Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Literally spell out what you mean by "silenced"? You're straight up claiming she won't ever have a public opinion again about Israel? This sounds just way too  tin-foil hat to me.

the frequency of her mention of Israel will be diminished

whatever she says on this topic in the future will be much softer than before, with conciliatory language that pleases the standard Congressional rhetoric - with gushing praise of Israel's purpose as a sanctuary for Jews, with a brief mention of Palestinian "rights".  She's been told to be obedient or she loses all power becoming useless. The hardline criticism of Israel will be rare to non-existent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
Just now, NowThis said:

the frequency of her mention of Israel will be diminished

whatever she says on this topic in the future will be much softer than before, with conciliatory language that pleases the standard Congressional rhetoric - with gushing praise of Israel's purpose as a sanctuary for Jews, with a brief mention of Palestinian "rights".  She's been told to be obedient or she loses all power becoming useless. The hardline criticism of Israel will be rare to non-existent. 

See I am very skeptical of this because Pelosi got a tremendous amount of blow back when they tried to rebuke her publicly.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-erupt-in-protests-over-indirect-sanction-of-rep-omar-for-alleged-anti-semitism/2019/03/06/c06bcd18-4022-11e9-85ad-779ef05fd9d8_story.html?utm_term=.22133a56abfe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429522-house-dems-will-not-strip-omar-of-her-committee-assignments

House Democrats reportedly will not strip Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) of her committee assignments after she apologized for tweets suggesting that American lawmakers were motivated to defend Israel by money.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told Roll Call that "of course" Democrats would not strip Omar of committee assignments like Republicans did to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) after he questioned how terms like "white supremacy" became offensive.

“I don’t think she’s anti-Semitic,” Hoyer reportedly said. “She did apologize. The key will be that when we make a mistake like that, conscious or unconscious, that we don’t repeat it. That will be the proof of the pudding.”

==

her apology and good behavior earned a pass out of jail. Suppose she was steadfast and kept repeating the line that Jews are buying off Congress, would she be allowed to be on committees?  Read between the lines, she got scared and softened her line. Her Op-ed in Wapo was the clincher, made it completely obvious to me.   *btw, i made a mistake, Shumer is a senator, the real power is with the HoR leadership. 

 

Edited by NowThis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

See I am very skeptical of this because Pelosi got a tremendous amount of blow back when they tried to rebuke her publicly.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-erupt-in-protests-over-indirect-sanction-of-rep-omar-for-alleged-anti-semitism/2019/03/06/c06bcd18-4022-11e9-85ad-779ef05fd9d8_story.html?utm_term=.22133a56abfe

Yep, from what I've seen, this episode has now allowed people to be critical of Israeli policy where they kept quiet before for fear of being shouted down as anti-semitic.

So now most everyone is beginning to understand that: 

-The word Israel is not synonymous with the word Jewish.  Israel is a nation state.

-American Jews have differing opinions about Israeli policy.

-Some American Jews even support the Palestinian side in the conflict.

-Americans can choose to support the Palestinian side without being against Jewish people.

-American people should not have to swear loyalty to a foreign country and that country's segregationist policy decisions (something required by Texas state law).

 

While it may come as a shock to right wing apartheid supporters, the left wants basic human rights to be available to both Jews and Arabs in Greater Israel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1952

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yep, from what I've seen, this episode has now allowed people to be critical of Israeli policy where they kept quiet before for fear of being shouted down as anti-semitic.

So now most everyone is beginning to understand that: 

-The word Israel is not synonymous with the word Jewish.  Israel is a nation state.

-American Jews have differing opinions about Israeli policy.

-Some American Jews even support the Palestinian side in the conflict.

-Americans can choose to support the Palestinian side without being against Jewish people.

-American people should not have to swear loyalty to a foreign country and that country's segregationist policy decisions (something required by Texas state law).

 

While it may come as a shock to right wing apartheid supporters, the left wants basic human rights to be available to both Jews and Arabs in Greater Israel.

I agree with all this. I would add that Israel has been our ally for a long time and that we should expect a dem nominee and future president to work with Israel to shift their policies and hopefully place the US back into the peace process as a near-neutral arbiter. Part of that will likely require walking back many of Trump’s actions

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted

in this crowded field, I'd vote for Jimmy Carter, now the oldest living President of all time. Technically, he can still run you know. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/jimmy-carter-becomes-oldest-living-american-president-n985811

interesting trivia - Carter, the first American president born in a hospital, turned 94 in October.

220px-JimmyCarterPortrait2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I agree with all this. I would add that Israel has been our ally for a long time and that we should expect a dem nominee and future president to work with Israel to shift their policies and hopefully place the US back into the peace process as a near-neutral arbiter. Part of that will likely require walking back many of Trump’s actions

I agree, and it isn't like Israel will always be ruled by a Likud PM.  There will be and have been PMs and ruling coalitions that are interested in peace.  And we should work with them towards that peace when they have power.  We should not concede to the desires of ethnonationalist hardliners like Netanyahu.

And the same thing is applying to European and Asian countries with us right now.  They are wading through and pushing back against Trump's bullshit while not being anti-American.  They will work with the next US administration that is actually worth a shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85095

Posted
Posted

Of course, it was at Texas Southern.  Lots of blecks.

I was supposed to go, but I'm stuck in the office catching up on work and a deadline.  Read 2,400 turned out.  Not too shabby for 11am on a Saturday morning in Beto's state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
maninblack

maninblack 7974

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Of course, it was at Texas Southern.  Lots of blecks.

I was supposed to go, but I'm stuck in the office catching up on work and a deadline.  Read 2,400 turned out.  Not too shabby for 11am on a Saturday morning in Beto's state. 

Is that like a lot of gheys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85095

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Of course, it was at Texas Southern.  Lots of blecks.

I was supposed to go, but I'm stuck in the office catching up on work and a deadline.  Read 2,400 turned out.  Not too shabby for 11am on a Saturday morning in Beto's state. 

And the blecks comment was not about Kamala's support but why the conservitards showed up with guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

It’s looking like a Bernie Beto Biden Kamala race. Warren and the others aren’t gonna make it. 

I like Mayor Pete but I don’t think this is the election for him. The country just isn’t ready for him yet. Would love to be wrong but trump is too big a risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s looking like a Bernie Beto Biden Kamala race. Warren and the others aren’t gonna make it. 

I like Mayor Pete but I don’t think this is the election for him. The country just isn’t ready for him yet. Would love to be wrong but trump is too big a risk. 

No one reachable cares that he's gay, if that's your concern.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

I don’t remember which thread it was in but someone asked about Biden and PAC money earlier - timely question! Politico just tweeted an article about that.



Like the majority of other Democrats, Biden has also indicated he would not rely on the help of a single-candidate super PAC to boost his name in the 2020 race, saying in February that he would “not be part of a super PAC” if he were to run for president.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

And I don’t know if that qualifier of “single candidate” is a dodge to get around the fact that he’ll accept help from “issue” PACs.

I’ve not seen another candidate qualify what type of PACs they’re shunning. All the others say “No PAC money, period”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1385

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's March 23, 2019.

The first primary/caucus is February 3, 2020. 

This is gonna be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG year for 'ole Beto.

 

Is this a fair attack? This stuff is so dishonest, no matter who it is and what the line is. Are engineers at Halliburton not allowed to make political contributions? Do you think ones donating to Beto are climate change deniers? Can they not hold views on a multitude of subjects many of which they probably share with you? This line of attack needs to be eliminated from the public discourse, and I actually like Beto's answer here. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, horncyclist said:

Is this a fair attack?

What attack? I saw a potential voter ask a pretty simple question.

If you're interested in details, look here. (2020 candidates)

Taking the pledge means that a politician and their campaign will adopt a policy to not knowingly accept any contributions over $200 from the PACs, executives, or front groups of fossil fuel companies — companies whose primary business is the extraction, processing, distribution, or sale of oil, gas, or coal.

Candidates can either sign or not sign. It would be really easy to say, "I have signed the No Fossil Fuel pledge." or "I will not sign the No Fossil Fuel pledge."

It doesn't, you'll notice, say anything about the engineers or secretaries.

But there's a history here. Beto signed it for his 2018 campaign against Cruz but was removed from it because he didn't adhere to the pledge. Despite signing it, he still accepted $200 or more "from dozens of oil and gas executives" with no evidence of refunding them.

So if you want to whine about dishonesty, look at the politician who signed a pledge and broke it.

 

Quote

This line of attack needs to be eliminated from the public discourse, and I actually like Beto's answer here. 

LEAVE MY BEAUTIFUL, DIM-WITTED SON ALONE! HE WAS BORN TO HAVE THIS! I DEMAND TO SPEAK TO THE MANAGER OF DEMOCRACY!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

Pete is so fucking right. If we make no effort at all to actually understand why this happened then we can't fix it. If your takeaway as a liberal is the profound self-righteousness of "Well I guess those racists are just not as woke as me" then there is no coming back; there's no redirection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18652

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete is so fucking right. If we make no effort at all to actually understand why this happened then we can't fix it. If your takeaway as a liberal is the profound self-righteousness of "Well I guess those racists are just not as woke as me" then there is no coming back; there's no redirection.

Part of why this happened is precisely because those people are racists.

But that's not polite to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1385

Posted
Posted

Do they have a definition of executive?

And you know what I meant by "attack." You see this all the time. Against Hillary about "wall street" money. She was Senator from New York. Who lives in New York? Finance people. It makes it sound like the industry heads are just cutting them fat checks for $100,000s, buying influence and that couldn't be farther from the truth. It's empty rhetoric designed to mislead people. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Part of why this happened is precisely because those people are racists.

But that's not polite to talk about.

Sure, of course. Feel free to talk about racism, it's great to talk about racism. We need to confront racism anywhere and everywhere. However, that's not what a certain contingent of shitlib thought actually does. The woke blue states/cities are full of racists, too. Austin and NYC and SF are full of racist libs who just-so-happen to constantly shove minority populations away further and further. But they're outwardly woke, so their practical racism is either outright-OK or at least not shameful, unlike the ugly and gross-looking expressed racism of the slovenly rural white. The shitlib criticizes the rural white and then, when looking at his own lily-white situation, takes the They Live sunglasses off and puts them back in the box.

This is why we ran up the score in the urban areas and lost basically everything else to Trump, even though the poorest areas who went to Trump are not all-white enclaves.

No one gives a shit about polite. Fuck polite. I want an accurate accounting of why we have Donald Trump as the president. If you're going to tell me that people who voted for "Hussein" the black man twice but refused to vote for a horrible dynastic vampire white woman are just irredeemably racist then I'd ask you to look at this harridan touring East Harlem and tell me what's so black about her that triggered the racists.

Hillary-Clinton-stunned.jpg

All irredeemable racists voted Trump.
But not all those who voted for Trump are irredeemable racists.

THAT is what is not "polite" to say among shitlibs. They simply cannot accept that their Queen of their neoliberal economic and state agenda just represented a worldview that the people reject.

As Mayor Pete said, they voted to burn the house down. And they weren't wrong to want to burn the house down, they just chose the wrong construction company. Because their choices were between a crook who acknowledged their pain and a corporate ghoul who told them America was already great.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

PETE! PETE! PETE! PETE!

Let's get a gay guy under 40 in the White House! And not just as a personal trainer or decorator!

Compared to their last Iowa poll in January...

Biden down 4%
Kamala down 8% (she had just announced)
Sanders up 9% (he had not yet announced)
Pete up 11% (he had announced (exploratory))

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

PETE! PETE! PETE! PETE!

Let's get a gay guy under 40 in the White House! And not just as a personal trainer or decorator!

Compared to their last Iowa poll in January...

Biden down 4%
Kamala down 8% (she had just announced)
Sanders up 9% (he had not yet announced)
Pete up 11% (he had announced (exploratory))

Beto is a likable person and a Texan, so I'm sad to see him not up there. Is the poll correct?  Seems he's dropped. 

Yang at 0% (maybe they are rounding UP) .... lmao, 4chan must be dying.  

Edited by NowThis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29174

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

PETE! PETE! PETE! PETE!

Let's get a gay guy under 40 in the White House! And not just as a personal trainer or decorator!

Compared to their last Iowa poll in January...

Biden down 4%
Kamala down 8% (she had just announced)
Sanders up 9% (he had not yet announced)
Pete up 11% (he had announced (exploratory))

the number is nice, but who/how many he jumped over is interesting part.  gotta like the trajectory right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...