US Politics XII: shutting down Interference until @U2 agrees to pay for a firewall

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
:rolleyes: times infinity. Go crack open a history book and shut the hell up already.

Also, "no president since Abraham Lincoln". So do the other presidents who've been assassinated since then not count as examples of presidents who've been "treated worse"?
Uuuuh, i guess not.
Not to mention the intense spike in death threats against President Obama and his family!

There's debating policy and then there's ignoring the greater evil.

I have zero interest in seeing Bernie Sanders elected president. Zero.

Well, almost zero. If it's Sanders or Trump, you better believe I'm voting for Bernie.

What worries those who are more towards the middle is that this won't be reciprocated by those on the left if the ultimate candidate ends up being someone who's closer to the middle.

It's not an irrational fear, either, based on 2016.
Yup, definitely concerned about that. Thinks jill s voters. (not the total reason she lost, other reasons too)

I didn't say Clinton lost because of Sanders voters staying home. Or Johnson voters. Or Stein voters. Or those who voted for Trump because whatever, they're all the same.

But when you add all that up, and consider the crazy small margin of victory he had?

Yea, it fucking mattered.

The difference? Maybe not; but it wasn't inconsequential.


I don't believe this race will be as close because Independent voters have been able to see Trump for who he really is. But this is no time for fucking around.
This. Yeah, i think a bunch of independents have been moving away from him.
This is why we have primaries. To figure this stuff out.

But if anyone thinks we have the luxury of flattering ourselves with some kind of vanity vote that is for anyone other than the Democratic nominee in order to underscore our own virtue, then go fuck yourself.
This.
Ohhhh, yippie !1111111 :|

Don't think i' ve heard of him, or very vaguely.
 
- fought to criminalize sex work even more than it already is
- deliberately makes no distinction between voluntary sex work and human trafficking, driving willing and voluntary sex workers into more dangerous aspects of the trade
- opposed legislation that would have required the DA's office to investigate all police shootings
- fought to keep people in jail even when there was strong evidence that they were innocent or wrongfully convicted
- refused to investigate blatant instances of racism and prejudice in the san francisco PD
- fought against reforms to solitary confinement policies in california prisons
- refused to allow a trans inmate to get gender reassignment surgery while in prison because reasons
- spent 20 grand advertising in black and latino neighbourhoods asking adults to snitch on truant school kids and threatened to throw truant children's parents in jail for their children's actions

she's been mildly better as a senator than as an attorney but holy shit her record in law enforcement is atrocious and yes i would absolutely assume (as would most people) that is the record of a republican if i didn't know better. she's basically a cop who now claims to have changed her ways.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/19/kamala-harris-2020-election-top-cop-prosecutor
These actions are troubling to me. have to look into that.
Has she changed on some/all of these issues, now that she' s been Senator and surrounded by people with more various views? Hopefully interviewers will bring some of this up. I like her, want to hear more of her views, and Senate votes, etc.

She was not a progressive prosecutor (I don’t know that such a thing exists to be honest). In terms of prosecutors she was about middle of the road. If that alone is disqualifying to some people, fine. But criminal justice is just one issue of many. If we’re disqualifying Dems on single issues then how many are out already? Biden and Bernie for sure.
If a progressive prosecutor does not exist, what would consider a moderate prosecutor?

The Medicare for all would be great theme.

But what happens if a dem gets in and doesn’t get it passed? Much like Obamacare losing the public option

Will the left still support this candidate in the next cycle ? Will midterms swing to the gop again, or the MAGA party is what it should be called now

I’m fine with whatever (legal) it takes to get a dem back into the WH, but we have to still keep up the fight for congress and state races

Mid-term and State races must be taken waaay more seriously by more people. I think some presidential-election-only voters got a very rude awakening.
(been voting since '71 at 18, hardly missed any midterm, off year elections and never a presidential one)

Think Medicare for all would be a good issue, if it can be presented in a more concrete, detailed way.
(tho maybe we' d still need a good catch phrase- as it ' s been said Republicans tend to use broad easy one, while we Dems tend to nuance not so easily boiled down.

The results of the 2018 election were due to the Democrats winning areas like Orange County, whichbis now almost entirely blue (if not totally). The base absolutely needs to turn out, but you win when you win the suburbs.

You will not move non-voters to vote by running a mythical candidate who will turn them out suddenly. That candidate has never materialized. The non-voters didn’t turn out for Bradley in 2000. They didn’t for Bernie. And they won’t suddenly awaken from their slumber in 2020.
Not sure i fully agree. Ive heard a fair amount of people calking, texting etc into Public Radio about how in 2018 they weren't into, or had given up on politics but Trump's awfulness got them to vote!

My hope is, as we saw in 2018, this is the issue that gets D’s to the polls. The right has abortion, and to a lesser extent guns. The left needs something, and access to health care may be it.

The right is obsessed with AOC. Obsessed.

They fear her deadly political talents. And they should.

Let’s let her develop.
:up:
re: AOC.

Calling her the left's version of Trump is over the top.

She does need to prove that she's more than an agitator. Can she legislate? Is she going to be able to bring people together?

She doesn't have to assimilate or change her ideals - but alienating those who she'll need job her side to actually get something done isn't exactly winning strategy.

re: Dave's last point.

This is the only time you'll ever see me agreeing to even consider a candidate who would even mention something like, oh, a 75% tax rate. So have at it

Well, well. :hmm:
There was a great fb post from someone saying let me tell what it was like in the 1960's (maybe 50's as wel!?) when we had higher taxes: we built roads ,school, social programs etc.

Who wants a government shutdown of the US? Putin

that's the beginning and the end.
No doubt, about Vladdy ; but right-wing Republicans and Conservatives have wanted to slash big government, the social safety net since FDR, LBJ ec.
 
So ... we aren’t suffering, but we are looking at a second paycheck held hostage by the President. I also worry about the psychological toll this is starting to take on federal workers. They really are stuck, and there really is no end in sight. Two weeks ago no one thought this would go on for two more weeks, yet here we are. It’s the uncharted territory that’s so scary — the current resident of the Oval Office is crazy enough to hold out indefinitely, and as nerve wracking as this is, were Pelosi to cave all that would do would be to embolden him to do this every time he wants a new toy that won’t ever get passed through Congress. Holding steady now should hopefully prevent this in the future.

Well, we now have the gov't up again for a while at least.

(can we impeach him within 2 weeks, and convict him by 3 days after that!?!?:hyper:
No?? ? ),

Glad you' ll get your checks (soon!!!).
Public Radio has done a great job covering various federal employees difficult, and even pretty terrifying potential circumstances . They've also covered
the many acts of generosity by people etc.
 
Roger Stone was arrested this morning. This seems potentially big.

I heard there were a bunch of people chanting "lock him up! " :applaud:
A great start to my day!

Question of the day - does Trump reopen the government to change the news coverage?
Well, even so...
lots of (?temporary relieved sighs! )

On a serious note. Not sure why no one covering Stone's little display outside the courthouse isn't really digging into the statement of:
I won't testify against the president because i would have to bare false witness (aka - lie)

ummmm... what??
yeah, that was... weird. ( i guess that he ' s well off enough that 30 pieces of silver won't do it :(
This has been a fantastic Friday!

Woke up and the first thing I saw was Roger Stone was arrested (AND there was video)! My boss buys me a delicious iced mocha. Then Trump is humiliated by Nancy "Nancy" Pelosi! And later today we get birthday cake! It's just too much.
:applaud:
The obsession of women tied up with tape is really weird.

Also he’s going to do this all over again in three weeks
Oh, that women/tape stuff was...... fecking eeewwww, creepy!

:lol:
remember when people thought Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be speaker?
Can you imagine if they went with some freshman Congressperson??

While i think eventuality a younger person should take her now was/is not the time!

Can' t wait to see Stone led out on TV news!
 
Today just keeps getting funnier and funnier.

The NIXON FOUNDATION just repudiated Roger Stone. :lol: I mean, how bad do you have to be for the Nixon Foundation to think you'd tarnish Nixon's image?

[TWEET]1088925226031755264[/TWEET]

:lmao: :lmao: Omg, tjc99!

If i' d been drinking something..... out the nose it' d go!
 
Last edited:
ktu1a1ye1tc21.jpg


:hmm:

Advanced Search-Power Search-California Secretary of State
 

if the website was actually working this morning i could show you the exact payments made by steven mnuchin's wife to harris's 2010 re-election campaign only two years before she just so happened to decline to prosecute him for being the CEO of a predatory bank that foreclosed illegally on thousands of mortgages in 2008-09.

edit: ah here we are:
3fU2K7y.png


but i guess a candidate for president being a nakedly corrupt cop is just a big ol :shrug: around here if she has a D next to her name, and i should just stop criticizing any of the candidates because bernie bros ruined everything last time, or something.
 
Last edited:
if the website was actually working this morning i could show you the exact payments made by steven mnuchin's wife to harris's 2010 re-election campaign only two years before she just so happened to decline to prosecute him for being the CEO of a predatory bank that foreclosed illegally on thousands of mortgages in 2008-09.

but i guess a candidate for president being a nakedly corrupt cop is just a big ol :shrug: around here if she has a D next to her name, and i should just stop criticizing any of the candidates because bernie bros ruined everything last time, or something.

All you posted was about donations. All I responded with was showing that the Trump organization gave donations to a ton of different people across all parties, and up until 2011 donated heavily democratic.

But sure, I implied that Harris should not be criticized and should be nominated without a vote because of you commie rebel rousers.
 
But sure, I implied that Harris should not be criticized and should be nominated without a vote because of you commie rebel rousers.

i wasn't referring to you with that bit, but the other poster who came in after you with the post about "what we could have had...although not all of it was bernie bros". :rolleyes:

although admittedly that wasn't made particularly clear.
 
Last edited:
Here’s the thing

We’re on the same side. Clinton’s point was that any time a supporter or her, or herself came out and made a claim, you had hundreds of Bernie supporters to rip her/them to shreds.

My second tweeted post was to state that we will never find a pure candidate. There will be SOMETHING from the past that is dug up, or a statement that isn’t 100% progressive enough for some.

This is does the Democratic Party no good. Why can’t we get behind a candidate that supports 85% of what we want? Why does it have to be all or nothing ? Why does the person even have to be “likable” ?

Harris’ donations and the stuff you posted about her time as a prosecutor should be vetted. But is it possible that she’s changed since moving into congress ? Are we going to say she’s the same as Trump or whatever the GOP has become today ?

We will see the same song and dance in 2020 with the social media trolls, the bickering, and it’ll give Trump the White House again.

Can’t we all just get along?
 
i wasn't referring to you with that bit, but the other poster who came in after you with the post about "what we could have had...although not all of it was bernie bros". :rolleyes:

although admittedly that wasn't made particularly clear.



Was this you getting back at headache because he expected you to read his mind? Certainly looks like you’re railing on him and expecting him to read your mind that you’re not actually responding to him :p
 
You will not move non-voters to vote by running a mythical candidate who will turn them out suddenly. That candidate has never materialized. The non-voters didn’t turn out for Bradley in 2000. They didn’t for Bernie. And they won’t suddenly awaken from their slumber in 2020.
As I said, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sanders didn't run in the general. I outlined earlier a long lost of issues the Democratic primary system has, so crying fowl that someone who could not win the Democratic primary against the entrenched candidate who the DNC was literally reliant on for funding because of the financial deal Wasserman-Schultz negotiated does not move me as far as an argument that Sanders would have gotten smoked. Had he run in the general, who knows what would have happened? He is the most popular politician in the United States according to the polls.

Democrats have convinced themselves better things are impossible, and are terrified of trying to run on them. "Access" to healthcare is a great example of Democrats not understanding the first thing about the politics they claim to be the great technocrats of. It is remarkable how they start every issue at their "compromise" position. The reason is two things: they care about looking "responsible," or they don't really believe the things they claim they believe but are "not practical."

"Access" does not move people. Medicare for All does. Obamacare still bankrupts people. And obviously big insurance companies do so all the time. Medicare does not. And people can understand a simple concept like that.

Any Democrat who won't run on Medicare for All does not understand what it takes to win, or does not believe healthcare is a right.
 
What Sanders supporters never bring up is the oodles of opposition research he would have faced, including the accusations of being a communist.

Yes, I know. Socialism isn't communism. I know that. I'm not who you have to convince. You have to convince an electorate who voted for a broke con man because he was portrayed as being a successful business titan on TV that socialism isn't communism.
 
One thing I’ll agree with is that the Democrats are way too hesitant/scared when it comes to pushing progressive ideas.

Maybe Obama is a little more progressive if he didn’t have to spend the first year or two of his presidency cleaning up Dubya’s financial mess (and the wars).

I’ll give Bernie this, he did push a more progressive agenda. Forced Clinton to adapt a little bit.

Warren seems to have some of the same ideas, at least in regards to regulating Wall St (which she has tried to pass actual legislation), healthcare, and taxes on the Uber wealthy / corporations
 
What Sanders supporters never bring up is the oodles of opposition research he would have faced, including the accusations of being a communist.

Yes, I know. Socialism isn't communism. I know that. I'm not who you have to convince. You have to convince an electorate who voted for a broke con man because he was portrayed as being a successful business titan on TV that socialism isn't communism.



Oodles of research from an anti-fact opposition? I still think you sincerely disregard the amount of anti-fact voters who would have happily voted for a “socialist” anti establishment white old man who speaks in vague terms and has little clue how he’s going to actually accomplish any of the things he’s promising and probably hasn’t thought that far ahead but he doesn’t apologize for anything!
 
Oodles of research from an anti-fact opposition? I still think you sincerely disregard the amount of anti-fact voters who would have happily voted for a “socialist” anti establishment white old man who speaks in vague terms and has little clue how he’s going to actually accomplish any of the things he’s promising and probably hasn’t thought that far ahead but he doesn’t apologize for anything!
So there's this thing. He did have a vote. And he got creamed. By the person who lost the election. It wasn't close.
 
So there's this thing. He did have a vote. And he got creamed. By the person who lost the election. It wasn't close.



This is what baffles me about the “well we dont know if Bernie would have won.”

You’re right. We don’t know.

But we have ample evidence that he would have gotten clobbered because he sure did in the primary. Sanders did well with white kids in square states, states that were going red anyway. The D base are women and minorities. And they voted for Hillary and which is why she put Bernie to bed after the NY primary. And this is setting aside the notion that she was, you know, vastly more prepared than him in something like foreign policy.

It’s true. Bernie tapped into the sense of a rigged system, and did so very well. Maybe that would have turned T voters into B voters. But given that SCOTUS was on the line and “socialist” still makes some parts of the country wake up screaming in fear, it doesn’t seem likely that there were T votes that could have been B votes and not H votes. Most of America isn’t waiting to have socialism actually explained to them — and explained well, you know, disregarding anything negative as Not Real Socialism. What needs to happen is something like Obamacare. A good step in the right direction, that was always intended to be the first step. Now, D’s can run on it, and win places like Orange County.

But Bernie is a shrewd politician. So maybe he could have pulled it off.

One does wonder who the Kremlin would have backed if HRC had lost the primary.
 
So there's this thing. He did have a vote. And he got creamed. By the person who lost the election. It wasn't close.



You have a really strange interpretation of “creamed.” I would agree that he never really had an honest chance, but primaries typically are not as close as that. The final tally was arbitrarily 55-45. By primaries standards, that’s an incredibly close race. Off the top of my head, only 2008 comes to mind for close primaries. Usually, the opponent is dead in the water by a certain point and his or her campaign falters.

Also, your commutative sort of logic there is a total association fallacy. A beats B and B beats C therefore A beats C? You know fine well the system is far more complex and a simple number ranking.

Bernie didn’t have the infrastructure, support, or assumptive nomination that Clinton had. He wasn’t even a democrat. The cards were stacked heavily against him when it came to making it out of the *democratic* primary. A primary where 35 million (over half) of the voters who chose the democratic candidate in the general election did not vote. The same applies for the opposing side, where the candidate had some 33 million voters more turn out for the general election. 68 million voters who did not vote in primaries, in an election where popular vote clearly didn’t even matter in the end, and you’re going to confidently say that A beats B and B beats C therefore A would have beat C? Really?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom