18
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2024 03:22 pm
@blatham,
You're welcome. He's a very interesting writer – and I like nearly all his stuff. But while I thought his comments were largely on the money, I did have a bit of a problem with this:

Umair Haque wrote:
(...) Because the job of a media is above all to present us with the truth.

But America’s media…it’s not doing that at the moment. When it character assassinated Biden, relentlessly, it didn’t. (...)


I don't think Biden was a victim of "character assassination". And if the media hadn't made an issue of his frailty he might still be the Democratic candidate because, until the debate, the people around Biden – his staff, senior Democratic congressional leaders, and party elders like Obama and Clinton – weren't going to do a thing about it. Sanders and AOC gave him full support. But his physical decline didn't happen overnight. It was painful to watch him tottering around – and I'm not referring to the edited clips used by the propagandists on the right. Yet it took a disastrous debate to stir anyone into action. I don't blame the press for covering the issue, and in the face of inaction by the party, giving it prominence. And while I'm no fan of polling (a favorite whipping boy of political junkies) I think those numbers were what finally pushed Schumer and Pelosi to confront Biden. And those numbers were influenced by media accounts by pundits and reporters alike.

Some would counter that, "Trump is obviously deranged and how come they don't talk about that?" – but they have. The difference is that his followers, and what's left of the GOP party apparatus, simply don't care. That's what it means to be shameless. The hand-wringing of Democrats draws an interesting distinction between the two parties. The GOP used to parade itself as the moral majority, but time and time again they've shown that they're only out to win elections and preserve (minority) power.

blatham
 
  4  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2024 08:28 pm
@hightor,
That's fair. And actually, you were an early voice in speaking of the dangers with a continuing Biden campaign because of his age and apparent decline in health.
Quote:
..until the debate, the people around Biden – his staff, senior Democratic congressional leaders, and party elders like Obama and Clinton – weren't going to do a thing about it. Sanders and AOC gave him full support.

That is so. And includes others like Al Franken. My tendency was to trust those people's judgement and to set aside my anxieties in great part because I know how the right will predictably slander Dem candidates and because I knew the media's appetite for a dramatic horserace and for clicks But in this case, you had it right and I was slow in getting there. I was just reluctant to add any weight to the right's attempts to denigrate Biden.
Quote:
Some would counter that, "Trump is obviously deranged and how come they don't talk about that?" – but they have. The difference is that his followers, and what's left of the GOP party apparatus, simply don't care.

Your description of the modern GOP and its base is clearly correct. But I'd argue that most major media entities are still so invested in (or habituated to) a style of "both sides" reporting which is nearly blind to how dangerous that style is where one side operates with no integrity and is marked by constant bad faith statements and behavior in their quest for domination of the nation and culture. As Jay Rosen has it, the signal failure of the media has been their focus on the contest rather than on the stakes.

hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2024 03:23 am
@blatham,
Quote:
As Jay Rosen has it, the signal failure of the media has been their focus on the contest rather than on the stakes.

They (generalizing here) are under the impression that the public wants a horse race; what the public buys, the media will sell. I'm not giving them a free pass – but when has the press behaved differently? Newspapers in the colonial era were full of politically charged lies and exaggerations. And the Hearst era has never really ended. "Journalism" has existed for just as long and may have always been relegated to the sidelines of the mass media but has always found fuller expression in periodicals and newsletters.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2024 06:33 am
Quote:
On August 18, 1920, the Tennessee legislature ratified the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by a vote of 50 to 49. The deciding vote came from Harry T. Burn, who supported suffrage but was under pressure to vote no. His mother had urged him to vote yes despite the pressure. “I believe in full suffrage as a right,” he said. “I believe we had a moral and legal right to ratify. I know that a mother’s advice is always safest for her boy to follow, and my mother wanted me to vote for ratification.”

Tennessee was the 36th state to ratify the amendment, and the last one necessary to make the amendment the law of the land once the secretary of state certified it.

The new amendment was patterned on the Fifteenth Amendment, which protected the right of Black men to vote, and it read:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Like the momentum for the Fifteenth Amendment, the push for rights for women had taken root during the Civil War as women backed the United States armies with their money, buying bonds and paying taxes; with their loved ones, sending sons and husbands and fathers to the war front; with their labor, working in factories and fields and taking over from men in the nursing and teaching professions; and even with their lives, spying and fighting for the Union. In the aftermath of the war, as the divided nation was rebuilt, many of them expected they would have a say in how it was reconstructed.

But to their dismay, the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly tied the right to vote to “male” citizens, inserting the word “male” into the Constitution for the first time.

Boston abolitionist Julia Ward Howe, the author of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” was outraged. The laws of the era gave control of her property and her children to her abusive husband, and while far from a rabble-rouser, she wanted the right to adjust those laws so they were fair. In this moment, it seemed the right the Founders had articulated in the Declaration of Independence—the right to consent to the government under which one lived—was to be denied to the very women who had helped preserve the country, while white male Confederates and now Black men both enjoyed that right.

“The Civil War came to an end, leaving the slave not only emancipated, but endowed with the full dignity of citizenship. The women of the North had greatly helped to open the door which admitted him to freedom and its safeguard, the ballot. Was this door to be shut in their face?” Howe wondered.

The next year, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony formed the National Woman Suffrage Association, and six months later, Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe founded the American Woman Suffrage Association.

The National Woman Suffrage Association wanted a general reworking of gender roles in American society, drawing from the Seneca Falls Convention that Stanton had organized in 1848.

That convention’s Declaration of Sentiments, patterned explicitly on the Declaration of Independence, asserted that “all men and women are created equal” and that “the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.” It listed the many ways in which men had “fraudulently deprived [women] of their most sacred rights” and insisted that women receive “immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.”

While the National Woman Suffrage Association excluded men from its membership, the American Woman Suffrage Association made a point of including men equally, as well as Black woman suffragists, to indicate that they were interested in the universal right to vote and only in that right, believing the rest of the rights their rivals demanded would come through voting.

The women’s suffrage movement had initial success in the western territories, both because lawmakers there were hoping to attract women for their male-heavy communities and because the same lawmakers were furious at the growing noise about Black voting. Wyoming Territory granted women the vote in 1869, and lawmakers in Utah Territory followed suit in 1870, expecting that women would vote against polygamy there. When women in fact supported polygamy, Utah lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to take their vote away, and the movement for women’s suffrage in the West slowed dramatically.

Suffragists had hoped that women would be included in the Fifteenth Amendment and, when they were not, decided to test their right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment in the 1872 election. According to its statement that anyone born in the U.S. was a citizen, they were certainly citizens and thus should be able to vote. In New York state, Susan B. Anthony voted successfully but was later tried and convicted—in an all-male courtroom in which she did not have the right to testify—for the crime of voting.

In Missouri a voting registrar named Reese Happersett refused to permit suffragist Virginia Minor to register. Minor sued Happersett, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision in 1875, the justices decided that women were indeed citizens but that citizenship did not necessarily convey the right to vote.

This decision meant the fat was in the fire for Black Americans in the South, as it paved the way for white supremacists to keep them from the polls in 1876. But it was also a blow to suffragists, who recast their claims to voting by moving away from the idea that they had a human right to consent to their government, and toward the idea that they would be better and more principled voters than the Black men and immigrants who, under the law anyway, had the right to vote.

For the next two decades, the women’s suffrage movement drew its power from the many women’s organizations put together across the country by women of all races and backgrounds who came together to stop excessive drinking, clean up the sewage in city streets, protect children, stop lynching, and promote civil rights.

Black women like educator Mary Church Terrell and journalist Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin, publisher of the Woman’s Era, brought a broad lens to the movement from their work for civil rights, but they could not miss that Black women stood in between the movements for Black rights and women’s rights, a position scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw would identify In the twentieth century as “intersectionality.”

In 1890 the two major suffrage associations merged into the National American Woman Suffrage Association and worked to change voting laws at the state level. Gradually, western states and territories permitted women to vote in certain elections until by 1920, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, California, Oregon, Arizona, Kansas, Alaska Territory, Montana, and Nevada recognized women’s right to vote in at least some elections.

Suffragists recognized that action at the federal level would be more effective than a state-by-state strategy. The day before Democratic president Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated in 1913, they organized a suffrage parade in Washington, D.C., that grabbed media attention. They continued civil disobedience to pressure Wilson into supporting their movement.

Still, it took another war effort, that of World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, to light a fire under the lawmakers whose votes would be necessary to get a suffrage amendment through Congress and send it off to the states for ratification. Wilson, finally on board as he faced a difficult midterm election in 1918, backed a constitutional amendment, asking congressmen: “Shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and not to a partnership of privilege and right?”

Congress passed the measure in a special session on June 4, 1919, and Tennessee’s ratification on August 18, 1920, made it the law of the land as soon as the official notice was in the hands of the secretary of state. Twenty-six million American women had the right to vote in the 1920 presidential election.

Crucially, as the Black suffragists had known all too well when they found themselves caught between the drives for Black male voting and women’s suffrage, Jim Crow and Juan Crow laws meant that most Black women and women of color would remain unable to vote for another 45 years. And yet they never stopped fighting for that right. Women like Fannie Lou Hamer, Amelia Boynton, Rosa Parks, Viola Liuzzo, and Constance Baker Motley were key organizers of voting rights initiatives, spreading information, arranging marches, sparking key protests, and preparing legal cases.

In 1980, women began to shift their votes to the Democrats, and in 1984 the Democrats nominated Representative Geraldine Ferraro of New York to run for vice president alongside presidential candidate Walter Mondale. Republicans followed suit in 2008 when they nominated Alaska governor Sarah Palin to run with Arizona senator John McCain. Still, it was not until 2016 that a major political party nominated a woman, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, for president. In 2020 the Democrats nominated California senator Kamala Harris for vice president, and when voters elected her and President Joe Biden, they made her the first female vice president of the United States.

Tonight, on the 104th anniversary of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, delegates are gathered in Chicago, Illinois, for the Democratic National Convention, where they will celebrate Harris’s nomination for the presidency.

It’s been a long time coming.

hcr
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2024 12:46 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
but when has the press behaved differently?

But that's really the central point here. The present circumstances - a figure like Trump who lies constantly, who is clearly amenable to corruption in all he does, who aligns himself with the most authoritarian leaders in the world, whose rhetoric and intentions are designed to foster chaos and hatreds, and who clearly is a sociopath along with a political party which is now pushing the most authoritarian political plans and policies I think American has ever seen previously, if the nation is to survive as anything like a democracy, then this situation absolutely demands that news media does behave differently.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2024 02:28 pm
@blatham,
Pretty stark.

It's almost like the media giants don't think any of the consequences of a second Trump administration will affect them – just the little people. Same with the MAGA crowd. The guy never did anything for them except convince them that he hated their "enemies". Yet somehow they think they can re-elect him, cheering him on as they let him destroy the federal government and remain untouched by the chaos.

I need a drink.

Here, Haque will cheer you up:

(Why) Kamala’s Economic Proposals Are Brilliant

blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2024 06:32 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
It's almost like the media giants don't think any of the consequences of a second Trump administration will affect them – just the little people.

I confess I am truly puzzled by this. My working assumption is that it's all about money, that the corporate boards at the Post and the Times etc do feel insulated by their personal wealth and high level social connections. Shrug.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2024 06:34 pm
Quote:
The personal story George Santos told en route to winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives was filled with incredible — and incredibly false — chapters. In Santos’ telling, he was a multimillionaire, a veteran of some of Wall Street’s most elite firms, and a college volleyball star whose family survived the Holocaust. None of that was true, but after Santos accepted a plea deal from federal prosecutors on Monday, he is on track to add a confirmed title to his resume: prison inmate.

During a court appearance, Santos pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The charges come with a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison. Santos will be sentenced next year, according to multiple reports from the courthouse, and will also have to pay nearly $400,000 in restitution...
more at TPM
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2024 06:54 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
Here, Haque will cheer you up:

That cheered me up like really low quality weed. Good news if Harris wins (and far better if they win the Senate and House) but I think we can predict that even if such a victory comes to pass, the media Haque is referring to will likely continue to fail in the same manner - in this case, a lot of lazy and uneducated reporting which eschews economic expertise and which relies instead on cliches and opinion fed to them by bad actors.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2024 11:34 pm
It looks like Putin needs some new soldiers. Alex Jones, sadly, is busy.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GVXW3ofWwAAwH4a?format=jpg&name=small
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2024 04:05 am
Here's a conspiracy for you.

In the early hours of Monday moring a luxury yacht was sunk by a waterspout off the coast of Sicily.

One of the missing is British tech entrepreneur Mike Lynch who has only recently won a US courtcase brought by Hewlett Packard.

On Saturday, his co defendent Stephen Chamberlain was killed in a hit and run accident.

It could be just a coincidence.

I don't know.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2024 04:56 pm
I just watched an interview with Nicole Shanahan, Robert Kennedy's campaign manager, where she said the following:
Quote:
“There’s two options that we're looking at and one is staying in, forming that new party, but we run the risk of a Kamala Harris and Walz presidency because we draw more votes from Trump.

Or we walk away right now and join forces with Donald Trump and explain to our base why we're making this decision.”

She prefaced this with comments about the desire to create a third party. But why on earth would anyone imagine that a victorious Trump and GOP would be more welcoming to a viable third party than Dems? So that preface makes no sense at all as justification for backing Trump.

But of course it does make sense if one sees the Kennedy campaign as a dirty tricks attempt to damage the Dems.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2024 03:13 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:


I just watched an interview with Nicole Shanahan, Robert Kennedy's campaign manager, where she said the following:
Quote:
“There’s two options that we're looking at and one is staying in, forming that new party, but we run the risk of a Kamala Harris and Walz presidency because we draw more votes from Trump.

Or we walk away right now and join forces with Donald Trump and explain to our base why we're making this decision.”

She prefaced this with comments about the desire to create a third party. But why on earth would anyone imagine that a victorious Trump and GOP would be more welcoming to a viable third party than Dems? So that preface makes no sense at all as justification for backing Trump.

But of course it does make sense if one sees the Kennedy campaign as a dirty tricks attempt to damage the Dems.


I think Nichole Shanahan is Kennedy's vice presidential partner.

Frankly, their candidacy makes no sense no matter who it helps or damages. It is a campaign initiated to further an out-of-control ego. RFK, Jr. is as mentally damaged as is Trump.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2024 03:30 am
Quote:
At Chicago’s United Center today, the delegates at the Democratic National Convention reaffirmed last week’s online nomination of Kamala Harris for president. The ceremonial roll-call vote featured all the usual good natured boasting from the delegates about their own state’s virtues, a process that reinforces the incredible diversity and history of both this land and its people. The managers reserved the final slots for Minnesota and California—the home states of Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz and presidential candidate Kamala Harris, respectively—to put the ticket over the top.

When the votes had been counted, Harris joined the crowd virtually from a rally she and Walz were holding at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Last month the Republicans held their own national convention in that venue, and for Harris to accept her nomination in the same place was an acknowledgement of how important Wisconsin will be in this election. But it also meant that Trump, who is obsessed with crowd sizes, would have to see not one but two packed sports arenas of supporters cheer wildly for her nomination.

He also had to contend with former loyalists and supporters joining the Democratic convention. His former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, told the Democratic convention tonight that when the cameras are off, “Trump mocks his supporters. He calls them basement dwellers.” Grisham endorsed Harris, saying: “I love my country more than my party. Kamala Harris tells the truth. She respects the American people and she has my vote.”

Trump spoke glumly to a small crowd today at the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office in Howell, Michigan.

It was almost exactly twenty years ago, on July 27, 2004, that 43-year-old Illinois state senator Barack Obama, who was, at the time, running for a seat in the U.S. Senate, gave the keynote address to that year’s Democratic National Convention. It was the speech that began his rise to the presidency.

Like the Democrats who spoke last night, Obama talked in 2004 of his childhood and recalled how his parents had “faith in the possibilities of this nation.” And like Biden last night, Obama said that “in no other country on earth, is my story even possible.” The nation’s promise, he said, came from the human equality promised in the Declaration of Independence.

“That is the true genius of America,” Obama said, “a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles.” He called for an America “where hard work is rewarded.” “It's not enough for just some of us to prosper,” he said, “[f]or alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.”

He described that ingredient as “[a]belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief—I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper—that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. ‘E pluribus unum.’ Out of many, one.”

Obama emphasized Americans’ shared values and pushed back against “those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.” He reached back into history to prove that “the bedrock of this nation” is “the belief that there are better days ahead.” He called that belief “[t]he audacity of hope.”

Almost exactly twenty years after his 2004 speech, the same man, now a former president who served for eight years, spoke at tonight’s Democratic National Convention. But the past two decades have challenged his vision.

When voters put Obama into the White House in 2008, Republicans set out to make sure they couldn’t govern. Mitch McConnell (R–KY) became Senate minority leader in 2007 and, using the filibuster, stopped most Democratic measures by requiring 60 votes to move anything to a vote.

In 2010 the Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, declaring that corporations and other outside groups could spend as much money as they wanted on elections. Citizens United increased Republican seats in legislative bodies, and in the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans packed state legislatures with their own candidates in time to be in charge of redistricting their states after the 2010 census. Republicans controlled the key states of Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, and Michigan, as well as other, smaller states, and after the election, they used precise computer models to win previously Democratic House seats.

In the 2012 election, Democrats won the White House decisively, the Senate easily, and

a majority of 1.4 million votes for House candidates. Yet Republicans came away with a thirty-three-seat majority in the House of Representatives. And then, with the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, making it harder to protect Democratic voters.

As the Republicans skewed the mechanics of government to favor themselves, their candidates no longer had to worry they would lose general elections but did have to worry about losing primaries to more extreme challengers. So they swung farther and farther to the right, demonizing the Democrats until finally those who remain Republicans have given up on democracy altogether.

Tonight’s speech echoed that of 2004 by saying that America’s “central story” is that “we are all created equal,” and describing Harris and Walz as hardworking people who would use the government to create a fair system. He sounded more concerned today than in 2004 about political divisions, and reminded the crowd: “The vast majority of us do not want to live in a country that’s bitter and divided,” he said. “We want something better. We want to be better. And the joy and the excitement that we’re seeing around this campaign tells us we’re not alone,” he said.

And then, in his praise for his grandmother, “a little old white lady born in a tiny town called Peru, Kansas,” and his mother-in-law, Marion Robinson, a Black woman from the South Side of Chicago, he brought a new emphasis on ordinary Americans, especially women, who work hard, sacrifice for their children, and value honesty, integrity, kindness, helping others, and hard work.

They wanted their children to “do things and go places that they would’ve never imagined for themselves.” “Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or somewhere in between,” he said, “we have all had people like that in our lives:... good hardworking people who weren’t famous or powerful but who managed in countless ways to leave this country just a little bit better than they found it.”

If President Obama emphasized tonight that the nation depends on the good will of ordinary people, it was his wife, former first lady Michelle Obama, who spoke with the voice of those people and made it clear that only the American people can preserve democracy.

In a truly extraordinary speech, perfectly delivered, Mrs. Obama described her mother as someone who lived out the idea of hope for a better future, working for children and the community. “She was glad to do the thankless, unglamorous work that for generations has strengthened the fabric of this nation,” Mrs. Obama said, “the belief that if you do unto others, if you love thy neighbor, if you work and scrape and sacrifice, it will pay off. If not for you, then maybe for your children or your grandchildren.”

Unlike her husband, though, Mrs. Obama called out Trump and his allies, who are trying to destroy that worldview. “No one has a monopoly on what it means to be an American,” she said. “No one.” “[M]ost of us will never be afforded the grace of failing forward,” she said. “We will never benefit from the affirmative action of generational wealth. If we bankrupt a business…or choke in a crisis, we don't get a second, third, or fourth chance. If things don't go our way, we don't have the luxury of whining or cheating others to get further ahead…we don't get to change the rules so we always win. If we see a mountain in front of us, we don’t expect there to be an escalator waiting to take us to the top. No, we put our heads down. We get to work. In America, we do something."

And then Mrs. Obama took up the mantle of her mother, warning that demonizing others and taking away their rights, “only makes us small.” It “demeans and cheapens our politics. It only serves to further discourage good, big-hearted people from wanting to get involved at all. America, our parents taught us better than that.”

It is “up to us to be the solution that we seek.” she said. She urged people to “be the antidote to the darkness and division.” “[W]hether you’re Democrat, Republican, Independent, or none of the above,” she said, “this is our time to stand up for what we know. In our hearts is right. Not just for our basic freedoms, but for decency and humanity, for basic respect. Dignity and empathy. For the values at the very foundation of this democracy.”

“Don’t just sit around and complain. Do something.”

hcr
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2024 03:54 am
@blatham,
I can already see the campaign slogan, " A worm ate half my brain and no I'm voting for Trump."

It's going to be hard to beat a message like that.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2024 06:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Frankly, their candidacy makes no sense no matter who it helps or damages. It is a campaign initiated to further an out-of-control ego. RFK, Jr. is as mentally damaged as is Trump.

He is a crackpot, certainly, and never had any chance of mounting a significant challenge. But I think in this period where elections tend to be very close, a spoiler campaign can make a difference (Ralph Nader being the classic example).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2024 07:19 am
@hightor,
I haven't heard the Obamas' speeches yet but I gather they were both quite exceptional.
Quote:
Trump spoke glumly to a small crowd today at the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office in Howell, Michigan.

Lately, Trump's truth social posts have been increasingly vile, hate-filled and incoherent and come across like yelling or screeching. But his personal presentation in interviews and in front of crowds is, as HCR says, glum. He now apparently can't even fake bravado.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2024 07:22 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I can already see the campaign slogan, " A worm ate half my brain and no I'm voting for Trump."

It's going to be hard to beat a message like that.

Succinct enough to fit on a bumper sticker too. Definitely a winner.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2024 07:34 am
@blatham,
It's a typo, I left the w off now.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2024 08:03 am
@izzythepush,
I got that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 06:44:21