NationStates

San Lumen wrote:
Yeah let’s just accept gun violence and mass shootings are normal and repeal all gun laws while we are at it. Name another country that has mass shootings and gun violence on the scale of the US. I’ll wait

Yes you need to accept that. Even if you got rid of all guns I do not believe that you will end mass violence in this country, people will simply find other ways to lash out and kill people in order to vent their insanity and evil upon the world.

If you want another example of a country with mass shootings and gun violence? Try Mexico. Our Southern neighbor that shares many of the same cultural ills as the US, drug problems, gangs, people with a chip on their shoulder mad against the world, and guns are even banned there, yet people still kill people.

The problem is that the US is more like Mexico than it is like Europe, there are whole parts of the US that are Mexico level in poverty, economic troubles, and criminal and drug conditions.
It is those locations where the vast majority of gun violence happens.

And those locations will never follow gun laws. They'll smuggle in guns just as easily as they'll smuggle in drugs, and they will keep slaughtering each other.

Let's also not forget how woefully inadaqute our healthcare system is, you know the healthcare system that could prevent such things?

I know you're completely blinded about life in the US outside New York City, but get a reality check San Lumen, most of the US is not New York City.

The US has income inequality that is nearly 3rd world level at times, why do you act surprised then when the US has gun violence on the level of a 3rd world country in those areas?

San Lumen wrote:

New Rogernomics wrote:Sanders if he got elected would be a lame duck, and he would lack the super majority that Obama had when he came into office. There is no guarantee that the Democrats will hold the House either, and the Republicans have a good chance at flipping it or at least causing a sizable reduction to the Democratic majority, whether or not Trump is re-elected. He'd rule through executive order, as at least the Senate would block his ideas, and the House has enough internal divisions for the Democratic majority (if it remains) to not allow him to do much.

If trump loses there is no way the house flips. Many of those judges were Obama’s to fill but Mitch refused to allow a vote

Actually there is a greater chance it flips if Trump loses as we are past the mid-terms, when the President's party historically takes a hit. I kinda found it hilarious when some in the GOP ignored historical trends and forecast a "red wave" during the mid-terms, and generally we can expect Republicans to make some gains in the House this time around.

San Lumen wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
And this is based on your in depth knowledge of Bernie Sanders?




Not necessarily, unless you're excluding rental properties. Most landlords in Cali just pass it on to the renters.




Iffy, you and I disagree on a lot of stuff, but that post was epic

No it’s based on Democrats liking shooting themselves in the foot

I am not affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Ah yes, your belief that Boomers will turn out in force against Sanders, just like they did when Republicans called Obama a socialist.

Sanders is far to the left of Obama. They are not comparable at all.

It sort of is, when they're calling everyone a Socialist. They called Neoliberal Warmonger Hillary Clinton a Socialist. At this point, I'm just waiting for Hannity to argue how much of a Socialist Adam Smith was.

Galloism wrote:

Alien Space Bats wrote:Or are you talking about progressivity in the technical sense, wherein we charge a higher rate as wealth levels increase? Because that kind of tax is extremely dangerous, from an economic POV.

Ok, so please consider me ignorant on economics (unironically, it's the only class I ever got a C in), but why is this the case?

Because if you do a progressive tax on wealth, you'll massively hurt equity, which would in turn tank investment, which would in turn increase unemployment, and you've just engineered a recession. Depending on when that happens on the Economic Sine Curve, that could turn into a depression.

Cisairse wrote:I, for one, cannot wait for Tucker Carlson to start calling Sanders a Muslim (even though he isn't christian in the first place) who was born in Ukraine.

Tucker just had Bernie fanboy Jimmy Dore on his show. Tucker's banking on the Democrats not nominating Sanders, and then grabbing the Democratic populist vote. Considering what happened in Iowa, it could be a smart play.

Cisairse wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Honestly, I think Bush in many ways posed a greater threat to individual rights than Trump does. Trump talks a lot of shit, but seems ultimately inconsequential on policy.

This 1000000%. You can measure Bush's presidency by how many Americans he got killed. And I fully believe that the PATRIOT Act is leagues beyond even the worst that Trump has done so far.

That's true.

Page wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:The people on the bubble really are Yang, Steyer, and Gabbard. Bloomberg put all his chips on Super Tuesday.

None of them have any real chance. At this point, Yang and Gabbard are running to make a name for themselves, set up future career prospects, and spread their ideas - Gabbard with her opposition to regime change wars and Yang with universal basic income.

I would love to see Sanders make Gabbard his running mate or better yet, make her Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, but I don't expect it. Relentless slander and libel against Gabbard has made her a problematic ally for Sanders. Even though Sanders is a principled man who sees through all the lies about Gabbard, he needs to make pragmatic choices. Warren is a more likely running mate.

Stelter and Bloomberg are going just because they can. Being billionaires, they have inflated egos. I think Steyer knows he's done. Bloomberg might be delusional enough to think he can win but after Super Tuesday he will have to face reality.

Gabbard as Secretary of State would be epic. "Waaa! Why can't we make profit off of killing babies anymore. Waaa! Gabbard is commie, for she no let us make profit from bombing babies. Waaa!"

Kowani wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
This 1000000%. You can measure Bush's presidency by how many Americans he got killed. And I fully believe that the PATRIOT Act is leagues beyond even the worst that Trump has done so far.

Didn’t Trump renew the Patriot Act?

If he had a veto-proof vote for it, there wasn't much he could've done.

New Rogernomics wrote:

San Lumen wrote:If trump loses there is no way the house flips. Many of those judges were Obama’s to fill but Mitch refused to allow a vote

Actually there is a greater chance it flips if Trump loses as we are past the mid-terms, when the President's party historically takes a hit. I kinda found it hilarious when some in the GOP ignored historical trends and forecast a "red wave" during the mid-terms, and generally we can expect Republicans to make some gains in the House this time around.

They will make some gains but it’s likely both parties will. I can’t foresee a scenario where Trump loses but Republicans gain the house

San Lumen wrote:

New Rogernomics wrote:Actually there is a greater chance it flips if Trump loses as we are past the mid-terms, when the President's party historically takes a hit. I kinda found it hilarious when some in the GOP ignored historical trends and forecast a "red wave" during the mid-terms, and generally we can expect Republicans to make some gains in the House this time around.

They will make some gains but it’s likely both parties will. I can’t foresee a scenario where Trump loses but Republicans gain the house

It is still grayed out (as a lot of candidates do not have much polling yet), as I think they've only just started putting in the polls and figures, though this was the most reliable site I found in 2016*: https://www.electionprojection.com/house-elections.php

South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia are states to watch so far, as Democrats are projected to gain there.

*It gave it to Clinton, but by a slim margin unlike a lot of other polling sites.

Page wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:Not even remotely the issue. I don't buy into that whole feud rivalry bullshit. That's some clickbait shit.

The reason there's no world in which Warren is Sanders VP is there's no reason in this world for it for either of them. If she doesn't get the big job she goes back to the senate where she'll carry on, same as Sanders. And what's she going to bring to the ticket ideologically? The remaining 15 people who for some reason will only vote for Sanders if he doubles down? There isn't an electoral map that requires that the ticket really, really secure New England. They're both as old as the fucking hills, if Sanders were young like Obama he might take an old VP to bolster the 'experience' issue, but since Sanders is a fossil himself he's going to go with what passes for youth in a presidential candidate. Maybe not Buttegieg young, but someone with a future in the party, who can lead the party after the Sanders presidency.

There is zero reason to put Warren on a Sanders ticket. She becomes less effective than if she'd remained in the Senate, it ends her political career, it does nothing geographically, demographically, or ideologically for the ticket.

That's why.

I very much question the conventional wisdom of winning tickets. How much did Kaine, an even bigger moderate than Clinton, from a key swing state, help her? How did Trump having a right-wing extremist from a state pretty much guaranteed to go for him in 2016 hurt him?

All the traditional rules of American politics are dead.

Tim Kaine was a piss poor pick. How much did Pence buttress Trump? How much did Gore buttress Clinton? Those were the good picks.

The Sherpa Empire wrote:Nobody's slandered Gabbard. She's just the one candidate that is even more fake than Buttigieg. It takes work to be that blatantly fake.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/1 ... n-o19.html

Hillary Clinton slanders Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Green Party candidate Jill Stein as Russian spies

https://reason.com/2019/11/21/the-kamal ... look-good/

Harris responded to the pseudo-question by accusing Gabbard of having "buddied up to Steve Bannon to get a meeting with Trump" and failing "to call a war criminal what he is, a war criminal" (presumably referring to Gabbard's meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad).

Yep, no slander there at all... to those who don't know what slander is.

The Sherpa Empire wrote:

Gormwood wrote:You mean the same people who bitched about Hillary Clinton being robotic and pandering love Gabbard for The Exact Same Thing?

And the same people who complain about women supporting Clinton, Warren, Klobuchar, or Harris then turn around and tell us Gabbard's gender is a point in her favor.

Going after someone who has no chance of winning, merely because she opposed your favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton. I wonder, why, oh why, are people so vindictive toward Clinton? It's not like Clinton's supporters would ever act vindictively... oh wai-

San Lumen wrote:No it’s based on Democrats liking shooting themselves in the foot

So because some Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, all Democrats do? Even Sanders?

Valrifell wrote:

Page wrote:
Her vote didn't make a difference, why should anyone care?

Because that vote, in spite of it's ineffectiveness, meant something. If it didn't, why not vote with the lockstep?

She made a mistake in Congress. Who hasn't?

Shofercia wrote:

Page wrote:
I very much question the conventional wisdom of winning tickets. How much did Kaine, an even bigger moderate than Clinton, from a key swing state, help her? How did Trump having a right-wing extremist from a state pretty much guaranteed to go for him in 2016 hurt him?

All the traditional rules of American politics are dead.

Tim Kaine was a piss poor pick. How much did Pence buttress Trump? How much did Gore buttress Clinton? Those were the good picks.

The Sherpa Empire wrote:Nobody's slandered Gabbard. She's just the one candidate that is even more fake than Buttigieg. It takes work to be that blatantly fake.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/1 ... n-o19.html

Hillary Clinton slanders Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Green Party candidate Jill Stein as Russian spies

https://reason.com/2019/11/21/the-kamal ... look-good/

Harris responded to the pseudo-question by accusing Gabbard of having "buddied up to Steve Bannon to get a meeting with Trump" and failing "to call a war criminal what he is, a war criminal" (presumably referring to Gabbard's meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad).

Yep, no slander there at all... to those who don't know what slander is.

The Sherpa Empire wrote:
And the same people who complain about women supporting Clinton, Warren, Klobuchar, or Harris then turn around and tell us Gabbard's gender is a point in her favor.

Going after someone who has no chance of winning, merely because she opposed your favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton. I wonder, why, oh why, are people so vindictive toward Clinton? It's not like Clinton's supporters would ever act vindictively... oh wai-

And somehow there are people who actually like Hillary. Idek how but there are, despite not only her terrible policies, but her terrible character as a person.

Btw speaking of fakeness, wasn't it Hillary in 2016 who was trying to come across as a progressive but secretly telling bankers that they were safe with her? Wasn't it also hillary who was speaking in a fake black accent to church attendees? And wasn't Hillary clinton, a valiant feminist, the same woman who accused her husband's accusers of lying and being bimbos? Hillary clinton is so fake, she makes Guardians of the Galaxy look like a documentary on space travel

And somehow there are people who actually like Hillary. Idek how but there are, despite not only her terrible policies, but her terrible character as a person

Hillary has a lot of supporters from older generations, including in my own family. Later generations haven't really had an attachment or fondness and have only really known her since she ran against Obama.

San Lumen wrote:

The Lone Alliance wrote:At this point I truly believe Tusli is only continuing her campaign to draw fire away from others, she's deliberately made herself a target by the Neocon and pro-war types in the Democratic party in order to draw fire away from the other candidates that would usually draw their ire (Like Bernie and Warren).

Which since she brags about being a soldier it makes perfect sense for her to do this.

That's why she doesn't stick to any single script, she's there to troll bait those types in to going off the deep end in order to discredit them to the larger Democratic party.


Really the sadest thing about the Democratic obsession with guns is by and large if they decided overnight to ignore guns completely it's not like their gun control crowd would be able to do anything about it.

What are they going to do, vote Republican with their evil scary guns, stay and home and help Republicans win and allow more evil scary guns?

If the Democratic party told the gun control crowd to go fuck themselves they'd likely secure a lot of votes in multiple avenues.... however they would lose all the money from people like Bloomberg, and that's the real holders of power here.

Yeah let’s just accept gun violence and mass shootings are normal and repeal all gun laws while we are at it. Name another country that has mass shootings and gun violence on the scale of the US. I’ll wait

Mexico

Bear Stearns wrote:
Mexico

Beat you too it.

New Rogernomics wrote:

San Lumen wrote:They will make some gains but it’s likely both parties will. I can’t foresee a scenario where Trump loses but Republicans gain the house

It is still grayed out (as a lot of candidates do not have much polling yet), as I think they've only just started putting in the polls and figures, though this was the most reliable site I found in 2016*: https://www.electionprojection.com/house-elections.php

South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia are states to watch so far, as Democrats are projected to gain there.

*It gave it to Clinton, but by a slim margin unlike a lot of other polling sites.

Still it’s very hard to foresee Trump losing but the House flips even by some miracle Sanders wins a general election

Hmm, looks like the Nevada Democratic Party wants to rig the results in favor of Pete too. Fabulous.

EDIT: She even scrubbed her employment history to try and hide it lmaooo

Torrocca wrote:Hmm, looks like the Nevada Democratic Party wants to rig the results in favor of Pete too. Fabulous.

EDIT: She even scrubbed her employment history to try and hide it lmaooo

*top secret left twitter handshake*

Torrocca wrote:Hmm, looks like the Nevada Democratic Party wants to rig the results in favor of Pete too. Fabulous.

EDIT: She even scrubbed her employment history to try and hide it lmaooo

Enough already with this conspiracy nonsense. This my Democrat’s lose because they can’t unite as a party

San Lumen wrote:

Torrocca wrote:Hmm, looks like the Nevada Democratic Party wants to rig the results in favor of Pete too. Fabulous.

EDIT: She even scrubbed her employment history to try and hide it lmaooo

Enough already with this conspiracy nonsense. This my Democrat’s lose because they can’t unite as a party

You don't at least see any conflict of interest there? Wtf

San Lumen wrote:

Torrocca wrote:Hmm, looks like the Nevada Democratic Party wants to rig the results in favor of Pete too. Fabulous.

EDIT: She even scrubbed her employment history to try and hide it lmaooo

Enough already with this conspiracy nonsense. This my Democrat’s lose because they can’t unite as a party

Do you just happen to have a pile of, like, five flashcards on your desk to refer to whenever you need to respond to somebody calling out blatantly corrupt election-rigging fuckery from the DNC?

Because this is about the fiftieth time in a tenth as many days that you've gone and repetitiously said that we're spewing "conspiracy nonsense" for calling out blatantly corrupt election-rigging fuckery from the DNC.

Torrocca wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Enough already with this conspiracy nonsense. This my Democrat’s lose because they can’t unite as a party

Do you just happen to have a pile of, like, five flashcards on your desk to refer to whenever you need to respond to somebody calling out blatantly corrupt election-rigging fuckery from the DNC?

Because this is about the fiftieth time in a tenth as many days that you've gone and repetitiously said that we're spewing "conspiracy nonsense" for calling out blatantly corrupt election-rigging fuckery from the DNC.

I want to see the receipts!!!

San Lumen wrote:

Torrocca wrote:Hmm, looks like the Nevada Democratic Party wants to rig the results in favor of Pete too. Fabulous.

EDIT: She even scrubbed her employment history to try and hide it lmaooo

Enough already with this conspiracy nonsense. This my Democrat’s lose because they can’t unite as a party

Can you offer any defence for the decision to put someone associated with the Buttigieg campaign in charge of voter protection in a primary in which Buttigieg is competing?

San Lumen wrote:

Torrocca wrote:Hmm, looks like the Nevada Democratic Party wants to rig the results in favor of Pete too. Fabulous.

EDIT: She even scrubbed her employment history to try and hide it lmaooo

Enough already with this conspiracy nonsense. This my Democrat’s lose because they can’t unite as a party

The Republicans were far from united in 2016 and they won.

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Enough already with this conspiracy nonsense. This my Democrat’s lose because they can’t unite as a party

Can you offer any defence for the decision to put someone associated with the Buttigieg campaign in charge of voter protection in a primary in which Buttigieg is competing?

They wanted who they thought was best for the job? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy against sanders

Militant Costco wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Enough already with this conspiracy nonsense. This my Democrat’s lose because they can’t unite as a party

The Republicans were far from united in 2016 and they won.

They were completely united hence why they won

San Lumen wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Do you just happen to have a pile of, like, five flashcards on your desk to refer to whenever you need to respond to somebody calling out blatantly corrupt election-rigging fuckery from the DNC?

Because this is about the fiftieth time in a tenth as many days that you've gone and repetitiously said that we're spewing "conspiracy nonsense" for calling out blatantly corrupt election-rigging fuckery from the DNC.

I want to see the receipts!!!

Look at that Twitter thread. There are archived versions of her LinkedIn page from before she scrubbed it.