***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[fargin]

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.

Where would Warren and her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fall on your Wall Street's assets scale?

 

[heelsandeers]

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...

Tulsi deserves any and all shade that comes her way

not all politicians (running for president as a Democrat no less) repeat false GOP talking points. She has been a member of Congress for years and deems herself ready to be our next president but would rather (mis)characterize her "fellow" Democrats' positions instead of laying out what makes sense to her. Is it any surprise Gabbard is the favorite of the conservative media, libertarians, and alt-right trolls?

I expect that Democratic candidates for the presidency would exhibit liberal sympathies and favor liberal policies and practices. Those who don't probably belong in another party, especially if they have a record of attacking Democrats and cozying up to Rightists

I would say yes, it's more of an issue when Bernie and company does this to Democrats than Democrats doing it to Tulsi

 

[-Red-]

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 push back on 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.

1. I'm "handwaving" concerns about her because I find the narrative underpinning said concerns arbitrary and hypocritical. Again, it has nothing to do with her. If you or whoever want me to be more outraged about her position on Assad than I am on decades-long, bipartisan, official U.S. foreign policy on Israel, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. I'm sorry but I'm not going to agree with that. And that seems to be the argument: "Well, but she's particularly bad." And my response is, "Well, compared to who or what?"
2. I didn't think so, but the way you phrased "you and other Bernie Bros" made me question this. Thanks for clarifying, but hopefully you can see where my confusion came from.
3. I'm not saying you would cause all hell to break loose, but that it would in general. If you didn't notice, there was a small avalanche of piling on folks jumping on the narrative that Gabbard is a Russian asset in here, throwing others under the bus in the process, etc. My point was that if Bernie accused another Democratic candidate y'all liked of being an asset of whoever, you and others in here would be in a ******* uproar attacking him for flimsy allegations, inflammatory rhetoric, undermining party unity, giving Trump and the GOP ammunition, etc. It would literally be the exact opposite response. Especially if me, Rex, AJ, Josh, etc. were in here piling on.
4. My point in asking about foreign policy is in response to you saying I just want to bash liberals. To the extent that my last post did that, it was within the context of inhumane and flagrantly hypocritical bipartisan foreign policy. So that's why I asked why you seemed to be pushing back and even noted I think you agree with me.
5. What am I doing that's unfair? Of course I'm partisan, like you said, but I don't think partisanship and being principled are mutually exclusive—indeed, I would say the former flows from the latter. Not to say that I can't be blinded, irrational, or whatever sometimes, like anyone else.

 

[-Red-]

Tulsi deserves any and all shade that comes her way

not all politicians (running for president as a Democrat no less) repeat false GOP talking points. She has been a member of Congress for years and deems herself ready to be our next president but would rather (mis)characterize her "fellow" Democrats' positions instead of laying out what makes sense to her. Is it any surprise Gabbard is the favorite of the conservative media, libertarians, and alt-right trolls?

I expect that Democratic candidates for the presidency would exhibit liberal sympathies and favor liberal policies and practices. Those who don't probably belong in another party, especially if they have a record of attacking Democrats and cozying up to Rightists

I would say yes, it's more of an issue when Bernie and company does this to Democrats than Democrats doing it to Tulsi

It's not just a matter of Tulsi. Folks in here and elsewhere wanna preach unity and such but are often the same ones slamming Bernie and his supporters (or factions of them or whatever) and accusing them of undermining these goals—the very thing they themselves are engaged in.

 

[RustyShackleford]

1. I'm "handwaving" concerns about her because I find the narrative underpinning said concerns arbitrary and hypocritical. Again, it has nothing to do with her. If you or whoever want me to be more outraged about her position on Assad than I am on decades-long, bipartisan, official U.S. foreign policy on Israel, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. I'm sorry but I'm not going to agree with that. And that seems to be the argument: "Well, but she's particularly bad." And my response is, "Well, compared to who or what?"
2. I didn't think so, but the way you phrased "you and other Bernie Bros" made me question this. Thanks for clarifying, but hopefully you can see where my confusion came from.
3. I'm not saying you would cause all hell to break loose, but that it would in general. If you didn't notice, there was a small avalanche of piling on folks jumping on the narrative that Gabbard is a Russian asset in here, throwing others under the bus in the process, etc. My point was that if Bernie accused another Democratic candidate y'all liked of being an asset of whoever, you and others in here would be in a ****ing uproar attacking him for flimsy allegations, inflammatory rhetoric, undermining party unity, giving Trump and the GOP ammunition, etc. It would literally be the exact opposite response. Especially if me, Rex, AJ, Josh, etc. were in here piling on.
4. My point in asking about foreign policy is in response to you saying I just want to bash liberals. To the extent that my last post did that, it was within the context of inhumane and flagrantly hypocritical bipartisan foreign policy. So that's why I asked why you seemed to be pushing back and even noted I think you agree with me.
5. What am I doing that's unfair? Of course I'm partisan, like you said, but I don't think partisanship and being principled are mutually exclusive—indeed, I would say the former flows from the latter. Not to say that I can't be blinded, irrational, or whatever sometimes, like anyone else.

Famb if Bernie threw Tulsi under the bus I would have sent that fool another $26, and randomly reported one of Deuce's post.

Not all politicial attacks are created equal, and even though I have been critical of Bernie, it is not like I have never given him props, compliments, or agreed with him.

So if he trashed Tulsi, I would have been fine with it. If he or someone else attacked another person then I would I might have a different reaction depending on the circumstances.

 

[-Red-]

Famb if Bernie threw Tulsi under the bus I would have sent that fool another $26, and randomly reported one of Deuce's post.

Not all politicial attacks are created equal, and even though I have been critical of Bernie, it is not like I have never given him props, compliments, or agreed with him.

So if he trashed Tulsi, I would have been fine with it. If he or someone else attacked another person then I would I might have a different reaction depending on the circumstances.

That's fair

 

[heelsandeers]

It's not just a matter of Tulsi. Folks in here and elsewhere wanna preach unity and such but are often the same ones slamming Bernie and his supporters (or factions of them or whatever) and accusing them of undermining these goals—the very thing they themselves are engaged in.

I don't think a bruising primary is bad per se, as long it's done in good faith. What's important is that once the winner is determined, the party (and especially the sore losers like Bernie) get on board and make sure 2020 isn't a rehash of 2016

Don't spend the general election griping about Kamala's prosecutorial record, or Amy's throwing a noteback at a staffer, or Warren offending bankers, or whatever slight someone felt from the primaries. The GOP will do that just fine.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

You know that’s how this will play out, though. The seeds of disarray have been sowed with Tulsi. Bernie feeding into it adds to the fracture.

Bernie and Warren, while I respect them as candidates are just playing into exactly what got Trump elected in 2016.

Hope I’m wrong.

 

[-Red-]

I don't think a bruising primary is bad per se, as long it's done in good faith. What's important is that once the winner is determined, the party (and especially the sore losers like Bernie) get on board and make sure 2020 isn't a rehash of 2016

Don't spend the general election griping about Kamala's prosecutorial record, or Amy's throwing a noteback at a staffer, or Warren offending bankers, or whatever slight someone felt from the primaries. The GOP will do that just fine.

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but I take issue with the routine characterization of Bernie being a "sore loser." I have gone some rounds in here with various people over this, but this is revisionist nonsense. Bernie campaigned for Hillary and implored folks to vote for her using strong, unambiguous language that was commensurate with the stakes of the election. A higher percentage of Bernie primary voters cast a ballot for Hillary in the general election than Hillary primary voters did for Obama in 2008. Can we please retire this narrative?

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but I take issue with the routine characterization of Bernie being a "sore loser." I have gone some rounds in here with various people over this, but this is revisionist nonsense. Bernie campaigned for Hillary and implored folks to vote for her using strong, unambiguous language that was commensurate with the stakes of the election. A higher percentage of Bernie primary voters cast a ballot for Hillary in the general election than Hillary primary voters did for Obama in 2008. Can we please retire this narrative?

Nah, he was a sore loser. He was a good actor in campaigning for Clinton, but famb stayed in the race way longer than he had a chance. Downplayed how bad he got his *** handed to him by Hillary in delegates. Was delusional about his chances for a comeback. Even Obama had to tell him c'mon, when they met. Hell he suggested super delegates should steal the win for him.

And he said **** like Southern States that Clinton won should have less say in the process. Which was a huge racial dog whistle.

Then in the months following the election he threw the Dems and Clinton under the bus with hot takes about the Dems not connecting with the white working class and saying all Trump voters are not racist.

I mean he did the right thing in the end, but he kinda acted like a sucka too.

 

[IATT]

 

[elpablo21]

Edit: Already posted

 

[elpablo21]

 

[cs02132]

I’ll be honest, I’ve never paid attention to politics, at all, in the slightest bit. But over the past prob 4-5 months, with all the trump ****, Jeffrey Epstein, I had a knee injury so I had to deal with health insurance on my own for the first time, and now this Chile and Iran stuff (where my family is from) I’ve definitely started to keep eyes on it

I like to read in here but sometimes I don’t even know what’s going on I got a lot to learn

 

[heelsandeers]

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but I take issue with the routine characterization of Bernie being a "sore loser." I have gone some rounds in here with various people over this, but this is revisionist nonsense. Bernie campaigned for Hillary and implored folks to vote for her using strong, unambiguous language that was commensurate with the stakes of the election. A higher percentage of Bernie primary voters cast a ballot for Hillary in the general election than Hillary primary voters did for Obama in 2008. Can we please retire this narrative?

Howard Dean said Bernie has a history of being a petulant, sore loser. I don't think it's a narrative only from 2016.

He didn’t do much of anything in the 2016 general election in terms of battling Trump and waited over a month before endorsing Hillary. Yeah, he technically endorsed her in the general sense of the word, but it wasn't strong or repeated. He spent more time talking about himself and cricizing the DNC than he did endorsing Hillary after he lost.

Which gets to my biggest issue with Bernie. He doesn’t want to do a thing in terms of the Democratic Party but he sure wants to use its party apparatus if he wins the nomination. I don't mind that he runs as a Democrat. What I don't like is he and his people coming in and criticizing the process, and then not staying in the party to help affect changes. It's like, I'm here for the D, now lets do it my way.

That is an interesting point about Hillary-McCain voters in 2008. My guess is there was a racial component at play there. I'd imagine most Sanders-Trump voters would have a pre-disposition to vote R instead of D. I certainly don't hold Bernie accountable for every one of his supporters and realize it's a minority that didn't turnout for HRC.

But I do believe he did the bare minimum given his platform and influence in 2016. I don't think he will make the same mistake in 2020.

 

[IATT]

 

[sonoftony]

well damb

 

[IATT]

 

[Belgium]

Remember that Bill Taylor testified to Congress today. As you may recall, he was the one who 'papered' (deliberately establishing a written record) Sondland by texting him "as I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

When Sondland received the message, instead of replying within minutes like he previously did, he called Trump directly and replied to Taylor 5 hours later with a "no quid pro quo" message dictated by Trump.

 

[Belgium]

And there it is. Note that this establishes 2 separate quid pro quos, though both tied to the same goal.
Taylor reportedly testified that the military aid's release was contingent on a public declaration by Ukraine that they would investigate Biden and the 2016 election. However, the previously released texts also showed that a Trump-Zelensky meeting was also being used as a quid pro quo. Ukraine would not get the meeting unless they committed to the requested investigations and publicized a statement drafted with Giuliani's help.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Self preservation mode activated...

 

[Belgium]

Sidenote, I wonder how many times Sondland testified "I don't recall" to questions Bill Taylor did answer. It was reported that he seemed to have an awfully foggy memory.
Explicit establishment of 2 quid pro quos:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...6fb850-f436-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

 

[deuce king]

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...

Come on champ RustyShackleford didn’t call me in here. I randomly post here and there....and even when I don’t post I’m still watching and keeping up with this thread and any new information. Like RustyShackleford said if I post something “negative” about Bernie or even Kamala for that matter I say something short or make a little joke about something and keep it moving. It is ain’t that serious to me.......it might be that serious to you -Red- but it ain’t that serious to me champ.