Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bundbuster
Bundbuster's Journal
Bundbuster's Journal
May 2, 2024
Political pundits have been floating a variety of possible scenarios about the outcome of the 2024 election. In one of them, President Joe Biden is reelected, and Democrats flip the U.S. House of Representatives but lose their U.S. Senate majority.
In that scenario, Biden, during a second term, could have a hard time getting his nominees confirmed — especially if the Senate ends up with hardline GOP leadership that is even to the right of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), who is stepping down as Senate minority leader in November but plans to serve out the rest of his term.
Democratic strategists have reportedly given up on holding a U.S. Senate seat in deep red West Virginia, where centrist Sen. Joe Manchin isn't seeking reelection. And they know that keeping Democrat-held seats in Ohio and Montana could be challenging.
"The minority leader is clearly wary of his party overextending itself despite the advantageous conditions after the twin debacles of 2020 and 2022, when former President Donald Trump's embrace of flawed GOP nominees contributed to surprising Democratic wins," Everette explains in an article published on May 2. "While former Senate GOP campaign chief Rick Scott (R-Fla.) predicted the party would win up to 55 seats in the midterms, Democrats ended up gaining a seat. So even though Republicans have room to compete in eight states, McConnell said in an interview that he's primarily focused on four for now."
The Turtle pokes his head out from his shell.
McConnell says GOP shouldn't 'get too excited' about chances of winning Senate
https://www.alternet.org/mitch-mcconnell-schumer-senate/Political pundits have been floating a variety of possible scenarios about the outcome of the 2024 election. In one of them, President Joe Biden is reelected, and Democrats flip the U.S. House of Representatives but lose their U.S. Senate majority.
In that scenario, Biden, during a second term, could have a hard time getting his nominees confirmed — especially if the Senate ends up with hardline GOP leadership that is even to the right of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), who is stepping down as Senate minority leader in November but plans to serve out the rest of his term.
Democratic strategists have reportedly given up on holding a U.S. Senate seat in deep red West Virginia, where centrist Sen. Joe Manchin isn't seeking reelection. And they know that keeping Democrat-held seats in Ohio and Montana could be challenging.
"The minority leader is clearly wary of his party overextending itself despite the advantageous conditions after the twin debacles of 2020 and 2022, when former President Donald Trump's embrace of flawed GOP nominees contributed to surprising Democratic wins," Everette explains in an article published on May 2. "While former Senate GOP campaign chief Rick Scott (R-Fla.) predicted the party would win up to 55 seats in the midterms, Democrats ended up gaining a seat. So even though Republicans have room to compete in eight states, McConnell said in an interview that he's primarily focused on four for now."
The Turtle pokes his head out from his shell.
May 2, 2024
The Colorado Republican Party's chairman is experiencing stiff backlash from candidates running for office after suggesting they should be enthusiastic backers of former President Donald Trump.
According to the Colorado Sun, GOP candidates running in the Centennial State's June primary were sent a three-page questionnaire to determine whether they would receive the endorsement of the party ahead of the primary — a major break from past tradition. One of the criteria for an official endorsement is if a candidate supports "President Trump’s populist, America-first agenda." Colorado GOP chairman Dave Williams was blasted by candidates for appearing to put his finger on the scale over candidates with more raw voter support.
"Grassroots conservatives spoke at the [Congressional district] Republican assembly," said Colorado Board of Education member Stephen Varela, who is running for the GOP nomination in the state's 3rd Congressional district. "I won top line. Why would a handful of party bosses disrespect the grassroots and consider endorsing someone else?" County-level Republican leaders are also pushing back against Williams' purity testing of candidates. La Plata County GOP chairman Dave Peters said he "strongly advise[s] him to remain neutral on all candidates," though he added he was "generally supportive" of Williams' leadership.
One of the Centennial State GOP's most notable endorsements in the 2024 cycle is of Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado), who is running for reelection to represent an entirely new district. The Colorado Republican Party's endorsement may very well give her the edge she needs in the crowded five-person primary, with all of her other opponents gathering petition signatures to win ballot access.
CO Republicans revolt after state GOP demands support of Trump's 'America-first agenda'
https://www.alternet.org/republican-revolt-colorado/The Colorado Republican Party's chairman is experiencing stiff backlash from candidates running for office after suggesting they should be enthusiastic backers of former President Donald Trump.
According to the Colorado Sun, GOP candidates running in the Centennial State's June primary were sent a three-page questionnaire to determine whether they would receive the endorsement of the party ahead of the primary — a major break from past tradition. One of the criteria for an official endorsement is if a candidate supports "President Trump’s populist, America-first agenda." Colorado GOP chairman Dave Williams was blasted by candidates for appearing to put his finger on the scale over candidates with more raw voter support.
"Grassroots conservatives spoke at the [Congressional district] Republican assembly," said Colorado Board of Education member Stephen Varela, who is running for the GOP nomination in the state's 3rd Congressional district. "I won top line. Why would a handful of party bosses disrespect the grassroots and consider endorsing someone else?" County-level Republican leaders are also pushing back against Williams' purity testing of candidates. La Plata County GOP chairman Dave Peters said he "strongly advise[s] him to remain neutral on all candidates," though he added he was "generally supportive" of Williams' leadership.
One of the Centennial State GOP's most notable endorsements in the 2024 cycle is of Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado), who is running for reelection to represent an entirely new district. The Colorado Republican Party's endorsement may very well give her the edge she needs in the crowded five-person primary, with all of her other opponents gathering petition signatures to win ballot access.
May 1, 2024
At what age did you become an atheist/agnostic? And what brought that about?
Myself: Around 10 or 12 years old I learned that there are about 4000 religions in the world, virtually all of which claim to be worshipping the one and only true god. Logic told me that since the odds of one out of 4000 being right about that gawd thang was so miniscule, they must all be wrong. The lack of any proof of a god reinforced my disbelief. Later in life, when I learned of all the evils and cruelty wrought in the name of religion, I became an avid atheist.
What has your journey been? 
April 30, 2024
Brian Cox, the 77-year-old "Succession" actor is a self-proclaimed socialist well known for his controversial and discourse-sparking opinions. In an episode of "The Starting Line Podcast" with Rich Leigh, Cox shared more of his thoughts on religion, wealth distribution and politics.
When asked about religion holding humanity back, Cox said, "Oh considerably, yes – I think religion does hold us back because it's belief systems which are outside ourselves."
"They're not dealing with who we are. We’re dealing with, 'Oh if God says this and God does that, and you go, 'Well what is God?' We’ve created that idea of God, and we’ve created it as a control issue, and it’s also a patriarchal issue . . . It’s essentially patriarchal; we haven’t given enough scope to the matriarchy."
"I mean the propaganda goes right way back. The Bible is one of the worst books ever, for me, from my point of view." He continued that people may need religion, "but they don’t need to be told lies, they need some kind of truth, and that is not the truth. It is not the truth, it’s a mythology you know . . . it’s not really to do with what women understand more than anybody."
&t=4s
"The Bible is one of the worst books ever"
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/30/brian-cox-bible-worst-books-ever/?in_brief=trueBrian Cox, the 77-year-old "Succession" actor is a self-proclaimed socialist well known for his controversial and discourse-sparking opinions. In an episode of "The Starting Line Podcast" with Rich Leigh, Cox shared more of his thoughts on religion, wealth distribution and politics.
When asked about religion holding humanity back, Cox said, "Oh considerably, yes – I think religion does hold us back because it's belief systems which are outside ourselves."
"They're not dealing with who we are. We’re dealing with, 'Oh if God says this and God does that, and you go, 'Well what is God?' We’ve created that idea of God, and we’ve created it as a control issue, and it’s also a patriarchal issue . . . It’s essentially patriarchal; we haven’t given enough scope to the matriarchy."
"I mean the propaganda goes right way back. The Bible is one of the worst books ever, for me, from my point of view." He continued that people may need religion, "but they don’t need to be told lies, they need some kind of truth, and that is not the truth. It is not the truth, it’s a mythology you know . . . it’s not really to do with what women understand more than anybody."
&t=4s
April 29, 2024
Last week's Supreme Court hearing in Trump v. United States (as accurate a case name as I've seen), aka "The One About Immunity from Prosecution," was, to put it mildly, a shitshow at the monkeyfuck factory. In a case that should never have been taken, at least 5 of the justices, all the men, seemed to actually believe that Donald Trump and, presumably (but who knows), every president should have some immunity from being charged and tried as a criminal from acts done while president. In this case, it's to try to get Trump out of any responsibility for the January 6 insurrection, which Special Counsel Jack Smith is trying to get to trial. Frankly, the hearing was a disgrace, a disgusting display of a deviant ideology that was disposed of in the goddamned Declaration of Independence. These right-wing dickholes actually tried to come up with ways that laws don't apply to a president.
Early in the arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, the question on everyone's mind: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" And Sauer gave the answer that everyone expected: "It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act." In other words, "Yes." In otherer words, the president can render the death penalty without any due process at all. In otherest words, there really is no difference between a president and a king and fuck the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the entire history of the country.
Later in the hearing, Alito tried to throw aside Sotomayor's speculation about assassinations like he tosses civil rights into the garbage. "I think one could say it's not plausible that that is legal, that that action would be legal," Alito stammered to Sauer, trying to unfuck the fucked up implications of what he plainly believes. "And --and I'm sure you've thought --I've thought of lots of hypotheticals, I'm sure you've thought of lots of hypotheticals, where a president could say, I'm using an official power, and yet the president uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner."
See, what Sotomayor should have asked at that moment of panicky bullshit from Alito was "Could President Biden decide Justice Alito is corrupt and order that he be assassinated? Is that an official act for which he could get immunity?" Because then Sauer would have had to repeat his answer that it "could well be an official act" and then that puts things in fucking stark territory: A vote to uphold this insanity is a vote for your own murder.
Rude Pundit: The Question that Justice Sonia Sotomayor Should Have Asked About Absolute Immunity for Presidents
https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-question-that-justice-sonia.htmlLast week's Supreme Court hearing in Trump v. United States (as accurate a case name as I've seen), aka "The One About Immunity from Prosecution," was, to put it mildly, a shitshow at the monkeyfuck factory. In a case that should never have been taken, at least 5 of the justices, all the men, seemed to actually believe that Donald Trump and, presumably (but who knows), every president should have some immunity from being charged and tried as a criminal from acts done while president. In this case, it's to try to get Trump out of any responsibility for the January 6 insurrection, which Special Counsel Jack Smith is trying to get to trial. Frankly, the hearing was a disgrace, a disgusting display of a deviant ideology that was disposed of in the goddamned Declaration of Independence. These right-wing dickholes actually tried to come up with ways that laws don't apply to a president.
Early in the arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, the question on everyone's mind: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" And Sauer gave the answer that everyone expected: "It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act." In other words, "Yes." In otherer words, the president can render the death penalty without any due process at all. In otherest words, there really is no difference between a president and a king and fuck the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the entire history of the country.
Later in the hearing, Alito tried to throw aside Sotomayor's speculation about assassinations like he tosses civil rights into the garbage. "I think one could say it's not plausible that that is legal, that that action would be legal," Alito stammered to Sauer, trying to unfuck the fucked up implications of what he plainly believes. "And --and I'm sure you've thought --I've thought of lots of hypotheticals, I'm sure you've thought of lots of hypotheticals, where a president could say, I'm using an official power, and yet the president uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner."
See, what Sotomayor should have asked at that moment of panicky bullshit from Alito was "Could President Biden decide Justice Alito is corrupt and order that he be assassinated? Is that an official act for which he could get immunity?" Because then Sauer would have had to repeat his answer that it "could well be an official act" and then that puts things in fucking stark territory: A vote to uphold this insanity is a vote for your own murder.
April 27, 2024
In her review of the documentary Bad Faith: Christian nationalism's unholy war on democracy, Guardian writer Adrian Horton remarked on how filmmakers have shown that far-right Christian evangelicals and their financial backers have a shared common goal: replacing representative democracy with an autocratic regime. The film kicks off by juxtaposing footage of participants in the deadly January 6, 2021 siege of the U.S. Capitol with former President Donald Trump's spiritual advisor, Paula White, praying to overturn the 2020 election.
Bad Faith director Stephen Ujlaki told Horton. "[W]hen they talk about recreating the kingdom of God on earth, they weren’t talking about something spiritual. They were talking about demolishing democracy so that God, i.e. themselves, could rule. And for that reason, I call it a conspiracy carried out in broad daylight."
The ideology of Christian nationalism is centered around the erroneous belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation (many of the framers were actually Deists). Its proponents want to elect explicitly Christian conservative leaders to firmly establish a government that establishes a hierarchy in which white, Christian men are at the top, with women, minorities, the LGBTQ+ community and practitioners of other faiths forced to live under their rule.
In the film, author Anne Nelson — a longtime scholar of the religious right — explored the financial connection between Christian nationalists and major donors like the far-right Koch network. She argued that even though the movement's financial backers may not share their religious fanaticism, they nonetheless see Christian nationalists as useful tools in their goal of dismantling democracy in order to further enrich themselves. "They’re in bed together, based on economic principles, not theology," Nelson said.
'In bed together': How Christian nationalists and big donors are 'demolishing democracy'
https://www.alternet.org/christian-nationalists-big-donors/In her review of the documentary Bad Faith: Christian nationalism's unholy war on democracy, Guardian writer Adrian Horton remarked on how filmmakers have shown that far-right Christian evangelicals and their financial backers have a shared common goal: replacing representative democracy with an autocratic regime. The film kicks off by juxtaposing footage of participants in the deadly January 6, 2021 siege of the U.S. Capitol with former President Donald Trump's spiritual advisor, Paula White, praying to overturn the 2020 election.
Bad Faith director Stephen Ujlaki told Horton. "[W]hen they talk about recreating the kingdom of God on earth, they weren’t talking about something spiritual. They were talking about demolishing democracy so that God, i.e. themselves, could rule. And for that reason, I call it a conspiracy carried out in broad daylight."
The ideology of Christian nationalism is centered around the erroneous belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation (many of the framers were actually Deists). Its proponents want to elect explicitly Christian conservative leaders to firmly establish a government that establishes a hierarchy in which white, Christian men are at the top, with women, minorities, the LGBTQ+ community and practitioners of other faiths forced to live under their rule.
In the film, author Anne Nelson — a longtime scholar of the religious right — explored the financial connection between Christian nationalists and major donors like the far-right Koch network. She argued that even though the movement's financial backers may not share their religious fanaticism, they nonetheless see Christian nationalists as useful tools in their goal of dismantling democracy in order to further enrich themselves. "They’re in bed together, based on economic principles, not theology," Nelson said.
April 26, 2024
&list=PLiQOvTCLC3uYz8Kf_OOwALW0JSXzTbYHE&index=58
2 photos of Jimi Hendrix the day before he died
I had a chance to see him in the summer of 1970 at the Fillmore, but figured I could always catch him later....
On Sept. 18, 1970 he was gone. Worst non-action of my life. I think about him to this day.
&list=PLiQOvTCLC3uYz8Kf_OOwALW0JSXzTbYHE&index=58
April 26, 2024
Critics of far-right Justice Clarence Thomas have been arguing that because of the role his wife, GOP activist Ginni Thomas, played in Trump's efforts to overturn the 2024 presidential election results, he should recuse himself from the case. Justice Thomas' critics argue that it is a major conflict of interest for him to rule in Trump's immunity case.
Meanwhile, in a biting opinion column published on April 25, MSNBC legal writer Jordan Rubin argues that it is unethical for Justice Thomas to not recuse himself from Trump's immunity case. Justice Thomas' "participation," Rubin warns, is "incredible in a bad way."
"The GOP appointee has ignored calls to recuse himself from January 6-related cases, even though his wife, Ginni, backed efforts to overturn Trump's 2020 election loss," Rubin explains. "Notably, Thomas did recuse himself from a rejected petition by MAGA lawyer John Eastman at the beginning of the term in October, though he didn't explain his rationale for doing so. I have made the modest suggestion that he should at least explain his non-recusal in these matters, but the justice has not taken me up on that idea."
The MSNBC legal columnist continues, "Indeed, we saw quite recently that Thomas has no intention of sitting out these cases. At last week's hearing in another January 6 appeal, he pressed the federal government on its prosecutions of rioters, suggesting that they're unfair. Given his personal connection to the insurrection and its aftermath, Thomas' involvement in Trump's immunity appeal is even further troubling, due partly to the presently unknown behind-the-scenes moves that led the Court to take up the appeal at all back in February and then not hear it argued sooner."
Experts alarmed by Thomas' participation in Trump immunity case despite 'insurrectionist' wife
https://www.alternet.org/clarence-thomas-immunity/Critics of far-right Justice Clarence Thomas have been arguing that because of the role his wife, GOP activist Ginni Thomas, played in Trump's efforts to overturn the 2024 presidential election results, he should recuse himself from the case. Justice Thomas' critics argue that it is a major conflict of interest for him to rule in Trump's immunity case.
Meanwhile, in a biting opinion column published on April 25, MSNBC legal writer Jordan Rubin argues that it is unethical for Justice Thomas to not recuse himself from Trump's immunity case. Justice Thomas' "participation," Rubin warns, is "incredible in a bad way."
"The GOP appointee has ignored calls to recuse himself from January 6-related cases, even though his wife, Ginni, backed efforts to overturn Trump's 2020 election loss," Rubin explains. "Notably, Thomas did recuse himself from a rejected petition by MAGA lawyer John Eastman at the beginning of the term in October, though he didn't explain his rationale for doing so. I have made the modest suggestion that he should at least explain his non-recusal in these matters, but the justice has not taken me up on that idea."
The MSNBC legal columnist continues, "Indeed, we saw quite recently that Thomas has no intention of sitting out these cases. At last week's hearing in another January 6 appeal, he pressed the federal government on its prosecutions of rioters, suggesting that they're unfair. Given his personal connection to the insurrection and its aftermath, Thomas' involvement in Trump's immunity appeal is even further troubling, due partly to the presently unknown behind-the-scenes moves that led the Court to take up the appeal at all back in February and then not hear it argued sooner."
April 25, 2024
Republican Senate candidate Steve Garvey delivered sharp words Thursday about college students protesting the Israel-Hamas war, repeatedly calling them “terrorists” and urging university leaders and law enforcement to take action.
“What they’re saying is: they’re pro-Hamas,” he said at a press conference in Los Angeles, standing in front of Israeli flags. “They’re pro-terrorists. They’re supporting terrorism.”
Garvey, flanked by an Israeli Special Operations veteran and a rabbi, accused the protests of being “terrorism disguised as free speech,” and said the students are “making a statement that they probably don’t really understand what it’s about.”
“This is organized support of terrorism,” he said, adding that he believes in free speech, but arguing that interrupting classes and obstructing the opportunity to learn is terrorism.
California Senate candidate Steve Garvey calls student protesters 'terrorists'
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/25/california-senate-steve-garvey-student-protesters-terrorists-00154453Republican Senate candidate Steve Garvey delivered sharp words Thursday about college students protesting the Israel-Hamas war, repeatedly calling them “terrorists” and urging university leaders and law enforcement to take action.
“What they’re saying is: they’re pro-Hamas,” he said at a press conference in Los Angeles, standing in front of Israeli flags. “They’re pro-terrorists. They’re supporting terrorism.”
Garvey, flanked by an Israeli Special Operations veteran and a rabbi, accused the protests of being “terrorism disguised as free speech,” and said the students are “making a statement that they probably don’t really understand what it’s about.”
“This is organized support of terrorism,” he said, adding that he believes in free speech, but arguing that interrupting classes and obstructing the opportunity to learn is terrorism.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Denver, CO
Home country: United States
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 3,209
