US Politics Thread

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

mike bloomberg is going to blow apart the process from here on in..should be interesting to watch.

already polling 15percent (fivethirtyeight website) and taking momentum away from warren/biden..is he doing any debates soon ?.

saying the folk of new york call the donald "a carnival barking clown" was pretty funny.

 

[Moxie]

mike bloomberg is going to blow apart the process from here on in..should be interesting to watch.

already polling 15percent (fiverthirty website) and taking momentum away from warren/biden..is he doing any debates soon ?.

saying the folk of new york call the donald "a carnival barking clown" was pretty funny.

My understanding is that Bloomberg will be in the next debate. Which is a bit of a grumble, because all the previous candidates had to rack up a certain number of donors to qualify. Now he just bought his way in.

PS: As one of the folk of NY, yes, we have always seen Trump as a carny, and huckster and a clown.

 

[Federberg]

It was an error. We write it as you do, but it was easily understood, particularly when you corrected it, which is why it seemed you were sneering, not merely making a joke. I did respond to more interesting parts of the conversation, which you haven't yet reacted to. Hopefully you will. It does get discouraging to make the effort, when you pick the lowest hanging fruit, and then all I get is a "Relax, Moxie."

I didn't bother reacting as I didn't really agree with your point. She didn't get in trouble for PC reasons. She got into trouble because she identified herself as a minority when she clearly is not one. I can't think of a worse case of cultural appropriation can you? I completely disagree with you about her ability to contest Trump. She would get eaten alive. She is everything a large chunk of middle America can't tolerate at the moment. All of this purity testing crap, when she of all people isn't pure. It's self righteous and shows a complete lack of awareness of the moment, and why this divide exists. What she tried with Sanders just made me shake my head in disgust. All this nonsense implying that she should get votes because she's a woman is just moronic at best. Seriously Trump would crush her like a bug. But I'll say one thing for the primaries they are sorting out the viable candidates one way or another. Much more slowly than most of us would like but it's getting there. Warren is good with policy but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that she's terrible with politics coming from a hard blue State. This is why I think someone like Pelosi is a proper politician who isn't stuck in her bubble. She at least has a sense of what works and what would be a colossal failure. If Dems are going to win they have to win the centre. More so in this election than any other as 2018 showed, I was curious to see if Sander's supporters claims that he would bring a new voting bloc along and so far that looks to be a pipe dream, unless you spend your time in twitter world. But once the voting and caucusing has started reality is coming into conflict with all the BS. Where people like AOC get the idea that her victory in 2018 has any larger meaning for American politics I simply don't know. She was in a +20 Dem district for goodness sakes. Do they not look at the data at all? Forget about Warren if you want Trump out. Klobuchar would be a better bet although she needs to develop Presidential gravitas. On the Dem side it's clear that Sanders and Buttigieg both have it (although that won't help either of them going against Trump I suspect).

And as for sneering... fuck yeah! I was sneering at Cali. Why would I not??

 

[calitennis127]

Moxie said that we should listen to the perspectives of non-white females in non-right-wing sources. Great. So why doesn't she shut her trap and listen to this woman of Cherokee descent on CNN lambasting Warren?

 

[calitennis127]

Sorry...you said that your preferred Democratic candidate was a black female. The one on offer was Kamala Harris, so I thought you were being specific, not generic.

It is absolutely amazing how much nonsensical bullshit is in your mind every time you look out at the world. Kamala Harris having slight tint to her skin does not make her "black." She is partially Indian and she is also descended from an Irish slaveowner in Jamaica. Can't you do the most basic research possible before running your mouth?

"Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) is the descendant of an Irishman who owned a slave plantation in Jamaica, according to her father's lengthy ancestral summary of his side of the family."

Kamala Harris's Ancestors Also Owned Slaves

Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) is the descendant of an Irishman who owned a slave plantation in Jamaica, according to her father's lengthy ancestral summary of his side of the family.

freebeacon.com

This is what I mean about the stupidity of white Democratic voters in the United States. Only in America could a slightly brown-skinned woman descended from an Irish slaveowner be called "black" simply because her skin is not pale white and she belongs to a certain political party.

I'm also sorry that Corey Booker dropped out. Two charismatic candidates who couldn't get traction/funding enough to stay in,

Charismatic?!?!? Corey Booker charismatic??????????????????

LOL

Actually, I will grant that he is demonstrative and shows some spunk, but he is so corny and robotic and lacking in stylistic appeal that he couldn't even get a substantial minority of blacks to support him for being black. He is that corny.

Seriously, only Moxie could have "charismatic" be the first word that comes to her mind about Corey Booker.

That is a first.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Angry rich old white man, part of the patriarchy, come and save us form the angry rich old (and crazy) white man , part of the patriarchy !
Yep , makes total sense...

 

[calitennis127]

I think the exclusion of white hetero males in terms of certain discussions is that they/you are not relevant. I don't think that's an unfair point. Sometimes inter-minority discussions need to happen without the white male intervention. Why not accept with a certain grace that you're not relevant to every conversation? I don't see where content of character is excluded, or competency. You conflate discussion with victimhood, and I think that's not wholly fair.

Okay, so are there any conversations that white females like yourself are irrelevant to? Sometimes inter-minority discussions need to happen without white female intervention, such as the discussion of Elizabeth Warren's claims to being a Cherokee Indian. Why not accept with some grace that you're not relevant to that conversation?

Apparently you don't care about Rebecca Nagle, a citizen of Cherokee Nation, who completely disagrees with your assessment - being the white female worshiper of the Democratic Party that you are - of Elizabeth Warren. (Btw, I know someone descended from the Powhatan Indian tribe in Virginia. Her and her family are Democrats but they absolutely despise Elizabeth Warren and don't buy your white-female excuses for Lizzy the Ditzy).

From Huffington Post, a source that Moxie would respect as credible. Ho-hum:

"Rebecca Nagle is a writer, advocate and citizen of Cherokee Nation living in Tahlequah, Oklahoma."

Elizabeth Warren Has Spent Her Adult Life Repeating A Lie. I Want Her To Tell The Truth.
The presidential hopeful still has work to do, and demanding she do what’s left is beyond reasonable.

Elizabeth Warren Has Spent Her Adult Life Repeating A Lie. I Want Her To Tell The Truth.

The presidential hopeful still has work to do, and demanding she do what’s left is beyond reasonable.

www.huffpost.com

 

[calitennis127]

Absolutely. Instead of acting like the adults in the room — teaching and enforcing the concept of free speech — they’ve been acting like simpering, spineless fools. I don’t like Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, or the loathsome Milo Yiannopoulos, but I think they should be allowed to speak. If students don’t like someone, or disagree with their views, then don’t go. But they absolutely shouldn’t try to stop everyone else from hearing them, just because they don’t want to. These “leftists” have gone so far left, they’ve circled round, and become authoritarians.

I just realized that I missed this post. Well said, tented. The only caveat that I would throw out is that I do think the inevitable logic of someone with Moxie's worldview is to be totalitarian. They have a certain set of precepts that guide their lives and anyone who dissents from them is a moral reprobate. The religion is the social agenda of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party itself is a church which must garner one's full devotion. Anyone outside the Democratic Party church is either a sinner or an infidel who must be condemned. It is not surprising that with that logic they are shutting down everyone's speech.

 

[calitennis127]

I can’t help but think if Farrakahn were to be invited today, he wouldn’t be allowed on campus after marches and demonstrations.

I disagree with this. As a black Muslim, Farrakhan is given a special dispensation and he would be allowed to speak. What actually motivates the left is a hatred of white Christian identity.

A black Muslim such as Farrakhan or Ilhan Omar can insult Jews and it's fine. But if a white conservative so much as makes a polite criticism of Israel then he or she will be branded as anti-Semite and/or a neo-Nazi.

 

[britbox]

Sorry...you said that your preferred Democratic candidate was a black female. The one on offer was Kamala Harris, so I thought you were being specific, not generic. It's a shame she dropped out...she'd have been tough on the incumbent. I think you'd have liked her. I'm also sorry that Corey Booker dropped out. Two charismatic candidates who couldn't get traction/funding enough to stay in, while billionaires can jump in or stay in, just because they can self-fund. That part gets discouraging.

My bad. I thought Tulsi was partially black when in fact she is mixed Polynesian.

 

[Moxie]

My bad. I thought Tulsi was partially black when in fact she is mixed Polynesian.

Thanks for explaining the confusion. I did mention her heritage a couple of days ago. I guess that speaks to my level of credibility on this thread.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I disagree with this. As a black Muslim, Farrakhan is given a special dispensation and he would be allowed to speak. What actually motivates the left is a hatred of white Christian identity.

A black Muslim such as Farrakhan or Ilhan Omar can insult Jews and it's fine. But if a white conservative so much as makes a polite criticism of Israel then he or she will be branded as anti-Semite and/or a neo-Nazi.

Israel =/= Jews

 

[calitennis127]

Israel =/= Jews

The point is that if you are a black Muslim in the United States, you can violently and verbally attack Jews and still remain fashionable. But as a white conservative you can't even say that Israel has occasionally done some unpleasant things or else you will be branded a neo-Nazi.

Look at Ilhan Omar.....she can say whatever she wants about Jews and Israel and she remains a fashionable political celebrity. Then on the other hand an experienced foreign policy expert like Michael Scheuer (a white conservative) can no longer get on cable news because he has dared to criticize the Israel lobby in the United States.

 

[calitennis127]

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

Funny how you would never say this about the left-leaning American news media that a year and a half ago hyped up someone (lawyer Michael Avenatti) who just got convicted on 3 felony counts and faces up to 40 years in prison.

Why when you call Americans "stupid" do you only apply that criticism to right-leaning commentators?

Care to justify the level of idiocy demonstrated in the video below?

Britbox and murat - you will enjoy this. These are the people who the likes of Moxie and Federberg consider to be "credible" journalists (these video clips are only from a year and a half ago):

 

[brokenshoelace]

Funny how you would never say this about the left-leaning American news media that a year and a half ago hyped up someone (lawyer Michael Avenatti) who just got convicted on 3 felony counts and faces up to 40 years in prison.

Why when you call Americans "stupid" do you only apply that criticism to right-leaning commentators?

Care to justify the level of idiocy demonstrated in the video below?

Britbox and murat - you will enjoy this. These are the people who the likes of Moxie and Federberg consider to be "credible" journalists:

Coming from the same guy who constantly decries "whataboutism."

 

[calitennis127]

Coming from the same guy who constantly decries "whataboutism."

No I don't, idiot. Decrying "whataboutism" has been very fashionable among Democrats in recent years in the United States, something which you obviously don't know about. Democrats have been constantly accusing Republicans of "whataboutism."

I personally see turning accusations around as a perfectly valid form of argument. A few weeks ago I pointed out that with your "what about" arguments about U.S. foreign policy you sounded like Fox News commentators who use them all the time. But ironically you repeat fashionable cliches about "Fox News, Fox News" being bad from a distance.

Btw, guess who was right about Avenatti when all of the Trump-hating media were glorifying him in 2018? Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.

That damn Fox News was right again.

Big bad Fox News!

 

[Federberg]

These are the people who the likes of Moxie and Federberg consider to be "credible" journalists

Saying your Lord's name again moron?

 

[Moxie]

Saying your Lord's name again moron?

Is he saying we watch "The View?"

 

[Federberg]

Is it possible that Bloomberg's intervention in these Dem primaries will have the exact opposite effect than intended and get Bernie the primary win?

 

[Moxie]

Is it possible that Bloomberg's intervention in these Dem primaries will have the exact opposite effect than intended and get Bernie the primary win?

I doubt he's enough of a catalyst for that. What he did was have a terrible debate performance. He just might not be the billionaire to go against the billionaire that some were hoping for. Democrats don't tolerate racism and sexism in the same way that Republicans seem to, in having tolerated Trump. I still think he should have fought Trump in the Republican primaries. How he was unprepared for those questions, though, does boggle the mind. But does it favor Bernie? I don't see why, just yet.