I started watching him because of the covid thing. I don't agree with him a lot of the time, but he does give an alternative take on the stories in the news. Greg Gutfeld is fun to watch as well.
Sky News Australia is also an interesting view.
Why would I like these sources? It was because the US Main Stream Media was too sycophantic to the Biden-Harris ticket and uncritical of the Covid thing.
Anyway, it's amusing to watch Tucker mention breaking up Google. It would get really interesting if they went all the way. I mean breaking up Bezos' monopoly, which included WAPO. And how exactly did Facebook make all that money?
By selling your information.
That's what makes these companies really frightening by trashing our rights: especially the right of privacy. They are the basis of something called surveillance capitalism.
He could also talk about how weak US Data Protection laws happen to be, which is why those trashy background check sites exist. But even more importantly, failure to have strong data protection laws are what allowed for surveillance capitalism to make billions off of our data without our consent.
Or the ability to correct mistakes in that data.
Socialism isn't making money off of the work of others, that's capitalism. And surveillance capitalism is making money off of people's data. And it's making some people very rich.
Or the many reasons that Biden will fall flat on that promise.
First off, been there done that with the original AWB which was a failure. It was intentionally a failure in that it was poorly written. Fixing that would require that the firearms that are banned would be simply defined as "any semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting, or has, a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds". The problem there is that the political will doesn't exist. It never has in the US. Making New York's gun laws the laws of the land might have worked when the NFA was first passed in the 1930s, but good luck getting them through now.
The Second Amendment isn't really a barrier to adopting strict gun laws. It never really has been. The Second Amendment is an obscure clause in the US Constitution which few people really understand, has been openly misinterpreted, and will be a barrier to action as long as it is considered a part of the Constitution. Heller and McDonald didn't change the landscape. Point it out once again: the Heller-McDonald language showing regulation is acceptable:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century
cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346;
Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of
the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions
on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490;
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The
American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although
we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full
scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of
firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,
or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Heller at 54-5
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Better yet:
But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily
takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute
prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.
Heller at 64
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while
striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the
home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to
keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear
in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding
regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.
Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation
does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40
The only thing off the table is anything that purports to be a ban.
Which leads to my question: had Chicago theoretically allowed for
registrations (as does New York City) since that is not an “absolute
prohibition”– would the law have passed constitutional muster? After
all, NYC’s law has been around for 99 years: doesn’t that count as a
longstanding regulatory measure?
If that isn't good enough for you: show me the words "self-defence" or "Tyranny" in the US Constitution and we can have a discussion.
Next we come to the people who are running around talking about defunding the police. That goes to one of the talking points that the pro-gun crowd have working for them. Who is going to protect you if the cops can't? Like it or not, one of the objects to having a government is to keep order. No order=no society.
Or to paraphrase the 60s bumper sticker: "Don't like the police? call antfa!"
And Antifa are a set of bozos I can live without. They did fuck all to stop the rise of fascism the first go round. If anything, they helped it get powerful.
Anyway, we've had toddlers shot and a horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas. Nothing has happened yet.
If anything, the divide between the two sides has widened and become more entrenched. I see the animosity getting stronger.
So, if anything, the situation will get far worse.
It seems that the price of Bitcoin cannot stop increasing, but how sustainable is Bitcoin itself? With such huge energy demands to keep Bitcoin mined, are some countries risking the stability of their electricity supplies to take advantage of the Bitcoin boom? Financial economist and founder of the blog “Digiconomist”, Alex de Vries is on the show to answer these questions. He says, in his paper published in the journal Joule, that the entire Bitcoin blockchain network consumes as much energy per year as all data centres across the world.
One of my hobbies is collecting hyperinflated currencies, I have old German Marks, Yugoslavian Dinars, and Zimbabwe dollars. I bought some "fake" bitcoins. Those things that get pictured when people talk about the Bitcoin since Bitcoins have no real physical form. I tossed in mention of the Euro as well since it had no real physical form until 2002, but there's a difference between the Euro and bitcoin.
Doggone has been asking me to write something about Bitcoins and why they are dangerous. I have been procrastinating about this in my usual style until the Wire article "Bitcoin’s Greatest Feature Is Also Its Existential Threat" popped up on my radar. There are three types of currency: one is currency backed up by a commodity which is usually gold or silver, Fiat currency which is where a government prints money and gives it value, and now cryptocurrency which isn't issued by a government. Cryptocurrencies are probably closer to commodity based currencies in that they get their value from the market.
Yet Cryptocurrencies' market value isn't based upon a commodity. It's based upon something called a block chain, which makes it somewhat similar to Fiat currency in that there isn't some form of actual value to either one. Fiat currency at least has a government backing it up. The blockchain is far more fragile and dangerous.
"See footnote for Hitchhiker's Guide Quote"
But let's get down to a really basic history of what "hard cash" money is. Basically, an economy is based upon trade. I have grain and you have bricks, or some such. Maybe bricks aren't available where I live and I can't trade directly with you. So, a commodity was chosen to make trade easier. The commodity was made into coins. Currency came about when banks wrote promissory notes to pay the value of the note.
Cryptocurrency gets its value from something called a blackchain and isn't really backed up by anything other than that. Blockchains are fairly complex topics. I'm not going to get into what exactly the blockchain is, but it is actually quite fragile. It's based upon a key, and woe upon you if you lose that key. I was trying to find the story about the person who died taking his bitcoin key with him. A story titled "$66,500,000,000 in Bitcoin Is Lost and Will Never Be Recovered, Says Crypto Intelligence Firm Chainalysis" was one of many that showed up.
That gets me back to the Wired story which led to this being written:
It’s best to avoid explaining the mathematics of Bitcoin's blockchain,
but to understand the colossal implications here, you need to understand
one concept. Blockchains are a type of “distributed ledger”: a record
of all transactions since the beginning, and everyone using the
blockchain needs to have access to—and reference—a copy of it. What if
someone puts illegal material in the blockchain? Either everyone has a
copy of it, or the blockchain’s security fails.
In other words, anything which can corrupt the blockchain will result in bitcoin literally being nothing. Those fake bitcoins I have will be worth more than a "real" one. Toss in that cryptocurrencies require a lot of computer power, or eat up a lot of electricity, to store those blockchains. This comes from a very cryptocurrency friendly article:
Cryptocurrency mining, by its very nature, requires a lot of electricity and sophisticated computers. In a paper published this week in the journal Joule, data scientist Alex de Vries — correctly — argues bitcoin mining is likely to exceed an annual consumption of 101 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity as the price fluctuates.
The Wired Article is much better about the fragility of cryptocurrencies. The best way to remind someone of the danger of bitcoin is to point to things like Tulip mania. In other words, commodities, whether physical or not, can be subject to DRASTIC fluctuations in price. People who advocate for commodity based currency based upon their stability are ignorant of economic history. There were severe depressions when commodity based currencies existed.
No surprise since the process is 100% political. Maybe one could attempt to get a grand jury to issue an indictment, but I wouldn't put money on it.
On the other hand, the people who have been pushing to impeach Trump have engaged in willful ignorance of Hillary Clinton's, and even worse, Joe Biden's corruption issues. The link below isn't to a right wing rag, but is from a op-ed by Zephyr Teachout published in the UK guardian.
I have no illusions about Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Europe has had run off elections for a while now, which is a longer version of what is called ranked choice voting. The person with the most votes wins. It's pointless if you have a single party, or two undistinguishable parties. Some places in the US only have one candidate running. Case in point, I voted in an election in DC where my choices were the "Democrat", Marion Berry, or the Socialist Workers Party.
I voted Socialist Workers Party.
The point is that Marion Berry won, but I was able to vote against him. Likewise I have said that I would have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 if RCV had been in place. Sure, I would have voted (1) Jill Stein, (2) Gary Johnson, (3) write in for my dog, and (4) Hillary Clinton. Not sure how I would have done it in 2020, but Biden would NOT have gotten my vote even with RCV.
The point is that RCV makes it easier for alternative parties to get into the game, which is why people like me and other reformers are interested in it. The mass of people who DON'T vote because they feel that their votes don't count. Or that they are voting for parties which don't represent them. I shouldn't have to vote AGAINST a candidate, but FOR a candidate I believe represents me.
On the other hand, some seriously conservative candidates can still end up winning. I remember sitting in an Antwerp Coffee shop after the Vlaams Blok won the election! Emmanuel Macron topped the ballot in the first round of voting, and was elected President of France on 7 May 2017 with 66.1% of the vote in the second round, defeating Marine Le Pen making him the youngest president in the country's history.
FN and Vlaams Blok aren't neo: they ARE Nazi! Well, maybe they are the political descendants of the Nazis: Vlaams Nationaal Verbond and Action française
Get the point?
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green ain't got nothing on these people, or might seem like what the FN has become. But having dealt with FN members when I was living in Belgium, the US would be in for some REAL fun if a party this far to the right joined the political fray. People would be nostalgic for Trump.
The point is that the latest incarnation of the FN was up against Emmanuel Macron. That's a bit like Bernie Sanders running against David Duke.
While it might result in a left wing candidate winning a seat: that isn't totally a possibility. I supported Lisa Savage's run in the Maine Senate election which was run under RCV. The upshot of that was Susan Collins was reelected. This was despite a lot of outstate support for her Democratic Opponent, Sara Gideon.
In other words, it may be helpful to conservative candidates. I mean Marine Le Pen and the Vlaams Blok do well with this type of election. Which is why I say be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
AOC could lose a future election to someone so far to the right she would move to Cuba.
I've not really paid that much attention to The GameStop thing, but it points out something I have been pointing out about how the current "market capitalism" works: Or Las Vegas on Wall Street.
The short form is that a group on reddit decided to invest on GameStop since the Hedge Funds were looking at it. Their purchases were aided by a broker called Robinhood Investing, which offers no fee trades. I have some idea of how hedge funds work and it sounds as if the reddit crowd were doing something which the "big players" have been doing for a while.
The big problem is that it was a group of small investors making money instead of the few, wealthy getting rich(er).
That goes against the rules. The powers that be are upset that people outside their circles are using their methods to make money.
It also highlights that the people in power are the ones who caused the problems with the economy of a while back. And they were the ones who got bailed out: not the little guy.
The current US political situation is also run by pretty much the usual suspects, which is one of the many reasons why I demexited in 2016. I see the power people circling their wagons to put down the revolution.
Unfortunately, the dam has broken.
The powers that be had their opportunity to make a clean transfer of power, but their bets were on the status quo. Unfortunately the best way to handle a revolution once one gets started is to try and control it. Try to keep the forces of change in control.
The problem is that is an option which is being applied FAR too late in the game. The time for real change was 2016, but the powers that be opted for the status quo.
Now it's going to be hard to blame any of the mess ups on anybody else than the people running the show.
The concept of Gun rights equalling freedom seems as close to propaganda as one can get: especially if one sits down to look at it objectively. Totalitarian regimes wave around firearms in the same way that people who proclaim this to be a sign of freedom do in the US.
Let's also get down to the reality of the German Reich under Hitler, which liberalised its gun laws. That is the opposite of what the Gun rights crowd want to believe, but it is the truth. The best known case of dissension in Nazi Germany, the White Rose Group, had a firearm with 150 rounds of ammunition. And Operation Valkerie, the largest plot to kill Hitler, was run by military officers.
This is what I call the Cold-Dead-Hands Test. If the only way to get
someone's gun is to pry it from their cold, dead hands (literally or
figuratively), that's not gun control. When Grant disarmed the Confederates at
Appomattox, that wasn't gun control; that was taking prisoners. When the
Soviets disarmed the remnants of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, that wasn't
gun control either. Mao didn't come to power in China by tricking the populace
into surrendering their arms. He pummeled his well-armed opponents in a
stand-up fight. There's a big difference between unable to fight back, and
fighting back but losing...
Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply
because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if
there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that
sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed
-- guns or no guns.
There is another aspect to the relationship of gun rights, propaganda, and totalitarianism which is why do people tolerate authoritarian regimes, which I am not going to get into.
My real interest is in the concept being pushed of "gun rights" which is not that common despite its adherents wishing it were. This blurb from Wikipedia:
Inclusion of this right in a written constitution is uncommon. In 1875, 17 percent of constitutions included a right to bear arms. Since the early twentieth century, "the proportion has been less than 9 percent and falling". In an article titled "U.S. Gun Rights Truly Are American Exceptionalism," a historical survey and comparative analysis of constitutions dating back to 1789, Tom Ginsburg and colleagues "identified only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) that had ever included an explicit right to bear arms. Almost all of these constitutions have been in Latin America, and most were from the 19th century"
Wikipedia lists the following as recognising the concept of gun rights: Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Czech Republic, Switzerland, The United Kingdom, Sharia law, and Yemen. Amusingly, the Ginsburg article says, "We code only Mexico, Guatemala and the U.S. as having a right to bear
arms." While the constitutions of Haiti and Iran do mention guns, "the
provision was too ambiguous for us to consider it a true right to bear
arms."
Indeed, looking at the list, we see the person trying to make this argument that these nations have "gun rights" is making a stretch. Let's start with The United Kingdom, which anyone vaguely familiar with the UK and its legal offspring knows doesn't really have "gun rights". Australia and New Zealand are the best examples of how common law offspring have handled "gun rights".
Let's go to Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. Anyone who has had an argument with someone who supports "gun rights" knows that these are brought up when discussing the United States' gun problem. Maybe the advocates for regulation need to point out that the countries with the high rates of gun violence also enshrine "gun rights" in their constitutions!
The European Countries are a bit more problematic since while the Czech Republic and Switzerland may believe in "gun rights", they also don't hand out guns willy nilly. And Switzerland does have mass shootings, but the Swiss are so law abiding that they obey the gun laws, which they do have. The Zug Parliament mass shooter didn't use his service rifle, but used a civilian version instead! I would toss in that the Swiss have been working on legislation that would require military members to store their weapons in armouries. And military service is not "universal" and hasn't been for a while.
And the money shot on Switzerland from Politifact (that whole article is useful to the argument about gun rights and failed states):
Switzerland does not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, Kopel said.
But even the wikipedia article admits that the nine country list is a stretch.
Which including Sharia Law and Yemen highlights. I was under the impression that Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan also believe in gun rights. And I have heard that Iraqis also kept guns. Having to mention any of this highlights the failed state nature of the concept of gun rights. I really shouldn't have to mention that Yemen and Afghanistan have been war zones for a while now.
And they have shitloads of guns...
Toss in that the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan is gun maker heaven. Look up Darra Adam Khel. I'm not sure if this place is history yet, but there is a long tradition of gun making in that region.
In fact choosing most of those countries for trying to push the concept of gun rights highlights the point I am making: places with gun rights don't really have effective governments. And places with effective governments don't really believe in gun rights.
I've already mentioned the characteristics of a failed state in a previous post, but will do so again since part of the "gun rights" belief hinges on this.
A failed state is a political body that has disintegrated
to a point where basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign
government no longer function properly (see also fragile state and state
collapse). A state can also fail if the government loses its legitimacy
even if it is performing its functions properly. For a stable state it
is necessary for the government to enjoy both effectiveness and
legitimacy. Likewise, when a nation weakens and its standard of living
declines, it introduces the possibility of total governmental collapse.
The Fund for Peace characterizes a failed state as having the following
characteristics:
Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
Inability to provide public services
Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community
Common characteristics of a failing state include a central
government so weak or ineffective that it has an inability to raise
taxes or other support, and has little practical control over much of
its territory and hence there is a non-provision of public services.
When this happens, widespread corruption and criminality, the
intervention of state and non-state actors, the appearance of refugees
and the involuntary movement of populations, sharp economic decline, and
foreign military intervention can occur.
One thing I have noticed with people who believe in gun rights is the tendency to talk about government having an inability to protect people. Also the failure of government to enforce laws. In fact gun rights people basically talk as if we already live in a failed state.
A major part of the rush on firearms is based on the fear of lawlessness, which was somewhat fatuous in regard to covid. On the other hand, the riots did provide an apparent slide toward being a failed state. Especially when people were running around talking about dismantling the body which provides security and order.
I'm sure that someone can take this argument and run with it since there is more than enough evidence that the concept of gun rights really has no constitutional basis (something else I have gone into in depth). Any true "originalist" can rip that argument to shreds even without having to go beyond the text of the US Constitution and decisions interpreting it.
On the other hand, I haven't seen too many people pointing out how bankrupt the concept of "gun rights" happens to be when one examines it. But even the Heller and McDonald decisions pointed out how limited in scope this concept should be if it is to be considered a reality (again, something I have gone into detail about).
Think about it "pro-gun" types: your beliefs rest upon the US being a failed state. The government is ineffective and cannot protect you. That defines a failed state.
It has long been my position that the more productive course of action after the 2016 elections would have been election reform instead of blaming the Russians (and pretty much everything and everyone other than the Democratic Party).
The Democrats did protest the 2016 Election. Maybe not as violently as current events, but they still protested.
Let's not forget that the Democrats have been doing everything in their power to harass Trump.
US elections are not free and fair and held on a secret ballot. The two parties have a lock on the process which needs to be broken.
The problem is that the Duopoly will lose its power if real election reforms are enacted. Toss in that there would be a shift in power from the wealthy to the people.
I've been wanting to write this for a long time, but haven't. Current events are pushing me to point out the reality of the US political system.
Despite the founders intent of three separate branches and checks and balances: The real power is in the legislature
De facto describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws. De jure is according to the law.
Law does not always reflect the reality.
The reasons I say that the US is a de facto parliamentary system should be obvious, but most people are distracted by the president that they miss the body with any real power is the legislature. The legislature holds the power of the purse, among many others that make it the strongest and most powerful branch..
The failure to pass a budget in any true parliamentary democracy would lead to automatic dissolution of the government. This is due to the concept of "loss of supply":
A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all "money bills" are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business".
When a loss of supply occurs, a prime minister is generally required either by constitutional convention or by explicit constitutional instruction to either resign immediately or seek a parliamentary dissolution.
Some constitutions, however, do not allow the option of parliamentary dissolution but rather require the government to be dissolved or to resign.
The US system has specified term limits, which is one way that dissolution of government resulting in new elections can be prevented. On the other hand, the US government could conceivably go into a prolonged budget crisis and government shutdown. That's one reason that US Budget crises tend to be short.
On the other hand, if one party really didn't like the other one. The budget crisis could last until the end of the legislative session.
Next reason why the US is actually parliamentary is that the legislature can remove the executive. While the criterion for doing this is "high crimes and misdemeanours": the reality is that it can be for frivolous reasons if one political party dislikes the executive of the other party. While the criterion is "high crimes and misdemeanours", the reality is that the process is blatantly political. That is because other executives have engages in "high crimes and misdemeanours" by violation of international law (e.g., illegal war) with little or no consequences.
On the other hand, don't lie about blowjobs.
Not sure where this comes into the strength of the argument, but the legislature offers the best place for representing the people. The legislature is directly elected and proportional to the population (at least in the house of representatives). On the other hand, it is one place where alternative parties can have a voice.
The president is not a directly elected, which is another place the legislature has control over that office. In a way, the current situation is like the English Civil War where the question was which body had the power: the monarch or the legislature?
The legislature (parliament) won the battle.
Those of us who feel the current system is not representative should put our efforts into getting alternative parties into congress: not being hopeful that either party will change. Tip O'Neill said "all politics are local".
Realising that the real power in the US is in the legislature is the beginning of the battle to bring about a change in US politics.
People in the US really love the idealised version of themselves and their history. Problem is that the real deal is not as nice as what they want to believe.
Let's take the Presidential Election of 1800, which I mentioned in a previous post. While probably not as bad as current events, things were pretty bad. The founders didn't always get along and this was one where Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were in a rough and tumble battle.
It also demonstrated that the founders DIDN'T get it right with their concept of what the US would be. The electoral college was already proving problematic (and was the subject of an early amendment).
The founders also didn't believe that republics would divide into factions, but there was pretty extreme partisanship in the 1800 Election.
Adams didn't attend Jefferson's inauguration.
And let's not forget that Aaron Burr came really close to being President, but became vice president instead. In case you missed that part of US history:
During his last year as vice president, Burr engaged in the duel in
which he fatally shot Hamilton, his political rival. Although dueling
was illegal, Burr was never tried, and all charges against him
eventually were dropped. Nevertheless, Hamilton's death ended Burr's
political career.
Burr traveled west to the American frontier, seeking new economic and political opportunities. His secretive activities led to his 1807 arrest in Alabama on charges of treason. He was brought to trial more than once for what became known as the Burr conspiracy, but was acquitted each time.
Alas Burr wasn't made president by the Electoral College.
But maybe that was a good thing. Especially since Hamilton became a money making Broadway Musical.
I wanted to comment on your Grabbing While The Grabbing’s Good post, but my wordpress account doesn't work there. I stand by what I said in my Biden and Guns post. I'll toss in pretty much everything I said about why Trump would have won.
Let's toss in the ultimate opportunity for the US to do what Britain and Australia did: The Sandy Hook Shooting. They could have pulled off enough "moderate" republicans to ban "assault weapons", but weren't able to. No matter how many toddlers get popped.
Las Vegas would have done it for enacting gun control in any sane country. Even Trump banned bump stocks after that, but that was the extent of it.
Let's face it. People in the US are really fucked up and stupid.
There will probably never be any serious firearms control in the US. Even if real domestic terrorists pull off Bataclan level mass shootings on a daily basis. people will be cringing in fear to do anything, yet pro-gun galahs will be saying how wonderful the situation is.
People like you will stick by your WRONG interpretation of the Second Amendment. Show me the words "self-defence" or anything other than its purpose related to anything other than the militia. Fact is that if you got a couple of words past "we the people" you would see how incongruous the concept of gun rights happens to be in the constitutional framework. Fortunately for the people peddling the bullshit, most people don't know what exactly the US Constitution actually says. They know a couple of phrases taken out of context.
If even that.
The idiots who wrote the constitution could have saved a lot of pain by just saying "fuck it" if the interpretation you believe is correct were what they had in mind.
The US was pretty fucked up before 1789. It is even more fucked up because people like you have no fucking idea of what you are talking about. You have a choice.
Stay the course or make some serious constitutional and legal changes.
It's amusing that most of the people who chant this usually side with the crowd storming the US Capitol. Let's toss in that the First French Republic pretty much contradicted what was being asserted at the same time across the Atlantic in Philadelphia. Although we have this interesting version of an 1800 attack ad on Thomas Jefferson which was created using actual contemporary criticism of Jefferson.
Actually, the founders were familiar with the French Revolution, First republic, and its excesses. The Alien and Sedition Acts from 1798 were aimed at the French.
And Jefferson's comments about frequent revolution and "watering the liberty tree" helped to make his reputation shown in the above ad.
Unfortunately the right is attracted to the more puerile aspects of the War for Independence and not its realities. My ancestors on the Pennsylvania Line at Morristown were some of the early grumblers, but the vicissitudes caused by the war led to more rebellions. Shays' Rebellion being the one which led to the drafting of the US Constitution.
The founders could have just said "fuck it" and done nothing had they wanted the America of the extreme right. The factionalism has been in the US since early on. What we are seeing at the US Capitol is nothing new in US politics. And probably much more common than most political commentators are willing to mention.
While one side of me is first generation American and much happier in Europe. The other side of me is the American Experience. Literally. The Americans thought they had the rule of law, but was it more of the factionalism we see exhibited in the US, and state capitols?
I don't think that the people who built this nation would be too keen on keeping a dysfunctional system. Would they go to the Jeffersonian extreme? Or would they take the route of the people who wrote the Constitution? My bet is on retooling the workings of the political system since that was the choice made in 1789.
On the other hand, it seems more like people are going with the "fuck it" option. But that is the option of defeat. That's the one where people admit that the efforts of the people who built the nation were all in vain. That's the one that says to the soldiers of the Pennsylvania Line at Morristown (and Valley Forge): "You are a bunch of chumps sitting there in the cold. The ones of you who go AWOL to tend their farms are the real patriots."
Maybe we should take solace in the fact that there actually was a peaceful transition instead of the 1800 election turning into as blood bath because there couldn't be a peaceful transition. I think there will be a peaceful transition, but what is made from it needs to be an examination of the system.
The people who will soon be in charge of the government are the ones who gave us Donald Trump. They made the situation right for the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. I don't see any significant changes on offer from the returning regime. It's like the Bourbon Restoration, which was overturned by the Revolution of 1830.
Unfortunately the Founders were blinded by a romantic history of the ancient world. There is no difference between a republic or a democracy other than one does not have monarchs. But Republics can have dictators, oligarchs, and Tyrants. Plato's ideal republican leader was the "benevolent despot". They can be just as faction ridden (if not worse) than a Democracy.
Especially if one believes there is a right to revolt against the lawful order. Or that any violent revolt is somehow better than following the law.
And the reason I'm asking this is because of this article from Salon which was published on that date. The right wing extremists we see in the US Capitol didn't happen over night. It was pretty much well under way long before 2016.
So, yet another thing we can't pin directly on Donald Trump.
And it's also not a phenomenon that is limited to just the United States. Cas Mudde has a really great opinion piece in the Guardian about all this:
How and why did we get here? First and foremost,
through a long process of cowardice, failures, and shortsighted
opportunism of the mainstream right. Already in 2012, in the wake of the
deadly terrorist attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, by a longtime
prominent neo-Nazi, I wrote,
“the extremist rhetoric that comes from so-called law-abiding patriots
should be taken more seriously”. I advised Republican leaders to “be
more careful in choosing their company and insinuations”. What happened,
however, was the opposite: far-right ideas and people were mainstreamed
rather than ostracized.
As in so many other things, Donald Trump
has been a major catalyst of this process, but not its initiator. The
radicalization of the US right wing predates Trump by decades. It even
predates the Tea party, which mostly helped to bring the far right into
the heart of the Republican party. Obviously, racism and racist
dog-whistling have been key to the party since they launched their
infamous Southern Strategy in the 1970s, which brought white Southerners
to the Republican party, but this goes far beyond that. The
radicalization is not just ideological, it is anti-systemic.
I'm not sure if I would say that Trump was a "major catalyst", but he has definitely played and been associated with this trend. I am also not sure that I would put the blame solely on the right, since no one has called out this movement with any real force on either side. It's too easy to finger point than to address this issue.
On the other hand, it is long past time to have done anything about this issue. But what needs to be done is some serious self-examination by all sides as to WHY the situation is what it is. There are some very real issues raised by all this, but it's easier to play games than to address the flaws in the system.
A major flaw is that US elections are indeed not very democratic from a two party system that shuts out other players, to gerrymandered districts, not directly electing the president, among a long list of problems screaming for reform. These problems are internal and not caused by foreign nationals.
The writing was on the wall long before Trump and may bring someone far worse than Trump unless the problems are addressed.
Of course, the people with Trump Derangement Syndrome probably will continue to do so long after he has passed from the scene.
Seriously, I wasn't sure which would be worse: Trump winning the same way he did in 2016 by taking the electoral college, but not the popular vote. Or Joe Biden winning and then having to deal with all his shit.
It looks like option two is the one on the cards. With an addition of Horrible Harris to make the package even more fun to swallow.
The real problem is that the "Democrats" spent the past four years blaming everything and everybody, but the people responsible for making Donald Trump president in the first place.
The "Democrats" themselves.
Toss in that the system is pretty much a mess to begin with.
I walked away in 2016 with the Demexit and will not go back, but the system has to catch up with those of us who know it is broken. The electoral system is in serious need of reform and trying to pass the blame on the other guy won't help the situation.
I would have thought that the culmination of all the past four years of Brexit negotiations would have been much more exciting than the footnote it appears to be for the past four years. It reminds me of how David Cameron's gamble on an EU referendum was like the "Democratic" party's trying to get Hillary Clinton into office. The big difference between Brexit and the past two US elections was that there was an escape clause of an election for the US.
No second referendum for Britain.
On the other hand, the 2020 US election was like the Brexit negotiations with the Trump presidency being Brexit and Biden being the escape clause. Biden's campaign was like the effects of the Brexit negotiations in that people would make assumptions about what a Biden administration would be. Biden was somehow "better" than the alternative.
The real problem was that neither Brexit nor the US campaigns offered anything of substance for the electorate to make a choice on. The only thing being voted on was the dissatisfaction of the electorate for the status quo.
Things were "wrong", but no one was really addressing them. It was easier to blame "them" whether it's the people in DC or the EU. On the other hand, the real problem isn't them, but "us". There is a drift in both US and UK politics which has led to trying to come up with differences where none really exist.
The US duopoly parties are pretty much the same. Despite certain people trying to make Hillary Clinton seem wildly radical, she was fairly conservative. And she couldn't run on the issues. Thus insane concepts such as "defund the police" can see the light of day instead of more bread and butter issues.
The past year was the best argument for a Sanders Administration with Medicare for All (M4A), Universal basic income (UBI), and general social insurance to make sure people can survive being forced to not work for the public good. No, these are not "free", but will require increased taxation. On the other hand, isn't taxing billionaires a good idea?
Especially when those billionaires are literally making money off YOU!
The people who are afraid of government, yet are willing to give up their personal information to corporations that are making big bucks off that. There is a reason I like the EU and its data protection rules. Not to mention that the EU has been going after these monopolies for some time. the US just hasn't caught up.
But remember that the US tech companies helped get Biden and Harris where they are now if we are going down that track.
The bottom line is that despite all this information out there, a lot of it is not really useful. There are a lot of reasons for that, but there seems to be a need for a true marketplace of ideas.
I am amused at the people who call themselves "progressives" being hopeful that Joe Biden will in some way show that he is sympathetic to their cause.
Dream on, progressives, you are the unwanted relative at the "family" gathering. The "Democrats" put up with you because they want your votes. But they prefer money. The more money you can cough up, the more they suck up to you.
It doesn't matter that Bernie Sanders can run a campaign on small donations because the "Democratic" Party isn't. They prefer the large donors who are the people who propped up the formerly dead campaigns of Creepy Joe and Horrible Harris.
The "Democrats" preyed on your being suckers that they were in some way "better" than the Evil Orange One. Yet they ran candidates that were just as bad, if not worse. The tame media didn't allow for any scrutiny into the chosen ones, or you would have had a harder time voting for them than you did Clinton-Kane in 2016.
If you didn't Demexit.
The "Democrats" didn't bother hiding their disdain for the progressives this go round. "Progressives" for whatever reason voted for Biden despite his being a male Hillary Clinton with a public and private position on the issues. And his private position is that he will stay the course which resulted in Trump.
OK, the main reason I didn't expect Biden to "win" the election was that he needed to win a few states which are pro-gun. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for those people to get on the Biden Bandwagon if Biden is going to tighten gun laws. Not to mention telling a UAW member to basically fuck off because "no one needs an AR-14".
Biden has a long history on the gun issue, which is contradictory to say the least. It went from being pro-gun and being involved with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) to now saying he wants to get tight on regulating "AR-14s". Personally, I think Sanders would have been a safer bet to address this issue than Biden: especially since Bernie is from Vermont.
On the other hand, Bernie is a commie. And the Establishment Dems don't like him.
OK, I would like to believe that Creepy Joe and Horrible Harris will turn out to be a disappointment, but he has managed to surprise me by winning an election.
Despite the odds.
On the other hand, there is a lot of red in places like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina which might hold their nose and vote for the next Trump if Creepy Joe and Horrible Harris make good on their promise to ban guns.
And I am truly surprised that combination was able to pull off a win to begin with: especially with gun control on the agenda.
But gun control is something which is talked about but rarely acted upon: especially by opportunistic politicians.
I guess I should have known that the wrong conclusions would be made however the election turned out. I've already pointed out that the right/centre of the "Democratic" party is blaming the left for the poor results. No one is addressing that not having any real policy set out other than "orange man bad" might not be a good way to win votes.
While Fox News and Sky News Australia may try to paint Biden and Harris as extreme lefties: they are anything but. The Green New Deal, Fracking, Medicare for All and all those "lefty" ideas probably won't see the light of day, or will be transformed into something unrecognisable. FAIR's Counterspin pointed out:
After a historic election turnout, driven by mobilizations like Black Lives Matter, that signaled the longed-for end of the Trump presidency, it's sad to see corporate Democrats leap to blame the left, including activists, for denying the party a landslide—and call for immediate, compensatory overtures to the right. Sad, but not surprising, as that's been the practice of elite Democrats and their media abettors for decades.
When Michael Dukakis chose Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate, he turned his back not just on Jesse Jackson, but on two decades of Democratic Party thinking. He sent an unmistakable message to the activist constituencies of the Democratic Party that the days of litmus-test liberalism are over.
That's the Washington Post's David Broder in 1988.
You could say everything old is new again, but corporate media's allegiance to an ever-drifting "center" gets more dangerous by the day.
In other words, AOC and Black Lives Matter can pretend all they want that there will be a leftward shift in the party. But the Dems will throw them under the bus as soon as they get their vote in favour of the big donors. "Creepy Joe" Biden and Hillary Clinton weren't chosen as front runners well in advance because they were popular or strong candidates. They were chosen because they brought the big money.
There were a whole lot of other black women out there who would have been a much better choice than Horrible Harris. Horrible Harris was the choice of the big donors in Silicon Valley. Black Lives Matter should have burned the country down the moment they knew Harris's record as a prosecutor if they had any real power. My guess is that Black Lives Matter will be forgotten until 2022, or maybe relegated to the dust bin because of the things that were said and unsaid in the Abigail Spanberger leaked phone call.
It was Groucho, not Karl, if the BLM person was a Marxist organiser. I was pretty certain that the "peaceful protests" were going to result in a Trump win, but the only thing those really generated was a run on "assault rifles" and "ammunition". Still, "Defund the Police" was enough to get some "Democrats" into squeaker situations. But was that actually the reason that people like Spanberger and Madeline Dean found themselves in tight races?
Nevermind, the "Democrats" have a long history of being anti-progressive and no matter of polling data that some of the ideas floated by the "socialists" were popular will change that opinion of the right/centre wing. The left needs to move on since the "Democrats" talk "big tent", but the reality is that one needs to follow the party line. Whatever the fuck that happens to be.
AOC, Black Lives Matter, and the rest of the vindictive branch of the "Democratic" party need to be careful. They go against the people with the power and they find they are the ones to be purged.
If they don't realise that they should exit the party to one more favourable to their ideals.
As the "Democrats" fall apart over whether they should pay attention to the Progressive wing, I have to point out that one of the many reasons I voted Green:
It tells the duopoly that we aren't part of their party.
The "Democrats" are currently feuding over whether progressivism is where they should be heading. Not whether the "Orange Man Bad" strategy actually works. The "Democrats" holding their centrist/Republican Lite position was my big fear for this election. How they react to it remains to be seen.
But it seems that turning on the progressive wing is once again the strategy: even though that is not a wining strategy. Not to mention it meant fielding two of the weakest candidates ever. And they will continue doing that because they know that like progressives will come crawling back like whipped dogs.
Lesser evil voting still nets an evil.
Voting your beliefs doesn't.
The squad, and other deluded progressives, may wake up to reality, but I don't have too much hope. 2016 and 2020 were the two elections where lesser evil voting really had no place. There was a choice of Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber if one chose a duopoly candidate.
I'm not happy because either of them was elected president.
I have to question election results when they go against what I see in reality.
Pennsylvania is one, but Antrim County, MI also had me wondering. Andtrim County is about as red as a place can get. yet the election results were showing that it had gone for Joe Biden. That had me really wondering.
But what made this seem even stranger is that a little while later, the results from Antrim County went blank on the results map.
Definitely something strange:
Antrim County Clerk Sheryl Guy, a
Republican who ran unopposed and won a third four-year term Tuesday in
the strongly GOP county, said results on electronic tapes and a computer
card were accurate but it appeared that some of the results were
somehow scrambled after the cards were transported in sealed bags from
township precincts to county offices and downloaded onto a computer.
In
2016, Trump won Antrim County with about 62% of the vote, compared
with about 33% for Democrat Hillary Clinton. Trump beat Clinton by about
4,000 votes.
Wednesday morning, Antrim results
showed Democrat Joe Biden leading Trump by slightly more than 3,000
votes, with 98% of precincts reporting.
Officials
had not checked the results before posting them, but later asked: "How
could Democrats take over this county?" Guy said Wednesday.
Maybe figuaratively, if not literally. William Henry Harrison died after a month in office. Biden has many options for a short term, but the main one is that the honeymoon is over now that the election is.
For what it's worth, Alexandra Occasio-Cortez is flexing what little muscle she has in the party. She was super at first, but her importance waned quickly as is the fate of any real progressive. The "Democratic" Party has a long history of destroying true progressives. She can threaten that she will destroy the "Democratic" Party, but it will chew her up and spit her out putting her back as a waitress earning what paltry minimum wage exists.
Hey, AOC, Bernie couldn't do it. What the fuck makes you think you can do it? You should #Demexit as soon as possible and help the Greens grow. Because your home is not in the Democratic Party.
Next, the long held criticism of Biden will come out. The best of which is that the Impeachment may be redone. Except this time it will be about the REAL criminal in that farce: Joe Biden. The info on Hunter Biden has come out, which was something any REAL inquiry would have done.
And then there is Dementia Joe's health. Other than the obvious mental decline, it seems he's not a healthy man. I'm amazed all the excitement hasn't killed him off to begin with.
The "Democrats" playing on people's wishful thinking instead of offering real solutions will show that the "bad orange man" wasn't the source of recent problems. the "Democrats" 2016 strategy of having the Orange meanie be the straw man candidate to counter their failure to offer any real agenda was doomed from the start.
Alas, the squad helped push them along in a continued free fall.
Virtue signalling is the name of the game from the "Democratic" Party which has a long history of fucking over progressives and people. Bulworth is the state of the "Democratic" party.
Trump winning might have hit home the message the "Democratic" Party needs to learn, but now we have what 2016 would have been had the Electoral College not been in the way. Dementia Joe is going to have to deal with an opposition controlled legislature which is good and bad.
Bad in that nothing will get done that people were hoping to get from a "Democratic" president. But it's "good" for the "Democratic" party in that they can play how awful those republicans happen to be. Not that their candidates happened to get slaughtered and the expected "blue wave" didn't happen.
This neglects that nothing was really promised. And what WAS promised was pretty much nebulous. Let's toss in that neither Dementia Joe or Horrible Harris took any of the scrutiny that they should have.
It's truly amazing that a public official whose record of 45+ years wasn't really looked into. I mean people used to tell me that Bernie's vote for the PLCAA was a disqualifier.
Biden not only voted for FOPA: he fucking drafted the thing!
I know full well that Dementia Joe will talk about strict gun laws and an Australian Style gun buyback, but he's the last person on the planet who could pull it off! Especially if he doesn't have a cooperative legislature.
Which takes us to rejoining the Paris Accord on Climate Change. Sure, he could get the US back in, but the he U.S. also would need to submit a specific pledge to reduce emissions, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution. That's the fun bit: getting the US to change its lifestyle to cut down on Greenhouse Gas emmissions.
And Covid-19? The Dems really think that can fight it without some form of national healthcare, universal basic income, with a little bit of surveillance tossed in for contact checking?
The "Democratic" party thinks it can knock the "socialist" and "socialists" in their ranks, but what is it going to do to make sure it can actually make good on the nebulous promises it made?
They can't blame the Russians, or anybody else, for their mistakes now.
I seriously have a hard time accepting that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris could win an election, but it seems we live in an age of miracles.
Or is it because any criticism of Biden was not allowed. Glenn Greenwald quit the Intercept due to a blackout on the coverage of Hunter Biden's influence peddling. Likewise, Axios commented that "Joe Biden is the luckiest, least scrutinized frontrunner."
A deeply flawed candidate whose campaign was considered dead, until "Super Thursday" has suddenly become the likely president of the United States.
Even more amazing when you consider that the States that put him past 270 Electoral College votes were pretty much "pro-Second Amendment". Not to mention how Nevada was hit hard by the Covid-19 lockdowns.
Unless there is the hope that Second Amendment sanctuaries in MOFN will see a rise in population due to Biden's making "AR-14s" and similar weapons NFA items. Seriously, I have a problem accepting that anyone in their right mind in some of these places actually voted for Biden.
And while I believe that there should be an Australian style gun buyback coupled with strong gun laws: the likelihood of that happening anytime soon seems far more impossible than a 78 year old, senile, has been politician miraculously winning an election.
Even if he does it by the skin of his teeth.
I'm not sure if there was election fraud involved, or if enough people hated Donald Trump to vote for someone who is as bad as Trump, but "nicer". Unless you happen to be a UAW member who gets into an argument with Biden about gun control.
I mean, Biden is someone who actually tells you to vote for someone else!
I took that advice and voted Green Party.
I knew what I was getting into. But I think a lot of people had no fucking idea what they were doing.
There are five states which have to report final results as of now: AZ, GA, NC, NV, and PA. What stinks is that Arizona has been called with 88% of the votes counted. Likewise, Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman said that the Second (Allegheny) and Third (Montgomery) largest counties have come up with final results. Luzerne county is supposedly near in their final result. The red counties aren't giving final results yet.
The problem with Pennsylvania is that there are a lot of "Second Amendment" types. In fact, all of these states have a lot of "gun nuts". Why the fuck would those people vote for Biden who has made it clear that he would ban "AR-14s" with hi-cap magazines?
Nevada was supposed to have been announced at noon eastern time. Then it went to one. Yet Nevada supposedly has 24% of its votes yet to be counted.
These states are close in the possible outcomes. But something stinks.
There are only a few states which haven't been called yet and here is a diagram of the State, Votes Left to Count, Current Margin, and Current leader from the Guardian. At this point Trump is the leader in most of these states.
Which takes us to what the current state of the electoral votes would be with the race being 272 to 268 with Biden winning.
Of course,Trump could flip Nevada or Michigan. There are also a few more absentee ballots out there which could help Trump get a close repeat of 2016 by winning AZ, MI, NV, and WI. I think that would be a stretch, but Trump winning MI and NV is a definite possibility.
The Guardian has a mail in ballot tracker which is useful to see how many registered voters there are and how many of those ballots have come back. It's also interesting to see since some of these races may turn out differently from the way they are currently being characterised.
I'm already seeing different results between the BBC and the Guardian coverage as to the margins of victory.
But we know this is going to be a close and contested election.
Joe Biden said I shouldn’t vote for him if I wanted to ban fracking.
The problem with Joe is that he is WORSE than Hillary Clinton for switching positions. Climate Change, Fracking, and the "Green New Deal" are a case in point.
His position switching make him untrustworthy.
Let's add on top of that the allegations of accepting bribes from foreign countries, which he denies. Despite the "laptop from hell" confirming any suspicions about this matter.
Joe's record is out there and it's not good. He's not "progressive" by any standard unless you are Fox News. And the same goes for Harris. They were both candidates whose campaigns tanked.
As Steve Bannon pointed out, Bernie Sanders would have been the nominee if this primary process was on the up and up.
Don't blame the Russians when Biden loses, unless the Russians run the DNC.
Yes, I am still of the opinion that Trump will win again in 2020 and that any other outcome is wishful thinking.
Trump supporters are (1) still fairly solidly behind him, (2) not very vocal in their support, and (3) going to be more inclined toward him that a Biden-Harris ticket. Let's toss in that most voters have pretty much already decided who they will vote for and will not switch.
Biden supporters are the case in point. Trump derangement syndrome has literally set in. How to tell if you have it: would you be vaccinated if Donald Trump announced there was a vaccine for corona virus?
Remember that any approved vaccine would have to pass FDA regs.
Biden is unscrutinised and even when scrutinised things like #metoo and "Believe all women" goes down the shitcan when it's Tara Reade. And never mind all the videos out there. Same goes for the allegations of bribery from Ukraine and China.
"But Trump..."
On the other hand, can the allegations that Trump "mishandled" the pandemic lockdown play that well with voters who are having to actually deal with the lockdowns? I have the luxury of their being an inconvenience, but this is a hardship for a lot of people.
The proper course of action would indeed be things like medicare for all, universal basic income, job security, and other "socialist" programmes. Toss in contact tracing and a lot of other things which people in the US would balk at.
Despite what Fox and Sky News Australia say, Biden is in no way willing to do the necessary steps to truly handle Covid-19. I would also guess that Harris wouldn't either. It seems to be one of the qualfications for being a Democratic nominee that you have a public and private position. Biden has made it clear that nothing will change if he is elected, but there will be lots of committees and investigations.
I'm not sure how persuasive Biden and Harris are to the people who will really decide the election: the actual undecided voters. On the other hand, both Biden's and Harris's campaigns were considered dead until the "super Thursday" miracle. Then what was previously left for dead was declared the hope for the US.
The prognoses are still not good, but we can't criticise the chosen ones or we are somehow "helping Trump win".
Wouldn't running a couple of the shittiest candidates imaginable (even shittier than Hillary Clinton) count as "helping Trump win". "Trump bad" only works with the sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome and not uncommitted voters.
Or voters who want to hear real policies and agendas instead of what one would expect someone who has been in the US legislature to spew out.
Given the possible outcomes.
Trump wins and the Dems really sit back and do some serious self-examination. Although, deep in my heart I know the Dems will blame everyone and everything except for the fact they chose to run an unpopular candidate.
Biden wins and the self-satisfied "Democrats" feel vindicated in shoving shit candidates down the people's throats. The ultimate outcome is that something far worse than Trump becomes president.
Sorry, Rachel Maddow, but getting the Green Party off the ballot by the "Democratic" Party won't stop people from voting Green there. I wrote in Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker. My ballot has been received and will be counted in some way or another.
I am not as enthusiastic about the Green Party presidency as I was in 2016 when Jill Stein ran. My support has been behind Lisa Savage, who is running as an independent in Maine. My hope is that State's use of Ranked Choice Voting will result in a Green Party victory. I won't get into the mechanics of that system, but that is what a truly "Democratic" Party would have supported.
The past four years would have been better spent on looking at what went wrong in 2016 and fixing those problems instead of wasting time on imaginary Russian Interference and ignoring Ukrainian bribery of the Biden family. Election reform makes far more sense, but we can't make US politics unprofitable.
That's the only reason US elections drag on interminably: MONEY.
I don't have Trump derangement syndrome which makes it easy for me to see that Biden and Harris are just as bad, if not much worse, than Trump and Pence (unlike this person who is sadly stuck in the duopoly mindset). I want a party which comes offers what Bernie Sanders did and am under no illusion that Party is not the "Democratic" one.
It ain't called the "Green New Deal" for nothing and you won't get it from any other party than the Greens. Biden made it quite clear in the first debate that he will not cater to the left wing of the Party.
The problem is that Sanders WAS popular. That has been neglected in all the analyses of 2016 and his 2020 run.
Bottom line. There needs to be new players in the US political game. There also needs to be a serious reform of the electoral system: ranked choice voting, get rid of the big money/cut the cost of campaigning, putting the debates back in the hands of the League of Women Voters, etc.
And if they give you ruled paper, write between the line.
I am not swayed by polls and am still firm in the belief I stated back in June that Trump will get another four years. Time has added new reasons to the ones I mentioned in that post. The Democrats should have trashed any hope on Biden after the failed attempt to impeach Trump.
I am very familiar with Ukraine and the criminals in that case were the Bidens who saw the cess pit of corruption that is Ukraine as their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But Biden and the Democrats have put their hopes in the fact that Trump derangement syndrome will blind people to how
Biden must be grateful to Covid-19 for allowing him to hide from the press so that he doesn't have to walk down the street roped off from the crowd the way Hillary Clinton was. The media's obsession with Trump coupled with his ability to dominate
the news has allowed Biden to purposely and persistently minimize public
appearances and tough questions.Biden has yet to be pinned down on a variety of important issues, which is a good thing since he switches positions on issues even more than Hillary did.
Biden changes his stripes more than a chameleon in a Skittles factory.
And he’s doing it again by claiming the mantle of unity in this
election. Today’s Biden is a made-for-media candidacy untested by
interactions with his base.
Fox News is wrong. Biden and Harris are not socialists and do not appeal to the left/progressive wing, unless it's the meaningless virtue signalling version. I'm not sure if Biden appeals to the Republicans who don't like Trump either since Biden presents a nebulous position on pretty much every topic.
Another thing which will effect this election are the silent Trump supporters. I'm not sure if the silence is due to fear, or a lack of media attention to anyone who supports Trump.
Anyway, I already voted and it wasn't for either Trump or Biden. I doubt that Rachel Maddow will bother with trying to get a third party voter on her show, but I gave up on her once she began to push Hillary Clinton and then went on to push that Russia was responsible for Trump's win.
The DNC needs to have a purge if the Russians were responsible for their failures in 2016 and 2020.
Maybe the Dumbocrats will take a serious analysis of what went wrong if I am correct, but I am not hopeful. I know they will continue to blame everyone and everything except themselves.
