Stupid person #1: Joe Biden
Biden on getting things done post Trump: "With Donald Trump out of the way, you’re going to see a number of my Republican colleagues have an epiphany. Mark my words. Mark my words,”— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) November 6, 2019
For God's sake! This guy worked beside Barack Obama for EIGHT YEARS of Republican fuckery, and he honestly thinks that they're going to go back to being the party of Eisenhower after Il Douche is gone? How does he not remember 8 years of constant obstruction, of filibuster after filibuster, of constant threats to shut down the government if these petulant toddlers didn't get their way? Has he forgotten the entire Merrick Garland episode? Does he not remember the Tea Party? Has he forgotten Newt Gingrich? What kind of fantasy world does Biden live in? And can I live there too? Please? It sounds so very nice.
And speaking of Joe Biden, here's stupid person #2, Ana Navaro:
Disagree with him all you want. Support him or don’t. But after 4 years of Trump rallies, watching this @JoeBiden townhall feels like chicken soup for the soul. The man is decent, authentic and gives a damn about other humans. How refreshing.— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) November 12, 2019
Yes, Joe Biden is like chicken soup. And chicken soup is great if you've got the sniffles. But their is an infection raging through this country's bloodstream and serious medical help is needed. Joe Biden is chicken soup when what the country needs is penicillin.
Also, Joe may "give a damn about other humans," but he will never love other humans as much as he loves the big banks and credit card companies. And he certainly didn't give a damn about Anita Hill.
Also, are you implying that giving a damn about other people is something that is exclusive to Joe Biden? Do you think that Warren, Sanders, Buttiegieg, Harris, Booker, etc. don't give a damn about other people? Of course they do. A lack of sociopathy would only be notable in a candidate running in the Republican primary. On our side, it's pretty much a prerequisite.
Stupid person # 3: Rep. Tom Reed (R-obvioulsy)
This is what an actual sitting Congressman had to say to Chuck Todd on the subject of impeachment:
REED: When you're talking about oversight and the roles in oversight, i think sharing that information and complying is something to do. but when you're talking about impeachment, over turning the duly elected decision of the American people. you know, you're going to have that separation of powers that rightfully needs to exist. That's at the heart of our democracy and sustainability of our government is to have that checks and balances and that separation of powers. So, you know, if they were pursuing oversight and not impeachment, that's a different conversation.
Ughhhhh. . . I don't even know what the Hell point he thinks he's making. That somehow an impeachment inquiry violates the Constitutional checks and balances and separation of powers? Impeachment - the process prescribed by the Constitution precisely for an occasion such as this - violates the Constitution?
Or is it just that Congress is within its rights to ask for information to be shared with them, but that impeachment is somehow some sort of violation?
I really don't get it. And neither did Chuck Todd.
TODD: I don't understand what the difference is between that argument you're making. I mean, the -- in order to make the decision about impeachment, in order to -- which is essentially a grand jury indictment, you do an investigation to get that. That's what they're doing here. So part of what they're doing is oversight. They haven't voted on impeachment yet.
Wow, pushback from Chuck Todd! Now that's something you don't see every day!
REED: Yeah but, Chuck, but oversight doesn't result in the turning back of the will of the American people from a duly held election. You are then destabilizing the American democracy because now people are going to say what? I voted for my president who was duly elected and the powerful in Washington wants to overturn that election.
You know, in 2000, I voted for my president who was duly elected and the Supreme Court in Washington overturned that election and Democracy wasn't destablized - scratch that, yeah it was. But I don't remember hearing a single Republican voicing concern over it. And the Supreme Court choosing the president is actually NOT a Constitutional check or balance and actually does violate the separation of powers.
And it's good to know that there are people in state government dedicated to insuring that the supply of stupid people never runs short:
Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion
This can't be what it sounds like, can it?
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WKRC) - Ohio lawmakers are weighing in on how public schools can teach things like evolution.
The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.
Oh my God.
Wrong is wrong. Incorrect is incorrect. It doesn't matter why you got the wrong answer, the answer is still wrong.
This is the sort of thing that conservatives used to rail against. "Facts don't care about your feelings" as the loathsome Ben Shapiro likes to say incessantly. A = A was like the first rule of Ayn Rand's idiotic "philosophy." Now they want to make teachers pretend that wrong is right so that the children of religious fanatics don't get their feeling hurt?
Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.
Instead, students are graded on substance and relevance.
So. . . the words "substance" and "relevance" just don't have definitions anymore? What could be more substantive than the correctness or incorrectness of the answer? And relevance? Does that mean that even though the answer was completely wrong, it was an answer to that particular question? Like if the question is how many paws does a cat have? and I answer "seven," that's wrong, but if my book of scripture says that cats have seven paws. . . no, wait. If "seven" is AN answer to the question "how many paws does a cat have? then that's relevant? Is that it? Did my answer have substance? Fuck, I can't imagine being a teacher in Ohio trying to grade the papers of these little snake handlers!
Is this seriously got a chance of becoming the actual law?
Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate.
