Political Roundtable Part XV

[dobrojim]

im partisan when it comes to military. i want a massively strong military.

and i'm partisan when it comes to taxes. i want massive tax increases on the wealthy. I would hit the entire universe with a 100% tax on every single dollar over $20 million tomorrow. and every corporation with with a 100% tax with every dollar over $200 Million.

i would use that military to collect on those taxes.

I would use that money for free health care and free college. and I would redistribute the rest to the poor and working class to encourage growth and happiness and equality.

thats what i would do right now if i had a magic button.

thats about as far left as Any person can lean? right? but the left is a bunch of frickin pissboy wimps.nothing more than lip service whiners they dont want to actually do that. they play around with complete non needle moving self serving bull crap.

so since we are not going to move the needle to actually help then I practice my own brand of politics that fits neither the molds of the right or the left.

I don't think anyone would necessarily disagree with all of your stances, but when you say silly stuff like Fox tells the truth, it hurts your credibility.

I absolutely do not want a massively strong military. It's expensive and leads to bad attitudes
and stupid thinking (that we can fix political and diplomatic problems with military solutions).
We need to stop doing that. In fact, I would go as far as saying our military budget should
be capped at a number (at most) roughly equal to the combined total of the next 2-3 largest spenders
in the world. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves with that amount.
Problem is, it's not really about defending ourselves anymore at least not in terms of
defending our borders from invasion. The very definition of defense has been perverted
and expanded beyond recognition.

[dobrojim]

You don't have a civil discussion with cancer. You shoot cancer with lasers, bombard it with chemicals, cut it with knives, burn it with fire. You do everything you can to keep the cancer from killing the patient. Civil discussion is for questions like, "whose life is more important, an unborn baby or the mother?" Not "should policy decisions be based on truth?" When a large portion of your society is advocating on the other side of that question, that decisions should be based on who shouts their lies the loudest, Democracy is about to die. There can be no shades of gray on that issue. We can have legitimate arguments about what the truth is. But whether decisions should be based on facts is an inviolable foundation of Democracy. It's the only way it can work.

And we had it in spades in this last election cycle. The Russians (or anyone else) can really propagate fake news on the digital platforms. Google, Facebook, etc. a collective shrug.

I am not forgetting Trump the serial liar

Huge problem is we have such a large portion of the electorate prepared to believe
the most outrageous of stories. Very few apply robust skepticism to what they hear,
especially when it confirms what they already in their heart of hearts KNOW to be true.

[Zonkerbl]

We need to teach a class in elementary school: "How to admit you are wrong"

[dckingsfan]

I've never understood the logic of associating Hollywood scandals with politics. They're performers; not elected politicians. Just because a few of them occasionally speak on politics doesn't mean they have anything to do with actual politics.

I think it is because they have had on outsized influence on elections and culture in the past, no?

No - it makes absolutely no sense, imo. What the f does a hollywood scandal have to do with the Dem party? We don't even know if clowns like Harvey whatshisname are Dems. For all we know, he's sleeping with Scott Baio. Wasn't there a guy named Ronald Reagan that was part of the Holywood elite? Clint Eastwood? Charlton Heston? The Cat Scratch Fever clown?

You have a very good point.

But you have a bit of the same with business people and the Republican party. Democrats are also associated with unions. Republicans with churches.

Pretty sure there are business people that vote Democrat, Christians that vote Democrat and union members that vote Republican.

But - those groupings are usually pretty accurate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/10/17/the-democratic-partys-obsession-with-hollywood-celebrities-was-bound-to-blow-up/?utm_term=.07251fda27ec

[Pointgod]

What is truth? Have we, as a nation, lost our ability to know what is and isn't true? Have we, to put it more simply, lost our frigging minds?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16588964/america-epistemic-crisis

I find this part particularly unsettling

In short, they conclude, “conservative media is more partisan and more insular than the left.”

That insular partisan far-right media is also full of nonsense like Pizzagate that leaves the base continuously pumped up — outraged, infuriated, terrified, and misled. At this point, as the stories above show, the conservative base will believe anything. And they are pissed about all of it.

It explains a lot about why Conservatives "won" the election but seem to be continually pissed off and are more concerned about trolling libruls. It's like you got everything you want but you're still miserable. This explains a lot.

[Pointgod]

Some inside baseball in case anyone is interested. if not, skip to next post.

Donna Brazile SLAMS Debbie, Obama For Running The Party Into The Ground, Giving Hillary Control

JACK CROWE
Political Reporter 8:13 AM 11/02/2017

Interim Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Donna Brazile placed blame for the party’s financial woes squarely on former President Barack Obama and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a Thursday column, excoriating the pair for handing over complete control of the party to the Clinton campaign almost a year before she secured the nomination.

Soon after taking over as interim chair, Brazile set out to determine whether the DNC had improperly assisted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in securing the party’s nomination, as leaked internal emails suggested.

She quickly determined that the DNC was in serious financial peril and the former chair, Wasserman Schultz, had relinquished control of the party to the Clinton campaign in exchange for a monthly allowance that would cover the operation’s day to day costs.

“Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was,” Brazile wrote in Politico Magazine.

Brazile realized the extent to which the DNC had jettisoned its independence upon discovering a joint fundraising agreement, signed roughly one year before Clinton had officially won the nomination.

“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote. “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

Obama and Wasserman Schultz are largely to blame for placing the DNC in such a perilous financial state that they were forced to rely on Clinton campaign money, according to Brazile. She points out that Obama “left the party $24 million in debt” and charges Wasserman Schultz with exacerbating the party’s financial strain by refusing to trim down the DNC staff during non-election years.
“The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.”

Ultimately, Brazile claims to have identified a significant lack of grassroots enthusiasm surrounding the Clinton camp weeks before the election. When she called Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to report her findings on the entanglements between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, she issued a stark warning.

“I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/02/donna-brazile-slams-debbie-obama-for-running-the-party-into-the-ground-giving-hillary-control/

Sensationalist headline from the right wing rag the Daily Caller aside, this is a story that may seem sinister on the surface but more information needs to come out to determine if it's as salacious as presented.

Fact 1. Bernie signed the same joint fundraising agreement around two months after Clinton did.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559

I highly doubt that the Sanders campaign would give full control of the DNC to Clinton during the primaries which brings us to the next point

2. Once the Democrat has a nominee that campaign takes control of the DNC. You notice Brazile never indicates whether or not the control off staff was before or after the nomination. It's purposely left ambiguous for that reason. Brazile is trying to sell books by drumming up controversy.

3. Blaming this on Obama is **** laughable considering that the DNC had 8 years to get their finances on order.

This is why it's important to think critically and not just assume that everything you read is true because it suits your narrative. Also research primary sources whenever you can.

4. We can all agree that Wasserman Schultz was a **** manager for the organization.

[Zonkerbl]

I think the DNC would benefit from some navel gazing, yes. Trump is arguably the most unpopular president since Nixon (post-Watergate - Nixon pre-Watergate was actually pretty popular) and yet somehow the DNC managed to screw it up. And it's not like they had no choice but to nominate HRC. I think Bernie would've wiped the floor with Trump. People forgave Trump all sorts of things because he was a genuine outsider - Bernie had the same credentials. Nevermind all the dirt people would've dug up on Bernie - it would've bounced off.

Huge, democracy imperiling mistake.

[popper]

Some inside baseball in case anyone is interested. if not, skip to next post.

Donna Brazile SLAMS Debbie, Obama For Running The Party Into The Ground, Giving Hillary Control

JACK CROWE
Political Reporter 8:13 AM 11/02/2017

Interim Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Donna Brazile placed blame for the party’s financial woes squarely on former President Barack Obama and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a Thursday column, excoriating the pair for handing over complete control of the party to the Clinton campaign almost a year before she secured the nomination.

Soon after taking over as interim chair, Brazile set out to determine whether the DNC had improperly assisted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in securing the party’s nomination, as leaked internal emails suggested.

She quickly determined that the DNC was in serious financial peril and the former chair, Wasserman Schultz, had relinquished control of the party to the Clinton campaign in exchange for a monthly allowance that would cover the operation’s day to day costs.

“Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was,” Brazile wrote in Politico Magazine.

Brazile realized the extent to which the DNC had jettisoned its independence upon discovering a joint fundraising agreement, signed roughly one year before Clinton had officially won the nomination.

“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote. “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

Obama and Wasserman Schultz are largely to blame for placing the DNC in such a perilous financial state that they were forced to rely on Clinton campaign money, according to Brazile. She points out that Obama “left the party $24 million in debt” and charges Wasserman Schultz with exacerbating the party’s financial strain by refusing to trim down the DNC staff during non-election years.
“The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.”

Ultimately, Brazile claims to have identified a significant lack of grassroots enthusiasm surrounding the Clinton camp weeks before the election. When she called Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to report her findings on the entanglements between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, she issued a stark warning.

“I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/02/donna-brazile-slams-debbie-obama-for-running-the-party-into-the-ground-giving-hillary-control/

Sensationalist headline from the right wing rag the Daily Caller aside, this is a story that may seem sinister on the surface but more information needs to come out to determine if it's as salacious as presented.

Fact 1. Bernie signed the same joint fundraising agreement around two months after Clinton did.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559

I highly doubt that the Sanders campaign would give full control of the DNC to Clinton during the primaries which brings us to the next point

2. Once the Democrat has a nominee that campaign takes control of the DNC. You notice Brazile never indicates whether or not the control off staff was before or after the nomination. It's purposely left ambiguous for that reason. Brazile is trying to sell books by drumming up controversy.

3. Blaming this on Obama is **** laughable considering that the DNC had 8 years to get their finances on order.

This is why it's important to think critically and not just assume that everything you read is true because it suits your narrative. Also research primary sources whenever you can.

4. We can all agree that Wasserman Schultz was a **** manager for the organization.

Do you prefer this sensationalist headline from a left wing rag?

POLITICS
11/02/2017 10:44 am ET

Donna Brazile Says Clinton Campaign Took Over The DNC
The former interim DNC chair writes that she “followed the money” to find a “shocking truth.”


By Paige Lavender

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-dnc-clinton-campaign_us_59fb1a5ce4b0b0c7fa3866ea?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

[dckingsfan]

I think the DNC would benefit from some navel gazing, yes. Trump is arguably the most unpopular president since Nixon (post-Watergate - Nixon pre-Watergate was actually pretty popular) and yet somehow the DNC managed to screw it up. And it's not like they had no choice but to nominate HRC. I think Bernie would've wiped the floor with Trump. People forgave Trump all sorts of things because he was a genuine outsider - Bernie had the same credentials. Nevermind all the dirt people would've dug up on Bernie - it would've bounced off.

Huge, democracy imperiling mistake.

It was - but I think most refuse to admit that the DNC is complicit (and probably much worse). They react that it is all fake news. And they could have opened it up to multiple candidates not just HRC or Gore after Clinton.

I think for Ds to finally get their collective acts together they need to address this head on. Otherwise we will keep seeing the seesaw between the Rs and Ds.

[Pointgod]

I think the DNC would benefit from some navel gazing, yes. Trump is arguably the most unpopular president since Nixon (post-Watergate - Nixon pre-Watergate was actually pretty popular) and yet somehow the DNC managed to screw it up. And it's not like they had no choice but to nominate HRC. I think Bernie would've wiped the floor with Trump. People forgave Trump all sorts of things because he was a genuine outsider - Bernie had the same credentials. Nevermind all the dirt people would've dug up on Bernie - it would've bounced off.

Huge, democracy imperiling mistake.

You could make the same argument that the RNC should have nominated anyone else except Trump. I'm sure if they could that they would have but neither primary works like that. Hillary beat Bernie in delegate votes and by over 3 million people in the popular vote. Assuming that the DNC can just appoint any candidate takes away from the fact that Sanders didn't have the name recognition or the ability to connect with minority voters, especially older black voters. I have my doubts that Bernie would have won in the general considering the Russian disinformation and be labeled as a "Socialist". Americans wanted change but not too much change. I think had, Joe Biden run he would have beat Trump. He's a white male that knows how to connect to people but isn't a radical departure from the establishment policies.

[Pointgod]

Some inside baseball in case anyone is interested. if not, skip to next post.

Donna Brazile SLAMS Debbie, Obama For Running The Party Into The Ground, Giving Hillary Control

JACK CROWE
Political Reporter 8:13 AM 11/02/2017

Interim Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Donna Brazile placed blame for the party’s financial woes squarely on former President Barack Obama and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a Thursday column, excoriating the pair for handing over complete control of the party to the Clinton campaign almost a year before she secured the nomination.

Soon after taking over as interim chair, Brazile set out to determine whether the DNC had improperly assisted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in securing the party’s nomination, as leaked internal emails suggested.

She quickly determined that the DNC was in serious financial peril and the former chair, Wasserman Schultz, had relinquished control of the party to the Clinton campaign in exchange for a monthly allowance that would cover the operation’s day to day costs.

“Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was,” Brazile wrote in Politico Magazine.

Brazile realized the extent to which the DNC had jettisoned its independence upon discovering a joint fundraising agreement, signed roughly one year before Clinton had officially won the nomination.

“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote. “Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

Obama and Wasserman Schultz are largely to blame for placing the DNC in such a perilous financial state that they were forced to rely on Clinton campaign money, according to Brazile. She points out that Obama “left the party $24 million in debt” and charges Wasserman Schultz with exacerbating the party’s financial strain by refusing to trim down the DNC staff during non-election years.
“The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.”

Ultimately, Brazile claims to have identified a significant lack of grassroots enthusiasm surrounding the Clinton camp weeks before the election. When she called Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to report her findings on the entanglements between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, she issued a stark warning.

“I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/02/donna-brazile-slams-debbie-obama-for-running-the-party-into-the-ground-giving-hillary-control/

Sensationalist headline from the right wing rag the Daily Caller aside, this is a story that may seem sinister on the surface but more information needs to come out to determine if it's as salacious as presented.

Fact 1. Bernie signed the same joint fundraising agreement around two months after Clinton did.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559

I highly doubt that the Sanders campaign would give full control of the DNC to Clinton during the primaries which brings us to the next point

2. Once the Democrat has a nominee that campaign takes control of the DNC. You notice Brazile never indicates whether or not the control off staff was before or after the nomination. It's purposely left ambiguous for that reason. Brazile is trying to sell books by drumming up controversy.

3. Blaming this on Obama is **** laughable considering that the DNC had 8 years to get their finances on order.

This is why it's important to think critically and not just assume that everything you read is true because it suits your narrative. Also research primary sources whenever you can.

4. We can all agree that Wasserman Schultz was a **** manager for the organization.

Do you prefer this sensationalist headline from a left wing rag?

POLITICS
11/02/2017 10:44 am ET

Donna Brazile Says Clinton Campaign Took Over The DNC
The former interim DNC chair writes that she “followed the money” to find a “shocking truth.”


By Paige Lavender

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-dnc-clinton-campaign_us_59fb1a5ce4b0b0c7fa3866ea?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Sure

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

I think it is because they have had on outsized influence on elections and culture in the past, no?

No - it makes absolutely no sense, imo. What the f does a hollywood scandal have to do with the Dem party? We don't even know if clowns like Harvey whatshisname are Dems. For all we know, he's sleeping with Scott Baio. Wasn't there a guy named Ronald Reagan that was part of the Holywood elite? Clint Eastwood? Charlton Heston? The Cat Scratch Fever clown?

You have a very good point.

But you have a bit of the same with business people and the Republican party. Democrats are also associated with unions. Republicans with churches.

Pretty sure there are business people that vote Democrat, Christians that vote Democrat and union members that vote Republican.

But - those groupings are usually pretty accurate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/10/17/the-democratic-partys-obsession-with-hollywood-celebrities-was-bound-to-blow-up/?utm_term=.07251fda27ec

I'll take one. Why would I blame a Christians scandal on the Republican party? That would make no sense whatsoever.

[dckingsfan]

No - it makes absolutely no sense, imo. What the f does a hollywood scandal have to do with the Dem party? We don't even know if clowns like Harvey whatshisname are Dems. For all we know, he's sleeping with Scott Baio. Wasn't there a guy named Ronald Reagan that was part of the Holywood elite? Clint Eastwood? Charlton Heston? The Cat Scratch Fever clown?

You have a very good point.

But you have a bit of the same with business people and the Republican party. Democrats are also associated with unions. Republicans with churches.

Pretty sure there are business people that vote Democrat, Christians that vote Democrat and union members that vote Republican.

But - those groupings are usually pretty accurate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/10/17/the-democratic-partys-obsession-with-hollywood-celebrities-was-bound-to-blow-up/?utm_term=.07251fda27ec

I'll take one. Why would I blame a Christians scandal on the Republican party? That would make no sense whatsoever.

Well it wouldn't be you - you are rational.

And the corollary in this case would be a Republican Christian that had an affair. Lots of examples of them being excoriated by the press. Lots of examples of that...

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Kanyewest]

when th eleft is in th ewrong look for your news on fox. when the right or the president is in the wrong look for your news on CNN. then watch each other spin it, flip it and deflect. if you watch both 6-8 hours per day at minimum you will find the truth. that neither are directly reporting. but if you pay close enough attention to what both FOX AND CNN is so desperate to show you and hide from you, you will find it. its there.

BTW, MSNBC (More to the left) is winning the ratings battle against FoxNews and CNN.

[closg00]

STFU Donna Brazile, cashing-in now, she is part of the problem

[Kanyewest]

I think the DNC would benefit from some navel gazing, yes. Trump is arguably the most unpopular president since Nixon (post-Watergate - Nixon pre-Watergate was actually pretty popular) and yet somehow the DNC managed to screw it up. And it's not like they had no choice but to nominate HRC. I think Bernie would've wiped the floor with Trump. People forgave Trump all sorts of things because he was a genuine outsider - Bernie had the same credentials. Nevermind all the dirt people would've dug up on Bernie - it would've bounced off.

Huge, democracy imperiling mistake.

I agree that Sanders would have won easily but there isn't a lot of self awareness from the Hillary supporters that I have come across. Those that seem to like Hillary the most seem to blame Bernie rather than addressing the fact that Hillary was a weak candidate or claim that Bernie would have lost states like Virginia.

[Pointgod]

I think the DNC would benefit from some navel gazing, yes. Trump is arguably the most unpopular president since Nixon (post-Watergate - Nixon pre-Watergate was actually pretty popular) and yet somehow the DNC managed to screw it up. And it's not like they had no choice but to nominate HRC. I think Bernie would've wiped the floor with Trump. People forgave Trump all sorts of things because he was a genuine outsider - Bernie had the same credentials. Nevermind all the dirt people would've dug up on Bernie - it would've bounced off.

Huge, democracy imperiling mistake.

It was - but I think most refuse to admit that the DNC is complicit (and probably much worse). They react that it is all fake news. And they could have opened it up to multiple candidates not just HRC or Gore after Clinton.

I think for Ds to finally get their collective acts together they need to address this head on. Otherwise we will keep seeing the seesaw between the Rs and Ds.

The DNC and the Democratic Party as a whole need to move away from the whims of their big money donors and high paid consultants and focus on grass roots efforts and awareness.