@Idissent So you’ve given up, I take it. I like Biden and think he’s done an admirable job as president. But going forward, do you think crises will be scheduled so they only occur during daylight hours - the time after which Biden has stated he won’t do any events? C’mon.

@LlamaMountainStudioArts I’m hardly an ageist! A lot of folks function quite well - and better than Biden - when even older than he is.

Catch-22: (Assuming Biden wants to do what’s best for the country) He waits to see if his popularity among voters increases to a lead over Trump; if that doesn’t happen, it will then be too late to bow out in favor of a more effective alternative.

And what is the wait for? What likely events before November will improve his electoral standing rather than make it worse? Yeah, Trump could die, but that’s a sucker’s bet. What else?

The danger, after Biden’s disastrous debate performance, is not that voters will now flock to Trump. It is that voters who are anti-Trump will simply not vote. The undecided need a positive reason to vote Democratic in November. Bill Maher has said he’d vote for Biden’s head in a jar to prevent a Trump win. But he’s not happy with that choice, and neither are millions of other voters.

There’s going to be a delay in Trump’s sentencing in his New York conviction. Why am I not surprised? Has there been any procedure in the saga of Trump prosecutions that hasn’t been delayed/postponed/put off indefinitely? The defense throws every obstacle they can think of at the wall, and the judges - to look fair - are letting many of them stick. And even when decisions are finally made (still waiting), appeals will delay further as they head for - you guessed it - the Supreme Court.

Henceforth, I will stop referring to the highest court as SCOTUS, but instead will call it by its rightful name: SCOT - Supreme Court of Trump. And they might now be on an undeserved vacation, but they’ll be back one month before the election - time enough to do more damage to Dem prospects if they expedite things. And they will.

@QueenOfEverything Or flying flags.

@n8evans If only they could do that instead of hand-wringing.

@TwiHusband If only!

@n8evans But Dems don’t know how to play the long game! If they did, the disastrous 2010 election wouldn’t have happened.

@gemswinc My thoughts exactly!

So, Chief Justice Roberts, in a commentary concerning the Trump immunity decision today, said the dissenting WOMEN justices were being hyperbolic in their dissents. C’mon, girls, stop being so emotional. We men know the right thing to do.

And it should!!!

Let’s remember that the Supreme Court has no army, no police force, no enforcement of its rulings whatsoever. It depends on, well, the judiciary doing what it has deemed to be Constitutional. But what if President Trump has other ideas? And has the muscle to make his desires happen? SCOTUS would be powerless. Perhaps that’s why they are bending over backwards to favor Trump, so that their little club can continue to be important when Trump becomes king. A Biden win would make changes.

@thedisasterautist Yeah, Republicans always complained about liberal justices legislating from the bench. They don’t have a problem with their people doing it though - including actually taking rights away!

@b4cks4w Of coursed, whatever act Chutkan’s declares personal rather than official will be appealed by Trump and SCOTUS will have to rule on it. Gee, I wonder if they’ll agree with her. Not.

@thedisasterautist Well, I meant pre-Trump.

Judge Chutkan should get that hearing started ASAP, so at least the public will get to see Jack Smith’s evidence before the election. Having an actual trial now before November is now dead, and thanks to SCOTUS, much of Smith’s evidence will not be allowed anyway. A Supreme Court in the tank for a criminal. Who would have ever imagined it?

@CanisVeritum This quote should always be remembered as indicative of dangerous apathy!