Page 32 of 33 FirstFirst ... 22 30 31 32 33 LastLast
Results 931 to 960 of 965

Thread: 11/3/2020 - President, Senate, House, LOCAL

  1. #931
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    558
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat Mom View Post
    You need to look up “impeachment.”

    The U.S. is a country and a Democratic Republic. Article IV of the United States Constitution "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” Each State has its own Constitution, its own elected legislative body, and its own elections (including the Presidential election).

    Impeachment ain’t Brexit.

    Corbyn is a raging anti-Semite. He deserves everything he gets.
    yeah i didnt think there was a chance Trump would win re-election before today, i thought that the new global left would make things right?

    but yeah 2016 right wing movement was not some weird flash in the pan trend here that can be reversed its permanent, im not sure if thats the case in the US you may be able to find the right left wing candidate to move things in another direction next year, its not something that can be scrubbed away and phony mud slinging impeachment hearings probably wont make things better.

  2. #932
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    1,615
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Exocet View Post
    yeah i didnt think there was a chance Trump would win re-election before today, i thought that the new global left would make things right?

    but yeah 2016 right wing movement was not some weird flash in the pan trend here that can be reversed its permanent, im not sure if thats the case in the US you may be able to find the right left wing candidate to move things in another direction next year, its not something that can be scrubbed away and phony mud slinging impeachment hearings probably wont make things better.
    I was going to engage but then I remembered.

  3. #933
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    558
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    This obscure website is turning into a graveyard it was much much busier a few years ago, the weird site prefect who has posted about 70.000 times puts people on an ignore list on a Nine Inch Nails forum lol

    I meant to say it's probably not a good idea to ignore the Trump supporters they won't just go away, try not to make things worse. I don't even want to dip my toe in its too toxic. My mistake,
    good luck

  4. #934
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    10,828
    Mentioned
    785 Post(s)
    No you’re right; nobody should ignore Trump, he’s a sign of how fucked-up most of the people in this country are, and it’s only going to get worse. He’s their leader but he didn’t create them. He’s a megaphone for them.

  5. #935
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    1,759
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Donate to Stacey Abrams' Fair Fight if what happened in the UK has scared the hell out of you. I know we all focus on president, but there are HUNDREDS of other races happening down the ticket that are just as important, if not more, than what happens in the White House. https://secure.actblue.com/donate/vs...ht?refcode=VSA

    They just helped out with the Kentucky governor's race which has led to over 100,000 people getting their voting rights restored.

    We are not going to convince the 35% of Trump supporters to switch sides, so we need to turn the fuck out next year because they are also turning out in record numbers.

  6. #936
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    124
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    There isn’t an option that isn’t divisive in SOME way. I really think Biden is our worst chance and we’re falling into a trap here
    This, this, a thousand times this. The only candidate I have less faith in winning against Trump is Buttigieg, an amoral careerist that seems like he stepped off a Super PAC assembly line and (deservedly) has zero support from the black community.

    The people who are telling us that we can't go too far left because "look what happened in the UK"? They're the same people that said Clinton needed to be nominee because Sanders was too radical and beating Trump was too important to risk nominating him. You know, even though polls in the winter / spring of 2016 showed that Clinton was basically doomed if she was running against any Republican besides Trump (who she fucking lost to anyway) and that Sanders polled well against all of them. The "we can't go too extreme, winning is too important" crock spewed by establishment Democrats is bad faith nonsense that disguises their inability to accept genuine leftism as strategic pragmatism, but in my opinion, it's clear that A) a leftist candidate is the best chance at beating Trump and B) the Democrats would rather have 4 more years of Trump than a leftist President who risks dismantling the Democratic party's cronyist hierarchy and the corrupt institutions they depend on. The fact that it has been reported that Obama, who has done basically nothing except sign lucrative Netflix deals and attend corporate speaking gigs since leaving the office to the Orange nightmare, said he would "speak out" to stop Sanders becoming the nominee if he made headway is the perfect illustration of how establishment liberals prefer fascism to socialism. If the UK election proved anything, it's not that leftist candidates lose - it's that the media and establishment institutions make it their job to ensure they do.

    The people trying to spin the results there as an indicator that centrism is the way to win are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading. The whole election was voted into existence by the Lib Dems based on a spurious poll lead and guess what? They did horribly too, and their own leader is set to lose her seat. Like Clinton, Jeremy Corbyn was unpopular, and also like Clinton, Corbyn had to deal with a media that was excessively critical and negative considering his opponent. However, as much undue focus as the media placed on Clinton's email scandal compared to the ocean of unacceptable Trump represented, this was a woman who was under FBI investigation (which always had the potential to screw her but everyone in her corner just shrugged off the danger of that possibility because self-interest trumped responsibility) and she got a much fairer shake from the media than Corbyn did. Clinton had a whole lot of baggage to be picked apart, a good portion of it justifiably, but the negative media blitz against Corbyn was largely just alarmist nonsense. For the past few years the blatantly xenophobic racists that comprise the Tories have blasted Corbyn with accusations of antisemitism nonstop, one of their favorite tactics against anyone who speaks up for Palestinians, and, perhaps more significantly, the media (including outlets like The Guardian seen as generally reliable and nonpartisan) and the Lib Dems carried water for them the whole time and never questioned the obvious bad faith these accusations were made in. Brexit and Labour's soft position on the issue played a role too, of course, but it's important for us to recognize how scorched-Earth the media goes against anything legitimately left-leaning.

    It's a dire time. Whatever you think of him, of all the candidates Sanders still polls best nationally against Trump and stands the best chance of beating him in areas like the Rust Belt that we need. Even more importantly, if any worthwhile society is going to survive the climate catastrophe we are watching unfold in slow-motion, if any meaningful steps are going to be taken to stop refugees from being abused and tortured and imprisoned, if we stand any chance of mitigating what is happening to our country and the world, we need radical change. We need to dis-empower capital and the plutocracy it powers, the plutocracy that keeps things from ever improving, and Sanders is the candidate I can come closest to trusting will at least attempt this. And he's the candidate that a lot of Democratic politicians would prefer four more years of Trump to. Honestly if he somehow got the nomination I wouldn't even be surprised if rank-and-file Democratic figureheads defect and try to get the public to rally behind a third-party Bloomberg campaign. It would guarantee another term for Trump but they'd rather have that than an improved world where they don't hold the institutional stranglehold that they do now.

    /rant. Sorry to vent. I just feel like we're all fucked.

  7. #937
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Chicago, USA
    Posts
    869
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Here's a really good video on impeachment in the US, by a lawyer (I actually recommend checking out his other vids as well):


  8. #938
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Bayonne Leave It Alone
    Posts
    3,742
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon Blackfire View Post
    This, this, a thousand times this. The only candidate I have less faith in winning against Trump is Buttigieg, an amoral careerist that seems like he stepped off a Super PAC assembly line and (deservedly) has zero support from the black community.

    The people who are telling us that we can't go too far left because "look what happened in the UK"? They're the same people that said Clinton needed to be nominee because Sanders was too radical and beating Trump was too important to risk nominating him. You know, even though polls in the winter / spring of 2016 showed that Clinton was basically doomed if she was running against any Republican besides Trump (who she fucking lost to anyway) and that Sanders polled well against all of them. The "we can't go too extreme, winning is too important" crock spewed by establishment Democrats is bad faith nonsense that disguises their inability to accept genuine leftism as strategic pragmatism, but in my opinion, it's clear that A) a leftist candidate is the best chance at beating Trump and B) the Democrats would rather have 4 more years of Trump than a leftist President who risks dismantling the Democratic party's cronyist hierarchy and the corrupt institutions they depend on. The fact that it has been reported that Obama, who has done basically nothing except sign lucrative Netflix deals and attend corporate speaking gigs since leaving the office to the Orange nightmare, said he would "speak out" to stop Sanders becoming the nominee if he made headway is the perfect illustration of how establishment liberals prefer fascism to socialism. If the UK election proved anything, it's not that leftist candidates lose - it's that the media and establishment institutions make it their job to ensure they do.

    The people trying to spin the results there as an indicator that centrism is the way to win are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading. The whole election was voted into existence by the Lib Dems based on a spurious poll lead and guess what? They did horribly too, and their own leader is set to lose her seat. Like Clinton, Jeremy Corbyn was unpopular, and also like Clinton, Corbyn had to deal with a media that was excessively critical and negative considering his opponent. However, as much undue focus as the media placed on Clinton's email scandal compared to the ocean of unacceptable Trump represented, this was a woman who was under FBI investigation (which always had the potential to screw her but everyone in her corner just shrugged off the danger of that possibility because self-interest trumped responsibility) and she got a much fairer shake from the media than Corbyn did. Clinton had a whole lot of baggage to be picked apart, a good portion of it justifiably, but the negative media blitz against Corbyn was largely just alarmist nonsense. For the past few years the blatantly xenophobic racists that comprise the Tories have blasted Corbyn with accusations of antisemitism nonstop, one of their favorite tactics against anyone who speaks up for Palestinians, and, perhaps more significantly, the media (including outlets like The Guardian seen as generally reliable and nonpartisan) and the Lib Dems carried water for them the whole time and never questioned the obvious bad faith these accusations were made in. Brexit and Labour's soft position on the issue played a role too, of course, but it's important for us to recognize how scorched-Earth the media goes against anything legitimately left-leaning.

    It's a dire time. Whatever you think of him, of all the candidates Sanders still polls best nationally against Trump and stands the best chance of beating him in areas like the Rust Belt that we need. Even more importantly, if any worthwhile society is going to survive the climate catastrophe we are watching unfold in slow-motion, if any meaningful steps are going to be taken to stop refugees from being abused and tortured and imprisoned, if we stand any chance of mitigating what is happening to our country and the world, we need radical change. We need to dis-empower capital and the plutocracy it powers, the plutocracy that keeps things from ever improving, and Sanders is the candidate I can come closest to trusting will at least attempt this. And he's the candidate that a lot of Democratic politicians would prefer four more years of Trump to. Honestly if he somehow got the nomination I wouldn't even be surprised if rank-and-file Democratic figureheads defect and try to get the public to rally behind a third-party Bloomberg campaign. It would guarantee another term for Trump but they'd rather have that than an improved world where they don't hold the institutional stranglehold that they do now.

    /rant. Sorry to vent. I just feel like we're all fucked.
    Preach, brother preach. With you on all points. As far as that total prick Bloomberg, it appears all of this really is just to ramp up a third party campaign, b/c he's refusing donor money (meaning he won't qualify for any of the debates) & not campaigning in any of the first four states...which will kill any tiny chance he might had had in in the first place of garnering primary votes. If he was serious about becoming the Dem candidate, then he'd be doing everything he could to secure a spot in the debates (where coincidentally, he would get shellacked by Bernie & Warren). And if he does run third party, then it was all just a ploy to kill a progressive candidate b/c of their stance towards the rich. It's just gross.

  9. #939
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    1,615
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)


    saw this:
    1974-1978: 45 retirements
    1980-1984: 32
    1986-1990: 31
    1992-1996: 50*
    1998-2002: 45
    2004-2008: 49
    2010-2014: 43
    2016-2020: 70
    also saw some scuttlebutt (so yuge grain of salt) about Trump floating a non-Pence ticket for 2020. Gotta be too late to change the paperwork, right?

  10. #940
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Bayonne Leave It Alone
    Posts
    3,742
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegate View Post
    also saw some scuttlebutt (so yuge grain of salt) about Trump floating a non-Pence ticket for 2020. Gotta be too late to change the paperwork, right?
    Hence why Nikki Haley came out on TV last week and sucked off Trump, Trumpers & the confederate flag. She would be the presumptive pick if Trump went in that direction.

  11. #941
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    4,207
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Amy is about 509479432809 levels too conservative for me, but she is destroying everyone in this debate tonight.

    Pete explaining economics to Warren. Lol.

    Yang explaining misogyny to Warren. Lol.

    Biden and Bernie dismissing the structural power that comes with being old white dudes. Lol.

  12. #942
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,394
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Speaking as an Indiana resident I'd love to see Pence kicked to the curb. Watching him still suck up to Trump will be nice.

    Haley would be a smart pick to galvanize the conservative white female vote.
    Last edited by onthewall2983; 12-21-2019 at 09:58 AM.

  13. #943
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    4,207
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Castro is out. Hoping that he is on the list for Warren's VP pick.

  14. #944
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarah K View Post
    Castro is out. Hoping that he is on the list for Warren's VP pick.
    Agreed. He’d be a great pick.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #945
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    1,615
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)

  16. #946
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    1,615
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)

  17. #947
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,414
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Castro endorsed Warren for president which makes sense, given that he’d make a good VP on her ticket as Sarah mentioned previously.

  18. #948
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    4,207
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    AND he's going to be at the event tomorrow which is within walking distance of my house. And since I work in the best office ever, they're telling me to leave super early. Lol. CAN'T WAIT.

    I had to skip out on the selfie line after the Washington Square Park speech. Hoping there will be one tomorrow! I dunno if they have a way to do that in a theater, though.

    SO HAPPY HE WILL BE THERE.

  19. #949
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    124
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Enjoying the collective meltdown of all the people who got 2016 dead-wrong over Sanders leading the latest Iowa poll.

    And it has to be said, the media trying so hard to make Amy Klobuchar happen will never not be funny.

  20. #950
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Bayonne Leave It Alone
    Posts
    3,742
    Mentioned
    68 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon Blackfire View Post
    Enjoying the collective meltdown of all the people who got 2016 dead-wrong over Sanders leading the latest Iowa poll.
    The meltdown has now turned into more outright attempts at sabotage. You see this lie from today?

    The stakes were high when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren met at Warren's apartment in Washington, DC, one evening in December 2018. The longtime friends knew that they could soon be running against each other for president. The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement. They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters.
    Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.
    The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.
    That evening, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics, according to one of the people familiar with the conversation. Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.
    Sanders denied the characterization of the meeting in a statement to CNN.
    "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders said. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."
    Warren's communications director Kristen Orthman declined to comment.
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/polit...ing/index.html

  21. #951
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    124
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    That and the whole brouhaha about the likely fake Sanders recruitment script, the one that the Warren camp treated as an attack because it stated that Warren's voting base represented "highly educated, more affluent people" (this was seriously the offending item) and conveniently had mass-mailers ready to go out based around that minor controversy. And regarding this piece from today, it's telling that Sanders issued a lengthy denial while Warren's team declined to comment. This is unnamed sources describing a interaction they were not part of and news outlets reporting it as just-about fact. For fuck's sake, a major part of Sanders deciding to run at all back in 2016 was that Elizabeth Warren wasn't running. But this is nothing new. I still remember when AP said Hillary Clinton had 'clinched' the nomination the evening before the Jersey primary in 2016 - it was based on a private survey of super-delegates, whose votes should only really count at the convention, but the headline did its job.

    We knew it was going to be like this. If he really performs the way I think he can and earns some early victories the attacks will only get more desperate, and from more prominent places. They're going to do whatever they can to stop him, even if it means giving Trump four more years, and that should tell everybody almost everything they need to know about the Democratic party, and why Sanders' campaign is so much bigger than him.

  22. #952
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    4,207
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    She didn't refuse to comment. She released a statement, but shut down further discussion around it. I really admire how composed she has remained through this. Though she of course has to, as if she responds with any emotion, it will be deemed tOo EmOtIoNaL.

    Anyone who thought that two candidates who find themselves in the top four were going to remain side-by-side forever is not realistic. You get to a certain level, and the objective is to eliminate the others. Not a fun reality, but a reality nonetheless.

  23. #953
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    124
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    So yes, she has indeed released a statement now. In a nutshell, after reporters covering Warren's camp break this story, which clearly came from sources on team Warren, and Sanders releases a statement denying it, she comes out and says simultaneously that 1) yes, Bernie did say this but 2) I'm the bigger person and we're better than this petty squabbling, we have more similarities than difference, I'm not interested in discussing this anymore so no one should ask me again. Pretty obvious political theater, as far as I'm concerned. Warren's camp fed a negative story to the media and let it sit long enough for Sanders to deny it, so Warren could swoop in and have her cake and eat it too - getting in some highly publicized hits on Sanders while being able to act like she is above the negative, attack-based campaigning that her team directly invoked. Trying to take down Sanders while playing the unity candidate. It makes sense they'd try for it now, with her numbers fading in some polls and Sanders' on the rise. Was not expecting Warren of all people to go so ugly so quickly though, especially with some of the skeletons in her closet that the field has been too polite to exploit thus far.

    Reminder that I'll vote for whoever the Dems put up (even if it's fucking Biden) before someone gets mad at me.

  24. #954
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    4,207
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    All people living in reality know it’s gonna be Biden. Unfortunately. But it’s nice to be able to give ourselves the illusion of hope and to genuinely feel excitement about politics for a bit

  25. #955
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,597
    Mentioned
    389 Post(s)
    If Biden has the best chance against Trump I want Biden... I wish I could say he’s a good option. Why are we here...

  26. #956
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    4,183
    Mentioned
    265 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    If Biden has the best chance against Trump I want Biden... I wish I could say he’s a good option. Why are we here...
    I’m starting to think Biden is a worse candidate than Hillary was in 2016. If it’s not Warren or Sanders I fear another 4 years of Trump.

  27. #957
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    124
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Biden is definitely NOT the safest option, even though prominent mouthpieces will repeat that he is and that anything too left would be too risky ad nauseam, per usual, but it's an utterly farcical premise. Forget even his awful political record and imagine four debates with Joe Biden, who has already had so many gaffes and bizarre moment that it's clear that he risks making even Trump seem vaguely coherent by comparison. And more importantly, even if someone like Biden wins, we're still pretty much guaranteed to be fucked long-term.

    I know to expect this shit by now but man the chyrons during that debate. "Does Sanders owe voters an explanation of how much his healthcare plan will cost them and the country?" "Sanders' proposals would double federal spending over a decade; how will he avoid bankrupting the country?" "Warren supports a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada; why is Sanders' opposition to it wrong?" Too subtle.

  28. #958
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Laughingstock of the World (America)
    Posts
    3,990
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Let me be overly optimistic here:

    Is it possible that all the question that seem to be "targeting" Sanders are the network's way of acknowledging that he's got the biggest realistic lead, so they're holding him to the highest standard?

    I'm sure it's not. But maybe...just maybe....it's not as "anti-Sanders" as people are screaming.

  29. #959
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    1,759
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by theimage13 View Post
    Let me be overly optimistic here:

    Is it possible that all the question that seem to be "targeting" Sanders are the network's way of acknowledging that he's got the biggest realistic lead, so they're holding him to the highest standard?

    I'm sure it's not. But maybe...just maybe....it's not as "anti-Sanders" as people are screaming.
    He's a frontrunner right now and is now getting the frontrunner heat that people threw at Biden in the earlier debates, Warren at other debates and Buttigieg at earlier debates. When someone comes out with momentum, they get targeted by the other candidates.

    Warren is my current pick with Bernie as my second choice if something knocks her out before the Ohio primary. Regardless, I'd be proud to vote for any of these candidates, even though I'm less enthused about Joe and Pete. There really isn't a safe option here because Trump voters are going to turn it out in record shattering numbers so Dems need to be prepared to do the same.

    This is gonna be the most important election of our lifetimes and will impact multiple generations of Americans.

  30. #960
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    W/A
    Posts
    1,615
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    I was thinking this morning and it seems to me that trying to figure out the person who "won" the debate is more like "who said the things that I agree with already". There's not a lot of "they changed my mind with what they said" going on.

Posting Permissions