the republican party is the lowest common denominator for the
worst type of people. fox is the entertainment branch of the republican party.

Hey Bob, do you know….who is “Trucker” Randy Bishop?
I’ll tell you since he’s playing make believe, he’s a far right wing radio host and Trump lover who’s running for the senate in Michigan (as a far right wing Trump loving racist anti gay fake Democrat…wtf is that!?) who complains that all families aren’t all white anymore, and race mixing should be outlawed, he shouldn’t have to see it on tv, and whines that black Americans own the nation, the media, the politicians, and the public schools.

Bishop was ranting about the media indoctrinating children through TV commercials, just like racist Trumpist often do (but never Democrats)….

“You will not believe what this country looks like in 20, 30, 40 years from now,” he said during the show, “If we continue down this path with public indoctrination of our kids and their socialist and communist agenda. What is it? Destroy the nuclear family.”

A few seconds later he clarified how the nuclear family is being destroyed.

“Now every single commercial has a biracial mom and dad,” Bishop said in the show.

“I can’t even watch a college basketball tournament without commercials telling me that I have to feel guilty,” Bishop said, “Because I think a family should be a white mom a white dad and white kids.”

Let me guess, 1) you think this proves Democrats are racists (he’s about as much a Democrat as Regan or Dick Cheney or Manchin) and 2)you would vote for him.

Btw, Michigan Democratic Party has denounced him, said they will not support his candidacy, and are deeply insulted this far right wing racist would pretend to align himself with them.

“Views such as the ones Trucker Randy Bishop espouses have no place in the Democratic Party. Candidates who say or believe these things are not welcome. Randy Bishop is not a Democrat, he is a dishonest minor social media personality that enjoys getting attention from making outrageous statements. He shows nothing but disrespect to our system of government by using a run for elected office to promote his personal agenda, entirely based on lies, hate and fear.
Disgusting racist belief systems are not welcome in the Democratic Party and frankly should not be welcome in any political party or community. We will not support his efforts to run for Senate and find it deeply insulting that he would dare to put a D next to his name.“
“With dangerous views such as this, this individual masquerading as a Dem has no business anywhere near any branch or level of government or in policymaking. Calling for the erasure of entire families/groups of people, is another example of & in line with the backwards, heinous views & actions clinging to white supremacy that we’ve been seeing in anti-history & anti-LGBTQ bills & it’ll only get worse w/someone like this in office.”

Republicans, on the other hand, have been supporting him for years, with Republican senators, representatives, and others often going on his show, including supporting his failed campaign as a Republican for the same seat.

More blatant Republican dishonesty, racism, intolerance, vitriol, and more dishonesty. Par for the course if you’re a Republican. You guys REALLY need to stop huffing the keyboard duster.

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

LMFAHS!!!
Still no answer?
Still can’t say who she slept with to advance to the second highest elected position in the land besides her husband, who’s not in politics, but you still say she’s a whore who could only sleep her way up because she’s a woman….but you don’t think you’re sexist!?! ROTFLMFAHS,! You utter moron, what do you think “sexist” means?

Elected Attorney General twice, Senator once before being elected VP. How many public offices did Trump hold before president? How many women did he sleep with while married? How many women did he rape? How many children age 13? The answer to three of these questions is not zero.

Compared to your messiah’s abysmal record of failed businesses, various crimes, racism, sexism, rape, theft, pedophilia, tax evasion, bank frauds, and an allergy to the truth and fact, (and now an aversion to democracy) she’s insanely over qualified to be president or VP. Enjoy, she’ll probably be in the whitehouse for the rest of your life.

There isn’t a Republican in office that is elected official material. They’re all anti American, anti democracy terrorists that should be shot in the face as enemies of the state who give aid and comfort to other enemies of America constantly. You know it well, comrade.

I’m guessing we haven’t heard from you for a week because both anonymous and the American cyber warfare division have attacked Putin’s troll farm and you can’t get online.
Hope you like borscht….it’s all there will be left for you.

Edit: lemme guess, Jackson (3 times confirmed by a bipartisan congress) is also unqualified and slept her way to the top of the judicial branch, right? You don’t know how, or with who, but you just know it’s true (because a black woman could never accomplish what she has)….but not because you’re a racist sexist troll….you say that for some other reason you just can’t articulate.
But Barrett, with zero judicial experience before Trump nominated her and obvious overt religious bias that she has let dictate her decisions despite saying she never would, you had no problem with her, right?

True enough. But with Manchin & Sinema, the Dems aren't doing much better to have laurels to rest on either. It just projects a whole lot of incompetence & re-enforce the frustrations and distrust Americans (and many allies) have and an easy target for ruling autocrats to laugh at. Surey that's not what people voted Biden AND control (albeit bare-bone) of all 3 branches of gov't to the Dems for...

America without its institutions and laws is just dirt that people are standing on.

Joe Biden doesn't hate the institutions of the USA. He doesn't talk about them in broad strokes in every speech he gives in a negative way. He seems to recognize that 1/2 of the country doesn't like him, more or less, but doesn't talk about those fellow Americans like they are enemies of the USA.

By contrast, all the "can't trust the government" types, including the previous president, are saying in essence things that are fundamentally anti American. Which is not to say no oversight is needed, but oversight and regulation to stop power from running amuck are different and distinct compared to dissolving those institutions or hobbling them in favor of more centralized power in the executive branch.

Biden is delegating power across government bodies and institutions, rather than concentrating it on himself.

And he doesn't rage tweet at all hours of the day and night every fucking moment he has a plucky idea. Just look at the sheer volume of tweets that poured out of that monster https://www.thetrumparchive.com/

Almost like one guy is doing his actual job and one guy is literally sitting on his phone and watching TV all day.

And one guy seems to like America and working for the government and one guy cheers every time there's bad news. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-sean-spicer-newsmax-america-b1920400.html

A quick summary of the HR1 'duckery'...

This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.

Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.

The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.

...what is so offensive? where is the downside?

sounds more than fair, honest and these Americans are pushing for an honest voting system. where's your evidence there's any 'duckery' in the bill... 🦜 bob

Apparenly their teeth have iron in them which is why they are so hard and red. Also imagine how long a human would take to get through a similar size branch with primitive tools. Judging by the Primative Technology guy videos I'd say quite a while?

What a nicely designed wee beast.

@bobknight33 - I submit this post as a peace offering. Something I believe will bring us together during this passionate time. Something that will collapse the wall that separates us as Americans.

Voters do not determine the outcome of elections. Political candidates do not choose who will win or who will lose. People in good faith and people with corrupt minds have no say in the matter. It is just an illusion.

There is only one thing that determines which party will lose presidential elections.

The Fly.

Democrats have had their dreams turn to nightmares just as the republicans are now living their nightmare.

The Fly will make the decision of which party will lose the Presidency. Hillary fell victim to The Fly as you know. Once again the The Fly has made his (or her) choice as to which party will fall.

With this in mind I would like to offer an olive branch in hopes of peace between us and our political differences. We are both victims of something neither of us has any control over. Cheating is inconsequential.

The Fly has the power. 🥂 (sorry. no olive branch emoji)

What's your favorite walking tool?
My sister is confident and smokes a pipe
I need my machete to clip dead branches as we go

The ACA was passed on party lines, it was going to be screwed up because of that no matter what. What pisses me off about it is that instead of trying to come up with a better solution, the Democrats rammed that fucker through. I can only assume it is because for a brief period they had control of the legislative and executive branches all at the same time. So rather than take a chance to fix it, they figured if they were going to get anything they might as well get it in place.

Obama inherited the situation in the ME. Bush fucked up royally. Obama just took a bad situation and made it worse. Admittedly, there were other fingers in the pie also, but he is still culpable.

The rules for the drone war were decided by Obama's administration. Regardless of what Bush did before, that lays 100% on Obama and his team. Some good articles to read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/president-obamas-weak-defense-of-his-record-on-drone-strikes/511454/

https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/index.html

https://www.propublica.org/series/drones

I just have a feeling. Could be wrong, could be right. It could be argued that since all 3 are supposed to be separate branches that congress adding more justices would be tampering with checks and balances. Then again, precedent might count in favor of it.

War/Secession isn't only a purview of the conservatives. I recall many people saying similar things when Bush/Trump was elected. Especially Trump, as I recall people saying California should leave the union etc. As I've told you before, I honestly think it might be the best solution at this point. Half of us bitterly disagree with the other half and it's getting worse every single election/year.

I'm old enough and jaded enough at this point that I figure it couldn't hurt. The USSR broke up, might as well be our turn.

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

It's not at all bad faith, since it's what he came for and what he did. He crossed state lines armed looking for trouble he might stop using his gun. He went armed to play cop with zero training and illegally carrying a weapon he was too young to have. He might have Intended to only shoot at arsonists, but what he did was randomly shoot into crowds and down the streets, killing two non arsonists, allegedly while blind due to being pepper sprayed.

I can't decipher your good guilty easy innocent hard targets. What?

He has no right to deputize himself, no matter what property crimes he assumed were forthcoming.

Yeah, try to equate property crime to violent murder, it only shows you aren't arguing in good faith yourself.

He was blocks from the parking lot he came, uninvited, to "protect". Was his beat the whole city now?

Big difference between crossing state lines to guard someone else's business and guarding your own home, more bad faith arguments. You can use force to protect your home and family from threats of serious harm, you can't shoot your neighbor for trespassing and cutting some tree branches you didn't want cut.

Do you know who owned the property he murdered the first guy on? Maybe he stands with the crowd and militia boy was trespassing, brandishing a rifle, and eventually murdering someone there before running and gunning his way back home without reporting the shootings, ensuring that property will be torched within a week.
Great job protecting them. For all he knew he was shooting the owner, he wasn't protecting property when he shot.
That is the innocent property owner here, not the owner of the owner of the original parking lot he was guarding, not the kid or his parents, and this gung ho kid's actions ensured their properties destruction and exacerbated the unrest, triggering more property damage. Good job, fucknuts...enjoy big boy prison.

I had a friend in high school that had a 15' vertical ramp. He liked to climb to the roof of his 3 story Victorian to drop in, around 40'. Another friend's ramp had a big tree next to it, he liked to grab it >30' up and sit down to rest, then drop back in from the branch. He never looked scared at all.

When you're doing what you love, the fear of failure dissolves.

That's how I was able to drive 140 over unknown uneven terrain with +- 3% traction and feel good about it. It was horrifically unsafe, but some of the best times of my life I would repeat in a heartbeat if I was still able. Thanks to various broken parts including my back, that's a pipedream now. (Hilariously, maybe ironically, I broke it working on my house, not off road racing, not downhill biking, not whitewater kayaking, just removing a cast iron bathtub.)
At least there are some decent off-road video games now to keep me out of the buggy.