US Politics Thread

[britbox]

the more I watch the more I think that Warren or Sanders would be a disaster. Buttegieg would flat out lose. I agree that Biden wouldn't fare well in a debate, but he would probably get the turn out he needs to win. And more important he is so non-threatening to centre Republicans he would probably induce a big percentage of them not to vote. I think Biden's edge is that he damages GOP turnout. Sanders would probably get bigger Dem turnout, but the flipside is that GOP turnout would be insane

Most of them are flat out abysmal. Bernie is at least authentic, but it's a giant ask for him to sell it. Biden, while seeming the "safe bet" will get shredded by Trump. While more moderate than some of the others, he can't debate for shit.

 

[Federberg]

Most of them are flat out abysmal. Bernie is at least authentic, but it's a giant ask for him to sell it. Biden, while seeming the "safe bet" will get shredded by Trump. While more moderate than some of the others, he can't debate for shit.

one of the things we learned from 2016 is that debates don't matter. I think this will be all about turnout. Everyone pretty much knows who they like. The only issue is can they be bothered to turn out? For that reason I think that Biden has the best chance. It's closer than I would like it to be because the economy is so mighty right now. But.... the yield curve inverted last year. That has been a nailed on recession predictor for almost a century. It's hard for me to imagine a slowing economy before the elections so I'm assigning a lower likelihood of that than I would normally when I see that data point...

 

[britbox]

Four more years of Trump looks a done deal. Dems won't be able to move on until the pendulum swings back on all this "Woke"/"Identity Politics" bullshit. It'll happen eventually, everything works in cycles. Just might take a few years.

 

[britbox]

one of the things we learned from 2016 is that debates don't matter. I think this will be all about turnout. Everyone pretty much knows who they like. The only issue is can they be bothered to turn out? For that reason I think that Biden has the best chance. It's closer than I would like it to be because the economy is so mighty right now. But.... the yield curve inverted last year. That has been a nailed on recession predictor for almost a century. It's hard for me to imagine a slowing economy before the elections so I'm assigning a lower likelihood of that than I would normally when I see that data point...

I disagree. I think debates do matter. Snippets get circulated on social media 24/7 and most of the networks agree, that Trump is prime time when it comes to viewer figures, even if they hate his message. Whereas, from memory, you think all this is determined by Vladimir Putin.

 

[Federberg]

We will find out one way or another

 

[britbox]

Sure, but Biden is toast if he wins the nomination. @Moxie assured me he wouldn't be the candidate, I guess we'll see.. But four more years of Trump looks like the likely scenario for me. Maybe, he'll even get the chance to do the job allocated

 

[Federberg]

I can't blame you for thinking that. That last debate was stunning to me. All the impeachment stuff going on, plus Iran, and you have Sanders and Warren fighting about some irrelevant conversation from years ago?? It just highlights how politically tone deaf Warren is in particular. She might be a policy wonk, but if she thinks winning in Massachusetts means she has any political ability then she is monumentally stupid and should eject herself from this race right now. The only ones there who seemed close to understanding the moment were Klobuchar and perhaps Biden. Maybe Bloomberg can save the day, he's a Dem in name only after all

 

[calitennis127]

you're the one who keeps on saying the accusations are baseless.

Uh no, the Mueller report itself showed that the accusation of Russian collusion was baseless.:

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (p. 39)

The idea that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government was a left-wing superstition for stupid people.

I merely pointed out to you that the Mueller Report doesn't say that.

Yeah it does actually. Let me quote one more time for you:

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (p. 39)

And as for Clinton friendly DOJ employees?

Go look at the voting numbers for D.C. and the D.C. suburbs. It is virtually all Democrat there. Most people who work in government are hard-core Democrats, as the Horowitz report showed.

Grow up mate. You didn't get the result you wanted and then you make accusations of bias.

Are you really this obtuse? I just accused you of that and you are unoriginal and humorless that you copied my insult of you and acted like it was your own.

[

 

[calitennis127]

If there was anything there... anything at all, they would have hammered the woman.

Lol.....you mean like Comey did when he laid out her criminal activity for everyone to see but then didn't press charges? Or when the FBI began drafting an exoneration letter for Hillary before even interviewing her?

Yeah, why would I ever think in a million years that the DOJ or FBI have a pro-Hillary bias?

On the flipside, Mueller went out of his way to respect the office of the Presidency, and didn't even take a shot at his evil little kids

For you to say that shows just how inverted your understanding of reality is. Everything for you is backwards and upside-down. What the Mueller team did was pure presidential harassment - totally unnecessary and demented (just like what Schiff has done with impeachment). It's a case of people who see it as their life mission to get Donald Trump out of power. They are that pathetic. They have nothing else to do with their lives or think about.

 

[calitennis127]

Sure, but Biden is toast if he wins the nomination. @Moxie assured me he wouldn't be the candidate, I guess we'll see.. But four more years of Trump looks like the likely scenario for me. Maybe, he'll even get the chance to do the job allocated

She only said that because she wants a woman to be president and put her hopes into the Warren campaign (Warren is obviously the preferred candidate of white women with college degrees, particularly in the Northeast). Of course, none of them have any problem with her fake Native American act that gave her advantages for years. For someone to be that much of a scumbag and remain a revered figure in the Democratic Party shows you how pitiful the party is.

Obama can bomb weddings and Warren can lie about being Native American for years for professional advantage, but that's okay. As long as you're on board with the left's social agenda you can be forgiven for anything.

 

[Federberg]

Uh no, the Mueller report itself showed that the accusation of Russian collusion was baseless.:

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (p. 39)

The idea that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government was a left-wing superstition for stupid people.



Yeah it does actually. Let me quote one more time for you:

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (p. 39)



Go look at the voting numbers for D.C. and the D.C. suburbs. It is virtually all Democrat there. Most people who work in government are hard-core Democrats, as the Horowitz report showed.



Are you really this obtuse? I just accused you of that and you are unoriginal and humorless that you copied my insult of you and acted like it was your own.

[

you poor dumb fuck. I've led you to the water, but I can't force you to drink. The report clearly states what they mean when they make the characterisation "did not establish". What a moron...

 

[calitennis127]

you poor dumb fuck. I've led you to the water, but I can't force you to drink. The report clearly states what they mean when they make the characterisation "did not establish". What a moron...

Lol.....yes, "did not establish" means "did not establish" - after 2,800 subpoenas, 230 orders from communication records, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, 500 search warrants, and interviewing roughly 500 "witnesses." The Mueller investigation was not some 3-week community board review of misconduct at a local school. It was a 24/7, 2-year investigation of Trump and those around him with the total subpoena power of the Department of Justice. So if the Mueller report fell back on the disclaimer that after not finding evidence of conspiracy with Russia despite all that effort it is still possible that the evidence could exist somewhere in the universe, then the joke is on total fools like yourself for thinking it is still possible.

You are applying a standard to Trump you would not apply to anyone else. Period.

 

[calitennis127]

After listening to the Maddow-Parnas interview one would have to be a stone cold moron not to believe that Trump's actions are impeachable. Fortunately we don't have any idiots like that on this forum... ahem! B-)

Actually, as usual you are demonstrating how much of a gullible, lie-swallowing saphead you are. Numerous right-wing commentators have been saying for weeks that Schiff and Pelosi were going to use Parnas as a pawn at some point, and they were proven right. Parnas is facing felony charges right now for campaign finance violations and Ukraine's foreign minister just said in a CNN interview "I don't trust any word he is now saying." Maddow also told her colleague Lawrence O'Donnell on-air yesterday that she had been working for months on getting that interview.

Unless one is totally obtuse, it is clear that Parnas was intended to be used by Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, and the likes of Maddow and CNN as a pawn at some point in the impeachment scheme for duping the gullible masses such as you Federberg.

So watch the interview shithead.....

Straight out of Prystaiko's mouth, about Parnas: "I don't trust any word he is now saying."

 

[calitennis127]

Agreed. I think the problem is Trump is really dumb about hiding how much of a criminal he is.

Yeah, Trump isn't as smart as Joe Biden, who allowed his son with zero experience in the energy or gas sector to get paid well over $50,000 a month by the oligarch of a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company while Biden was VP. You're right, Trump would not do something so smart.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah, Trump isn't as smart as Joe Biden, who allowed his son with zero experience in the energy or gas sector to get paid well over $50,000 a month by the oligarch of a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company while Biden was VP. You're right, Trump would not do something so smart.

One of these days you'll go back to English 101 class and understand what a logical fallacy is. Did I ever say Joe Biden was smart? In fact, has Joe Biden ever been a US president? So that's completely irrelevant. It's a republican thing to point to Obama and Hilary as soon as anyone says something negative about Trump. But, since I'm neither American nor a Democrat, I couldn't give two shits. Hilary is incompetent and corrupt. That much is known. Obama isn't nearly as perfect as portrayed. That should be just as obvious.

Neither of those things makes Trump smarter though. And yes, Trump REALLY is bad at coming off innocent. Even you have to see that.

 

[calitennis127]

Did I ever say Joe Biden was smart?

No, but you hardly ever insult Democrats for being stupid even when they provide the most heinous examples of stupidity imaginable. Of course, this is because you are deeply misinformed and underinformed and also because you are a slave to the line of discourse set by the New York Times and Washington Post.

You know you are being disingenuous, because in all the times you have mouthed off on U.S. politics you have hardly ever insulted the intelligence of a Democrat, no matter how many examples of glaring idiocy and incompetence they provide. A few months ago when you attacked "America" for having stupid voters and stupid people, were you talking at all about Democratic leaders or Democratic voters? No, not at all.

And you know that. So stop pretending to be even-handed when in reality you are highly biased.

In fact, has Joe Biden ever been a US president? So that's completely irrelevant.

Is this supposed to be some kind of incisive argument? Biden was vice president for 8 years, served right next to St. Obama during that time, and, as we are reminded daily by the Democrats in their impeachment scheme, he is a "political opponent" of Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Talking about his corruption and stupidity is entirely relevant when he very possibly could become the next president and is clearly being protected by the American media, despite his history of gaffes and mistakes.

It's a republican thing to point to Obama and Hilary as soon as anyone says something negative about Trump.

It's actually a debate thing generally for anyone to point out the flaws of people making accusations. Not something limited to Republicans. Democrats do the same thing to Republicans.

And from talking to you we know that people in the Middle East do the same thing to Americans. Wasn't one of your comebacks to me about Soleimani that American presidents are war criminals too?

So stop calling the kettle black. Everyone uses that debate tactic (including yourself), not just Republicans.

But, since I'm neither American nor a Democrat, I couldn't give two shits.

Again, you are being completely disingenuous. You know that when you insult "Americans" you are overwhelmingly talking about Republicans. Just look at your posts a few months ago. Right now you are saying a few unkind things about Democrats because I forced it out of you and presented info you would never hear from Tented, Moxie, or Federbergy.

Hilary is incompetent and corrupt. That much is known. Obama isn't nearly as perfect as portrayed. That should be just as obvious.

I am glad to see you admit that, but the main reason you are saying that, again, is that I am participating in this conversation and forcing it out of you. Otherwise you are well-aware that whenever you would be posting here it would mostly be to bash Trump and Republicans.

And yes, Trump REALLY is bad at coming off innocent. Even you have to see that.

Yes, if like you and other Trump haters you assume the absolute worst of him at every turn. What's funny about you saying this is that during the pointless and stupid Mueller investigation Trump would often tweet out messages like "It's a hoax" and "WITCH HUNT" and people like yourself would make the lunkheaded remark that "Trump REALLY is bad at coming off innocent" or "he's acting like he's guilty."

Well, it turns out that Trump was completely right. The Mueller investigation was a hoax and a witch hunt. And all the people who said that his vehement denials were proof of guilt were wrong. The Mueller report vindicated Trump on his basic contention for over two years that his campaign did not collude with Russia and that collusion was a fabricated charge.

Even you have too see that.

Now if you want to fall back on the excuse that you're just talking about how he "comes off," well that is your subjective judgment. Many would agree with you but many would disagree with you. What we do know for sure is that your assertion that Trump seems guilty or sounds guilty was made repeatedly by Democrats during the Mueller investigation and their hunch turned out being completely wrong while Trump's tweet denials turned out being completely right.

So maybe you should re-evaluate your own judgment about how Trump "comes off." Others who have thought the same as you have been wrong many times.

 

[calitennis127]

You're literally describing every US president since the turn of the 20th century. Americans and their lack of self-awareness in that regard will never not be amusing. No country has been consistently guilty of an imperial genocidal ideology like the USA.

Here is Broken using the Republican debate tactic of accusing his opponents of misdeeds when they accuse his preferred side of misdeeds. This is Broken engaging in "whataboutism." In the entire world only Republicans do this; therefore Broken must be a Republican.

So not only is Broken repeating Tucker Carlson's foreign policy assessment nowadays, but he is also engaging in Republican debate tactics. He really must be a Fox News devotee.

Broken is pure Fox News now.

When Americans talk about terrorism and death of innocents, do they realize their country has caused more of that (in areas in which the US should have nothing to do with) than any other country in modern history? When people like Moxie champion Barrack fucking Obama, do they bother to think for a second about the poor Middle Eastern kids that were left fatherless, the wives that were widowed, the kids that were orphaned, the parents that lost their children because of him? Or is the murder of innocents second rate if you're charismatic and charming?

Broken again engaging in Republican-style debate tactics of "whataboutism." He deflected from Soleimani's misdeeds to bring up those of people he objects to.

So Republican of him. Broken is a total Republican. He uses the exact same debate tactics.

 

[tented]

I can't blame you for thinking that. That last debate was stunning to me. All the impeachment stuff going on, plus Iran, and you have Sanders and Warren fighting about some irrelevant conversation from years ago?? It just highlights how politically tone deaf Warren is in particular. She might be a policy wonk, but if she thinks winning in Massachusetts means she has any political ability then she is monumentally stupid and should eject herself from this race right now. The only ones there who seemed close to understanding the moment were Klobuchar and perhaps Biden. Maybe Bloomberg can save the day, he's a Dem in name only after all

Klobuchar is becoming my pick. She’s moderate, and knows how to get those key swing votes.

 

[britbox]

Lol.....yes, "did not establish" means "did not establish" - after 2,800 subpoenas, 230 orders from communication records, 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, 500 search warrants, and interviewing roughly 500 "witnesses." The Mueller investigation was not some 3-week community board review of misconduct at a local school. It was a 24/7, 2-year investigation of Trump and those around him with the total subpoena power of the Department of Justice. So if the Mueller report fell back on the disclaimer that after not finding evidence of conspiracy with Russia despite all that effort it is still possible that the evidence could exist somewhere in the universe, then the joke is on total fools like yourself for thinking it is still possible.

You are applying a standard to Trump you would not apply to anyone else. Period.

The Mueller investigation was a farce from the get-go.

 

[calitennis127]

The Mueller investigation was a farce from the get-go.

Yet people like Federberg still think it had a legitimate basis and that 2,800 subpoenas, 500 interviews, and 500 witnesses with the full subpoena power of the Department of Justice were not sufficient to establish that Trump did not conspire with Russia.

People like Federberg still want more info. He wants 5,000 more subpoenas and 1,000 more interviews. And even after all that he still wouldn't believe Trump did not collude with Russia.