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.
Lev Parnas is going to be interviewed by Anderson Cooper tonight. I couldn't stay awake for the entire Rachel Maddow interview, but I found him to be very believable. His lawyer sat there saying nothing.

Someone said on CNN last night said that a source told them that Trump will have a "surprise" lawyer for the impeachment trial. My guess-Dershowitz.
 
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.

I believe you are correct.
 
I believe you are correct.



Exactly.

I once sat in a board meeting where a director referred to me by a different first name (only similar to mine insofar that they both start with M). Keep in mind that I would attend these meetings quarterly to provide legal advice and that I’m fairly senior. And they would receive legal correspondence from me regularly. Afterwards I asked a couple of members of management of the company whether they noticed and they laughed it off as “that guy’s senile”. But the name also happened to be the name of the CEO’s assistant and it REALLY bothered me because it confirmed to me that’s how the man saw me. If you asked today, nobody would remember this but I do because it’s been a professional lifetime of this kind of BS as a woman.
 
Someone said on CNN last night said that a source told them that Trump will have a "surprise" lawyer for the impeachment trial. My guess-Dershowitz.

FreeOrangeFirebelliedtoad-max-1mb.gif
 
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.

This :up:.

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.

And fucking this.

Lev Parnas is going to be interviewed by Anderson Cooper tonight. I couldn't stay awake for the entire Rachel Maddow interview, but I found him to be very believable. His lawyer sat there saying nothing.

I didn't see the interview on Maddow, but I've been reading up on what was said. Very interesting stuff, indeed.
 
I like how these (incompetent) thugs have more balls and sense when playing politics in the era of Trump than almost the entire political establishment.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/parnas-ill-release-a-photo-each-time-trump-denies-knowing-me

Ever since Parnas and his associate Igor Fruman were arrested on campaign-finance charges in October, Trump has tried to distance himself from them. He told reporters at the time: “I don’t know those gentlemen. Now, it’s possible I have a picture with them because I have a picture with everybody... I don’t know them.” Speaking to CNN’s New Day early Thursday, Parnas accused Trump of lying about the nature of their relationship—and said he has evidence to prove it. “I thought they were going to shut me up, make me look like the scapegoat, and try to blame me for stuff that I [haven’t] done. But with God’s help and a great legal team that I have beside me, we were able to get the information out.” On Trump’s denials of knowing him, Parnas said: “I welcome him to say that even more. Every time he says that I’ll show him another picture. He’s lying.”
 
this dunce:

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) told Fox News on Wednesday night that he now remembers speaking on the phone with Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani actively involved in the Ukraine scheme at the heart of the president's impeachment.

Moments after Parnas told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that the president “knew exactly what was going on” with Ukraine, Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum asked Nunes about phone records that show he spoke to Parnas, noting he previously said he couldn’t “recall” having a phone conversation with the Giuliani henchman. Claiming that the information was “brand new” at the time and he just didn’t “recognize the name Parnas,” the pro-Trump congressman added that he was able to recall “where he was at the time” and now “remembered that call, which was very odd and random.”

Asked whether or not they spoke about former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Nunes asserted that the first time he “heard the name Yovanovitch was not until this impeachment sham started.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/devin...AovV-NLzC5ElOBKkZ9lElx-MF59k5UJ0QT1VUVdm40-YU
 
No, we need people to be thrown in jail. But the law doesn’t apply to these people

Supreme Court also agreed to hear Trumps financial appeals....in March. With a decision in June.

Looking at how the GOP behaved during these hearings, how they didn’t even go the “ok what he did was wrong, but not impeachable” argument, instead they doubled down on lies and fantasy. It tells me there is no way a Democrat wins in 2020.

Rules, facts, the truth does not matter anymore. This is not a level playing field. Think of the worst thing the GOP can do, and they’ll do worse to win.

It is going to take mass protests to turn this around and i don’t think America cares enough
I predict they will care enough. Trump can't win with high turnout because his disapproval rate is so high, so he will try to demonize the eventual democratic nominee. I think the dems will learn from their 2016 mistakes and make the conversation about trump. If it's a referendum on Trump, he loses. If it's a referendum on [BIDEN/WARREN/SANDERS] it will be a close race.
 
I predict they will care enough. Trump can't win with high turnout because his disapproval rate is so high, so he will try to demonize the eventual democratic nominee. I think the dems will learn from their 2016 mistakes and make the conversation about trump. If it's a referendum on Trump, he loses. If it's a referendum on [BIDEN/WARREN/SANDERS] it will be a close race.



This is correct. The election needs to be about his obvious unsuitability for office.
 
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?

Senator Warren's infamous cultural appropriation problem hasn't even been touched by the other candidates yet, as far as I know.

No doubt it would be front and center in the general versus the president.....but the good senator prolly won't be getting that far.
 
Bluer White; said:
No doubt it would be front and center in the general versus the president.....but the good senator prolly won't be getting that far.



Yes, your famously ethical and truthful leader has a lot of legs to stand on there.
 
I’m greatly looking forward to posts about how flawed and terrible all the D candidates are ... and exactly zero critical words about the racist-in-chief. I mean, he wouldn’t be racist if they didn’t give him material to be racist about, right?
 
I’m greatly looking forward to posts about how flawed and terrible all the D candidates are ... and exactly zero critical words about the racist-in-chief. I mean, he wouldn’t be racist if they didn’t give him material to be racist about, right?



And he wouldn’t be sexist either if ugly 1/10 broads weren’t throwing themselves at him.
 
Senator Warren's infamous cultural appropriation problem hasn't even been touched by the other candidates yet, as far as I know.



No doubt it would be front and center in the general versus the president.....but the good senator prolly won't be getting that far.
It's cute for a supporter of an abject racist to speak of someone else's cultural appropriation problem.

How's the Cracker Barrell been?
 
This is correct. The election needs to be about his obvious unsuitability for office.

Like in addition to what we have to endure from him on a daily basis?

What more is there to say? There is a criminal cabal in office, and anyone who doesn't understand or see that at this point is a total lost cause when it comes to the election.
 
Like in addition to what we have to endure from him on a daily basis?



What more is there to say? There is a criminal cabal in office, and anyone who doesn't understand or see that at this point is a total lost cause when it comes to the election.



A re-election is about the incumbent. We hit the same points we’ve been hitting since literally the Access Hollywood. There’s plenty of rich material.

You want to have an election about M4A or immigration policy or taxes or even foreign policy, that turns Trump into a traditional Republican and the election gets close.
 
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.

very relevant to this post: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/17/believe-women-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders
 

Funny the similarity between Bernie and Trump supporters. Facts, logic, common sense thrown out the window for their belief and worship of a person.

And maybe the fact is that Sanders is best suited to go up against Trump because of this very reason. Who knows. One cult of personality vs the other, could be the answer.
As a former Bernie supporter, I was purged because I dare question some of Bernie's policy stances, and/or his past votes and actions. That was not tolerated in Bernie-land on FB and Twitter.
Sanders supporter seemed to be split into two camps. You had the true believers, that I do think really have the best intentions and believe in Sanders, and that he would make the country better. They were blinded by this belief for the most part and wouldn't hear of anything disparaging against him, but they were well intentioned.
Then you had this sort of ugly, male-driven group of supporters that were just as vile as any rabid Trump supporter I've run into. And for all the sort of "hold hands, kumbaya, type vibe that Sanders wanted to project, these people turned it nasty.
And the fact is that Bernie never stood up to the bullying and misogyny of these supporters back in 2015/16, and i don't think he realized that turning a blind eye and apologizing for that strain of people, and not calling them out and saying - we don't want your support if you are acting this way - probably hurt him more than he knows.

It will be interesting to see who ends up with the nomination. It really is shaping up to be a close race. Any of them light years better than Trump. The question is, who is best suited to win. At this point, I would say Biden and Bernie are tied for the best chances, Warren second and then Pete.
 
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.

In a pre-taped CNN interview that aired Thursday night, Lev Parnas, an indicted associate to Rudy Giuliani, alleged that many Republicans won’t speak out against President Donald Trump for fear that he’ll have the Justice Department and Attorney General Bill Barr investigate them.


During the second part of the pre-taped interview, Parnas told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper that while “loyalty goes so far,” there are “a lot of people in the Republican party” who “don’t agree with what [Trump’s] doing.”

“But they’re scared,” he said. “He gets away with everything, and especially with Attorney Bill Barr on his side, the Justice Department…I mean, a lot of people are scared. They don’t want to get investigated.”

“People are scared of being investigated by the Justice Department on behalf of President Trump, you’re saying?” Cooper asked.

“I think so,” Parnas replied.

The CNN anchor asked if that scared him.

“It scares me a lot,” the Giuliani associate said.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...ed-of-doj-investigating-them-on-trumps-behalf


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.
 
You want to have an election about M4A or immigration policy or taxes or even foreign policy, that turns Trump into a traditional Republican and the election gets close.

That's not what I mean. I was more commenting about hitting people over the head with Trump's criminality and incompetence is fine, but you are either (i) preaching to the converted who hate him or (ii) wasting your time on cultists. 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 would agree that if Bernie runs his campaign like Corbyn did, he will “miss the point” and lose.

I’m fairly certain based upon Bernie’s rhetoric on stage though (“I’ll support any of these people if they win even though I hope I win”) is indicative that he understands the ultimate common problem.

Biden is doing it selfishly because he is in front and the front runner can do that. Aside from Biden though, Klobuchar is the only other one I can think of who is repeatedly willing to make this statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom