How can you vote for a president who says "Jews who vote for Democrats are traitors"????

Morbii

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
462
Location
Gilroy, CA
Country
llUnited States
OK. So I'm straight on this. When Moore says that Sanders won every single county. That's a lie? Right?

If so, then that's what I get for watching Netflix I suppose.
Nah, it’s what you get from watching Moore, who is also part of the problem. He’s a not-nearly-as-bad version of Trump when it comes to facts.
 

DWPetros

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
143
Reaction score
402
Country
llUnited States
“I think it’s inevitable that you don’t get truth-tellers. I want the American people to stop believing everything they hear and to ask more questions, to become more skeptical. I think it’s the one reason a guy like Donald Trump won. They understood where he was coming from. That Trump is just a blowhard. They laughed at him. They knew Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But Trump wasn’t the same old big smile and a lot of good words. The Democrats have been going around saying, ‘We’re for the people, we’re for the little guy.’ And all they do is run to Wall Street for money. And the one guy that didn’t, Sanders, was sabotaged by the Democratic National Committee.”

- Seymour Hersch: Hersh first gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. During the 1970s, Hersh covered Watergate for The New York Times and revealed the clandestine bombing of Cambodia. In 2004, he reported on the US military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. He has also won two National Magazine Awards and five George Polk Awards. In 2004, he received the George Orwell Award

We need more investigative journalists* like Hersch. We need fewer reporters** like Rachel Maddow.

* those who investigate and report
**those who simply say what they're told to say
 
Last edited:

DWPetros

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
143
Reaction score
402
Country
llUnited States
Looks like the progressive Warren may be making big strides and gaining the support of the Democratic Party. Biden will need to watch his back.


" it was the Massachusetts senator who got a standing ovation before she’d even said a word, and another as soon as she’d finished speaking. From the start, Warren’s campaign was built on the theory that she’s an outsider whom insiders can live with, and an insider who has credibility with outsiders—in 2016 terms, someone who can attract both Sanders and Hillary Clinton voters. Primary voting is months away. The DNC’s 2020 convention is almost a year from now. But on Friday afternoon, in the huge, bland hotel ballroom where the DNC meeting was held, Warren’s theory seemed to be working out.

Most of all, she’s smart as shit, You don’t want a dumb-ass president.”
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,261
Reaction score
3,202
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I'm not a US voter, but if I was I would vote for an old sack of white flour over Spanky. Having said that, I would far prefer Sanders or Warren, both are what in European terms centre left. The old sack Biden is in terms of policies quite a bit of same-old, same-old to me and thus not someone who would excite many of those who engaged in politics for the first time in 2018.
 

DWPetros

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
143
Reaction score
402
Country
llUnited States
Of course. Anyone but Trump. I'd prefer Sanders over Warren, but I'll take Warren any day over anyone else and especially Joe(!). She's a strong progressive, smart, tough, and will eventually sway the party. Watch her go. Biden is the wrong guy for the times.

"Elizabeth Warren has the crowds. Joe Biden has the lead. The split-screen story of one of the most intriguing matchups of the Democratic presidential primary is unfolding in a glaring contrast of style and substance".

 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
2,036
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Of course. Anyone but Trump. I'd prefer Sanders over Warren, but I'll take Warren any day over anyone else and especially Joe(!). She's a strong progressive, smart, tough, and will eventually sway the party. Watch her go. Biden is the wrong guy for the times.

"Elizabeth Warren has the crowds. Joe Biden has the lead. The split-screen story of one of the most intriguing matchups of the Democratic presidential primary is unfolding in a glaring contrast of style and substance".

I;ve been a staunch conservative across many issues, but I would not hesitate to vote for Warren in the primaries. It matters not, however, As I noted elsewhere, Kamala Harris has all of California's golden Dem money, and no one makes the DNC ticket without that money.
 

DWPetros

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
143
Reaction score
402
Country
llUnited States
Not convinced that this next '20 election will be a repeat of the same old Dem song. Not convinced that 'California's Dem money' (what is that?) is what will drive the nomination. But glad you might vote for Warren :)
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
688
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
“I think it’s inevitable that you don’t get truth-tellers. I want the American people to stop believing everything they hear and to ask more questions, to become more skeptical. I think it’s the one reason a guy like Donald Trump won. They understood where he was coming from. That Trump is just a blowhard. They laughed at him. They knew Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But Trump wasn’t the same old big smile and a lot of good words. The Democrats have been going around saying, ‘We’re for the people, we’re for the little guy.’ And all they do is run to Wall Street for money. And the one guy that didn’t, Sanders, was sabotaged by the Democratic National Committee.”
Sorry, late to this thread. I was away in Atlantic City, Hard Rock Hotel.

Don you keep pushing this totally false narrative. You are getting as bad as tRUMP and I was not yelling at you, I was trying to get you to understand that Bernie LOST, plain and simple.

The DNC supported him as they had to but they were not going to support him more than HRC. HRC's campaign gave the DNC upwards of 6M, to help with the General Election, and they both signed an MOU that said:

A Democratic official who has reviewed the document pointed out that in addition to the Clinton signoffs Brazile characterized, it included language stating that "nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process" and that "all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary."

Bernie's campaign could have helped the DNC to prepare for the General Election and he chose NOT to. He gave the DNC nothing, HRC campaign, maybe upwards to 6M. They [DNC] still helped Bernie but he lost the primary. The superdelegates, created because of H. Humphrey in 1968, are not bound to vote for their states winner but can hold their vote to see who actually wins the nomination. HRC won and they gave their vote to her. If Bernie had won the primary, and he most definitely did not, they would have given him their vote. Plain and simple.

Don comes on here (GS forum) and decries the fake news but peddles a false narrative constantly.
 

DWPetros

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
143
Reaction score
402
Country
llUnited States
Top, I'm really not trying to argue chapter and verse what exactly happened between HRC, the DNC and Sanders in 2016. That's old news. You have your view, I have mine. Fine. But the conflict that it was about - namely that the establishment Dems are loath to have progressive candidates become the party's flag-bearer - still applies. It isn't just the DNC in 2016 in my view. Whether you use the 2016 DNC issue or other similar issues (ie. that the mainstream media such as CNN, MSNBC who're in support of the establishment Dems) - there is fear among establishment/corporate influencers/those influenced that the progressive movement will prevail. Why? Because progressives threaten corporate profits. Follow the money. Pretty simple.

My main point is about how the money from corporations control politics and how that is eroding democracy. If you think that's either not happening, or that it's a trivial thing that guys like me obnoxiously drum about, then I would strongly disagree. There's plenty of evidence this is happening. If this isn't, in a nutshell, a most important thing to talk about - then what is? This very problem is at the heart of the majority of the problems in this country and the so-called democratic world are facing. Deflecting this primary point that I'm hoping to push by discussing small-ball points of argument of whatever kind - is, well, small-ball and petty.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
688
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
Top, I'm really not trying to argue chapter and verse what exactly happened between HRC, the DNC and Sanders in 2016. That's old news. You have your view, I have mine. Fine. But the conflict that it was about - namely that the establishment Dems are loath to have progressive candidates become the party's flag-bearer - still applies. It isn't just the DNC in 2016 in my view. Whether you use the 2016 DNC issue or other similar issues (ie. that the mainstream media such as CNN, MSNBC who're in support of the establishment Dems) - there is fear among establishment/corporate influencers/those influenced that the progressive movement will prevail. Why? Because progressives threaten corporate profits. Follow the money. Pretty simple.

My main point is about how the money from corporations control politics and how that is eroding democracy. If you think that's either not happening, or that it's a trivial thing that guys like me obnoxiously drum about, then I would strongly disagree. There's plenty of evidence this is happening. If this isn't, in a nutshell, a most important thing to talk about - then what is? This very problem is at the heart of the majority of the problems in this country and the so-called democratic world are facing. Deflecting this primary point that I'm hoping to push by discussing small-ball points of argument of whatever kind - is, well, small-ball and petty.
Money is destroying politics but that is not what you are pushing here. You keep pushing the whole Bernie got fucked by the DNC constantly. He did not but you keep on peddling that narrative. You have posted a couple of those tropes just in this thread. It is totally false.

Mainstream Dem's are fearing the progressive wing of the left because they are not going to win in 2020. They, you, are nothing but the new Tea Party for the Democrats without the black man as the boogey man. This is not your time. It might be coming soon but it is not now.
 

Mister T

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
3,709
Reaction score
1,070
Location
Bruxelles
Country
llFrance
Winning for the sole purpose of winning only interest those in contention for a position in the administration. A tiny percentage of the population
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
2,036
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Not convinced that this next '20 election will be a repeat of the same old Dem song. Not convinced that 'California's Dem money' (what is that?) is what will drive the nomination. But glad you might vote for Warren :)
no might about it, if Warren's name is on a primary ballot here in CA- She's got my vote. Evan Mcmullin got my primary vote in 2016. Didn't matter, for pretty much the same reasons. They who have the purse-strings will always take the ticket at the national conventions. After that, all we can do is hope we put the right march to the party line Congressmen and women into office during the preceding mid-term elections, as they will choose who is President, not the NPV, thanks to the 12th Amendment.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
2,036
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
Not convinced that this next '20 election will be a repeat of the same old Dem song. Not convinced that 'California's Dem money' (what is that?) is what will drive the nomination. But glad you might vote for Warren :)
Jimmy Carter and JFK are the only 2 Dems to ever take the White House while losing CA's electors in the last 100 years. Carter ran 2 successful campaigns to raise money for his Presidential bid in July and August of 1976, in California, knowing the state was most likely going to Ford. JFK ran no less than 11 campaign fundraising speeches in CA during his 1960 run-up to the White House, knowing CA was going to go Nixon.

Dem campaign money is where the Dem ticket goes. Warren ain't got it and will never get it unless Harriss bows out of the running for some reason.
 

DWPetros

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
143
Reaction score
402
Country
llUnited States
Money is destroying politics but that is not what you are pushing here. You keep pushing the whole Bernie got fucked by the DNC constantly. He did not but you keep on peddling that narrative. You have posted a couple of those tropes just in this thread. It is totally false.
Mainstream Dem's are fearing the progressive wing of the left because they are not going to win in 2020. They, you, are nothing but the new Tea arty for the Democrats without the black man as the boogey man. This is not your time. It might be coming soon but it is not now.
Not here to argue - that's pointless. You don't know my motives - I don't know yours. However, to imagine that the establishment Dems fear progressives because they think progressive Dems would lose the election is pretty naïve. But hey, so be that. You obviously don't understand progressivism, what it is, it's origin or history and you underestimate the causes or the sentiment from those on the left who you and conventional thinkers consider extremists, like the Tea Party. It is the time for progressivism, just as it was in previous times when things went economically haywire - and there is ample evidence that it is.
 

DWPetros

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
143
Reaction score
402
Country
llUnited States
I present this article, not to re-fight the Bernie fight per se, but to illustrate the bias against progressives in media. There is such bias and any serious observer of media knows it. The problem is - what to do about it.


"I worked in and around mainstream TV news for years, including at corporate centrist outlets CNN and MSNBC. Unlike at Fox News (where I’d also been a paid contributor), there’s almost never a memo or direct order from top management to cover or not cover certain stories or viewpoints.

But here's the sad reality: There doesn’t have to be a memo from the owner to achieve the homogeneity of coverage at “centrist” outlets that media watchdog groups like FAIR (which I founded) have documented in study after study over the decades." Jeff Cohen

Lengthy, but clear commentary on this very subject by Noam Chomsky.

 
Last edited:

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,973
Reaction score
688
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
I would be naive to say that there is no bias in media or to think that reporters are going to go against the wishes of their producers/ corporate owners.

That is no where near what we were talking about though:

You posted in #42 (and implied in other posts) an excerpt from a "truth teller", "investigative reporter" that only partially told the story of the 2016 HRC/ DNC agreement. The DNC categorically did not sabotage Bernie. Donna Brazille wrote her "blockbuster revelation" book because she was the DNC chairperson that oversaw the loss, of HRC, in what should have been a slam dunk win.

The other topics you have brought up, money in politics & bias in media, are topics that are very troubling for our democracy. Remove the money from politics and you will take care of the media as well.
 

witchbottles

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,970
Reaction score
2,036
Location
Rio Vista, CA
Country
llUnited States
. Remove the money from politics and you will take care of the media as well.
Easy to do - term limits of 2 terms for all elected officials, if its good enough for the POTUS, its good enough for Senators ,for Representatives, for judges, for school board directors, for city councils, for everyone who ever runs for office. no more career politicians sucking off the taxpayer's teat means no more influence in buying their votes from big campaign donors and super-PACs.

Hard to do, get any elected official to agree to vote for that.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,169
Reaction score
1,128
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Term limits would encourage bribery. I don't understand people fascination with term limits. When a powerful politician leaves office they are immediately hired by industry, except where prevented by law, and then use their insider connections to make their real money.
 
Top