***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[-Red-]

Sorry, I assumed you knew the reference.

I do know the reference, which is why I responded the way I did. I'm not ******* dwalk and I took issue with your insinuation.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

3 left wing parties splitting the vote.

I. WANT. TO. FIGHT. SOMEONE.

 

[boris]

I do know the reference, which is why I responded the way I did. I'm not ****ing dwalk and I took issue with your insinuation.

That was unnecessary on my part and I apologize for that comment.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Bro, Gabbard was the Vice-Chairwoman of the DNC beginning in 2013. She had already "risen" before the 2016 campaign. Stop it. And if you look at that Jacobin piece you referenced, they link to five articles in the first paragraph from liberal, not leftist, media touting Gabbard (NYT, Daily Mail, Business Insider, HuffPost). But feel free to post similar sparkling profiles of her from leftist websites if you can find them to substantiate that claim about the Bernie Bros putting her on the map. Did her Bernie campaign appearances contribute to this? Sure. But let's not get carried away here.

That being said, I don't know how "****ty" of a person she is now, much less that she was back in 2016. On the whole, I probably don't like or dislike her or her politics any more or less than many of the other Democratic candidates. You or anyone else might, that's fine, I'm sure everyone has their perspectives and reasons. But all of this seems way ****ing overblown to me, especially for a candidate who's polling at like 1% or so. I'll give you that you've been speaking out on Gabbard for a while, as your posts indicate, and for reasons I find reasonable. It is what it is.

I am sensitive to some of these critiques, as you stated and as I've admitted. I would also say that you and many others in here are particularly sensitive to perceived transgressions by Bernie and those in his camp. My issue with bringing up the point about other candidates is that Bernie and his supporters are routinely raked over the coals in here for **** that is remarkably unremarkable and par for the course in politics. And when it's only him catching that flack (or at least to a wildly disproportionate degree) I think it's reasonable to point that out.

You don't have to post any kind of way, but I'm going to push back where I feel it's warranted. You do routinely show your work, which I highly respect, but that doesn't mean that's the end of the conversation...

-Dude please, how many people came name a Vice Chair of the DNC right now or could in 2013-2106. So right now, people checking for the opinion of the current vice chairs like they do Gabbard post the 2016 election? To claim that position meant she already "risen" is a stretch. I am talking about mainstream relevance. New outlets are not writing profiles or tripping over themselves to have the current Vice-Chairs of the DNC on news shows. And before Gabbard blew up with the whole DNC and Sanders campaign, no one in the mainstream was really checking for her.

Again, for the millionth and second time, I said Bernie Bro (I spelled out exactly what I meant) not Bernie supporters in general and not leftist. You want to criticize me for playing fast and loose with definitions regarding "asset", but you insist of trying to paint it like I said something other than what I said. I didn't make the assertion "leftist" magazine were ones pushing Gabbard. Or leftist are responsible for her rise. In fact I am pretty damn sure I have said Bernie Bros and their behavior are a detriment to the leftist movement.

But you can so search for video of Young Turks, Jimmy Dore Show, Secular talk if you want to see videos of outlets that service Bernie Bros giving Gabbard shine back around that time. Liberal outlets are the ones you want to pass blame on for her rise, but it is also liberal outlets putting her under the light. It is not leftist outlets Gabbard is running around name dropping as trying to smear her. She keeps shade for the NYT name in her mouth.

Your, original criticism of my claim clearly read like you were implying I was criticizing Bernie Bros in bad faith. You want me to walk back my statement, sure, other things contributed to Gabbard rise, but her mainstream rise is mainly because of her interaction with the Sanders campaign in 2016, and the relevancy boost some supporters of gave her.

-My point and Clinton's point is kinda missing you because you keep harping on the fact she is doing bad in the primary, that is not the point. Most third-party candidates over the years would have gotten annihilated in the Dem primary, especially in a crowded field. The warning is about the general. So what if she only polls at 1% when she has to compete with 12 other people. The threat is if she can poll at 5% when she has to compete with Trump and another Dem. That is the concern, because that could help Trump get reelected.

Leftist joined with progressives and liberals to tell Howard Schultz to sit his goofy *** down with threatening an independent run because everyone agreed that might help Trump. Howard Schultz would be in the political abyss in the Dem primary had he entered, but people still saw the danger in his buffoonery. Hillary raises the same concern about another person and people rather police her word choice, or tell her to shut up, than consider she might have a point about the dangers of Gabbard in the general.

-You just don't point out Bernie or his supporters get an unfair shake. Often times the jumping off point for the discussion is the implication that I am being unreasonable, or I have no reason to hold the opinion I have. And then I write paragraphs and provide proof as to why I feel that way, and the criticisms I get is walked back. And this not only goes for you, but numerous Bernie supporters over the years do it.

And I shade all kinds of people. When there were conservatives in here I got the same complaints from them, the centrist the same thing, Andrew Yang supporters have surely not been pleased with what I have said about him. I shade a ton of people, and I give people the respect to explain myself when they do. So, to be honest ,it is getting a tad bit frustrating and annoying that the jumping off point for a discussion is the assertion or implication that I am acting in bad faith. You have every right to post whatever you want on NT, all Bernie supporter do, and I sincerely appreciate you not engaging in the level of buffoonery as other Sanders supporters (even on here) but taking all Sanders supporters in here to be honest at some point I will just stop having the conversation if gotta writing essays to prove that I wrote a couple sentences in good faith. Over, and over, and over.

 

[IATT]

 

[Belgium]

 

[RustyShackleford]

That was a verbatim quote from a passage in the article that you posted yourself.

And it is meaningless because if that's the metric for determining whether someone can be considered an "asset" of a foreign power, then how does that not apply anytime the perspectives of U.S. officials converge with those of other countries? Obama was pushing the TPP, over much protest from many sectors of American society. Does that mean he was a "Japanese asset" (or one of whatever other country)? Is the U.S. a "NATO asset" doing the bidding of its other members blindly? Donald Trump sure argued something along those lines. Was he right, simply because he made the accusation and the rhetoric of the U.S. and other NATO members often reflect one another? The same line of questioning/accusations could be inserted into any geopolitical issue with which someone disagrees with someone else—after all, there would be other countries that could be said to fall on either side of whatever the issue is. Do you see how arbitrary and meaningless this is?

I agree that it's a credible source even if I maintain that the point the guy in the article is making is largely useless.

I am saying I think his point was more nuanced than that, but whatever.

Anyway...

-Gabbard tried discredited a UN report on Assad using chemical weapons as a false flag.



-She falsely claimed that the Mueller report summarized was no collusion with the Trump campaign and Russia. So it is time to move on, ignoring all the other troubling things it uncovered, and said it was time to move on.

-She cites conspiracy theorist and disproven sources on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour to shade the Dems.

You suggested you might not know how much of a ****** person she it. Yet you are trying this hard to somehow paint her actions as mundane as any political actor that happens to believe in something that just so happens to benefit a foreign country.

Maybe you should look into how ****** Gabbard is before making this defense of her. Just a thought.

 

[noskey]

Tusli is a foreign agent. Hillary didnt even say her damn name and Gabbard is out here defending herself. WHY?! If shes not a ******* double agent then why is she rushing to deny this? Libs are officially working for Putin and Russia, but keep pointing fingers at Daddy Donald. You know what they say: when you point at somebody else you have 4 Tulsi's pointing back at you! We must stop this lib #conjecture of Presidential Material Trump being called a Russian asset. HE IS NOT A RUSSIAN TULSI.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Sure, she's a progressive. But she isn't AOC. She isn't a democratic socialist. She's a party soldier who came up through the ranks of and has deep ties to the party establishment in Boston and beyond. I wouldn't expect her to endorse Bernie. It is what it is.

People had legit reason not to endorse, support, or vote for Bernie during the primary. She gave a example when she called out purity test. Seems like you are trying to imply that her decision somehow can't be as pure or principled as AOC's because she is just trying to toe the party line. I don't even know the point of the articles you posted, but anyway, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she had legit reason to make her choice besides being a drone for the Democratic Party.

And I always find it funny that Bernie supporters use the "establishment" smear, when the person they support has been party of the establishment for years. Someone who's caucused with Dems to protect his House seat, who attended Dem gathers with elite donors Martha's Vineyard, whose hands is dirty with some of the worst policies of the 90s Dems, who the Dems supported for Senator first when a seat opened, who they sent Ted Kennedy and a fresh face Obama to campaign for him, who is leadership positions in the party, and who help negotiate some of the rules for the primary just like Hillary and Bill before him. But of course I am sure that is different.

 

[Brownstone]

No fan of Hillary, but I love that she did this, got Tulsi all riled up and if she runs as a 3rd party she is screwed. Hilary outplayed her, Trump and Putin with this one.

 

[-Red-]

Democrats really can’t help themselves sometimes. Being practical, unified, focused....always takes a back seat to a fake sense of white, faux moral superiority, unequal standards and false equivalence that muddies the water and gives red meat to clear bad faith actors from the far right.

Goofy ****, at a time when it’s clear what lines should be drawn.

So does this apply to all the folks throwing Bernie and his supporters under the bus at every turn and calling a Democratic candidate a Russian asset? Or only Bernie and his people? Just trying to clarify...

 

[RustyShackleford]

So does this apply to all the folks throwing Bernie and his supporters under the bus at every turn and calling a Democratic candidate a Russian asset? Or only Bernie and his people? Just trying to clarify...

 

[-Red-]

Of course.

All these people can miss me with this diet "respect our troops" nonsense.

I agree with you here. **** is completely irrelevant.

 

[IATT]

 

[hipstermike]

No fan of Hillary, but I love that she did this, got Tulsi all riled up and if she runs as a 3rd party she is screwed. Hilary outplayed her, Trump and Putin with this one.

Mastering the art of chessboxin’

 

[-Red-]

Bro I'm not just saying you. We're having a reasonable discussion. But don't act like this isn't a dynamic in here and one that you've even contributed to at some times (e.g., calling Deuce in here, etc.). And it's certainly a dynamic outside of here...

 

[RustyShackleford]

Bro I'm not just saying you. We're having a reasonable discussion. But don't act like this isn't a dynamic in here and one that you've even contributed to at some times (e.g., calling Deuce in here, etc.). And it's certainly a dynamic outside of here...

-I was making a joke

-I deuce king as a joke. I have said quite a few times I don't agree with him on everything regarding Bernie. And all he even does now is just short phrases saying her looking forward to Bernie dropping out. Everyone in here mentions other people for jokes.

How about you dictate to me what I am allowed to post regarding Bernie that you won't have an issue with. So I can have some guidelines.

 

[RustyShackleford]

It looking like Trudeau and the Libs gonna hold on

Live look at Justin letting out a sigh of relief...

osh kosh bosh and his Maple Empire keep catchin Ws. First the Raptors now this.

He still wrong about Episode so if Kylo comes out on top in Ep. 9, I'm calling Osh's uncle in Nigeria and snitchin on him about his Pete support.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Phew, Justin will regroup, and he'll call another election when the scandals are in the rear view mirror and then regain the majority.

Disaster averted.

 

[tego calderon el abayarde]

Not being limited to only 2 choices. Feels good man.

 

[IATT]

Pretty sure this dude is Kenyan

 

[rexanglorum]

Tulsi may be a Russian asset but Clinton and most Democrats are most certainly Wall Street's assets.

The major financial institutions develop kompromat on those politicians and we see them making statements and supporting legislation that aligns with Wall Street's interests.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Of course...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ging-our-soldiers-back-home-syria-not-hardly/

Ever since the White House announced President Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria two weeks ago, Trump’s No. 1 talking point has been about bringing the troops home from “endless” wars. Bad things might happen once we leave, he has said, but he made a promise that he’s now keeping.
“It’s been many, many years,” he said Oct. 7, the day after the withdrawal was announced. “It’s been decades, in many cases. We want to bring our troops back home.”
On Wednesday he said, “I campaigned on bringing our soldiers back home, and that’s what I’m doing.”
“I’m happy because there’s no fighting,” he added Thursday. “We can bring certainly most of our people back home for the first time in many years."



Except that doesn’t seem to be happening.
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper announced this weekend that the roughly 1,000 U.S. troops who were being removed from Syria would not come home but instead would go to western Iraq, where they would continue to fight the Islamic State, also referred to as ISIS. Esper added Monday that some troops may also remain in Syria to protect oil fields from an ISIS takeover.

 

[ajiiiplatinum]

On a positive note

 

[grnd7]

What a reminder.
Living in a bubble....I forget how the world treats women in some parts of the world.

Misogyny is older than racism.