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.
The thing about the big reveals on this particular reality show is that we already know what they are.

Is anything remotely surprising in Cohen’s statement? We all already knew all this.

Am glad be brought the receipts, tho.
 
i don't know what i expected cohen's voice to sound like, but it definitely wasn't "bit part as muscle for paulie walnuts".
 
Last edited:
Sanders definitely has "fans," and depending on how it's expressed it can range from amusing to irritating to actively harmful, but that is part for the course for really any politician who has fans.

I would argue someone who loves Hillary Clinton is more about fandom. Because she stood for very little; most of her positions changed at various times throughout her career. There are no defining policies or positions that people want to carry on for her legacy; it's just an archetype.

Whereas the "fandom" of Sanders is rooted, for many, in the fact that he is the ONLY national politician to take many of the stands he has in our lifetimes, and many of them are backed up in decades of consistently fighting for them. His stances on the economy, healthcare, and the environment are all examples of this. I do not think there is a great yearning from young people to love a 70-something cranky white man from New England. It really comes down to the fact that he is offering something people have wanted and have consistently been told is not possible by people who lack the creativity or the interest in thinking of ways to change the world.

So someone that respects Clinton's lifetime of working for those who are underprivileged and marginalized - actual real work, that resulted in real results, are somehow delusional "fans". But those that are fans of Sanders, who has spoken about certain ideals, but has yielded little to no results are on much firmer ground?
Are either of them clean of making certain decisions in their long career of that have not aligned as "progressive"? Most certainly not.
Are there delusional and apologetic "fans" for both of them. Sure.
But Clinton is no longer running. Sanders is picking up where he left off, and i hope that he has the wisdom to stop just preaching on inspirational ideas of what should be, and as Headache and others have said, to give some concrete plans to fund these ideas, and how to implement them in a (currently) divided legislative branch.

I will stand by Sanders if he is the nominee. I will stand by any other Dem that gets the nomination. I will drive voters to the polls, I will phone bank, like i did for the last two elections.
I am behind most of Sanders ideas. But I think everyone deserves actual concrete plans of how to implement them, and not just cheer on aspirations from the podium.
 
Last edited:
I‘m choosing to stay a bit “out of the loop” on all things 45, but this testimony is quite something.

Cohen has nothing left and no reason to lie anymore.
 
So someone that respects Clinton's lifetime of working for those who are underprivileged and marginalized - actual real work, that resulted in real results, are somehow delusional "fans". But those that are fans of Sanders, who has spoken about certain ideals, but has yielded little to no results are on much firmer ground?
Are either of them clean of making certain decisions in their long career of that have not aligned as "progressive"? Most certainly not.
Are there delusional and apologetic "fans" for both of them. Sure.
But Clinton is no longer running. Sanders is picking up where he left off, and i hope that he has the wisdom to stop just preaching on inspirational ideas of what should be, and as Headache and others have said, to give some concrete plans to fund these ideas, and how to implement them in a (currently) divided legislative branch.

I will stand by Sanders if he is the nominee. I will stand by any other Dem that gets the nomination. I will drive voters to the polls, I will phone bank, like i did for the last two elections.
I am behind most of Sanders ideas. But I think everyone deserves actual concrete plans of how to implement them, and not just cheer on aspirations from the podium.
You are saying Sanders is a failure for not having single-handedly overturned capitalism during his career?

It's easy for someone like Clinton "to get things done" when she stands for perpetuating the status quo. The kinds of "change" she stood for were tantamount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I unequivocally support whatever good work she did, but she also did an ungodly amount of bad. Her foreign policy is atrocious, from both a moral and practical standpoint. The decisions she and Obama made in Libya have had irreversibly negative impacts throughout the world.

Sanders is having a late career resurgence because things have gotten so bad in America under capitalism that the tide is turning. An entire generation of Cold War attitudes rendered socialism taboo in the United States. But the grinding, unceasing march of capitalism has placed all future generations, starting with the millennial, in an untenable situation going forward. The social safety net has been slashed at nearly every opportunity since Reagan. And capitalism is unwilling to address that because there is no incentive to do so. Making employees rely on employers for healthcare is, simply put, good business.

I also think there is a misunderstanding here about the order of operations. Technocracy is not politics. What you stand for matters more than how you will do it, when it comes to trying to build a movement. The GOP has no moral ground to stand on, and one should never emulate their policies, nor their tactics of race baiting. But they do understand how politics works. You cannot be shy about how it works and how power must be wielded to yield results. If the GOP is against things that are morally right, you must paint them as an enemy, and you cannot bargain with them. It's why they are successful: they don't ask about how much things cost, they don't ask about whether or not they should put the most extreme judges on the bench, they don't ask about whether gerrymandering is morally right, they don't ask about whether or not voter fraud is a real issue when they roll back people's rights. They just win elections and do what they want.

The issue is not that the Democrats don't know how to do what they want. Sanders' problem isn't a lack of pragmatism. The problem is that the Dems do not want what the voters want in too many areas.
 
You are saying Sanders is a failure for not having single-handedly overturned capitalism during his career?

It's easy for someone like Clinton "to get things done" when she stands for perpetuating the status quo. The kinds of "change" she stood for were tantamount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I unequivocally support whatever good work she did, but she also did an ungodly amount of bad. Her foreign policy is atrocious, from both a moral and practical standpoint. The decisions she and Obama made in Libya have had irreversibly negative impacts throughout the world.

Sanders is having a late career resurgence because things have gotten so bad in America under capitalism that the tide is turning. An entire generation of Cold War attitudes rendered socialism taboo in the United States. But the grinding, unceasing march of capitalism has placed all future generations, starting with the millennial, in an untenable situation going forward. The social safety net has been slashed at nearly every opportunity since Reagan. And capitalism is unwilling to address that because there is no incentive to do so. Making employees rely on employers for healthcare is, simply put, good business.

I also think there is a misunderstanding here about the order of operations. Technocracy is not politics. What you stand for matters more than how you will do it, when it comes to trying to build a movement. The GOP has no moral ground to stand on, and one should never emulate their policies, nor their tactics of race baiting. But they do understand how politics works. You cannot be shy about how it works and how power must be wielded to yield results. If the GOP is against things that are morally right, you must paint them as an enemy, and you cannot bargain with them. It's why they are successful: they don't ask about how much things cost, they don't ask about whether or not they should put the most extreme judges on the bench, they don't ask about whether gerrymandering is morally right, they don't ask about whether or not voter fraud is a real issue when they roll back people's rights. They just win elections and do what they want.

The issue is not that the Democrats don't know how to do what they want. Sanders' problem isn't a lack of pragmatism. The problem is that the Dems do not want what the voters want in too many areas.

Gotcha. listen to aspirations with no plans for actually achieving them. Ignore all of Sanders bad decisions and votes. You've made your voice heard. You've gone off on a capitalism rant that I've made no opinon of. If the majority of Democratic voters want everything that Sanders is proposing he would have been the nominee. Maybe it will work for him this time.
 
Last edited:
Gotcha. listen to aspirations with no plans for actually achieving them. Ignore all of Sanders bad decisions and votes. You've made your voice heard. You've gone off on a capitalism rant that I've made no opinon of. If the majority of Democratic voters want everything that Sanders is proposing he would have been the nominee. Maybe it will work for him this time.

you just completely misrepresented everything he said. i'm not even sure you actually read any of that post.
 
Last edited:
Sanders is having a late career resurgence because things have gotten so bad in America under capitalism that the tide is turning. An entire generation of Cold War attitudes rendered socialism taboo in the United States. But the grinding, unceasing march of capitalism has placed all future generations, starting with the millennial, in an untenable situation going forward.


I appreciate a lot of what you are saying, though I don't think capitalism is inherently problematic in the way you are suggesting. I.e. capitalism is an efficient engine of economic growth BUT profit motive absolutely should not guide or even enter into industries that are essential to people getting a fair shake, like healthcare and housing. And the thing is the number of industries that fall under that banner of socio-economic essentials has grown over the last few decades but not been acknowledged as such, most conspicuously in higher education and tech basics like internet access.


The fact that entire generations are accumulating significant debt just to have a chance in the wider economy is a critical problem, but it can also be boiled down to two main culprits: education and healthcare.
 
There are a lot of really stupid Congressmen and women but this Higgins fellow from Louisiana has got to be the stupidest one I've seen in a long time. And not even evil stupid like Steve King, who at least manages to sound like he has command of the English language above a mentally disabled third grader. And he's the worst sort of stupid - foaming at the mouth and too stupid to know he's stupid. Just now he demanded to know why Cohen still has boxes of evidence in his garage. Cohen said it's in storage. Didn't he think he should have turned it over to the authorities? Cohen says he did and what's now in storage is what was returned to him. Higgins then starts screaming irately about how this should be with law enforcement and why isn't he turning it over. I don't even want to look up where his congressional district is, I don't want to know what people vote for somebody that braindead.
 
There are a lot of really stupid Congressmen and women but this Higgins fellow from Louisiana has got to be the stupidest one I've seen in a long time. And not even evil stupid like Steve King, who at least manages to sound like he has command of the English language above a mentally disabled third grader. And he's the worst sort of stupid - foaming at the mouth and too stupid to know he's stupid. Just now he demanded to know why Cohen still has boxes of evidence in his garage. Cohen said it's in storage. Didn't he think he should have turned it over to the authorities? Cohen says he did and what's now in storage is what was returned to him. Higgins then starts screaming irately about how this should be with law enforcement and why isn't he turning it over. I don't even want to look up where his congressional district is, I don't want to know what people vote for somebody that braindead.
People who are dumb enough to listen to him as if he were an authority on anything.
 
you just completely misrepresented everything he said. i'm not even sure you actually read any of that post.

I read every word.

"It's easy for someone like Clinton "to get things done" when she stands for perpetuating the status quo. The kinds of "change" she stood for were tantamount to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."

"What you stand for matters more than how you will do it"

Meaning nothing that Clinton has done changes to the ultimate demise of the country. Sounds like "the lesser of two evils" bullshit that was cultivated by Russian and Eastern European troll farms during the last campaign.

Did I say anything about the inherent evils of capitalism in my post? No. Yet, he somehow posted a long rant that seems pointed at me. My post was about giving concrete plans of how to achieve what Sanders is selling. Headache and others have said this is paramount for Sanders to address this time around.
Is that wrong? Go ahead and argue that. I'm sure the American people outside of Sanders base will love to hear it.
Like I stated, I am behind most of Sanders ideas. Go ahead and attack me like you keep doing because I'd like to know how they would be achieved. That's your prerogative. I think most people here would like to know how things will be enacted and not just listen to how things are done in Switzerland.

"You cannot be shy about how it works and how power must be wielded to yield results. If the GOP is against things that are morally right, you must paint them as an enemy, and you cannot bargain with them. It's why they are successful: they don't ask about how much things cost, they don't ask about whether or not they should put the most extreme judges on the bench, they don't ask about whether gerrymandering is morally right, they don't ask about whether or not voter fraud is a real issue when they roll back people's rights. They just win elections and do what they want."

Seriously??? He's saying that i am somehow supporting GOP racism and tactics? I work with groups to try and stop gerrymandering. I work with minority groups to get out the vote. I argue constantly with GOP shit-heads that support voter fraud. It's one of my most deeply held beliefs that gerrymandering, ID laws and signature match are racist plots to block votes.

I actually DO things to try to make change. I know that it might seem odd that a citizen like myself might actually take action for change. But I do, no matter what you or anyone else here might think.

It's disgusting to have someone come at me with charges like this because I dare want Sanders to lay out some pragmatic plans. God forbid.
I made peace with you before. Now I'll just say Fuck You.
 
Last edited:
It's disgusting to have someone come at me with charges like this because I dare want Sanders to lay out some pragmatic plans. God forbid.
I made peace with you before. Now I'll just say Fuck You.

am i supposed to feel extra super dunked on because you capitalized it? :rolleyes:
 
not sure how anything i said or did today warrants you flying off the handle like this and making personal attacks at me, but go off if you really must.
 
Last edited:
If this makes your delicate sensibilities feel better. fuck you.

i'm not saying this to be rude, facetious, sarcastic, or to pick any kind of fight. but it's probably for the best for your own health if you log off and go do something else to calm down for a while, man.
 
not sure how anything i said or did today warrants you flying off the handle like this and making personal attacks at me, but go off if you really must.

This coming from the guy that called me an asshole and fuck you to me.

Short memory.

and then you say this after someone insinuates that I support unbridled capitalism, GOP racism and voter suppression

"you just completely misrepresented everything he said. i'm not even sure you actually read any of that post"

complete joke. You've made your personal vendetta against me clear because i dare ask Lord Sanders to try and lay out actual plans this time around.

Why not go after the several others here who have asked the same? I hope i didn't capitalize anything, or else you will ignore everything else and try to dismiss actual debate on the issue.
 
i'm not arguing with you dude, and i don't know why you keep trying to pick a fight with me. chill the fuck out.

You're the one that jumped in and defended someone that went off on a socialist, anti-capitalism, GOP racist, voter intimidation rant against me. But I'm picking a fight against you? Jesus. Your total lack of self-awareness is staggering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom