Obama Attacks Progressives...Again

[FOUser#4510856320198a]

The collective right's head would have exploded had Obama said such a thing...

Obama's pathetic state department condemned Otto Warmbier to death. After meeting with them, literally hours later, the North Koreans sentenced the boy to 15 years of hard labor. Trump takes office, and the North Koreans send Otto home (albeit damage done, because of Obama's failure), and they back off their nuclear zeal. Try to cast it as something that will serve your agenda, because that's reflex action for nitwit libby punks :rofl2:, but you can't change the facts.

Obama condemned that boy. On his watch. Yet another embarrassment he committed for a world audience. He was a pussy world leader, rolling over for aggressors, and the monied. A hero of nitwit libby punks everywhere

(except posterity - even your children will recognize him as one of the shittier presidents of the past 50 years - making you all look pretty Goddamned stupid, in your woolen tutus , repeating copy points for these people that are fixing to eat some serious shit for their deep state, FISA court shenanigans, and related shitbaggery :fart.

"But go ahead and hang your vote on a Democrat in 2020! Foreign policy's only part of the job!"

 

[Straight Shooter]

I'm not defending him, but I think that he's just being realistic in saying that in social/political matters, you can't just snap your fingers and instantly get exactly what you want when you want it. And he's not wrong. Outside of a revolution or a coup, how would any sort of radical change suddenly take place? When has that ever happened in this country? Whatever politician is nominated by the Dems (progressives or otherwise) has to be able to win the POTUS seat - at least have a realistic chance. Nominating some partisan firebrand, that just appeals to a certain wing of that party (and really, no one else), would basically be a waste of time and money (which is the key issue to any party machine).

What is it that you want to see happen anyway... and how do you propose that your party gets there?

Yes.

And a sure path to defeat.

If they alienate the moderate vote they'll get slaughtered.

It's almost as if we're living in a world where HRC didn't lose. Newsflash: She lost!!!

"If they alienate the moderate vote they'll get slaughtered". Really? If you sought centrism and incrementalism then HRC was your candidate. The voters in 2016 rejected her. They rejected the entire world view of Neoliberals. So knowing that, you guys recommendation for 2020 is just to continue pushing the same Neoliberal policies in 2020 that the voters rejected in 2016? That makes sense....SMH

It's not 1992 anymore. There is no political path for centrists. It's time for them to step aside. They had their time. It's now the progressives turn

And another thing. I kept hearing all this rhetoric about the left and how radical their proposals are. Jajajajaja

What exactly is so radical about them? Abolishing the Electoral College? The belief that the whoever gets the most votes should become president. Wow what a radical concept!

Medicare for-all? The believe that health care should be guaranteed to every single citizen. Something that every other industrialized nation has!! Wow what a radical concept.! Medicare for-all is supported by a majority of Americans. If a majority supports an issue, how can it be labeled "radical"? It's not. It's mainstream

 

[pool_hustler]

but you can't change the facts

And yet you're certainly trying to, with the FACT being your slavering pussy of a president threw the boy's memory and his family under to the bus while sucking the ballsack of a mass murderer.

The voters in 2016 rejected her

Not hardly. She won the popular vote, remember? Despite ALL her very considerable baggage, both real and right wing manufactured.

A mainstream dem without all that baggage would have diced Trump up like a onion. Biden for instance. A shame he wasn't in the right place to take a shot at it.

 

[meesterperfect]

It's almost as if we're living in a world where HRC didn't lose. Newsflash: She lost!!!

AH! Ah-Ha!
Ah-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!

You may have just accidentally broke through a wall and discovered a room you didn't know existed. A room not filled with gold or silver but of something much more valuable: Knowledge

Did she lose? I mean are you sure she "lost"?
I mean they could tell anything they want on election night. They control it all.
Like She won the popular vote. How perfect is that?
All part of the show, the plan.

So He "won" and She "lost". But did you ever think that by having her lose they could promote, execute and achieve their goals and agendas much better?
Better? Stronger? Faster?
That no matter who "Won" the same people are still in power?
And by labeling Trump as the winner they could create more distractions, controversy and divisiveness while they continue with their self serving actions as always, while all of you argue and debate over a reality show they created for you?

By labeling her the loser they actually won because their goals and agendas are much easier to achieve?

Has this ever occurred to you man? Sir?

 

[Rey C.]

Not hardly. She won the popular vote, remember? Despite ALL her very considerable baggage, both real and right wing manufactured.

A mainstream dem without all that baggage would have diced Trump up like a onion. Biden for instance. A shame he wasn't in the right place to take a shot at it.

Yeah, I wondered where he got that. I had a "wait... what?" moment there. She won the popular vote by around 2.9 million votes, as best I recall. I think she also had some baggage in the closet that didn't make the train trip, but be that as it may, as flawed as she was, the voters did choose her. We won't know how Bernie would have done if the Clinton machine and the DNC hadn't rigged the system so that she'd get the nod. But next time around, the Dems can choose Bernard and he can campaign with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by his side... and then we'll see if he wins against Trump (whose baggage has multiplied since 2016). That's the only way to test this theory that America truly believes that "it's the progressives turn."

 

[Straight Shooter]

Yeah, I wondered where he got that. I had a "wait... what?" moment there. She won the popular vote by around 2.9 million votes, as best I recall. I think she also had some baggage in the closet that didn't make the train trip, but be that as it may, as flawed as she was, the voters did choose her. We won't know how Bernie would have done if the Clinton machine and the DNC hadn't rigged the system so that she'd get the nod. But next time around, the Dems can choose Bernard and he can campaign with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by his side... and then we'll see if he wins against Trump (whose baggage has multiplied since 2016). That's the only way to test this theory that America truly believes that "it's the progressives turn."

HRC underperformed Obama across the board. She underperformed in states that Obama won. And underperformed with key demographic groups that Obama carried.

A Clinton-era centrist Democrat explains why it’s time to give democratic socialists a chance
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/4/18246381/democrats-clinton-sanders-left-brad-delong

 

[Rey C.]

HRC underperformed Obama across the board. She underperformed in states that Obama won. And underperformed with key demographic groups that Obama carried.

Sure, she underperformed. People generally saw her as untrustworthy and unlikable. Outside of the feminist crowd, who wanted anything with a vagina to win, no one was enthusiastic about getting her elected. It wasn't her politics that sunk her. It was her character... or lack thereof. Even if people disagree with you or your politics, if they see you as sincere, trustworthy and likable, they'll at least give you a chance. I'm not going to say whether he was or wasn't in the end, but that worked in Obama's favor, at least in his first election. Rednecks for Obama, Gun Owners for Obama, Hillbillies for Obama stickers were seen in many parts of the south. I know a lot of left-leaning women who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary - but they didn't vote for Trump either.

A Clinton-era centrist Democrat explains why it’s time to give democratic socialists a chance
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/4/18246381/democrats-clinton-sanders-left-brad-delong

For those who lean that way, I say go for it. Don't know til you try, I suppose. :dunno:

 

[meesterperfect]

Yeah, I wondered where he got that. I had a "wait... what?" moment there. She won the popular vote by around 2.9 million votes, as best I recall. I think she also had some baggage in the closet that didn't make the train trip, but be that as it may, as flawed as she was, the voters did choose her. We won't know how Bernie would have done if the Clinton machine and the DNC hadn't rigged the system so that she'd get the nod. But next time around, the Dems can choose Bernard and he can campaign with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by his side... and then we'll see if he wins against Trump (whose baggage has multiplied since 2016). That's the only way to test this theory that America truly believes that "it's the progressives turn."

You just said The Clinton Machine rigged the system to screw Saunders.
(Actually it wasn't them. Sanders had to be taken out because a Sanders loss to Trump would have been too obvious).

So if you feel it was rigged against Sanders then why would you trust any of it?
Believe any of it?
She won the popular vote. They tell you that and you choose to believe it.
Don't you trust your own common sense?

- - - Updated - - -

HRC underperformed Obama across the board. She underperformed in states that Obama won. And underperformed with key demographic groups that Obama carried.

A Clinton-era centrist Democrat explains why it’s time to give democratic socialists a chance
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/4/18246381/democrats-clinton-sanders-left-brad-delong

Did she lose? I mean are you sure she "lost"?
I mean they could tell anything they want on election night. They control it all.
Like She won the popular vote. How perfect is that?
All part of the show, the plan.

So He "won" and She "lost". But did you ever think that by having her lose they could promote, execute and achieve their goals and agendas much better?
Better? Stronger? Faster?
That no matter who "Won" the same people are still in power?
And by labeling Trump as the winner they could create more distractions, controversy and divisiveness while they continue with their self serving actions as always, while all of you argue and debate over a reality show they created for you?

By labeling her the loser they actually won because their goals and agendas are much easier to achieve?

Has this ever occurred to you man? Sir?

 

[Straight Shooter]

You just said The Clinton Machine rigged the system to screw Saunders.
(Actually it wasn't them. Sanders had to be taken out because a Sanders loss to Trump would have been too obvious).

So if you feel it was rigged against Sanders then why would you trust any of it?
Believe any of it?
She won the popular vote. They tell you that and you choose to believe it.
Don't you trust your own common sense?

- - - Updated - - -



Did she lose? I mean are you sure she "lost"?
I mean they could tell anything they want on election night. They control it all.
Like She won the popular vote. How perfect is that?
All part of the show, the plan.

So He "won" and She "lost". But did you ever think that by having her lose they could promote, execute and achieve their goals and agendas much better?
Better? Stronger? Faster?
That no matter who "Won" the same people are still in power?
And by labeling Trump as the winner they could create more distractions, controversy and divisiveness while they continue with their self serving actions as always, while all of you argue and debate over a reality show they created for you?

By labeling her the loser they actually won because their goals and agendas are much easier to achieve?

Has this ever occurred to you man? Sir?

Dude, I generally like you because you're the only consistent one on here but this is getting a little too nutty for me

 

[pool_hustler]

it’s time to give democratic socialists a chance

I guess maybe if you want to get your ass kicked :dunno:

While I'm not even remotely buying Trump's bullshit that his economy is "a miracle", the reality is that at present the economy is pretty decent. Barring a fairly significant change in that, what motivation is there for voter's to vote for a sea change to a democratic socialist agenda?

Sorry but I really believe your best chance is to go with Biden, who can shred Trump over character, environmental and foreign policy issues while not dragging the dreaded SOCIALIST specter into the mix.

Sure, she underperformed. People generally saw her as untrustworthy and unlikable.

Exactly. Her popularity/likability numbers were horrible. Not to mention she was under investigation during a good part of the campaign, including all but the last 2 days of the final 2 weeks.

 

[meesterperfect]

Dude, I generally like you because you're the only consistent one on here but this is getting a little too nutty for me

Thanks. I'm quite fond of you as well.
You're name is apt.
Very Apt.

I know it's nutty.
Nuttier than a Christmas Fruitcake you take one bite of then put in the fridge, finally throwing it out in October when you begin to smell mold.
It's Nutty......... but it's true.
Very true.

 

[Rey C.]

You just said The Clinton Machine rigged the system to screw Saunders.
(Actually it wasn't them. Sanders had to be taken out because a Sanders loss to Trump would have been too obvious).

So if you feel it was rigged against Sanders then why would you trust any of it?
Believe any of it?

Where did I say that I trusted any of it? :dunno:

She won the popular vote. They tell you that and you choose to believe it.

I do, because I have no data or facts to prove otherwise. While it's possible that Trump won the popular vote, and by some slight of hand, the popular vote was shown going to Hillary... to pull off such a scheme would require a lot of moving parts to be perfectly in sync across the nation. So no, I don't believe that.

Don't you trust your own common sense?

I see and read things that tell me that both political parties are corrupt to the core. That's why I have never been a Democrat or a Republican and I occasionally shoot playful barbs at those who are "party line voters". To me, being a sheep is bad enough. Being a willing sheep is even worse. But people do what they do. We all have free will, whether we choose to embrace it or not.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I guess maybe if you want to get your ass kicked :dunno:

While I'm not even remotely buying Trump's bullshit that his economy is "a miracle", the reality is that at present the economy is pretty decent. Barring a fairly significant change in that, what motivation is there for voter's to vote for a sea change to a democratic socialist agenda?

Sorry but I really believe your best chance is to go with Biden, who can shred Trump over character, environmental and foreign policy issues while not dragging the dreaded SOCIALIST specter into the mix.



Exactly. Her popularity/likability numbers were horrible. Not to mention she was under investigation during a good part of the campaign, including all but the last 2 days of the final 2 weeks.

Dude, it doesn't matter what the Democratic nominees propose policy wise. The GOP will still label them socialists. They called Obama a socialist and a communist!! Case in point, Georges does it on here all the time. He calls any and every liberal a socialist/communist. Instead of worrying about what the Republicans are going to label you, candidates should just be themselves and run their campaign on issues they truly believe in.

 

[Rey C.]

Dude, it doesn't matter what the Democratic nominees propose policy wise. The GOP will still label them socialists. They called Obama a socialist and a communist!! Case in point, Georges does it on here all the time. He calls any and every liberal a socialist/communist. Instead of worrying about what the Republicans are going to label you, candidates should just be themselves and run their campaign on issues they truly believe in.

I don't think that he's talking about how the GOP might label a Dem nominee or candidate. Pool_Hustler can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that he's talking about people who are more centrist in their thinking, some without party affiliation, who *might* be inclined to vote for a Democrat. Not every center or right of center voter pays attention to what the GOP says about a Dem candidate, ya know. But if you're already a self-described socialist (even trying to use that fine pointed pin: "oh no, I'm not a socialist... I'm a Democratic Socialist"), you're going to turn some of those people off. Just how it is... like it or not. But like I said, the only way to find out for sure is for one of these candidates to take the nomination. It's not about being given a chance. It's about capturing the nomination. In about a year, we'll see where that goes.

 

[pool_hustler]

I don't think that he's talking about how the GOP might label a Dem nominee or candidate. Pool_Hustler can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that he's talking about people who are more centrist in their thinking, some without party affiliation, who *might* be inclined to vote for a Democrat. Not every center or right of center voter pays attention to what the GOP says about a Dem candidate, ya know. But if you're already a self-described socialist (even trying to use that fine pointed pin: "oh no, I'm not a socialist... I'm a Democratic Socialist"), you're going to turn some of those people off.

Correct.

 

[meesterperfect]

Where did I say that I trusted any of it? :dunno:




I do, because I have no data or facts to prove otherwise. While it's possible that Trump won the popular vote, and by some slight of hand, the popular vote was shown going to Hillary... to pull off such a scheme would require a lot of moving parts to be perfectly in sync across the nation. So no, I don't believe that.




I see and read things that tell me that both political parties are corrupt to the core. That's why I have never been a Democrat or a Republican and I occasionally shoot playful barbs at those who are "party line voters". To me, being a sheep is bad enough. Being a willing sheep is even worse. But people do what they do. We all have free will, whether we choose to embrace it or not.

Good. Don't trust any of it because its all a show. I'm a broken record I know but it is literally all a scripted show. It really makes me sad that at this point most people still can't see this.
And they don't have to do any actual election rigging. They just tell you what they want to tell you.
If they say she got 51% then she got 51%.
I believe that was 100% part of the plan. The opening act. She lost but she got more votes.

Everybody knows the Government and the media (They are the same thing now) lies to us all the time.
We all know it, we all sense it, we all see it, we all hear it, we all feel it.
But yet for some reason we put limits, boundaries, on what they will lie about. As if they have some sort of conscience or moral code.
Ok Bye

 

[meesterperfect]

. Instead of worrying about what the Republicans are going to label you, candidates should just be themselves and run their campaign on issues they truly believe in.

Aw! Such innocence. Such child-like innocence.
Stay Gold Straight Shooter Boy......Stay Gold.

 

[The Yak]

https://local.theonion.com/area-man-accepts-burden-of-being-only-person-on-earth-w-1819579668

 

[Straight Shooter]

Bernie fucking killed it on Fox. And people need to stop telling me that those two dopes that were moderating are the real journalists at Fox. It was nothing but right wing talking points from them all night. They didn't even try to pretend that they were straight. The best part was the exchange between MacCallum and Bernie on how Medicare for all would be funded. He's upfront about the fact that taxes will indeed go up in order to pay for the program. Then she says but you said it's going to be free and Bernie says it's going to be free at the point of service, "but someones gong to pay", she says. She's either too dumb to understand how the program works or she's trying to push a right wing narrative. The answer is the latter.

 

[FOUser#4510856320198a]

Bernie fucking killed it on Fox. And people need to stop telling me that those two dopes that were moderating are the real journalists at Fox. It was nothing but right wing talking points from them all night. They didn't even try to pretend that they were straight. The best part was the exchange between MacCallum and Bernie on how Medicare for all would be funded. He's upfront about the fact that taxes will indeed go up in order to pay for the program. Then she says but you said it's going to be free and Bernie says it's going to be free at the point of service, "but someones gong to pay", she says. She's either too dumb to understand how the program works or she's trying to push a right wing narrative. The answer is the latter.

68.8% of Americans have annual incomes of 99k or less. That mass of tax payers will bear the greatest burden.

Everyone will pay - no free lunch. Pretty simple, you don't get it? Of course.

It's Marketing 101: all slackjawed "gimme" when you use the word free.