***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[wavycrocket]

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.

 

[aepps20]

Of course.

ECONOMIC ANXIETY BERN. CLOWN

 

[Nike Jordan]

Of course.

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

Told y'all.

 

[aepps20]

Bern probably will say calling Tulsi an a Russian asset made her a Russian asset. She didn't have a choice.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Bern probably will say calling Tulsi an a Russian asset made her a Russian asset. She didn't have a choice.

Calling her a Russian asset is just da libs playing da more identity politics, b.

 

[aepps20]

Calling her a Russian asset is just da libs playing da more identity politics, b.

Da only way to see it B.

 

[ajiiiplatinum]

The issue is not that she is polling low; the issue is, as you mentioned earlier, the fact that Democrats are ideologically diverse, and this diversity is easy to exploit in the winner-takes-all, no-need-for-51% electoral system we have here.
The third party candidate usually takes more votes from Democrats than Republicans because the GOP benefits from a more active base that understands the power of the vote. With maps that are gerrymandered to the point that a small Democrat majority does not guarantee a win at the polls, any benign attempt at reducing Democratic turnout or redirecting likely Democratic voters towards third party candidates has a tremendous effect on the chances of Republican electoral victory.
That is the context of Hillary's comment about Russia grooming 3rd party spoilers, and for some reason, the socialist wing of the Democratic party is still in denial about (or unwilling to address) the calculus that happens behind the scenes.

I am not committing to saying she is or is not a Russian asset. Why don't we wait until she is a real threat to the election (considering a third party run) before we start looking petty and attacking anyone who doesnt like the Clintons or is friends with a dictator. Personally I worry more about our politicians who are "cool" or cozy up with Saudi Arabia.
Putin is probably laughing at us. He already played our president for a fool.

I want to hate anyone who befriends Henry Kissinger, John Foster Dulles, and Oliver North but that would leave me hating every democratic and republican politician that has run for office.
Bernie may be the exception. He doesn't like any of those war criminals either.

 

[green rhino123]

I chuckled when Sammy "The Bull" Gravano said,
"We also know he's a ****** degenerate."

 

[KHUFU]

Speaking of the mob, the Orange sphincter wants the summit to be at his place, because the whole damn spot is bugged. He wants to get more dirt on world leaders.

 

[elpablo21]

Of course.

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

 

[ajiiiplatinum]

This situation is just like the "basket of deplorables". People dislike the messenger, so they take issue with Clinton's choice or words, or the fact she said anything at all, instead of seriously considering if she has a point.

@gry60 is right.

Gabbard's poll numbers in the primary mean nothing. Most third party left wingers would get demolished in the Dem primary. The problem is that they could take enough votes from Dems in crucial states in the general, that would help Trump. This is what Clinton is warning people about, the general election. A lot of Dems are going to be pissed about who wins the primary. I won't call out any group so I don't upset anyone, . But there will be reactionary suckas around to exploit.

Poll numbers do matter. If she was Warren, Sanders, or even Buttigieg then it would mean something.
Tulsi has said she isnt running as a third party candidate. This is Tulsi Gabbard not Jill Stein.

Hillary wants to blame anyone or anything for losing. Bernie was her Russian Asset I guess in the 2016 election and Donna Brazille was a Patriot. I dont know how many times I've heard "Bernie should have endorsed her sooner" Come on now.

Someone needs to send this video to Hillary.


Let's move on and wait till we see Tulsi's phone transcripts to Moscow before we confirm asset status.
We may need more though cuz for Trump that doesnt seem to prove anything.

 

[Nike Jordan]

I don't see Hillary Clinton pointing fingers though.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Poll numbers do matter. If she was Warren, Sanders, or even Buttigieg then it would mean something.
Tulsi has said she isnt running as a third party candidate. This is Tulsi Gabbard not Jill Stein.

Hillary wants to blame anyone or anything for losing. Bernie was her Russian Asset I guess in the 2016 election and Donna Brazille was a Patriot.

Someone needs to send this video to Hillary


Let's move on and wait till we see Tulsi's phone transcripts to Moscow.
We may need more though cuz for Trump that doesnt seem to prove anything.

Dude please.

You dislike Hillary, so you want to criticize her any chance you get.

Clinton had major forces working against her, some of these forces that would have been there for Sanders, forces that will be there for the next nominee. But because the dirt got done to Clinton, it gets handwaved.

Yes she made some mistakes but they were not anymore egregious or unique that most politicans. And they damn sure were not enough for people to dismiss the serious things working against the Dems like voter suppression, Russian interference, and even a ****ty news media. She probably overcame all those things plus more, and then Comey ****ed her in the end.

None of you dudes apply that "only got yourself to blame" logic to Bernie getting destroyed in the primary.

 

[superblytrife]

Welp, here we go. It was only a matter of time with Bernie.

Goddamn I cannot stand this dude.

 

[aepps20]

Dude please.

You dislike Hillary, so you want to criticize her any chance you get.

Clinton had major forces working against her, some of these forces that would have been there for Sanders, forces that will be there for the next nominee. But because the dirt got done to Clinton, it gets handwaved.

None of you dudes apply that "only got yourself to blame" logic to Bernie getting destroyed in the primary.

Bernie got robbed by the DNC even though he was washed in the South. Black folks should support Bernie because Killer Mike said so is what they said.

 

[aepps20]

I don't see Hillary Clinton pointing fingers though.

I see Hillary telling us to be on alert and cut the crap when we have a nominee. The stakes are just too high.

 

[noskey]

Bernie got robbed by the DNC even though he was washed in the South. Black folks should support Bernie because Killer Mike said so is what they said.

Hilldawg dabbed on Ellen though. Bernie didnt stand a chance.

 

[deuce king]

Welp, here we go. It was only a matter of time with Bernie.

Goddamn I cannot stand this dude.

I’ll be glad when Bernie is done and out the race. The end is near for sure.

 

[RIP sleazyy]

Bern probably will say calling Tulsi an a Russian asset made her a Russian asset. She didn't have a choice.

how wild is it that not only did Putin divide the country amongst the civilians, he’s driven a wedge deeper into the government through this destabilization effort

this **** is crazy

 

[RustyShackleford]

I’ll be glad when Bernie is done and out the race. The end is near for sure.

I know if he pulls out you gonna instantly hit Big Momma's flip phone and tell her Prime isn't getting an invite to the Memorial Day 2020 cookout.

Even if someone tries to bring him as a plus one, I know you gonna roll through like ...

 

[ajiiiplatinum]

Dude please.

You dislike Hillary, so you want to criticize her any chance you get.

Clinton had major forces working against her, some of these forces that would have been there for Sanders, forces that will be there for the next nominee. But because the dirt got done to Clinton, it gets handwaved.

Yes she made some mistakes but they were not anymore egregious or unique that most politicans. And they damn sure were not enough for people to dismiss the serious things working against the Dems like voter suppression, Russian interference, and even a ****ty news media. She probably overcame all those things plus more, and then Comey ****ed her in the end.

None of you dudes apply that "only got yourself to blame" logic to Bernie getting destroyed in the primary.

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.

 

[-Red-]

-I meant it got so out of hand that the Jacobin (a proud full fledged member of the Bernie or Bust media) had to write articles to pushback on it. That goes to my point that support for her existed within the Bernie supporting left, that the title and the article is pushing back on this love Gabbard was getting from some progressives. Sorry if this was not clear.

-This argument makes no sense. I argue that Bernie by himself can't be given all the credit for the Dems leftward shift. I don't see how that somehow is contradictory to me saying a faction of his supporters are responsible for her rise. Knowingly or unknowingly people gave a ****ty person a platform because their thought the goals aligned. I would freely admit I don't think Gabbard agenda align's with Sanders supporters, even so called Bernie Bros, that doesn't mean that are not complicit to getting eyes on her.

I added this to my last post, but when she was being considered for a cabinet position under Trump, look at what claim to fame news outlets were singling out...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dem...consideration-trump-cabinet/story?id=43696303



https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...abbard-is-the-pick-for-secretary-of-state-not



-Again you are just whining here. Your issue now is that people (really me) not do something to other candidates that I did to Bernie. You admit it was bad judgment, but the real issue is that you feel me pointing it somehow unfair.

Me from a years past is you think I just decided now to start in on her...







So spare me with assertion that critiquing Gabbard is something new to me.

-Oh please, it was more than a picture. She campaign with Sanders, she gave speeches at his events, was guess on outlets that heavily favored Sanders, and acted as one of his surrogates in the media a few times. Yes other politicians have made poor choices in giving people platforms, that doesn't change the fact Sanders and his supporters did that for Gabbard. And I didn't even place blame on Bernie himself, I would like to point out. I called out a ****ty subset of his supporters. And it is not like I am putting her propaganda spewing on anyone but her.

So yeah, I get being a Sanders supporter you are sensitive to negative comments about Sanders and Sanders supporters. But with all due respect, since I show my work, I don't think I have to post in a way that make Sanders supporters more comfortable.

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...

 

[-Red-]

I don't think that is simply the argument in the article.

Even if it were, it would not being meaningless term in regards to Gabbard.

If you have a problem with the definition, cool, I was cite a source to pushback on the implication that I was simply moving the goalpost around to make something stick to Gabbard.

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.

 

[hipstermike]

Not for nothing Trump is a **** ing coward and we are


Can you elaborate? I think I understand what your asking but I am honestly not familiar enough with the topic to be sure.

The constant argument from these social sites and why they stand by their users content (and ban without and logic user content) is that they aren’t a publisher. Therefore they are not subject to the same standards that new papers and other media outlets need to adhere too.

If users were forced to be considered publishers themselves with the platforms as their tool it could enforce similar standards.

In theory

 

[-Red-]

So what, she is not a real progressive now? Is that what you are trying to imply?

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.