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.
electing rich businessmen with zero political experience is working out so well this time, why not try it again with the next guy too?
 
It's a great example of rich white man privilege. He feels the need to run. Why? Because he's rich and has nothing better to do?

At least Ralph Nader had worked for many years in public service and in a number of instances doing really valuable work. This Schultz guy is all ego.

The most important thing for the USA and the world is to get rid of Donald Trump. That should be the singular motive behind sane people in America - voters and those running.
 
So, what do we all think about Howard Schultz potentially running as an Independent?



Consensus seems to be that nobody wants it, that it will siphon votes away from the Democratic nominee, dilute the anti-Trump vote, and get the clown re-elected. I think I agree.



“Fuck off” is my response.
 
lol bloomberg already coming out with a "this will never work and you're an idiot for doing it" shot at schultz.

i read his book about turning starbucks around a couple years back. it completely ignores the employees in favour of a now-falsified narrative that he essentially singlehandedly saved the whole company all by himself thanks to his big-brained supergenius ideas (like closing unprofitable or poorly located stores) that nobody else on earth could possibly have thought of.

there is zero doubt in my mind that he has thoroughly convinced himself that he can do the exact same thing with america. he wants to "save" the country the same way "he saved starbucks".
 
Last edited:
this seems like a good thing

DyBZr1EWwAACxUO.jpg:large
 
and in your daily reminder that the president is a racist old man who has zero business being where he is...

The president has also claimed to guests, without evidence, that his private dining room off the Oval Office was in “rough shape” and had a hole in the wall when he came into the West Wing and that President Barack Obama used it to watch sports, according to two White House officials and two other people who have heard him discuss the dining room. “He just sat in here and watched basketball all day,” Trump told a recent group, before saying he upgraded Obama’s smaller TV to a sprawling, flat-screen one, the four people said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e86f920328ce
 
So, what do we all think about Howard Schultz potentially running as an Independent?

As a 17-year Starbucks employee, I have so many thoughts. None of them good. If he runs, I'll lose pretty much all my respect for him.

He's doing a book signing at HQ soon. I wish I had the ovaries to go up there with a sign that says "PLEASE DON'T DO THIS."

Instead, I will stay far away from the event. (I already have signed copies of his first two books anyway.)
 
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?

Well, at least get along better.
I too wonder if she's changed o n any of those issues.

She’s so salty. Legit, all of her interviews have been her complaining about 2016. She has every right to do so but she’s gotta know people don’t really want to hear it.

Talking about the sexism in the race is something i do want her to keep mentioning.
(and, yes, she should have gone to Michigan and Wisconsin [smakes person who gave her that advice!])

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.
THIS.

Even I who grew up partially in the 60's (not talking about "the 60's" here) with a "Better dead than Red" attitude I learned over decades about
Euro and Scandinavian Democratic Socialism.

I have no trouble taking on Laizze-faire or Crony Capitalism's dangers and destructiveness! I want a mixed economy, and maybe even democratic socialism.

And i believe he's Jewish. Talk about another major thing agsinst him in some circles! :(

HAIS, if u said "old white people" voted for drumph this older white woman knows plenty of older white people ( women and men) who didn't. :D I don't know the stats on this, tho.

Oh, i guess The Metro is back to normal now.

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

I'm glad Bernie did push Obama some. And yeah you make a very good point about him partially being so caught up in saving the country and world from a deep depression!

There won't be another shutdown.

Right now the best exit strategy for Trump is to not come to a deal because any deal he comes to will not satisfy his base. So he can't agree with Nancy "Nancy" and declares a national emergency. This will fail in the courts immediately based on precedent and plain common sense but the court battles will take a while, there will be many appeals all the while nothing is being built (nevermind land being expropriated via eminent domain). And that's how the wall will die a quiet and slow death, never to be spoken of again.
:pray: hope so!

And the next time a white kid takes his parents’ assault weapons and shreds another classroom of first graders into hamburger because that’s what the NRA wants, President Harris can declare a state of emergency and confiscate all the high powered weaponry owned by white men everywhere from sea to shiny sea.
:up: :sigh:

And welcome to your husband going back to work (for a while, anyway? F U, drumph!)
Although, we’ll absolutely have SEVERAL more school shootings before November 2020, lol.
:sad:

As a 17-year Starbucks employee, I have so many thoughts. None of them good. If he runs, I'll lose pretty much all my respect for him.

He's doing a book signing at HQ soon. I wish I had the ovaries to go up there with a sign that says "PLEASE DON'T DO THIS."

Instead, I will stay far away from the event. (I already have signed copies of his first two books anyway.)

Hey, cori, :wave: you could stand in the back of the event w sunglasses on, and have a big lettered sign. :shifty:
 
Last edited:
Definite NO to Starbucks guy, he needs to find something else to do. Massive ego trip, same exact reason orange clown ran.

Town hall with Kamala Harris tonight on CNN, I'll be watching.
 
CNN has clearly endorsed Kamala Harris early, rejected Elizabeth Warren, and failed to acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard (who I wouldn’t want winning but still).

Sounds an awful lot like 2016.
 
I would hardly call a town hall an endorsement.



They called Warren’s campaign dead on arrival like, the day she announced.

They don’t mention Gabbard’s name when they talk about “the field” as it stands right now.

They’ve spoken glowingly of Harris so far, despite people already objecting.

I mean I get it. People would object to the other two as well, but I dunno, from routine observation of their stories, I’d say they can and do pick sides for reasons.
 
Tulsi Gabbard is a joke of a campaign.

Elizabeth Warren should be a serious contender, but she just won't be able to get off the ground it seems. She should have challenged Hillary 4 years ago. Ultimately everyone aside from Bernie saw it as a foregone conclusion and the Clinton fundraising machine was too much to overcome. You can only have so many viable candidates drawing their $ from regular folks making small-medium sized donation.

Gillibrand has also gotten almost no coverage. But you can be that CNN would be covering Cory Booker, Beto, Biden and Bernie if they all declared.
 
in spite of my recent criticism of kamala harris, all the women you listed would be preferable to all the men you listed.
 
in spite of my recent criticism of kamala harris, all the women you listed would be preferable to all the men you listed.

I totally agree. I don't like any of those 4 guys, for very different reasons.

Policy-wise I like Warren the best. She just gets it, the ins and outs of legislation and she has a very good way of explaining things to make them clear. But while she'd be the best professor you had, it doesn't translate into great television and heaven knows that's all that matters these days.

I've watched a LOT of the Senate judiciary hearings in the past year because I've been at home on mat leave and these tend to be in the middle of the day when my daughter is napping. Amy Klobuchar is actually IMO, sharper than Kamala Harris, asks better questions and I think is probably more intelligent if you put them head to head. But she is unfortunately not a very good public speaker and my sense is she'll stay out of the race in the end because of overcrowding.
 
Policy-wise I like Warren the best. She just gets it, the ins and outs of legislation and she has a very good way of explaining things to make them clear. But while she'd be the best professor you had, it doesn't translate into great television and heaven knows that's all that matters these days.

this is exactly my feeling. she's great in terms of policy and should absolutely be among the leadership of the democratic congress and i think she'd be best in a position where she can steer the party's direction going forward. she's a bit gaffe-prone though so i'm not optimistic for her chances at running a smooth national campaign. i do hope she sticks in the race for a long time and forces the other leading candidates to the left.

i don't know much about amy klobuchar aside from recognizing the name. i should do some research.
 
tweets about current EPA not limiting amounts of 2 poisonous chemicals in our drinking wster... (from BEAL's link)

Part of Trump's legacy.
"The cruelty is the point."

more “winning” for the cemeteries

Horrible and true
 
Last edited:
Wait, what swrong w Cori Booker, anitram?

Yeah, i think he might be a bit too coporatist but not sure, and maybe a bit too trying to understand the trump voters.

Of them i am of 2 minds-

yes, trying understand and talk them out of their fears ( the many who are ie racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-muslim, anti-semitic etc ) bit by bit- yet knowing how difficult that could be. I'm not going to put much engery in my hat, got my own challenges to deal with.

Forget 'em - they're getting what they deserve.
Except the the rest of us don't want, don't deserve all this )

:sigh:

DAVE

warren,- gaffe prone? Other than tbe DNA thing ... whst else? I like Warren, and i guess i'm ok with more professorial types. But get your loint- tv imagedry...
 
Last edited:
Wait, whatswrong w Cori Booker, anitram?

Yeah, i think he might be a bit too coporatist but not sure, and maybe a bit too trying to understand the trump voters.

Of them i am of 2 minds-

yes, trying understand and talk them out of their fears ( the many who are ie racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-muslim, anti-semitic etc ) bit by bit- yet knowing how difficult that could be. I'm not going to put much engery in my hat, got my own challenges to deal with.

Forget 'em - they're getting what they deserve.
Except the the rest of us don't want, don't deserve all this )

:sigh:



coribookerstem?

He’s basically a republican if current republicans weren’t animals.
 
This is my first time watching Kamala Harris speak. She’s doing a good job so far. She sounds like she’s going to cry though? Is she nervous, or does she normally speak like that?
 
coribookerstem?

He’s basically a republican if current republicans weren’t animals.

I think this is far too reductive.

I get that he is too supportive of charter schools/vouchers for the tastes of many on the left, and that he's taken a good deal of money from Wall Street, and that he hasn't given as full-throated an endorsement of medicare-for-all as many would like, but that does not make him 'basically a republican'.

He supports regulations to combat man-made climate change, he's pro-choice, he supports all the basic more-background-checks gun-control stuff, he supports Obamacare and wants to expand it, he supports same-sex marriage, and he is pro-immigration and pro-amnesty. Sure sounds like a Republican to me.

I'm not saying he's my first choice(he's not), I'm not trying to be a cheerleader for him, but it just really rubs me the wrong way to label a Democrat "basically a republican" as soon as they aren't as far left as you want them to be on everything. I'm not just talking about Booker, but about anyone in the field. It's the kind of thing so many Bernie Bros said about Hilary in 2015/16. It's way too simplistic and it foments division within the party when we should be looking to unify. Criticize certain positions all you want, but don't resort to labels like "basically a republican".

I don't mean to go off on you, but that just annoyed me.
 
I think this is far too reductive.



I get that he is too supportive of charter schools/vouchers for the tastes of many on the left, and that he's taken a good deal of money from Wall Street, and that he hasn't given as full-throated an endorsement of medicare-for-all as many would like, but that does not make him 'basically a republican'.



He supports regulations to combat man-made climate change, he's pro-choice, he supports all the basic more-background-checks gun-control stuff, he supports Obamacare and wants to expand it, he supports same-sex marriage, and he is pro-immigration and pro-amnesty. Sure sounds like a Republican to me.



I'm not saying he's my first choice(he's not), I'm not trying to be a cheerleader for him, but it just really rubs me the wrong way to label a Democrat "basically a republican" as soon as they aren't as far left as you want them to be on everything. I'm not just talking about Booker, but about anyone in the field. It's the kind of thing so many Bernie Bros said about Hilary in 2015/16. It's way too simplistic and it foments division within the party when we should be looking to unify. Criticize certain positions all you want, but don't resort to labels like "basically a republican".



I don't mean to go off on you, but that just annoyed me.



You basically just described what a republican should be.

Which is what I said.
 
You basically just described what a republican should be.

Which is what I said.

Come on. It doesn't matter what a republican should be, it matters what a republican is. Most republicans have been pro-life, at least for the last 40 years. They fought viciously against same-sex-marriage for decades. In my lifetime(1984), I don't recall them ever really lifting a finger to do anything about guns, and for at least the last 20 years they've refused to acknowledge climate change let alone do anything about it.

I get that he's too centrist within the party for a lot of people, but I cannot agree with calling him a republican. Again, there's probably at least three or four candidates or potential candidates I'd want before him, and there may yet end up being more, who knows, but I'm just not comfortable with this instant writing off of certain candidates.
 
Come on. It doesn't matter what a republican should be, it matters what a republican is. Most republicans have been pro-life, at least for the last 40 years. They fought viciously against same-sex-marriage for decades. In my lifetime(1984), I don't recall them ever really lifting a finger to do anything about guns, and for at least the last 20 years they've refused to acknowledge climate change let alone do anything about it.



I get the he's too centrist within the party for a lot of people, but I cannot agree with calling him a republican. Again, there's probably at least three or four candidates or potential candidates I'd want before him, but I'm just not comfortable with this instant writing off of certain candidates.



Well you seem to be equating what a republican should be to the vilified “what a republican is.” There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Cory Booker being what a republican should be. If he was what republicans were, I’d say he’s worth voting for.

But he’s not.

He represents concession. He represents bullshit “unity.” Unity can kiss my fucking ass, and that’s putting it politely.

I’ve repeatedly said I’d love if Hillary Clinton ran I think that’d be the best thing ever, mostly because of “in your face” politics backfiring “in the face” of all the ignorant hateful people. I’d love it. She doesn’t even represent my views, but she’s qualified and I’m sure we’d be doing just fine if she was president right now and not this clown.

So yeah, Cory Booker. Not a bad guy. Not ready or able to fight for the people who have been disenfranchised, not ready to represent the many groups of social or economic minorities who have taken a step back since Donald Trump was elected president. Hard. Pass.
 
So yeah, Cory Booker. Not a bad guy. Not ready or able to fight for the people who have been disenfranchised, not ready to represent the many groups of social or economic minorities who have taken a step back since Donald Trump was elected president. Hard. Pass.

But what specific policy positions are making you say that? I'm really asking. I want to know.

And I totally disagree about Hillary. The right is completely beyond-help over-the-top irrational about her, and seeing them campaign against her again would be unbearable and insufferable. I've already seen that movie and have no interest in seeing it again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom