This is Biden's America

Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2022 06:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
What's your golf average like?

Are you pretty good, or hilariously bad like me and my dad?

I think I'm even kinda average at mini-golf.
Frank Apisa
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2022 10:02 am
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

What's your golf average like?

I was a 13 handicap during my best days. Now I am way above that. My score during the last month averaged out between 93 - 94.

Are you pretty good, or hilariously bad like me and my dad?

I do not know anyone who hits the ball with more accuracy than I do. But after age 75 I started losing distance...LOTS OF DISTANCE. I used to use my 7 iron from 150. Now I need a 3 wood from that distance. My drives were 200 - 210 back in the day...today I had three that went 160. The rest were less than that. But all were right in the middle of the fairway.

I think I'm even kinda average at mini-golf.

Stick with it, Bulma. It is a great game.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2022 03:53 pm
R Kelly got 10 more years than Ghislaine Maxwell
0 Replies
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2022 06:26 pm
Shouting to the void

Nina Turner
"Biden and officials are concerned that more radical moves would be politically polarizing ahead of November's midterm elections,” per the White House.

I have no words.

The radical move is to do nothing after a 50 year precedent was overturned.
Show this thread
Nina Turner
I had a boss that said “if your hair is on fire, ACT like your hair is on fire.”

Democrats need to act like this country’s collective hair is on fire—because it is.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2022 08:22 pm
Here are 8 leaders that I know would have the courage, vision, and energy to do a MUCH better job than Joe Biden in 2024.⁣

I have a list of 50 or so candidates. But we need to vet them and be sure they will actually do the concrete things that need to be done.⁣

1. AOC. Yes she will be old enough. Has the biggest social media footprint of any candidate. Is made for the moment. Won’t fold. Is a gifted politician. ⁣

2. California Governor Gavin Newsom. A super gifted leader who just crushed a Republican recall. ⁣

3. Bernie. You already know he’s my dude. Yes, he’s old, but is super sharp and energetic. Has a national network already. ⁣

4. Mayor of Charlotte, Vi Lyles. Tons of experience. In a battleground state. Been a leader her whole life.⁣

5. Julian Castro - ran in 2020 and was one of the few leaders that took the heat straight to Biden. He was clearly right about Biden then. ⁣

6. Colorado Governor Jared Polis - gets stuff done. Has signed some very meaningful bills. Important state as well. ⁣

7. Bryan Stevenson - lifelong civil rights and death penalty lawyer. Impeccable integrity. Author of Just Mercy.⁣

8. 😂😂😂 Even he’d be better than Biden 😂⁣
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2022 08:51 pm
Mike Siegel
The AG can indict Trump.
The Health Secretary can provide abortions.
The Fed can create jobs.
The DOJ can release marijuana prisoners.
The President can cancel student debt.

The Executive Branch is POWERFUL, y'all. They just aren't using it.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 01:07 am
AOC is a socialist who actually believes the rhetoric. Most of them are just in it to dupe a few people (you see, socialism is a Ponzi scheme where everyone but those at the top get the shaft). She is dumb enough to think it actually works.
Newsom led California into the gutter all through COVID. So much so that California lost a good chunk of its population. A population btw that has been "blue" despite a fairly red Hispanic presence. California should have been red years ago, but for crooked as **** elections. You are literally bragging about how a leader stopped investigation of precisely that. This is nothing to brag about.
Bernie is about as crazy as AOC or Biden right now. The problem is, Biden was able to hide it. Bernie's ideas are out in the open.
Remind me not to vote for the mayor of Charlotte.
Is Julian Castro related to Fidel? Just asking. Cause I know of literally NOBODY else but that family seems to have that name. And his philosophy is basically identical, so yea.
And **** all the rest of these turkeys.

0 Replies
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 07:40 am
Biden is Nominating an Anti-Abortion Lawyer to Become a Federal Judge — Because Of Course He Is https://yahoo.com/entertainment/biden-nominating-anti-abortion-lawyer-053552040.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr via
0 Replies
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 08:02 am
Elie Mystal
Oh look, Biden said he wasn't open to changing the filibuster to pass a federal abortion law, people loudly complained, and now he's changed his mind.

FUNNY HOW THAT WORKS! It's almost like telling elected officials what we want them to DO makes them more likely to DO IT.
Quote Tweet
The Wall Street Journal
· 23m
Breaking: President Biden said he supports suspending t
0 Replies
Frank Apisa
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 08:27 am
I see that Edgar is still doing everything he can to get a Republican elected in 2024.

Luckily, Edgar does not do the things he does very well.
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 08:37 am
@Frank Apisa,
It could be argued that you're doing the same.

Edgar is saying that Biden's poor ratings are the result of him not following through on election promises, that peoplevoted hoping for a change and that hasn't happened, and the disillusioned voters are turning away.

He has identified the problem and given a solution.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 09:54 am
Trump the single-handed wrecking ball they would have us believe.
Biden with the same power however is the proverbial one legged man in an ass kicking contest they would have us further believe.
So why does one wield this enormous power while the other can't tie his own shoes in the face of overwhelming opposition? If you examine him closely you will notice he has tied his own hands.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 05:55 pm

Roberts Started A Revolution, Dems Enabled It

As the director of the horror show that was the Supreme Court’s 2022 term, Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday opted to script his movie with the same plot twist as Don’t Look Up. In an environmental ruling literally issued on Asteroid Day, Roberts channeled President Jeannie Orlean and aborted the government’s nascent effort to halt the climate crisis imperiling the planet — a decision making it more likely that the human story will mimic the film’s ending.

Amid desperate screams from scientists about the impending climate catastrophe, Roberts limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate carbon emissions. He declared that “capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’ but it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme” to halt the disaster.

As The Lever’s reporting has shown, today’s cataclysmic ruling (though slightly narrower than it could have been) is part of a larger judicial coup fueled by dark money that has bought both sides of the justice system — the petitioners and the arbiters.

This coup — which has received far less attention than the January 6 plot — features a cadre of unelected judges appointed by popular vote losers now commandeering control of the government. It has resulted in the evisceration of protections for voters, women, workers, consumers, retirees, and now every living thing on the entire planet.

All of that was engineered by the coup's puppetmaster Roberts, a former U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawyer and Bush 2000 election thief who enjoys incessant corporate media billing as a thoughtful moderate — even as his rulings legalizing corruption made this rampage possible, and even as he now threatens to considerably expand the carnage.

And yet, Roberts, Leonard Leo, and the other real-life House of Cards operatives of the American right are not the only reason this happened.

They were enabled by a Democratic Party and its own cast of West Wing characters, who in the name of bipartisanship, comity, and manners started surrendering right when the putsch began. At precisely the moment Roberts began his crusade, these Democrats constructed an entire religion of normalism — the worship of norms, institutions, and etiquette above every other principle or inalienable right.

There is little chance this nightmare will end unless we first understand how this religion took hold.

“Within The Mainstream”
Some could argue that Democrats’ normalism began in 1991, when Joe Biden failed to block Clarence Thomas’s court nomination and the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed him to replace civil rights hero Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court.

But that moment was the prelude. Democrats’ church of normalism really rose in the mid-2000s, when during the culmination of Aaron Sorkin’s television homage to bipartisanship, fully half of the Senate Democratic caucus voted with Republicans to install Roberts as chief justice.

Having finished up a string of disillusioning jobs in Washington, I was quoted back then in The New York Times for being particularly demoralized by Democrats’ refusal to seriously challenge the nomination of Roberts, the Rasputin with the sunny smile who was cheerily billed as “the go-to lawyer for the business community.”

But my anger was anomalous among Democratic Capitol Hill staff, liberal think tanks, advocacy groups, and political committees. Instead, the prevailing sentiment was that of a young senator named Barack Obama, who — in a preview of his White House — lashed out at those begging Democrats to do whatever they could to stop Roberts.

In a much-touted blog post that now reads both like a Jed Bartlet monologue and a terrible omen of what was to come, Obama first scoffed at the idea of Democrats wielding power in an aggressive way:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists — a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog — we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda.

In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, break no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people.

He then went on to apply the argument to Court nomination fights, telling progressives to shut up and accept capitulation:

A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee)...

Short of mounting an all-out filibuster — a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations — blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

Obama did cast a ceremonial vote against Roberts when the confirmation was already a foregone conclusion. However, he not only helped shift the Overton Window to the hard right by casting Roberts as “mainstream,” he also had made a much bigger statement about his objectives and that of his party. He was the high priest of normalism.

Appeasement, compromise, preservation of norms, and surrender to the right in the name of being “realistic” was the new priority — leading to a president who campaigned on hope and change but then reneged on his promise to codify Roe v. Wade, said he “regrets” trying to block Justice Sam Alito’s Supreme Court nomination, praised the billionaire Koch Brothers pushing our politics far right, tried to help Republicans cut Social Security, and demanded credit for boosting the fossil fuel industry.

It also led to an administration that bailed out health insurers and banks while millions were immiserated, and a White House that berated the left as “******* retarded” — so demoralizing Democratic voters that a reality TV star demagogue soon took over and gave Roberts the three other right-wing zealots he’s now using to repeal the 20th century.

“A Man Of Honor”
After four years of Donald Trump’s tenure that culminated with the installation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, you might have expected Democrats to discard the appeasement strategy, especially because party leaders have been so eager to get on cable television to cite the January 6 riot as proof that the end of democracy is nigh.

Instead, though, the opposite has happened. With swamp things like Rahm Emanuel and Politico hilariously promising the rise of “Biden Republicans,” Biden has spent the first two years of his presidency trying to appease the GOP and delivering on the only promise he seems intent on keeping even: that “nothing would fundamentally change.”

Biden has not only abandoned his promised legislative agenda and declined to implement promised executive actions, he has continued to tout his “friend” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as a “man of honor” — while McConnell returns the favor by bragging about blocking Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, who might have helped prevent Roberts’ judicial coup laying waste to America.

Worse, Biden and his White House are signaling they are unwilling to wield real power to counter the Supreme Court’s radical conservative supermajority in any significant way. Up until Thursday, they had steadfastly defended the filibuster. They have also rejected court expansion proposals. In the days following the overturning of Roe, the administration even brushed off demands that it consider using its authority to offer reproductive health services on federal lands.

“The White House is unlikely to take up the bold steps to protect women's right to have an abortion that Democratic lawmakers have called for in recent days,” reported Reuters after the news service interviewed top administration officials. “Biden and officials are concerned that more radical moves would be politically polarizing ahead of November's midterm elections, undermine public trust in institutions like the Supreme Court.”

Of course, that public trust is already gone. Gallup’s most recent poll shows the public’s confidence in the Supreme Court has hit an all-time low. Apparently, though, Biden and his staffers are so out of touch with reality and so devoted to normalism they don’t even know that — and in exuding such a let-them-eat-cake attitude, they may have catalyzed a rage we haven’t seen in generations.

The Church Of Normalism Must Fall
This gets to the silver lining in all the darkness — because things have gotten so bad and Biden is so much less charismatic than Obama, maybe more people can see through the bullshit and stop allowing themselves to be politically anesthetized, lobotomized, and euthanized by MSNBC and every other Acela corridor elite media outlet whose mission is to ether progressives and scoff at the working class.

Maybe there is finally a critical mass that has reached that horrible, gut-wrenching disillusioning inflection point I found myself at back in the mid-2000s — that turning point in my life when House Democrats tried to get me fired for daring to criticize Biden’s bankruptcy bill and then I naively wondered why almost nobody seemed bothered by Roberts’ installation.

Maybe Democrats’ cartoonish Neville Chamberlain act in the face of the Roberts Revolution is going to mainstream righteous anger in ways we have not seen since that kind of rage forced the party kicking and screaming to actually do the great things of history.

If that somehow happens, then there’s plenty that can be done — not after the next election, not next month, not tomorrow. Right now.

For example: Democratic activists and elected officials at every level of government can demand that their leaders in Washington take a page out of the playbook of their party’s most popular president in history and seriously press to expand the court. The Congressional Progressive Caucus could right now reintroduce Franklin Roosevelt’s own legislation and begin the reclamation of a court that is obviously out of control.

Even if it fails like FDR’s bill did, it would send a message to the court that the Roberts Revolution will no longer go unchallenged - and that was a message that successfully countered the court in Roosevelt’s day.

Those same Democratic voices can demand Biden start signing the pile of executive orders gathering dust in the White House – orders that could limit the court’s EPA ruling today.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress could also rip a page out of recent history and simply start legislatively overriding the court’s most extreme rulings. As The American Prospect has noted, a Yale study shows that such overrides “blossomed” between 1967 and 1990, and that in 1991 alone, a civil rights bill overrode “as many as twelve Supreme Court decisions that had significantly cut back on workplace antidiscrimination protections.”

A separate study found that “the 1990s was actually the golden age of overrides” — but that after 1998, “Overrides declined as dramatically as they had ascended.”

Such overrides are particularly relevant in the West Virginia v EPA case handed down Thursday. As journalist Amy Westervelt pointed out on our latest Lever Time podcast, the court was ruling on whether Congress had explicitly given the agency the power to regulate power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions. That means the Democratic president and the Democratic Congress can simply pass a one-page bill making clear that yes, the EPA does have the power to try to halt the climate crisis threatening all life on the planet.

These are just a few examples of things that can be done, and it is heartening to see at least a few Democratic elected officials starting to speak up against their conservative party members who are still stuck in the Obama Era — and still enabling the Roberts Revolution.

But we should be under no illusion that countering that revolution will be pleasant or easy. And most importantly, it will not be normal — which is a challenge to the modern Democratic Party’s ethos.

At its core, normalism — the worship of norms and normalcy — is the abiding religion championed by Obama and Biden, promoted by corporate media, and internalized by rank-and-file Democratic voters. It is a religion embodied in these kinds of viral tweets and explicitly articulated by former CIA agent and current conservative Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, who last year declared: “Nobody elected [Biden] to be FDR, they elected him to be normal and stop the chaos.”

That statement was an admission that when the Democratic Party was most popular and powerful, it was the opposite of a normalist party. Indeed, FDR and his voters were not disciples of normalism — he spent much of his presidency pressing a New Deal that violated all sorts of outdated norms that had for too long protected a destructive Supreme Court and economic establishment. Same thing for the Great Society era of civil, human and economic rights.

But Spanberger’s comment was also a reminder that today’s normie Democrats have been taught by their leaders and their media to love norms above all else — even above reproductive rights, workers’ rights, consumer rights, and the long-term survival of the human species.

That shift to normalism is a big reason we are here, and why the Roberts Revolution is accelerating.

Ending that religion is the first step to stopping the chief justice’s rampage — before he destroys what’s left of the country.

0 Replies
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 06:43 pm
Biden is a conservative racist Republican from way back. There’s no such thing as a Democrat as we’ve accepted the term.

I just feel like this country is collapsing plank by plank as we watch.

Anybody want to hang out and break stuff while we wait to die.
We can call ourselves The Weather Underground or something…?

Can’t decide if I’m kidding.😕
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 07:24 pm
I think Republicans would refuse categorically to define him as "conservative" or "Republican." With both feet, he jumped into climate accords, critical race theory, and other woke causes.

Here's such a thing as Democrat. It's one at odds with what the Republican party likes or wants.
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 08:16 pm
These two parties have A LOT in common. They only claim to have so many opposing views.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 08:27 pm
Biden has said that we are going to have to endure high gas prices until after he succeeds in giving Putin a sound drubbing.
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2022 10:03 pm
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v Harper, an appeal advocating for extreme interpretation of the Constitution that could make it easier for state legislatures to suppress the vote, draw unfair election districts, enable partisan interference in ballot counting.
Since they are getting no opposition they seem to be going for broke.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 03:50 am
It’s Hard to Overstate the Danger of the Voting Case the Supreme Court Just Agreed to Hear

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, an “independent state legislature” theory case from North Carolina. This case has the potential to fundamentally rework the relationship between state legislatures and state courts in protecting voting rights in federal elections. It also could provide the path for election subversion in congressional and presidential elections.

The issue presented in this case has been a recurring one in recent years. Two parts of the Constitution—Article I, Section 4 as to congressional elections and Article II as to presidential elections—give state “legislatures” the power to set certain rules (in the Article I, Section 4 context, subject to congressional override). In cases such as Smiley v. Holm, the Supreme Court has long understood the use of the term legislature here to broadly encompass a state’s legislative process, such as the need for a governor’s signature on legislative action (or veto override) about congressional elections. As recently as 2015, in Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Arizona Legislature, the Supreme Court held that the voters in Arizona could use the initiative process to create an independent redistricting commission to draw congressional districts even when the state legislature objected. The majority saw voters passing legislation via initiative as part of that legislative process.

But that latter case was 5–4 with a strong dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts, who believed the legislature could not be cut out of the process. Most of the justices in the majority in that case are now off the court.

There’s a more radical version of the idea that the legislature has power, standing on its own as a body and not part of the general structure of state government, in the independent state legislature theory.

Take the facts of the Moore case. The North Carolina Supreme Court, interpreting a provision of the state constitution protecting the right to vote, held that partisan gerrymandering violated the state constitution and required drawing fairer lines, including in congressional districts. That state court is majority Democrat, and the North Carolina General Assembly is majority Republican. The Republican legislature argued that this holding usurped its sole and plenary power to choose the manner for drawing congressional districts.

Pause on that for a moment: The theory in this extreme form is that the state constitution as interpreted by the state supreme court is not a limit on legislative power. This position would essentially neuter the development of any laws protecting voters more broadly than the federal Constitution based on voting rights provisions in state constitutions. It also goes against what Roberts wrote for the conservative majority of the court as recently as in the 2019 redistricting case Rucho v. Common Cause, when he explicitly said that “provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply” regarding redistricting. As Roberts wrote, the courts have a role to play in redistricting fights:

Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering. Nor does our conclusion condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void. The States, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Florida struck down that State’s congressional districting plan as a violation of the Fair Districts Amendment to the Florida Constitution.

A state supreme court—albeit a Democratic-controlled one—making a judgment about what a state constitution allows in terms of redistricting is also what happened in North Carolina. Of course, the composition of the Supreme Court has changed in the intervening years since Rucho.

What’s worse, this theory might not just restrain state supreme courts; it can also potentially restrain state and local agencies and governors implementing rules for running elections.

And this kind of argument shows how the ISL theory, if taken to its extreme, could help foment election subversion. How so? Suppose a state court or agency interprets state rules to allow for the counting of certain ballots, and doing so favors one candidate. If the leaders of the legislature are from the other party, and they say that the interpretation does not follow the views of the legislature, it’s impermissible and the results need to flip. (This is essentially the argument that Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas accepted in their concurrence in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, ending the 2000 presidential election and handing it to Bush.)

Now there may be many responses to such arguments, including arguments like laches—you can’t start raising these arguments after an election when things don’t go your way.

This was in fact the theory that Trump allies tried to raise after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the time to receive absentee ballots in the 2020 elections because of the COVID pandemic, relying on voter-protective provisions in the state constitution. Trump allies argued this usurped the power of the state legislature to set deadlines, and Justice Samuel Alito at the time put the counting of such ballots on hold. There were ultimately only about 10,000 such ballots, far fewer than the 80,000-vote margin of victory of Biden in the state. But if it had been closer, a radical reading of ISL could have led to a flipping of results.

Now there may be more limited ways of reading the ISL theory, such as to apply only when a state court or agency decision very strongly deviates from legislative language about how to run federal elections.

There are also good reasons for the North Carolina legislature to lose even under a strong version of the ISL theory, as I explained earlier in Slate:

An even stronger reason for believing that the North Carolina argument is weak in this case is that it was the state legislature itself that proposed the provision in the 1970 constitution guaranteeing these voting rights for North Carolina voters, which have now been interpreted by the state supreme court to ban partisan gerrymandering. As North Carolina elections guru Gerry Cohen explained, “Unlike the North Carolina Constitutions of 1776 and 1868 which were promulgated by independent conventions, the 1970 state constitution was enacted by the General Assembly.” How can the state supreme court have usurped the legislature’s power when the legislature itself brought this provision into the state constitution, knowing full well that the state constitution is interpreted by the state Supreme Court?

There are also strong originalist arguments that might persuade some of the justices not to adopt such a radical reading of these constitutional provisions.

But buckle up! An extreme decision here could fundamentally alter the balance of power in setting election rules in the states and provide a path for great threats to elections.

0 Replies
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2022 01:45 pm
Matthew Hoh for Senate
· Jun 30
The NC State Board of Elections just voted 3-2 not to certify the Green Party ballot access petition.
We needed 13,865 signatures, and the @NorthCarolinaGP submitted 15,953 verified signatures.
We did everything required, and they just said no.
Is this what democracy looks like? twitter.com/MatthewPHoh/s
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/09/2022 at 07:38:44