Politics: The Final Frontier

[Bartimaeus]

3 hours ago, smjjames said:

I can see you're trying to make a pun on the name of Hungary to be edgy, HoonDing, but whatever pun you're trying to make out of Romania ruins it since you didn't actually make a pun out of it that goes with the pun on the name of Hungary.

Either it's something to do with alcohol (is Romania particularly known for its alcoholics?) or the Sultanate of Rum (more or less the precursor state to the Ottoman Empire), I'd guess. But yeah, I don't get it either.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[Gfted1]

I thought they were known for gypsies, but then I Googled it, and it turns out gypsies originated in India! What the what?!

[Chilloutman]

yep, gypsies are originally some lowest cast from india expelled and moved to east Europe roughly around 12 century IIRC

[ktchong]

Much has been said about Biden's origin as a Dixiecrat, his role in passing the 1990s crime bill that has decimated Black American communities, and his creepy attitude towards women and young girls. But no one - not on mainstream media and not on the Internet - has yet mentioned his one biggest sin that is gonna upset a lot, a lot, of Democrats and liberals. So here is a reminder.

Before 1991, the makeup of the US Supreme Court used to be 5-4 majority liberal.. and then the ultra-conservative Clarence Thomas replaced the liberal Justice and civil right legend Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court, and flipped that one crucial seat from liberal to conservative, which irreparably flipped the balance of the Supreme Court in favor of conservatives. And who was the Senate majority leader at the time who blocked women's testimonials against Clarence Thomas, allowed Thomas to be confirmed, and ultimately gave away the liberal majority on the Supreme Court to conservatives? CREEPY UNCLE JOE BIDEN.

Losing that Supreme Court majority was the biggest long-term damage Biden has inflicted on Democrats and liberals. Before Clarence Thomas, liberals had the majority on the Supreme Court, which made landmark rulings on abortion, civil rights, integration, and so many progressive rulings. Then, the conservative-majority Supreme Court - created by Biden - made the partisan court ruling to stop the Florida recount in 2000 and allow George W Bush to be the president, which ultimately led to the Iraq War and never-ending foreign wars; ruled in favor of Citizen United against FEC and open the floodgate of money in politics and super-pacs; ruled in favor of chipping away civil right protections. I am amazed that no one has yet mentioned the damages Creepy to the Supreme Court and our Justice system.

That alone should disqualify Creepy Joe from running.  Seriously the media and people need to talk about it. I do not think Democrats and liberals will ever forgive Biden for giving away the liberal majority in the Supreme Court. I am amazed that that very important and unforgivable sin of Biden has not been on anyone else's radar yet.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by ktchong

[Guard Dog]

Oh c'mon... Who s--t in the floor?

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, ktchong said:

I do not think Democrats and liberals will ever forgive Biden for giving away the liberal majority in the Supreme Court. I am amazed that that very important and unforgivable sin of Biden has not been on anyone else's radar yet.

am not sure why we bother to respond.

if thomas had failed senate confirmation, next most likely candidate were a guy named emilio m. garza. 

is any number o' folks who don't like how biden oversaw anita hill, and is also more than few who believe biden did a fair job o' handling a near impossible situation, but nobody with firing neurons blames biden for swinging the Court to the right.

might as well blame thurgood marshall for his terrible diet which no doubt led to the heart problems that necessitated his retirement.  we actual met J. Marshall in 1990 at a barbecue. honest-to-god, one o' our first reactions seeing the guy who wheezed with every breath and clear could not get outta his chair w/o help were, "this guy has never in his life eaten a vegetable which wasn't deep fried."  

many folks criticize biden for handling o' the anita hill situation, but the notion the Court woulda' stayed activist if not for biden is ludicrous. Souter appointment were already deemed a mistake, and bush were not gonna repeat same error by going with anybody other than a confirmed idealogue. if not Thomas, then likely garza, or somebody equal extreme. judge smails?

HA! Good Fun!

[ktchong]

So everyone online has been talking about Dave Rubin's interview of Marianne Williamson from last week.  The faux liberal alt-right/Randian cultist Rubin invited Marianne to his show, and apparently he thought he could just walk all over the "silly hippie"...

Oh boy he had no idea.

I finally watched the interview.  Let just say that, after the interview, the humiliated Rubin had to put out another video to make excuses for "how the hell did I let a hippie destroy me on my own show?!?"  Frankly, the ways Williamson intellectually disarmed and disassembled the alt-right shill on his own show completely took me by surprise - and revealed the lady's intelligence and wit.  That I did not expect from her.

Here: link to the interview

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by ktchong

[smjjames]

50 minutes ago, ktchong said:

So everyone online has been talking about Dave Rubin's interview of Marianne Williamson from last week.  The faux liberal alt-right/Randian cultist Rubin invited Marianne to his show, and apparently he thought he could just walk all over the "silly hippie"...

Oh boy he had no idea.

I finally watched the interview.  Let just say that, after the interview, the humiliated Rubin had to put out another video to make excuses for "how the hell did I let a hippie destroy me on my own show?!?"  Frankly, the ways Williamson intellectually disarmed and disassembled the alt-right shill on his own show completely took me by surprise - and revealed the lady's intelligence and wit.  That I did not expect from her.

Here: link to the interview

 

Heh, if any candidate had the potential to confound Trump in a debate, it’d definitely be Marianne Williamson. She definitely has potential, but the problem is that she can’t seem to articulate it into policy. If she can intellectually disarm an alt right randian cultist, then I don’t know why she can’t show the same in a debate, it’s like she can’t help but go into ‘woo woo’ mode. She needs to hire some real debate coaches and fire the current ones

[Guard Dog]

Didn't watch the debate tonight because the Rays are playing the Red Sox and that is infinitely more important than an election almost a year and a half away. But I heard Williamson gave a good account of herself. That's good IMO. I hope more of the under dogs climb into the race. In '16 it was Hillary from wire to wire and the result was a flawed candidate and campaign. Of course in '16 the fix was in from the get-go and Sanders was always screwed. He just didn't know it. So many of the front runners are coming in with so much negative baggage I really think it would be one of the 1%'ers that could knock off Trump. Unfortunately only Gabbard, Buti-something, and Bullock would actually make a decent President by my estimation. Hopefully they can climb into the race. Biden could do the job I guess. Give a us a four year reset and return to normalcy I guess. But the left won't have him. Plain and simple.  

Oh man wouldn't it be great if Clinton changed her mind and got into the race? Not happening I know but it would be sooo entertaining. 

[ktchong]

I  did not watch the debate tonight, as I had to do something with my family.  However, I googled the debate and glanced through the headlines.   Based on the headlines I've seen, it seems like Bernie Sanders (#2) and Elizabeth Warren (#1) were widely considered as the top two "winners" of the debate, while Marianne Williamson was the most googled/search candidate during and after the debate.    So it was a great night for progressives.

Let's hope Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang will deliver another night of win for progressives tomorrow.  Tulsi especially will need a boost or she won't qualify for the third debate.

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by ktchong

[Guard Dog]

Claiming someone "won" a debate is extremely subjective. Everyone thinks their favorite "won". The whole thing is sort of a farce. 

[ktchong]

My guess is Bernie, Warren and THE POWER OF LOVE "won" the night because they gave the most aggressive performances, most memorable moments, and the most quotable lines of the night.

 

 

These are the clips and quotes that keep popping up in newly uploaded videos on YouTube, so I think Bernie, Warren and Williamson are considered as the "winners" of night due to them:

 

"I do know because I wrote the damn bill!"  Bernie snapped at some Republican lite who kept saying Bernie did not know what Medicare-for-All would cover.

 

"Let's be clear about it.  We are the Democrats. We are not about to take away healthcare from anyone.  That's what the Republicans are trying to do." Elizabeth Warren responding to the candidate running in the wrong party on how Medicare-for-All would take away healthcare from Americans.

 

"I don't understand why anyone goes through all the troubles of running for the President of the United States just to talk about what we can't do and shouldn't fight for." Elizabeth Warren

 

"I've heard some people tonight, and I wonder why you are Democrats, you seem to think there is something wrong with using the instrument of government to help people." Marianne Williamson

 

"If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I’m afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days.”  And #DarkPsychicForce has been trending on Twitter.  

 

"Why are you spilling Republican talking points?" All three of Bernie, Warren and Williamson said some variations of that. 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by ktchong

[Gromnir]

8 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Claiming someone "won" a debate is extremely subjective. Everyone thinks their favorite "won". The whole thing is sort of a farce. 

isn't all that difficult to pick winners.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/

is also worth looking for increases and decreases in campaign contributions following debates, though you need wait more than a couple o' days to get such numbers. 

personal, we didn't approve o' how harris went after biden. after all, harris refused to commit to being in favor o' fed mandatory busing when pushed on the subject after the debate. were a calculated and kinda skeevy ploy for getting attention while undercutting the legitimacy o' the frontrunner. 

however, personal feelings aside, am thinking it were obvious harris approach worked. harris got a big boost towards favorability ratings as well as significant shot in the arm for her overall polling numbers.  harris were a clear winner, regardless o' whether she won with Gromnir. 

'course the thing is, the debates rare matter in the long run. candidates get a temporary boost from the debates and then is back to business as usual w/i a week following.

with such a large field o' candidates, perhaps the debates is more important than usual. got so many candidates 'bout whom voters know little. am wondering how many folks other than Gromnir thought it were weird yang were labeled as a "tech" guy. am thinking a majority o' folks didn't know enough 'bout yang to think there were anything weird 'bout the label. why would they know anything 'bout yang? outside o' washington state, how many knew inslee? and marianne williamson? 

maybe debates mean more this year. maybe. need some way to distinguish 'tween all the candidates. 

regardless, am thinking it ain't difficult to pick winners and losers, regardless o' feels. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 31, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

So Williamson chided the other candidates for focusing on policy and not on combating the "dark psychic force" that Trump is stirring up in this country?

 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/marianne-williamson-trump-emboldening-a-dark-psychic-force-in-america 

 

Oh Marianne

[Malcador]

Shame she didn't say something "the rising threat of Chaos"

[Guard Dog]

Oh yeah... she also said this:

Quote

The United States needs to recognize the ways that we have subtly and not-so-subtly glorified violence,” Williamson states on her website. “From violent video games to seemingly endless military adventures, each of us might ask ourselves, ‘What is our seeming resistance to peace?’”

Yeah... video games really should be banned. Almost all the recent mass shooters were video game addicts. And, after all, no one ever shot up a school after playing Ms. Pac Man! 

[Guard Dog]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

regardless, am thinking it ain't difficult to pick winners and losers, regardless o' feels. 

HA! Good Fun!

I can remember one debate where there might be some disagreement who won, everyone agreed who lost: James Stockdale in the VP debate in '92.

I remember Reagan wiping the floor with Mondale as well. Not a fair contest though. Reagan was a charismatic speaker and Mondale was incapable of hiding his sneering contempt for everyone he thought  beneath him.  Which was pretty much everyone. 

This was a funny moment too:

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Malcador]

8 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Oh yeah... she also said this:

Yeah... video games really should be banned. Almost all the recent mass shooters were video game addicts. And, after all, no one ever shot up a school after playing Ms. Pac Man! 

Well, if she manages to make them stop churning out CoD mil-porn games....might be worth her being elected

[Chilloutman]

gay alt-right? Now I have seen everything. That alt-right sounds very inclusive

[Guard Dog]

Not only do the dead vote Democrat, they donate to Democrats too https://freebeacon.com/politics/tlaib-donor-has-been-dead-for-10-years/

 

I wouldn't worry too much about this. Nothing will come of it because nothing ever does. Besides, anyone who has a problem with her violating the law just to get re-elected is clearly a deplorable racist. 

[ktchong]

Check you source.  The Washington Free Beacon is an extreme far right source - and a front for Taiwanese lobbyist:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Washington_Free_Beacon

https://www.thenation.com/article/conservative-free-beacon-fronts-taiwan-lobby/

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by ktchong

[ktchong]

 

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by ktchong

[Elerond]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Not only do the dead vote Democrat, they donate to Democrats too https://freebeacon.com/politics/tlaib-donor-has-been-dead-for-10-years/

 

I wouldn't worry too much about this. Nothing will come of it because nothing ever does. Besides, anyone who has a problem with her violating the law just to get re-elected is clearly a deplorable racist. 

That seems to be more an error in data filling system that fetches donor data from account holder information than actual try to commit a fraud, as trust where money has been given is in name of that deceased person but it is in full control of said deceased person's wife who actually has made the contributions and those contributions seem to be her only contributions so she has not tried to exceed sum of money she is legally allowed to contribute.

Bit similar case as that 2011 case where dead woman had contributed for Tea Party's PAC, because her husband had used credit card tied to joint account he had opened with his wife. Although then amount of money contributed had exceeded amount that one person can contribute.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/tea-party-express-responsible-for-dead-womans-donations/

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Never let facts get in the way of indignant outrage tbh.

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, KaineParker said:

Never let facts get in the way of indignant outrage tbh.

No outrage, just an interesting story. They are all dishonest rats in my book. D & R alike.