***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

I hate Hillary?
When did I say that?
I dont agree with 100% of her voting but she was the best choice in the past (emphasis on past).
It would sound different if she was out here only blaming voter suppression for her loss and working to remedy it in poor urban areas but her main focus has been other politicians.

Anyway why you only looking at me, progressives or Bernie voters. What about dem establishment Minority Leader Shumer...he said the same thing about Hillary.

I voted for her and was a fan but she tried twice and failed so its time for her to ride into the sunset.

We have better, more progressive options now.

-You voted for her in over Obama in 2008 and Bernie in 2016?

-She has called out voter suppression. Numerous times. For damn near two decades she had been one of the leading voices in the Democratic Party regarding the GOP's tactics.

-She is on a book tour, she was asked a question at a sit down. Gabbard is not her main focus.

-You quoted me, and now you are wondering why I addressed you. Da ****

Clinton is not even running, so you comment about moving on does not even make sense. I am all for no one voting for Hillary in the primary though, and no one voting for Tulsi, and no one voting for Bernie.

Move on from all the buffoonery.

However I am interested to see if Bernie loses again for a 2nd time, if you will keep the same "time to move on" energy with him. So that if he criticizes any Democrat after that next L, you tell him to go away too.

 

[IATT]

 

[stuntman mike]

chinese asset. confirmed.

 

[Wargames]

Pretty sure this dude is Kenyan

the projection never ends with this guy

 

[handullz]

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.

Bet money this gives Gabbard a boost in the polls.

people don’t like HRC. The only people defendingher actions are die hard supporters who think she lost because some Facebook ads.

Hillary Clinton's Favorable Rating Still Low

Hillary Clinton's image has not improved since hitting a personal low of 36% late last year. Clinton's favorable rating is 7 points lower than where it was on the eve of the 2016 election.

news.gallup.com

I personally feels she gets a bad rap and nowhere near as ****ty as she is portrayed.

but polls are polls, and trump currently has a higher favorable rating than HRC

 

[Cashflow]

 

[gry60]

Why don't we wait until she is a real threat to the election (considering a third party run)

We can wait and still be aware.
Candidates change their minds; they can also call on their supporters to abstain from voting for the party nominee. It's happened before (see every third party candidate or anyone running on "no solutions can come from the two large parties").
And let's also reiterate that Gabbard was never singled out in the original comment, yet she hollered.
What is interesting to me is how people are still not over Hillary. You can dislike her and recognize she has a point and the right to voice it. This automatic negative reaction to her existing in public is unhealthy.

 

[-Red-]

-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.

To clarify, if I speak on or take issue with something said in here it's not because I think you (or whoever) are acting or arguing in bad faith. You have your views, as does everyone else. You typically express pretty thoughtful reasons for your views, more so than most people I would say. I like to think I do, too. We can see things differently and engage in discourse about it without either one of us acting in bad faith.

I don't take super offense to the Bernie bashing, and I see plenty of (what I consider) unwarranted shade being thrown in here that I don't even respond to in that regard. But I do maintain that, in my view, this slander is completely overblown and out of sync with reality and any notion of consistency in terms of political discourse. You can, and obviously do, disagree. That's cool. But sometimes I'm gonna speak my mind on it just as you and others do.

But there's no love lost over here

 

[wavycrocket]

dwalk31

 

[gry60]

The only people defendingher actions are die hard supporters who think she lost because some Facebook ads

If you were curious about the history of propaganda, you would understand the danger of simplifying the power of Facebook.
Countries used to drop leaflets from airplanes in countries they were in conflict with; now, they can use social media to manufacture demonstrations and counter-demonstrations without even stepping foot in enemy territory. The intelligence agents charged by Mueller still live safely in Russia.
There plenty of examples of psy ops operations that used to require tremendous effort (like getting into the editorial room of a newspaper to plant false stories) that Facebook and its large user base (more than 2 billon people) has made easy to carry out.

 

[handullz]

We can wait and still be aware.
Candidates change their minds; they can also call on their supporters to abstain from voting for the party nominee. It's happened before (see every third party candidate or anyone running on "no solutions can come from the two large parties").
And let's also reiterate that Gabbard was never singled out in the original comment, yet she hollered.
What is interesting to me is how people are still not over Hillary. You can dislike her and recognize she has a point and the right to voice it. This automatic negative reaction to her existing in public is unhealthy.

HRC might be the most recognized politician in the world after Donald Trump

when she speaks, people listen, good or bad. the issue is she isn’t using her voice for things that are constructive.

this isn’t the case of “hot dogs holler.” Tulsi has drawn the ire of many establishment politicians. HRC said “her” so it’s not hard to draw the line.

 

[handullz]

dwalk31

this ***** trump stay on that bull****.

he does things he knows white people don’t give af about (or will feign anger for a news cycle) will piss off and denigrate minorities but

If you were curious about the history of propaganda, you would understand the danger of simplifying the power of Facebook.
Countries used to drop leaflets from airplanes in countries they were in conflict with; now, they can use social media to manufacture demonstrations and counter-demonstrations without even stepping foot in enemy territory. The intelligence agents charged by Mueller still live safely in Russia.

propoganda is real af, I get it.

no amount of propaganda is going to change the fact that America was built on racism and a lot of people in this country are fine with that.

no propaganda will change the fact that white people had it A LOT easier 50 years ago, and many of them long for a time where there was an hierarchy based on thecolor of your skin.

hence the word #maga

 

[IATT]

Some people really get their news from these people

 

[-Red-]

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 ****ty 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 ****ty Gabbard is before making this defense of her. Just a thought.

Politicians lie about things all the time. Politicians spin things their own way all the time. I don't agree with her on these things obviously, but it is what it is. These things don't make her an anomaly. We have had effectively bipartisan consensus on hawkish, barbaric, and mind-numbingly hypocritical foreign policy for decades. I posted a lengthy article in here about that last month or so that only really scratches the surface. We flout international law as a matter of course on a daily basis. So I don't find her positions any more appalling than most of our foreign policy. Within that context, her actions are mundane, if appalling nonetheless.

I'm not in here defending Gabbard. I could give a **** about her. I'm in here taking issue with the ridiculousness, flimsiness, and arbitrariness of the narrative that has recently formed around her. And my original point was that if leftists (just so we're clear, Tulsi's not in this camp, I'm just saying) were lobbing these kinds of accusations at liberals in the midst of a ****ing presidential primary all hell would be breaking loose in here.

 

[aepps20]

I don't often agree with Lindsey but he is right. This impeachment inquiry is the worst thing to ever happen to anyone in the history of the world. I think the terminology is appropriate.

 

[elpablo21]

Saying anyone has dirt on Graham is too good of an excuse for him. He's just a good ol pure, unadulterated piece of **** from jump

 

[-Red-]

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.

That's not what I'm trying to imply. I'm saying that she has been socialized within the context of establishment, urban Democratic Party machinations, which is likely to color her views on things, particularly with respect to internal party dynamics and politics. So I'm not shocked that she didn't endorse Bernie or support BDS, because these are lightning rod issues in the Democratic Party and to do so would buck the general consensus in the party and expose possible fault lines in the coalition. Now, she may very well have had a variety of reasons for not endorsing Bernie or supporting BDS, but my statement was that I wasn't shocked that she didn't because of this background.

So that's what I mean by embeddedness in the "establishment." We can talk about Bernie, but that clearly isn't his political trajectory.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Politicians lie about things all the time. Politicians spin things their own way all the time. I don't agree with her on these things obviously, but it is what it is. These things don't make her an anomaly. We have had effectively bipartisan consensus on hawkish, barbaric, and mind-numbingly hypocritical foreign policy for decades. I posted a lengthy article in here about that last month or so that only really scratches the surface. We flout international law as a matter of course on a daily basis. So I don't find her positions any more appalling than most of our foreign policy. Within that context, her actions are mundane, if appalling nonetheless.

I'm not in here defending Gabbard. I could give a **** about her. I'm in here taking issue with the ridiculousness, flimsiness, and arbitrariness of the narrative that has recently formed around her. And my original point was that if leftists (just so we're clear, Tulsi's not in this camp, I'm just saying) were lobbing these kinds of accusations at liberals in the midst of a ****ing presidential primary all hell would be breaking loose in here.

Oh please, hell is breaking loose. Look at this thread, Twitter, in mainstream media, even the other candidates responses. It is Hillary Clinton for ****s sake, of course there is pushback, tons of people have an irrational hate for her. You always lose me with these it is not fair stuff because to me it often doesn't line up with observable reality. Yes the mass media is friendlier to liberals than leftist, that doesn't mean they are fair to liberals either.

And sorry, you and other Bernie Bros throw out flimsy accusations too. Rex writes socialist fan fiction about Dems all the damn time, hell on this page he calling Clinton a Wall Street asset and there is no pushback (and there is evidence to the contrary), people are just letting him have it mostly. There is a whole faction of the media that is dedicated to supporting Bernie and making plenty of bad faith attacks on other candidates. Hot takes about capitalism and distortion of the meaning of neoliberal are rampant.

So it doesn't seem you are too concern about proper discourse, generally. You just don't like when someone on your side catches it (even when justified) you take issue. And in true leftist nature, you want to complain about liberals.

 

[-Red-]

Oh please, hell is breaking loose. Look at this thread, Twitter, in mainstream media, even the other candidates responses. It is Hillary Clinton for ****s sake, of course there is pushback, tons of people have an irrational hate for her. You always lose me with these it is not fair stuff because to me it often doesn't line up with observable reality. Like the mass media is somehow not unfair to liberals too.

And sorry, you and other Bernie Bros throw out flimsy accusations too. Rex writes socialist fan fiction about Dems all the damn time, hell on this page he calling Clinton a Wall Street asset and there is no pushback (and there is evidence to the contrary), people are just letting him have it mostly. There is a whole faction of the media that is dedicated to supporting Bernie and making plenty of bad faith attacks on other candidates. Hot takes about capitalism and distortion of the meaning of neoliberal are rampant.

So it doesn't seem to are concern about proper discourse. You just don't like when someone on your side catches it (even when justified) and in true leftist nature, you want to complain about liberals.

1. Tulsi is not "on my side."
2. So, to be clear, when you reference "Bernie Bros," I'm being included in this group?
3. I'm talking about hell would be breaking loose in this thread among you and most of the other people who post in here regularly. I'm not talking about the mainstream media.
4. If you want to ignore the facts about our bipartisan foreign policy in order to defend liberals and frame me as an irrational leftist for pointing this out, by all means, go right ahead. But here you're pushing back on historical fact in order to take issue with a critique coming from the left of something that I have to believe you also consider indefensible. Where's the bad faith in my position on foreign policy? Please, point it out.

 

[gry60]

handullz Trump won crucial states by tens of thousands of votes. 70,000 people overall (in the right states) had to be swayed the right way for him to clinch the electoral college. That's 0.054% of 2016 voters (if you round that number to 129 million). This is the aspect folks want to ignore when they try to minimize the impact of third party candidates and foreign interference, and why I question left wing candidates who try to act as if the deck isn't already stacked against their own political aisle.

 

[IATT]

 

[wavycrocket]

handullz Trump won crucial states by tens of thousands of votes. 70,000 people overall (in the right states) had to be swayed the right way for him to clinch the electoral college. That's 0.054% of 2016 voters (if you round that number to 129 million). This is the aspect folks want to ignore when they try to minimize the impact of third party candidates and foreign interference, and why I question left wing candidates who try to act as if the deck isn't already stacked against their own political aisle.

Not to mention the polling data of those very states was shared by Manafort in secret to Kilimnik and Derapaska. We know micro targeting exists...and the Trump campaign via Cambridge analytica actually did this.

But people still will not connect the obvious dots

 

[RustyShackleford]

1. Tulsi is not "on my side."
2. So, to be clear, when you reference "Bernie Bros," I'm being included in this group?
3. I'm talking about hell would be breaking loose in this thread among you and most of the other people who post in here regularly. I'm not talking about the mainstream media.
4. If you want to ignore the facts about our bipartisan foreign policy in order to defend liberals and frame me as an irrational leftist for pointing this out, by all means, go right ahead. But here you're pushing back on historical fact in order to take issue with a critique coming from the left of something that I have to believe you also consider indefensible. Where's the bad faith in my position on foreign policy? Please, point it out.

1. You are putting a ton of energy to hand waving concerns about her. Like gry60 pointed out, and even Clinton was getting to was her potential third party run. People took so much issue with Clinton's word choice that became the focus.

2. No, I have said this a couple times before

3. How would I cause hell to break loose? By pushing back on a assertion I feel is unfair? How would I act any different that you have acted for the last couple pages. For that to be hell breaking loose and this not.

4. No one is ignoring fact about anything. I have many times called US foreign policy bipartisan ****. That no president is good on foreign policy, I even called Obama a **** boi for his drone war. Listen, like you said I post almost in here, and from past admissions you have not always kept up with all post made in here. So maybe just maybe whenever you want to throw an accusation about me believing something there might be evidence pointing to the contrary. But since I had to dig for my post from years already, I'm not in the mood to do it again. Because I am sure I will have to do it in the future.

So where did I ignore this? Because it didn't go "oh yeah you right, Gabbard ain't that bad compared to such and such". So because I focused of her being specifically bad on one issue, instead or being not so much worst than the average for American history that is ignoring it? I would love to apply this logic to other issues, but I don't want to open up that can or f worms.

I am not defending liberals in general or calling you irrational. I am pointing out it is hypocritical to make claims about liberals being unfair in this thread, while engaging in somewhat the same behavior. You seem to not care about people spreading the love or shade equally, you just have an issue when it comes from a specific side or is targeted at specific people. So your objections are partisan, not principled. Which is fine, everyone does it (myself included), but it is what is it.

 

[-Red-]

Salute to Warren for taking the hardest stance of any candidate yet against charter schools and for equity in public education. I wish her, Bernie, and whoever else would just come out and condemn charter schools entirely, but at least this is progress.

Warren Wants to Rein in Charters, End Vouchers for Private Schools

Bernie Sanders sent shockwaves in May when he endorsed the NAACP’s call for banning for-profit charters. Warren matched and raised.

theintercept.com

In that vein, salute to the Chicago Teachers Union, who is on their second strike in seven years to improve education and quality of life for the children of Chicago and to fight austerity and privatization. And salute to Warren and Sanders for standing in solidarity with the CTU—Bernie was there a couple of weeks ago and Warren is there this morning, as I understand.

 

[RustyShackleford]

handullz Trump won crucial states by tens of thousands of votes. 70,000 people overall (in the right states) had to be swayed the right way for him to clinch the electoral college. That's 0.054% of 2016 voters (if you round that number to 129 million). This is the aspect folks want to ignore when they try to minimize the impact of third party candidates and foreign interference, and why I question left wing candidates who try to act as if the deck isn't already stacked against their own political aisle.

After 2016 (hell 2000 also), people really willing to be on some "wait and see" steez.

You know what, instead of warning about the GOP purging black people off of voter rolls right before the election, how about everyone just keep quiet and wait and see what dudes like Brian Kemp do.