tRump/Palin-equivalent for POTUS!

/snark off/

Ya know, if I didn’t love my kids and grand-kids, I’d find this funny.

Trump taps McCain’s VP lawyer to vet his vice president

“Nevertheless, I advised Sen. McCain that because her duties had never encompassed foreign policy or defense issues Gov. Palin would not be ready to be vice president on Jan. 20, 2009 — but that I believed she had the presence and wherewithal to grow into the position,” he wrote in The Wall Street Journal as the 2012 vice presidential process was underway. “I summed up her selection as ‘high risk, high reward.’ I stand by that advice.”

I still don’t know how I’ll vote, but Hillary will absolutely crush it in DE, so “my vote doesn’t matter(tm)” applies, here. At the beginning of the primaries she was the 17th or 18th worst candidate running. I’m going to look into whether we can write in our vote, or not (we use electronic voting, so possibly can’t).

At the every least, if Hillary is elected, she’s “free game” to you guys. Don’t expect me to defend her. Or her husband. I’m not some “disaffected youth/Bernie supporter”. I’ve voted in 11 POTUS elections, and Hillary vs. Trump is, by a large margin, the worst choice I’ve been presented.

I can understand younger voters viewing Hillary as the “here, break off a piece of ribbon candy from this dish” candidate, and tRump as the “old man yells at clouds” candidate. I just can’t understand why they’re our (likely) nominees. Maybe they think Bernis is yelling at clouds, too? I dunno.

The floor is yours (in more ways than one, think “can we get any lower?”, pardon the pun). Help me make sense of this madness…

Feel free to use the words “dismay” or “dismayed”. As in “i understand why you’re”…

But DON’T use the word “disappointed”, as in “I can understand why you’re disappointed.” !’ll rip you a new asshole for that.

I KNOW why I’m disappointed. We blew a hyooge opportunity, this year.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

News dump

ISIS releases horrifying sex slave pamphlet, justifies child rape

Al Frum’s (former Republican) take on “Why the Democratic Party Acts The Way It Does

“Impurifying our precious bodily fluids” (Published December 5, 2001 by “Reason”, a Libertarian magazine).

On balance the scientific evidence seems to indicate that fluoridation is a safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay. Of course, that doesn’t mean that future studies will not identify problems–research is always subject to revision. However it is highly likely that, after 50 years of use by millions of people, any truly major health problems resulting from fluoridation would already have made themselves evident.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Jimmy Page, lead guitarist of Led Zepellin turned 70, today?

Jeebus, how old am I?

In the meantime; Senator Leahy Tries To Sneak Through Plans To Make Merely Talking About Computer Hacking A Serious Crime

I’m starting to see why old people (like me) get confused. Who’s freakin’ side am I on? What happened to my heroes?

70 years old? Fuck…

No one to believe in? Senator Leahy, you really let me down. Asshole.

I still remember him in tight jeans.

Erm, Jimmy, not Leahey…

Leahy’s officially an asshole.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Just For The Record

Don’t take my silence on drone strikes on Americans as any kind of acquiescence, in any meaning of the word.

Please spare me the arguments about “sure, it’s OK if it’s a ‘D’ in the White House, but what if our POTUS was an ‘R’?”

It’s NOT OK if it’s a “D” in the White House.

If extra-judicial killing of Americans is legal, WE need to take steps to ensure it’s not OK in the future. I think, more than the faux outrage of libtards who wanted to ban guns the day BEFORE Sandy Hook, this issue can unite “the right” and “the left” in getting something done. But, beyond writing/calling my congresscritters, I’m not real sure what to do.

The POTUS, OR ONE OF HIS SUBORDINATES, can “legally” order a drone strike on an American citizen, without judicial review? Tie in the odious DiFi’s bill to ensure the police outgun us (even though it will never pass) and we’ve crossed the line into “sheeple” who will willingly live under someone else’s (read that as corporate) rule.

That’s a really sad commentary on what WE will tolerate, if we don’t rise up and demand an end to it.

If nothing else, write and call your congresscritter.

Tho, it would be better if we all met on the National Mall and said “HELL NO!” to living in a police state, where cops and the military can carry guns we can’t carry, and the POTUS can order us killed because our protest is deemed (by some flunky in the CIA) “a threat to America”.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

The .0000063% Election

How the Politics of the Super Rich Became American Politics
By Ari Berman

At a time when it’s become a cliché to say that Occupy Wall Street has changed the nation’s political conversation — drawing long overdue attention to the struggles of the 99% — electoral politics and the 2012 presidential election have become almost exclusively defined by the 1%. Or, to be more precise, the .0000063%. Those are the 196 individual donors who have provided nearly 80% of the money raised by super PACs in 2011 by giving $100,000 or more each.


If 2008 was the year of the small donor, when many political pundits (myself included) predicted that the fusion of grassroots organizing and cyber-activism would transform how campaigns were run, then 2012 is “the year of the big donor,” when a candidate is only as good as the amount of money in his super PAC. “In this campaign, every candidate needs his own billionaires,” wrote Jane Mayer of The New Yorker.

“This really is the selling of America,” claims former presidential candidate and Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean. “We’ve been sold out by five justices thanks to the Citizens United decision.” In truth, our democracy was sold to the highest bidder long ago, but in the 2012 election the explosion of super PACs has shifted the public’s focus to the staggering inequality in our political system, just as the Occupy movement shined a light on the gross inequity of the economy. The two, of course, go hand in hand.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)


One thing that I admire in a person is the ability to admit it when you’re wrong.

A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It’s not that I don’t understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It’s that I don’t even recognize their description of Obama’s first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.


If I sound biased, that’s because I am. Biased toward the actual record, not the spin; biased toward a president who has conducted himself with grace and calm under incredible pressure, who has had to manage crises not seen since the Second World War and the Depression, and who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” George Orwell once wrote. What I see in front of my nose is a president whose character, record, and promise remain as grotesquely underappreciated now as they were absurdly hyped in 2008. And I feel confident that sooner rather than later, the American people will come to see his first term from the same calm, sane perspective. And decide to finish what they started.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Now Is The Time

If I was POTUS, this is what I’d do TODAY. I’d tell the American people, and businesses, what’s going to happen.

First, we’re not going to default. Not Tuesday, not ever.

We have enough income to pay our creditors.

The 14th amendment demands that we pay them. We will.

What’s unclear is if we’ll have that income in the future, so we’ll need a savings account.

What this means to all of you is that until the congress sends me A CLEAN BILL TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING THROUGH AT LEAST 2013, the only bills that will be paid by the Federal Government are the interest (and principal, where necessary) on the debt, and certain “emergency” services.

An example of an “emergency” service is providing sufficient funds to bring all of our troops home from overseas. Not just Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re going to close our bases in North Korea, Japan, and Germany, too. No American soldiers will be stationed anywhere but on American soil. All ships at sea will be called to their home ports. Most soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will be furloughed until this “crisis” is resolved.

No social security checks will go out until further notice. No funds will be provided to medicare or medicaid.

Government offices will be closed. National parks will be closed.

A small number of military personnel will be retained on duty to guard those facilities.

All remaining income will be deposited in a savings account.

This failure of congress to raise the debt ceiling will result in MASSIVE layoffs. There will be fewer people working, so there will be fewer revenues in the future. American MUST save any extra income in anticipation that congress will never solve its inability to negotiate a neutral, balanced solution to this problem.

I urge you to mail, email, or call your congressmen and women to urge them to put a quick end to this situation, but until congress resolves it I have no other choice. The full faith a credit of the USA is at stake.

Prepare for the worst.

That is all.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

A 3-Party System?

I’ve heard calls for a third party “who will represent US” before.

I think we now have evidence of the stupidity of that position.

We have a 3-party system, now.

I don’t know exact numbers, and I’m too lazy to look them up, but it breaks down something like this;

Continue reading “A 3-Party System?”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)