Trump & Greenland

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by Toukairin

Nah, nah, nah. That would be a very poor move if Warren were to get the nod; it would be pure redundancy.

In this context, it would make more sense to get someone like Buttigieg as the running mate since the key here is to get someone who gets young people and who shows a certain promise for the future.

That won't happen either. Nobody is going to take the risk that a gay VP nominee might turn off just enough voters to matter in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania. It sucks that that's still the case, but it's still the case. Also, setting yourself up to defend the case that a guy in his 30's whose highest governmental role was mayor of a smallish city is ready to be president isn't going to appeal to whoever the nominee is either.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Superdelegates my friend, the Democrat primary is less democratic than the Republican. And I'm not talking about the DNC screwing Bernie in 2016.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

Next talking point?

[Sugetsu]

^ While this is true, and in no small way to Bernie's pressure to do away with super delegates, the DNC is at it again with a different tactic. They have decided that certain "qualifying" Polls are indicative of the momentum of any perspective candidate; Namely, obtaining 2% in 4 polls of their choosing. What's funny is that these type of surveis are only done via phone. :roll: These selective polls completely ignore online inquiries. As a result, the "qualifying" polls massively favor older voters, who of course tend to be less social media savvy and generally ignore anything outside of the corporate news media spectrum.

This new tactic is designed to shun the voices of any candidates outside of the main stream (AKA progressives). For example, most online polling heavy favors Bernie over Biden. Corporate bought out candidates that are given free media air time tend to do much better, such as Ami, Kamala, Booker, Pete, Beto and the rest of sell outs.

Tulsi Gabard is getting the same treatment that Bernie got in 2016. The corporate establishment hates her guts, specially after she destroyed Kamala. She was the most searched candidate in both nights of the debate, and she has over 2% polling in 26 polls, (too bad 24 of them are not "certified". In my opinion Bernie and Tulsi are the most inspiring candidates. Yang and Williamson come in second place.

It is really depressing to contemplate the election process in this country. For one, the debates are held by corporate media, who has zero interest in debating substance, and second the DNC gets to arbitrarily set the rules in order to elicit the outcome they see fit.

It is already a given that Biden, Kamala and Pete are the one who will have an easier time making it to debate finals regardless of the lack of energy and grassroot support of their candidacies. All these developments are great for Trump of course, who actually has real energy and enthusiasm behind him. If anything, another corporate shill elected on the Democrats side will make Trump's reelection all the more posible.

In the end, when it comes to corporate interests, maintaining the status quo is all that matters; another Trump term or a Corporate Democrat in power means that the oligarchy wins.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by GDB

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

Next talking point?

"In practical terms this means that superdelegates cannot vote in the first voting round if their support is going to decide the selection. If no candidate wins a majority in the first round, superdelegates get to vote in subsequent rounds."

Out of curiosity did you read past the headline?

[SeijiSensei]

There hasn't been a convention that went to a second ballot since 1952. This year won't be any different.

https://www.politicsbythenumbers.org...ary-campaigns/

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

^ While this is true, and in no small way to Bernie's pressure to do away with super delegates, the DNC is at it again with a different tactic. They have decided that certain "qualifying" Polls are indicative of the momentum of any perspective candidate; Namely, obtaining 2% in 4 polls of their choosing. What's funny is that these type of surveis are only done via phone. :roll: These selective polls completely ignore online inquiries. As a result, the "qualifying" polls massively favor older voters, who of course tend to be less social media savvy and generally ignore anything outside of the corporate news media spectrum.

This new tactic is designed to shun the voices of any candidates outside of the main stream (AKA progressives). For example, most online polling heavy favors Bernie over Biden. Corporate bought out candidates that are given free media air time tend to do much better, such as Ami, Kamala, Booker, Pete, Beto and the rest of sell outs.

Tulsi Gabard is getting the same treatment that Bernie got in 2016. The corporate establishment hates her guts, specially after she destroyed Kamala. She was the most searched candidate in both nights of the debate, and she has over 2% polling in 26 polls, (too bad 24 of them are not "certified". In my opinion Bernie and Tulsi are the most inspiring candidates. Yang and Williamson come in second place.

It is really depressing to contemplate the election process in this country. For one, the debates are held by corporate media, who has zero interest in debating substance, and second the DNC gets to arbitrarily set the rules in order to elicit the outcome they see fit.

It is already a given that Biden, Kamala and Pete are the one who will have an easier time making it to debate finals regardless of the lack of energy and grassroot support of their candidacies. All these developments are great for Trump of course, who actually has real energy and enthusiasm behind him. If anything, another corporate shill elected on the Democrats side will make Trump's reelection all the more posible.

In the end, when it comes to corporate interests, maintaining the status quo is all that matters; another Trump term or a Corporate Democrat in power means that the oligarchy wins.

There's just so much overlap between the so-called progressive left and Trump supporters that it's hardly a surprise they're happier with him as president than a "corporate Democrat". Love of conspiracy theories, persecution complex, personal vitriol-driven politics. They gave us 4 years of Trump and will do their best to give us four more.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

There's just so much overlap between the so-called progressive left and Trump supporters that it's hardly a surprise they're happier with him as president than a "corporate Democrat". Love of conspiracy theories, persecution complex, personal vitriol-driven politics. They gave us 4 years of Trump and will do their best to give us four more.

Don't blame actual progressives for that non-sense. This is just people who want their voices heard above all else because they feel like they got slighted in some way and now and to burn it down for everyone else. That's not "progressive", that's "petty".

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by GDB

Don't blame actual progressives for that non-sense. This is just people who want their voices heard above all else because they feel like they got slighted in some way and now and to burn it down for everyone else. That's not "progressive", that's "petty".

That's a fair point. Probably should have said "self-defined progressive left and hardcore Sanders supporters".

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

There's just so much overlap between the so-called progressive left and Trump supporters that it's hardly a surprise they're happier with him as president than a "corporate Democrat". Love of conspiracy theories, persecution complex, personal vitriol-driven politics. They gave us 4 years of Trump and will do their best to give us four more.

Originally Posted by GDB

Don't blame actual progressives for that non-sense. This is just people who want their voices heard above all else because they feel like they got slighted in some way and now and to burn it down for everyone else. That's not "progressive", that's "petty".

Why are you both being so dismissive of the truth by doing some false equivalence non-sense? Do I really have to mention the obvious? If a candidate takes money from big donors and corporate packs then he is beholden to them.
Overlap between Trump supporters and Progressives? Because they both dislike MSNBC and CNN? but Trump's followers love fox news. I invite you to think critically and ask yourself one question: Who is the ultimate beneficiary of the current US domestic and International policies, such as Education, health care, immigration, diplomacy and war?

Here are a few important facts that any person who follows US politics must know:
1) The US has become an oligarchy in the last 30 years.
2) The US does not have a true left. It only has a right and far right, with a tiny bit of centrism coming from the "far left". This country has shifted dramatically to the right since the "Era of big government is over" started in the 80s and 90s. In truth all the "far left" policies coming from progressives are considered centrist policies to the rest of the world.
3) Most of the corporate media is socially progressive. After all, Black people, Latinos, Gays, Arabs and Asians still buy products and services. To exclude any person based on race or gender ultimately hurts the bottom line.
4) All corporate media is Conservative in regards to economic issues. Again, it is all about the bottom line, regulation and getting money out of politics get in the way of profit margins. This is why they rarely mention issues regarding greed and corruption at the corporate level, and use the word "socialism" as a buggy man of sorts.
5) Corporate media loves to distract the public with social issues, such as identity politics, celebrity scandals, and stories with shock value. When you hear all this noise reach for your wallet, as there certainly important regulatory policies being dismantled behind our backs that affect the every day life of the citizenry.
6) There is no such thing as a conspiracy, but a collective group think, the people who work in the corporate news cycle are there because of what they believe, if they thought any different they wouldn't be holding the important "Journalistic" positions they hold now.

I challenge both of you to find any positive articles on Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabard on the corporate media. Then compare those articles to the coverage your average corporate candidate gets. Pay close attention to the framing, and whether the policies of these candidates are discussed in detail; or if instead focus on superfluous aspects, such as moral character and upbringing. You will quickly realize that current new cycle is nothing else but a propaganda machine designed to distract you.

[Key Board]

Democrats feel like controlled opposition than an actual opposition party
the difference between how ruthless and effective Mitch McConnel is compared to Chuck Schumer is just laughable

but sure, worry about reaching across the isle, instead

And given how the Trump base is, I'm not sure if going to war with Iran would even hurt him at this point.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Key Board

And given how the Trump base is, I'm not sure if going to war with Iran would even hurt him at this point.

It's probably a silly idea but, what if Trump try to use a major conflict as a excuse to postpone the election?

[Ithekro]

No major conflict has postponed an election. Not World War II. Not even our own Civil War.

[Sugetsu]

But wars can be used effectively for political gain, which is why Republicans love going to war whenever they occupy the white house.
A war with Iran could help Trump's reelection bid if the corporate news establishment manages standstill a sense of urgency in regards to "national security".

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

No major conflict has postponed an election. Not World War II. Not even our own Civil War.

No previous president has so openly and unashamedly praised dictators and dictatorial practices.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

No previous president has so openly and unashamedly praised dictators and dictatorial practices.

True, though Lincoln was considered one by some people during the war (though I do like that he wrote a letter to General McClellan, asking that, if the General wasn't going to use it, if the President might borrow the Army of the Potomac for the war effort.)
And some executive orders get borderline from time to time over the last few presidents.

[SeijiSensei]

Lincoln's decision to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War is the usual reason for these critiques.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

^ While this is true, and in no small way to Bernie's pressure to do away with super delegates, the DNC is at it again with a different tactic. They have decided that certain "qualifying" Polls are indicative of the momentum of any perspective candidate; Namely, obtaining 2% in 4 polls of their choosing. What's funny is that these type of surveis are only done via phone. :roll: These selective polls completely ignore online inquiries. As a result, the "qualifying" polls massively favor older voters, who of course tend to be less social media savvy and generally ignore anything outside of the corporate news media spectrum.

This new tactic is designed to shun the voices of any candidates outside of the main stream (AKA progressives). For example, most online polling heavy favors Bernie over Biden. Corporate bought out candidates that are given free media air time tend to do much better, such as Ami, Kamala, Booker, Pete, Beto and the rest of sell outs.

Tulsi Gabard is getting the same treatment that Bernie got in 2016. The corporate establishment hates her guts, specially after she destroyed Kamala. She was the most searched candidate in both nights of the debate, and she has over 2% polling in 26 polls, (too bad 24 of them are not "certified". In my opinion Bernie and Tulsi are the most inspiring candidates. Yang and Williamson come in second place.

It is really depressing to contemplate the election process in this country. For one, the debates are held by corporate media, who has zero interest in debating substance, and second the DNC gets to arbitrarily set the rules in order to elicit the outcome they see fit.

It is already a given that Biden, Kamala and Pete are the one who will have an easier time making it to debate finals regardless of the lack of energy and grassroot support of their candidacies. All these developments are great for Trump of course, who actually has real energy and enthusiasm behind him. If anything, another corporate shill elected on the Democrats side will make Trump's reelection all the more posible.

In the end, when it comes to corporate interests, maintaining the status quo is all that matters; another Trump term or a Corporate Democrat in power means that the oligarchy wins.

I just found this hidden gems from 2017, back when Tulsi turned on the DNC. I actually thought that these videos were recent in light of what I discussed in post that I quoted. Ironically, now they are doing it to her.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/K0a5t5XeMfU

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

YouTube

https://youtu.be/yFCahqSnvvY

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Key Board]

I remember her being way too close to Assad. (edit: and Modi)

Don't worry. She'll get a job as Fox News anchor, and if she's lucky she might even be the next White House Press secretary.
Here's my prediction: Fox News will continue to cover her and will intentionally host a feature on her during one of the live primary debates.

I think that Pelosi likes her as a piece against Warren and Sanders. She's not say, Kamala Haris, but she's not really a progressive, either.

//

[Sugetsu]

^ Actually she is a progressive. The main criteria for being labeled a progressive are not taking corporate money from packs or wealthy donors, and aligning with Bernie Sanders' political platform, both of which she has done.

Funny enough, progressive ideas and candidates, including Bernie, have bipartisan appeal. The most prominent among them are Andrew Yang and Tulsi. Yang is also a regular at Fox news. Bernie also had a widely successful town hall hosted by Fox.

The Asad meeting is nothing but a smear meant to portray her as unpatriotic and anti-American. Asad is the only single subject that the corporate media ever bothers to ask her every time she appears in mainstream media. Obviously, anybody with a little critical thinking can clearly see that the media establishment are always promoting the interests of the military industrial complex and the defense contractors.

PS. Keep an eye on Yang as well. The media is very dismissive of him, but the guy is obviously very smart and has been able grow in popularity almost as much as Bernie did in 2016 despite poor TV coverage.

[Key Board]

As said, her connections to Assad and Modi make does not look good.
She's better than Kamala, I'll give you that.

That being said, I see no evidence that progressive ideas and thus, progressive politicians have bipartisan support
Progressive ideas like green energy, universal healthcare, gun control, corporate regulation and such, are seen as "radical left" ideals. Just look how things are covered on Fox News.

Yang is okay, but I his stance on ICE is too soft for me.

//