The Frankish Reich

Bump. Because even 2024 Biden remains preferable to Trump, unless you're just sick and tired of stability, progress, and growth.

Still going back to that Seinfeld c. 1994 joke ... ... what I said is true. What Biden said about the Border Patrol union endorsing "his" border bill is true. What Trump said about the Border Patrol union endorsing him is true.

The Border Patrol union supported the Lankford-drafted compromise bill, which was Biden's policy. So the statement is correct: they endorsed his proposed policy, even though they endorse Trump for president.

It is bogus. There are aliens not authorized to work who, of course, work under fake or stolen SS #s. And guess what? They have FICA deducted from their paychecks, enriching the SS trust fund without being eligible to collect SS when they're old. So that means they pay extra SS tax. He has this completely bass ackwards. I would call it a lie.

I'm sure Ginni Thomas Epps agrees

If only more of them would follow that example. This is perhaps the most results-oriented decision we've seen from the Supreme Court in decades. Justice Barrett writes a powerful dissent basically saying this: conservatives, you've been preaching for years that we should follow the text of a statute. That's what Jack Smith did here! Now, now you decide that we need to ignore the plain text and try to figure out exactly what 435 representatives and 100 senators were thinking 14 years ago when they passed a new law?

Just checked the transcript of the debate. Trump never said her name! What an incredibly uncaring person.

Never thought I'd see the day when conservative giant Scalia's opinions are decried as being unconstitutional. He did write Chevron ...

This is where the Trumpistas will be parroting Marx: History repeats; the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

Well, you seemed to think that he'd be jacked up on some PEDs and would turn in a State of the Union yelling performance. Which, by the way, he seemed to be doing at a rally today. Teleprompter? I guess, I don't know. I still stand with Nate Silver: even if propped up by his staff he's preferable to Trump. Better still, a whole new nominee.

I just watched the whole thing. All I can say is: I refer you to John Stewart (usually not my guy, but spot-on here), and to Nate Silver: https://www.natesilver.net/p/joe-biden-should-drop-out And it’s not just that Joe Biden is 81 now — it’s that he’s seeking a second term and wants to continue being president until he’s 86! Michael Jordan wasn’t awful with the Wizards, but he also wasn’t about to ask for a four-year contract extension. An 86-year-old president is a ridiculous and untenable proposition. Few world leaders are anywhere close to that old, other than in authoritarian countries — and none of them are the American president, the hardest job in the world. Is an 86-year-old Biden being president as ridiculous and untenable as an 82-year-old Trump being president? (Trump just turned 78 so would be 82 by the end of his second term.) For me, the answer is still no. In fact, although this is an increasingly unpopular view, I think Biden’s had a pretty good first term. And if I lived in a swing state2, I’d still vote for Biden — if for no other reason than because I think January 6 is so disqualifying to outweigh everything else.

Wait, give me a minute to tuck up my hair under my hat first ...

No, but I've got some left over prednisone. Thinking of grinding it up and snorting it before the debate. If I seem a little more frantic than usual on here, please send me the helpline number.

Yep, that's what I'm guessing. By the way, do your research! Steroids are magic. I suspect both candidates are consumers. From an article I posted a little while ago (a pro-Biden article), referring to "Candy Man" Dr. Ronny: If Jackson was known as the “candy man,” it’s reasonable to ask how much candy Trump has eaten—before, during, and after Jackson’s years in the White House. It’s also worth noting that since Jackson and Trump have revealed themselves to be strong political allies, there’s little reason to trust Jackson’s diagnosis of Trump’s cognitive health. In October 2020, Trump started to tweet even more erratically than usual, upsetting both the political and business elite. At the time, The New York Times reported: “Some White House staff members wondered whether Mr. Trump’s behavior was spurred by a cocktail of drugs he has been taking to treat the coronavirus, including dexamethasone, a steroid that can cause mood swings and can give a false level of energy and a sense of euphoria.”

Maybe the RNC people can just give us a list of prohibited World Presidential Debating Society banned drugs. Mountain Dew? Diet Pepsi? Ozempic? Adderall?

Here's one (many report likewise): https://www.yahoo.com/news/jd-vance-other-trump-vp-151841705.html

Now do B-Man's Twitter feed.

"Sources" are saying the shortlist is Rubio, Burgum, Vance. Let's assume Little Marco will be eliminated. Among other things, he's a Florida resident and sitting Florida senator, so he is constitutionally ineligible (unless he resigns/moves; Donald is not moving to NY state for obvious reasons) So do you prefer the former McKinsey consultant, Stanford MBA Microsoft officer, half-billionaire as your outsider ready to take on Davos Man? Or do you prefer the former McKinsey consultant, Yale J.D., Investment Banker, youngster worth about $10 million or more as your outsider to take on Davos Man? (you are being played)

In other words: beauty contests are a really gay thing; maybe we should just let them decide who can compete. It continues to amaze me that all these ostensibly straight men here are so, so locked in to gay culture. From a quick Google search: "do beauty pageants appeal to gay men"

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe, just maybe, the only remaining core audience for this antiquated ritual is gay men.

We would like to think that the Supreme Court is made up of 9 wise men and women. A reminder about the conservative view of "wisdom" from the great GK Chesterton, often paraphrased as something like this: "Don't ever take down a fence unless you know the reason why it was put up in the first place." As the current Supreme Court works on its project to reorder long-existing balances in the roles of states vs. the federal government, and between Congress and the Executive, perhaps this is worth keeping in mind? Perhaps being a conservative means being concerned about the impacts of such radical restructuring? The full quote: “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Jokes on you ... I have no idea who Rick Wilson is.

In other words, it is a sh!thole, but it is our shi!thole. Not the way I view patriotism, but to each his own.

Imitation Cramps. I mean, still good, but Imitation Cramps.

I'm calling bs. That's no argument, it's just contradiction!