Or in other words, "submit or die."

Handing out cash with no strings attached discourages people from working and reaping the rewards of individual success making some undeserving piece of shit even richer.

I sincerely think it's broadly accurate - that, for the Republicans and especially for Trump, (most) every accusation is a confession.

There's a simple psychological element to it, most often illustrated by moralists who rail against perversion of one form or another, only to be revealed to be perverts.

There's another aspect to it though, and I think this is more often the case with Trump specifically - it's a way to proactively undermine someone else's accusation against you. If you can get your accusation out there first, then they end up sounding sort of like a child saying, "I know you are but what am I?"

If we're going to go all conspiratorial, here's my theory:

Both campaigns are dealing with old men with diminished faculties.

There's some drug cocktail(s) that both campaigns have been using to pep the doddering old farts up for public appearances.

If you'll remember, very shortly before the debate, the accusation that "Biden's on drugs" made the rounds, and Trump made some noises about demanding a drug test.

For some reason - possibly fear, possibly determination in the face of a challenge, possibly a subtle communication that the Trump campaign had some hard evidence they would, if pushed, release publicly - that led to the Biden team withholding his customary drug cocktail.

Trump, meanwhile, was dosed to the eyeballs.

And that was the contrast we saw - Trump was on drugs, while Biden, for whatever reason, for that night alone, was not.

Remember - for the Republicans broadly and especially for Trump, every accusation is a confession.

Except that it's not fealty. The DNC and the power brokers don't give a damn about Biden specifically.

It's shallow and ill-considered self interest.

If Biden steps down, then that opens up the nomination process, and as they've done the last two times, the rank and file are going to want a progressive. If anything, the call for a real progressive is going to be even stronger than it was in 2016 or 2020, in part because so many on the left have been disilliusioned by Biden's mealy-mouthed criticism of but tacit support for the Gaza genocide, and likely even more because Trump and the fascists riding his coattails are an existential threat not simply to progressive causes broadly, but to progressives personally.

But a determined call for a progressive candidate is the last thing in the world the DNC and the power brokers want, since a sincere progressive is going to alienate some number of big donors, so undermine the ongoing flow of soft money. And that ongoing flow of money matters more to the DNC and the power brokers than anything else, including winning or losing.

And at this point, so much of the mood on the left is so strongly against the neoliberal hacks that if they try to do the same thing they did in 2016 and 2020 and force a neolib hack on the voters anyway, it's likely that they'd end up pissing off so many voters that their candidate will do even worse than Biden would've done.

So the "logical" (in a very narrow and warped context) thing for them to do is to stick with Biden, and likely lose.

And in fact, losing and then fundraising in their role of (supposed) opposition is pretty much standard operating procedure for the Dem hierarchy - that's a role in which they're obviously comfortable and that they'd undoubtedly expect to just slip right back into.

The thing is though that this election is different. This isn't just a choice between two slightly different flavors of neoliberal establishment hackery - this is a choice between safeguarding democracy or inviting the wholesale destruction of democratic institutions and the establishment of a fully empowered hate-fueled right-wing, plutocratic oligarchy. The Dem elite will quite likely no longer be able to fundraise on being the (supposed) opposition because opposition will be effectively prohibited.

So it's time for them to make a hard choice - to potentially sacrifice their own unearned privilege, basking in a sea of soft money, for the needs and desires of the people whose interests they're supposed to be furthering. And really, though they're likely unable to see it, fir their own long-term interest as well.

Unfortunately, I don't think they have the necessary integrity or determination to make that choice.

They know very well what they are doing. It’s just that their wealth isolates them from the consequences of it. They don’t care about healthcare, climate change, education, unemployment, because that’s for the 95% to worry about. They are rich enough to don’t give a fuck, and they feel safe doing so.

And that rather obviously describes someone who's rather obviously mentally ill.

Specifically, they lack empathy and have little to no conscience, so have little to no concern for the harm their decisions might cause to others. Those are the hallmarks of both antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy.

Mm... sort of.

The US had the enormous advantage of starting its life with material resources of which most can only dream, so it couldn't help but achieve some fairly significant success, and as long as things were relatively easy, it generally did. But it never quite managed to pull its head out of its ass. Its material advantages made it so that it generally managed to get by in spite of the fact that it's head was firmly lodged up its own ass, but that also meant that it never learned anything. So it just stayed in a diminishing circle of bad decisions until it reached a point at which smart decisions were necessary, and it revealed itself to be mostly incapable of making them.

And at the moment, it's actually subject to a mass movement that lauds the days of the bad decisions as the good old days, since the people still have their heads too far up their asses and can't recognize the reality that they were always bad decisions, that the prosperity that accompanied them was simply due to the US's enormous material advantages and in spite of, rather than because of, the bad decisions, and that a return to those bad decisions in an era in which those material advantages have been squandered is just going to make things even worse.

Which, granted, is still sort of a "good run" - much smarter people have still failed to do even close to as well, since they were stuck starting out with pretty much nothing but disadvantages.

But one can't help but wonder what could've been had we not had our heads so firmly lodged up our asses...

It's really very, very simple.

Regulation of things like pollution serves the interests of the people broadly, but undermines the interests of a handful of obscenely wealthy sociopaths.

And much of the current Supreme Court explicitly works NOT to serve the interests of the people broadly, but to serve the interests of the obscenely wealthy sociopaths.

And that's it, right there. Just as has happened in numerous past civilizations, the power structure in the US has become so warped and corrupted - so entirely in the control of sociopaths - that it not only no longer even pretends to serve the interests of the people, but tends to explicitly work against their interests.

And the hell of it is that the ruling class is so far gone in corruption and shallow self-interest - so sincerely deeply mentally ill - that they don't recognize that ultimately they're working against their own interests - that serving the interests of the people maintains the health of the society from which they benefit, and that working against the interests of the people undermines that health. Like any other mindless parasite, they're going to destroy their host, and in so doing, ultimately destroy themselves.

And the US will just be added to the ever-growing list of societies destroyed through the machinations of a relative few profoundly mentally ill people granted undue wealth and power.

None.

I think that the exact measure of whether or not a war is justified is whether or not people are willing to fight it.

It's very rare for a war to be a direct threat to the people. That's generally only the case in a situation like Gaza, in which the invaders explicitly intend to not only take control of the land, but to kill or drive off the current inhabitants.

As a general rule, the goal is simply to assume control over the government, as is the case in Ukraine.

So the war is generally not fought to protect and/or serve the interests of the people directly, but to protect and/or serve the interests of the ruling class. And rather obviously, the ruling class has a vested interest in the people fighting to protect them and/or serve their interests. But the thing is that the people do not necessarily share that interest.

And that, IMO, is exactly why conscription is always wrong. If the people do not feel a need to protect and/or serve the interests of the rulers, then that's just the way it is. That choice rightly belongs to the people - not to the rulers.

I pessimistically expected that.

If he bowed out and the Dems nominated a halfway decent candidate (which they likely wouldn't do, but that's a different subject), they'd demolish Trump. He'd lose so badly he couldn't even pretend it was fraudulent (though of course he'd claim that anyway, since he has the emotional maturity of a spoiled five-year-old). The race would instantly go from a terrifying risk to a complete rout.

But between Biden's ego and the DNC's determination to stick with a wholly-owned establishment neoliberal hack at all costs - even if it means losing - I expected that they wouldn't take this golden opportunity.

Transparent astroturfing.

The staff is laying a foundation so that when Trump - an arrogant, oblivious nitwit with the attention span of a five-year-old - inevitably comes out of it the obvious loser - they will already have the base primed to believe that that somehow reflects poorly on... Biden.

I don't see any possible way it couldn't. Every official is going to expect a "gratuity" in exchange for approving a contract, and every contractor who expects to succeed is going to go into every deal with the understanding that they're going to be expected to pay a "gratuity" after the deal is finalized.

The upshot of it all can only be wholly institutionalized pay-to-play, with only the ultimately entirely meaningless requirement that the payment has to be deferred instead of up front.

Right. Go back and reread it - that's what I said.

They called it a gratuity to try to divert attention from the bludgeoningly obvious fact that it's just a postdated bribe.

This is what this country has come to. In the face of an ever-growing failure of the government to represent the will of the people because their influence has been bought and paid for by moneyed interests, the Supreme Court is legalizing bribery.

Of course, it's certainly not a coincidence that one of the institutions that's been bought and paid for is the Supreme Court itself.

Literally, officially, it's now entirely legal under federal law for officials to accept and even solicit bribes for specific services rendered, just so long as they do it after, rather than before, the service is rendered.

They aren't even pretending to be a legitimate court of law any more - they're just a rubber-stamping service for the oligarchy.

The Supreme Court basically just ruled that it's perfectly acceptable for officials to accept and even ask for bribes, just so long as they wait a few weeks after the service for which the bribe is meant to pay.

Seriously. That's exactly what this ruling in effect says - that bribes are only bribes if they're paid before the service is rendered, and if they're paid after, that's perfectly fine.

And people still wonder why I'm such a cynic...

Already did, though instead of the bot, I blocked the entire instance.

Curiously enough, I didn't delete it. I was just scanning back through my posts when I saw "deleted by creator" on one of them, and since I know I haven't deleted anything, I came to see what that was all about.

There's an option to undelete, so I did that, though unfortunately that means that yours is now the post without context. Sorry. 😅

If only the Supreme Court was an institution of law rather than a tool of corruption and ideological bias, there would be no question of how they would, and in fact must, rule.

The entire process of impeachment and removal from office is predicated on the idea that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution and ex-presidents are not.

It really is just that simple. The presumption right from the start, and in fact most of the actual point of the impeachment process, is that immunity only applies while the person is in office. As soon as they're out of office, they're "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (US Constitution, Article I, Section 3).

But sadly, there's no telling how this wholly corrupted and compromised court will actually rule.

I would agree that Americans need to make "informed decisions" in the upcoming election - for instance, they need to be "informed" of the fact that one of the candidates is a convicted felon.

And on another note, here's that "politically motivated" thing again.

Just as I noted the other day, when Alito trotted it out, how is there even a notion that it matters?

Let's just run with the assumption that the prosecution was "politically motivated." So what? The trial worked exactly the way a trial is meant to work - the jury heard the evidence and rendered a verdict based on the evidence.

What on earth does the supposed motivation of the prosecutor have to do with anything?