***Official Political Discussion Thread***

aepps20 said:
All this talk about LIB Unity brings da lulz. Only people that hate LIBS more than Coal Gang are other Libs with their purity test nonsense. Young Turks and Jenk Clowngar and Ana Clownsparian do our job for us. We only have to use #SMASHMOUTHPOLITICS on NT LIBS because the other SNOWFLAKES cry in their Veggie wraps and stay home when their candidate doesn't win. PATHETIC B. Coal Gang members vote at least 10 times for our candidates whether we like them or not. Libs should take note.
Click to expand...
So much truth in here.

We are playing that 142-dimensional Russian roulette on these libs yet we don't even have to lift a finger.
 
MalcolmNewton said:
Sanders, Warren I'd prefer to see take another shot. Kamala Harris, who I believe wouldn't stand a snowballs chance. Though at this point in time it comes down to what Democrat can herd sheep from fickle 'independant' white America and the non-racist republican voters, the latter who I am convinced is a number that is getting smaller and smaller as the months go on.

At any rate, Dems are going to have to pay some heavy lip service to the communities Trump has pissed off the most, assuming they don't have short term memories which voters tend to suffer from come election time.
Click to expand...
Nah Kamala Harris ain’t ready
Gavin newsom gonna try
 
rexanglorum said:
Dems have a habit of not pressing the advantage when they have across the board majorities. We'd have fewer non voters if we didn't make voters look foolish. in 2009, they should have gone straight nuclear option and done all business with a 50 vote threshold, packed the courts with more left leaning judges, put in a public option, card check (which would have prevented GOP takeovers in those midwestern States). Obama should have jailed the bakers, he certainly should not have let Goldman Sachs run the treasury. He should have been willing to increase taxes. He should have ignored unctous concerns about the National Debt.

It's a loser's ideology to concede that even if we regain super majorities, we will just have to accept Republican-controlled courts for a generation. Congress absolutely can change the number of judges in each Federal Court. In 2020, we should see a doubling of every Federal Court's number of judges. Promise to wipe away every last vestige of Trump's Presidency. Play to win instead of begging the voters for a chance to lose more slowly.
Click to expand...
A couple of points:

-Given your response, I suspect you thought my comment was directed strictly at leftist, it was not. I was voicing displeasure at all voters who decided not to vote for Clinton for seemingly petty political reasons.

-Second I am in no mood to defend the Democrats and Obama for their mistakes from 2009-2010 because they made many and agree with some of your criticisms, but I hardly believe that performance warranted the loses they sustained at the ballot box. Those loses were white nationalism biting back more than anything. Obama being the leftist authoritarian progressive wanted would have only added fuel to that fire.

I feel with will always be a place where we always differ, that economic populism can be just as a potent force (for the left) as white supremacy (for the right). If leftist were so upset with the Dems from 2009-2010 then I would hope that they would do like the Tea Party and punish the centrist Dems at primary, and unleash hell on opposition during the general. Instead, they stayed home and complained that the Dems were not doing the things they wanted, so they didn't deserve their vote. Then when the loses came, they cite the lack of doing what they wanted as the sole reason for such loses. Sorry must I call out the overt petulance in such actions. But like I said before, they alone not alone in their way of thinking.

-I agree with your blueprint for the Dems if they take back power, but I was speaking about making the decision in 2016. It is asinine for someone, especially a progressive, especially a progressive minority, to think that 4 years of packing the courts and other right-wing buffoonery is tolerable because in four years we can fight back. A while back someone in here said that maybe Trump and all the hell he would unleash is a good thing because it will wake black people up and they agree with his point of view on race issues more. I strongly disagreed because I felt and still feel that innocent people should not have to be unnecessarily martyred just for others to "wake up".

If they Dems do successfully pack the courts in 2020 how does that help the people that will lose lawsuits because of a Trump appointed judge? Tell them it is cool, maybe they can make it to the Court of Appeals or SCOTUS, or reassure them that the probability of the next man winning is higher? Why should this be the case when it did not have to be.

Look at what sitting home in 2014 cost the left when it comes to federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. So in 2016, if someone knew what was at stake when it came to the Judicial Branch and stayed home over a petty beef with Hillary, then they did something idiotic. And if that was motivated by the bitterness that Barrack Obama failed to govern in a way he never promised, then it is more idiotic.

Also if the far left is gonna to paint Obama was simply charismatic, with vague promises and much little of anything else then that directly undercuts the argument that they felt they got made fools of if they chose to vote for him
 
Last edited:
Meanie (((Melania))) is younger than Don Jr's new (((girlfriend)))

Screenshot_20180511-212312-01.jpeg
 
2020 will be a wide-open race where tons of candidates will have to outflank one another on economic and social issues.

With Bernie and with Hillary I always felt that part of their coalition was unearned. Bernie had a monopoly on the progressive vote and the "anyone but a Clinton" vote. Hillary got too many risk adverse voters that just wanted a sense of security of competent left of center governance over rolling the dice on true social democracy. The 2020 field will not have these luxuries. They will have to fight to form coalitions, win voters from one another. All kinds of left-wing economic policies will be pitched.

Three high profile women will probably run, multiple African Americans, multiple progressives and maybe even people that were not previously Senators and Governors. Maybe only Harris's will enjoy some added boost from her identity. If anyone is paying attention even Bernie, who will most likely be the front-runner at the start, is touring the deep South and proposing policies outside of his usual stump speech.

Best part: When the dust settles and we have heard all these left-wing ideas on how to make the country better, and the Dems sit down and start writing their 2020 platform, when folk ask which progressive ideas we heard on the campaign trail should be included, there will only be one answer.....

WarmheartedYearlyHerald-max-1mb.gif
 
RustyShackleford said:
2020 will be a wide-open race where tons of candidates will have to outflank one another on economic and social issues.

With Bernie and with Hillary I always felt that part of their coalition was unearned. Bernie had a monopoly on the progressive vote and the "anyone but a Clinton" vote. Hillary got too many risk adverse voters that just wanted a sense of security of competent left of center governance over rolling the dice on true social democracy. The 2020 field will not have these luxuries. They will have to fight to form coalitions, win voters from one another. All kinds of left-wing economic policies will be pitched.

Three high profile women will probably run, multiple African Americans, multiple progressives and maybe even people that were not previously Senators and Governors. Maybe only Harris's will enjoy some added boost from her identity. If anyone is paying attention even Bernie, who will most likely be the front-runner at the start, is touring the deep South and proposing policies outside of his usual stump speech.

Best part: When the dust settles and we have heard all these left-wing ideas on how to make the country better, and the Dems sit down and start writing their 2020 platform, when folk ask which progressive ideas we heard on the campaign trail should be included, there will only be one answer.....

WarmheartedYearlyHerald-max-1mb.gif
Click to expand...
I hope you’re right
 
Thank you, aepps20 aepps20 , for DESTROYING Rookie Rusty. He has learned NOTHING from Tomi Bae. SMH WOW

RustyShackleford said:
their 2020 platform
Click to expand...
Well, I'm glad you brought it up because I received an advanced copy of the 2020 GOP platform and I think my African Americans over there will be PLEASANTLY SURPRISED by the VERY nice things in there for people of color. Here are some highlights that I wanted to share:

1) No more the gays. They are putting something in our water because, let me tell you, ever since I saw that Hollywood propaganda movie Brokeback Mountain, I haven't been able to sleep with my wife, but I do get an erection whenever I'm at my gym and Pedro has his shirt off. This has got to stop.

2) No more murder of fetuses. Look, Samantha, if you make a mistake, you have got to live with your mistake. That's how democracy works. That's why we're sticking it out with Trump for 4 years.

3) Bomb Iran. Why? It rhymes. And look, **** that ****. If I have to wear a tie to my cousin Jimmy's wedding, Iranians better be wearing ties too. That **** is uncomfortable.

4) More coal. Coal mining deaths are at an all-time low. This correlates directly with a lack of dangerous coal mining. NOT COOL. NOT COOOOAL AT ALL.
 
I just caught up on Sadler’s comments on McCain didn’t know another idiot went lower than the guy on Fox News. Yikes wow indeed.

After all the insults and now this I really want McCain to put the hands on the draft dodger. Please, serve your country one last time John.
 
**** off Bolton.
Unilaterally withdrawing from a flawed but largely effective deal and then threatening to sanction the allies who seek to uphold the deal to prevent it from collapsing entirely. All the other parties in the deal maintain their position of wanting to continue upholding the deal, which means continuing to do business with and in Iran. Does America intend to sanction all of its allies in the deal? Germany, France, UK, China and Russia?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/13/bolton-pompeo-trump-iran-sanctions-584206
Trump team sends mixed signals to Europe
The administration said it expects its allies will fall in line with its Iran policy but doesn’t exclude the possibility of punishing them.
National security adviser John Bolton on Sunday carefully doubled down on President Donald Trump’s threat that European countries could be sanctioned by the United States if they continue to be involved with Iran.

“It’s possible,“ Bolton said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”


Bolton’s statement came as he and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried to amplify the reasons behind the Trump administration’s deal to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement and explain how it will work, given that the international community, other than Israel and some Arab nations, has not jumped on board with the president. Both Bolton and Pompeo suggested they believed the great powers of Europe might eventually see the light.

Trump on Tuesday said he was going to reimpose sanctions on Iran — dealing a blow to what he called the “decaying and rotten” Iran nuclear deal. Those sanctions could involve secondary sanctions, which would penalize countries whose companies continue to trade with Iran. “Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States,” the president said.

After Trump‘s announcement, the leaders of France, Germany and Britain said in a joint statement that they remain committed to preserving the Iran deal and urged the U.S. “to ensure that the structures of the [deal] can remain intact, and to avoid taking action which obstructs its full implementation by all other parties to the deal.” China and Russia also have affirmed support for the deal, which was designed to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons.

“I think the Europeans will see that it’s in their interest ultimately to come along with this,” Bolton said to CNN host Jake Tapper.

Despite the lack of support from other world powers, Bolton said he thought the U.S. sanctions would make a dent in and of themselves. “We’ve seen is that Iran’s economic condition is really quite shaky, so that they effect here could be dramatic,” he told Tapper.

Bolton went on to say that despite Trump‘s consistency in terms of saying he was going to get out of deal: “Many people ... thought we would never get out of it.”

“I don’t know how to explain why people could miss what the president was saying,” Bolton said. “So I think at the moment there is some feeling in Europe that they’re really surprised that we got out of it and really surprised at the imposition of strict sanctions. I think that will sink in, and we’ll see what happens then.“

Also Sunday morning, Pompeo said that withdrawal from the deal wasn’t aimed at Europeans — that the Trump administration will continue to work with our allies to fix the deal.

“I am hopeful in the days and weeks ahead we can come up with a deal that really works, that really protects the world from Iranian bad behavior, not just their nuclear program, but there missiles and their malign behavior as well,” Pompeo said on “Fox News Sunday.” “And I will work closely with the Europeans to try and achieve that.“

When pressed whether the U.S. is prepared to go against companies from our allies, Pompeo said the sanctions in place are “very clear about what the requirements are.“

“My mission that I've been given by President Trump is to work to strike a deal that achieves the outcomes that protect America,” he said. “That's what we are going to do, and I will be hard at it with the Europeans in the next several days.“

Others were dubious that withdrawing from the nuclear deal would prove effective, particularly since it shattered an international alliance that worked to negotiate the deal with Iran.

“I don’t believe we will ever be able to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again,“ James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, said on “Fareed Zakaria’s GPS.” He and fellow Zakaria guest Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA, both said Trump‘s move on Iran is apt to complicate matters with North Korea.

On “Fox News Sunday,” Pompeo also talked about the U.S. becoming more involved in North Korea if Kim Jong Un chooses the “right path.” Trump announced last week that his highly anticipated meeting with Kim will be June 12 in Singapore.

He said that more Americans from the private sector could help build the energy grid in North Korea and to work with them to develop infrastructure.

“All the things that the North Korean people need, the capacity for American agriculture to support North Korea so they can eat meat and have healthy lives, Pompeo said. “Those are the kinds of things that if we get what it is the president has demanded, the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of North Korea that the American people will offer in spades.“

However, Pompeo said the U.S. is not yet at the place where “we should be remotely close to declaring that we've achieved what it is we want.“

Bolton shared a different sentiment on what the United States might be able to offer North Korea in negotiations, adding that North Korea shouldn’t look for economic aid from the United States.

“I think what the prospect for North Korea is to become a normal nation, to behave and interact with the rest of the world the way South Korea does,” he said on “State of the Union.”

The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations also noted Sunday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that he doesn’t “think anybody believes you’re going to sign the complete ending of the nuclear program in one day.”

Trump is undergoing extensive preparations for his meeting with Kim, Bolton said, which included an extensive conversation with China President Xi Jinping.


“I’ve been on the job about five weeks, I would say that Iran and North Korea probably taken up over half of my time, and a lot of that obviously … is helping him make the decisions and get ready for these meetings,” he said “So I think his preparations are very intense.“

Retired Adm. Michael Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Sunday said he gives the president “credit for getting to this point“ in terms of North Korea.

“He has moved the needle on this one that has not been done in the past,“ Mullen said of Trump. “But I also think given the stakes it's a very much high-risk, high-reward opportunity, and I think the downsides potentially are really significant as well.“

During a recent speech in Washington, Mullen warned that if the talks between Kim and Trump fall apart, “the failure is likely to stir the president's most bellicose aggressive instincts.“

Mullen clarified that statement Sunday, saying that “the likelihood of options are dramatically reduced to potential conflict“ if the talks don’t go as planned.

“Despite the progress that‘s been made to try to understand Kim Jong Un, there's a lot we don't understand,” he added. “And that he would be significantly different from his father and his grandfather to make the kind of changes that are being discussed would be a huge, huge shift and I'm more skeptical than I am optimistic that he would do that. That said, it could happen.“
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Belgium said:
**** off Bolton.
Unilaterally withdrawing from a flawed but largely effective deal and then threatening to sanction the allies who seek to uphold the deal to prevent it from collapsing entirely. All the other parties in the deal maintain their position of wanting to continue upholding the deal, which means continuing to do business with and in Iran. Does America intend to sanction all of its allies in the deal? Germany, France, UK, China and Russia?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/13/bolton-pompeo-trump-iran-sanctions-584206
Trump team sends mixed signals to Europe
The administration said it expects its allies will fall in line with its Iran policy but doesn’t exclude the possibility of punishing them.
Click to expand...

They can talk that sanction European countries all they like, it's a bag of hot wind. Half of the forces in the middle east are coalition troops providing logistics and operations support. If they pull out due to sanctions then U.S forces are screwed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cragmatic
Hikers of NT - Official Hiking Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
cragmatic
cragmatic
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
16K
mp23
mp23
feeninlikejodeci
Tactics to scare Landlord?
Replies
12
Views
2K
feeninlikejodeci
feeninlikejodeci
Brownstone
Buzzer Beaters Only Thread
Replies
8
Views
699
Public Enemy
Public Enemy
therealest1
Nike Air Max Sunder
Replies
4
Views
3K
1978S
1978S

Latest News

View All News

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom