Politics First Contact

[Guard Dog]

7 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

 

again, one of gabbard's selling points is the animosity she has drawn from old guard democrats and clinton folks. in 2019 is not particular risky to set self apart from clinton folks. in fact, is an advantage. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

If and only if a "safe" candidate like Biden gets an electoral drubbing next Fall. If that happens the Dems are going to have the political equivalent of a full body spasm and that will likely kill off any of the "old guard" still around.  I suspect if that happens the Democrat Party that takes it's place will be even less appealing to people like me. You too I'd think. 

Of course July 16 is an eternity from now. Anything can happen. Remember in '92 going into Super Tuesday it looked like Paul Tsongas was cruising? Then Clinton came out of nowhere. 

Well, anyway, Gabbard's future prospects, whatever they are, depend largely on Trump being re-elected. If that does not happen she will have a real hard time staying relevant. 

[Gromnir]

biden is a moderate. he is a moderate who could conceivably find common ground across the aisle, and he is also moderate by current democrat standards. biden is popular in large part 'cause o' his ties to obama as 'posed to clinton. kinda sucks for democrats that biden is as cartoonish as were dan quayle, if a bit more likeable.

other front runners such as warren and sanders is hardly clinton camp. is collective sleepless nights from wall street at the thought o' sanders or warren getting elected by a landslide and exacting major dometic changes. sanders and warren is not part o' the clinton establishment. wall street adored the clinton establishment.

even the folks such as buttigeg and booker and harris never fail to distance themselves from the clinton era folks who championed bank deregulation.

as a whole, the current democratic candidates is less vocal 'bout foreign policy save to agree that trump is doing wrong... well, other than gabbard. this is disturbing 'cause as we have stated many times, the President has more freedom to act insofar as foreign policy is concerned. should be talking more foreign policy 'cause Presidents almost invariably have more influence on foreign policy than domestic.

regardless, the clinton folks will be around for a long time in one capacity or another, but they are not the big dogs o' the party. clinton era people were part o' deal brokering for decades and they ain't gonna just disappear. favors is owed. such is politics. is nevertheless amusing how clinton folks is somehow becoming conspiracy fodder akin to the illuminati. the power that be leading the party is consistent rejecting clinton policies, but that is just camouflage. no doubt the clintonians has meetings beneath the jefferson memorial and secretly plot world domination, eh?

who is democrats in 2019? at the moment you got the people refusing to take off the rose-tinted glasses o' those who championed obama policies, which initial looked progressive but turned out to be moderate save for a disturbing indifference to personal liberties and Constitutional norms. you also got the progressives who is pretending as if they can get major overhauls o' every domestic issue under the sun w/o any bipartisan support. not sure which camp we find more worthy o' pity.

in any event, you might as well be trying to sell us on the continuing kennedy influence... which admitted looked a great deal like clinton's policies when viewed with benefit o' hindsight. surprising hawkish and consistent mendacious.  

regardless, easiest stance for any current democrat candidate to take is to point out how they ain't part o' the clinton establishment. takes no courage to do so. gabbard actual got a major boost in campaign contributions and support when hillary went after her with the nonsense russian asset bit.

...

ok, second easiest stance for a 2019 democrat is anti-clinton. easiest should be anti-trump, and gabbard has problems getting that right. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Kamala Harris is dropping out. Good riddance

[smjjames]

Yea, she has been having some campaign issues the past few months, so, not a complete surprise. Given her not insubstantial support, compared to others that have dropped out, it'll be interesting to see the realignment of supporters.

[Hurlshort]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Kamala Harris is dropping out. Good riddance

I was pretty surprised how toxic her campaign turned. Early on I thought she had the best chance to beat Trump. I still think she would have done better than someone like Biden, who will basically pull in the same votes as Clinton. 

[Gromnir]

52 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I was pretty surprised how toxic her campaign turned. Early on I thought she had the best chance to beat Trump. I still think she would have done better than someone like Biden, who will basically pull in the same votes as Clinton. 

as much as we disliked harris, we got some sympathy for her. am thinking she were going for a tough-as-nails kinda thing and it backfired. trump being toxic, aggressive and unapologetic garnered him republican voters who had nevertheless voted for obama. is also noteworthy how kamala harris gained much positive attention from here televised judiciary committee questionings o' folks such as ag barr where she were aggressive and uncompromising. with so many democrat candidates, perhaps harris felt she needed to be different and what got her on the national stage in the first place were unflinching combativeness. possible get a few o' those obama voters to flip and maybe appeal to a similar untapped segment w/i the democrat party? not an unreasonable approach.

am suspecting some will blame on gender. "if kamala was a man, she would be applauded for her strength rather than condemned for her cattiness." 

*shrug*

am gonna disagree, but perhaps we are too blind to gender disparity. am fully admitting we may be overlooking unfair bias.

personal, Gromnir is fatigued by the toxicity hurl mentions and it not matter which side o' the aisle it originates. sure, in committee when harris is delving for truth from an uncooperative witness, we expect and desire prosecutorial decisiveness. 

were that only a decade past?

HA! Good Fun!

ps as soon as kamala harris promised to executive order the second amendment into oblivion, we knew she had lost gd's vote, and many rural independents who were essential in trump's slim victory over clinton. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Gromnir
nod to gd

[Guard Dog]

That should have cost her everyone's vote. Forget for a moment that she was just talking out of her rear when she said that and knew full well she couldn't. Or, maybe she didn't know. Whatever. Forget that for a moment. What if she promised to executive order the 1st Amendment into oblivion? Of the 13th? Or the 10th? Oh.... wait I forgot that one is already in oblivion. There is no article, section, clause or amendment in the Constitution the President can just executive order away. It's a problem that "they" say (she was hardly the first) they will do that. It's even worse when "they"get applauded for saying it. Worst of all is the expectation that it will happen if they get elected. I am always amazed how willing people are for the leaders they support to take out a pen and order away their freedom. How many would just hand it over without a fight. Because if the 2nd Amendment can be marginalized in that way any or all of them can the moment someone finds them inconvenient.  

[Hurlshort]

Trump is already doing everything he can to marginalize the 1st amendment, so forgive me if I don't stress out about the potential 2nd amendment consequences of having a democratic in office. 

[Gfted1]

Iyo, how has he infringed upon the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press or petition? 

[Hurlshort]

4 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Iyo, how has he infringed upon the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press or petition? 

I used the term marginalize, as GD did. But I mean, if you really aren't paying any attention, here is a bunch of examples of him going after Fox News, which is the one press outlet he tends to attack the least: https://www.businessinsider.com/times-trump-criticized-fox-news-anchors-2019-11

[Gfted1]

Ah, "he shook his fist at the sky". Got it.

 

With Harris out, whos going to give me that UHC now?

[Gromnir]

4 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Iyo, how has he infringed upon the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press or petition? 

*chuckle*

we could be here a long time, but even before he took office, trump had folks sign nondisclosure agreements with individuals who were to be part o' the executive branch. such ndas is unenforceable and abhorrent to the First Amendment, but such would force individuals to engage in costly litigation vacate. trump also, during his campaign, made clear he would do what he could to overturn ny times v. sullivan.  hasn't had much luck so far, but he tries. oh, and let us not forget the muslim ban. again, clear repugnant to the First Amendment, but his muslim ban, which were shot down by multiple courts before being transformed into a ban on refugees and immigrants from specific nations instead o' religions were a major campaign promise from before day 1... and he went through with it. for chrissakes, trump made the muslim ban even less likely to be upheld by adding in a provision which gave preferences to christian refugees. 

trump has taken considerable actions to silence executive branch scientists and experts... and had courts chastise him. trump has taken away credentials from reporters who spoke ill of him... and had courts smack him down for such temerity.  trump's attempts to block twitter users were also overturned by the courts on first amendment basis. etc.

again, we could be here a LONG time giving specific examples o' this administration attacking first amendment rights, and getting smacked down by the courts.

qq all you want, but you asked. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Zoraptor]

He tried banning certain news organisations from the WH wholesale? Which got rescinded because it was unconstitutional? And worked around by 'just' refusing to issue credentials to some reporters? Or am I not remembering correctly? [OK looks like I am, more or less]

(Trump's rhetoric is a considerable step up from Obama's spat with Fox News, but istr a lot of equivalent 'traitor' 'terrorist enabler' 'saddam lover' talk from Bush's White House directed at any media or reporters who weren't toeing the line with the War on Terror or build up to the Iraq invasion- but as with most neocon/ neolib adventurism there simply weren't many media organisations or reporters not toeing the line to be targeted. And, of course, outing Valerie Plame which was actively illegal revenge for her husband debunking of the yellow cake story in the media)

Edited December 3, 2019 by Zoraptor

[Gfted1]

My qq is for my lost UHC. But brain damage gonna brain damage.

 

So he tried to do things and was rebuked / failed.

[Gromnir]

4 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

My qq is for my lost UHC. But brain damage gonna brain damage.

 

So he tried to do things and was rebuked / failed.

no. trump did things. he actual did sign muslim ban executive order. he did block folks on twitter. he did take away reporter credentials and he also prevented scientists from submitting factual reports. 

after trump "infringed" on the First Amendment rights o' many folks, those people then took him to court and had the President's actions overturned. doesn't mean trump actions never happened, save for those with memento kinda brain damage.

would explain a few things.

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

35 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

So he tried to do things and was rebuked / failed.

Having an independent body rule that what Trump's doing was illegal multiple times definitively supports him marginalising that law. Indeed, repeatedly overstepping the law would be just about the definition of marginalising it when you're theoretically an upholder of that law and theoretically should know better.

Doing everything he can to marginalise the 1st amendment isn't true in the literal sense, of course.

(Twitter blocks though? What next?

Dear Supreme Court,

Donald J Trump kicked me from his Minecraft server...)

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Trump is already doing everything he can to marginalize the 1st amendment, so forgive me if I don't stress out about the potential 2nd amendment consequences of having a democratic in office. 

Right Trump is bad, Democrats are bad, they are ALL bad. Let's not forget what the FEC one Republican and two Democrats, has been doing to free speech online and in non-traditional media these last 14 years. Obama fought a seven year feud with Fox News in the public. Sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. And don't forget the IRS being weaponized to harass conservative PAC groups during the Obama admin. And I do not believe for a second he was unaware. I'll buy that he didn't order it but he sure as hell knew it was happening and didn't stop it. There are no champions of the 1st Amendment inside the 495. The only one that comes close is Ruth Bader Ginsburg but even her support turns tepid when the prerogatives of the State are at issue. 

Villains to the right, villains to the left. Choose one and the other backstabs you. Sure you could call one or the other the "lesser evil". Which one that is will be a judgement call. But the lesser evil is still evil. Say no to evil.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Skarpen]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Sure you could call one or the other the "lesser evil". Which one that is will be a judgement call. But the lesser evil is still evil. Say no to evil.

Or we could go all in and choose the Greater Evil. Cthulhu 2020!

[Hurlshort]

They might all be terrible choices, but I think I'm more comfortable with two bad choices limited to 4 years of power than 1 bad choice getting a full 8 years. So yeah, 4 years ago I was happy to vote for someone different, but this time I'm probably going to vote for whoever is not Trump. 

[Guard Dog]

51 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

They might all be terrible choices, but I think I'm more comfortable with two bad choices limited to 4 years of power than 1 bad choice getting a full 8 years. So yeah, 4 years ago I was happy to vote for someone different, but this time I'm probably going to vote for whoever is not Trump. 

There is that. But by voting for not evil you are also voting for not Trump. Actually you and I can vote any way with a clear conscience. The outcome of the election in our states is a foregone conclusion. Hell the actual names of the candidates does not even matter.

[Volourn]

"I used the term marginalize, as GD did. But I mean, if you really aren't paying any attention, here is a bunch of examples of him going after Fox News, which is the one press outlet he tends to attack the least: https://www.businessinsider.com/times-trump-criticized-fox-news-anchors-2019-11"

 

L0L He pulled what Obama did and every Demo has done. Oh noes, he criticized Fox News. Boo hoo. Fox News is so 'marginalized' they get tons of viewers. Boo hoo.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Volourn

[ComradeYellow]

I'm not gonna get into who the Hell to vote for  because let's face it, everyone has their own cognitive understanding of what's transpiring in the political climate and someone with a different opinion usually comes off as dumb or retarded, but I have noticed that there's people who didn't like Trump during his campaign and election who are now faithful supporters, and people who loved him and voted for him now do not like him and are committed to getting rid of him.  It's like we're witnessing the strangest sort of bizarre alignment shift since WW2!

Edited December 4, 2019 by ComradeMaster

[smjjames]

Yeah, If we go by roughly 30 year intervals, we're about due for another major alignment shift, it's happened to the Republicans and now the Democrats are undergoing it. There is a lot of disagreement just where the alignment shifts are post WWII, but maybe it's just become more fluid since the beginnings of mass media (everything post WWII, though arguably you could go pre-WWI,, especially since the 1990's.

[Guard Dog]

12 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

I'm not gonna get into who the Hell to vote for  because let's face it, everyone has their own cognitive understanding of what's transpiring in the political climate and someone with a different opinion usually comes off as dumb or retarded, but I have noticed that there's people who didn't like Trump during his campaign and election who are now faithful supporters, and people who loved him and voted for him now do not like him and are committed to getting rid of him.  It's like we're witnessing the strangest sort of bizarre alignment shift since WW2!

You are not wrong on that one. The Trump presidency has been the strangest one in my lifetime. Possibly the strangest ever. At least since William Henry Harrison. And he had to croak a month into his term to achieve that.  I do not think he has done any lasting damage to the country as of right now. As bad as he is everything can be undone and forgotten with a change. But he HAS damaged the Republican Party. Not with Democrats or other non-Republicans. They will never think any more or less of people with differing opinions. But the Republicans have been forced to turn their backs on a number of principles usually considered a major part of their makeup. And have estranged quite a few people who are usually supportive of Republicans. Those fences will probably be mended but not for a long time. Even if he is re-elected and not removed he will leave them much worse off than he found them. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

Hillary Clinton was on Howard Stern this morning. Much like with Trump, these are pretty interesting people once you separate them from the politics and vitriol, which is what Stern tends to do better than any other interviewer.