American Politics

[Philia]

So today is the day the DNC gets a new Chairman. I haven't checked it out and all, but I don't know how things will unfold for the next few years...

And they elected Perez..........not sure that's a good move.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

And they elected Perez..........not sure that's a good move.

Agreed. I've read that there were pissed off people who left because of this decision and wanted Keith Ellison instead. In a way, I get that they both had their flaws (some people accused Keith for being Antisemitic due to his past relation with the Nation of Islam while Perez is accused for being another Corporate shill), but between the two, Ellison seems like a better choice in my book.
This is just going to be a big mess for the Democrats... I'm just going to get ready for an 8 year Trump Administration, because it seems that the DNC didn't fucking learned their lesson...

 

[kkck]

To be honest, I am not entire sure the DNC head is that big an issue in the grand scheme of things. During the election the only reason that was even relevant was because the DNC supported clinton and tried to convince voters that clinton was indeed the better choice. But it's not like they committed fraud or changed voted. Clinton is a generic democrat.... but that is not an accident, it simply means that people who politically identify as democrats, rather than progressives or whatever else, have the same ideology as clinton. Sanders and his line of progressives are a perhaps not radical shift from that but still a significant one. A few years from now it won't be the DNC that picks a candidate. It will be registered democrats. The most the DNC can do to have a generic democrat elected is what they already did, have other generic democrats tell people who ideologically identify as generic democrats to vote for a generic democrat. And even that is not necessarily terrible. Hillary had credibility issues which caused significant damage over the election. That is not necessarily a problem other generic democrats will have even if they actually are corporate sellouts.

And perhaps more importantly, democrats do have to appeal to people who are independents and whatnot and their ideology does lean liberal-progressive as far as I can tell. So for better or worst, the democrat party is already going to have to adjust over time to this people. It's not like generic democrats actually object ideologically to liberal-progressives. And even then, if liberals-progressives want to see a democrat party that stands for them, there is a 100% fullproof way to get that done. Simply register as democrats and fucking vote.

 

[Philia]

Agreed. I've read that there were pissed off people who left because of this decision and wanted Keith Ellison instead. In a way, I get that they both had their flaws (some people accused Keith for being Antisemitic due to his past relation with the Nation of Islam while Perez is accused for being another Corporate shill), but between the two, Ellison seems like a better choice in my book.
This is just going to be a big mess for the Democrats... I'm just going to get ready for an 8 year Trump Administration, because it seems that the DNC didn't fucking learned their lesson...

Ellison seems better to me as well. But I doubt after all that's happened a black Muslim would be a good choice. And Perez is looks an establishment pick as well.

I'm surprised that Ellison couldn't win with endorsements of Chuck Schummer, Warren and Sanders. What else can you ask for?

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 26, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 26, 2017 ---

Democrats need to line up a good candidate in 2020. But I doubt they can do it. Bernie will be too old and it seems Republicans are already targeting Warren.

 

[xi0]

To be honest both Jones and Colbert seem like Charlatans to me (but not on David´s level LMAO), but their tension about trump and how they try to expose each other showcase a difference between the two and there is no denying that when it came to the plastic juice boxes Colbert didnt knew jackshit about what he was trying to make fun of exposing.

I also find this whole conflict between different media to be very comparable to Youtube anime community drama wars, you start a beef to get more attention (and possibly some extra subs), there´s really not much more to it, they are focusing their energy into bashing each other afterall.

And this bashing was also behind Trump´s rising to be president he ended up getting more attention from the media afterall.

Do you honestly know why Alex Jones says what he says about Trump? And why he supports him? Like, the entire basis for it? If you knew that, I don't see how you could talk about him earnestly when it comes to "exposing" the media. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Colbert is a comedian and host of a talk show. Alex Jones is entertainment, but neither should be considered reliable news sources, but the latter actually purports to be some sort of alternative media crusader, convinced that the MSM is literally run by off-world psychic pedophile vampires (I'm not even joking). And listen, he's charismatic and fascinating to listen to sometimes, but to take nearly anything he says seriously is absolutely ridiculous...

 

[Aonori]

Do you honestly know why Alex Jones says what he says about Trump? And why he supports him? Like, the entire basis for it? If you knew that, I don't see how you could talk about him earnestly when it comes to "exposing" the media. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Colbert is a comedian and host of a talk show. Alex Jones is entertainment, but neither should be considered reliable news sources, but the latter actually purports to be some sort of alternative media crusader, convinced that the MSM is literally run by off-world psychic pedophile vampires (I'm not even joking). And listen, he's charismatic and fascinating to listen to sometimes, but to take nearly anything he says seriously is absolutely ridiculous...

That depends, never heard of the type of conspirancy theorists that imagine and imagine theories (the majority of which fails), until they hit in the target? Thats what Jones tends to do a lot, also dont take news sources that tend to do lots of suspicious vídeo editting as reliable either (what Colbert does a lot), because it also leads to hit or miss situations, dont expect any of that to be very reliable.

Dont believe in news sources that have Money connections with people benefitting from the intel spread, this goes for every news source

Ever heard of David Ice´s reptilian talk? It´s all part of a belief system, in Jones and David´s cases, based on overhyping the evil radical globalists to inhuman levels, too much radical for my liking, but I do understand the dangers of radical globalism regardless, leftists tend to something similar though, in the way they overhype Trump´s protecionism to fascism and even Nazi levels, so yeah there´s two sides of the same coin here.

Hey he got that Trump attention, that had to come from something.

Well I dont know anybody who believes in any news source as 100% true right off the bat (maybe someone else in this fórum but I seriously doubt it), so yeah, be it Jones, Colbert or whoever, I´d take any piece of news I receive with a grain of salt until further more detailed evidence comes out (body language helps, in some cases), there are some sources that are also more truthful when it comes to diferent particular subjects as well, so yeah, finding truly reliable news sources is hard work and it doesnt help when idiots in certain news channel go bashing the people that made the live work on the place, really disgusting.

 

[xi0]

also dont take news sources that tend to do lots of suspicious vídeo editting as reliable either (what Colbert does a lot)

Colbert isn't a news source. He never has been. He took David Letterman's former slot. I mean, I don't know your point here with this false equivalency. Colbert is a satirist/comedian. Alex Jones is a CIA plant talk show host acting like a reliable news source. It's either all an act, or he's just that nuts. I think it could be both, how else does one go from a rather inspiring spoken-word artist, to someone who says Sandy Hook was a false-flag OP and that inter-dimensional psychic vampire pedophiles are running everything?

Hey he got that Trump attention, that had to come from something.

He got Trump's attention because he has an audience and repeatedly sucked him off due to his penchant for conspiratorial thinking and apparent "anti-globalist" position (which is a facade, just like anything else with Trump). You'll notice Trump has very good things to say about people as long as they appease him, any degree of a criticism henceforth is met with his crying on social media and labeling stories as "fake news" and saying the media is an enemy of the public. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, if that's how you handle scrutiny, you're a laughing stock.

 

[Aonori]

Colbert isn't a news source. He never has been. He took David Letterman's former slot. I mean, I don't know your point here with this false equivalency. Colbert is a satirist/comedian. Alex Jones is a CIA plant talk show host acting like a reliable news source. It's either all an act, or he's just that nuts. I think it could be both, how else does one go from a rather inspiring spoken-word artist, to someone who says Sandy Hook was a false-flag OP and that inter-dimensional psychic vampire pedophiles are running everything?


He got Trump's attention because he has an audience and repeatedly sucked him off due to his penchant for conspiratorial thinking and apparent "anti-globalist" position (which is a facade, just like anything else with Trump). You'll notice Trump has very good things to say about people as long as they appease him, any degree of a criticism henceforth is met with his crying on social media and labeling stories as "fake news" and saying the media is an enemy of the public. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, if that's how you handle scrutiny, you're a laughing stock.

It´s very possible.

Yup, Trump likes anti-globalists, nothing new there.

 

[SharkBait]

Its actually happening!!!!!!1 This is so good for our country. BRB crying joy.

 

[xi0]

Yup, Trump likes anti-globalists, nothing new there.

No. Trump likes anyone who likes him. And he'll do and say whatever he finds acceptable to keep this kind of echo-chamber intact. That's the reason why his position as chief policy-maker is and has been laughable up until this point.

 

[Philia]

Its actually happening!!!!!!1 This is so good for our country. BRB crying joy.

First, they have to cut the veterans' benefits completely. Those lazy bums with all their experiences should be at the front line and not idling around. Since the US education system is broken beyond repair, CNN, Fox and ther other alphabet broadcasters should become the prefered institutions of education for US citizens. If you are lazy, you should not have any rights to food, unemployment benefits and healthcare in the US. The benchmark should be 1 trillion USD for military spending. Full spectrum dominance, yeah!

This is YUUUUGE!

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 28, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 28, 2017 ---

Interesting article:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-trump-war-glanton-20170227-story.html

 

[Aonori]

No. Trump likes anyone who likes him. And he'll do and say whatever he finds acceptable to keep this kind of echo-chamber intact. That's the reason why his position as chief policy-maker is and has been laughable up until this point.

Yes, in this case, anti-globalists and I dont see the big deal about this, many other politicians also like anyone who likes them, Trump is no diferent, the issue here is the supposed "intolerance" which he is giving to those that dont like him, which he stubbornly believes it might be righteous

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Bah, look at that number! $31.7 Billion for SS, Unemployment and Labor! That's a lot of useless money going to the people! We should divert it into something we can use: Military!

But at this point, the Government might as well as kill their people, take their money, and blow it on more wars and conflicts.

 

[shionoro]

Yes, in this case, anti-globalists and I dont see the big deal about this, many other politicians also like anyone who likes them, Trump is no diferent, the issue here is the supposed "intolerance" which he is giving to those that dont like him, which he stubbornly believes it might be righteous

That is simply not true.
No other high profile politician in the US would one moment tell how great another group is and then say that they are an enemy of america.
No other high profile US politician would just take the endorsement from the KKK without distancing themselves.

 

[POW]

To be honest, I am not entire sure the DNC head is that big an issue in the grand scheme of things. During the election the only reason that was even relevant was because the DNC supported clinton and tried to convince voters that clinton was indeed the better choice. But it's not like they committed fraud or changed voted.

The DNC chair has the power to organize the whole DNC money machine and shape the behind the scenes agenda on a national level as far as how they reach out to people and what issues they put at the forefront. THE DNC chair is not suppose to lean their thumb on the scale for one candidate over the other like Debbie Wasserman Schultz & Donna Brazil are clear Hillary insiders who from day 1 were shifting the scales in Hillary's favor.
This is the equivalent of a referee in sporting match having close ties to one team and calling in their favor the whole game. Then having this insider conversations released via Wikileaks and everyone blames the hacker for leaking private information. (Ie lets blame Russia and not talk about the corruption in the DNC)

And perhaps more importantly, democrats do have to appeal to people who are independents and whatnot and their ideology does lean liberal-progressive as far as I can tell. So for better or worst, the democrat party is already going to have to adjust over time to this people. It's not like generic democrats actually object ideologically to liberal-progressives. And even then, if liberals-progressives want to see a democrat party that stands for them, there is a 100% fullproof way to get that done. Simply register as democrats and fucking vote.

WRONG Neo liberalism (Corporate Democrats) are moderates essentially the equivalent of early 90's Republicans on economic and Foreign policy issues while being slightly left on social issues like gay marriage. It cost them nothing to put on a pink sweater and say "I 'm a Muslim , I'm a Minority" & I identify with you on a crowded stage putting on a empty display of social unity while screwing over their voting base by doing the bidding of wall street and big industry.

What takes real courage is standing up to big industries like Big Pharma, Wall Street and putting the agenda of helping the working class at the forefront, cause that is an uphill battle !

The DNC goes out of it's way to crush and marginalize Progressives because they threaten the money train that the Corporate Liberals feed off of (look to Bernie or Keith Ellison). Bernie was talking about campaign finance reform and raised his whole campaign from working class people not corporations so contrast that to Hillary who raised record breaking amounts of money from big donors and still lost I might add.

Progressives want REAL Social, Political and Economic change and that starts with raising standards on the political process and candidates from how and whom they raise and accept money from, to what agenda they put on the forefront such as income inequality.

Neo-Liberals (Corporate Democrats) want to win elections and maintain their control of the DNC so they continue making lots of money and that requires walking a fine line of not upsetting their donors while pretending to work for the people by throwing crumbs to the base by occasionally standing up for Social issues. They will NOT mention serious income inequality or take bold stands on the issue because this upsets the donor class. Many of them are financially well off and thus are disconnected from the Economic woes of the working class so say no to $15 Living Wage or importing cheaper prescription drugs from Canada but okay to letting the gays get married cause it's socially acceptable now and thus politically safe.

This is why Progressives are a danger to Neo-Liberals as they point out their flaws and they actually have a populous message that resonates with the majority of people but not so much with big corporations. Hence why the consolidated Corporate media channels (CNN, MSNBC etc.) who are themselves owned by big business back the Neo Liberals (Corporate Democrats) like Hillary by giving them lots of positive air time while dismissing Progressives & Independents. It's all rather self serving survivalism.

 

[M3J]

Apparently Sessions got caught committing perjury, and that he actually did talk with Russia more than once.

Trump's America, basically.

 

[Philia]

Russia....everywhere
Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

Russia, China block bid by Western powers to impose UN sanctions on Syria
https://www.rt.com/news/378930-russia-china-un-veto-syria/

Chinese envoy said this

As we can all recall the so called WMD were used in the past to unleash a war which has brought untold sufferings to the people in the Middle East...

 

[Aonori]

That is simply not true.
No other high profile politician in the US would one moment tell how great another group is and then say that they are an enemy of america.
No other high profile US politician would just take the endorsement from the KKK without distancing themselves.

Trying to legitimize the other high profile politicians in the US doesnt mean much if they cant back it up through their actions, they are more politically correct than trump true, but dont put them on a high horse in regards to how they deal with the opposition party, lol Obama got shouted as a liar when he was talking about the affordable care act, by Joe Wilson a republican, so yeah I will wait to see more on trump before judging who takes the cake on that, but the fact the opposition party is super triggered by him is hillarious at this point.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 2, 2017, Original Post Date: Mar 2, 2017 ---

Russia....everywhere
Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

Russia, China block bid by Western powers to impose UN sanctions on Syria
https://www.rt.com/news/378930-russia-china-un-veto-syria/

Chinese envoy said this

Germany is still doing a good job (down below of the last link's page) their animosity towards russia in the form of sanctions involving more european dummies is getting some splendid results! No more portuguese meat exportations to russia, less money and more tension, great!

 

[kkck]

The DNC chair has the power to organize the whole DNC money machine and shape the behind the scenes agenda on a national level as far as how they reach out to people and what issues they put at the forefront. THE DNC chair is not suppose to lean their thumb on the scale for one candidate over the other like Debbie Wasserman Schultz & Donna Brazil are clear Hillary insiders who from day 1 were shifting the scales in Hillary's favor.
This is the equivalent of a referee in sporting match having close ties to one team and calling in their favor the whole game. Then having this insider conversations released via Wikileaks and everyone blames the hacker for leaking private information. (Ie lets blame Russia and not talk about the corruption in the DNC)

WRONG Neo liberalism (Corporate Democrats) are moderates essentially the equivalent of early 90's Republicans on economic and Foreign policy issues while being slightly left on social issues like gay marriage. It cost them nothing to put on a pink sweater and say "I 'm a Muslim , I'm a Minority" & I identify with you on a crowded stage putting on a empty display of social unity while screwing over their voting base by doing the bidding of wall street and big industry.

What takes real courage is standing up to big industries like Big Pharma, Wall Street and putting the agenda of helping the working class at the forefront, cause that is an uphill battle !

The DNC goes out of it's way to crush and marginalize Progressives because they threaten the money train that the Corporate Liberals feed off of (look to Bernie or Keith Ellison). Bernie was talking about campaign finance reform and raised his whole campaign from working class people not corporations so contrast that to Hillary who raised record breaking amounts of money from big donors and still lost I might add.

Progressives want REAL Social, Political and Economic change and that starts with raising standards on the political process and candidates from how and whom they raise and accept money from, to what agenda they put on the forefront such as income inequality.

Neo-Liberals (Corporate Democrats) want to win elections and maintain their control of the DNC so they continue making lots of money and that requires walking a fine line of not upsetting their donors while pretending to work for the people by throwing crumbs to the base by occasionally standing up for Social issues. They will NOT mention serious income inequality or take bold stands on the issue because this upsets the donor class. Many of them are financially well off and thus are disconnected from the Economic woes of the working class so say no to $15 Living Wage or importing cheaper prescription drugs from Canada but okay to letting the gays get married cause it's socially acceptable now and thus politically safe.

This is why Progressives are a danger to Neo-Liberals as they point out their flaws and they actually have a populous message that resonates with the majority of people but not so much with big corporations. Hence why the consolidated Corporate media channels (CNN, MSNBC etc.) who are themselves owned by big business back the Neo Liberals (Corporate Democrats) like Hillary by giving them lots of positive air time while dismissing Progressives & Independents. It's all rather self serving survivalism.

I don't think the comparison to a referee is entirely appropriate. Yes, the people you mentioned did support hillary clinton and all that stuff. They were exposed and everything. And it is plausible that had some effect on the primary's outcome. But look at the results of the primaries... Hillary got almost 1000 more delegates than bernie and over 3 million more votes. Even without the unpledged delegates, she won by about 300 delegates. Now, lets look at the context here a bit:

- Hillary clinton had that astounding victory in spite that the DNC corruption and their support for her was exposed.
- She won in spite of there being emails which actually detail how she uses her influence and foundations to secure paid speeches.

Basically, nothing was a secret. We knew everything there was to know about her. People knew to excruciating detail her policy positions, how she uses her office, what are legitimate and illegitimate points for and against her (say, if you think there is 0.00000001% of a thing to bhengazi you are a moron). And yet, democrats voted for her. That is a far bigger issue, IMO, than the DNC supporting from behind the scenes any one candidate. Had democrats simply voted for bernie then this whole thing wouldn't have mattered in the slightest, he would have been the leader of the democrat party and even if he lost he would remain a much larger influence on the party. If hillary clinton had won the primaries solely because of unpledged delegates or won popular vote by 50000 votes or won by the delegete count by 20 delegates then you could make the point that the DNC chair thing is that big a turning point. But the margin she won with is simply too large for that. Fact is, democrats where with her. The notion that she stole the whole thing from bernie simply doesn't add up. There is no evidence of actual fraud either (as in, the DNC faking votes).

 

[shionoro]

Trying to legitimize the other high profile politicians in the US doesnt mean much if they cant back it up through their actions, they are more politically correct than trump true, but dont put them on a high horse in regards to how they deal with the opposition party, lol Obama got shouted as a liar when he was talking about the affordable care act, by Joe Wilson a republican, so yeah I will wait to see more on trump before judging who takes the cake on that, but the fact the opposition party is super triggered by him is hillarious at this point.

It kinda does really. Politically correctness basically means exactly that you distance yourself from people like the KKK.

The opposition party is not happy about trump because trump does many bad things. You can call that triggered, but that is nothing more than saying 'they are upset about a bad thing happening'.
They should be. Everyone should be.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 2, 2017, Original Post Date: Mar 2, 2017 ---

Germany is still doing a good job (down below of the last link's page) their animosity towards russia in the form of sanctions involving more european dummies is getting some splendid results! No more portuguese meat exportations to russia, less money and more tension, great!

Thankfully we do yes, and in both merkel's and Schulz's cases, the sanctions will be upheld.
One of the things to be proud of.