US Politics XVIII: the illegitimate partisan sham thread

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.
Klobuchar is terribly awkward in her answers. I thought she'd get better at this by now but doesn't seem like it.

At least #shakybangs are gone... replaced now with Tom Steyer's awkward has never done an interview stare.


But yes - the only thing people should be focused on is what would win in Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Nothing else matters.
 
Yes, and a candidate that is going to openly admit to raising taxes, taking away your private healthcare, and expanding the federal government is NOT going to win those states.

As much as we agree with these policies in here, the voters are not informed well enough to vote progressive. That's a failure in education and our news media.

It's what we have to work with.
 
Also not hearsay - the president's lawyer and cronies were tracking an American ambassador and discussing a hit, and the president likely brought it up in his perfect phone call (although that last part might be hearsay, smug or otherwise, I can never be totally sure)




So, I’m reading Lev is gonna be on Maddow tonight.
 
After reading several pages of this thread, I think it’s important to re-highlight that “believe women” stems from “believe victims” re: men abuse women sexually and domestically.

You aren’t obliged to “believe” Warren here in any way. Your willingness to believe her in this instance is the same as your willingness to believe Bernie, and should be solely based upon who you believe is more trustworthy. Two friend-politicians in a room having a conversation about whether or not they think a woman can win the presidency is not the same thing as an accusation about assault. Especially when one of those parties is coming forward the day before the last debate before the election begins, where that individual just so happens to be trailing their target, who possesses here obtainable votes. You devalue the notion of the socially progressive movement to believe women when you use it in this case. Don’t. It’s not a tiebreaker for an accusation over a friendly conversation between a man and a woman where intent for said accusation is questionably biased.
 
As a woman, I absolutely believe that she could (and probably would) have heard what Bernie is saying through a particular lens and came away from the conversation with a different impression than he did. It happens all the time.

I think the real story, which isn't getting told much, but which I have heard many anecdotes from corporate types with piles and piles of money that move in financial circles is that there was a concerted effort in late summer and fall to discredit Elizabeth Warren because they were scared shitless that she would be the president. They didn't believe in Joe Biden's ability to campaign well, and they wrote off. But she looked like the real deal and like she was going to take this and run with it. So there were endless stories pushed in corporate media about her M4A plan, about the alleged dishonesty of it, the wealth tax, and on and on. Then Mayor Pete stepped in and went after her hard repeating the exact same tropes (not a coincidence because his donor base are the people who had a vested interest here). So down she came in polls, Bernie had a heart attack and all was well with the world. Until he was essentially resurrected and now these people are left with the absolutely (terrifying) prospect of having Bernie win it all. And there is a LOT of buyers remorse about Warren in that group. It's karma in a way.

What I find funny , ironic, karmic, whatever you want to call it is that liberals are so often painting conservatives as “anti-women “, “misogynistic “, blah, blah. Yet, as soon as Nikki Haley decides she wants to run for President, she will be the nominee, and supported by conservatives who are men , women, black , white, Hispanic , gay, straight, you name it, and why? Because she’s the best person for the job.

And the Dems are arguing like it’s 1976. Weird.
 
What I find funny , ironic, karmic, whatever you want to call it is that liberals are so often painting conservatives as “anti-women “, “misogynistic “, blah, blah. Yet, as soon as Nikki Haley decides she wants to run for President, she will be the nominee, and supported by conservatives who are men , women, black , white, Hispanic , gay, straight, you name it, and why? Because she’s the best person for the job.



And the Dems are arguing like it’s 1976. Weird.



The working assumptions in this post are delicious.
 
I guess because the economy is good people can't be bothered to hit the streets?

You literally have a conspiracy to probably have a high ranking official murdered and it's like "nothing to see, just another nothingburger here!"

I don't know if it's so much that people don't care as it is that it seems like nothing we do to try and call out and fight any of the horrific shit spewing from this administration seems to actually achieve anything. That, and the amount of crap that happens is NEVERENDING-like, every single fucking day there's something new and outrageous happening or being revealed, to the point where it gets so exhausting and hard for a lot of people to keep up.

As a result, people are feeling beaten down and overwhelmed and thinking, "What's the point?" I agree that that's not the attitude that we should be having right now, mind, just that that seems to be the mindset taking hold. Trump and the GOP are playing so dirty and so underhanded, to where it seems like there's nothing that can be done to take them down. Even when people do try and fight fire with fire, it seems to backfire on them. And we can't even be guaranteed that voting in November will make a difference, because the GOP is going to try and fuck with our elections yet again.

But yeah, I look at the protests happening in places like Hong Kong, and India, and so on, and I think our country desperately needs to take a page from those protests and do something significant already. We need to mobilize in a huge way that gets everyone's attention and makes Trump and the GOP have to finally answer and pay at long last for everything they're putting this country through.
 
Warren is getting way too much credit here. She made all of this shit up assuming the liberals and the media would play it as a "both sides" issue and everyone ate it up exactly as she would have hoped. Her indignation at being called a "liar in national television" is really fucking galling considering she did lie, did it in a cynical fashion to distract from an upcoming debate that was going to center on her weakness (foreign policy), and backstabbed someone she insisted was a friend for 14 months after apparently finding out he was "sexist." I did not anticipate Warren being the one to go this low, I must admit.

All I can do at this point is do what I did last night, and donate to the Sanders campaign.
 
I’m surprised she’s going this low, too. I will certainly say that I’m firmly settling in on camp Bernie, and mostly because of this. Before I was indifferent.
 
It's very rich to hear the "Bernie Bro" thing being thrown out once again. This is exactly what she wanted. She lied to get that to happen. She is playing you for fucking rubes, and you're obliging her.
 
It's very rich to hear the "Bernie Bro" thing being thrown out once again. This is exactly what she wanted. She lied to get that to happen. She is playing you for fucking rubes, and you're obliging her.

I don't know how you can be so sure. I'm not saying I'm sure she's telling the truth either. None of us was in the room with them during the incident in question. None of us was in the room with her campaign staff in the days leading up to this coming out. I don't know how any of us can be sure one way or the other. Where's the proof?

But regardless of whether it's a lie or the truth, I'm not wild about this becoming an issue. Either Warren or Sanders winning the nomination and election over the more centrist candidates is enough of a challenge without one of them going against the other.
 
I don't know how you can be so sure. I'm not saying I'm sure she's telling the truth either. None of us was in the room with them during the incident in question. None of us was in the room with her campaign staff in the days leading up to this coming out. I don't know how any of us can be sure one way or the other. Where's the proof?



But regardless of whether it's a lie or the truth, I'm not wild about this becoming an issue. Either Warren or Sanders winning the nomination and election over the more centrist candidates is enough of a challenge without one of them going against the other.



Do you agree or disagree that she’s using it at a strangely convenient time, when she’s most desperate. Does that sound like a time for truth, or a time for opportunism?
 
Do you agree or disagree that she’s using it at a strangely convenient time, when she’s most desperate. Does that sound like a time for truth, or a time for opportunism?
Using it at an opportune time doesn't mean that it wasn't true, or that we're "fucking rubes" - and frankly the response in here that Bernie absolutely couldn't have said this and that Warren is making the whole thing up is doing absolutely nothing to downplay the whole "cult of Bernie" thing that makes many of us nervous about what happens if/when he doesn't win the nomination.

Bernie's camp said it didn't happen. When Warren wouldn't back off, the story changed to she's misconstruing what was actually said.

Her story has remained consistent. His has changed.

And not a single mention of what broke this truce... Bernie's camp calling Iowans trashing Warren. Bernie's camp started this infighting - yet noooo. Not Saint Fucking Bernie the only person capable of saving the republic. Not him. You're all fucking corporate rubes if you believe that.
 
Last edited:
Using it at an opportune time doesn't mean that it wasn't true, or that we're "fucking rubes" - and frankly the response in here that Bernie absolutely couldn't have said this and that Warren is making the whole thing up is doing absolutely nothing to downplay the whole "cult of Bernie" thing that makes many of us nervous about what happens if/when he doesn't win the nomination.



This.
 
Using it at an opportune time doesn't mean that it wasn't true, or that we're "fucking rubes" - and frankly the response in here that Bernie absolutely couldn't have said this and that Warren is making the whole thing up is doing absolutely nothing to downplay the whole "cult of Bernie" thing that makes many of us nervous about what happens if/when he doesn't win the nomination.

Bernie's camp said it didn't happen. When Warren wouldn't back off, the story changed to she's misconstruing what was actually said.

Her story has remained consistent. His has changed.

And not a single mention of what broke this truce... Bernie's camp calling Iowans trashing Warren. Bernie's camp started this infighting - yet noooo. Not Saint Fucking Bernie the only person capable of saving the republic. Not him. You're all fucking corporate rubes if you believe that.
Every thing in this post is bullshit. And like with gzusfreak, I'm not arguing with someone not arguing in good faith.
 
Sanders’ dispute with Warren had erupted the day before, with a news report of the 2018 meeting between them at which, according to CNN, Sanders told Warren a woman cannot win a presidential election. Warren confirmed the story. Sanders’ aides then called CNN’s (and Warren’s) account “a lie.”

A lie. Pretty strenuous protesting-too-much denial of something that could have been handily mitigated. If Sanders had more composure , he might have confirmed the report too — don’t we all think he said something close to what was reported? Then Sanders could have explained that he, like many feminists, fears America is too sexist to elect a Madame President. Done.

Instead his campaign distilled to a poisonous brew all the current male anxieties about gender with that one word: “Lie.” (On Twitter, pro-Sanders botnets drove the point home with a classy “Lying Liz” hashtag.) In Iowa, Sanders bloviated when the inevitable question about the report surfaced: “Anybody knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States.” Inconceivable!

Then: “How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?” In a million years!

Sanders’ move to the general case did his alibi no favors — and the moderators from CNN, which co-hosted the Tuesday debate, clearly didn’t buy his rejection of the reporting.

At the same time, who cares what Sanders said in a casual meeting? If Warren had told Sanders a Jewish man pushing 80 can’t win because the country’s too anti-Semitic and ageist, she’d have had nothing to be ashamed of.

But for Sanders and many politicians like him, this is the gender issue in 2020. It’s not a celebration of the Equal Rights Amendment which, astonishingly and way past deadline, the Commonwealth of Virginia ratified Wednesday. Instead it’s pizza rats and terror.

When the Sanders campaign said Warren lied, and Sanders himself insisted outrageously on his feminist bona fides (in a million years), and then tried to buttonhole Warren into a handshake only to storm off when he couldn’t seal the deal — all that only enacted the sexism he was at pains to deny.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...arren-women-presidents-iowa-democratic-debate
 
You know what? I apologize.

I'm going to be honest with you, I'm fucking exhausted from working like 36 hours over the last three days and I'm letting my anger over what I perceive to be a warped view on this forum infiltrate my posts here. I'm being short and rude, and that's my fault. I do very clearly believe that I am correct and would like to articulate it, but I'm finding myself just seething with rage and shitposting. That helps no one. I'm going to step back, watch the end of the Penn State basketball game that's on right now, and return later this week or sometime when I'm of clearer mind.
 
Using it at an opportune time doesn't mean that it wasn't true, or that we're "fucking rubes" - and frankly the response in here that Bernie absolutely couldn't have said this and that Warren is making the whole thing up is doing absolutely nothing to downplay the whole "cult of Bernie" thing that makes many of us nervous about what happens if/when he doesn't win the nomination.

Bernie's camp said it didn't happen. When Warren wouldn't back off, the story changed to she's misconstruing what was actually said.

Her story has remained consistent. His has changed.

And not a single mention of what broke this truce... Bernie's camp calling Iowans trashing Warren. Bernie's camp started this infighting - yet noooo. Not Saint Fucking Bernie the only person capable of saving the republic. Not him. You're all fucking corporate rubes if you believe that.



My initial response before the debate in this very thread was absolutely that something was probably said in private, and that I think she’s absolutely capitalizing on the fact that there’s nobody to verify what was actually said or in what context.

And yes, the timeliness absolutely does matter. This isn’t about some “truce.” These candidates are allowed to combat one another on policy, as both needed each other to make it this far so far. Now that it’s voting time, they need to cannibalize each other. She tried to play the character smear card. It’s dirty. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but I don’t know how it went down. I’m far less likely to believe someone who only has an accusation to make when they can reap a great reward from it.
 
Do you agree or disagree that she’s using it at a strangely convenient time, when she’s most desperate. Does that sound like a time for truth, or a time for opportunism?



Last thing I’ll say on this, but I think this is something that happened that she’s kept in her back pocket for the time when she might need it, and that’s why she played it now because this was the last debate in Iowa, and if she doesn’t do well in Iowa and NH, then she’s done. And she knows it.

Is it opportunistic? Sure. Is she a politician? Yes.

Is she a “liar”? We go back to the he said/she said situation. I’m sure there’s room for misinterpretation. But given that everyone in here has wondered if another woman in a pantsuit is really electable after 2016 and the fact that they occupy the same lane, it sure makes sense that he’d bring up the electability of a female given that the two of them are supposedly committed to mostly the same cause. And it’s the cause that matters most, right?
 
There’s no doubt that a woman takes hits in voting for being a woman. People are still sexist and you do lose some of those voters.

You’d be an idiot to say a woman can’t win after Clinton clearly proved that a woman can easily win despite all odds. She had a massive misinformation campaign launched against her from US enemies. She totally ignored the critical states that proved to be her demise. She lost these states on generally what would be called thin margins. All of this and she still dominated the vote count.

So, despite sexism, why would he have said that? You mightn’t like him, but he’s not an idiot.
 
I think the point that is coming up here, and one which many of us males are maybe not sensitive enough to, is that this is indeed a he said/she said issue. But instead of trying to diffuse this by saying something like 'I did not say that, but if Warren got that impression then I'm sorry it was perceived that way' Sanders doubled down on it. And thus basically called Warren a liar. And this comes back to what someone mentioned earlier about 'believe women' that is coming up more and more. They have been put down as being wrong and liars often before. So if an old white man again says to a woman, "You're a liar" then this resonates with a large part of the people.
And if hardcore male supporters of Sanders are then using this to trashtalk Warren even more, thus confirming to women that men still want to put them down as liars, then it does not paint him and his followers in a pretty view.
 
My initial response before the debate in this very thread was absolutely that something was probably said in private, and that I think she’s absolutely capitalizing on the fact that there’s nobody to verify what was actually said or in what context.

And yes, the timeliness absolutely does matter. This isn’t about some “truce.” These candidates are allowed to combat one another on policy, as both needed each other to make it this far so far. Now that it’s voting time, they need to cannibalize each other. She tried to play the character smear card. It’s dirty. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but I don’t know how it went down. I’m far less likely to believe someone who only has an accusation to make when they can reap a great reward from it.
And again, the gloves first came off when Sanders staffers started making phone calls and Iowa saying that Warren was a candidate for the elites. He broke the truce, she counterpunched.

“We were told never to go negative or contrast with other candidates,” a person close to Sanders’ campaign told POLITICO. “Bernie would let us know when it was O.K.. So if that’s happening, he’s aware.”


And it's not just Warren. Sanders team decided to go after everyone. Well, when you do that? Don't be surprised when someone hits back.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594

So this idea that Warren crossed some kind of line by going negative is horse shit, as it was a direct response to Bernie's own actions.
 
Last edited:
Has Bernie ever apologized for anything in his life ? Suppose not when you’re always right.

Trump is loving this. Rather than talk about yet another smoking gun to his crimes, we’re talking about a fucking handshake (lack of).

Dems are so stupid. Focus on the damn criminal in the White House.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom