Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2017, 08:33:46 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 737
1  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Clashism or Vosemism? on: Today at 05:58:38 pm
Nationalism is at odd with socialism because when the working classes identify with their nation over working classes from other countries, they forget their class interests. How do you think the ruling classes got 10 million men to die on the battlefields of World War I?
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Booker, Warren, Schumer, Gillibrand(Total 22) support Bernie's 15$ Min Wage bill on: Today at 05:33:10 pm
The far-right Feinstein is on the list Roll Eyes
3  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Conservatives only, what the bigger evil: Hard Core Socialists or SJW on: Today at 04:59:55 pm
The American right has internalized the left-wing attack on freedom, but instead of returning to the Rockefeller Republicanism we had hoped, is veering off towards European far right / identity politics. In 2008, the right collectively looked down into the vortex at the blackness awaiting us all with free market ideology and saw the same thing everyone else did. They may have spent four or five years pretending they didn't, but they did. For an entire generation, the movement that began with the publication of The Road to Serfdom in 1944 ended then and there.
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: in your opinion, is the Democratic Party too Russophobic? on: Today at 02:49:25 pm
Yes.

I noticed earlier today that, any time I read the comments on my Republican Congreswoman's social media accounts, at least one third of them contain slightly crankish references to Russian hacking.

Democrats have created a monster. The dumbest, most conspiratorial version of their claims is the one that seems to explain the most in the most easily understood terms, so of course that is what has gone viral among the marginally informed.

Everyone who tried to tell me that it really was worth carrying on about this was wrong. You may have had a nuanced and plausible account of what "Russian interference" meant, however tendentious and thinly sourced, but that's not what has spread. The street finds its own use for things, including ideas that purport to explain the unexplainable.

The Russian hacking story is more fundamental than Russia, hacking, or the election. It strikes at the very heart of our system of government, which is what the identity of this country is built on.

Since a core difference between autocracies and democracies is that in the latter, an opposition is allowed, it means there are always tolerated political differences within democratic societies. Obviously this leaves open the possibility that these differences can be exploited by third party autocracies to advance its own interests at the expense of the democracy, by pitting some factions against others. This leaves the democracy less able to defend its own interests as a whole. It is a fundamental, structural weakness of any system of government that tolerates opposition, unless there is some ironclad consensus within the democracy that "politics stops at the water's edge" or some version of that.

It means that, for instance, Thomas Dewey would not have passed intelligence to German troops in 1944 in order to bring about failure of D-Day to help him win the 1944 election. And that if there were serious allegations he or people in his campaign did, people would care and it would be taken seriously, and that the investigation would not be slow-rolled for partisan purposes. It sounds absurd, but this is the question being opened up, when factionalism causes American politicians to side with autocracies other the opposite party.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The NH Republican Lawmaker Who Secretly Created Reddit’s Women-Hating ‘Red Pill’ on: Today at 02:15:53 pm

The crazy thing is, these are the same people who are like "we have to ban radical m00slims becuz they oppress wimminz!"

     I don't deal too much with their kind, but my experience is that the people who frequent r/TheRedPill are too busy ranting about how women are less empathetic than cockroaches to actually talk about Islam. The folks who talk about Islamist misogyny are a different and unrelated community.

Thats because TheRedPill is not a forum to talk about Islam, but the forum as a whole supports the alt right and vice versa. For example the post at the top right now is about immigration.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama surpasses Hillary on the Wall Street Speaking Circuit on: Today at 02:11:29 pm
No, pbrower is right. That last Bernanke quote is just him patting himself on the back for his own heckuvajob (which he should!), he is on record as saying the 2008 crash was worse than 1929, which is true.

That is flat out retarded, I can't believe we are even having this stupid discussion. No sane economist can ever say that the 2008 was worse than 1929, this is not even a debate. This in an insult to any1 who has studied economics. If you have not studies economics, then don't embarrass yourself with such ridiculous statements !

There is massive different between the structural collapse of the entire economy & financial market collapse. There is massive difference between 25% Unemployment & 10% unemployment.

International Trade fell by more than 50%. Prices & Industrial Activity fell by close to 50% which is unheard of & has never happened. Nowhere in 2007-08-09 did any of it get anywhere near to this number. The Great Depression required fundamental abandoning of Classical Economics to embrace a newform of Economics called Keynesian Economics.











Look it up. He said it, and it's true. Your charts are missing the problem entirely. The macroeconomic situation was saved because of massive intervention, but the financial dynamics facing the West were worse in 2008 than any point during the Depression.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama surpasses Hillary on the Wall Street Speaking Circuit on: Today at 01:46:33 pm
No, pbrower is right. That last Bernanke quote is just him patting himself on the back for his own heckuvajob (which he should!), he is on record as saying the 2008 crash was worse than 1929, which is true.
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama surpasses Hillary on the Wall Street Speaking Circuit on: Today at 09:11:10 am
When Obama does it, it's okay because he has a penis, you see.

No? Obama is not running for elected office in the future.

Because he's already served two terms, which being a friend of Wall Street doesn't prevent you from doing if you're male.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The NH Republican Lawmaker Who Secretly Created Reddit’s Women-Hating ‘Red Pill’ on: Today at 12:20:49 am

The crazy thing is, these are the same people who are like "we have to ban radical m00slims becuz they oppress wimminz!"
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama surpasses Hillary on the Wall Street Speaking Circuit on: Today at 12:18:28 am
When Obama does it, it's okay because he has a penis, you see.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard on: April 25, 2017, 10:42:47 pm
I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.

Has she been asked about it at town halls? I'd like to see a source on that one.

You want me to do research on your candidate? Smiley She's asked generally about it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltN00P8lIs&t=29m21s

I believe this was from April 16. She speaks of sanctions, and doesn't discuss possible military action.

Here's a video of Sanders. The notable difference is Sanders adds the quote below-

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/16/watch-bernie-sanders-says-we-must-not-act-unilaterally-in-syria-and-north-korea/

“The key point here is that the United States must not act impulsively, and we must not act unilaterally,”

Quote
Also no major news outlets are reporting that the Trump administration is considering strikes on North Korea. As far as I'm aware Bloomberg is the only outlet that has reported such a thing and their source is one unnamed person " familiar with the White House’s thinking."

Bloomberg is a major news source. Also when they say "all options are on the table" isn't it implied?

You said "multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes."
 
That clearly isn't the case.

Every President says "all options are on the table." It's like their go to line when it comes to dealing with hostile governments.

You seem to be arguing that Gabbard is somehow in favor of military action in NK because she doesn't meet some inane standard of yours. It's absurd. You have nothing to back up such a claim. None of her statements on NK indicate that she's in favor of military intervention. What are you going on about?

Look, I hope you are right. If you are, you may well find me in the ranks of the Tulsi supporters in 2020, because as we both agree, she has high chances of winning the nomination. That's all I say for now. Good night.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard on: April 25, 2017, 10:11:06 pm
I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.

Has she been asked about it at town halls? I'd like to see a source on that one.

You want me to do research on your candidate? Smiley She's asked generally about it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltN00P8lIs&t=29m21s

I believe this was from April 16. She speaks of sanctions, and doesn't discuss possible military action.

Here's a video of Sanders. The notable difference is Sanders adds the quote below-

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/16/watch-bernie-sanders-says-we-must-not-act-unilaterally-in-syria-and-north-korea/

“The key point here is that the United States must not act impulsively, and we must not act unilaterally,”

Quote
Also no major news outlets are reporting that the Trump administration is considering strikes on North Korea. As far as I'm aware Bloomberg is the only outlet that has reported such a thing and their source is one unnamed person " familiar with the White House’s thinking."

Bloomberg is a major news source. Also when they say "all options are on the table" isn't it implied?
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard on: April 25, 2017, 09:18:17 pm
I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard on: April 25, 2017, 07:45:08 pm
I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.
15  General Politics / International General Discussion / Why Mattis vs Kim Jong Un will end badly for us all. on: April 25, 2017, 07:19:04 pm
Quote
We have in Korea a clash of strategic beliefs that will make it hard to avoid locking into what scholars describe as a “spiral model” of conflict: A scenario in which punitive action intended to deter the adversary leads to adversary retaliation or even more aggressive behavior. Conflict spirals are historically rare, but so are the conditions found on the Korean Peninsula. If both sides believe too fervently in the value of military signaling to achieve deterrence, then both are primed to respond to the signals of the other with still more provocative signals. The underpinning intention of both may be defensive, but because of what they believe about shows of resolve, each is primed to respond adversely to the other.

The alternative need not be unqualified appeasement. Recent research on the history of failed rapprochement with North Korea expects that accommodating an adversary is much harder than many foreign policy doves expect. Instead, stability is more likely if the United States adapts its deterrence posture to account for North Korea’s coercive theory of victory — retaliating when attacked but not attacking first — and remembers that making good on threats and promises over time has a much more meaningful impact on preventing adversary aggression than military signaling alone ever will.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/04/why-mattis-versus-kim-jong-un-will-end-badly-for-us-all/
16  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: For lefties only: more evil, traditional conservatives or libertarians? on: April 25, 2017, 05:13:56 pm
I think some people are confusing 'libertarian' with plutocrat. When I think libertarian, the image of a guy at the college student activities fair pushing the Political Compass on people comes to mind. Plutocrats are not libertarians by any means, for instance they'll gladly accept corporate welfare.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard on: April 25, 2017, 04:28:51 pm
I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

Tulsi Gabbard, as an Iraq War veteran, understands better than most Americans the pitfalls of American intervention in the Middle East.

So everyone who is an Iraq war veteran can't be questioned or disagreed with on foreign policy in the Middle East? Adam Kinzinger is an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran and supports intervention.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard on: April 25, 2017, 04:17:52 pm
I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Hearing Set for Class Action Lawsuit Against DNC on: April 25, 2017, 04:15:26 pm
Of course, this is only happening because of the illegal hacks into DNC e-mails that have still not been punished.

But the real irony is, nothing the DNC did in the 2016 cycle nearly had the same impact as disenfranchising millions of voters in Florida and Michigan in 2008.
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: SC going to decide fate of union "fair share" fees once again on: April 25, 2017, 02:30:15 pm
Shouldn't any one of those 20 employees who wants to bargain on their own be able to?

They can't, but it has nothing to do with the union. One person just doesn't have the same bargaining power as an entire company.

Quote
That's not the way it works in forced union states. A decision removing those fees would be a step towards that.

There's no state where there is a legal requirement to join a union, or pay any union-related fees.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard on: April 25, 2017, 02:28:27 pm
I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Process / Re: Once again, NE GOP Tries to Change Electoral System on: April 25, 2017, 02:25:40 pm
Everyone is going to support whatever electoral system is best for their party, which is fine and the way things should be.  I would hardly call it crazy for Nebraska to move to the system that 48 states use.

Disagree. Elections should be fair and reflect the will of the people. I would support actions on those principles regardless of whether my party benefits.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard on: April 25, 2017, 02:08:35 pm
I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard on: April 25, 2017, 01:42:58 pm
I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.
25  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25 on: April 25, 2017, 01:39:22 pm
If the Emerson poll is close to being right, it really would put a big hole in claims that Bernie would have somehow done dramatically better than Hillary in places like Montana.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 737


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines