***Official Political Discussion Thread***

While I hate the way the mainstream media covers Socialism, I kinda shake my head at Cortez hype from her supporters. She is not even in Congress, she has zero clout to sway any elections, why is she showing up in MI?

She seems like a clown to me. Some of her statements reek of ignorance and she's too busy aiming at Democrats than winning. No wonder she's a Bernie protege.
 
While I hate the way the mainstream media covers Socialism, I kinda shake my head at Cortez hype from her supporters. She is not even in Congress, she has zero clout to sway any elections, why is she showing up in MI?

BTW, my mans Ben Jealous tryna moderate his rhetoric but deez folk got him stressed....


:rofl: :rofl:


LOL they were PISSEDDDD at him on Twitter
 
She seems like a clown to me. Some of her statements reek of ignorance and she's too busy aiming at Democrats than winning. No wonder she's a Bernie protege.
I don't think she is a clown, I just feel she is feeling herself a bit too much. Like I respect her hustle but her win was not based on some beginnings of a revolution She had an incompetent opponent, demographics shifted in the district, and high turnout always brings about wins for a faction of the coalition that is outside the mainstream. But she earned her win, and I am happy she will be Congress

But she is the perfect representation of the flaws with leftist candidates because with her they are glaring. At the core, she is right about the economy and much of society but she is very poorly at articulating it outside of being onstage in front of people that already agree with her. She is weak in interviews, she sounds mealy-mouthed when pressed, and is inarticulate outside of her comfort zone. Another example, Bernie was going well in debates on a few issues, but once it went to civil rights issues and foreign policy, it was clear which candidate was more educated on the issues and articulate their vision better.

In 2008 Barack Obama was not the black face on the Democratic establishment, he had to hustle on the grassroots level and he had to present a vision for the party and America that is firmly left of Bill Clinton. He didn't do it by running around slandering moderates and claiming anyone that didn't agree with him must be doing so because they are bought. He spelled out why Clintonism has failed to deliver on its promises, why it was too weak sauce to deliver on the goals it was trying to achieve and why in some places it was downright misguided. Why best intentions mean little to the people that fail to get results. When he was pressed, he could check people hard often times to consider things from a different angle. It made it easier for folk to buy in. This is how liberals combated moderates, how liberal pundits talked down centrist contratians.

And many leftists refuse to see that the same thing can be done to move the Democratic Party from center-left liberalism to left-wing social democracy. If you rely on purity test then it will repeatedly backfire on you if your candidate can show you fail your own purity test. If you can't articulate how to get to a better America, not just the endpoint, then you can always be painted as pie in the sky. Elizabeth Warren probably presents her progressive case the best, but she has shown her roar can be silenced when cornered.

Like you want to know a great reason why leftist social democracy is a better route than center left-liberalism, it is because the GOP a ******* evil and robust universal public programs are tougher to attack than well regulated private markets. The GOP can attack the ACA marketplace all they want without most people picking up on it. But they couldn't **** with Medicaid without a massive blowback. Now imagine if that was true of a ton more government services.
 
Last edited:
I don't think she is a clown, I just feel she is feeling herself a bit too much. Like I respect her hustle but her win was not based on some beginnings of a revolution She had an incompetent opponent, demographics shifted in the district, and high turnout always brings about wins for a faction of the coalition that is outside the mainstream. But she earned her win, and I am happy she will be Congress

But she is the perfect representation of the flaws with leftist candidates because with her they are glaring. At the core, she is right about the economy and much of society but she is very poorly at articulating it outside of being onstage in front of people that already agree with her. She is weak in interviews, she sounds mealy-mouthed when pressed, and is inarticulate outside of her comfort zone. Another example, Bernie was going well in debates on a few issues, but once it went to civil rights issues and foreign policy, it was clear which candidate was more educated on the issues and articulate their vision better.

In 2008 Barack Obama was not the black face on the Democratic establishment, he had to hustle on the grassroots level and he had to present a vision for the party and America that is firmly left of Bill Clinton. He didn't do it by running around slandering moderates and claiming anyone that didn't agree with him must be doing so because they are bought. He spelled out why Clintonism has failed to deliver on its promises, why it was too weak sauce to deliver on the goals it was trying to achieve and why in some places it was downright misguided. Why best intentions mean little to the people that fail to get results. When he was pressed, he could check people hard often times to consider things from a different angle. It made it easier for folk to buy in. This is how liberals combated moderates, how liberal pundits talked down centrist contratians.

And many leftists refuse to see that the same thing can be done to move the Democratic Party from center-left liberalism to left-wing social democracy. If you rely on purity test then it will repeatedly backfire on you if your candidate can show you fail your own purity test. If you can't articulate how to get to a better America, not just the endpoint, then you can always be painted as pie in the sky. Elizabeth Warren probably presents her progressive case the best, but she has shown her roar can be silenced when cornered.

Like you want to know a great reason why leftist social democracy is a better route than center left-liberalism, it is because robust universal public programs are tougher to attack than well regulated private markets. The GOP can attack the ACA marketplace all they want without most people picking up on it. But they couldn't **** with Medicaid without a massive blowback. Now imagine if that was true of a ton more government services.

Well said comrade. We are 1000% in alignment.
































Libs are toast and Bernard Neon Deion Sanders found his Merton Hanks.
ChubbyChiefBactrian-small.gif
 
Well said comrade. We are 1000% in alignment.

Libs are toast and Bernard Neon Deion Sanders found his Merton Hanks.
ChubbyChiefBactrian-small.gif
Fall back B, when da libbies and leftist joing together to pass a Medicare buy in with premiums tied to income levels and funded through taxing the living hell out the rich, catch Bernie walking up to cast his vote like....
sandersprimetime.gif


When everyone gets there first two years of college credit paid, make it rain Pell Grants on lower-income students, and give everyone near-zero interest loans for other two years with tons of income-based repayment options......
giphy.gif


When we pass a labor rights bill....

tumblr_myu4uk5zKk1qhkbk8o1_400.gif


When we increase the minimum wage to above $15 an hour, tie it to inflation, and pass an EIC on steroids.....



Y'all ain't ready for when Bern Gawd pulls up to Congress with his hairline sitting lower than Paul George's :smokin

Sanders-coif.jpg
 
Last edited:
BTW, That Nunes video is some of the best examples of "snitching on yourself" I have ever seen.

It is the political equivalent to dudes that post FB live videos of them with illegal guns, drugs, stacks of cash, and then call out their location

Devin like "We trappin on Collusion Ave, between Obstruction Ln and Treason Rd...... Across the street from the Pep Boys....We outchea :smokin"
 
Last edited:
Fall back B, when da libbies and leftist joing together to pass a Medicare buy in with premiums tied to income levels and funded through taxing the living hell out the rich, catch Bernie walking up to cast his vote like....

When everyone gets there first two years of college credit paid, make it rain Pell Grants on lower-income students, and give everyone near-zero interest loans for other two years with tons of income-based repayment options......

When we pass a labor rights bill....

When we increase the minimum wage to above $15 an hour, tie it to inflation, and pass an EIC on steroids.....

Y'all ain't ready for when Bern Gawd pulls up to Congress with his hairline sitting lower than Paul George's :smokin

Sanders-coif.jpg

giphy.gif
 
This is so disgusting


so what kinds of demographics she's implying besides religion, age and income for example?

Oh well, when she is mentioning “changes that most of us don’t like” and “much of it is related to illegal and in some cases legal immigration”

It’s probably the race demographic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, That Nunes video is some of the best examples of "snitching on yourself" I have ever seen.

It is the political equivalent to dudes that post FB live videos of them with illegal guns, drugs, stacks of cash, and then call out their location

Devin like "We trappin on Collusion Ave, between Obstruction Ln and Treason Rd...... Across the street from the Pep Boys....We outchea :smokin"
Just wait til the self implicating Vlad interview drops

wow.png

maxresdefault.png
 
When it comes to immigration in the US, there are two broad categories: those without status and those with status. Having a status means you're assigned to a category (citizen, permanent resident, refugee, or all non-immigrant visas). Not having a status means not fitting in any of the categories above. Your status (or lack thereof) is not determined until after you present your case (if you have filed the proper application) in front of an immigration official either within the borders or outside of them. What that means is, an event like illegal entry doesn't automatically makes one an illegal immigrant until after it has been proven that they do not satisfy the conditions for refugee status.

Therefore, there is no justification for separating families as they enter this country as long as their reasons for doing so have not been examined. In addition, there is no reason to do it when we do not have the resources to properly care for those children (and this administration has admitted that they can't take care of these kids).

And as a black man, you must know that it was once legal to jail black men you wandered around during work hours under the pretext that they didn't have a job. So don't hide behind "the law" to justify inhumane behavior.

While your discussion of immigration is correct, the issue that had children separated at the border was from improper entry at places not designated by U.S. immigration officers. This situation is not in regards to several statuses of immigrants, and you know it.

In terms of separating children from their families, it happens at jails all across America to black families when they are accused of a crime and pending trial. Prior to final adjudication. So the due process argument falls flat. It is troubling that there is a lack of concern for the black children separated from their families at jails all across America when their parents are accused of committing crimes (many resort to the streets or foster homes) and yet the media uses illegal border crossing to say children should never be separated from their parents. It is agenda pushing, and you also know that.

The real answer is substantive immigration reform. Until that happens, then the system fails. Every 4-8 years a president can change the enforcement. Families are left with uncertainty, etc.

I don't justify inhumanity with the law. But, I realize that the Civil Rights movements (resulting in the Civil Rights Act, and others) were an effort to change the law, not change the enforcement of it.
 
This man claims to be a lawyer but doesn't respect due process and is making excuses for cruel and unusual punishment.

Yet, gets upset when people call BS on the stuff he has posted on here.

He will go through so many lengths just to defend Trump's vile nonsense

Do you understand due process? Are you aware that kids are taken away from families at jails all across America pending trial and final adjudication? There is a reason it is just a focus on the border and not the act itself.
 
The conservative talking point that citizens who commit crimes lose their children too is such a stupid one.
If Cletus gets caught selling moonshine without a liquor license they're not gonna throw his kid in prison too.

These kids aren't thrown in prison. Your view comes from a place of ignorance. When parents are arrested, they are taken away from their children in America. Everyday. This is pending a probable cause hearing, and pending trial. You are supposed to get the probable cause hearing quickly, but that is not always the case. And even after you can remain imprisoned until your trial depending on your ability to pay bail, and other factors. The entire time, separated from your children. Resulting in the same psychological effects mentioned by people studying the situation at the border. And these children often end up on the street or in foster homes, or human trafficking. Spare me the one-sided concern for children being separated from their parents.
 


Yep,turned out to be no less of an opportunist than his old man who used to ally with WS's

Paul must stand for complicit fraud in Washington

Also reminds me of Ted Cruz becoming a lap poodle after the manbaby slandered his wife and Dad
 
Laura Ingraham Targets Even Legal Immigrants In Off-The-Rails Rant

5ad00c571e00003b137b15c0.jpeg


Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Wednesday lamented the demographic changes in America from immigration ― including the arrival of legal immigrants.

“In some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” she complained on “The Ingraham Angle.”

Ingraham decried “massive demographic changes” that have been “foisted” on Americans.

“They’re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like,” she said. “Now much of this is related to both illegal and, in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love.”
 
O'Connor could maybe still possibly pull it off in Ohio:



Given that Trump already said 2 days ago that Balderson won, I fully expect Balderson to lose now.
 
Ingraham going full on neo nazi there,they've been emboldened to the point of feeling comfortable enough adopting WS rhetoric and talking points in public

Folks have moved away from the lukewarm and coded/dog whistle kind to that straight black tar,pure aryan stuff

*
image
 
Last edited:
Ingraham going full on neo nazi there,they've been emboldened to the point of feeling comfortable enough adopting WS rhetoric and talking points in public

Folks have moved away from the lukewarm and coded/dog whistle kind to that straight black tar,pure aryan stuff

*
image

Slick how she slid that little nazi salute into a hand wave
 
Back
Top Bottom