Joe Biden's latest blunder? Calling his Iowa tour the "no Malarkey" tour.

Fired up and ready to go for the #NoMalarkey barnstorm! pic.twitter.com/4lpU7waqzh

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) November 30, 2019

Not a full post or anything but I just wanted to comment on this. I know that "Malarkey" is one of Joe Biden's catch phrases that dates back to the 2012 VP debates, but seriously? This is what Joe Biden is calling his tour of Iowa?

One of Joe Biden's biggest problems is that people see him as an old and uncool dinosaur that isn't with the times. That's why Pete Buttgieg is rising in the polls and why both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are doing ok despite being old. They don't get the same vibe that Biden is putting out here.

And what is that vibe? That Biden is completely not with the times. People don't say malarkey anymore and outside of Joe Biden himself I haven't heard anyone say it for years. It paints him as totally out of touch with modern culture and kind of a joke.

Either way, I am surprised that the Biden campaign wanted to make this their slogan. After all, even if Biden is going to be full of Bidenisms like this, that doesn't mean that they couldn't be doing damage control. Nobody wanted to tell him that this might be a dumb idea?

Police in London shoot and kill man who stabbed five people, killing two, in a terror attack.

People near the scene of the attack. Reuters. 

Police in London shoot and kill a man who stabbed five people, killing two, in a suspected terror attack near the London Bridge. Reuters. The attacker was subdued by civilians who used whatever improvised weapons they had available to slow the man before police arrived and shot him. The attacker was previously convicted for an Islamic terrorism related offense but was released early under the condition of electronic monitoring. The man was armed with a knife and was also wearing a fake suicide vest. Local and national officials, including Prime Minster Boris Johnson, praised the bravery of the civilians who disarmed the attacker. 

WATCH: Moment the London Bridge stabbing suspect is shot dead by police. The MET Police have revealed they're treating it as a 'terror incident' #LondonShooting

MORE: https://t.co/SiuWrsKw6R pic.twitter.com/nNNGvefybF

— RT UK (@RTUKnews) November 29, 2019

 My Comment:

Fairly major terror attack in London. The suspect was able to kill two people and wound three more before he was disarmed and shot. Given the level of resistance he faced and how fast police response was that can be considered fairly successful for a terror attack. It won't have the impact on the level of any of the mass shootings, bombings or car ramming attacks but given that the pace of terror attacks has slowed so much, it's going to have an effect.

Credit should be given to the brave civilians that fought this attacker and disarmed him. They attacked him with improvised weapons including a fire extinguisher and kicked him until he dropped his knives. Attacking an armed man is brave enough but this one had a fake suicide vest that none of the bystanders knew was fake. They put their lives on the line for their fellow Londoners and I am sure they saved lives. Very brave and praiseworthy.

Generally speaking the way to handle these kinds of attacks, be they mass stabbings or mass shootings, is to respond in force. Doing so results in fewer casualties and, if nothing else, buys time for police to arrive and stop the suspect. These men did exactly the right thing and it's the reason why only two innocent civilians died.

It's not entirely clear why the cops shot the attacker. It's possible the crowd wasn't able to get both of his knives as only one was seen being taken away by one of the civilians. My guess is the other knife was either in his hands, which weren't visible in the video, or within reach. Either way though, the guy was a terrorist so I won't feel bad if the shooting wasn't 100% justified, but all signs point to it being a good shooting.

It's extremely frustrating that this man was out on the streets in the first place. He was arrested and convicted of an Islamic terrorism crime, which in my book means you should go away for most or all of your life. However, they let this guy out on supervised release, despite him being a radical Muslim who had already plotted a terror attack. Espically since he wasn't in prison that long to begin with.

One wonders why he was in the country in the first place? It's possible he was a citizen so they couldn't deport him but if he was a terrorist why not yank his citizenship if he was an immigrant? It's possible he was 2nd generation but even then, it's hard to argue that the UK was improved by keeping this guy here.

My guess is that this was a lone wolf attack not really related to any terror group. It's possible he had some help obtaining knives and his fake suicide belt but even then, it wasn't likely from ISIS or al-Qaeda. He may have had some links to them but I am guessing this was a solo operation.

The good news is that this attacker won't get another chance of launching a terror attack. He failed the 1st time and succeeded the 2nd time but there won't be a third for him. Although there is a case to be made for capturing terror suspects alive due to the intelligence value, I will shed no tears when we take one of these guys down the old fashioned way... 

President Trump takes a secret trip to Afghanistan to have Thanksgiving with US troops stationed there.

President Trump along with Afghan President  Ashraf Ghani and US troops. Politico/AP.

President Trump spent Thanksgiving in Afghanistan to visit the troops after a secret trip. Politico. The President's trip was filled with secrecy and deception as he had told the media that he was planning on spending Thanksgiving home at Mar-a-Lago. He spent three and a half hours with the troops. It was President Trump's 2nd visit to a war zone and first visit to Afghanistan. While there he met with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, who praised Trump for killing ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Both Trump and Ghani praised the troops for being away from their families. 

In further news, talks with the Taliban are now back on. Fox News. President Trump told the troops that the Taliban want a deal very badly and American troops would stay until there was total victory or a deal. Talks were called off after a terror attack claimed by the Taliban killed 11 people including a US soldier. The President also said that he wanted to reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan as well. 

My Comment:

Just a quick post mentioning President Trump's visit. It's fairly newsworthy given the extremely high security involved and the fact that President Trump was getting criticized for spending the holiday at home. I'm not going to write a long post since I am in a food coma myself but I quick post is probably appropriate. 

The security measures in the Politico article were extreme to say the least. The journalists had their phones collected and even President Trump had to turn his phone in. They had a decoy Air Force one and nobody knew that they were heading to Afghanistan until shortly before they arrived. 

It should be a morale boost for those troops in Afghanistan. Trump's approval among the military is higher than among the general public and it probably is nice for them to see their commander and chief. Some might have been annoyed having to wait around for the event, but still, they are getting free turkey so they should be fine. 

The real big news though is that it sounds like the talks between the Taliban and America are back on. The Taliban screwed up badly by launching a terror attack as they were very close to being invited to the United States for official talks and possibly a peace deal.

I do have to say that the tradition of Presidents visiting combat zones is one that should end. Not because that Presidents don't have that responsibility, but because we should be finishing up our wars. I sincerely hope that we do manage to make a deal with the Taliban and finally bring the troops home.   

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

I'd like to wish every single one of my American readers a happy Thanksgiving! This has always been one of my favorite holidays and I am hoping that everyone else enjoys it as well. I plan to spend the evening with my family enjoying turkey and relaxing.

However, this means that there probably won't be a new "real" post tonight. I won't get home until late and even if I do have time to write something up, I doubt there will be any real news. If something huge happens or I find something interesting to write about I might put something up, but don't hold your breath! That being said, enjoy the holiday!

A top general for France says "total victory" for their war in Mali isn't possible

A French soldier stands near the coffins of his comrades who died in a helicopter crash. Reuters. 

A top general for France says that "total victory" in their war against Islamic insurgents in Mali isn't possible. Reuters. General Francois Lecointre, the Chief of Staff for the Army made the comments after 13 soldiers died in a crash during a combat mission targeting ISIS insurgents. The soldiers died trying to provide air support for ground troops engaged with ISIS but both of their helicopters collided and crashed. It was the worst loss of life for France's military in 36 years. France launched Operation Barkhane to counter Islamic insurgents in Mali who were launching attacks across the former French Colony. However, ISIS and al-Qaeda have made a comeback despite the 4500 French troops deployed in Mali. France is complaining that other European countries are not helping them fight in Mali as the operation protects them as well. Lecointre's comments may cause pressure to France's president Emmanuel Marcron as the war is not popular with his opponents on the left. 

My Comment:

France's efforts to combat ISIS and al-Qaeda in Mali have largely gone ignored by Western press. Even I sometimes forget that they have a major troop deployment there and that they are actively battling in one of the few remaining strongholds for ISIS and al-Qaeda. West Africa in general has been a hotbed of Islamist activity and the French are about the only people willing to do anything about it. 

But this latest incident may shake that resolve. Losing 13 troops in a combat related accident is not going to play well. I do note that helicopters seem to crash all the time but this incident was obviously a major mistake. Either the pilots screwed up pretty badly or their air traffic controllers did. A utility helicopter should not be getting into the way of an attack helicopter and vise versa but it seems like this is what happened here. 

I think General Lecointre's comments will likely get him in trouble with his bosses. It's generally not advised to tell the media that you don't think a war is going well. He did try to walk it back by saying that they were making progress but that's not going to make up for the mistake in the first place. 

I think he is right though, total victory over Islamic insurgency isn't possible. Even if you bash it down and destroy terror groups it can always rise again. ISIS rose from the grave of al-Qaeda in Iraq, so it's not like there isn't precedence. 

I also don't think that the West's strategy of using indigenous forces works all that well. It seems to have eventually worked in both Syria and Iraq but it took years of effort and billions of dollars and extreme levels of air support and special forces training to get to the point where ISIS is an underground organization with most of it's leadership dead. It totally failed in Afghanistan where the Taliban is ascendant and ISIS has a foothold. And I doubt the 4,500 French troops in Mali will be enough to turn the tide there. 

If France were to get really serious about the insurgent threat in Mali they would use the full force of their military to fight the ISIS and al-Qaeda troops there. France, unfairly, gets a bad rep for their military strength but anyone who actually researches them know that their military is among the world's best. If they put their mind to it they could win the war in Mali. 

But they do not have that force of will. Indeed, France has had some major problems lately. The Yellow Vest movement is still going on and Emmanuel Macron doesn't have the best approval rating. They have their own problems with terror attacks and they just don't support the war in Mali. 

Still, the French government probably has to do something. If Mali were to fall to insurgents then they could be the next Libya. Libya, when it was controlled partially by ISIS, was a launchpad for some of the worst terror attacks Europe has ever seen. If Mali were to fall it would be used as a base to launch attacks across North Africa and Western Europe... 

President Trump says he is working on designating Mexican drug cartels as terrorists.

File photo of Mexican soldiers.  Diego Fernández

President Trump says he is working on designating Mexican drug cartels as terror groups after a massacre that killed an American family. Reuters. President Trump said the process has been going for three months but that it takes awhile to get it approved. Once a group is a designated terror group it becomes illegal for Americans to work with that group, illegal for members to enter the United States and requires financial institutions to block and report their money. Mexico did not comment on the statement but it will likely come as a shock to them because as early as yesterday Mexico's Foreign Minister said he did not expect America to declare drug cartels terror groups. It is unclear if any further action will be taken against the cartels for their role in the massacre that killed 9 women and children. 

My Comment:

The Mexican Drug War stories left the media as soon as they came to the forefront which should not have been surprising. Even before the current media environment the media showed little interest in what happens south of the US border. The twin stories of the LeBaron massacre and the battle of Culiacán brought the issue to the public consciousness for the first time in recent memory but it faded just as quickly due to the impeachment drama. 

It really should not have. Both of those stories were huge. In the first a family of American citizens were gunned down. Women and children were killed and it was the cartels that were responsible. The attack generated a huge amount of outrage and was a top story before it was dropped. 

And the Battle of Culiacan was an even bigger story. In that battle Mexican troops arrested two of the leaders of the Sinaloa cartel. They had to let both of them go because the Mexican forces were outgunned and outnumbered by the cartel which probably would have killed all of them if they hadn't surrendered. 

In the wake of these two events people were calling on something to be done. The Cartels were obviously getting extremely powerful and didn't care at all about who they killed. In the past they would leave Americans alone but now it seems anyone is fair game. 

The cartels are a huge threat to America. Not only are they a major source of the drug trafficking, and the massive murder rate that comes with that business, they are also branching out into other businesses. More than anything else they are responsible for much of the human trafficking and smuggling that comes into the United States. 

I've also long worried that the kind of corruption and graft caused by the cartels in Mexico could cross the border as well. I haven't seen much proof of it but a lot of people, especially in border states, say that corruption is already hear. That's a threat to American democracy if I have ever seen one.

Even more concerning is that the current Mexican government seems to want to do nothing about the devastating war that is happening in their country. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Almo) has refused to change his peace plan with the cartels where he mostly leaves them alone and focuses on economic issues. Even though I kinda like Almo, this is a path that is not going to work.

So is designating the cartels as terror groups the right move? I think so. Though their main motivation is profit, not ideology or religion, their tactics certainly qualify for terrorism. Only ISIS has ever exceeded the reputation of the cartels for brutality and they certainly use fear as a weapon. Legally calling them terrorists will also help fight them financially and help keep them out of our country. 

It won't be the end all be all though and at this point it's like placing a band-aid on a bullet wound. The cartels are so rich, powerful and depraved that simply calling them terrorists won't do much. It might make things a bit more difficult for them but it's not like it's going to stop drug dealing and human trafficking. 

So what would work? A sustained military campaign. That's how we beat ISIS. We blew up their oil fields, targeted their leadership and killed almost all of their foot soldiers. Mexico has no stomach for such a campaign and military action against the cartels seems to be off the table. But I can't see how else we can finally rid ourselves of this menace from across the border... 

America on track to have the most background checks, a decent proxy for gun sales, in history.

File photo of a gun store. USA Today/AP.

The FBI reports that Americans are on pace to have the most background checks, a decent proxy for gun sales, since record keeping began. USA Today. So far this year, background checks have not fallen below 2 million for any given month. If those rates remain steady for November and December it will pass the one year record of 27.5 million checks. Sales have been brisk for firearms after a supposed "Trump Slump" when gun owners thought that there would be no new gun laws. However, several mass shootings and the Democrats response to them have caused a boost in sales. Sales were also boosted due to Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke's call for gun confiscation at one of the Democrat debates and may be increased again as anti-gun former mayor Michael Bloomberg entered the race. The FBI has had some difficulty keeping up with the demand and traditionally Black Friday has been a huge day for gun sales.

The numbers for the NICS background check system can be found here. 

My Comment:
I think some of this is just a recovery due to the economic conditions. I know that I bought my rifle this year not due to politics (primarily) but because I wanted another rifle and had the money this time around. Most of the people I know who have bought guns did so for the same reason. With the economy being good, people are spending their money and one of the things they want to buy is firearms.

But I do think that gun control pushes by the Democrats had something to do with it. Before the impeachment idiocy, it really looked like there was going to be some new gun control laws. The Democrats took the house in 2018 and it looked like quite a few Republicans were going to cave on gun rights. This didn't happen but I think the concern about it helped to boost sales.

Of course not all states can say that they didn't have new gun laws. My state is fine but other ones did have some new gun control laws in 2019 and 2018. People in these states almost certainly bought new weapons, either because they were going to be banned soon or because they were worried about additional laws.

I think the twin campaigns of Eric Swalwell and Robert Francis O'Rourke did quite a bit to boost sales as well. Both candidates supported gun control that went far beyond what we have heard from presidential candidates as well. Swalwell didn't make much of an impact outside of the gun rights community that hated him but I think O'Rourke was a wakeup call for many non-political Americans. Though I am convinced that everyone believes President Trump will win in 2020, the idea that any of the Democrats could win is enough for people to want to buy guns.

With Michael Bloomberg entering the race I think sales will increase as well. Bloomberg IS the modern gun control movement and people understand that he was responsible for some of the worst gun laws in the country in New York City. Though I don't think Bloomberg has much of chance of winning but if he does it's an existential threat to private gun ownership, even more so than Swalwell and O'Rourke would have been.

USA Today mentioned that mass shootings are probably increasing gun sales. Though I agree that the reaction to these shootings from Democrats drive sales I think they missed part of it. When some crazed idiot shoots up a Wal-Mart it doesn't just drive sales because of bans. People naturally want to be able to defend themselves. As mass shootings increase, mostly due to media coverage, people will buy guns and get concealed carry permits so they can defend themselves in the extremely unlikely event they get caught up in one.

I do think that gun sales will probably stay steady. If a Democrat wins in 2020 I think there will be a massive boost but even if that doesn't happen I think sales will keep at this pace. The thing with guns is that if you buy one you want to buy another and then keep buying them until you run out of things to buy. I personally own a pile of guns but I still have a few more guns I would like to buy, like a PCC, a CCW focused handgun and maybe even a shotgun.

If anything does hurt gun sales it will be economic in nature. Guns are not cheap and people won't be buying them if they lose their jobs. Our economy is doing very well right now so I don't see that happening in the short term but I don't know what could happen in the long term. 

Defense Secretary fires Navy Secretary over Eddie Gallagher case

Former Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer. 

The Defense Secretary has fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer over his actions in the Eddie Gallagher Navy Seals case. The Hill. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that Spencer had lost his confidence after it was found out that he went over his bosses head to offer President Trump a deal that Spencer didn't support publicly. The deal also seemed to propose to fix the outcome of a Navy review board that would have decided if Gallagher was allowed to keep his Navy Seal Trident and rank. The incident centers around Eddie Gallagher, a Navy Seal who was charged with war crimes after killing an ISIS fighter, but was acquitted of all charges except posing with s corpse. President Trump intervened after the acquittal restoring Gallagher's rank and ordering that he be allowed to remain a Navy Seal. The President had been extremely critical of the handling of the Gallagher case. President Trump has nominated Ambassador Ken Braithwaite to replace Spencer. 

I was not pleased with the way that Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s trial was handled by the Navy. He was treated very badly but, despite this, was completely exonerated on all major charges. I then restored Eddie’s rank. Likewise, large cost overruns from past administration’s.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 24, 2019

....honors that he has earned, including his Trident Pin. Admiral and now Ambassador to Norway Ken Braithwaite will be nominated by me to be the new Secretary of the Navy. A man of great achievement and success, I know Ken will do an outstanding job!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 24, 2019

My Comment:

A quick aside, Richard V. Spencer has nothing to do with notorious racist and media darling Richard Spencer, who was involved in the Charlottesville rally. The names the same but that's it. No matter what you think of the former Navy Secretary it sucks for him that his name is always going to be right next to that guys name.

All of the articles about this case are quite confusing. They seem to be downplaying the fact that Spencer offered the President to fix a Navy hearing, which is a huge no-no. That kind of thing where the outcome is predetermined before any kind of review is done is not how America works. It may be how the impeachment inquiry is going but that's not something the government can tolerate.

It showed that Spencer was being very dishonest. Publicly he is saying that the President was not following the rule of law. But Spencer himself was failing that very standard by trying to fix a review that may have been fixed.

And we aren't quite sure what Spencer was trying to do with the review. It's possible that he wanted to screw over President Trump. For one thing he could have promised that Gallagher would surive the review while knowing that the outcome would be the exact opposite. This would be against the President's wishes and would be a major stab in the back. But even if he did follow through, it's possible he would have gone to the press saying that the President offered him a dirty deal on Gallagher when it was himself that offered it! And the anti-Trump media would eat it up, never once investigating if it was true or not.

Furthermore, it was clear that Spencer wasn't respecting the chain of command. Whatever you think of President Trump's orders in this situation, they were indeed orders. As a military officer, you cannot refuse an order from the President of the United States just because you disagree with it. That's not how the military works.

Spencer also ignored his chain of command. He went behind Secretary Esper's back and bypassed him to make his offer to the President. I am guessing he did so because he knew Epser was going to shoot him down and wanted to make sure Trump heard his offer. That's not how things are supposed to work either, you don't bypass your boss this way.

So why did Spencer do all of this? My guess is that he is an anti-Trump person and he was indeed trying to trap him. Doing so would have at the very least gotten him a full time job as a media talking head and would have been profitable for him. And he may have had delusions of grandeur about taking down the President for good.

The other possibility is that he was one of the old generation of military people that believe that optics was more important than actually winning wars. He may have believed that Gallagher's behavior was so egregious that he couldn't be allowed to be seen as getting off the hook, despite his acquittal. Even a review board that would allow him to keep his rank and title as a Navy Seal would air more of the accusations against him and I still believe that Spencer was lying when he said that the review board would let him keep his trident. 

Either way, it's always shocking how bad President Trump's personnel decisions have worked out for him. There seems to be a common theme were the President orders his people to do something, properly and legally, and they refuse. Spencer is not the first person in Trump's administration to act this way. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of them aren't on board with either his agenda or his personal style and it's been fairly detrimental. Hopefully the rest of Trump's staff has been put on notice by this firing. 

US Military is concerned about possible strikes from Iran.

Centcom commander General Kenneth McKenzie. Foreign Policy/Getty.

General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of Centcom, says that he is concerned that Iran may launch additional strikes in the Middle East similar to the attack that hit Saudi Arabia's largest oil field. Foreign Policy. Iran is under immense pressure from US sanctions and is dealing with civil unrest and could lash out. There are threats against US forces posted in the region and McKenzie fears another strike like the one that hit the Aramco oil refinery earlier this year. Officials are especially concerned that an attack could be launched against desalinization plants, which would be vulnerable to the combined cruise missile and drone strikes that were used in the Aramco attack. Such an attack would threaten water supplies in the region and could cause a massive humanitarian disaster. 

My Comment:

Not sure how real this threat is. Iran has long been saber rattling and they obviously have caused some major issues in the past. The Aramco attack was a game changer and they have been heavily involved in the wars in Yemen and Iraq. They are certainly capable of launching another attack. 

And Iran is not stable right now. Sanctions are doing quite a bit of damage to them right now. They have had riots in the streets due to fuel prices that were so severe that they cut the internet to the whole country. Though those fuel riots were due to Iran's action in raising prices, the reason they had to do it is because they have been largely cut off from the oil markets. Iran is running out of money and might want to do something desperate. 

On the other hand though, I don't think the timing is right for Iran. With the impeachment going on and a major election in 2020, I think they want to figure out if President Trump is going to be there long term. If he were to be impeached (which won't happen) I don't think they would get better treatment from Mike Pence, but they would almost certainly get better treatment from a 2020 Democrat, none of whom had a problem with Obama's nuclear deal. My guess is that they will continue to try and wait things out.

That doesn't mean that they aren't going to try and provoke us and our local allies in the region. Iran will remain heavily engaged in both Syria and Yemen in their various proxy wars against Saudi Arabia and Israel. I could see more border skirmishes or battles on the Saudi border or more attacks against Israel via their proxies in the Houthi Rebels and Hezbollah. But I don't see a major attack coming in the short term. 

That being said, General McKenzie is right to be concerned about a strike against Saudi Arabia's desalinization plants. The country has very little in the way of natural water and if those plants were destroyed or damaged they would run out of water very quickly. Given how hot Saudi Arabia is and how little natural water they have it could be a disaster of epic proportions. Hundreds or thousands of people could die of thirst fairly quickly. 

And I don't think the Saudi Arabian government is up to the task of defending themselves against the kind of tactics Iran could use. They failed to protect the Aramco field which was a better defended target. If the Iranians do choose to attack again I don't think Saudi Arabia's air defenses would be able to hold out. 

If Iran does choose to strike it will be a huge problem for everyone involved. Attacking Saudi Arabia's water supplies would be an act of war and probably a war crime as well. There would have to be a response and that response would likely be war. I don't think that will happen but the idea has to be taken seriously. Hopefully Iran will realize that it's really not in their best interest and nothing will happen. 

Michael Bloomberg starts campaign with the largest advertisement buy in U.S. election history.

Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Politico/Getty.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has begun his presidential campaign with an absolutely massive $34 million ad buy. Politico. The $34 million will be used to buy TV advertisements in 46 out of 50 states, including big expensive states like California and Texas. It is believed that this ad buy is the biggest in history, outspending a $30 million buy that Barack Obama did in 2012. Michael Bloomberg is one of the richest men in the country with a net worth of $52 billion and is willing to spend up to $500 million on his campaign. Bloomberg also plans to spend $100 million on digital ads targeting President Trump and $25 million on registering new voters. 

My Comment:

I think Michael Bloomberg's 2020 run is going to prove once and for all if money is the end all be all of politics. In the last election President Trump was outspent by Hillary Clinton but he still managed to win. However, the margin between them wasn't that great with all things being said and done Clinton spent around $1.4 billion and Trump just under $1 billion. 

The money Bloomberg is spending on this ad alone? It dwarfs what other candidates are able to spend. Last quarter's money numbers show that the only candidate who is even close to being able to spend this much is fellow billionaire Tom Steyer, who has about $50 million cash on hand. Even well off candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren can not compete with Michael Bloomberg. 

Of course the Republicans have quite a bit of money as well. Unlike the DNC they are well funded and have a ton of cash on hand, along with all the money that President Trump has raised. Right now both groups have about $334 million dollars raised so far, which would give them a huge advantage in spending.

However, Bloomberg's wealth alone could destroy this advantage. The $500 million he has alone is enough to outspend both the Republican and Trump campaign coffers but all of the 2020 Democrats as well. And that's just the money he has raised alone! If he starts to get traction he will get outside donors and big money from high power donors. 

All that being said, this is still Michael Bloomberg we are talking about. As I said before I have no idea who he is supposed to appeal to. Right now the Democrat race has four real front runners all of whom have a wider appeal than Bloomberg has. Sanders and Warren are very popular with the progressive socialists while Joe Biden and Peter Buttgieg have the moderate vote locked up. There just isn't a lane here for Bloomberg

Furthermore, Bloomberg has several characteristics that make him completely unsuitable for the Democrats in 2020. For one thing he's a white male Jew, none of which are liked in the modern 2020 Democrats. He's also a billionaire which is what the progressive part of the party has been railing against for years now. If he somehow becomes the candidate, I can't see the progressive wing supporting him at all and they would have a good claim that he bought the election unfairly. Plus his law and order crime policies will damage him as well as they were enough to destroy Kamala Harris.

And Bloomberg won't appeal to anyone on the other side of the political spectrum. Though Bloomberg once called himself a Republican (another shot against him for the left) I can't think of any Republicans or right leaning independents that would vote for him. On the right Michael Bloomberg is the main boogyman who basically completely funded the modern gun control movement. He also is remembered as a nanny state idiot who cared more about how big your soda is than any actual issue. 

Can Bloomberg's billions change all of this? I doubt it. Though President Trump was able to use self funding effectively, he did something that I can't see Michael Bloomberg ever doing. He found a part of the electorate that was being ignored and made a pitch to them. I can't image Bloomberg doing anything like that as he has pretty much zero appeal to anyone. 

Still, this Bloomberg experiment will challenge a lot of beliefs. I generally thing that the importance of money is overrated in political elections but if Bloomberg is able to gather the candidacy or, even worse, become president it will pretty much prove me completely wrong. 

Of course, I have always hated Michael Bloomberg. I consider him a civilization level threat due to his position on gun rights. If he is somehow elected he will be the most anti-gun president in American history and I can't see the 2nd Amendment surviving without an armed revolution against him. None of the 2020 candidates are good on the 2nd amendment but given that President Trump doesn't have a primary opponent, I will be voting for anyone but Bloomberg in my State's 2020 primary. 

Prince Andrew fired after disastrous BBC interview concerning the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Prince Andrew, Duke of York.

Prince Andrew has been relieved of his royal duties after a disastrous BBC interview concerning the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Yahoo News. After the interview the Queen summoned Prince Andrew and informed him that he would have to step down from his royal duties and forfeit his £249,000 a year salary. The Prince is now facing calls to cooperate with US investigators and he has said he will do so. Prince Andrew was criticized for his lack of empathy for the victims in the interview and continuing to be friends with Jeffrey Epstein even after he had been convicted of sex trafficking. Prince Andrew also denied claims that he had sex with Virginia Guiffre née Roberts while she was underage.

My Comment:

I haven't had a chance to watch the above interview in full, but what little I have seen explains why Prince Andrew was stepping down. His denials concerning Virginia Guiffre were unbelievable to say the least. Instead of denying he had sex with her he said he had no memory of her and that he was at a pizza place instead. He also said that the photo with him had to be fake because, as a royal, he doesn't let people touch him. He came off as a liar who had a lot to hide. 

However, I am not sure if that alone explains why the Prince was fired. I think the BBC interview was an attempt to get in front of any new revelations. It failed miserably but I think those revelations are coming regardless. And they are probably the real reason he was fired. 

I do have to say that I am glad that Prince Andrew is facing some repercussions for this. Even though I believe that Epstein was a spook working a blackmail scheme for an intelligence agency, he's still responsible for having sex with at least one underage girl who had been a victim of human trafficking. He is responsible for that and this firing should just be the beginning of his punishment. 

I think that there is a good chance of the Prince being arrested if he ever comes back to the United States as anything other than a cooperating witness. Other than Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's girlfriend and pimp, who is now on the run, Prince Andrew is the biggest name that's out there in the scandal. 

I think there is a case to be made for him testifying. Maxwell should be brought to justice and Prince Andrew could help convict her or force her to cooperate as well. Doing so would probably help bring in a lot more people as I bet Prince Andrew knows a lot about what was going and Maxwell knows everything.

On the other hand, I would love to see Prince Andrew in an American prison. I, like most people, am tired of the elite getting away with their crimes. Though getting fired is a huge embarrassment and a major loss of face, that's all it is. It's not justice, it's a joke and he should serve prison time. 

I would say that this is the largest scandal for the Royal Family since the death of Princess Diana. Prince Andrew sure looks guilty as hell of having sex with a girl that was underage and a victim of human trafficking. And he is a centerpiece of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, which is one of the most notorious events in recent American history. 

Lost in all of this is that Prince Andrew was almost certainly compromised. Though it's unclear who was running it, Epstein was running a blackmail scheme. Given that Prince Andrew was a powerful royal, that means that the British Government itself may have been subverted by a blackmail operation. If they were lucky, the blackmail was just for money and not for influence. 

Either way, it's good to see some fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein case. Again, I have to give credit for Project Veritas for bringing the story back to the limelight. I am not sure the Prince Andrew interview happens without the ABC News video leak. I sincerely hope that the major players in the Epstein scandal end up facing justice. 

Editor's Note: Democratic Debate.

As you may know there is a Democratic Debate tonight. 10 candidates will be yelling each other and I plan to live tweet the drama. If you would like to follow along you can find my Twitter account here. If you can't or won't use Twitter, I also have a Gab account that I will cross post all my tweets to here.

The debate starts around 8:00 pm Central time and should last for around two hours. I will probably start live tweeting shortly before then but I don't know if I will be able to live tweet the whole debate, I may miss the last 20 minutes or so, depending on how long it goes on for. I hope to see everyone then!

FBI investigating if there was a "criminal enterprise" in the Jeffrey Epstein death case.

Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender picture. Yahoo News.

In comments made to the Senate Judiciary committee the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons said that the FBI was investigating the death of Jeffrey Epstein for evidence of a "criminal enterprise". Yahoo News. Senator Lindsey Graham asked the question and Kathleen Hawk Sawyer confirmed that the FBI is investigating. Graham, and other Senators including Ted Cruz and John Kennedy, echoed many Americans who are skeptical that Epstein killed himself. Senator Cruz asked Sawyer directly if there was evidence he was murdered but Sawyer said she believed the medical examination that determined his death was a suicide. 

The comments come after two guards on duty the night Epstein died were charged with failing to check on him and falsifying records.

My Comment:

I already talked about the guards being arrested, so I won't go into detail with that particular aspect of this story. What I said in this post still is accurate and I think that the two guards would have taken a plea if they thought they didn't have something to hide. These two guards are probably going away for a long time and won't last long in prison. My guess is that something scared them more than that. 

As for Sawyer's comments it does confirm that the FBI is at least pretending to look into this case. I don't have a lot of faith in the FBI to actually do so though. The FBI has proven to be biased in this case and many others. They are too busy trying to attack President Trump and trick morons into attempting terror attacks they wouldn't otherwise do to investigate an actual important case. I hope that there are still some good people in the FBI that will get to the bottom of this but I am not holding my breath. 

I do think that it's pretty significant that even high ranking Senators like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham are convinced that Epstein may have been murdered. Cruz was a front running presidential candidate and Graham is arguably the 2nd most powerful man in the Senate. These aren't no-name conspiracy theorists and it gives credibility to people that think Epstein was killed. 

However, Sawyer said that she still believes the medical examiners report that Epstein killed himself. Even though another medical report concluded Epstein was murdered. I think it's fairly likely that theory isn't going away. Unless there is a smoking gun found that's going to be the official story no matter how few people believe it.  

I am glad that this story isn't going away. Prince Andrew, one of the rich and famous people most implicated in the scandal, made a fool of himself in his interview and made himself look guilty as hell. That helped keep this story in the news. 

In the end though, I don't think it matters too much that Epstein was killed. There are other defendants out there, most notably Ghislaine Maxwell. Silencing Epstein isn't going to accomplish much if she's still out there. Plus, the FBI has the evidence they collected and a patriot could end up leaking some of that evidence if charges are not filed. 

If there was a conspiracy here it would be great to expose it. But given how powerful the people that would gain from Epstein's death it would be very hard to investigate it. If they could get to him in a secure prison they could get to anyone...

Of course there is a chance that Epstein really did kill himself. But if he did I still think that it's possible or even likely that there was a conspiracy. Though it is possible that Epstein's guards were just completely incompetent, it's also possible that they were paid to look the other way, either by Epstein himself or by someone who knew that he wanted to kill himself and wanted to give him a hand. No matter what I hope that someday we find out what the truth is. 

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky says everyone there is sick of the Burisima scandal and impeachment.

Volodymyr Zelensky. 

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky says that everyone is sick of the Burisima scandal and the impeachment drama. The Hill. A CNN reporter asked him about a potential investigation into Hunter Biden and his role at Burisima. Zelensky said that “We have our country, we have our independence, we have our problems and questions.” Zelensky's call with President Trump is at the center of the impeachment inquiry in America.

Ukraine President Zelensky: "I think everybody in Ukraine is so tired about Burisma." pic.twitter.com/26TglO4ymI

— The Hill (@thehill) November 19, 2019

My Comment:
President Zelensky seemed pretty annoyed with CNN and with good reason. Zelensky is kind of a remarkable person. He started out as a comedian and actor that played the President of Ukraine and then managed to gain the role for himself. That's huge accomplishment but the media only wants to use him to attack President Trump.

Zelensky is also on the verge of ending the war in his country. He just secured the release of three ships captured by Russia last year. He's got a real chance of making a lasting peace and ending a terrible war that has killed around 13,000 people. That too is ignored in the Western media.

Zelensky is turning his country around, making peace with Russia and improving the relationship with America. But none of that matters. All that matters to the media is trying to trick him into saying something that could hurt President Trump. Is it any wonder that he is annoyed?

I also think that Zelensky is capturing the mood of the world as well. It's utterly amazing to me that this story has come to dominate the news to this degree and that the Democrats are trying to remove President Trump over it. It's very clear that President Trump didn't do anything wrong even if he did do what he was accused of, which he wasn't. It's not a crime to withhold aid on condition on cleaning up corruption. People are sick and tired of this story and the fact that it isn't going away.

This wasn't an in depth post by any means. I just thought it was funny that even the President of Ukraine is sick and tired of this impeachment drama. He's saying what we are all feeling and I feel for the guy. This whole drama has been a joke and I, for one, will be glad when it is over. 

Shooting incident at Oklahoma Walmart ended with two dead and the gunman killing himself after being confronted by an armed citizen.

Police respond to the shooting. USA Today.

A shooting incident at the Duncan Oklahoma Wal-Mart ended with two people dead and the gunman shooting himself after being confronted by an armed citizen. USA Today. The gunman shot and killed a man and a woman in the Wal-Mart parking lot and then killed himself. The suspect and the victims all knew each other but police aren't saying what kind of relationship they had. A witness described seeing the gunman fire 9 shots and then was confronted by a civilian with a firearm who demanded he stop shooting. The suspect responded by killing himself. Police would not confirm all the details of the witness statement but did confirm that an armed civilian was involved. 

My Comment:

This probably won't be recorded as a mass shooting as the attacker killed himself before he shot four people but I think this is an example of where an armed citizen made things better. He didn't even have to use his gun, just draw it and the attacker killed himself. 

It's unclear what this gunman's goal was. From what it sounds like this was a domestic situation where the gunman was in a relationship with the woman and the man was her new boyfriend, but that hasn't been confirmed.

If that's the case than the gunman may have finished his murder spree right then and there. But there is no guarantee of that. Given the fact that he had just murdered two people it's very possible that he could have killed more people. Or he could have escaped and cause all kinds of chaos. Plus, the civilian ensured that the man didn't try to shoot it out with police. I think there is a good chance of the civilian stopping more deaths by drawing his gun, and even if he didn't he, at the very least, saved the state the cost of a trial and imprisonment of a very dangerous man. 

I think this is another example of why it's important to have armed civilians. Many times when mass shooters and other criminals are confronted by an armed person they end up killing themselves. This case wasn't the typical mass shooting but I think the gunman figured out that the gig was up and decided to go out on his own terms instead of being detained or shot by the civilian. 

There's an argument to be made that the civilian should have shot the gunman regardless. From what I understand the civilian was in a position of strength with the gun pointed at the gunman's head and the gunman had stopped shooting at that point. But he still had bullets in his gun and if he was able to kill himself he might have been able to shoot the civilian. Not sure if the civilian should have taken the risk, but depending on the laws in Oklahoma he might not have had a choice. Tough call either way. 

I don't see this story staying in the news. Though the media loves the narrative of Wal-Mart being a hellhole of mass shootings, the fact that the shooting was ended after an armed civilian confronted the killer means that this story will be gone by tomorrow, except for local coverage. And given the fact that the attacker killed himself before shooting more than 3 people it won't go down as a mass shooting stopped by an armed civilian. 

Iran warns of crackdown after major protests break out over fuel prices and taxes.

Protesters block a road with their vehicles. Reuters.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have warned Iranians that there will be decisive action if protests that have spread throughout the country do not end. Reuters. 100 banks and other buildings have been torched so far in protests caused by high fuel prices and rationing. Iran has recently raised prices of fuel 50%. The unrest has been the worst since 2017 and Iran has shut down the country's internet. Iran has said the higher fuel prices will be used to subsidized lower income Iranians and will raise $2.5 billion a year. Iran has been in an economic meltdown ever since President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on the Islamic republic. 

My Comment:

Big story that isn't getting too much coverage. To be fair though, Iran seems to go into these kinds of cycles of protest and crackdown fairly often. The last major unrest was in 2017 but it was put down with the kind of brutality you can expect from this regime. 

The big question now is if this revolt is more of the same or does it signify something else. As I said, disorder isn't uncommon in Iran and it could just be another cycle of if this time. Iran's a pretty terrible place and the clerics have a stranglehold on the people who usually don't agree with their actions. 

But it's possible this unrest is more serious than normal. I don't recall Iran shutting down the entire internet before. That's a big hint how big these protests are. Iran doesn't want news to reach the rest of the world via the internet. They also don't want people in their country to be able to coordinate protests via the internet so shutting it down could help to end these protests.

I think that the Iranian people are right to be upset. It seems like a pretty clear bribe to the lower classes at the expense of everyone else. The clerics know that their biggest support is from the lower classes and they don't mind pissing everyone else off.

Fuel prices are one of the things that can really screw over everyone. Higher gas prices not only add a huge new bill for everyone that has a car, it also raises the prices of pretty much everything that is transported by vehicle. It's a huge burden on anyone who works for a living and the only people that will benefit from these taxes are the people getting a payment from Iran. And even those people won't really benefit if they have to pay more money for everything. 

This kind of bad policy often leads to widespread protests. Gas taxes spawned the still relevant Yellow Vests movement in France, which recently celebrated it's one year anniversary. Doing the same thing in Iran, albeit for different reasons, caused the same kind of disorder. All I know is that if I was in control of a country and needed funds, a gas tax would be the last thing I ever considered...

In general though, there seems to be a lot of civil unrest right now globally. There are riots and protest in Hong Kong, France, Bolivia and now Iran. I think the internet is partially to blame. People can compare their lives to the lives of people in other countries and they get upset when they find out that their lives don't measure up. Add that in with the generally terrible decisions governments are making and it's no surprise that there is civil unrest. 

Democrats say that Kamala Harris should drop out of the race before she loses her home state of California

Kamala Harris. Politico/AP.

Former 2020 contender Kamala Harris risks embarrassment if she continues in the race, potentially losing her home state of California. Politico.  Harris had a brief time near the top of the polls but a series of campaign mishaps, poor management and bad debate performances have left her campaign polling in the single digits, even in California. Candidates have until December to drop out of the race or they will be on California's March ballot. Supports of Harris, speaking anonymously due to fear of reprisal, say that Harris is at risk of being embarrassed and could even invite a primary challenge for her own run in 2022. 

My Comment:

A quick post about a failing presidential campaign. I tend to agree that Harris should drop out. It's pretty clear she's dropped out of the potential candidate tier and is now in the why are they still running tier. To be fair to Harris, there are a lot of other candidates in that tier with her, so she's hardly unique, but it's still true. 

I do think that Harris is probably gearing up for a major embarrassment. Right now there are only four viable candidates, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Peter Buttgieg. Nobody else should really still be in the race at this point. Harris is polling in single digits.

Part of this is because Harris doesn't really appeal to anyone. She has zero appeal to moderates with her support for gun control and nanny state nonsense. Democrats don't like her due to her stance on criminal justice. She was kind of law and order Attorney General for California and threw a lot of people in jail for things as minor as possession of pot. But she's not so law and order that she would actually appeal to conservatives. 

I also find Harris to be personally unlikable. In the debates she came of as a shrill know it all who looked down on anyone who disagreed with her. She has a high nasally voice and generally comes off as annoying. 

Speaking of her debate performances, they were pretty terrible. She did have Joe Biden on the ropes during the first debate but in the end that didn't play well for her. She basically called Joe Biden racist, and though Biden is many things, many of them horrible, nobody bought him as a racist. After that debate, she wilted under pressure when people challenged her. 

Harris has a debate style that I find insufferable. She can never actually support her positions but she is the master of telling stories about hypothetical people that may or may not be helped or hurt by either her or her opponents policies. It's always metaphors and hypothetical with her.   

I do wonder why anyone thought that Harris was a potential contender in the first place. I think a large part of it was wishful thinking. Much like Barack Obama, I think Harris and her handlers thought she would win because of the color of her skin (and her gender). It worked for Obama but it didn't work for Hillary Clinton and it's not working for Harris either. She just isn't popular and competent enough at running a campaign. 

My guess is that Harris will drop out but it won't be until the Iowa Caucus at the earliest. She's got too much of her pride wrapped up in this campaign to give it up. Much like Hillary Clinton, I always got the impression that Harris felt entitled to the presidency. Until she gets rejected by the voters directly, I can't see her dropping out.  

Guards responsible for monitoring Jeffrey Epstein were offered and rejected a plea deal.

Jeffrey Epstein. New York state sex offender photo.

Federal prosecutors offered a plea deal to two prison guards responsible for Jeffrey Epstein but the deal was rejected by the guards. AP. With a deal being offered it seems likely that the two guards will be charged with a crime. The guards are accused of not checking on Epstein every 30 minutes and falsifying records saying they had. Though Epstein was not on suicide watch during the time of his death, he was still supposed to be monitored by the prison guards. Attorney General William Barr said that the Epstein investigation has been moving slowly due to uncooperative witnesses and that there were "serious irregularities" at the jail where Epstein died. 

My Comment:

Another interesting development in the Epstein case. The fact that a plea deal was offered means that these two guards are almost certainly going to be charged with a crime. From what it sounds like it will be falsification of records, which is of course a serious offense. Tampering with government records is a serious thing in the first place but when someone dies because of it they are going to throw the book at you. 

The big question now is whether or not these guards were just incompetent or if they allowed Epstein to die for some reason. To be fair, incompetence of this magnitude is fairly comment just about everywhere. I wouldn't have believed it myself until I started to work full time, but I am sure everyone has a story or two about someone who just refused to do their job. And it's very possible that's what is going on here. It's very possible that these people were completely terrible at their jobs, either through laziness or just plan stupidity.

That being said, you would think that with such a high profile prisoner the guards would have taken some precautions. There are only two things the general public know about Epstein, that he's a pedophile and that a half the world's elite wanted him dead. If I had been working there I would be paying extra close attention to Epstein as I sure as hell wouldn't want to be at the center of an international firestorm like this. Were these guards really that poorly informed that they didn't know how big this story was or was something bigger going on here? 

Of course the more conspiratorial minded people, which is everyone these days, think that Epstein was killed. Or, at the very least, was allowed to commit suicide. It's very possible that these guards were paid off by someone and they in turn allowed Epstein to die, either by his own hands or by the hands of a third party. 

If that's the case than this plea deal could mean that the Justice Department is looking for bigger fish to fry. If they are looking for evidence of a conspiracy these two guards would be the first place to look. If they could cop a plea perhaps they would have testified as to why they didn't do their jobs. 

And you would think that these guys would cop a plea. Tampering with records is a very serious felony that can result in a 20 year prison sentence. And since these are jail guards you would think that they would jump on the chance to do so. Former jailers and prison guards do NOT do well in prison so it's not just a 20 year sentence they could be facing here but death itself. If there only concern was their future they would cop a plea for sure.

Which begs the question, why aren't these guys begging for a plea? What is more scary to them then a 20 year sentence in a federal prison where most of the population is going to hate you and want to kill you outright? It's possible that they were offered a terrible deal, but even then, given the circumstances of the case, I think there is something else going on here... 

I will say that if these two guards are arrested I sincerely hope that they are protected in jail, at least better than Epstein was. If there is a conspiracy going on here it wouldn't do for these two to end up dead. And if they were killed in jail it would be pretty easy to cover it up, all you would need is for general knowledge of the fact that they were federal jailers and then just leave them alone with some of the other prisoners and they would be gone very soon... Though I would appreciate the dramatic irony of that outcome, I think everything possible should be done to prevent this from happening. 

Prince Andrew breaks silence on Jeffrey Epstein case, denies allegations, says it wasn't becoming of the royal family to be friends with Epstein.

Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell. 

Prince Andrew has broken his silence on the Jeffrey Epstein case saying it wasn't "becoming of the royal family" to be friends with Epstein even after his conviction. BBC. The Prince has been accused of sexually assaulting several underage girls, including Virginia Giuffre nee Roberts. Giuffre says that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew three times, including one time when she was under the age of consent at 17. The Prince said that he had no recollection of meeting with Giuffre at all. The revelations came from a BBC interview that will be released in full on Saturday. 

My Comment:

It seems as though Prince Andrew knows that further revelations are coming as is trying to get in front of it. The BBC is friendly territory for the Royal Family and I doubt this interview was hard hitting. They weren't going to press him too hard as doing so could result in them losing access to the Royal Family, which is a big moneymaker for the BBC. 

This is, of course, the reason why ABC dropped the Epstein story back in 2015. In leaked video anchor Amy Robach said it was pressure from the Royal Family is why the ABC higher ups didn't want to show the interview she did with Giuffre. I think as long as people are obsessed with Prince William and Prince Harry and their wives, we can't expect any of the traditional media to call Prince Andrew out on this. 

I don't think Prince Andrew has much of a defense here. His claim that he didn't remember Giuffre doesn't pass the smell test. I mean there are pictures of him touching her with his hand around her hip. It's pretty clear that he knew her well enough back then to do that at least. 

Even more damning is the fact that he remained friends with Epstein even after he was arrested and convicted of sex crimes. It's one thing to say you didn't know what Epstein was before he was arrested. But staying friends with him afterwards? He knew exactly who Epstein was and what he was doing. There is no excuse and I do wonder how on earth Prince Andrew will defend himself. 

In the United States, much of the focus on the Epstein scandal has been his relationship with people like Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz  and Bill Richardson, but Prince Andrew has been an afterthought. As much as people like to talk about the "Clinton body count", I think they ignore the possibility that the Royal Family could be responsible for Epstein's death. I don't think anyone really believes that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself but it's important to note that some very powerful people wanted him dead, with the Royal Family being one of the most powerful.

I don't think the Jeffrey Epstein story is going away. I know the United States media is currently obsessed with a largely irrelevant and politically boring impeachment story and the British Press is similarly obsessed with the Brexit story. But Twitter and other alternative media? Epstein is still a huge story. With so many people digging into the story and such a huge incentive for something to leak, I wouldn't be surprised if something big comes out.

I view this interview being a reaction to that. I think Prince Andrew and his handlers know that something else big is coming and they will have to deal with it now rather than later. I can't see too many repercussions for him regardless but saving face is a pretty big motivator.

Finally, I have to say that I am very glad that Project Veritas and the anonymous ABC News leaker revived this story. Though the "Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself" meme was picking up steam before Veritas released their video it has blown up even more since then, with even an US Congressman cryptically referencing it. The story wasn't dead before the video but it was on life support. We might have not had this interview with Prince Andrew without their good work.

Who made the stage for the 5th Democratic Debate?

Some of the Presidential candidates. NPR/Getty.

The next Democratic Debate is next week on November 20th. 10 candidates have made the cut and will participate. They include the following:

Joe Biden

Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders

Peter Buttgieg

Corey Booker

Tulsi Gabbard

Andrew Yang

Kamala Harris

Amy Klobucher 

Tom Steyer.

Julian Castro made the last debate but did not qualify for this one. Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke was also present in the last debate but has dropped out of the contest. Eight other candidates also did not qualify, including new candidates Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrcik, both of whom just announced their candidacies. 

The debate will be broadcast on MSNBC and moderating duties will be split between MSNBC/NBC and The Washington Post. It will be on Wednesday November 20th from 8pm to 10pm. 

As always, I plan to live tweet the debate. I will be doing so both on Twitter and Gab. My twitter account can be found here and my Gab account can be found here.

What's my take on this? I personally am glad that the field has narrowed a bit. 12 candidates at the last debate was just stupid. It was hard for any candidate to find any momentum and the thing lasted way too long. Some of the more interesting candidates, including Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard barely got a chance to speak. Part of that is due to bias from the moderators but even then it was frustrating. 

As for the debate itself, I think it's do or die time for most of the candidates, espically the ones that haven't yet qualified for the December debate. There are a lot of candidates stuck in single digits and a good debate performance could help them out of it. 

The biggest stories will probably be the four front runners. Biden's had a rough go of it and hasn't done well in the debates. Warren and Sanders have been getting beat up by everyone else and Pete Buttgieg will have to prove his candidacy is legit and not just having a "moment". 

The other big story will be the candidates that did not make the stage. I'm guessing that Julian Castro will probably drop out, but he was an afterthought anyways. The real story is Michael Bloomberg. I guess Deval Patrick is a story too, but nobody knows who he is. Bloomberg is a national name and it remains to be seen if he will make any kind of impact. 

Either way, I will be following the debate closely, even if I don't expect any huge moments. It probably won't be that entertaining but I do enjoy watching the political process. 

Former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick expected to join already crowded 2020 Democrat field.

Deval Patrick. NPR/AFP.

Former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is expected to join the 2020 Presidential Democratic primary race. NPR. Patrick was a two term governor of Massachusetts and one of the few black men to be elected governor in the United States. Patrick was also a close ally of Barack Obama. He had previously ruled out a 2020 run due to the effect it could have on his family but may be motivated by the quality and politics of the 2020 field. Patrick is comparatively moderate compared to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He joins former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as late entries into the race. Patrick's entry to the race comes just days before early primary state New Hampshire's filing deadline. 

My Comment:

It's amazing to me that people are still entering the Democrat's primary race. At this point, only months away from the first votes in Iowa Caucus, the field should be getting narrower, not broader. But Patrick joins Michael Bloomberg in at the last second. And there is still a chance that Hillary Clinton could run again too! What a mess. 

I think it goes to show how weak the field is for Democrats and how divided the party actually is. Frontrunner Joe Biden has been making massive gaffes on the trail, has health concerns and has corruption concerns. Elizabeth Warren can't explain how she's going to pay for Medicare for all and has her own scandal with lying about her ancestry. Bernie Sanders is in extremely poor health and Pete Buttgieg has almost zero support from non-whites. 

And there are real differences between the candidates. The more moderate candidates are scared of what Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders want to do. Though the primary voters may be far left, the general election voters are not and the Democrats want to be able to apeal to the Obama voters that went for President Trump in 2016. 

Is Deval Patrick that man? I seriously doubt it. I follow politics very closely but I have hardly heard of the man before this week. I don't think he has any national name recognition at all. Given how wide the field is and how many candidates are running I don't see how people will be voting for a relative unknown like Patrick. 

The political moderate field is already crowded. Both Joe Biden and Pete Buttgieg are fairly moderate and Michael Bloomberg is the same way. And there are still a few of the also-rans that are also politically moderate. 

I guess Patrick could get some votes because he is black but I don't see it. People voting based on race have plenty of options but I don't think there are actually that many people out there that do so. Obama won because he was the first, but I doubt anyone will be excited to vote for the 2nd black president. 

I generally think that the 2020 race is an absolute mess for the Democrats. There are too many candidates running and the impeachment drama is likely to be a massive distraction. These late candidates entering the race aren't helping things. I thought President Trump was likely to win regardless but the Democrats are really hurting their chances with the current field.