US Politics Thread

[calitennis127]

Wow! The Dems can't even get the caucus results out of Iowa. One of the points they really need to assert in the elections is competence. I can't think of anything worse than their organisational performance here. What is it Stephen A Smith always says about the Cowboys?

The main problem is that the affirmative action holy man (Pete Buttigieg) had one of his allies who designed the app cheat like hell. I have no time for the Bernie crowd but they are right that Buttigieg is a dishonest scumbag of the highest magnitude. (He is also a complete ignoramus and toady to the establishment.)

Buttigieg is the embodiment of the negative affirmative action stereotype. He is someone who is where he is simply because of a certain identification. I vastly prefer Bernie or even Warren to Buttigieg.

 

[calitennis127]

The State of the Union was shockingly partisan. Deeply depressing.

Yeah, unlike the Democrats' two-month joke of a House impeachment that did not allow the Republicans to call a single witness or allow the White House counsel to cross-examine witnesses. It also does not matter apparently that the Democrats' case was so pathetic that they couldn't get a single Republican vote. That wasn't partisan at all, but Trump's speech was. Sure.

What you mean by "partisan" is simply what you don't want to hear. That's the definition you operate off of.

It's no different than the accusation of Democrats that Trump is "divisive" before they launch into the most baseless, hate-filled rhetoric against Trump and other Republicans. Trump is "divisive" but Adam Schiff isn't when he starts a fucking impeachment inquiry over a nebulous suggestion in a call to the president of Ukraine. That's not "divisive" one bit apparently.

 

[Federberg]

As usual, you were totally wrong. The Bolton revelations were perfectly timed for Bolton's own publicity and for the Democrats' media campaign for more witnesses. And who did they come from? Someone leaking at the National Security Council, very possibly Vindman's brother. Regardless of who leaked the info, it was not even a direct quote.

All the Bolton news amounted to was a grenade held by Schiff and his fellow plotters to throw at the right moment.

But let's assume the worst for a second. Let's say Bolton got up in front of the Senate and fulfilled your deep inner fantasy of saying "Trump told me and others in the administration that he wanted the aid withheld until the Ukrainian government announced investigations into the Bidens." That still amounts to absolutely nothing because you can't have a serious quid pro quo or shakedown if the other party insists that they never felt pressured. (Not to mention that even if that was the case, there was an entirely legitimate and legal predicate for Trump to want the Bidens investigated since they likely violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with Hunter's involvement with Burisma.)

For the one-millionth time, three leading Ukrainian officials (President Zelensky, Foreign Minister Prystaiko, and presidential adviser Yermak) all emphatically stated that there was no quid pro quo. Therefore, it would not matter if Trump said 10,000 times to Bolton in the privacy of the Oval Office that he wanted the aid withheld. You cannot have extortion if the other side does not feel threatened.

Period.

you can't be this thick. My thesis will only be validated or invalidated in November you complete and utter moron

 

[calitennis127]

you can't be this thick. My thesis will only be validated or invalidated in November you complete and utter moron

Thanks for the substantive retort.

I may call you names, but I at least address the substance of your arguments. You apparently can't do that in response to me because you have nothing to say back. In this case, the one fact you cannot dodge or get past is that the two most important Ukrainian foreign policy officials (President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Prystaiko) as well as one key adviser to the president (Yermak) all say that there was no quid pro quo.

You have no response or retort to that fact so you are simply throwing a hissy fit and calling me names, with no substantive arguments to offer. Maybe you should follow Adam Schiff's Twitter feed to see what inane, utterly vacuous cliché you would like to repeat for the day.

 

[Federberg]

Thanks for the substantive retort.

I may call you names, but I at least address the substance of your arguments. You apparently can't do that in response to me because you have nothing to say back. In this case, the one fact you cannot dodge or get past is that the two most important Ukrainian foreign policy officials (President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Prystaiko) as well as one key adviser to the president (Yermak) all say that there was no quid pro quo.

You have no response or retort to that fact so you are simply throwing a hissy fit and calling me names, with no substantive arguments to offer. Maybe you should follow Adam Schiff's Twitter feed to see what inane, utterly vacuous cliché you would like to repeat for the day.

what that fuck are you talking about read my post again. I can't teach you everything. I only responded to your idiocy because you failed to understand what I wrote

 

[calitennis127]

what that fuck are you talking about read my post again. I can't teach you everything. I only responded to your idiocy because you failed to understand what I wrote

Federturd, the only insight you provide is in how you exemplify mainstream media brainwashing. So I assure you that you don't have to feel any responsibility to teach anyone anything.

As for the initial post I responded to, I really don't think the Republican Senators need your political advice. The overwhelming majority of people who vote Republican did not see a need for more "witnesses." There was at least as much risk for Republican senators in pushing for more "witnesses" as there was in not doing so.

Also, you are operating off of the media assumption that Trump did anything wrong by possibly requesting an investigation into the Bidens. Far from being in the slightest way unethical, it was completely justified and if anything Trump was too modest in how he approached Zelensky on that issue.

The Biden family is clearly corrupt and criminal. And it's not just Joe and Hunter. The entire family has acquired wealth through corrupt means, and Hunter's activities with Burisma are only the tip of the iceberg. They have almost certainly violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in addition to bribery statutes. The president asking for them to be investigated would simply be proper activity on the part of a president.

Read and learn, ignorant one. Read and learn:

How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections

How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections

Political figures have long used their families to route power and benefits for their own self-enrichment. In my new book, “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite,” o…

nypost.com

 

[Moxie]

Moxie you probably don't know the name of more than two NFL players, and if you do, they are probably white quarterbacks like Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers (although Rodgers is probably too esoteric a name for your football knowledge). So please, spare us your nonsense about "knowing football."

Now what Trump said was obviously a gaffe, but your beloved Democrats have committed enough of these to triple a world almanac in size. Among some examples:

- DNC chairman Tom Perez saying that "The electoral college is not a creation of the Constitution"
- Bill De Blasio using the phrase "cast dispersions" instead of "cast aspersions" - an indicator of the very fine liberal arts education college students have received in recent decades
- Your beloved Hillary mistranslating the word "reset" in Russian, in front of the cameras, during a meeting with Russian leaders.

Not to mention Nancy Pelosi wobbling around in her high heels like she is trying to walk on a moving surface before answering questions like she has a speech impediment. And, speaking of football analogies, did you hear her utterly stupid analogy to "special teams" in a football game that made no sense?

We can play this game all day long. So, as the honorable mayor of your city of residence (Bill De Blasio) would say, stop casting dispersions [sic] on Trump! Don't cast dispersions on him!

Normally I wouldn't respond to such a stupid and defensive post, but you are forever telling me what I don't know about sports I don't much comment upon on these forums. (Though I do play the NFL pool and commented on the live Super Bowl thread.) Now, on top of that, you throw in a gratuitous comment about race. You are deeply troubled.

 

[calitennis127]

Normally I wouldn't respond to such a stupid and defensive post, but you are forever telling me what I don't know about sports I don't much comment upon on these forums. (Though I do play the NFL pool and commented on the live Super Bowl thread.) Now, on top of that, you throw in a gratuitous comment about race. You are deeply troubled.

Oh, well thank you for your diagnosis. Unfortunately it means nothing and carries no weight. It's just a shot from you at someone you disagree with.

But allow me to ask, ever so quickly, why you commented on Trump's Kansas City gaffe but have not said a peep about Ocasio referring to an economist named "Milton Keynes" over the weekend? Or the story about 6 women of color resigning from the Elizabeth Warren campaign over charges of racism? Or Joe Biden calling a woman at a townhall a "lying dog-faced pony soldier"?

Is this the party of well-educated, polite, and civil people?

Come on everyone, let's read some Milton Keynes, vote for a woman claiming to be a Native American, and defend the Biden crime family before we cast dispersions on Trump and practice our Russian translations to be as proficient as Hillary!

Yippee!!!!!

 

[calitennis127]

Hilarious. But fitting for this utterly despicable fraud:

Six Women of Color Quit Warren’s Nevada Campaign Citing ‘Toxic’ Work Environment

"Six women of color who worked for Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign in Nevada have left since November, according to a report from Politico. The women said they quit because they felt they were there as tokens and were “routinely silenced” and sidelined."

Six Women of Color Quit Warren's Nevada Campaign Citing 'Toxic' Work Environment

“I believe the women who have spoken up and believe them unequivocally and I apologize to them personally,” the candidate said in response to the news

www.rollingstone.com

Can you imagine if a Republican candidate had this issue?

We'd never hear the end of it.

 

[Federberg]

Fascinating watching these Dem primaries. Biden in free fall and his vote getting split between Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Seems to be benefitting Sanders while Warren also seems to be fading away. Yet meanwhile the ten ton gorilla of Bloomberg hovering in the background and rapidly gaining in popularity. I reckon the moderates need to have a serious think and start exiting the stage otherwise Bernie will end up as the candidate with only plurality of voters and zero chance of beating Trump. It would be funny watching the Dems botch this process if it didn't have global implications..

 

[britbox]

Fascinating watching these Dem primaries. Biden in free fall and his vote getting split between Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Seems to be benefitting Sanders while Warren also seems to be fading away. Yet meanwhile the ten ton gorilla of Bloomberg hovering in the background and rapidly gaining in popularity. I reckon the moderates need to have a serious think and start exiting the stage otherwise Bernie will end up as the candidate with only plurality of voters and zero chance of beating Trump. It would be funny watching the Dems botch this process if it didn't have global implications..

Bernie would have a slim chance IMO... because he's at least remotely authentic. Warren is a busted flush and got zero chance of winning. Trump would eat Lieawatha alive. I don't think Biden would have a hope in hell either - he brings nothing to the table and has zero charisma. In the Dem camp I like Tulsi, but clearly the donkey-pinning rosette wearing Dems don't. Bloomberg may end up being their best bet. As it stands, Trump walks it... but momentum changes easily.

 

[Federberg]

Bernie would have a slim chance IMO... because he's at least remotely authentic. Warren is a busted flush and got zero chance of winning. Trump would eat Lieawatha alive. I don't think Biden would have a hope in hell either - he brings nothing to the table and has zero charisma. In the Dem camp I like Tulsi, but clearly the donkey-pinning rosette wearing Dems don't. Bloomberg may end up being their best bet. As it stands, Trump walks it... but momentum changes easily.

I'm not sure his authenticity will stand up to the GOP assault mate. He'll just come across as inflexible and grumpy. His health will be brought up, his socialism, his fraternisation with dubious foreigners. All of it. And meanwhile of the Senators he's got the thinest record of actually getting legislation through. Trump would eat him alive. Of the field I like Senator Bennett the best, but Klobuchar and Bloomberg look the strongest on the moderate side.

 

[tented]

Bernie would have a slim chance IMO... because he's at least remotely authentic. Warren is a busted flush and got zero chance of winning. Trump would eat Lieawatha alive. I don't think Biden would have a hope in hell either - he brings nothing to the table and has zero charisma. In the Dem camp I like Tulsi, but clearly the donkey-pinning rosette wearing Dems don't. Bloomberg may end up being their best bet. As it stands, Trump walks it... but momentum changes easily.

I'm not sure his authenticity will stand up to the GOP assault mate. He'll just come across as inflexible and grumpy. His health will be brought up, his socialism, his fraternisation with dubious foreigners. All of it. And meanwhile of the Senators he's got the thinest record of actually getting legislation through. Trump would eat him alive. Of the field I like Senator Bennett the best, but Klobuchar and Bloomberg look the strongest on the moderate side.

My father, a lifelong Republican and now Trump defender, called me recently, and I asked him if it would be so bad if Bloomberg were the President? He said that would be OK. So I asked, “Pretend it’s 2014 — before Trump became a serious contender, and was mainly known as being a reality TV star, with multiple bankruptcies. A pollster calls you and asks who would be a better President: Donald Trump or Michael Bloomberg?“ The ensuing silence answered that question.

I think Bloomberg would have the best chance of getting enough independents and Republicans to vote for him that Trump wouldn’t have a chance.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

For ANY Democrat to have ANY chance against Trump, he/she has to stop playing the identity/intersectionality politics game all together and treat each and every person individually. Accept that opinions and ideas do not have color and gender. Accept the fact that diversity should also apply to thoughts, ideas and character , not just color and gender. Until such time, Trump's got this in the bag. And that is sad because he is a despicable human being.

 

[Federberg]

For ANY Democrat to have ANY chance against Trump, he/she has to stop playing the identity/intersectionality politics game all together and treat each and every person individually. Accept that opinions and ideas do not have color and gender. Accept the fact that diversity should also apply to thoughts, ideas and character , not just color and gender. Until such time, Trump's got this in the bag. And that is sad because he is a despicable human being.

I love that sentence...

 

[Federberg]

My father, a lifelong Republican and now Trump defender, called me recently, and I asked him if it would be so bad if Bloomberg were the President? He said that would be OK. So I asked, “Pretend it’s 2014 — before Trump became a serious contender, and was mainly known as being a reality TV star, with multiple bankruptcies. A pollster calls you and asks who would be a better President: Donald Trump or Michael Bloomberg?“ The ensuing silence answered that question.

I think Bloomberg would have the best chance of getting enough independents and Republicans to vote for him that Trump wouldn’t have a chance.

I totally agree. It's not just that Dems will come out in force this time. But he'll strip away a lot of centrists and anti-Trumpers at the same time

 

[Moxie]

Bernie would have a slim chance IMO... because he's at least remotely authentic. Warren is a busted flush and got zero chance of winning. Trump would eat Lieawatha alive. I don't think Biden would have a hope in hell either - he brings nothing to the table and has zero charisma. In the Dem camp I like Tulsi, but clearly the donkey-pinning rosette wearing Dems don't. Bloomberg may end up being their best bet. As it stands, Trump walks it... but momentum changes easily.

I'm rather surprised that you make such a virtue (above) of Gabbard being "biracial" (which she isn't really, as she has some Asian and Samoan in her background, with lots of European in her admixture, so at least not "bi-",) whereas you continuously refer to Warren as "Lieawatha." She actually does have Native America in her background, which she grew up knowing from her family, and she got in trouble over it for PC reasons, which I thought wasn't your thing. That seems more about disliking Warren for being too progressive, rather than actually being a liar. For the record, I don't think Trump would eat her alive, nor would he Gabbard. Both are more qualified on policy and management. He'll just use dirt and misdirection against whomever is the candidate, and his loyalists will buy it, no matter what.

 

[Moxie]

For ANY Democrat to have ANY chance against Trump, he/she has to stop playing the identity/intersectionality politics game all together and treat each and every person individually. Accept that opinions and ideas do not have color and gender. Accept the fact that diversity should also apply to thoughts, ideas and character , not just color and gender. Until such time, Trump's got this in the bag. And that is sad because he is a despicable human being.

I don't agree that it's only the Democrats who "play" identity politics. I don't know who "thinks" that ideas have color/gender, and that diversity doesn't apply to thoughts, ideas and character, as you say. I do think that the Democratic party in the US is and has been more the party of inclusion and diversity of opinion, while more and more (and under Trump in particular) the Republicans exclude based on religion and ethnicity. There is a narrowness of focus, and a lack of patience with ideas outside of the party line. One of the reasons that Democrats get criticized, even or especially from within, is that we have so many opinions and positions to include that it can be hard to focus our message. Ours is more difficult to break into sound-bites, because it contains nuance...something sorely lacking in the Republicans, esp. now. Trump has only a cudgel, which is sharply pronged with racist, nationalist poison on the prongs, and too many Republicans ignore that for the sake of retaining power.

 

[Moxie]

My father, a lifelong Republican and now Trump defender, called me recently, and I asked him if it would be so bad if Bloomberg were the President? He said that would be OK. So I asked, “Pretend it’s 2014 — before Trump became a serious contender, and was mainly known as being a reality TV star, with multiple bankruptcies. A pollster calls you and asks who would be a better President: Donald Trump or Michael Bloomberg?“ The ensuing silence answered that question.

I think Bloomberg would have the best chance of getting enough independents and Republicans to vote for him that Trump wouldn’t have a chance.

Thanks for sharing that anecdote about your Dad. Clearly there are a lot of people who are willing to think that the CEO v. CEO face-off could be the winning formula for the Democrats. I figured I'd give my 2 cents on Bloomberg, since he was my mayor. We had a love/hate relationship with him, here in NYC. (As an aside, Trump was not well-loved here at all, and has basically always been considered a self-aggrandizing huckster, and worse.) Bloomberg did some good things for the city...he helped eliminate the deficit, he worked on education issues, championed many socially liberal causes. However, he has the same arrogance as Trump in that he ran the city like a CEO, and if he saw something that he thought wasn't working, he just eliminated it, like recycling. He thought it didn't pay for itself. It took a billionaire from another state to get it reinstated. He had the law changed so he could run for a 3rd term, which is worrying, looking forward. (Something Trump threatens to do as to his Presidency.) He favored developers over small businesses and has therefore forever changed the face of Manhattan. We've lost so many Mom-and-Pop's and other things that gave our city the character that made it what it was, and has put in threat those who live here who aren't rich. We will never get back the Manhattan that he helped destroy.

That said, I'd have Bloomberg over Trump in a heartbeat. It's not what I want. I'd prefer an actual policy politician who could lead us back to a more normal system of government, with respect to the system of checks and balances. Someone with real experience at high levels of government, not just business. Someone with a moment's faith in and idealism towards the Great American Experiment, not just some notion that it's a business to be run. But if we get Bloomberg, at least he's an intelligent and reasonable human being, with the capacity to work towards the greater good, as he understands it, not simply as it serves his ego. And he has a big ego. It's just much sturdier than Trump's. He doesn't need to destroy other people to buff himself up.

Trump has already managed to put out audio on Bloomberg saying something racist. He always accuses people of what he's already been accused of, himself. It's going to be 1972 and the dirty tricks all over again. He's gone after Biden, now Bloomberg. He's already tried his best to denigrate Warren. And he's asked NH voters to cross party and vote for the least viable candidate. (Undeclared voters can decide on the day which ballot to take, in NH.) Trump doesn't care about good democracy...he only cares about winning. He makes a shameful mockery of our election process, as Nixon did.

 

[Federberg]

Thanks for sharing that anecdote about your Dad. Clearly there are a lot of people who are willing to think that the CEO v. CEO face-off could be the winning formula for the Democrats. I figured I'd give my 2 cents on Bloomberg, since he was my mayor. We had a love/hate relationship with him, here in NYC. (As an aside, Trump was not well-loved here at all, and has basically always been considered a self-aggrandizing huckster, and worse.) Bloomberg did some good things for the city...he helped eliminate the deficit, he worked on education issues, championed many socially liberal causes. However, he has the same arrogance as Trump in that he ran the city like a CEO, and if he saw something that he thought wasn't working, he just eliminated it, like recycling. He thought it didn't pay for itself. It took a billionaire from another state to get it reinstated. He had the law changed so he could run for a 3rd term, which is worrying, looking forward. (Something Trump threatens to do as to his Presidency.) He favored developers over small businesses and has therefore forever changed the face of Manhattan. We've lost so many Mom-and-Pop's and other things that gave our city the character that made it what it was, and has put in threat those who live here who aren't rich. We will never get back the Manhattan that he helped destroy.

That said, I'd have Bloomberg over Trump in a heartbeat. It's not what I want. I'd prefer an actual policy politician who could lead us back to a more normal system of government, with respect to the system of checks and balances. Someone with real experience at high levels of government, not just business. Someone with a moment's faith in and idealism towards the Great American Experiment, not just some notion that it's a business to be run. But if we get Bloomberg, at least he's an intelligent and reasonable human being, with the capacity to work towards the greater good, as he understands it, not simply as it serves his ego. And he has a big ego. It's just much sturdier than Trump's. He doesn't need to destroy other people to buff himself up.

Trump has already managed to put out audio on Bloomberg saying something racist. He always accuses people of what he's already been accused of, himself. It's going to be 1972 and the dirty tricks all over again. He's gone after Biden, now Bloomberg. He's already tried his best to denigrate Warren. And he's asked NH voters to cross party and vote for the least viable candidate. (Undeclared voters can decide on the day which ballot to take, in NH.) Trump doesn't care about good democracy...he only cares about winning. He makes a shameful mockery of our election process, as Nixon did.

I have a feeling that while Trump might deploy that attack on Bloomberg it will be less successful than people think. I think that African Americans are extremely cynical about old white men, they'll just assume that both candidates will retain a certain amount of bias. But for them they remember their lack of enthusiasm for Clinton with some regret. All they'll care about is getting rid of Trump, they know with certainty who he is, and his comfort with white supremacists. I doubt they'll be making the same turnout mistake again.