Probably elaborate fanfic, but it could be Colin Trevorrow’s script for Rise of the Skywalkers.

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

U.S. Marines begin landing on Iwo Jima; President Franklin D. Roosevelt gives the U.S. Military the authority to relocate and detain Japanese-Americans.

To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.

Nicolaus Copernicus

Continue reading

It’s a semi polite way to call people worthless weaklings who are extremely oversensitive because they know their arguments are fallacious crap and are filled with self doubt and dubiety since neither their logic or their lives will withstand scrutiny. If that describes you then maybe you shouldn’t be doing this whole Internet debate thing because I will not hesitate a second before crushing you under a mountain of fact and self contradiction that will leave you exposed as a clueless idiot.

And I’m one of the nice ones.

But it fundamentally doesn’t matter because the core mistake is that you are your Avatar.

If you’re stupid enough to roam around the Internet as yourself exposed to all kinds of commercial and Government predation I’m afraid there is nothing I can do to help. Darwin says you are too dumb to reproduce.

On May 22, 1856, the “world’s greatest deliberative body” became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate’s entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate Chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.

The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his “Crime Against Kansas” speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a “noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator.” Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator’s stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking “a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean,” added Sumner, “the harlot, Slavery.”

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler’s South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers.

Now that’s political debate. And all you BloomBots and Cadillac Health Insurance Queens better get used to it.

Fee-fees indeed, call me from the Hospital you Keyboard Coward and I’ll tell you what it was like in Barcelona when my Anarcho-Syndicalist buds were kicking Commie ass.

Banksy

Really.

Democrats fear Republican sabotage in key Senate race
By JAMES ARKIN and BURGESS EVERETT, Politico
02/17/2020

Democrats are growing alarmed about Republican attempts to prop up an insurgent liberal candidate in North Carolina — fearful that GOP meddling will undercut the party’s prospects in a key Senate contest.

What seems like a generic campaign ad pitching Erica Smith, a North Carolina state senator, as “the only proven progressive” in the state’s high-profile Senate race is actually part of a multimillion dollar investment from a mysterious super PAC — the innocuously named “Faith and Power PAC” — with apparent ties to Republicans.

The ad campaign, which began last week ahead of the March 3 primary, immediately disrupted the bid from frontrunner and Democratic leadership favorite Cal Cunningham to emerge from his primary and face incumbent GOP Sen. Thom Tillis in November.

The North Carolina race is critical: Without beating Tillis, Democrats’ path back to the Senate majority is nearly impossible. Cunningham, a former state lawmaker and military veteran, lost a Senate primary in 2010, and Democrats are eager to avoid the same result this year. But things are getting messy — and expensive.

Smith, whose low-budget campaign has otherwise posed little threat to Cunningham, has denounced the intervention. But the episode threatens Democrats’ hopes of getting the better-funded, more moderate Cunningham through the primary unscathed.

Well, good. I’m glad. No ConservaDem should go unchallenged just as no Republican should go unchallenged. What are you afraid of? Finding out Voters think your ideas about stealing their money for your Billionaire Buddies suck? If that’s all you have to offer you deserve to lose because you’re no better than they are and arguably worse because you know you’re a mercenary hypocrite and don’t have the refuge of delusion.

Privately, Senate Democrats have been discussing the matter internally, with one fretting that Smith is “unelectable” in a general election and will be painted as a Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) acolyte. Few in the party want to criticize Smith publicly since no matter who emerges as Democrats’ nominee, North Carolina is a must-win to take back the Senate.

But the GOP infusion of money is increasing worries about disarray.

“You want your strongest candidate. And if she’s not the strongest candidate, yes, it makes it much tougher,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who supports Cunningham. “There’s just too much money in politics, and they spend it on trying to get the weakest candidate to run against” Tillis.

Democrats have used similar tactics in past Senate races in Missouri and West Virginia to elevate weak Republicans but decry the practice in their own internal politics. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who referred to Tillis as “extremely weak” in his reelection campaign, said the GOP is “known for voter suppression and playing games with voters, and they are taking it to new heights here.”

Consider the source (ConservaDem Tester) and anybody can beat a Senator who’s head is so far up Unindicted Co-conspirator Bottomless Pinocchio’s ass the only way you can see their head is when the Puppet opens its mouth.

The public polling in the race is scarce, though Democrats’ believe months of heavy spending laid the groundwork for Cunningham to prevail. VoteVets, a group that supports Democratic veterans and endorsed Cunningham’s campaign, has spent $6 million between its super PAC and an affiliated nonprofit on positive ads for his candidacy. Cunningham has spent six figures on TV, and his campaign is also running TV ads with coordinated spending from the DSCC. Most of those efforts were underway before the apparent intervention from Republicans, but the spending has increased in the past week.

Another mysterious super PAC — “Carolina Blue” — was created last week and has spent $1.1 million backing Cunningham, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. The group has ties to national Democrats: It uses the same media buyer and bank as Senate Majority PAC, a top Democratic outside group. A Senate Majority PAC spokesperson did not return requests for comment.
…
“Cal Cunningham has never won a federal race he’s ran for. To suggest that this is an unbelievable recruit that Chuck Schumer got? He has no proven track record and is not known in the state,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). “Schumer has funded 100 percent of the Cunningham campaign. Why would they complain if somebody else funded the opponent?”

Cunningham, who represented an area north of Charlotte in the state Senate for one term nearly two decades ago, is an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran and has the endorsement of the DSCC, as well as a variety of North Carolina politicians and organizations.

Smith was first elected in 2014 to an eastern North Carolina state Senate seat. She’s struggled to raise money, hauling in only slightly above $200,000 last year, with just $94,000 in cash on hand at the end of 2019. Cunningham entered January with $1.7 million in the bank.

Smith expressed frustration at the idea that she is a weaker general election candidate, saying in an interview that there is there is a “certain privilege that exudes from these statements.”

“Traditional D.C. says that the strength and the weakness of a candidate is based on their money. … We know that their theory is wrong,” she said. “Time and time again, the DSCC and D.C. — they’ve backed well-financed candidates, only to have them lose.”

Still, the Republicans’ tactic may be a boon for Smith’s campaign, which hasn’t spent any money on TV. Harrison Hickman, a pollster and consultant for former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), said Republicans were “astute” in boosting Smith because what an unknown candidate “needs more than anything else is name recognition and popularity.” But he said there could be “backlash” if voters are aware of the group’s GOP ties.

Gary Pearce, a longtime Democratic strategist in the state, said Cunningham had a “very comfortable” lead in the race just a few weeks ago. Now, he said, it’s “no sure thing.”

In this particular case a little “both-siderism” is warranted.

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ is first published; Jefferson Davis is sworn in as President of the Confederate States of America; ‘Chicago Seven’ defendants in court; Dale Earnhardt, Senior dies.

I do not think we should be trying to save our freedom by killing the safeguards that keep our liberties.

Eliot Engel

Continue reading

These Republican Lite ConservaDems are just a laugh factory. Uncle Joe is losing mojo to Mayo Mike not just in the Polls, but also in the contest for 2020 Gaffe (Gaffe defined as accidentally telling the Truth as opposed to politely lying about what you really think) Champion.

Seriously Mike, Farmers and Factory Workers? There are not enough people on the Upper West Side to get you elected no matter how much money you spend.

Michael Bloomberg dogged by more past controversial remarks
by Richard Luscombe, The Guardian
Mon 17 Feb 2020

Speaking at Oxford University’s Saïd business school in the UK in 2016, the former mayor of New York appeared to question if blue-collar workers had the skills necessary to adapt to the information technology age. The comments were reported by Fox News.

Also on Monday there was increasing scrutiny of 2013 Bloomberg speeches, made in his final year as mayor and reported by Politico, branding local members of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and New York’s teachers’ union as “extremists” and likening them to the gun lobbying group the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Did I mention he has Dual US/UK Citizenship? Thus not puzzling all for him to be making remarks at Oxford.

In his 2016 Oxford remarks, delivered during a distinguished speakers’ forum, Bloomberg was asked if citizens of middle America could be united with those living on the coasts.

“I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer,” Bloomberg said.

“It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that. Then we had 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow and you can have a job.

“Now comes the information economy [which is] fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze, and that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter.”

He continued that it “wasn’t clear” if “students can learn,” even with subsidized housing and education.
…
Bloomberg’s apparent attack on civil rights workers and teachers in 2013 came when, as mayor, he was battling his city’s chapter of the ACLU over the New York police department’s “stop-and-frisk” policies, which the group claimed was disproportionately affecting young black males.

“We don’t need extremists on the left or right running our police department, whether it’s the NRA or the NYCLU,” he said in the video obtained by Politico, which explained that the civil liberties group was pursuing legislation at the time that would make it easier for those targeted by the policy to sue the city.

Other Bloomberg comments the same year, just months after the Sandy Hook massacre at a Connecticut elementary school claimed 27 lives, outraged the leadership of the New York’s united federation of teachers, which had also been critical of stop and frisk.

“The NRA’s another place where the membership, if you do the polling, doesn’t agree with the leadership,” Bloomberg said.

Randi Weingarten, the leader of the national teachers union and a former head of the New York chapter, described the comments as “disgusting” at the time. “By comparing the NRA and the [union], it cheapens his advocacy about gun control at a time when we need his advocacy to be sharp,” she said.

John Oliver is finally back and he kicks off with a piece about ‘Medicare For All’.

He correctly points out at least 2 major points, one of which is ‘Medicare’ is kind of a misnomer because that program leaves out a lot of Health Services and requires Co-Pays while ‘Medicaid’, the one it most resembles, covers almost everything.

Paid for by Taxes of course because people don’t understand money and that brings up the second point.

It saves a ton of money.

It does so through 2 principal mechanisms- collective bargaining power putting pressure on Service Expenses and elimination of For Profit Health Insurance.

The entire Industry is an Economic Leech by definition. The only way they make money is through denial of Services. Do you want your critical Health Care Services denied because they’re too expensive? Are you rationally choosing to die rather than spend a penny Scrooge?

Nothing rational about you. You’re a nut.

Even my sister who works in the Industry thinks Health Insurance is a straight up rip off (told you, the Liz waffle is what put her off) which is why she positions her cv more as a generalized developer of procedures and training applicable to any business. Before this gig she sold T-Shirts.

Bernie is somewhat correct in that in order to see the benefits a good portion of the Market is going to have to shift and the full effects will not be realized until participation is nearly universal. Above all young, healthy, invincible, immortals can not be excused from what is actually a Civic Duty.

I mean caring for Sick People, or are you one of those ‘shove ’em out on an ice flow’ types? At least have the decency not to admit it.

And he’s right on another front too- you don’t negotiate with yourself. So you have to compromise, you’ll get more of what you want if you actually, you know, ask for what you want.

Chocolate, how can you go wrong?

February 16, 2020, Medium

We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice.

As former DOJ officials, we each proudly took an oath to support and defend our Constitution and faithfully execute the duties of our offices. The very first of these duties is to apply the law equally to all Americans. This obligation flows directly from the Constitution, and it is embedded in countless rules and laws governing the conduct of DOJ lawyers. The Justice Manual — the DOJ’s rulebook for its lawyers — states that “the rule of law depends on the evenhanded administration of justice”; that the Department’s legal decisions “must be impartial and insulated from political influence”; and that the Department’s prosecutorial powers, in particular, must be “exercised free from partisan consideration.”

All DOJ lawyers are well-versed in these rules, regulations, and constitutional commands. They stand for the proposition that political interference in the conduct of a criminal prosecution is anathema to the Department’s core mission and to its sacred obligation to ensure equal justice under the law.

And yet, President Trump and Attorney General Barr have openly and repeatedly flouted this fundamental principle, most recently in connection with the sentencing of President Trump’s close associate, Roger Stone, who was convicted of serious crimes. The Department has a long-standing practice in which political appointees set broad policies that line prosecutors apply to individual cases. That practice exists to animate the constitutional principles regarding the even-handed application of the law. Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case. It is even more outrageous for the Attorney General to intervene as he did here — after the President publicly condemned the sentencing recommendation that line prosecutors had already filed in court.

Such behavior is a grave threat to the fair administration of justice. In this nation, we are all equal before the law. A person should not be given special treatment in a criminal prosecution because they are a close political ally of the President. Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.

We welcome Attorney General Barr’s belated acknowledgment that the DOJ’s law enforcement decisions must be independent of politics; that it is wrong for the President to interfere in specific enforcement matters, either to punish his opponents or to help his friends; and that the President’s public comments on DOJ matters have gravely damaged the Department’s credibility. But Mr. Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words. Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign. But because we have little expectation he will do so, it falls to the Department’s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.

For these reasons, we support and commend the four career prosecutors who upheld their oaths and stood up for the Department’s independence by withdrawing from the Stone case and/or resigning from the Department. Our simple message to them is that we — and millions of other Americans — stand with them. And we call on every DOJ employee to follow their heroic example and be prepared to report future abuses to the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and Congress; to refuse to carry out directives that are inconsistent with their oaths of office; to withdraw from cases that involve such directives or other misconduct; and, if necessary, to resign and report publicly — in a manner consistent with professional ethics — to the American people the reasons for their resignation. We likewise call on the other branches of government to protect from retaliation those employees who uphold their oaths in the face of unlawful directives. The rule of law and the survival of our Republic demand nothing less.