• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Democrats 2020

Rashida Tlaib on Twitter: "My statement regarding last night:
“I am so incredibly in love with the movement that our campaign of #NotMeUs has created. This makes me protective over it and frustrated by attempts to dismiss the strength and diversity of our movement. (1/4)" / Twitter

My statement regarding last night:

“I am so incredibly in love with the movement that our campaign of #NotMeUs has created. This makes me protective over it and frustrated by attempts to dismiss the strength and diversity of our movement. (1/4)

“However, I know what is at stake if we don't unify over one candidate to beat Trump and I intend to do everything possible to ensure that Trump does not win in 2020. (2/4)

“In this instance, I allowed my disappointment with Secretary Clinton's latest comments about Senator Sanders and his supporters get the best of me. You all, my sisters-in-service on stage, and our movement deserve better. (3/4)

“I will continue to strive to come from a place of love and not react in the same way of those who are against what we are building in this country. This is about building a just and equitable future for my two boys, children across the country, and future generations." (4/4)
About her booing Hillary Clinton.
 
The utter shameful display isn't coming from the GOP, but from the Democrats.
The Mueller Investigation was launched by a Trump appointed Justice Department official, and his selection to run the investigation after Trump fired both the head of the FBI and the Acting Attorney General was initially applauded by the GOP. The Dems had nothing to do with that.

The Dems did initiate impeachment hearings, and even Sen. Alexander (R-TN) says the Democrats proved that Trump did what he did and it was wrong.

The bottom line is that the Democrats have never been able to accept that the Trump beat Killery in 2016 and is very likely to beat whichever clown the Dems put up against him in November.
Yeah, you keep saying that... but there are also the laws he has broken.

None of those laws allegedly broken are impeachable offences, and the Dems and you know it, if you were honest with yourself.
 
The Mueller Investigation was launched by a Trump appointed Justice Department official, and his selection to run the investigation after Trump fired both the head of the FBI and the Acting Attorney General was initially applauded by the GOP. The Dems had nothing to do with that.

The Dems did initiate impeachment hearings, and even Sen. Alexander (R-TN) says the Democrats proved that Trump did what he did and it was wrong.

Yeah, you keep saying that... but there are also the laws he has broken.

None of those laws allegedly broken are impeachable offences, and the Dems and you know it, if you were honest with yourself.

Not a single US constitutional lawyer agrees with you and you know it, if you were honest with yourself.
 
The Mueller Investigation was launched by a Trump appointed Justice Department official, and his selection to run the investigation after Trump fired both the head of the FBI and the Acting Attorney General was initially applauded by the GOP. The Dems had nothing to do with that.

The Dems did initiate impeachment hearings, and even Sen. Alexander (R-TN) says the Democrats proved that Trump did what he did and it was wrong.

Yeah, you keep saying that... but there are also the laws he has broken.

None of those laws allegedly broken are impeachable offences, and the Dems and you know it, if you were honest with yourself.

Not a single US constitutional lawyer agrees with you and you know it, if you were honest with yourself.

Don't you mean not a single Democrat constitutional lawyer agrees with me?
 
Not a single US constitutional lawyer agrees with you and you know it, if you were honest with yourself.

Don't you mean not a single Democrat constitutional lawyer agrees with me?

Umm...no. Even the Harvad legal professor who Alan Dershowitz cited in his defense for Trump says it's bullshit:

Abuse of power is a crime. There are people around the country who have been convicted of it recently. It's a crime that’s existed since this country was founded. And it's a criminal offense. To equate it with "maladministration," as my colleague professor Dershowitz does, is the equivalent of saying that criminal corruption is the same thing as getting a bad performance evaluation. “Maladministration” is just an 18th-century term for doing a bad thing at your job, for, you know, not filing papers correctly. And I think he’s right: A president shouldn’t be impeached for getting a bad performance evaluation. But to equate that with criminal corruption? That’s a joke.

You can't make this up. During Trumps" impeachment his defense lawyer cites well respected Harvard Law professor Nikolas Bowie as someone who agreed with the argument that abuse of power does not warrant impeachment, and even the professor says Dershowitz is making a bullshit argument and that he said nothing of the sort.

You really do love your world of make believe, don't you?
 
The Iowa caucus is tomorrow. The leads are Bernie and Biden.

Bernie having a prominent staffer praising gulags and wanting to send Trump supporters to them didn't really hurt his lead. In fact his polls jumped at about that time. Biden, still the national lead, is slightly behind in Iowa. This may result in a tie or a slight lead leaving Iowa. Buttigieg is actually leading Warren right now, Klobuchar is maybe going to crack 10%.

I'm curious how long Buttigieg will continue to perform. I do hope he beats Hillary wearing a Sanders mask (Warren).
 
The Iowa caucus is tomorrow. The leads are Bernie and Biden.

Bernie having a prominent staffer praising gulags and wanting to send Trump supporters to them didn't really hurt his lead. In fact his polls jumped at about that time. Biden, still the national lead, is slightly behind in Iowa. This may result in a tie or a slight lead leaving Iowa. Buttigieg is actually leading Warren right now, Klobuchar is maybe going to crack 10%.

I'm curious how long Buttigieg will continue to perform. I do hope he beats Hillary wearing a Sanders mask (Warren).
It will be interesting to watch. Caucuses tend to favor outsiders like Buttigieg and Sanders, because they tend to attract people who are more activist than centrist.
 
So the Yang gang is worse than the Bernie bros.

I'm still confused. I thought the Bernie Bros were the Bernie-preferring Trump voters who believed what Trump said about Hillary. I caucused for Bernie in 2016, but voted for Hillary even though I really didn't like the people who were caucusing for her (small town, you know who they all are...)
This time I don't really care who the Dems nominate. I'd vote for anyone* running against Trump.

* As long as they weren't "in the loop"
 
If you were going to vote for Bernie, presumably because economic justice is a big thing for you, voting instead for a billionaire who bought his way into the nomination is an awfully bitter pill to swallow. Throw me in with the "depends" crew. Biden, I could live with. But not "any Democrat". The DNC has done nothing to earn my unconditional loyalty. Don't forget that any Democrat who beats Trump gets to set the tone for the party for decades. If that tone is "give the Republicans most of what they substantially want, while giving shallowest of lip service to minorities", we're all screwed no matter what party is in office.
 
Last edited:
If you were going to vote for Bernie, presumably because economic justice is a big thing for you, voting instead for a billionaire who bought his way into the nomination is an awfully bitter pill to swallow.
Even if it is a liberal Billionaire who wants most of the same policies as Bernie. That’s so weird to decide to prefer supporting Trump over someone who is more liberal than Trump.


Throw me in with the "depends" crew. Biden, I could live with. But not "any Democrat".
I mean, the alternative is fucking Trump.. None of the dems running is worse than fucking trump.


The DNC has done nothing to earn my unconditional loyalty.
This confuses me. This discussion is not about loyalty to the DNC. The DNC is not “demanding loyalty.”

This is a discussion about who YOU WANT as your next president. If you want trump, you either vote for trump or you don’t vote.
If you don’t want more of this unbelievable off-the-charts open corruption, grift and international embarrassment, who is packing the courts with neanderthals, gutting education, poisoning the water and giving he spoils to the ultra rich, you put your strength behind the only other candidate with a chance to beat him. And that is the Dem candidate, whoever that is. Not one of whom, again, is actually worse than Trump. If you think Trump is bad.


This idea that you’re proudly resisting a “demand for loyalty” is a fabrication to give you permission to support Trump. Because the DNC does not have the capability to “demand” anything, and they never have. That’s a cloak of persecution that is voluntary (and unwarranted)



Don't forget that any Democrat who beats Trump gets to set the tone for the party for decades. If that tone is "give the Republicans most of what they substantially want, while giving shallowest of lip service to minorities", we're sll screwed no matter what party is in office.

This is ... so... appalling in light of who is in the White House and who is running against the eventual Dem. What makes us SCREWED is if the GOP gets to keep selecting the judges, the cabinet members, the ambassadors. This is so much more important than just policies. That help for minorities that you (and I) want, can we get some NOT federalist society judges, please? For the love of reason. Long view here people.


You are saying you won’t support someone who (might) give the republicans most of what they want and so instead you will fucking support someone who gives them ALL of what they want??.

That makes no sense. No sense at ALL. What is up with that? Cut off nose to spite face? Throw baby out with bathwater?
To protest giving GOP most of what they want, you give them all of what they ever hoped for in their most erotic wet dreams.


Who thinks like that?
 
I don't like Trump, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that he is the only bad actor in Washington. Beating the bad guys is not enough for me, if it comes at the cost of entirely neutralizing the good guys. If the DNC can impeach a president, but can't bring themselves to field a candidate that the American people actually like and who gives a flying shit about their lives, they need to be replaced by someone who can. We would have a much better Supreme Court situation right now if the Democrats had had the balls to fight for it when they still had leverage. Trump is a brainless clown baby with powerful friends; he is not, and could not be for sheer lack of intellect, to blame for the thus-far-total failure of the Democrats to fight for democratic and constitutional rule in this country. So they're on pretty thin ice with me to begin with. Like the public defender who's friends with the county judge, they only fight battles they know they'll lose, and then only when the cameras are rolling. So who wins when they win?

If we get a genuine liberal, however pussy, okay. I'll hold my nose and vote. But if it's a bougie twat who has no interest in anything other than business as usual with a polite but meaningless patrician smile but no plans at all for change, then sorry. No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.
 
So the Yang gang is worse than the Bernie bros.

That depends on how you look at it. More of Yang's support is with converted independents and Republicans and first time voters. He has more cross over appeal, and that's a bad thing?

And if you want to run "blue no matter who" logic, then you should probably push for Yang since he'd be the Democrat that gets both your vote and the cross over voters.
 
If the Democrat party can get away with running and winning with openly corrupt politicians who screw over the people, just because the other big party alternative js seen as worse... I think you've got a fundamental problem with the system. This whole vote A no matter what because B is worse... is a problem.

Your people need to be able to vote for something they actually want, or you are looking at horrible now or bad now sliding inevitably to horrible. Maybe horrible now could mean reformation and good thereafter? Or maybe the people will just give up and join the many others who simply don't vote.
 
I don't like Trump, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that he is the only bad actor in Washington. Beating the bad guys is not enough for me, if it comes at the cost of entirely neutralizing the good guys. If the DNC can impeach a president, but can't bring themselves to field a candidate that the American people actually like and who gives a flying shit about their lives, they need to be replaced by someone who can. We would have a much better Supreme Court situation right now if the Democrats had had the balls to fight for it when they still had leverage. Trump is a brainless clown baby with powerful friends; he is not, and could not be for sheer lack of intellect, to blame for the thus-far-total failure of the Democrats to fight for democratic and constitutional rule in this country. So they're on pretty thin ice with me to begin with. Like the public defender who's friends with the county judge, they only fight battles they know they'll lose, and then only when the cameras are rolling. So who wins when they win?

If we get a genuine liberal, however pussy, okay. I'll hold my nose and vote. But if it's a bougie twat who has no interest in anything other than business as usual with a polite but meaningless patrician smile but no plans at all for change, then sorry. No. I won't vote for someone I don't support, just because I don't like their opponent.

I'm as confused as Rhea over the kind of logic that, confronted with two evils, chooses to abstain rather than vote for the lesser. It's not that I'm surprised, but I can't make sense of what the ultimate goal is--to create a better world by letting Trump have a second term to teach moderate Democrats a lesson? I would far rather have a moderate Republican as president for the next four years than Donald Trump, the absolute worst president in the history of the United States. Bloomberg? Hell, yes, rather than Trump. Yang? Hell yes, rather than Trump (although I might need to barf a few times.) Gabbard? Well, sure. Rather than Trump. Even Spirit Guru Williams, if that were my only alternative to Trump. I would even prefer (and I'm really trying to keep my dinner down now) Mike Pence over Donald Trump. Trump is an existential threat to us all.
 
Here's a theory I've heard on that:

There is a silver lining to Trump's presidency. He's shown you many "presidential traditions" that you failed so far to put into law... and now you just might. And he's in some ways burned down some of the old system, so something new can be rebuilt. I know people who wanted a Trump win as a "burn it all down" chaos candidate. They got what they wanted, and so some extend that's happened, as we now see Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist leading in the polls for the Democrats. Had Hillary won in 2016 it is very unlikely that progress would have been made leftward that quickly. Trump acted as the ultimate rallying cry to wake up many on the left. Or so the theory goes.
 
Back
Top Bottom