Tennis Forum banner

5141 - 5160 of 5433 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,761 Posts

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
22,836 Posts
Mike is not a scary proposition.
He might be telling some socialist crap now to appeal to our newly formed communist wing in Dem Party. But even if he wins, he is no Trump , who went meticulously seriously trying to deliver on every promise he's made. Mike is flexible. Stop&Frisk can just as well become not such a bad thing for him again at some point.
 

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
22,836 Posts
As it is obvious to anyone with even half a brain, the challenge is not to accelerate transition to green energy - which is already going at breakneck pace, but to stay in control of ut, making sure that this clearly important thing doesn't cannibalize other good things, doesn't destroy microeconomic system overnight. And that's exactly what the administration is doing.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,265 Posts
For the record, I don't agree with a lot of Sanders supporters and their methods of getting their message across. It does a lot of disservice. But this demonisation of one supporter base has to stop if it's not going to be across all boards who do the same or similar things.

There were people in this very thread who floated the idea that there were artificial Sanders supporters who were only there for unsavoury reasons. Now that Sanders has said the very same thing, it's a problem that idea was even dared to be mentioned. Which is it?

Also, this might be of interest to you directly from Sanders yesterday regarding the same Culinary issue - BERNIE SANDERS CALLS OUT SUPPORTERS FOR ONLINE ATTACKS, SAYS 'HARASSMENT OF ALL FORMS IS UNACCEPTABLE'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,545 Posts
But this demonization of one supporter base has to stop if it's not going to be across all boards who do the same or similar things.
And places like MSNBC don't invite people onto their networks to say why Warren or Klobuchar makes their skin crawl or why anyone who still supports Biden or Buttigieg before a single election is run is probably sexist. We're all supposed to know who's fair game and who's off-limits, and never call them on their BS. All this nonsense only goes one way. Pundits want national platforms for their talking-points and no one to ever call them on their BS. It's understandable that they would want this, there's no reason they should have it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,545 Posts
There were people in this very thread who floated the idea that there were artificial Sanders supporters who were only there for unsavory reasons. Now that Sanders has said the very same thing, it's a problem that idea was even dared to be mentioned. Which is it?
You have to expect this stuff. Are their some Sanders supporters who have personal or emotional issues? Probably. Are some people just looking to cause problems for the Sanders campaign? Probably. And that would be a common tactic for online groups. And off-line groups as well. Of various kinds.

No one's supporters are all angels, so if they're going to be selective in whose side they're going to call out, they've probably got a narrative to sell. I'm probably the biggest Bernie Bro on this site, but I've never suggested that we find out who voted Republican and cook up ways to punish them. Every side has various personality types.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,545 Posts
More from the "it's okay for Dem groups to attack Sanders in the primary" but his supporters should not be allowed to say anything about it camp. Sanders was pro-choice before Roe v Wade was a thing.
Democratic Super-PAC Caught Preparing Bernie Sanders Attack Ads

The idea that they are "testing" attack ads against everyone in the democratic primary is nonsense. They just got caught.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,607 Posts
And places like MSNBC don't invite people onto their networks to say why Warren or Klobuchar makes their skin crawl or why anyone who still supports Biden or Buttigieg before a single election is run is probably sexist. We're all supposed to know who's fair game and who's off-limits, and never call them on their BS. All this nonsense only goes one way. Pundits want national platforms for their talking-points and no one to ever call them on their BS. It's understandable that they would want this, there's no reason they should have it.
Pundits are scared because Bernie is gonna send them to gulag.

Just kidding, sadly he won't. But he should.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
No one's supporters are all angels, so if they're going to be selective in whose side they're going to call out, they've probably got a narrative to sell. I'm probably the biggest Bernie Bro on this site, but I've never suggested that we find out who voted Republican and cook up ways to punish them. Every side has various personality types.
The psychotic supporters of Bernie Sanders (and he has way more psychotic adherents than other candidates, just go to any YouTube video comments for the proof) got a free ride from criticism for a long time. But the free ride is over for these thugs. They are going to get busted and exposed at every turn... after this Nevada thing, Bernie has finally been forced to start doing damage control.

Like i said previously, this primary election is a contest between the Sanders/Ocasio Cortez/Gabbard leftist belief (which i believe you share) that Donald Trump isn't really that big of a problem, and that he's just a symptom of the country's larger ills... while on our side, Trump in the White House is indeed the biggest problem which we face, and getting him out of there is job #1. I'm pretty sure that our argument is stronger than yours and that we're going to prevail. But we'll see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
No, he has any decent human being triggered.
The above referenced quote is from the thread in the General Forum regarding the fund raising event for Pres Trump’s reelection campaign hosted by the gentleman that is responsible for the Indian Wells tournament. At the time of this writing this posting has twenty-three likes registered. This is a microcosmic example of the divisive political discourse in the United States caused by the malevolent hatred of Pres Donald Trump. I have no quarrel with anyone for simply not liking Pres Trump and I would concede there are enough examples that one could cite to justify such opinion. But you Trump haters cross the line when you impugn the character of those of us who support and like Pres Trump.

The above quote implies that every decent human being would automatically hate the President. Is that really an empirical fact? In the 2016 election almost 63 million American citizens voted for Donald Trump. Is every one of them not a decent citizen? I can understand you might think so since Trump’s opponent at the time, the former First Lady and Secretary of State, a Ms Hillary Clinton brazenly declared that Trump supporters are a basket of deplorables. Political pundits on CNN and MSNBC have routinely denigrated Trump supporters as dumb and not deserving of a franchise.

What about me personally? I can truthfully say I haven’t spent a moment in prison nor even come close to such jeopardy. I’ve always paid my taxes. I’ve raised three children; two daughters both currently in active duty in the US Navy- of which my youngest daughter is an officer being a nurse at the Navy’s hospital in San Diego. By all such accounts I would think I might be deemed a decent human being.

Oh I have to confess that my three children, all of them detest the President. I guess my wife and I, are the black sheep of our family. Mind you according to the erstwhile Ms Hillary Clinton part of the reason she lost in 2016 was because of women like my wife who was unduly influenced by her husband, and thus did not cast a legitimate ballot.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,265 Posts
Like i said previously, this primary election is a contest between the Sanders/Ocasio Cortez/Gabbard leftist belief (which i believe you share) that Donald Trump isn't really that big of a problem, and that he's just a symptom of the country's larger ills... while on our side, Trump in the White House is indeed the biggest problem which we face, and getting him out of there is job #1. I'm pretty sure that our argument is stronger than yours and that we're going to prevail. But we'll see.
The majority of people this election have already indicated that the first and foremost biggest issue for them is whether or not the Dem candidate can defeat Trump. That is my priority as well. Trump and the GOP are a cancer that need to be removed. Hypothetically, if there is only one candidate in the field right now who can surefire beat Trump versus a candidate who has ideas I completely agree with but could never beat Trump, my support goes to candidate who will beat Trump.

That's why it should not be a my side vs your side issue. Almost every candidate has mentioned last week (apart from Bloomberg) that in order for Trump to be defeated, everyone must unite together. They all mention what an existential threat he is. This means if Biden is the nominee, he'll need the support of Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg as well as their supporters and vice versa. Same for Sanders, Buttigieg etc. No Democratic nominee can win with their own initial supporters alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,219 Posts
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Susan Collins can't name a single 'lesson' Trump learned from impeachment

By Dan Desai Martin - February 12, 2020 11:08 AM

Since Collins voted to acquit Donald Trump, he has retaliated against witnesses and interfered in a Department of Justice case against his former campaign adviser.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said Donald Trump learned his lesson from impeachment. But when confronted on Wednesday morning, Collins couldn't list a single lesson Trump learned.

CNN's Manu Raju asked Collins if there were any lessons Trump learned from impeachment, in light of Trump's recent actions. Collins would not or could not identify any lessons, responding instead with a lengthy defense of her votes to acquit Trump.

"I've made very clear that I don't think anyone should be retaliated against," Collins said. "I voted to acquit the president... because his conduct, while wrong, did not meet the high bar established by the Constitution" for removal.

Raju again asked, "Do you think he learned any lessons?"

Collins again refused to answer the question.

When Raju asked a third time if Trump learned any lessons, Collins closed the door on him, ending the interview.

The day before Collins and her Republican colleagues voted to acquit Trump, Collins went on television defending her decision.

"I believe that the president has learned from this case," Collins told CBS News on Feb. 4. "The president has been impeached. That's a pretty big lesson."

Since the Senate acquitted Trump, he has sought to retaliate against those who testified against him and interfered in a Department of Justice case involving one of his former close associates.

Two days after the Senate voted, the White House fired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient who told Congress he was uncomfortable with Trump's July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine. On that call, Trump asked the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.

Later that same day, the White House fired U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who testified to Congress that the Trump administration engaged in a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government, offering a White House meeting in exchange for opening investigations that would politically benefit Trump in 2020.

On Wednesday morning, Trump admitted that his handpicked attorney general, William Barr, interfered in the sentencing recommendation of Trump campaign adviser and convicted felon Roger Stone. DOJ career attorneys recommended Stone be sentenced to up to nine years in prison, and Barr revised the recommendation to a lighter sentence after Trump complained about the original recommendation on Twitter.

Collins' office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the interview with Raju.

[The American Independent]


174117
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,607 Posts
"I voted to acquit the president... because his conduct, while wrong, did not meet the high bar established by the Constitution for removal."

Yes, Susan Collins gets it. She is a great principled politician. A strong woman, one could say.

The CNN reporter Raju came across as a pestering child. As always, the CNN project their aggressive unintelligence everywhere they show up.
 

·
All I want for Christmas is EU
Joined
·
32,745 Posts
"I voted to acquit the president... because his conduct, while wrong, did not meet the high bar established by the Constitution for removal."

Yes, Susan Collins gets it. She is a great principled politician. A strong woman, one could say.

The CNN reporter Raju came across as a pestering child. As always, the CNN project their aggressive unintelligence everywhere they show up.
A "strong" woman who at the end of the day toed the line and did what she was told to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
A "strong" woman who at the end of the day toed the line and did what she was told to do.

Collins's vote in favor of calling witnesses at the impeachment trial was far more important than the symbolic vote on whether to acquit or convict.

Susan is one of the most effective senators on defending the US from Russian attacks, and she's GOP in name only. The Trumptards despise her. She'll have my vote - and the vote of many other ME Dems - in November unless she really screws up.
 
5141 - 5160 of 5433 Posts
Top