***Official Political Discussion Thread***

That's not the claim I made

Can you expound on your claim? You clearly seem to understand how it’s preferential so I don’t get what we’re arguing. You’re asking for evidence that doesn’t publicly exist other than the fact that she had a vag in her era when that was a sensitive topic.
 
You can't make a similar post because Brenard never lied about anything as ridiculous as Warren has. :lol:

How was that buzz where it mattered, amongst voters? She didn't push that idea into the mainstream like Bernie did.

I feel like you stopped reading some of my posts, I mentioned in a post that many critics of policy are simply opinions. I don't think Warren is left enough but I don't pretend that she's some failson because she has different opinions on the economy than I do. Same with her focus on courting the suburban college educated lib vote. It's not massive fail on her part, it's simply who she currently resonates with the most. Compare that to how talk about Bernie in an actually similar situation and not lying about being Native American and the difference is stark. I'm trying to get you to see this but you seem to not want to even acknowledge it.
You are using her lie to say you don't trust her, I am saying Bernie has done more reality ****** up stuff than Warren and I never make the "he can't be trusted" argument. So your narrow definition that it must be a outlanish lie (which is still conjecture that she did it intentionally) is the only way someone can be deemed untrustworthy in the future?

So me as a black man, the fact that he knowingly voted for the Crime Bill, after he voted against the previous one and stated openly it would disproportionately hurt black people. And then he ignored activist in his own state (that locks up the few black people they have at an alarming rate) doesn't rise to the level of Warren's actions? And again, I am not even making the "don't trust them" argument your tried to make. In fact I have said the opposite, I trust him just like most other politicians.

Warren is pulling ahead of Sanders, she is the only candidate on a serious upswing, so it looks like she got plenty of buzz. Maybe you should look at some of those statist polls once in a while.

Some criticism are matter or opinions, some are bad faith, many are not. The problem is that you want to have wave the good faith solid criticism all together because you clearly don't like to address criticism of Sanders. Like I said if you want to debate policy, let us do it, seems like you just want to dismiss valid argument before you even hear them

The only reason you have an issue with my post is because you like Bernie more than Warren, so you have the opinion that Bernie is getting unfair treatment. I disagree, and nothing you have posted is convincing me otherwise.
 
Last edited:
How do you know both minority statuses didn't help the other? If you spent this much time seeing how messed up lying was instead of deflecting to I point that doesn't matter we'd be getting somewhere
How do you know it did?

Warren has one of the most impressive resumes of a professor and policy wonk in America and you are trying to discredit the woman with an implicitly racist argument and no proof.

I answered your question and address and show evidence that being a woman would count as a diversity hire if she really thought like that, my original claim, yet you still demand I prove that something I didn't claim.

CAN YOU PROVE IT DID HELP HER, HUH? Stop repeating a racist trope and show your work. I showed mine
 
Last edited:
Like I said before, Yang is the 2019 Ross Perot. I really don't like dude and think he is kinda full of it.

His best idea isn't even the UBI, it is the democracy dollars thing.

However I am happy that Asian Americans have a candidate they feel they can relate with.

But yeah, not Yang. Please no, not him.
 
Because our modest, threadbare social safety net is used as a weapon by right wing ideologues, I am in favor of a UBI if only because we remove the strings that are often times attached to social programs for poor and low income people.

I also support a Federal Jobs guarantee because it reduces the imbalance of power between capital (the employer) and workers (employees), having a public option for employment at least partially meets my Marxist goals in this area. If we cannot yet abolish the employer-employee social relation then we should at least dilute it.
 
I mentioned Joe because you asked why criticized Warren's lying and not everyone elses. Don't make it seem like I was saying that to deflect.

There's plenty to critic about Warren (being a repub for until the 90's, here love captialism, and adoption of Sander's positions when it again became convenient to her campaign) but as you and most here won't admit is that they're simply a matter of opinion about how I as a voter would go about things. Not things that objectively wrong, again, you can make a titan graph with a thousand links to a person who you think is credible with regards to whatever approach you don't like in Bernie's policies but at the end of the day. It's all dubious at best, and a matter of opinion at the most.
Now that I'm at my laptop I wanted to ask a few questions.

You bring up that she was formerly a Republican and loved capitalism. Is there anything specific in her platform now that makes bringing those things up relevant?

What positions, specifically, did she adopt from Sanders? What did these positions change from?
 
Last edited:
Now that I'm at a computer I wanted to ask a few questions.

You bring up that she was formerly a Republican and loved capitalism. Is there anything specific in her platform now that makes bringing those things up relevant?

What positions, specifically, did she adopt from Sanders? What did these positions change from?
Good questions

I think that the "she adopted Bernie's" plans is a stupid hill to fight on. One being Bernie was right of many Dems on guns (remember his massive racist dog whistle about Chicago vs Vermont), and abolishing ICE, and the Senate filibuster. Over time (even in this cycle) has moved left on those issues to match other candidates. So unless he gonna shade Bernie for those moves too, dude gonna sound like a hypocrite.
 
Good questions

I think that the "she adopted Bernie's" plans is a stupid hill to fight on. One being Bernie was right of many Dems on guns (remember his massive racist dog whistle about Chicago vs Vermont), and abolishing ICE, and the Senate filibuster. Over time (even in this cycle) has moved left on those issues to match other candidates. So unless he gonna shade Bernie for those moves too, dude gonna sound like a hypocrite.
These are some good examples, and I agree that it is a stupid hill to fight on. I dunno, the idea that these are "Bernie's" plans and no other candidate can have anything similar is weird as ****. If you believe his plans are the best for America, wouldn't you want every candidate to be pushing something similar? Like you pointed out, he's pivoted too, and I hope he would pivot away from his bad views. This is what really turns me off from Bernie and his supporters. It really seems like it's more about some hero complex than it is about actually fixing the country.
 
Unlike some of DC’s opinion givers, I do believe that neoliberalism is real that it is the dominant ideology in the US and it is correct when applied to most American politicians.

It the same time, neoliberal can be used incorrectly and describing Elizabeth Warren as neoliberal is just that. If Warren were to become president and have a compliant House and Senate and got her agenda passed, we would be living in a country where more of the economy is under (small d) democratic control than when she’d have become President.
 
These are some good examples, and I agree that it is a stupid hill to fight on. I dunno, the idea that these are "Bernie's" plans and no other candidate can have anything similar is weird as ****. If you believe his plans are the best for America, wouldn't you want every candidate to be pushing something similar? Like you pointed out, he's pivoted too, and I hope he would pivot away from his bad views. This is what really turns me off from Bernie and his supporters. It really seems like it's more about some hero complex than it is about actually fixing the country.
Yo it drives me up the wall. Policy ideas to improve the conditions facing the American people come out of think thanks, from activist, economist, civic leaders, and other groups (often times looking at other countries). Democratic candidates then take those ideas and propose them here, they all do this. It is wild to me that so many Bernie supporters will only champion a plan if Bernie consigns it. Like everything is circling back to give him credit, even if he doesn't deserve it.
 
Unlike some of DC’s opinion givers, I do believe that neoliberalism is real that it is the dominant ideology in the US and it is correct when applied to most American politicians.

It the same time, neoliberal can be used incorrectly and describing Elizabeth Warren as neoliberal is just that. If Warren were to become president and have a compliant House and Senate and got her agenda passed, we would be living in a country where more of the economy is under (small d) democratic control than when she’d have become President.
I do believe neoliberlism is real, that it is the dominant ideology in the US, on aggregate most politicians are neoliberals, and I also think the label is thrown around reckless and ignorantly as an ad hominem attack by the left.

If you are a libertarians that think unregulated markets will lead to economic prosperity and fair outcomes, neoliberal.

If you are liberal that wants to reform a market to the benefit or the poor or middle class, also a neoliberal.

No nuanced discussion about clear differences, at most you get the "well of course Dems are not as bad as the GOP" concession.

It gets even more ridiculous to me that not only has "neoliberal" become such a catch all smear, it is somehow the answer to why the Democrats don't achieve their policy goals. All political sabotage and outright cheating by the GOP gets handwaved, and leftist claim the real reason is because all of the are neoliberals. Hell even when Dems get cheated out of election wins you here some BS about "they lost because they were neoliberal".
 
Last edited:


I believe it. Foreign governments donated generously to the Clinton Foundation, now that she's out they book Trump's hotels. Non-western aligned governments in particular couldn't give a damn who's in power. They'll pay to play with who ever's in the oval office.
 
Breaking news





WASHINGTON -- U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has confirmed that he was on the telephone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president that is the subject of an impeachment inquiry.



"I was on the phone call,'' Pompeo told reporters in Rome Wednesday during a news conference with his Italian counterpart Luigi Di Maio.



He did not give information about the contents of the call, saying only that he was well-versed in U.S. policy toward Ukraine.



In the July 25 call with the Ukrainian president, Trump prodded him to investigate Trump's Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.



Pompeo is under increasing scrutiny from House Democrats leading impeachment proceedings against Trump. On Tuesday, he pushed back on House demands for interviews with State Department officials about the administration's dealings with Ukraine that are at the center of the inquiry.
 
Back
Top Bottom