Saturday, November 23, 2019


Hours away from graduation, Michaela, Conner, Oliver and Asher do mushrooms. With all else going on, you have to wonder why?

Asher actually doesn't, he just pretends to.

This is a very complicated time.  The FBI are circling, ready to pounce.  There is a mole somewhere feeding the FBI.  Is it Laurel?

Gabriel is meeting with the FBI and Frank knows it.  He catches Gabriel trying to record him via his phone.

Annalise is in panic and destroying things -- papers, her computer.

Is everybody about to go down for the murder of her husband Sam?

All I've wanted for the show's ending is for Michaela and Asher to get back together.  I think they were a great couple and believe that they loved each other.

They will not get back together.  I'll explain why in a second.

Let's move to Laurel.  She calls Michaela who puts her on speaker.  She swears she's not the mole and hasn't talked to anyone.  Really?  Then how did she escape and who helped her?

Shocker, Laurel says it was Teagan.

Asher proposes to Michaela.  He doesn't want Conner and Oliver to hear.  He seems irritated when they do.  He points out that Conner and Oliver are married so they legally cannot be forced to testify against one another.  It would be the same for them if they got married.

Asher is frustrated.

And as the four talk and argue, he admits . . . he's the mole.

Oliver grabs a fire poker and hits him over the head with it.

When we come back from commercials, they're not sure if Asher is dead or not.  He's on the floor bleeding.  Do they call an ambulance?  What do they -- Oh, he's alive still.

Asher explains that his mother and sister made a deal with the FBI.  His mother knew Asher's dead father, the judge, was taking bribes.  So when he went to visit them a few episodes ago, it wasn't because they wanted to try to improve relations like his sister claimed.  They sprung the FBI on him.  The FBI was there.

They say he should have told them what happened.

He tells them that he never gave them anything they could use.

Do they believe him?  Not really much.

And they start remembering odd moments since that visit to his family he made where he was trying to get them to talk about Sam's murder

Asher points out that he kissed Michaela to stop her from speaking about the murder.

What to do now?

Connor and Michaela are talking and Asher disappears.

He goes to Bonnie who calls Frank.

Next we know, Asher is bleeding to death in Annalise apartment.

Annalise, by the way, left early in the episode.  She's on a plane and thinking about how starting this new life means leaving her mother for good.

I believe this was the winter-finale.

I'm still shocked that Asher dies.

Oh, the end of the episode was Michaela and Conner being arrested . . . for the murder of Asher.

A shocking episode.  A strong one. But a sad one.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Friday, November 22, 2019.  The mess that is the US media (big and small) and protests continue in Iraq.

We noted the debate in yesterday's snapshot, let's note it again.

Why does Branko Marcetic write?  I have no idea.  He wrote a piece of narrative about how awful MSNBC is recently.  If he'd stuck to the data he could have made that point.  If he'd known the network's history, he could have made that point.  Instead he just embarrassed himself and now he's done so again.  The new piece wants you to know that Bernie Sanders was treated poorly "at Last Night's Debate."  But it focuses a large part on "the spin room" -- remarks made by talking heads before and after the debate.

It's all a huge mess and can anyone honestly defend this paragraph:

Despite the final result, at 40 minutes into the debate, the New York Times clocked Sanders at fourth from the bottom in terms of speaking time, with Booker, Harris, Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg far ahead of him. Thirteen minutes later, he had moved up slightly in the shuffle, with Klobuchar now at the very top. Nine minutes after that, he was again fourth from the bottom, with Klobuchar sitting at third. The moderators threw it to Klobuchar after an answer from billionaire Tom Steyer about special interest money and term limits that name-checked Sanders but didn’t mention her—breaking one of the express rules of the debate format.

For those not grasping the problem, that is the textbook definition of 'horse race coverage.'  That says nothing.  It turns the whole thing into a horse race.  Who cares where he was at this point in the debate or that point in the debate?  The final results are actually the issue if speaking time is your concern.

I went to IN THESE TIMES hoping that they'd have a good strong piece on Bernie's debate performance and we could highlight from that.

All they have is Branko's nonsense.  He's such a stupid idiot.  Do we really need to birth another John Nichols on the left?

The idiot's applauding Michael Moore at the end.  Michael Moore.  Serial liar Michael Moore.  Sexist pig Michael Moore.  Bumper sticker 'wisdom' passed off as analysis Michael Moore.  He's craven and he's disgusting.  That IN THESE TIMES feels the need to praise him does not speak well to them.  Is there a bigger (not a fat joke) sheep herder than Michael Moore?  I don't think so.

Everything Branko has written in the piece is useless garbage.  One example:

MSNBC’s post-debate discussion returned to business as usual, with commentators once again covering for another poor Biden performance that saw the former vice president claim he had been picked as Obama’s running mate because “I come out of the black community, in terms of my support,” and that he had the endorsement of the “only” black woman senator in history, to which Kamala Harris laughed. (“I thought he did pretty well,” said panelist and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson).

Actually, she noted she was the other one -- the other Black woman elected to the US Senate.  And if you're noting the above, you need to point out what followed -- no one gives a f**k about fat ass Eugene Robinson. (The joke at THE POST is: Is Eugene dead?  No, it's just his writing that died.)  No one cares about the f**king 'spin room.'  The issue here is that Joe got it wrong yet again and what did he then do? He lied.  He stood on the debate stage and insisted he said "the first."

If the spin room didn't address that, there's your case for how easy they went on Joe.  However, Branko, you went easy on him too by failing to note that not only was Joe wrong, Joe then tried to lie to cover being wrong.  On the debate stage.  In front of everyone.

That is a big deal.

That does go to character.

That does go to how someone handles stress and crisis.

Here's more Branko nonsense:

Schmidt declared that “Mayor Pete had an exceptional night” with a “pretty flawless” performance and attacked Gabbard, who had criticized Buttigieg, as “just awful,” “spectacularly bad,” and “dishonest.” (Biden, meanwhile, had “probably his strongest debate performance,” according to Schmidt).

It sure is nice of Branko to repeat the attacks on Tulsi -- without ever noting what was actually going on.  For example, Tulsi rightly called out Pete's recent announcement that he was willing to send troops, if he were president, into Mexico.

Branko's writing is awful.  I don't get how he thinks he helps anyone by not noting Tulsi's criticism of Tiny Pete  He's more than happy to repeat the insults the 'spin room' hurled at Tulsi.  Does he think that's fair?

He's written a lunatic essay and he really needs to stop a minute, take a breath and look at the garbage he wrote.  It helps no one.  It doesn't address any issues -- big or small.  It doesn't explain how Joe Biden gets caught in a lie onstage and then lies again.  It doesn't raise the issues Tulsi did about Tiny Pete's use of the US military as a personal toy.

It reads like the journal entry of a Bernie fan boy who can't convey why he supports his candidate because policy's just too tough for him.

Is MSNBC awful?  It's hideous.  Guess what, Branko, so was your article.

Maybe Branko couldn't focus on issues because Bernie was so disappointing on them?  Niles Niemuth (WSWS) finds Bernie's latest debate peformance pretty disappointing:

Wednesday night’s Democratic Party presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia was largely unremarkable save for the degree to which the candidates sought to submit themselves to President Barack Obama’s declaration last week that the party must distance itself from “revolutionary” proposals if it hopes to defeat Trump in the 2020 elections.
The word has been sent down for the candidates to knock off the funny stuff about Medicare for All and other pie in the sky reforms and to get down to business.

Senator Bernie Sanders led the way Wednesday night with regards to political cravenness, walking back his own rhetoric about waging “political revolution” and declaring that he agreed with Obama that it wasn’t necessary to “tear down the system and remake it.”
Sanders responded to a question from moderator Kristin Welker about his oft repeated and popular slogan for a “political revolution” by solidarizing himself with the president who oversaw the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in American history, deported millions of immigrants and waged war abroad for two full terms.

Niles is pretty harsh on everyone on the stage (read what he goes on to say about Tulsi, for example).  And that's fine.  He's not a fan boy.  But Branko is and wants to steer you to Bernie but somehow thinks an article that focuses zero on Bernie's policies is going to do the trick.  Branko wrote an angry I-LOVE-HIM! journal entry.  He didn't write a political column.

And Niles' column slams Bernie.  So a reader who missed the debate (or avoided it) is presented with Branko's emotional sobbing and Niles' addressing the debate itself.  Which opinion are they more likely to see as reasoned?  Branko hurts Bernie's cause with bad writing.

Who's getting the case out for Bernie?  Not Branko.  Not JACOBIN where Branko also writes.  They've got nothing about the debate.  THE PROGRESSIVE becomes a dirtier joke each year.  It's not even aware that debates are going on.  What a useless rag it's become.  It was bad at the end of Matthew Rothschild's tenure.  He was promising, for example, to cover Cindy Sheehan.  He didn't.  It was just like his lie to me that he was going to cover The Winter Soldier event and then he didn't.  What a piece of garbage.  Ruth Conniff only made the rag worse.  And now it stands as what?  The new YES!  YES! survives due to government funding (yeah, I said it and, yeah, I may say more about our 'friend' YES!, the only magazine with state-sanctioned venereal disease).  THE PROGRESSIVE's going to go under at this rate.  And, here's the thing, no one's going to miss it.  They've spent too many years making a case for just how worthless they can be.

At COMMON DREAMS, Jake Johnson notes:

"We're going to win," declared Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday in response to a new national Emerson poll showing the Vermont senator and former Vice President Joe Biden tied for the top spot in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race.
Sanders and Biden are tied with 27% support, according to Emerson. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) polled in third place at 20%, and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg trailed far behind at just 7%.

The polling goes to the fact that Bernie is electable.  And if Branko wanted to write something of use, he could start typing a piece about how, despite media attacks and media blackouts, Bernie's doing that well so imagine how much better his numbers would be right now if the media just treated him fairly?

Polls keep showing that voters see as the most trustworthy candidate in the race. Why? Because he's not just been consistent for 40 years -- he's been getting a lot of things done, even with the congressional odds stacked against him.

At THE NATION, Joan Walsh thinks she's still writing for SALON and can get away with garbage.  (Those of us in California are more apt to be familiar with Joan's long history of mistakes -- including when Kamala got elected Attorney General but Joan didn't know which office Kamala had run for.)  So she churns out a piece on what a debate run by women looks like.

Idiot, that wasn't a debate run by women.  That was a debate run by corporate suits -- and you include your beloved Rachel Maddow on that list of corporate suits.

Unlike bubble girl Joan, I get out in the real world.  Based on women on campuses alone, I can tell you a debate run by women would have led with Medicare For All, would've moved on to the need to address climate change and would have then gone into these never-ending wars and these coups.

We didn't get that on MSNBC because -- pay attention, Joan -- the debate wasn't run by women.  What a useless idiot Joan Walsh is.

And what a useless idiot some many outlets have become.  WOMEN'S MEDIA CENTER -- why do you exist?  To cover yourself?  Oh, look, a story on your report!  Oh, look a story on your own gala!  Where are the pieces about events going on, actual events?  Where's anything on the historic year this was with so many women seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination?

Oh, don't worry, you can do an article on it 20 years from now and calling it "Looking Back."

Then there are the idiots at WOMEN'S ENEWS.

Celebrity chasing replaces covering the news.

So they have a big article on what a feminist Carrie Fisher was!!!

I knew Carrie.  I liked Carrie.

Carrie was no feminist.

She savaged many women (I'd include Carly Simon on that list of women savaged based solely on her attacks on Carly and Carly's songwriting during the making of POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE -- the film).  She was not a feminist.

It's hilarious to see her painted as such.  I've made one negative comment about Carrie since she died -- I did it in a THIRD roundtable -- and I'd really like to leave it at that.  But if this rewriting of Carrie and adulation passed off as critique continues, I'll be addressing the realities in depth.

In the meantime, what has WOMEN'S ENEWS accomplished with their worship of Carrie Fisher?  Well, it's allowed them to avoid any real issues.  Way to go!!!

Medicare For All.  I don't care if you think Bernie Sanders stinks and has bad breath.  Medicare For All -- all by itself -- is a reason to root for Bernie.  And, yes, we can root for Bernie and root for Elizabeth and root for Dario Hunter and anyone else that is standing up for Medicare For All.

It's what the country needs and that greedy bastards refuse to grant this to the American citizens goes to how corrupt the system has become.  It was bad before, but it's gotten so much worse.

This is a need, not a want.

Let's grasp that Bully Boy Bush gave it to the Iraqi people.  When he destroyed Iraq, he didn't give them a for-profit health system.  He knew they wouldn't stand for it.

Americans shouldn't stand for it either.

At COMMON DREAMS, Lindsay Koshgarian writes:

If you’re following the presidential race, you’ve heard plenty of sniping about Medicare for All and whether we can afford it. But when it comes to endless war or endless profits for Pentagon contractors, we’re told we simply must afford it—no questions asked.
According to one study, even if universal health insurance didn’t bring health care prices down—an unlikely worst-case scenario—we’d need an extra $300 billion a year beyond our current spending to provide full insurance for everyone.
Where can we find it? In a giant pot of money that’s already rampant with waste and abuse: the Pentagon.
Right now, only about one quarter of the $738 billion Pentagon budget goes to our troops. The rest is mainly three things: the cost of maintaining 800 military installations all over the world; lucrative Pentagon contracts, which account for nearly half of the entire Pentagon budget; and, of course, our never-ending wars in the Middle East.

According to my research, if we end those wars, shut down wasteful and failing weapons programs, and close unnecessary foreign bases, we could come up with an extra $350 billion to spend on Medicare for All—without sacrificing security.

Oh, look, a woman.  And she's addressing healthcare and endless war.

Joan Walsh, put down the booze and look over here, that's what a debate led by women would look like.

In Iraq, the protests continue.  And REUTERS reports that, already today, 2 protesters have been killed by security forces in Baghdad -- another twenty two were left injured.

the military is shedding blood on the streets by attacking the people, probably by the govt's orders. How else do you explain it when there have been protests in other countries for months but not as much bloodshed as in Iraq.

Terrific piece by
Death on the bridge: The young lives cut short in Iraq's uprising

Baghdad tunnel becomes a museum for Iraq's protest movement

This morning, Mustafa Habib reports:

Today's speech was short, Sistani described the situation by saying: "the country is in big crisis"

  • Breaking: the senior cleric in Ali confirms again his solidarity with , & said that new electoral law must be passed, this law must reflect the real representation of voters, & an independent electoral commission must be established.

    The following sites updated:

    Thursday, November 21, 2019

    Go away, Tiny Pete

    Go away Tiny Pete.  VOX reports:

    As well as Buttigieg might be doing in Iowa and New Hampshire this month, he still has a big problem: persuading black voters in South Carolina.

    Multiple polls, including ones from Quinnipiac and Winthrop University, have shown Buttigieg at zero percent with South Carolina’s African American voters, who make up 60 percent of the state’s overall electorate. 

    Black political experts in the state told Vox that despite the Buttigieg campaign’s outreach to the community, voters are looking to black surrogates to vouch for Buttigieg personally. And so far, they’re not seeing much. 

    “The questions I continue to get asked is, ‘show me some other African Americans somewhere else in America who have Pete Buttigieg’s back,’” said Anton Gunn, Obama’s 2008 South Carolina political director, who is not affiliated with any current campaign. “Where are the other leaders in South Bend? If they’re not down here regularly, then that speaks volumes.”

    South Carolina state Sen. Marlon Kimpson, who has not endorsed any candidate yet, told Vox he agrees that not a lot of people have heard of Buttigieg. And what they’ve heard isn’t necessarily positive, Kimpson added. Buttigieg has apologized for how he handled race relations as mayor of South Bend, including firing the city’s black police chief, and later criticized over an officer-involved shooting of a black man named Eric Logan. 

    “People don’t know him, and what they do know about him is not impressive in terms of his history on African American issues,” Kimpson said. “It did not help him having to spend weeks handling a racial incident in his own city, and the media exposing his record with respect to the lack of diversity with his chief positions in his own city.”

    Buttigieg’s campaign has had more stumbles in its attempt to do outreach to black voters, including using a stock photo of a woman from Kenya on its plan to address racial inequality.

    Furthermore, Kimpson said momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire likely won’t move the needle much for black voters in South Carolina, unless that momentum belongs to a black candidate like Cory Booker or Kamala Harris.

    “I don’t think African Americans will be swayed by what happens in New Hampshire or Iowa,” he said. “Pete Buttigieg is not Barack Obama.”

    We don't trust him.  And we have good reason not to trust him.  He's not getting the nomination.  He's a child who's become the media's pet.  He's Joe Biden Jr.  

    "Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
    Thursday, November 21, 2019.  The Democratic debate takes place on MSNBC -- of course it's a disaaster.

    The Democratic Party's search for a presidential nominee continues in the United States.  Last night it led to the gathering on the unholy MSNBC.  Trina bailed immediately (see her "I'm out") and who could blame her?

    As Mike pointed out, MSNBC exists solely to make FOX NEWS look like a real news network.

    The Democratic Party is supposed to be looking for someone who, if elected, can lead the country starting January 2021.  So why did manly Rachel Maddow have to start with impeachment?

    It really wasn't an issue that should have been raised at all.  It had to be because Rachel's a loon who destroyed her own audience with her nutty conspiracies that never panned out.

    In 2021, Trump will have already been impeached or he won't have been.

    Rachel's need to then ask if they would impeach Donald after he left office was beyond stupid.

    No, you dithering idiot, it won't happen.  I don't care what anyone tells you, it would not happen.

    If Donald Trump doesn't get impeached before he leaves office, it's not happening so stop wasting our time with your jack off fantasies, Rachel Crazy Conspiracy Queen Maddow.

    The country is already divided over the possibility of impeachment.

    We get a new president in January 2021 and you think the country has time to waste on impeachment of someone no longer in office?  Oh go for that, you nutty idiot, and see how low the opinion falls for the new president.  Watch the American people be rightly outraged that instead of moving forward (or Moving On -- to note the last organization that sprung up when a president was impeached), the executive branch and the Democratic Party are wasting time on impeaching someone no longer in office.

    When you're a grubby little whore like Rachel Maddow who blackmailed her way (citing sexism at MSNBC with a particular focus on Chris Matthews) into her own TV show and now you're raking in millions, you really don't get the pain that most Americans are in.  They're not laughing on TV with Joy Reid about how little sleep they'll get and how they'll manage to eat breakfast and shower quickly enough to turn on the TV and watch the latest on impeachment.

    Those whines go to how out of touch Rachel is.  She's is shameful.

    And she's either an idiot or willing to do whatever the network tells her (the make up would suggest she's willing to dance for her corporate masters) because her little manly act last night should have been called out.

    If you missed it, Rachel was in charge.  Because she's got the most experience?  Hell no.  Andrea Mitchell has actually reported -- Rachel has never been a reporter -- and has done that for decades before getting her MSNBC talk show.  Andrea -- love her, hate her or indifferent to her -- has a history that cannot be denied.

    Unless you're nervous about a female panel so you tell Rachel to butch it up and play the man.

    Which is exactly what she did over and over, reducing Andrea to 'the little woman.'

    It was humiliating to watch.  I'm not a fan of Andrea's but even I felt sorry for her.  And it was humiliating watch Rachel in Drag King act the man.  Shame on her.  As an out lesbian, she does have obligations beyond what her corporate masters want.

    It's not a minor issue -- especially when you have so few open lesbians in the chatting industry today -- don't ever call what Rachel does "journalism."  It's not.  She's a talk show host.  That's why she opens each show with those never-ending, cutesy and self-bragging monologues.

    The candidates.  We're moving very quickly today. 

    US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard held her own on the stage.  Tiny Pete tried to shame her for meeting with Bashar al-Assad.  Tulsi noted that a president has to meet with friends and foes.  Tiny Pete apparently missed this issue in 2008 when Barack Obama, then the candidate, gave similar answers to Tulsi.

    Tiny Pete's missed a lot.  It's been a sheltered life for him.  Not just hiding in the closet for all but two or three years of his life, but hiding from reality.

    Tulsi fact checks Mayor Pete on careless statements about our military: "You were asked directly whether you would send our troops to Mexico to fight cartels and your answer was yes. The fact checkers can check this out." - TULSI2020

    Tiny Pete did state he would send soldiers into Mexico.

    He has the worst campaign staff (that especially includes Lis) and they tried to put out that Pete was under attack from Tulsi and from Amy and from Kamala.

    Those were attacks?

    Tiny Pete is not ready for the big stage.

    Senator Amy Klobuchar noted that there has been no female president (name your favorite female president, she asked).  That's an attack on Pete?  No.  It's noting how very easy Pete has had it.

    I'm sure it was scary to be 30-years-old and a virgin living in the closet (that is the official story right, no one's bringing up the campus bathroom encounters yet, right?).  And it probably is scary to worry that you MIGHT be discriminated against if people knew you were gay.  Out gays and lesbians and those in the closet who can't pass face real discrimination.  That's not the life Pete knew so stop kidding.  And likening your safe and soft life to a Civil Rights battle is a joke.

    Which was the point Senator Kamala Harris was making.

    It wasn't an attack.

    If I'd been on the stage, I would have asked, "Tiny Pete, can you explain bottom shaming to the audience and how it has impacted your own self-presentation?"

    That would have been an attack.

    Elaine covered Kamala's response in "Kamala" and I agree with her.

    Pete's lack of foreign policy experience was raised.  Tulsi is ready to be president.  She's got more than the fact that she's a combat veteran.  (Tiny Pete is not a combat veteran.)  She met with Bashar al-Asad, for example.  I don't think that was a bad thing.  When the latest efforts against him started, I was thrilled when Barbara Walters announced she'd be interviewing him.  If you've got the ability to go face to face, you do it.  That's bravery, that's responsibility, that's what a grown up does.

    Tiny Pete has no experience.

    The racism that has taken place while he was mayor, racism he supervised, is not going away.  And Lis' attacks on Kamala only activated the K-Hive -- Kamala's loyal supporters which keep her in the race.

    Tiny Pete is a morsel for a few weeks.  The press has propped him and people went easy on him because he's so pathetic.

    But now that he's talking about sending US troops into Mexico (Tulsi was right, that's what he said), you're going to see the gloves come off outside the corporate press.

    Earlier this week, Bryan Anderson (SACREMNTO BEE) reported:

    South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said at a Latino forum in Los Angeles on Sunday that he’d be willing to send U.S. troops into Mexico to combat gang and drug violence.
    “There is a scenario where we could have security cooperation,” Buttigieg said.
    Even so, he added a caveat: “I’d only order American troops into conflict if American lives were on the line and if it was necessary to meet treaty obligations.”

    Read more here:

    Yes, he said it.  He's not ready to be president.

    He doesn't have the foreign policy experience and he doesn't have the life experience.  Where are the kids, Pete?  You're married now, where are the kids?  He lived his life in the closet, in hiding, until two, three years ago.  He's still learning how to live.  He's not ready to be president of the United States.  Wet behind the ears and woefully unaware of real world issues, Tiny Pete's a joke.

    Joe Biden remains a joke.  Senator Cory Booker offered that Joe must be high to oppose legalizing marijuana.  Okay, stoned.  We've now got another possible excuse for Joe's inability to speak correctly and his constant dazed appearance.

    Dazed and Confused . . . starring Joe Biden.

    Eric Lach (THE NEW YORKER) notes:

    Biden tried to defend himself. He said that he favored decriminalizing marijuana and releasing people serving time for marijuana-related offenses from prison. Then things took a turn. “I’m part of that Obama coalition,” Biden said. “I come out of the black community, in terms of my support. If you notice, I have more people supporting me in the black community that have announced for me, because they know me, they know who I am. Three former chairs of the Black Caucus, the only African-American woman that has ever been elected to the United States Senate. A whole range of people.”
    Here, Booker and Harris jumped in. “That’s not true,” Booker said. The audience broke out in laughter and groans, as Harris added, incredulously, “The other one is here.” Someone in the audience shouted something out about reparations, and the moderators announced that it was time for a commercial break.

    "I come out of the Black community"?  Oh, my.  Remember the scorn Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign received over abuela?  Joe's now claiming he came out of the Black community.

    Just. FREAKING Amazing. First says "I come out of the black community." Then he says "The only african-american woman elected to the Senate supports me" Causing , WHO WAS STANDING RIGHT THERE, to fact check him in real time.
  • Cory Booker and Kamala Harris when Joe Biden said: "I come out of the black community."
    joe biden started naming black people he knows, and forgot to mention kamala harris
    Joe Biden: "I come out of the Black terms of my support. The only African-American woman who's ever been elected to the U.S Senate." Harris: "No, not true. The other one is here." Biden: "I said the first"

    "I said the first!"

    No, Joe, you said "the only."

    Joe's now lying so bad, he can't even get five minutes away from one lie without lying about it.

    And then there's Hunter.

    As Rebecca noted ("joe biden needs to take his family on springer") last night, Hunter Biden is a low life scum.  I did say it hear because friends on the Biden campaign had already told me (about six weeks ago) that Hunter was the father.  He was denying it publicly but they already knew on the campaign and so did Joe.

    Grasp that.  He fathers a baby but doesn't want to claim it.

    And Joe is letting him get away with that?

    Hunter's not a teenager. 

    He's close to 50 now.

    And this is what they choose to do.  They antagonize a young woman to try to intimidate her and to deny a child the support the law requires.

    I know it's confusing because, besides the hookers, there are so many women that Hunter hooks up with.

    To provide the context, when Hunter slept with Lunden Roberts (she's 28 years old), he wasn't married to his current wife.  He wasn't married to his ex-wife either.  This was after his brother Beau died and Hunter made the moves of his brother's widow.  So this was when Hunter was sleeping with his brother's widow who, remember, thought she was the only one in his life.

    But, no, Hunter was sleeping with a woman 21 years younger than him.  And after she's pregnant, he wants to ignore her.  After she gives birth, he lies and says he never slept with her.

    That's a 14-year-old boy response.

    Not a grown man's response.  Hunter turns 50 in February.  When is he going to act his age?

    \And shame on Joe for Lunden Roberts suffer this entire time.  He knew Hunter was lying.  He knew that the child was his grandchild.  Shame on Joe.

    The Bidens bullied her and said she was lying.

    They knew better.  Six weeks ago, a friend on Joe's campaign asked me if I had any clue how they could walk this back because they knew the truth was coming out before the scheduled December court appearance.  I said I don't know how you walk it back.  The only thing you can do is get Lunden on stage at some event with Joe holding the baby and declaring how happy he is to have another grandchild.

    There's really nothing else you can do.

    Hunter has stated she was lying.

    Joe could have supported the woman -- Joe and Jill have raked in $15 million since he stopped being vice president.  He could have supplied money and ensured that Lunden was not struggling to raise his grandchild.  He didn't do that.

    Hunter acted like a brat and so did Joe.

    They avoided this issue at the debate.  Shameful.

    A woman was called a liar and forced to go to court.  You really think that's how you win votes from women?

    About Face had some great commentary during the debates.  This is a small selection:

    ., you often state that you’re opposed to ‘regime change wars.’ So my question is, do you oppose all the other wars that the United States is currently involved in?
    In 2019, the US military met its recruiting goals for the first time in many years by preying on the vulnerability and legitimate worries of poor teenagers: student debt What say you Warren?
    Donald Trump can’t be the center of gravity for all questions. Many in the media irresponsibly set Trump up as a popular candidate, it’s no wonder their sensationalist thirst will do it again. It’s interesting how many candidates have no vision past Trump (Biden).
    $300 Billion: needed to stop the rise of greenhouse gases & buy up to 20 years of time. $6.4 Trillion: what the US has spent on wars since 2001. If they’re serious about the climate crisis, then they’d discuss how militarism and climate change intersect.
    Klobuchar has been trembling the entire debate. Seriously concerning. Hope she’s okay.
    Since we’re talking about money in politics. Ban campaign contributions from corporations. Break the link b/w corporations that benefit from war-mongering & the politicians charged with deciding when we take military action.
    Warren just defended Trump’s wall, promises only to *maybe* tear down parts ONLY if they are “not useful” (no part of the fucking wall is “useful”).
  • How is free healthcare & college out of reach and unrealistic but we can sign a blank check for endless wars at a price of trillions of dollars and counting?
    It’s time to Boycott, Divest, Sanction.
    This Tweet is unavailable.
    Buttigieg: Either we build SkyNet or China will.
    Free Palestine. PERIOD.
    US has struck at least 68.2 BILLION worth of deals for firearms, bombs, weapons systems & military training with Saudi Arabia & UAE since the start of their war on Yemen.
    Moderators don’t want to ask Biden about why he supported a trillion dollar unjust war in Iraq?
    Bring Troops Home! End the Wars!
    The more I see Tom Steyer be given any space over Julian Castro the more I want to tax billionaires into extinction
    They’re all talking about fossil fuels but not the largest consumer of it: US MILITARY!
    US military is the largest institutional consumer of OIL in the world.
    The climate movement must be anti-imperialist.
    Hey to address climate change, shrinking the US war machine is a must. It is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries.
    Maybe if we just called houses “military bases”, then we could get a roof over everyone’s head. ~800 military bases in more than 70 countries.
    “How will you pay for that?” It’s simple answer: by cutting military spending. Why is it not being said?!
    Oh god! , waging war on Iraq is nothing to be proud about. It was a crime. Period.

    In Iraq, the protests continue.  Steve Nabil shows us one reason for this:

    While over 20% of Iraqi youth are unable to find a job, young men(sons of politicians, relatives) or body guards are bragging about their gun,cash money, cars and expensive watches on social media.Images like this give you and idea why protesters are angry, their money is stolen.

    Steve also reports that the Baghdad based government is not serious about protecting protesters and is instead actively trying to intimidate and harm them.

    I listened to a recording of a horrific threatning call which targeted an activist in , the warning was clear to stay away from the protest. The Iraqi government is not honest about stopping the targeting of protesters and activists

    The following sites updated: