Jump to content
Key Links: Announcements | Support Desk

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

It's amazing how the U.S. media is neglecting to report the massive failures of the Trump administration on the international stage. 

The 2018 APEC Conference just concluded and for the first time since 1988, the participants weren't even able to summon enough agreement to craft a joint statement.  The reason-- the U.S. and China and what some are referring to as an increasing Cold War.

 

Ever wonder why there is virtually no news on the so-called U.S./North Korea summit relations?  Because it's not going well.  At all.

 

Not to mention the fact that, according to reports, Trump is refusing to even listen to the evidence that implicates KSA crown prince MbS.  Trump claimed that this arms deal was going to be 'yuge' but to this day, there has not been one completed deal between the U.S. and KSA.  Not. one.

 

Oh and what about that Middle East peace deal?  How's that going? Weren't Jared and MbS supposed to craft some sort of new New World Order of peace and prosperity (namely for their own family's fortunes)?    It seems stalled, at best, to me.

 

Let's not even get into Europe.  Or Canada.  Or...sigh...Latin America.

 

If I didn't read/watch international news, I swear, I'd know nothing of any of this!

 

On the domestic front...

 

There's been a turkey salmonella outbreak going on for about a year now, announced just in time for Thanksgiving...Gobble Gobble!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    5013

  • Khan

    3055

  • DRW50

    5041

  • DramatistDreamer

    4680

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members
16 hours ago, Max said:

 

Alphanguy, I would be very surprised if Ojeda got the Democratic nomination. However, I've been wrong before in my predictions, and the fact that the 2020 Democratic field is likely to be very large increases the odds for longshot candidates like Ojeda.

 

Regarding the whole Bernie/Hillary feud, I hold opinions that are going to be unpopular with those who are die-hard supporters of either of them. I think that Bernie would have done even worse than Hillary in the general election, for all the reasons that DramatistDreamer mentioned. (I know that polls showed Bernie handily defeating Trump, but such polls are meaningless because Bernie never went through the grind of a general election campaign. This is an extreme example, but many people forget that Michael Dukakis once led George H. W. Bush by 17 points, only to get crushed on Election Day.)

 

At the same time, I am very sympathetic with the Bernie people when they express their views that the 2016 nomination was not a fair fight. Some in the Bernie wing of the party, such as Elizabeth Warren (who granted didn't formally endorse Bernie but shares most of his ideology), claim that the nomination was rigged:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged-2016-primary-clinton-sanders-2017-11

 

I would not go so far as to say that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged, but it's evident that the scales were heavily tipped in Hillary's favor. Here's just one article that elaborates on this:

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

 

"It’s easy to imagine Democrats who might have run in 2016. There’s Biden and Warren and Hickenlooper, but there was also New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, to name just a few. But all of these candidates, and all the other candidates like them, ultimately passed on the race. Why?"

 

"But part of it was the way elected officials, donors, and interest groups coalesced behind Clinton early, making it clear that alternative candidates would struggle to find money and staff and endorsements and media coverage. Clinton had the explicit support of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and the implicit support of the Obama wing. She had spent decades building relationships in the party, and she leveraged them all in 2016. “Hillary had a lot of friends, and so did Bill,” says Elaine Kamarck, author of Primary Politics. This, in reality, is why Biden didn’t run: President Obama and his top staffers made quietly clear that they supported Clinton’s candidacy, and so she entered the field with the imprimatur that usually only accords to vice presidents."

 

"The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders. But Democratic elites did try to make Clinton’s nomination as inevitable, as preordained, as possible. And the party is still managing the resentment that engendered in voters."

 

IMO, immense pressure was placed on Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and others not to challenge Hillary for the nomination. This pressure most likely wasn't explicit (e.g., party bosses advising other prominent Democrats not to run), but rather implicit (e.g., big money donors solely giving to Hillary, top talent choosing to only work for Hillary, etc.). The other candidates who did run weren't viewed as serious threats to Hillary. That was certainly the case with Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee. And I believe that it was the case with Bernie as well, because--keep in mind--that few people outside Vermont even knew who he was four years ago at this point. As the Vox article pointed out, the fact that the field was essentially cleared for Clinton ironically ended up helping Bernie, as there was a large appetite among a segment of the Democratic base that wanted someone to the left of Hillary. Had Warren run, it's very likely that Bernie would never have caught fire, as she was (at the time) the most prominent figure in that wing of the Democratic Party. In fact, I suspect that Warren would have beaten Hillary for the nomination had she run, since Warren would have had a considerably easier time than Bernie attracting support among minorities and the Democratic Party elite (such as superdelegates). Warren made a mistake not running in 2016, because that was the year when her prospects were the brightest. Of course, Warren isn't alone in missing her big moment: I'm sure that Chris Christie deeply regrets not running in 2012, and I believe that Hillary's best chance of becoming POTUS was in 2004. To his credit, Obama understood that 2008 represented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for him, and that he would not be viewed as the hot new political phenomenon had he waited to run for president at a later time.


I personally believe many Republicans will throw their hats in the ring. Trump will get primaried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, DramatistDreamer said:

It's amazing how the U.S. media is neglecting to report the massive failures of the Trump administration on the international stage. 

The 2018 APEC Conference just concluded and for the first time since 1988, the participants weren't even able to summon enough agreement to craft a joint statement.  The reason-- the U.S. and China and what some are referring to as an increasing Cold War.

 

Ever wonder why there is virtually no news on the so-called U.S./North Korea summit relations?  Because it's not going well.  At all.

 

Not to mention the fact that, according to reports, Trump is refusing to even listen to the evidence that implicates KSA crown prince MbS.  Trump claimed that this arms deal was going to be 'yuge' but to this day, there has not been one completed deal between the U.S. and KSA.  Not. one.

 

Oh and what about that Middle East peace deal?  How's that going? Weren't Jared and MbS supposed to craft some sort of new New World Order of peace and prosperity (namely for their own family's fortunes)?    It seems stalled, at best, to me.

 

Let's not even get into Europe.  Or Canada.  Or...sigh...Latin America.

 

If I didn't read/watch international news, I swear, I'd know nothing of any of this!

 

On the domestic front...

 

There's been a turkey salmonella outbreak going on for about a year now, announced just in time for Thanksgiving...Gobble Gobble!

 

I've seen some articles about China/US relations and the Saudi stuff, but it does get much less coverage than things like how Trump called Schiff "Schitt" and the latest power struggles in the White House. In the case of North Korea I think it's because the media don't want to admit they also got badly played - by Trump as well as by North Korea (who also played Trump of course).

 

I read that Cuba's leader was recently feted in North Korea. Media darling Marco is all over that I'm sure.

 

It seems fairly obvious things are going to get really bad on multiple fronts soon, and the media won't want to talk about that, because to them it's boring and it won't get ratings. Most of them hate America anyway, aside from the pleasure they get at sneering at the yokels and the liberals. 

 

For all their dogged efforts to stop Democrats from winning the House, they are clearly gleeful about having Pelosi to kick around again, and also to get to obsess over anything and everything with Alexandria Cortez (who seems more than happy to be in the media spotlight anyway). They will make Democrats responsible for any ills in this country over the next 2 years, and idiots will be happy to go along.

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ben McAdams has regained the lead in the UT-04 count, which looks to be winding down. There are still some ballots to look at, but not sure it's enough to help Love. If he wins that will be #39.

 

 

Meanwhile, back in California, GOP Congressman David Valadao's lead has steadily shrunk with each slow update. He's now under 1,000.

 

 

If he wins that will be #40. 


(big IF for either of these men, of course) 

 

I hope they get to 40, as it's a nice round number...all the better for the GOP, the media, and sellouts like James Carville to choke on. 

 

If Cox wins, that is 7 California seats lost in one cycle. That is a decimation. And those seats will be very expensive and very difficult to get back, which means a 7-seat firewall the Democrats did not have before now. 

 

Kevin McCarthy threw his own state delegation to the wolves in his fruitless quest to be speaker. It is just so, so good. 

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, dragonflies said:

Trump is being mocked cause of the "raking the forests" stuff LMFAO 

 

https://twitter.com/hashtag/haravointi?src=hash

 

He's so stupid, it is literally beyond belief. I wonder if he ever uses his "google machine"? Yesterday, he was blabbering on about how Finland manages their forests so much better, and have almost no fires... guess what, Einstein?  90% of Finland gets between 24 and 35 inches of rain a year.... how many inches does Malibu get on average? TWELVE. 

Edited by alphanguy74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sherrod Brown doesn’t represent me and Marceline can likely share a lot more about him, but an interesting topic the last few days about comments Brown made about the Abrams race in Georgia. I have to say he didn’t let weasel Chuck Todd get away with his usual finger wagging at democrats for using the word “stolen”.

 

 

I bring this up because there was a battle on social media the past couple of days at why and why not the term #stolenelection may or may not be appropriate when referring to the election. A debate between Richard Hasen and Charles Pierce.  Me, Brown is right and Abrams is right.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/georgia-stacey-abrams-brian-kemp-election-not-stolen.html

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25224334/sherrod-brown-stolen-election-georgia-brian-kemp-chuck-todd/

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

Sherrod Brown doesn’t represent me and Marceline can likely share a lot more about him, but an interesting topic the last few days about comments Brown made about the Abrams race in Georgia. I have to say he didn’t let weasel Chuck Todd get away with his usual finger wagging at democrats for using the word “stolen”.

 

Were Chuck Todd and the usual pretentious types at Slate out there saying this about media darling Marco? 

 

Oh wait, they only care when a Democrat says it. 

 

Sherrod Brown is right. They don't want to admit it because it upsets their narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, dragonflies said:

Trump is being mocked cause of the "raking the forests" stuff LMFAO 

 

https://twitter.com/hashtag/haravointi?src=hash

 

Every once in awhile some twitter famous nerd espouses the idea that we are living in a computer simulation.  Usually I roll my eyes at that kind of self indulgence. Then things like this happen and I think they must be right. This reality is a simulation designed to see how much idiocy we can take before we breakdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

Sherrod Brown doesn’t represent me and Marceline can likely share a lot more about him, but an interesting topic the last few days about comments Brown made about the Abrams race in Georgia. I have to say he didn’t let weasel Chuck Todd get away with his usual finger wagging at democrats for using the word “stolen”.

 

I bring this up because there was a battle on social media the past couple of days at why and why not the term #stolenelection may or may not be appropriate when referring to the election. A debate between Richard Hasen and Charles Pierce.  Me, Brown is right and mostly Abrams is right.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/georgia-stacey-abrams-brian-kemp-election-not-stolen.html

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25224334/sherrod-brown-stolen-election-georgia-brian-kemp-chuck-todd/

 

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

 

Were Chuck Todd and the usual pretentious types at Slate out there saying this about media darling Marco? 

 

Oh wait, they only care when a Democrat says it. 

 

Sherrod Brown is right. They don't want to admit it because it upsets their narrative.

 

Yesterday, I very nearly posted a tweet by Maggie Haberman where she was trying to amplify that very same concept by retweeting some ridiculous opinion piece from Slate.

 

Why do these people only lecture Democrats and/or liberals to shrink from using language that is direct and bracing, while merely mentioning the abrasive, often insulting tones of Republican/Trumpists in the most matter-of-fact tone possible?  Why no lecture for the Trumpists? 

 

I thought better of posting anything that Haberman tweets because by now, we all know what she's all about and frankly, I'm tired of her 'access journalism'.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Community Activity

    1. 1

      Soap opera Royalty

    2. 2,893

      Santa Barbara Discussion Thread

    3. 0

      The Soap Characters Preservation Topic

    4. 1

      Soap opera Royalty

    5. 2,893

      Santa Barbara Discussion Thread

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy