US Politics XVIII: the illegitimate partisan sham thread - Page 19 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-17-2020, 10:09 AM   #361
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Do we really think that there is a good chunk of the American populace who hasn't yet made up their mind on Donald Trump?

i think there's a percentage of the American populace who is wondering if the madness isn't worth putting up with if the stock market continues to climb.

as we've discussed, the thing about Trump is that he isn't very good at being president. while he's destroying the system and alliances, he's not doing nearly as much damage to the world as W Bush did, who by all accounts had a far more ruinous first term than Trump. it's been tax cuts and judges, and a brief moment of insanity with Iran. that may feel worth it to some.

although, guess what, Trump lied about the Iran strike:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/polit...ike/index.html
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:16 AM   #362
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,140
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
interesting. so it may not be so much that, say, Lindsey Graham is scared of kompromat, but of Bill Barr and the actual Justice Department.




ruthless.

i'm also intrigued by the "insurance" Rudy says he has on Trump. i assume this is from the 80s. i also assume it involves something Russia and something underage-y.
Rudy's insurance is without a doubt mob related.

Trump built his buildings and casinos on his daddy's money, and when that ran out, the mob's money. That's not even in debate by any reasonable person.

Roy Cohen was mob connected. Again, no one debates this. Cohen was the connection from daddy to Donald. Cohen was Donald's mentor.

Rudy built his career taking down the mob.

When the classic cosa nostra Italian mafia went down, who took their place in New York?

Russians and other former Soviet bloc organized crime syndicates.

Who ran the taxi business after the mob? Russians and former Soviet bloc.

Who made his mark in the taxi business? Michael Cohen.

It's all connected. It's not that he's a willing Russian spy. It's that he's a mob stooge, and the mob is now Russian, and the Russian mafia is controlled by the oligarchs.

His entire being is criminal, white washed by a fucking reality TV show for the American public.
__________________

Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:17 AM   #363
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
What facts and logic are being thrown out?
Well when you can name about a dozen different bad choices or votes that Bernie made over the years (just like any politician), or state the obvious that he has been in DC for 30 years and has sponsored 1 bill of any substance that he has become law. And you are bombarded with a swarm of replies about how you are a corporate shill, a slave to the oligarchy, blah, blah, blah...
That's what I mean.

The support isn't about facts. It's about feeling, and some kind of perverted loyalty to this political figure.
And when people say "An attack on him is an attack on us" Well sorry, but no, it's actually not an attack on you. And every politician is "attacked" by their opponents. That's how it works. And just stating facts, is also not an "attack", it's actually doing your homework and vetting that candidate personally to see if their past, and present actions are what you want to be supportive of.

To me it was also about something I tell my daughter all the time. "Be careful who you hang out with." Because if you are part of a group of people that are doing things that are shitty. Then you are part of that. No matter what your actions are personally.
I came to the realization that I didn't belong in either "camp" of Sanders supporters. Neither one would accept a criticism, or actually stop and digest Sanders full background.
To them, every choice, every vote, every action was perfect. Kinda like that perfect phone call we are hearing so much about these days.
womanfish is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:18 AM   #364
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:28 PM
this administration is the worst. Sopranos episode. ever.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:26 AM   #365
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
I came to the realization that I didn't belong in either "camp" of Sanders supporters. Neither one would accept a criticism, or actually stop and digest Sanders full background.
To them, every choice, every vote, every action was perfect.


i completely understand why some people like Bernie Sanders. he's been on my radar as a Senator for years -- i remember watching him on Bill Maher or whatever and really liking him. i also had family who were in Vermont in the 70s and had modest interactions with him and positive impressions. i think he's a very, very good politician. i think he's very, very healthy for the Senate. i think many good things about Sanders, actually. i will absolutely vote for Bernie Sanders if he's the nominee. a part of me would like to see him debate Trump.

but what i don't like about Sanders are many of his more vocal supporters. this extends well beyond FYM. we all exist in other social media spheres, and the consistency of the inflexibility of Sanders' strongest supporters is striking.

can anyone not see that in here -- both now and back in 2015/6 when we had another poster who has since been banned (i believe)? the belief that *everyone* in the filed except Bernie is amoral trash who should suspend their campaign? the trashing of Warren? the idea that voting for Biden makes you a bad person? that the only good thing Obama ever did was same-sex marriage and the rest of the time he was a neoliberal con working for Wall Street? the unwillingness to begin to consider another POV? the table-pounding, tears-streaming shouts of "LIAR!" at Elizabeth Warren?

debate isn't possible. i know, because i experience it firsthand in real life sometimes.

it's not all Sanders supporters. it may not even be a majority of Sanders supporters. but he inspires this rabid, burn-it-down loyalty that literally no one else does.

why?

i think the parallels to Trumpism -- in terms of the cult-like fervor, not in the policies ... because i am sympathetic to many of Sanders policies, even if i think they render him unelectable in a general and will go absolutely nowhere in the current Senate -- are completely fair and real.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:27 AM   #366
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:28 PM
also, LOfuckingL -- Dershowitz is on the Trump defense team.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:44 AM   #367
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,443
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
Well when you can name about a dozen different bad choices or votes that Bernie made over the years (just like any politician), or state the obvious that he has been in DC for 30 years and has sponsored 1 bill of any substance that he has become law. And you are bombarded with a swarm of replies about how you are a corporate shill, a slave to the oligarchy, blah, blah, blah...

That's what I mean.



The support isn't about facts. It's about feeling, and some kind of perverted loyalty to this political figure.

And when people say "An attack on him is an attack on us" Well sorry, but no, it's actually not an attack on you. And every politician is "attacked" by their opponents. That's how it works. And just stating facts, is also not an "attack", it's actually doing your homework and vetting that candidate personally to see if their past, and present actions are what you want to be supportive of.



To me it was also about something I tell my daughter all the time. "Be careful who you hang out with." Because if you are part of a group of people that are doing things that are shitty. Then you are part of that. No matter what your actions are personally.

I came to the realization that I didn't belong in either "camp" of Sanders supporters. Neither one would accept a criticism, or actually stop and digest Sanders full background.

To them, every choice, every vote, every action was perfect. Kinda like that perfect phone call we are hearing so much about these days.


This is great and all, but you didn’t actually indicate any facts or logic being thrown out.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:48 AM   #368
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,510
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i completely understand why some people like Bernie Sanders. he's been on my radar as a Senator for years -- i remember watching him on Bill Maher or whatever and really liking him. i also had family who were in Vermont in the 70s and had modest interactions with him and positive impressions. i think he's a very, very good politician. i think he's very, very healthy for the Senate. i think many good things about Sanders, actually. i will absolutely vote for Bernie Sanders if he's the nominee. a part of me would like to see him debate Trump.

but what i don't like about Sanders are many of his more vocal supporters. this extends well beyond FYM. we all exist in other social media spheres, and the consistency of the inflexibility of Sanders' strongest supporters is striking.

can anyone not see that in here -- both now and back in 2015/6 when we had another poster who has since been banned (i believe)? the belief that *everyone* in the filed except Bernie is amoral trash who should suspend their campaign? the trashing of Warren? the idea that voting for Biden makes you a bad person? that the only good thing Obama ever did was same-sex marriage and the rest of the time he was a neoliberal con working for Wall Street? the unwillingness to begin to consider another POV? the table-pounding, tears-streaming shouts of "LIAR!" at Elizabeth Warren?

debate isn't possible. i know, because i experience it firsthand in real life sometimes.

it's not all Sanders supporters. it may not even be a majority of Sanders supporters. but he inspires this rabid, burn-it-down loyalty that literally no one else does.

why?

i think the parallels to Trumpism -- in terms of the cult-like fervor, not in the policies ... because i am sympathetic to many of Sanders policies, even if i think they render him unelectable in a general and will go absolutely nowhere in the current Senate -- are completely fair and real.
This is similar to my experience with Bernie. I remember years ago wondering who this crazy hair old guy is screaming about inequality, but I also remember thinking this dude is right!

I don't really disagree with his policies. I have hesitation on the nuts and bolts, and more so with how would he ever convince congress to go through with it? The Democrats would never just fall in line with Bernie, as they didn't with Obama.

So I would questions the policies and execution of them, but because Bernie became a messiah, you cannot question anything about his work without it also being an attack on him. Now the memes are coming out that any attack on him is also an attack on his followers.

No it's not. This is dangerous. This is cult mentality. I can still respect the person yet disagree with their opinion.

Here's a question I saw online, would Bernie supporters attack the Trump supporters (and bots) with the same fever they do any Democratic supporter who openly questions Bernie? Do we think that energy would turn out in the polls?

Or is the entire social media universe just a giant Russian troll factory and Trump wins in a landslide because moderates decide to stay home, or vote for him because their 401k is looking niiiiiice??
BEAL is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:51 AM   #369
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i completely understand why some people like Bernie Sanders. he's been on my radar as a Senator for years -- i remember watching him on Bill Maher or whatever and really liking him. i also had family who were in Vermont in the 70s and had modest interactions with him and positive impressions. i think he's a very, very good politician. i think he's very, very healthy for the Senate. i think many good things about Sanders, actually. i will absolutely vote for Bernie Sanders if he's the nominee. a part of me would like to see him debate Trump.

but what i don't like about Sanders are many of his more vocal supporters. this extends well beyond FYM. we all exist in other social media spheres, and the consistency of the inflexibility of Sanders' strongest supporters is striking.

can anyone not see that in here -- both now and back in 2015/6 when we had another poster who has since been banned (i believe)? the belief that *everyone* in the filed except Bernie is amoral trash who should suspend their campaign? the trashing of Warren? the idea that voting for Biden makes you a bad person? that the only good thing Obama ever did was same-sex marriage and the rest of the time he was a neoliberal con working for Wall Street? the unwillingness to begin to consider another POV? the table-pounding, tears-streaming shouts of "LIAR!" at Elizabeth Warren?

debate isn't possible. i know, because i experience it firsthand in real life sometimes.

it's not all Sanders supporters. it may not even be a majority of Sanders supporters. but he inspires this rabid, burn-it-down loyalty that literally no one else does.

why?

i think the parallels to Trumpism -- in terms of the cult-like fervor, not in the policies ... because i am sympathetic to many of Sanders policies, even if i think they render him unelectable in a general and will go absolutely nowhere in the current Senate -- are completely fair and real.
Agreed. I supported probably 80% of what Bernie was/is selling. That's awesome. And he has without a doubt pushed the Democratic party to a more progressive place. All this is good.
I also agree that I think him debating Trump would be outstanding. Better than Biden, Better than Warren. Because he has this sort of affable, no-nonsense thing, along with being quick on his feet. I think he would do very well on the debate stage.

And absolutely I would donate and volunteer for him if he is the nominee. No question. I was just trying to convey sort of the general atmosphere around Sanders that turned me off - along with some of his actions in the 15/16 primary and general. His ego is real, and it showed.

But in the end, I think he would win against Trump, and I think he would make a fine president. I think Warren would be a better president, but not as strong a candidate in the general.
womanfish is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:16 AM   #370
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:28 PM
this is unbelievable. how anyone who has ever worn a uniform can support this trash is beyond me.

Quote:
Trump appeared peeved by the schoolhouse vibe but also allergic to the dynamic of his advisers talking at him. His ricocheting attention span led him to repeatedly interrupt the lesson. He heard an adviser say a word or phrase and then seized on that to interject with his take. For instance, the word “base” prompted him to launch in to say how “crazy” and “stupid” it was to pay for bases in some countries.

Trump’s first complaint was to repeat what he had vented about to his national security adviser months earlier: South Korea should pay for a $10 billion missile defense system that the United States built for it. The system was designed to shoot down any short- and medium-range ballistic missiles from North Korea to protect South Korea and American troops stationed there. But Trump argued that the South Koreans should pay for it, proposing that the administration pull U.S. troops out of the region or bill the South Koreans for their protection.

“We should charge them rent,” Trump said of South Korea. “We should make them pay for our soldiers. We should make money off of everything.”


Trump proceeded to explain that NATO, too, was worthless. U.S. generals were letting the allied member countries get away with murder, he said, and they owed the United States a lot of money after not living up to their promise of paying their dues.

“They’re in arrears,” Trump said, reverting to the language of real estate. He lifted both his arms at his sides in frustration. Then he scolded top officials for the untold millions of dollars he believed they had let slip through their fingers by allowing allies to avoid their obligations.

“We are owed money you haven’t been collecting!” Trump told them. “You would totally go bankrupt if you had to run your own business.”

Mattis wasn’t trying to convince the president of anything, only to explain and provide facts. Now things were devolving quickly. The general tried to calmly explain to the president that he was not quite right. The NATO allies didn’t owe the United States back rent, he said. The truth was more complicated. NATO had a nonbinding goal that members should pay at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their defenses. Only five of the countries currently met that goal, but it wasn’t as if they were shorting the United States on the bill.

More broadly, Mattis argued, the NATO alliance was not serving only to protect western Europe. It protected America, too. “This is what keeps us safe,” Mattis said. Cohn tried to explain to Trump that he needed to see the value of the trade deals. “These are commitments that help keep us safe,” Cohn said.

Bannon interjected. “Stop, stop, stop,” he said. “All you guys talk about all these great things, they’re all our partners, I want you to name me now one country and one company that’s going to have his back.”


Trump then repeated a threat he’d made countless times before. He wanted out of the Iran nuclear deal that President Obama had struck in 2015, which called for Iran to reduce its uranium stockpile and cut its nuclear program.

“It’s the worst deal in history!” Trump declared.

“Well, actually . . .,” Tillerson interjected.

“I don’t want to hear it,” Trump said, cutting off the secretary of state before he could explain some of the benefits of the agreement. “They’re cheating. They’re building. We’re getting out of it. I keep telling you, I keep giving you time, and you keep delaying me. I want out of it.”

Before they could debate the Iran deal, Trump erupted to revive another frequent complaint: the war in Afghanistan, which was now America’s longest war. He demanded an explanation for why the United States hadn’t won in Afghanistan yet, now 16 years after the nation began fighting there in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Trump unleashed his disdain, calling Afghanistan a “loser war.” That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military leaders at the table but also the men and women in uniform sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their commander in chief’s commands, and here he was calling the war they had been fighting a loser war.

“You’re all losers,” Trump said. “You don’t know how to win anymore.”

Trump questioned why the United States couldn’t get some oil as payment for the troops stationed in the Persian Gulf. “We spent $7 trillion; they’re ripping us off,” Trump boomed. “Where is the f---ing oil?”

Trump seemed to be speaking up for the voters who elected him, and several attendees thought they heard Bannon in Trump’s words. Bannon had been trying to persuade Trump to withdraw forces by telling him, “The American people are saying we can’t spend a trillion dollars a year on this. We just can’t. It’s going to bankrupt us.”

“And not just that, the deplorables don’t want their kids in the South China Sea at the 38th parallel or in Syria, in Afghanistan, in perpetuity,” Bannon would add, invoking Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” reference to Trump supporters.

Trump mused about removing General John Nicholson, the U.S. commander in charge of troops in Afghanistan. “I don’t think he knows how to win,” the president said, impugning Nicholson, who was not present at the meeting.

Dunford tried to come to Nicholson’s defense, but the mild-mannered general struggled to convey his points to the irascible president.

“Mr. President, that’s just not . . .,” Dunford started. “We’ve been under different orders.”

Dunford sought to explain that he hadn’t been charged with annihilating the enemy in Afghanistan but was instead following a strategy started by the Obama administration to gradually reduce the military presence in the country in hopes of training locals to maintain a stable government so that eventually the United States could pull out. Trump shot back in more plain language.

“I want to win,” he said. “We don’t win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we’re not winning anymore.”

Trump by now was in one of his rages. He was so angry that he wasn’t taking many breaths. All morning, he had been coarse and cavalier, but the next several things he bellowed went beyond that description. They stunned nearly everyone in the room, and some vowed that they would never repeat them. Indeed, they have not been reported until now.

“I wouldn’t go to war with you people,” Trump told the assembled brass.

Addressing the room, the commander in chief barked, “You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”


For a president known for verbiage he euphemistically called “locker room talk,” this was the gravest insult he could have delivered to these people, in this sacred space. The flag officers in the room were shocked. Some staff began looking down at their papers, rearranging folders, almost wishing themselves out of the room. A few considered walking out. They tried not to reveal their revulsion on their faces, but questions raced through their minds. “How does the commander in chief say that?” one thought. “What would our worst adversaries think if they knew he said this?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...pmg3gWmCjw99Fg
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:22 AM   #371
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,443
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

although, guess what, Trump lied about the Iran strike:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/polit...ike/index.html


Pick your battles wisely! This isn’t Trump lying about anything. It’s a correction to the record associated with non physically apparent injuries.

If he’s guilty about everything he’s guilty about nothing, and it aids in the polarization of our politics. It plays right into his hands. If you’re not willing to open the door to those you feel are not lost (and sure the most of them are lost), nothing will ever get better.

He has plenty of valid things to criticize. This is not one of them.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:45 AM   #372
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,956
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
this is unbelievable. how anyone who has ever worn a uniform can support this trash is beyond me.
he's an idiot for the motivations behind it, but this is literally just a military commander chewing out his subordinates, and not even in a particularly harsh or uncommon way. i find it extremely difficult to believe that any general seriously considered open insubordination by walking out on their commander in chief over that.

edit: here's the next couple of paragraphs:

Quote:
Tillerson in particular was stunned by Trump’s diatribe and began visibly seething. For too many minutes, others in the room noticed, he had been staring straight, dumbfounded, at Mattis, who was speechless, his head bowed down toward the table. Tillerson thought to himself, “Gosh darn it, Jim, say something. Why aren’t you saying something?”

But, as he would later tell close aides, Tillerson realized in that moment that Mattis was genetically a Marine, unable to talk back to his commander in chief, no matter what nonsense came out of his mouth.
yeah exactly. if the now-civilian former general couldn't bring himself to say or do anything i am 99.99% certain that thought did not even cross the mind of the active brass.

it's almost as if that scene has been heavily dramatized to sell copies of a book that's about to come out imminently, or something.
DaveC is online now  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:11 PM   #373
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Predicted Dershowitz, should have predicted Kenneth Starr. He denies it up and down and sideways, but those Epstein Dershowitz rumors...if true I'd bet Trump has lots of dirt on Alan.

Btw Trump doesn't even know Parnas. He has pictures with him because he has pictures with lots of people. Same goes for Kellyanne, Donnie Jr, Ivanka, Eric-they don't know the guy even though they are in photos with him.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 01:05 PM   #374
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:28 PM
US Politics XVIII: the illegitimate partisan sham thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
he's an idiot for the motivations behind it, but this is literally just a military commander chewing out his subordinates, and not even in a particularly harsh or uncommon way. i find it extremely difficult to believe that any general seriously considered open insubordination by walking out on their commander in chief over that.

edit: here's the next couple of paragraphs:



yeah exactly. if the now-civilian former general couldn't bring himself to say or do anything i am 99.99% certain that thought did not even cross the mind of the active brass.

it's almost as if that scene has been heavily dramatized to sell copies of a book that's about to come out imminently, or something.




Is there precedent for a *president* to address generals in this manner? He isn’t Patton or Eisenhower or McArthur or Sherman. He’s the commander in chief, but one must expect that this isn’t common, especially when this is about long standing policy and not, say, strategy during war.

I’m sure the Generals are conditioned to this kind of abuse, but does this abuse typically come from the West Wing? Especially one who blatantly dodged the draft?

The rest of the article, beyond what you pulled up, tells us that this is not at all normal behavior for a POTUS.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 01:36 PM   #375
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,956
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Is there precedent for a *president* to address generals in this manner? He isn’t Patton or Eisenhower or McArthur or Sherman. He’s the commander in chief, but one must expect that this isn’t common, especially when this is about long standing policy and not, say, strategy during war.

I’m sure the Generals are conditioned to this kind of abuse, but does this abuse typically come from the West Wing? Especially one who blatantly dodged the draft?
i'm confident that the johnson/nixon types that had served in the second world war and were familiar with military conduct probably did it from time to time. those two certainly never had a problem yelling and abusing people regardless of their rank, status or position. i would be surprised to find out that reagan didn't yell at his generals on occasion, and he sorta-served as well (couldn't do active duty because of vision issues but was enrolled in a film-making unit during the war). and i don't think either of the bushes had the personality to do it.

you're probably right though that this is the first fully civilian president to do it in living memory - i definitely can't picture obama or clinton doing that. the only other one that i know of for sure is lincoln but that speaks to your point about trump's nuttery not being about a specific war strategy and more about long term policy. maybe FDR did it during WW2 also but i can't find any evidence either way from a quick google search.

it's definitely quite weird and rare for it to happen at the very top level but i can speak from experience that the language he used is extremely mild as far as military dressings-down (at any level) usually go. none of the military people in the room would have considered essentially flushing their careers over that.
DaveC is online now  
Old 01-17-2020, 02:33 PM   #376
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
This is great and all, but you didn’t actually indicate any facts or logic being thrown out.
seriously?

I'm saying you can throw out any sort of facts:
ie. Bernie voted for a bill allowing credit default swaps - the main driver of the 2008 economic collapse. He voted for the 94 crime bill, he voted against the Brady Bill 5 times!, He voted to allow the Charleston loophole, He supported sending nuclear waste to Sierra Blanca, a poor latino community in TX, he voted against a measure that would prohibit military style vehicles and weapons for police, voted multiple times to keep funding the Iraq war, supported the Afghan war and supported the building of F-35's ( a sort of disaster project) in his state, which runs counter to his anti-war boasting.

This is off the top of my head. And frankly, I support some of the things listed above. But they all run counter to his "true progressive" nameplate. If you were to utter any of those things back in 15/16 on social media, you would be immediately attacked by dozens and dozens of bernie supporters, calling you names, saying you're neo-liberal corporate hack, and you can burn in hell, etc...

As for logic. Well, I think you can write out a list of all the things that he wants to make free, and the debt he wants to forgive and just say that it has about as much basis in becoming reality (politically speaking) as me starting for the Lakers next year.
womanfish is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 02:58 PM   #377
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,443
Local Time: 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
seriously?
Yes, seriously. You’ve asserted that facts go out the door and that there’s no logic behind supporting Bernie Sanders, yet plenty of logic is put forth and many of his supporters use facts. Your broad brush is a big middle finger to individuals like Peef who come in here and have plenty of factual and logical statements and ideas surrounding Sanders’ candidacy. You have equated that to Trumpism, which makes me wonder if you’re just as successible to whatever pops up on your personalized Facebook feed. Don’t take that bit too personally, I’m genuinely wondering where you’re getting your view on this from. Because it seems like you’re as preconceived with what “logic” is as the debate moderators are loaded with the way they ask questions.


Quote:

I'm saying you can throw out any sort of facts:

ie. Bernie voted for a bill allowing credit default swaps - the main driver of the 2008 economic collapse. He voted for the 94 crime bill, he voted against the Brady Bill 5 times!, He voted to allow the Charleston loophole, He supported sending nuclear waste to Sierra Blanca, a poor latino community in TX, he voted for a measure that would prohibit military style vehicles and weapons for police, voted multiple times to keep funding the Iraq war, supported the Afghan war and supported the building of F-35's ( a sort of disaster project) in his state, which runs counter to his anti-war boasting.
Half of what you’re saying here is valid criticism of a voting record, and the other half is totally not. Also, if this is where your head goes, how the fuck can you justify any of those candidates on stage? For this list, you can come up with equally terrible lists for just about any senator or congressman who has been around since the same times.

Also I find it a bit disgusting if you’re in favor of a military state where police have “military style weapons and vehicles.” Not that I’m aware of any such bill where Sanders voted for or against it - he has a mixed record on guns, but a pretty strong record on pacifism.

Support for the F-35 is not a negative thing, and the “disaster” is more tied to the military industrial complex. It’s not a colossal failure, just extremely over-budget. Senators have obligations to support these types of (absolutely necessary) projects in their states.

Quote:



As for logic. Well, I think you can write out a list of all the things that he wants to make free, and the debt he wants to forgive and just say that it has about as much basis in becoming reality (politically speaking) as me starting for the Lakers next year.


Whenever anyone waves their hands over “making something free” like it’s a fairy tale or whatever, it’s a weak opposition to the proposition. There are pragmatic ways to handle education - proof exists across the western world. There are pragmatic ways to handle healthcare, and nothing pisses me off more than the notion that your healthcare is only affordable because someone is profiting on it. You wanna talk about logic? There’s no logic in any form of “public option,” which is just a system that betrays those who make money, who are forced to pay twice, rather than contributing this very same money to a system that works for all people. Public health works everywhere. The very notion of private insurance is a game of statistics where an entity collects a huge sum of cash and redistributes it against statistics where the amount they offer ensures they always make more than they give out.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 01-17-2020, 03:06 PM   #378
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,956
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
seriously?

I'm saying you can throw out any sort of facts:
ie. Bernie voted for a bill allowing credit default swaps - the main driver of the 2008 economic collapse. He voted for the 94 crime bill, he voted against the Brady Bill 5 times!, He voted to allow the Charleston loophole, He supported sending nuclear waste to Sierra Blanca, a poor latino community in TX, he voted against a measure that would prohibit military style vehicles and weapons for police, voted multiple times to keep funding the Iraq war, supported the Afghan war and supported the building of F-35's ( a sort of disaster project) in his state, which runs counter to his anti-war boasting.

This is off the top of my head. And frankly, I support some of the things listed above. But they all run counter to his "true progressive" nameplate. If you were to utter any of those things back in 15/16 on social media, you would be immediately attacked by dozens and dozens of bernie supporters, calling you names, saying you're neo-liberal corporate hack, and you can burn in hell, etc...

As for logic. Well, I think you can write out a list of all the things that he wants to make free, and the debt he wants to forgive and just say that it has about as much basis in becoming reality (politically speaking) as me starting for the Lakers next year.
frankly i find it a little suspect that you keep saying things like you were a bernie supporter who just didn't fit in, and that you agree with 80% of his politics, and then on the same page where you say all of that stuff, you also make a post like this one.
DaveC is online now  
Old 01-17-2020, 03:17 PM   #379
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Yes, seriously. You’ve asserted that facts go out the door and that there’s no logic behind supporting Bernie Sanders, yet plenty of logic is put forth and many of his supporters use facts. Your broad brush is a big middle finger to individuals like Peef who come in here and have plenty of factual and logical statements and ideas surrounding Sanders’ candidacy. You have equated that to Trumpism, which makes me wonder if you’re just as successible to whatever pops up on your personalized Facebook feed. Don’t take that bit too personally, I’m genuinely wondering where you’re getting your view on this from. Because it seems like you’re as preconceived with what “logic” is as the debate moderators are loaded with the way they ask questions.
I'm saying that while Bernie supporter railed against Clinton for every last vote or decision she ever made that wasn't "purely progressive", if you responded back saying that Sanders has his own record of such things, they would go ape-shit and start with the insults.

That to me, is throwing out facts. EVERY candidate, especially long standing ones, have made mistakes along the way. probably wish they would have decided otherwise. But for Clinton is was enough to label her "the lesser of two evils" but for for Sanders, it was ignored because he could do no wrong. ever.

And I've been off FB for 3 years now. And Twitter for 4. Not interested in the nonsense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Half of what you’re saying here is valid criticism of a voting record, and the other half is totally not. Also, if this is where your head goes, how the fuck can you justify any of those candidates on stage? For this list, you can come up with equally terrible lists for just about any senator or congressman who has been around since the same times.
That's my exact point. I stated clearly that I am not against all his choices or votes. But it flies in the face of his pure, unblemished, progressive mantle that he has been put upon.
That's the reason why i can support ANY and ALL of the candidates on stage. Because i don't put the person above all else. I know they are all flawed in some way. But their main mindset and goals are aligned with mine 80 to 90% of the way. Many Bernie supporters are in it for Bernie and that's it. Not helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Also I find it a bit disgusting if you’re in favor of a military state where police have “military style weapons and vehicles.” Not that I’m aware of any such bill where Sanders voted for or against it - he has a mixed record on guns, but a pretty strong record on pacifism.
You might want to go back and read that wording. He voted AGAINST prohibiting military style hardware. So what he did is disgusting and I'm sure you would back me on that right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Support for the F-35 is not a negative thing, and the “disaster” is more tied to the military industrial complex. It’s not a colossal failure, just extremely over-budget. Senators have obligations to support these types of (absolutely necessary) projects in their states.
Again, not saying i disagree with his stance here. I'm sure he was looking for jobs in his state. But again, not something that goes along with the anti-war, progressive wing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Whenever anyone waves their hands over “making something free” like it’s a fairy tale or whatever, it’s a weak opposition to the proposition. There are pragmatic ways to handle education - proof exists across the western world. There are pragmatic ways to handle healthcare, and nothing pisses me off more than the notion that your healthcare is only affordable because someone is profiting on it. You wanna talk about logic? There’s no logic in any form of “public option,” which is just a system that betrays those who make money, who are forced to pay twice, rather than contributing this very same money to a system that works for all people. Public health works everywhere. The very notion of private insurance is a game of statistics where an entity collects a huge sum of cash and redistributes it against statistics where the amount they offer ensures they always make more than they give out.
You are exactly right! There are pragmatic ways to handle these things. Unfortunately Sanders seems to like to rattle off a list of all the things he wants to provide, yet not much detail on how to get all of those things funded, while not causing havoc in the economy. I don't find that pragmatic. I'm all for transitioning to M4A, but that would start with in opt-in like most candidates are proposing.
To be honest, I know he has more detailed plans to phase it in. He needs to SAY that on stage. Because just saying his same scripted remarks each time doesn't give people the roadmap to making M4A possible and seem feasible to them.
womanfish is offline  
Old 01-17-2020, 03:27 PM   #380
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,956
Local Time: 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
You might want to go back and read that wording. He voted AGAINST prohibiting military style hardware. So what he did is disgusting and I'm sure you would back me on that right?
you originally said "for", not "against", and then went back and edited your post while LN7 was replying. don't act like he made a mistake reading it to try to cover up that it was your error.
__________________

DaveC is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×