ljkeane Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: And it was given back to them permanently and irreversibly to assuage the West's guilt over the Holocaust. That's not really true. The British facilitated large scale Zionist immigration to Palestine largely because they thought it'd give them a biddable client population some time before the Holocaust and they didn't support partition. The US was basically just taking the chance to wash their hands of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 If Democrats didn't already have a good idea that they need to take attack ads against their primary candidates with entire shakers of salt, there's this reminder: Quote The anti-tax Club for Growth is expected to begin airing a two-minute commercial in Iowa this week aimed at dampening liberal support for O’Rourke, who's expected to enter the race any day. The spot paints the former Texas congressman as a politician dripping with "white male privilege" who's undeserving of the comparisons he's drawing to Barack Obama. It's obviously an attempt to influence Democratic primary voters, but it is also an interesting strategic choice to make. It calls back to the 2012 ad McCaskill ran against/on behalf of Todd Akin in the 2012 Missouri Republican primary, but the strategic thinking behind the ad has flipped. McCaskill's 2012 ad was designed to boost the fortunes of Akin, to make him more palatable to a Republican primary voter. These ads are designed to make Beto less palatable to Democratic primary voters, but is using liberal shorthand to make that point. I wonder what, if any, knock-on effects there will be from Republicans calling out "white privilege" and identifying it as something negative, especially in a state as white as Iowa. It could have unintended consequences, such as making him more palatable to Republican-leaning independents. Anyway, regardless of the "what-ifs", make sure to thoroughly vet the negative information you're receiving about candidates for the Democratic primary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: Real or imaginary origin story. The fact of the matter is that Israel is their ancestral home. And it was given back to them permanently and irreversibly to assuage the West's guilt over the Holocaust. And if you can suggest a better place to set up a homeland for the Jewish people that has the same historical importance to them I'd like to hear it. The principle of giving them their safe space, in a place they identify with was a sound one. The execution was both problematic and badly managed. The action of Israel to lash out in fear (real or imagined) for its existence and take more land that the UN has mandated for them is a different problem and the one that needs to be addressed. Well no, it's not. Anymore than I can claim France as mine, actually significantly less than I can claim France as mine in most cases. And that's the issue. Letting them hold on to this delusion allows them to use a justification for their actions, especially amongst the more religious. It's their "ancestral home" so of course they can force the people that were actually living their off the land. Also, as those paying attention already know, I acknowledged that the ship on not fucking things up by dropping them into an already occupied land has already sailed, and that we need to figure out to fix what's already happened. It's just I think one of the first stages of doing that is to stop playing into their bullshit entitlement of being the only ones with a claim to the area because it's their "ancestral homeland". As for safe space, given that no other groups was given such a space, and plenty have just a much justification for such a thing, I don't particularly buy that bullshit reasoning either. But then were we to do that it might have required the displacement of someone who could actually have done something about it instead of the Palestinians. Were we to return the Roma to their "ancestral homeland" the Indian government would have something to say about that. But again, the ship on not doing the stupid thing has already sailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Senator Lindsay Graham during the Clinton impeachment process, in video unearthed by CNN. ’You do not have to be convicted of a crime to be imprached’ ’Impeachment is not about punishment, impeachment is about cleansing the office of President.’ Do you think that still applies today? Or will Graham say he’s older and wiser now? Or just that things are ‘different’? Also, @OldGimletEye if you want your laugh of the day, possibly the week, Laffer was interviewed on CNN this morning about the deficit and tax cuts. I assume that will be up on their website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Hmmmm....did I kill this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnot OG Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Pelosi doesn't think Trump is worth impeaching lol. What a worthless sack of shit she is. She's complicit in his bigotry and corruption with this bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 The final state of conservationism descent into fascism was so obvious that a (famous) text only game from 1985 predicted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mind_Forever_Voyaging#Political_elements Really only needed some further elements such as global warming, modify a 'resurgent USSR' to 'fascist-oligarch corrupting Russia' and a traitor GOP caucus and realization that tax evasion is a way of life to the corrupt and thus would be what they would want most, though maybe it's just ahead of it's time because we haven't reached the time when the one party will start to 'prosecute tax avoidance' by literally confiscating middle and lower class earnings. Meretzky maybe had a little bit of a libertarian bone on him. I actually played this and i vaguely remember some elements of climate chaos but it may have been artistic reinforcement of 'yes, this timeline really sucks'. It's worth playing if you have the patience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnot OG Posted March 11, 2019 Share Posted March 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Spockydog said: Bingo. Sarah is an awesome writer / journalist. Pelosi is trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingintheNorth4 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 4 hours ago, Bonnot OG said: Pelosi doesn't think Trump is worth impeaching lol. What a worthless sack of shit she is. She's complicit in his bigotry and corruption with this bullshit. Pelosi is a shill. It is known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Eh, Pelosi is right, impeaching trump has no value. Why, IMO? Because it is guaranteed the senate will never do anything even if he were impeached by the house (gorsuch all over again), the senate would simply not act—no vote to convict would even be held. So your best case scenario is that nothing happens other than a media circus (that makes trump lol like a victim) and your worst case scenario is that the impeachment galvanizes and energizes Trumps base to heretofore unseen levels of engagement and activism, resulting in severe losses in state and federal elections in 2020. the only way to impeach Trump is at the ballot box in 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 17 minutes ago, lokisnow said: Eh, Pelosi is right, impeaching trump has no value. Why, IMO? Because it is guaranteed the senate will never do anything even if he were impeached by the house (gorsuch all over again), the senate would simply not act—no vote to convict would even be held. Can they do that? As far as I can tell, if the House votes to impeach, the Senate must try the impeached official. I do agree with you that Speaker Pelosi is being clever: with the evidence publicly available right now, the vote will be split along party lines which means the House would impeach, but the Senate would acquit and this worked out badly for the impeachers the last time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 The senate can choose to not to do whatever it wants to not do. The house can vote on impeachment every day for the next 600 days and Mitch McConnell will do nothing every single time. And he and his party will suffer zero consequences for such inaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impmk2 Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Yeah, there is absolutely no point attempting to impeach with the majority of Republicans not on board. You'd need a Nixonian collapse of his support base. Otherwise it's a waste of time and political capital, and would likely just help Trump get reelected. Screaming at Pelosi for that is counter productive, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 You hold televised hearings on impeachment, lay out all the crimes, corruption and failings of Trump, even if he is not removed from office, Republicans are forced to sign off on all of it explicitly, dropping the charade and openly declaring themselves a criminal organization. At the very least there is an attempt restore democratic norms. Trump’s base will be energized no matter what come election time, he suffers no consequences no matter what, the alternative to impeachment is to be complicit though inaction and ineffectiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 19 hours ago, TrueMetis said: Well no, it's not. Anymore than I can claim France as mine, actually significantly less than I can claim France as mine in most cases. And that's the issue. Letting them hold on to this delusion allows them to use a justification for their actions, especially amongst the more religious. It's their "ancestral home" so of course they can force the people that were actually living their off the land. Also, as those paying attention already know, I acknowledged that the ship on not fucking things up by dropping them into an already occupied land has already sailed, and that we need to figure out to fix what's already happened. It's just I think one of the first stages of doing that is to stop playing into their bullshit entitlement of being the only ones with a claim to the area because it's their "ancestral homeland". As for safe space, given that no other groups was given such a space, and plenty have just a much justification for such a thing, I don't particularly buy that bullshit reasoning either. But then were we to do that it might have required the displacement of someone who could actually have done something about it instead of the Palestinians. Were we to return the Roma to their "ancestral homeland" the Indian government would have something to say about that. But again, the ship on not doing the stupid thing has already sailed. So where is their ancestral homeland then? You can't compare an individual to an entire culture that dates back to antiquity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 59 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: So where is their ancestral homeland then? You can't compare an individual to an entire culture that dates back to antiquity. It doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 10 hours ago, lokisnow said: So your best case scenario is that nothing happens other than a media circus (that makes trump lol like a victim) and your worst case scenario is that the impeachment galvanizes and energizes Trumps base to heretofore unseen levels of engagement and activism, resulting in severe losses in state and federal elections in 2020. 2 hours ago, Morpheus said: Trump’s base will be energized no matter what come election time, he suffers no consequences no matter what, the alternative to impeachment is to be complicit though inaction and ineffectiveness. It really comes down to what the political/electoral consequences of impeachment would be, regardless of whether impeachment is the right thing to do. Paradoxically a better case for impeachment does not mean impeachment is the best way to remove Trump from office. Because Republicans are scumbags. If Pelosi has come to the conclusion that impeachment won't help defeat Trump I trust her to know what she's doing. It's frustrating of course, but it's totally worth it if that kind of calculation helps get a Democrat elected in 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Also, she dismissed the idea in a way that will irk Trump. She simply couldn't find him worthy of the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 54 minutes ago, Rorshach said: Also, she dismissed the idea in a way that will irk Trump. She simply couldn't find him worthy of the effort. This! That was the genius of her comment. Pelosi knows how to get under his skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.