@Dr. John Carpenter

I had forgotten that they did that. Was it Biden though or the DNC delegates that made the decision? Guess it doesn't matter.

This is a great read by Scott Ritter.

If Joe Biden was living in a political vacuum, he might be able to throw stones at will when attacking the record of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But when one resides in a large glass house 47 years in the making, throwing stones is not the wisest of strategies. For every policy that Biden claims he will improve on, the question must be asked why had he not acted on it in his previous life as a senior senator or as vice president of the United States?

For every dig he made about Trump and racism, Biden needs to escape the shadow of the 1994 Crime Bill he helped write. For every comment uttered ostensibly in support of the US military, Biden needs to deal with his vote in favor of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Biden’s speech was long on rhetoric, and short on detail, especially when it came to defining the specific policies he would undertake to save America from the scourge of the Trump presidency. Instead, anyone watching Biden deliver his acceptance speech would soon be struck by a sense of déjà vu, watching a tired old politician deliver the worn-out lies, the wolf disguised as a sheep.

This especially:

the question must be asked why had he not acted on it in his previous life as a senior senator or as vice president of the United States?

This could be asked of every person that runs. Why haven't you done that before? Why should we believe you now if it wasn't important to you before now? But then that might be moot since dems seem to have stopped working to get all dem's votes and going for the GOP stragglers so that they don't have to offer us anything. More ID politics will be coming thought.

#1 specifically any mention of eliminating fracking and going weaker on fossil fuel reduction. They care so little, they’re not even waiting to be elected to go back on what little they offered. Biden would have to be pushed left just to honor what the campaign offered in the first place!

@aliasalias -- not that he's the first warmongering Nobel Peace Prize winner, but probably the only one that indulged in warmongering in his acceptance speech.

#4 I don't think anyone there could mistake it as a speech about peace. Not at all.
( all emphasis mine)
Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize With a Pro-War Speech

War is not peace. It never has been. It never will be

"...Actual policy always, in the real world, profoundly trumps even the best rhetoric. And so, for instance, when President Obama’s Nobel speech proclaimed that "America cannot act alone" and called for “standards that govern the use of force,” the ringing declaration clashed with the announcement last month that he will not sign the international Mine Ban Treaty.

As Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams pointed out, "Obama’s position on land mines calls into question his expressed views on multilateralism, respect for international humanitarian law and disarmament. How can he, with total credibility, lead the world to nuclear disarmament when his own country won’t give up even land mines?"

At the outset of his speech in Oslo, the president spoke of his "acute sense of the cost of armed conflict." Well, there’s acute and then there’s acute. I think of the people I met and saw in Kabul who are missing limbs, and the countless more whose lives have been shattered by war.

In the name of pragmatism, Obama spoke of "the world as it is" and threw a cloak of justification over the grisly escalation in Afghanistan by insisting that "war is sometimes necessary" — but generalities do nothing to mitigate the horrors of war being endured by others.

President Obama accepted the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize while delivering — to the world as it is — a pro-war speech. The context instantly turned the speech’s insights into flackery for more war.

https://www.alternet.org/2009/12/obama_accepts_nobel_peace_prize_with_a_...

@gjohnsit @gjohnsit @gjohnsit Mainstream media ignores Moreno’s campaign to ban leftists from February election Reading the comments from a vocal contingent of right wing expats is disappointing but predictable.

It's isn't Ecuador trying to ban parties it's the president and his neoliberal cronies. I have little doubt there is at least some truth to the charges that lead to recent past president Correa's bribery conviction but there's no way to know. Politics is as dirty as it is anywhere when great wealth and power are at stake. Mostly, I think it is projection on the part of Moreno who is dirty through and through but weak. (He was a bad surprise to those who voted for him thinking he'd be Correa II. I guess he's the Biden of Ecuador.) Looking at the hard right turn he took immediately following his election I can't help thinking he was part of how Correa was linked to the bribery/kidnapping charges. Correa helped the wrong people during his presidency. The number of poor was dramatically reduced, standards of living increased, and environmental protections that cut into the profits of the rich and powerful made Correa a lot of enemies. Correa tossed out the US, the international banksters, and generally helped the lower levels of society. That couldn't go unpunished and Moreno was apparently for sale. He has served his purpose and is widely unpopular through most parts of the country. I expect Moreno will show up in a well paid position for his service to one or more of those huge transnational corporations he helped.

Correa is still very popular with the people. It looks like he was set up so he would never again have any power in Ecuador. His party and those parties who would ally with it would easily win a national plurality so they can't be allowed to be involved in the election. The moves to ban Correaistas and the three somewhat similar parties is an obvious ploy to prevent them regaining power for the wrong part of society, the poor and average people. The basis for the bans is so transparently unfounded, party application petition signature irregularities, that the courts, who seem to still have some independence and integrity, tossed out the election authority's decision. There's still a chance they'll be banned anyway. I'm unsure how it will play out.

All I'm more or less certain of is that the average Ecuadorian is as screwed as those in the US if these right wing fucks retain power on a national level. Ecuadorians have a strong revolutionary heritage. Moreno learned a hard lesson last October to not mess with those who can and will shut down the country. He got a badly bloodied nose from the strikes. He's also taking severe heat for the Covid response, economic problems, and World Bank loans.

#5

He's clearly more of a threat than trump, who I also would never vote for. Like Obama, Biden will be able to enact more Republican policies than trump and the Republicans could and he will do exactly that. He's told us so and he has the backing of the party.

Not only that but liberals are likely to go to sleep under Biden.
I've been thinking this for a while myself.

On a different note, I see that Ecuador is looking to outlaw opposition parties.