turning federal agents into instruments of his authoritarianism."

Jessica do you know who gave Trump the power to do this? Just curious.

@wendy davis

to do with the 'the disappeared' arrests in portland, but when i'd had time l'd bingled 'arrests by border patrol in portland' and i got hits one anywhere from one to many.

this is old, and when i'd thunk of it i'd remembered 'two hundred' not one hundred miles, but nonetheless: 100 miles of constitution free border zones

from aclu.com, 2018:

The Problem

•The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.

•According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
•Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."

•In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain additional authorities. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
•Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).

•In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. No matter what CBP officers and Border Patrol agents think, our Constitution applies throughout the United States, including within this “100-mile border zone.”