Political Discussion

RenegadeMonster said:
www.cnn.com

Trump calls for liberal justices to recuse themselves from 'Trump-related' cases

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for two liberal Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from cases involving him following a scathing dissent issued by one of them, blasting the justices as the court considers a number of cases critical to his presidency.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com



RIP to our democracy.
Click to expand...
All of these things are because he HAS TO WIN 2020 at all costs, because if he doesn't, he's going to jail for oh so many things. He won't have the Presidency to hide behind. I really can't wait for the day when he and his family are all wearing orange jump suits.
 
Last edited:
www.cnn.com

House candidate in Arizona suspends campaign after drug overdose

A combat veteran running for US Congress in Arizona suspended his campaign on Monday after a relapse and drug overdose.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Yikes. I don't wish this guy ill and I hope he gets the help he needs, but it sure reads like he's only leaving the race because of the overdose. How many active heroin users do you think have served in Congress?
 
Indymisanthrope said:
www.cnn.com

House candidate in Arizona suspends campaign after drug overdose

A combat veteran running for US Congress in Arizona suspended his campaign on Monday after a relapse and drug overdose.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Yikes. I don't wish this guy ill and I hope he gets the help he needs, but it sure reads like he's only leaving the race because of the overdose. How many active heroin users do you think have served in Congress?
Click to expand...
Heroin seems counterintuitive, I would assume probably more of combo of Amphedamines, Benzos, and/or Barbiturates chased down with some expensive booze. Of course all obtained by a valid prescription provided by a reputable primary care physician.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Heroin seems counterintuitive, I would assume probably more of combo of Amphedamines, Benzos, and/or Barbiturates chased down with some expensive booze. Of course all obtained by a valid prescription provided by a reputable primary care physician.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I take it for granted that there's probably been plenty of addicts of one kind or another in government. The article doesn't make clear how much time elapsed between relapse and overdose, but it is a little mind-boggling to think of someone even attempting to run for Congress (much less serving in it) and doing smack at the same time.
 
www.cnn.com

If you drive an expensive car you may be a jerk, scientists say

The science is looking pretty unanimous on this one: Drivers of expensive cars are the worst.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Can't say that I'm all that surprised at these findings.

A new study has found that drivers of flashy vehicles are less likely to stop and allow pedestrians to cross the road -- with the likelihood they'll slow down decreasing by 3% for every extra $1,000 that their vehicle is worth.

Researchers from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas speculated that the expensive car owners "felt a sense of superiority over other road users" and were less able to empathize with lowly sidewalk-dwellers.
Click to expand...
 
www.cnn.com

Court says Trump administration can withhold money from NYC, 7 states in 'sanctuary cities' fight

The Trump administration can withhold federal money from seven states, as well as New York City, over their cooperation on immigration enforcement, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Court says Trump Administration can withhold federal money from the 7 States in which that have "sanctuary cities". New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
www.cnn.com

Over 1,300 complaints were sent to the FCC about Shakira and J.Lo's Super Bowl halftime show

Families all over America gathered on Super Bowl Sunday to watch the Kansas City Chiefs battle the San Francisco 49ers, turning one of America's most beloved sports events into a cheerful family affair.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

Also apparently the Super Bowl Halftime Show was to sexually suggestive for many conservatives. More than 1,300 complaints were filed with the FCC.
Click to expand...


What they missed Sabado Gigante when it was on the air?
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I'd be curious what the people here who are luke-warm to Sanders were thinking during this interaction:

View attachment 34423

Click to expand...



I’m not luke warm in sanders. I voted for him in the CA primary. I will say this about this interaction. Sanders message and the way he delivers it is powerful. It’s simple and he speaks with authority. It cuts through Pete. It was Sanders’ time to speak so it was a rude for Pete to attempt to speak over him. He fumbled and his statement were too complex to cut through.

What Sanders is proposing is a big change, but is it radical? Well look at all the nations that have universal healthcare across the world. Are the countries radical? Are they failing? I just don’t buy the sky is falling attitude that mainstream democrats and conservatives take.

Should there be criticism of universal healthcare systems? Of course, that’s how you improve them. But criticism has to valid, in good faith, and backed by data.
 
Last edited:
Pete just wanted to try and derail Sanders and failed miserably. This election, like most, is so full of "attention getting verbiage", radical, a lot of people hear that without context, but the negative connotation is what sticks. I hope people actually do their own homework this time around and vote for, whoever, based on a realistic picture of who they are and what they represent.
 
AnthonyI said:
Pete just wanted to try and derail Sanders and failed miserably.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this seemed to me to just be a case of Pete trying to seize on being addressed directly in order to minimize Sanders’ speaking time and maximize his own, whether he had a direct response ready to go or not. That just seems like Primary Debate 101: any time you aren’t speaking, someone else has a chance to spread their message or attack you, so you need to look for opportunities to wrest control of the stage and pivot to your own message. I guess I’m not sure what about this exchange you found notable with respect to Sanders skeptics in particular, @DownIsTheNewUp ?

Also I’m not sure I hear the phrase “by Luddite standards” being said by Pete in the video, but it’s hard to tell. Is that a phrase he uses? If so, I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean in that context.
 
Speaking of Pete,

I'm seeing his supporters all over Boston. They are everywhere. I have only seen one Bernie supporter and zero supporters for any other candidates over the last couple weeks.

They are standing out on street corners with Pete signs and wanting to talk to you.

Wonder why his base is out with force.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Yeah, this seemed to me to just be a case of Pete trying to seize on being addressed directly in order to minimize Sanders’ speaking time and maximize his own, whether he had a direct response ready to go or not. That just seems like Primary Debate 101: any time you aren’t speaking, someone else has a chance to spread their message or attack you, so you need to look for opportunities to wrest control of the stage and pivot to your own message. I guess I’m not sure what about this exchange you found notable with respect to Sanders skeptics in particular, @DownIsTheNewUp ?

Also I’m not sure I hear the phrase “by Luddite standards” being said by Pete in the video, but it’s hard to tell. Is that a phrase he uses? If so, I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean in that context.
Click to expand...

That was more debate than I've watched since....maybe ever. I personally don't understand why the exchange is significant and I'm not sure how anyone who was watching live could even understand anything anyone was saying because they were just shouting over one another.

Bernie seemed more coherent and reading the text quote for Pete didn't make much sense...particularly the luddite comment. Either Pete doesn't know what luddite means or was trying to make some very nuanced and circuitous argument that Bernie is a commie and we will be plunged into the dark ages by his policies.... which no one would've been able to understand. The whole thing seemed pointless.

Klobuchar's comments afterwards were more resonant and while Bernie's retort was very good I think pointing on how different and expensive Bernie's policies are is something that matters to people here in MN at least. I mean this is a place where people won't zipper merge on the highway because they would rather wait in a longer line than be different and risk offending a stranger in another vehicle.

As I've said many times it's an easy leap from socialist principles to communism for many Americans. It's narrow and short-sighted thinking but it's maybe the easy thinking, especially for middle and older aged Americans who were hiding under their desks or going through bomb shelter drills in elementary school. The conditioning leading to the fear is real, which is why the attacks on Bernie follow that path. Those older voters vote consistently. They turn out and at some point whomever the candidate is they're going o have to find a way to get those people comfortable enough to not turn out for the status quo.

I've barely been able to follow anything this week but I've read a little bit on the Russia for Bernie news that has been leaking out and it's a little bit fascinating that it's less of a story than it could be and I think will be come general election time.

It's ridiculous to think that any candidate isn't flawed, and Bernie has some warts that are going to continue to be exposed. I doubt those warts matter much to younger folks and I think those warts could matter a lot to older folks and moderate suburban white people.
 
Last edited:
AnthonyI said:
Pete just wanted to try and derail Sanders and failed miserably. This election, like most, is so full of "attention getting verbiage", radical, a lot of people hear that without context, but the negative connotation is what sticks. I hope people actually do their own homework this time around and vote for, whoever, based on a realistic picture of who they are and what they represent.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it would bother me but recalling all the BS they laid on Obama in 2008 and voters saw through all of that. I am sure they are going to toss everything but the kitchen sink at Bernie if he’s nominated too. Hopefully, voters will see through that too.
 
jaycee said:
As I've said many times it's an easy leap from socialist principles to communism for many Americans. It's narrow and short-sighted thinking but it's maybe the easy thinking, especially for middle and older aged Americans who were hiding under their desks or going through bomb shelter drills in elementary school. The conditioning leading to the fear is real, which is why the attacks on Bernie follow that path. Those older votes vote consistently. They turn out and at some point whomever the candidate is they're going o have to find a way to get those people comfortable enough to not turn out for the status quo.
Click to expand...


I know that this is the generally accepted narrative, but has anyone attempted to measure this? What slice of the population has these attitudes? How many would be willing to vote for Bernie if he is the candidate opposing Trump?
 
Dtknuckles said:
I know that this is the generally accepted narrative, but has anyone attempted to measure this? What slice of the population has these attitudes? How many would be willing to vote for Bernie if he is the candidate opposing Trump?
Click to expand...
Gallup kinda polled about this earlier this month
news.gallup.com

Socialism and Atheism Still U.S. Political Liabilities

While Americans' willingness to support a black or a woman as a candidate for president now approaches 100%, support for candidates who identify as socialist or atheist trails far behind.
news.gallup.com news.gallup.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top